All this talk of a averages isn't too good until people retire. I mean is Warner a test batsmen?? Or is he just a player that plays pretty much the same way in tests as ODI's? Same with smith, bailey and Watson (just picking on aus here as you guys were on about smudger).
With cricket changing now, the classic 'test' batsmen are getting fewer and we are left with the smiths, war sons and Warner's (butler, Barstow, bopara etc). Guys who are basically runs ball merchants who happen to play test cricket too. Bowlers are like test bowlers of old anymore as they need all this 'variation' stuff drilled into them before they've mastered bowling top of off or in the corridor time after time after time.
Personally, given the small boundaries, bats, docile pitches and lack of bowling talent around the mark of a good player is higher than it's ever been before. 50 is regarded as 'great', however I reckon that 50 is now just your 'good' batsmen.. Aka test ones. Anything less is not really there. It's shown over time that once 35-40 was good, then 40-45, then 50.. It's just with the ever increasing demand for sloggers and smaller boundaries etc runs we flowing. Whether you think it's a better game for it is open to debate as the loss of the art of one way opens the door to the art of another.
As for smith.. That club cricketer we all love did good!! Hope for us all
. Well player sir (Now get out please so our famed classy batsmen can be out for less than you got
) smith played mostly!! The shots to what crap England bowled at him.. It's not his fault the muppets bowled short and straight to him.. Easy pickings..
Haddin - up most respect for rocking rod Stewart.. 12 months ago he was finished for cricket and personal reasons.. He's come back and is a big a reason for the Aussies winning currently as any other player in that side is.. He's on fire and is showing prior how it's done.