The appropriate heading for this article should have been Ponting top scorer for 2003.... with a heading talking of average and the body taking into consideration runs the article is a bit misleading
The feat of scoring a thousand runs in a calendar years is not an accurate indicator of a batsman's prowess. This feat depends on two things, the batsman's skill and the number of tests/innings he plays in a given year. While the former is in control of the batsman, the latter is definitely not! If you see the list carefully, Bradman is mentioned just once - 1025 runs in 8 tests in the year 1948 at an average of nearly 114! 8 tests a year was a luxury not commonly afforded to pre-war batsmen when the only opponents were the English, the Aussies, the South Africans and the West Indians. India and New Zealand played, but very few tests. Only one batsmen has a better average in a year and that is Sobers - 1299 runs in 8 tests in the year 1958 at an average of more than 144! Modern cricket with so many tests, better pitches to score runs of, newer rules and all kinds of protective gear to protect batsmen from dangerous bowling and hostile conditions make it easier to score runs in the modern era of cricket. Bradman did not have it easy!
I am not taking anything away from the likes of Ponting, Tendulkar, Richards etc. Its just that we need to see things in proper perspective!!
But the highest avg for the year was NOT ponting's, it was RAHUL DRAVID with 100.37, scoring 803 runs off a mere 5 tests that India has played this year.
Its really mind blowing. The way he is batting right now, he can break all batting records. Let's not forget that he is very young and then Aussies play more Test cricket than most of the countries.
