Anwaar said:
I suppose you mean higher.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Anwaar said:
Re: "It's easier for a batsman who averages around 35 to score consistently around his average, than it is for someone who averages around 50"
Then I happen to disagree:
this guy has avg of 60 with v.v.low CoV:
http://www.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/20413.html
few more name with High Avg and Low CoV:
Katich
Hobbs
Barrington
Kallis
and here are few players with Low average and High CoV:
Mohsin
Mudassar
Gatting
Flower
Ijaz
Whittal
Do you disagree that it's easier for a batsman who average's 35 to score around his average than it is for a batsman who averages 50????!!! I'm sure you didn't mean that. It would surely be easier.
And the example you gave, Herbert Sutcliffe, is one of the greatest batsmen of all time, some argue second only to Bradman. He is known for his
consistently significant scores opening the batting in difficult conditions, not for consistently scoring 30s (unlike Malik). And again, if you look at his scores, he scored mostly around his average (around 60), a few low scores, and a good number of high scores, but
only a couple of huge scores, and even they weren't above 200. So this proves my point about lack of really big scores and low CoV, to some extent.
And those other names of batsmen who had high average and low CoV are all of great batsmen who consistently scored well, 30s. If we were talking about such a batsman, I wouldn't even be arguing with you.
Anwaar said:
Re: "Heck, even Bradman is on
56 on that list. Does that mean he was inconsistent"
Ranking isn't important. Focus on the value instead that shows him consistent. (ironically his value is pretty similar to SM's

)
Point taken, and accepted. But let's keep the comparisons between SM and Bradman till SM averages over 50 at least.
Anwaar said:
Re: "You are only drawing one conclusion from Malik's relatively low CoV, and ignoring any other conclusions that can be made"
I am not (i hope). Please read the other posts on the topic.
Maybe, I'm only reading some of your posts, but I don't want to waste time reading this whole thread.
What I understood from the posts I read are that you are trying to prove that Malik is consistent. And in my view, scoring nice little 20s and 30s and not going on to score big is not Test class. You are happily ignoring the fact that Malik lacks big scores. And by saying again and again, that you would prefer a batsman who consistently scores around 35 over someone who averages over 50 and has a relatively high CoV, I thing you're suggesting you'd pick SM over YK. (I hope I'm wrong).