I was shocked by what I saw when I checked my local cricket league averages recently.

If you had asked me how many players had scored over 500 runs or taken over 30 wickets I would have guessed at least a dozen. That is the standard of a "decent" club cricketer in my idle mind.

In fact, there were only two players with over 30 wickets, and one with over 500 runs.

A "decent" season - is closer to 20 wickets and 350 runs. You would still be near the topof the averages with that.

Aside from my lack of local knowledge, what does this say?

That we should all be aware of what a good performance looks like.

Then you can build a tactical approach based on reality and not thinking all the top six must average over 40.

In my league's case the tactics could be:

• Rest your hopes on a superstar doing most of the work, and a bunch of guys "putting in a shift" with 15-20 wickets and 150-200 runs.
• Spread the load around a group of batsmen who all get 300 runs and bowlers who all get 15-20 wickets.

Yes, you still need match winning performances, but you don't need to hang your head if you don't start the season with a blaze of runs and wickets. Sometimes being slightly better than everyone else is all you need.