Very interesting. Is there an approved benchmark for conversion rates? Something like a FC average of 40?
In the case of Rhodesia the numbers, including the rather middling averages (allowing for the generally lower batting averages of the time which are reflected in the often rather healthy bowling averages of the Rhodesians with 100+ wickets), reflect the fact that their Currie Cup side depended for its batting a lot on SA and English county imports. I believe Rhodesia's strength lay in their allrounders and bowlers.
Very interesting. Is there an approved benchmark for conversion rates? Something like a FC average of 40?
That was going to be my question too
This study will not be complete without the average conversion rates across all the players for each test playing nation to see if it is just a Zimbabwean syndrome or do people suffer this the world over.
I reckon Andy Flower, with a conversion rate of 39.5 %, and Murray Goodwin with 42 % will figure near the top, reflecting their status as Zimbabwe's best bats pre 2003.
But BT has an even better rate, at close to 50 %.
I think there is some merit in Zimdoggy's argument for a culture which values 50s too highly. But seeing that the real world class batsmen are not affected by this trend, what we see might also simply be the result of a FC system with too many 'batsmen' à la Maruma who would be considered tailenders in other countries; and if you can't really bat, a fifty is some achievement. As for the Hami's, Ervine's, Williams' of this world (all around the 30 % mark, I think), not to mention the great AC with his paltry 22 % -- I don't think either of them would have played Test cricket anywhere else, and therefore no one would worry too much about their conversion rates.
After seeing the discussion on how there's never been any 300s in the Logan Cup, who can name all of the players to have made 250+ in a Logan Cup innings?