The stats do not do him justice!

[Richard]

Sorry to go back over old ground.

But a friend mentioned to me about a chapter in one of Ed Smiths books. He of England/Middlesex and Kent fame. It was titled why there will never be another Bradman....

This is second hand so hopefully somebody out there can help me out but the premise (as i understand it) was basically that Great players are great players across every era. What has changed is everybody else. The gap between Bradman and everybody else was so large because everyone else was so poor (not everyone obviously but the majority) So today we still have our great players but the bottom wrung, for want of a better term, has improved.
This has been done through greater professionalism, increased training etc etc etc...

I think the analogy he used was if you took George Best and 10 punters to a park and played football the difference between them and George would be huge. But for 12 months if George worked with those other 10 players everyday, training hard and improving their skills....then George would still be a great player but everybody else would be better to and the difference them not so great.....

Thoughts

Many people have mentioned that. And the whole theorem completely misunderstands what made Bradman so good. Bradman was good not because he worked and trained harder than anyone. Anyone else who has ever picked-up a cricket-bat could have worked and trained as hard as the human body allows and they'd still never have come close to Bradman's achievements.

It is indeed highly possible that the "general crowd" in Bradman's day was of a lower standard than in the 1970s, for example. But the best were little different, in my view.

What made Bradman so good was that he had an abnormal talent, that no-one else has ever had. He made shot-selection errors with infinitely less regularity than anyone. So you almost had to bowl a seriously good ball to get him out. And there are no more of those bowled now, or any time in the last 40 years, than ever. If someone batted starting tomorrow as Bradman did in the 1930s it's conceivable they'd have even greater success, given that Worldwide pitches were typically worse then than now.

Might not be the case in the 1990s or 1970s though. I find it conceivable that had Bradman played then he might have averaged merely 80-85 or so.

 

[Richard]

What's that supposed to mean?

Pakistan have a habit of picking random youngsters with huge regularity.

Methinks kaneria's reccord is somehow undone by the fact he played in an unbalanced un-coordinated test attack and would probaly have the skill to average 3-5 less overall in Tests were he playing in a more stable bowling unit where he had better surerity of his task within it.

There's all sorts of reasons why Kaneria might have done better than he has, he's certainly not had that many stars align for him. But that's irrelevant to the Rashid, or Pakistani-selection-of-youngsters, case.

 

[rivera213]

Many people have mentioned that. And the whole theorem completely misunderstands what made Bradman so good. Bradman was good not because he worked and trained harder than anyone. Anyone else who has ever picked-up a cricket-bat could have worked and trained as hard as the human body allows and they'd still never have come close to Bradman's achievements.

It is indeed highly possible that the "general crowd" in Bradman's day was of a lower standard than in the 1970s, for example. But the best were little different, in my view.

What made Bradman so good was that he had an abnormal talent, that no-one else has ever had. He made shot-selection errors with infinitely less regularity than anyone. So you almost had to bowl a seriously good ball to get him out. And there are no more of those bowled now, or any time in the last 40 years, than ever. If someone batted starting tomorrow as Bradman did in the 1930s it's conceivable they'd have even greater success, given that Worldwide pitches were typically worse then than now.

Might not be the case in the 1990s or 1970s though. I find it conceivable that had Bradman played then he might have averaged merely 80-85 or so.

I somewhat doubt Bradman would've averaged 80+ in any era other than the 30's and 40's (maybe 50's but not against England) and it's conceievable he would've averaged no more than the great players of any era.

The assumption that whatever the best batsman averaged in an era, stick 30 runs on and that's what Bradman would've averaged is ridiculous.

Perfect shot selection or not, the sheer number of quality bowling attacks (I'm not denying Bradman would jump on the poor bowlers) per era from the 70's to the 90's:

3 from Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Venkataraghavan
Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft/Marshall
Waqar, Wasim
Donald, Pollock
Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop

would make it impossible to have a run average above 30 before you received an unplayable wicket taking delivery and bowlers have been able to bowl faster for longer era by era simply due to better fitness, diet etc.

If people seriously think Bradman would average 80+ or even 40 runs per innings against any of those attacks, they need to be sectioned.

Whether he would've jumped on the poor bowlers more than anyone in history is valid but against the great bowlers there's nothing to suggest he would've walked it like so many want to believe.

Bradman faced maybe 1 of England's top 10 bowlers of all time at peak.

 

[Ikki]

If people seriously think Bradman would average 80+ or even 40 runs per innings against any of those attacks, they need to be sectioned.

More like the other way round. Anyone arguing that Bradman would not be better than Tendulkar needs his head checked, frankly. Either that, or said person has a serious gaping hole in cricketing knowledge, as well as statistical knowledge.

One argument that isn't being mentioned is the simple fact that there are players that go back to Bradman's time that represent their generation with overlaps with others and said players do not get near Bradman. That shows how little there is between the top players, generation to generation. Yet still a huge difference between Bradman and the tier below him. A difference of 10 average points is huge, let alone 20, 30, 40 or almost 50.

Think of it like this: Headley was playing until and after Bradman's retirement and seen as one of the best of all time 'merely' avergaged 61. During Headley's career, someone comes along by the name of Weekes who also bats past Headley and he only averaged 59. During Weekes' career, someone comes along by the name of Sobers who also bats past Weekes and he only averaged 59. During Sobers' career, someone comes along by the name of Chappell who also bats past Sobers and he only averaged 54. During Chappell's career, someone comes along by the name of Richards who also bats past Chappell and he only averaged 50. During Richards' career, someone comes along by the name of Tendulkar who also bats past Richards and he only averages 55. During Tendulkar's career, someone comes along by the name of Ponting who will also bat past Tendulkar and he currently averaged 56.

As you can see, I have picked the best from each era - Bradman's included - and found where there was a player that overlaps, and yet none even come close to Bradman.

Furthermore, it seems you seriously underestimate the bowlers he faced. Even withstanding that, please do not try and argue that they were so weak that they would let Bradman score at 40-50 runs more on average than the other batsmen.

 

[rivera213]

Your timeline is good, though you're completely excluding factors such as bowlers a batsman faced during a career and the wickets he batted on- both of which play a HUGE part in a batsman's average.

And yes, it isn't completely inconceivable that the bowlers Bradman faced (ie ours) were much worse than what our batsmen faced (ie Australia's) resulting in an average of 58 for 1 and 99 for the other. I'm sure with Bradman's technique, he would've averaged more than Hammond against the same bowlers, but 40 points more is doubtful. It's even more doubtful he'd average more, let alone 40 more than batsmen bwing against attacks with at least 2 bowlers as good as or better than Larwood.

Statistics are only good for comparing an era, they are useless for comparing cross-era where there are too many variables.

After WWII the number of quality batsmen and quality bowlers per team were much more so than in the 1930's and that number kept increasing til the 1990's. I agree nowadays, possibly with the much more glamourous sports appealing to talented youngsters, there aren't as many.

George Headley in the 30's had a run average of 71.96 against us, Bradman averaged 86.46- is it not even possible that those 2 were only as good as the Richards, Tendulkars etc of the world and the rest of the batsmen who faced us are equivalent to nowadays county or fringe players?

Considering a sport progresses instead of regresses for the most part people assuming a 50 average in the 30's is equivalent to 50 with the strength in depth of bowlers nowadays is a joke.

Bradman was a head of his time, but that doesn't mean he'd be ahead of any and every time. Ditto for Pele, Babe Ruth, Gretzky, Chamberlain etc.

Gretzky's dominance of Ice Hockey statistically is comparible with Bradman but he played in a much closer era for quality (attackers and defensemen).

 

[Ikki]

Your timeline is good, though you're completely excluding factors such as bowlers a batsman faced during a career and the wickets he batted on- both of which play a HUGE part in a batsman's average.

You're actually wrong, it does. Those batsmen also faced bowlers and conditions where there is a generation by generation overlap.

For example, we know how certain batsmen rate against a previous generation and then one that follows. We know, for example, how good Ponting is, even though his generation is the one after Border. But Border, for example, had quite a bit of his career coinciding with someone like Waugh, and Waugh also played with Ponting. So we can fairly measure, even with regards to their quality - that may not be statistically represented - how batsmen compare with each other through eras. This can be done all the way back to Bradman.

Not only have the batsmen not changed as much, neither have the bowlers. In fact, there's little to separate them and it's merely a 1-2 points on the average bowler's average in each decade.

So even at it's worst, it will not explain away 10 points of Bradman's average, let alone 40-50 of it.

And yes, it isn't completely inconceivable that the bowlers Bradman faced (ie ours) were much worse than what our batsmen faced (ie Australia's) resulting in an average of 58 for 1 and 99 for the other. I'm sure with Bradman's technique, he would've averaged more than Hammond against the same bowlers, but 40 points more is doubtful. It's even more doubtful he'd average more, let alone 40 more than batsmen bwing against attacks with at least 2 bowlers as good as or better than Larwood.

It is quite improbable, if not impossible to hold such a standard. Bradman's own team had the greatest batsmen in the world yet could not even get near his average. Or, for example, think of Hammond's average against the Aussie bowlers, who even if they were superior, were not so superior to have kept Hammond from averaging the same. For even against his own English bowlers in the domestic scene his average was even lower: 56, compared to 58.

Statistics are only good for comparing an era, they are useless for comparing cross-era where there are too many variables.

As TC has quite plainly said, statistics are great in comparing cross-era. Unfortunately, some people can't agree on certain variables and how they affect certain batsmen but no such variable in cricket exists to explain away Bradman's average.

After WWII the number of quality batsmen and quality bowlers per team were much more so than in the 1930's and that number kept increasing til the 1990's. I agree nowadays, possibly with the much more glamourous sports appealing to talented youngsters, there aren't as many.

George Headley in the 30's had a run average of 71.96 against us, Bradman averaged 86.46- is it not even possible that those 2 were only as good as the Richards, Tendulkars etc of the world and the rest of the batsmen who faced us are equivalent to nowadays county or fringe players?

The irony is that at age 40, after the World War, Bradman was averaging 106.

Your argument really has little merit. Anything is possible, but it is so improbable that the likelihood is washed away just looking at the facts.

Considering a sport progresses instead of regresses for the most part people assuming a 50 average in the 30's is equivalent to 50 with the strength in depth of bowlers nowadays is a joke.

Sorry, such an argument does not hold water. For example, an average of 50 during 1970-1999 would be much more valuable than an average in the 50s now. Your argument of progression is simply arbitrary.

Bradman was a head of his time, but that doesn't mean he'd be ahead of any and every time. Ditto for Pele, Babe Ruth, Gretzky, Chamberlain etc.

Gretzky's dominance of Ice Hockey statistically is comparible with Bradman but he played in a much closer era for quality (attackers and defensemen).

Sorry, the reality is, even when you look at everything overall, Hammond compares to the likes of Tendulkar. In fact, many would say Hammond is even better than Tendulkar. Yet Hammond, who played when Bradman did, was a universe apart.

It's nice to question long-held beliefs, because sometimes they can be wrong. But Bradman's record is pretty much irrefutable. And as demeaning as it sounds, Tendulkar is not fit to be Bradman's water-boy, let alone compare to him as a batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Welcome Back IKKI.

 

[Howsie]

Fleming and Vettori.

 

[zaremba]

Bradman faced maybe 1 of England's top 10 bowlers of all time at peak.

I've not drawn up a top 10 of English bowlers, but the following 3 would undoubtedly be strong contenders, and Bradman faced all of them at their peak.

Larwood
Bedser
Verity

To those 3 I personally would add Tate. Admittedly he probably stands half a rung below the others and might miss the all-time top 10. Plus I'm not entirely sure whether he could still be described as at his peak in the series when Bradman played against him (1928/29 and 1930), although some have suggested that he was. Bradman himself wrote extremely highly of Tate's bowling in The Art of Cricket. I don't have it to hand today but may post an excerpt or two when I get a chance.

 

[rivera213]

You're actually wrong, it does. Those batsmen also faced bowlers and conditions where there is a generation by generation overlap.

But you're assuming that the batsman who overlapped the previous batsman also faced those exact bowlers at peak on the same conditions which rarely happens since the majority of bowlers are at peak for 5-6 years, not 10+.

For example, we know how certain batsmen rate against a previous generation and then one that follows. We know, for example, how good Ponting is, even though his generation is the one after Border. But Border, for example, had quite a bit of his career coinciding with someone like Waugh, and Waugh also played with Ponting. So we can fairly measure, even with regards to their quality - that may not be statistically represented - how batsmen compare with each other through eras. This can be done all the way back to Bradman.

That doesn't work though since you're relying on both Border, Waugh and Ponting facing bowlers of similar class (at peak) on the similar type of wickets which didn't happen. Border and Waugh on the same wickets from the majority- Yes, but bowlers- No, Ponting facing lesser bowlers on flatter wickets doesn't give his 50 any creedance in comparison to Border's.

Cowdrey's 102 against Australia in the 1954/55 Ashes @ the MCG against the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Archer on a green topped, fast and bouncy wicket with a strong wind from 1 direction is more credible than a 200 there against the Aussie bowlers now IMO.

Statistics wont tell you that.

Not only have the batsmen not changed as much, neither have the bowlers. In fact, there's little to separate them and it's merely a 1-2 points on the average bowler's average in each decade.

So even at it's worst, it will not explain away 10 points of Bradman's average, let alone 40-50 of it.

Batting technique post-Bradman changed a fair bit. His footwork was reveered and it become standard. Nowadays those who can't easily get onto either foot are (rightly) berated.

Bowling has changed alot in terms of number of quality bowlers playing the game and in the case of fitness/stamina resulting in people able to bowl better and faster for longer than those in previous eras. I'm sure those who saw the 5 W.Indies greats of the 70's and 80's would agree.

New ball partnerships have been getting better from the 50's-90's. The 3 partnerships of Wasim-Waqar, Ambrose-Walsh, Donald-Pollock are arguably the best 3 new ball partnerships ever. I don't necessarily agree about the Saffie duo (not because they were poor, but just because their time together at peak was half that of the 2 other partnerships of the era).

The fact a bowler's averaged has changed little just means the rate of progression from the 50's to 90's between batsmen and bowlers has been equal. But what that doesn't tell you is what their average would be like in eras gone by.

It's the same with baseball and pretty much every other sport from 1950 onwards. People don't think Gretzky is the best Ice Hocky player because statistically he is on top (though that helps. lol), but because in the best era for the sport in terms of quality, he stood out by some distance.

If Bradman was in the 70's or 90's then I would agree he was undoubtedly the best ever but the 30's with only 1 country to play against....... doubtful.

It is quite improbable, if not impossible to hold such a standard. Bradman's own team had the greatest batsmen in the world yet could not even get near his average. Or, for example, think of Hammond's average against the Aussie bowlers, who even if they were superior, were not so superior to have kept Hammond from averaging the same. For even against his own English bowlers in the domestic scene his average was even lower: 56, compared to 58.

Hammond didn't have anywhere near the shot selection or footwork ability as Tendulkar has from the footage I've seen. Our batsmen of that era (and still today, amazingly) have the "MCC Manual" technique. Bradman didn't and it's no surprise his much better technique and footwork gave him rich rewards.

Tendulkar has both shot selection and footwork comparible to Bradman (even in the eyes of the great man himself!) so there's nohing saying he wouldn't have destroyed bowlers just as easily back then.

As TC has quite plainly said, statistics are great in comparing cross-era. Unfortunately, some people can't agree on certain variables and how they affect certain batsmen but no such variable in cricket exists to explain away Bradman's average.

Statistics are only useful compring facts, and in cricket the only fact is the level of success.

Statistics do NOT and cannot compare talent 70 years apart or conditions, quality of bowler faced etc.

The irony is that at age 40, after the World War, Bradman was averaging 106.

Still the majority of the same bowlers though. Unless the bowlers had a case like Benjamin Button then they would've been of similar age to the Don. It's easy to bat into "old" age than bowl. The age of 30 claims many great bowlers whereas many great batsmen can carry on for a few more years.

Tendulkar at 40 years of age against say Warne (who will be 44 when Sachin is 40) would see far greater a distance between bat and ball than there was when both were playing at the top level in the 90's.

BTW- I just use WWII as a cut-off point since everyone knows when that ended but realistically it's more mid 50's onwards.

Your argument really has little merit. Anything is possible, but it is so improbable that the likelihood is washed away just looking at the facts.

I never said that there will be another Bradman statistically though, that isn't the debate.

Sorry, such an argument does not hold water. For example, an average of 50 during 1970-1999 would be much more valuable than an average in the 50s now. Your argument of progression is simply arbitrary.

Ponting, Hayden etc wouldn't average 50 in the 70's. The reason progression seems to stop is because of the preparing of wickets to be more batsmen friendly so test matches would/could last the full 5 days and the cricket boards makemore money.

Ponting is a 45 average player, Hayden a 40- hell I doubt in test cricket he would even average that during the 90's given he's so poor against quality seamers.

Viv Richards is a 55 average player who's record doesn't quite show how good he was. Graeme Pollock is a 60 average player, Barry Richards is a low 50's average player as is Gavaskar.

Take 5-10 runs off of the averages of nowadays batsmen to equate them to the batsmen of ca 1955-1998.

The fact the statistics are similar are proven to be unreliable since the wickets are not taken into account.

Sorry, the reality is, even when you look at everything overall, Hammond compares to the likes of Tendulkar. In fact, many would say Hammond is even better than Tendulkar. Yet Hammond, who played when Bradman did, was a universe apart.

He compares in terms of statistics, a measure of success but not in talent.

Tendulkar's technique is no worse than Bradman's and both were way better than Hammond's. There's no comprison other than that in an era with easy batting wickets and maybe 1 good bowler per outfit both average in the 50's.

Those who say Hammond is in any way comparible to Tendulkar have never held a bat in their life.

The fact he is English doesn't help.

It's nice to question long-held beliefs, because sometimes they can be wrong. But Bradman's record is pretty much irrefutable. And as demeaning as it sounds, Tendulkar is not fit to be Bradman's water-boy, let alone compare to him as a batsman.

Don't quite know what to say to that other than you obviously haven't compared the technical elements of both batsmen and are relying solely on a measure of success equalling the level of talent.

It doesn't work, there are many players who average below their level of talent (Miandad, Gower, Tendulkar, Crowe, V.Richards, Amarnath, Botham, Abbas, M.Waugh, Haynes, Viswanath, Anwar) and many who's stats flatter them (Hayden, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Collingwood, Yousef, Sangakarra, Samaweera, Prior, M.Clarke, Prince, Cook).

That's not to say the 2nd group are poor players just that their talent level doesn't equate to their success.

It's great Bradman's average was so much better than the rest of his era (and consequently of all time), in a way it would be a shame if he only averaged 60 or so.

I've not drawn up a top 10 of English bowlers, but the following 3 would undoubtedly be strong contenders, and Bradman faced all of them at their peak.

Larwood
Bedser
Verity

To those 3 I personally would add Tate. Admittedly he probably stands half a rung below the others and might miss the all-time top 10. Plus I'm not entirely sure whether he could still be described as at his peak in the series when Bradman played against him (1928/29 and 1930), although some have suggested that he was. Bradman himself wrote extremely highly of Tate's bowling in The Art of Cricket. I don't have it to hand today but may post an excerpt or two when I get a chance.

I agree with the first 2 names, though I'd put Larwood towards the bottom.

Larwood got the better of Bradman in 32/33, even though at test level he was nowhere near the bowler at county level.

Bedser was at peak from 1950-1954, Bradman wasn't playing then.

Verity is tougher to estimate- since he bowled in an era with little assistance for any type of bowler against a half decent batsman- which resulted in a number of wicketless innings.

I think had he played in Hobbs' or had been Laker's partner in crime, I believe he would've had much better stats against Australia than 59 @ 28 so he's probably up there (thoguh nowhere near Underwood or Laker IMHO).

His tonking wasn't all Bradman's doing anyway though. The wicketless innings prove that- to not take even a tailender, though again the fact the 30's were easy batting tracks pretty much nulled any half decent spinner much in the same way they do today (in places other than India).

But seriously, if people think Bradman would average 80+ runs against any of Trueman, Tyson, Statham, Bedser, Laker, Willis, Botham, Snow, Underwood even Gough at peak they are kidding themselves and the romance of the Don is obviously too much to get past.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

How on earth someone can claim that Ponting is a '45 average' batsman in a different era is beyhond me. His lowest average against a Test playing nation is 47 and given the amount of Test Cricket he has played, that is phenomenal. Ponting would average over 50 in any era, his played made countless great scores against tough opposition that it's not even worth mentioning because we'd be here all day. The notion that Hayden or Ponting would've averaged less in another era has to count towards to Tendulkar aswell, who has made more runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe then Hayden and Ponting combined.

 

[Ikki]

But you're assuming that the batsman who overlapped the previous batsman also faced those exact bowlers at peak on the same conditions which rarely happens since the majority of bowlers are at peak for 5-6 years, not 10+.

No, I am commenting on the fact that the same generation by generation aspect goes for bowlers. Where bowlers of the past, present and future undoubtedly overlap.

You're not arguing the stats, which would show there is little between the best bowlers. You are arguing that the standard has gone up while the stats remained, and the question is how much.

But likewise, the same applies:

Start from Larwood and make the same tree that I did for the batsmen.

That doesn't work though since you're relying on both Border, Waugh and Ponting facing bowlers of similar class (at peak) on the similar type of wickets which didn't happen. Border and Waugh on the same wickets from the majority- Yes, but bowlers- No, Ponting facing lesser bowlers on flatter wickets doesn't give his 50 any creedance in comparison to Border's.

Usually, that would work. For while a bowler or a batsman may not be at their peak, such a thing is a difference of single digits in terms of average points. Not one that goes beyond the realms of 10 or much more.

If Border met Donald, for example, towards the end of his career and Waugh faced Donald in his prime, the difference is still small and apparent. Batsmen like Waugh or bowlers like Donald do not plummet in their averages so that it is a whole different standard altogether. And even further, not to the point where you could legitimately make that an argument against Bradman's huge difference in average.

You can use the same model for bowlers facing batsmen. Yes, there will be variation depending on when in that player's career they are when achieving their feats, but that's ok. It doesn't have to be exact, merely discernible that they are similar.

Cowdrey's 102 against Australia in the 1954/55 Ashes @ the MCG against the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Archer on a green topped, fast and bouncy wicket with a strong wind from 1 direction is more credible than a 200 there against the Aussie bowlers now IMO.

Statistics wont tell you that.

Things like that still exist now. And that's still not an argument that holds much sway anyway. For when you look at statistics in a fashion that takes all scores and runs scored, to look at a standard, it shows little difference overall.

If you are looking to compare standards, you would want a trend. And when you can look at these trends, decade by decade, it is overwhelmingly against your argument.

People may say, for example, that the 90s bowling is much superior to the bowling now. And that is also statistically represented as true. STILL however, the average batsman's average today, due to the easiness, only is up a few points. A similar case for the bowlers. So they do not change that much to even put a dent on Bradman's 40-50 points superiority over everybody else that has played the game. That difference is an absolutely enormous one.

Batting technique post-Bradman changed a fair bit. His footwork was reveered and it become standard. Nowadays those who can't easily get onto either foot are (rightly) berated.

I don't think Bradman was even the standard for what passed as batting. Bradman, AFAIK, was not revered for his stroke-play or technique. Even Bradman himself saw other batsmen with more complete armory. What made Bradman special was his shot selection and his peerless hand-eye coordination. Bradman played to win, and to make runs. He limited any chance of his getting out.

Bowling has changed alot in terms of number of quality bowlers playing the game and in the case of fitness/stamina resulting in people able to bowl better and faster for longer than those in previous eras. I'm sure those who saw the 5 W.Indies greats of the 70's and 80's would agree.

If you were to transport, say, Hammond to the 1980s I would also think he'd have trouble. In that respect, I'd agree. However, you are being unfair in that comparison considering that that the bowlers have all the benefit from technology and new regimes yet Hammond is still stuck to his older ones. Still, I would only envisage his average dropping by a few points - let's say 5. Now 5 average points is huge. But Bradman HIMSELF was 41 average points superior to Hammond. Bradman may not have averaged 99.94. In fact, let's even say he would have averaged 10 less - which is a huge cut - and he is still far and away the best of all time. Even if it were 20!

New ball partnerships have been getting better from the 50's-90's. The 3 partnerships of Wasim-Waqar, Ambrose-Walsh, Donald-Pollock are arguably the best 3 new ball partnerships ever. I don't necessarily agree about the Saffie duo (not because they were poor, but just because their time together at peak was half that of the 2 other partnerships of the era).

Bradman faced comparable. And again, even if we were to say knock 10 points off his average, he would still be far and away the best batsman of all-time. There is simply no argument to this.

The fact a bowler's averaged has changed little just means the rate of progression from the 50's to 90's between batsmen and bowlers has been equal. But what that doesn't tell you is what their average would be like in eras gone by.

That's why I give you the generation by generation comparisons between teammates or rivals that overlapped. One can clearly discern the difference between the generations and the progressions made. The statistics don't have to be exact, just similar. And no bowler stopped better batsman getting anything near 70, let alone 99.94.

It's the same with baseball and pretty much every other sport from 1950 onwards. People don't think Gretzky is the best Ice Hocky player because statistically he is on top (though that helps. lol), but because in the best era for the sport in terms of quality, he stood out by some distance.

No sportsman has ever been as dominant as Bradman has through history. I am a football fan, first and cricket fan second, but even the likes of Pele do not come close to what Bradman achieved. In short, he is a freak.

If Bradman was in the 70's or 90's then I would agree he was undoubtedly the best ever but the 30's with only 1 country to play against....... doubtful.

If anything, that still doesn't give your argument any solid ground.

How good were the bowlers around that time? It's a very easy thing to see if one looks at the statistics on a decade by decade basis. I've done such a thing, having argued cases for other players throughout history and have a very big appreciation of the differences. The difference between the Larwoods and the Lillees of the world is not that huge. Even if we were to say it was a distinct difference, said bowlers could not affect a batsman's average by 40-50 points - I keep repeating this to you because unless you actually have an appreciation for the statistical data throughout history, it won't mean anything to you. The difference wouldn't even be 10 points.

For example, the difference between bowlers NOW (not a great time for bowlers) and the 90s (possibly the toughest era to bat and with most quality bowlers) is not even 5 points on average. And there are MANY generational overlaps to point to, to show that the difference would never stop a batsman averaging as high as Bradman has. Think about it some more, if 5 points to the average bowler's average is the difference between the bowlers now and the 90s, then think how much it'd have to be to stop a batsman from averaging in the 90s. Even the difference of the average batsman's average is - last time I checked - something within 5 average points. So the benefit has not been so much.

And what is even MORE in against your argument is that he consistently played the best side in the world other than his own for most of his career. If he had played others his average would have went UP! Imagine if Australia of today and S.Africa of today were the best and mostly played against each other. It would be madness trying to argue that feats gained in those matches are actually of less worth!

Hammond didn't have anywhere near the shot selection or footwork ability as Tendulkar has from the footage I've seen. Our batsmen of that era (and still today, amazingly) have the "MCC Manual" technique. Bradman didn't and it's no surprise his much better technique and footwork gave him rich rewards.

Again, Bradman's technique and footwork were not seen as his virtues. He was no prototype. He was not this awesome batsman with awesome footwork and strokeplay. He just was a great shot selector. He played each ball on it's merit, kept it low and found gaps. He was not flamboyant but could read the ball early and adjust himself accordinly. He was simply a run-machine - not the be-all and end-all of batting.

Tendulkar has both shot selection and footwork comparible to Bradman (even in the eyes of the great man himself!) so there's nohing saying he wouldn't have destroyed bowlers just as easily back then.

There is, if you actually know your cricketing history and stats. To utter the sentence above to a professional would have him laughing in your face. As harsh as that sounds, the above is incredibly naive.

Statistics are only useful compring facts, and in cricket the only fact is the level of success.

Statistics do NOT and cannot compare talent 70 years apart or conditions, quality of bowler faced etc.

It is becoming evermore increasingly apparent that you have a poor grasp of statistics and how one may use them.

I am no statistician by any means but what you have just said is cringe-worthy.

Still the majority of the same bowlers though. Unless the bowlers had a case like Benjamin Button then they would've been of similar age to the Don. It's easy to bat into "old" age than bowl. The age of 30 claims many great bowlers whereas many great batsmen can carry on for a few more years.

Tendulkar at 40 years of age against say Warne (who will be 44 when Sachin is 40) would see far greater a distance between bat and ball than there was when both were playing at the top level in the 90's.

I am assuming you are trying to argue that a 30 year old Bedser was out of his prime? The Don was himself 40. At 40 he was scoring more runs than all players EVER did.

And no, your invention of 30 as a bowler's retirement age is frankly disturbing and poor.

There is a funny story where Jeff Thomson himself said:

"On a rest day during the Indian tour in 1977-78, Don Bradman was around in the nets. I was bowling only legspin to him, but he had a couple of young blokes trying to get him out. With no pads, no nothing ... for a 68-year-old, he belted the hell out of them on a turf wicket. And he hadn't batted for 20 years. I went back in and said, 'Why isn't this bastard playing with us tomorrow?' That's how good I thought he was."

I never said that there will be another Bradman statistically though, that isn't the debate.

Yes, it is. Because no one can ever make an exact guess how good he would be. If Hammond for example were to travel in a time machine it would be debatable how good he'd be. But NOT Bradman - he is too far ahead for even the question of it.

Ponting, Hayden etc wouldn't average 50 in the 70's. The reason progression seems to stop is because of the preparing of wickets to be more batsmen friendly so test matches would/could last the full 5 days and the cricket boards makemore money.

You seem to have a poor understanding of cricketing history and the bowlers in said period. The 70s did not have so many great attacks and there was even less competition between Test sides back then.

Even now, there are better bowling attacks and teams than there were in the 70s.

India and Pakistan weren't good. West Indies started getting better towards the 80s, New Zealand have never been good and S.Africa didn't play. It was only England who trailed off somewhat and Australia that were good. Compare the attacks of the 70s to the ones now and you will see.

The differences in pitches is itself a very small difference in the great scheme of things. Here is the average bowler's average from the 70s till now:

The difference between the average bowler in the 70s and ones now is a little over 2 runs per wicket. Know your stats and facts.

Ponting is a 45 average player, Hayden a 40- hell I doubt in test cricket he would even average that during the 90's given he's so poor against quality seamers.

Viv Richards is a 55 average player who's record doesn't quite show how good he was. Graeme Pollock is a 60 average player, Barry Richards is a low 50's average player as is Gavaskar.

Take 5-10 runs off of the averages of nowadays batsmen to equate them to the batsmen of ca 1955-1998.

The fact the statistics are similar are proven to be unreliable since the wickets are not taken into account.

These are arbitrary estimations without much, if any, sense or facts to back them up. You are wasting my time.

He compares in terms of statistics, a measure of success but not in talent.

Tendulkar's technique is no worse than Bradman's and both were way better than Hammond's. There's no comprison other than that in an era with easy batting wickets and maybe 1 good bowler per outfit both average in the 50's.

Mark Waugh's technique is better than Bradman's, to argue that is why he'd be better would be insane. Please, stop wasting our collective time.

The fact that you argue there was 1 good bowler per team yet tout the 1970s as a standard shows you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Those who say Hammond is in any way comparible to Tendulkar have never held a bat in their life.

The fact he is English doesn't help.

Those who say otherwise are trolls that should be banned.

 

[The Sean]

Ponting is a 45 average player, Hayden a 40- hell I doubt in test cricket he would even average that during the 90's given he's so poor against quality seamers.

Viv Richards is a 55 average player who's record doesn't quite show how good he was. Graeme Pollock is a 60 average player, Barry Richards is a low 50's average player as is Gavaskar.

How can you say this so surely and unequivocally? For someone who has stated over and over and over that you can't compare across eras you seem to be doing quite a bit of it.

Rivera I admire that you have developed your own viewpoint on this and despite the fact that many (most) would disagree with you are prepared to discuss and back it up in considerable depth and detail. However, your repeated assertions that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow blind/clueless/stupid/should-be-sectioned etc is becoming tedious in the extreme.

 

[zaremba]

Hammond didn't have anywhere near the shot selection or footwork ability as Tendulkar has from the footage I've seen.

Just out of interest, and I ask this with the greatest possible respect, how much footage of Hammond have you actually seen?

In order to form any proper judgment of a player's shot selection by watching him play, you need to see quite a bit of him playing, including the leave-alones, the defensive shots, the clips for 2, the big shots, the wickets, the edges, the matches when he was in form, the matches when he was out of form: the lot. Now I wasn't aware that sufficient footage of Hammond exists (particularly when he was at his peak before WW2) to allow any such analysis.

Which leads us on to...

Those who say Hammond is in any way comparible to Tendulkar have never held a bat in their life.

On this, all I will say is to suggest that you take on board the comments made by The Sean in his above post. You are clearly a really good contributor. You sometimes adopt extreme and in some respects contradictory positions, which is fine; but, by trying to mock those who disagree with you when you do so, you do not do yourself justice.

I speak as one who's been gently reprimanded by The Sean in the past, and who has learnt from the experience!

 

[Migara]

Aravinda de Silva. Was good enough to average 50-55 in test cricket. Infact post 1996 he averaged 53 with the bat. In 1984-1990 era, the loss of home matches against Aus, Eng and NZ, who relied upon fast bowling has cost him a good deal of runs. Until mid 1990s de SIlva was not a good player of spin, but was a sublime player of extremely quick bowling.

And most of early batsmen of SL were good enough to average 40, rather tan 27-32. Most of them were at end of their careers when SL got the test status.

 

[Richard]

I somewhat doubt Bradman would've averaged 80+ in any era other than the 30's and 40's (maybe 50's but not against England) and it's conceievable he would've averaged no more than the great players of any era.

For the last 7 years batting has been even easier than it was in the 1930s - hence you get the likes of Hayden who'd struggle to be Test-standard in the previous 26 years, very probably longer, looking like a superman from 2001/02 onwards; you get very good Test batsmen like Ponting, Kallis, etc. looking like supermen as well.

In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, sure, it wasn't anywhere near so easy - in fact much harder than the 1930s and the post-2001/02 period. And that Bradman would've averaged lower in those decades is eminently conceivable.

However, I think you underestimate just how irregularly the RUD (that's realistically unplayable delivery) comes along. Even for the best bowlers, they only get maybe 1 wicket in 5 with such deliveries - most of the rest involve some amount of batting error, some induced (outswinger luring the drive and edge to slip), some complete (long-hop whacked straight to gully). Bradman rarely made the former and virtually never made the latter - mostly it took a RUD to get him out.

And the merely "good" bowlers don't produce such deliveries with that much regularity at all. Which'd mean they'd have a hell of a hard time getting Bradman out as well.

 

[Migara]

Calling Tendulkar is better than Bradman is pure BS in my opinion. But playing against same oppositions, the difference in average could not be 40 realistically.

If there was any critisicm about Bradman, that would depend on two factors.

1. He played against very limited number of players / oppositions / conditions than current players. There is always possibility that one bowlers will have better of him frequently. Ex. If WIndies of 1975-90 played against Bradman, I would not expect him to average anywhere close to 90. Against rampaging Larwood it was 56. And all the bowlers like Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts and perhaps Garner are bit better than Larwood (Marshall and Ambrose quite an amount better than Larwood). Realistically I would think it will be 45-55, which is one heck of a performance against them IMO.

2. Bradman never played spinners of quality as current players. Murali and Warne are some way better than Verity the best he played. (Note that O'Riely and Grimmet were in his side, not in opposition, who were the premier spinners by then and are comparable to Murali and Warne in all accounts. And Jim Laker was learning his craft when he first bowled to Bradman). Kumble, Qadir, Saqlain and Harbhajan are as good as Verity. If there was a bowler who had lot of victories against Bradman it was Verity. It's probable that against a barrage of better spinners in modern day cricket he won't be having the same freedom.

I would think Bradman would average around 65-70, which still would make him the king of all.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

You seem to have a poor understanding of cricketing history and the bowlers in said period. The 70s did not have so many great attacks and there was even less competition between Test sides back then.

Even now, there are better bowling attacks and teams than there were in the 70s.

India and Pakistan weren't good. West Indies started getting better towards the 80s, New Zealand have never been good and S.Africa didn't play. It was only England who trailed off somewhat and Australia that were good. Compare the attacks of the 70s to the ones now and you will see.

The differences in pitches is itself a very small difference in the great scheme of things. Here is the average bowler's average from the 70s till now:

The difference between the average bowler in the 70s and ones now is a little over 2 runs per wicket. Know your stats and facts.

This pretty much dismisses any arguement that Hayden or any other modern batsman would've averaged less in another era, thank you.

 

[The Sean]

Calling Tendulkar is better than Bradman is pure BS in my opinion. But playing against same oppositions, the difference in average could not be 40 realistically.

If there was any critisicm about Bradman, that would depend on two factors.

1. He played against very limited number of players / oppositions / conditions than current players. There is always possibility that one bowlers will have better of him frequently. Ex. If WIndies of 1975-90 played against Bradman, I would not expect him to average anywhere close to 90. Against rampaging Larwood it was 56. And all the bowlers like Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts and perhaps Garner are bit better than Larwood (Marshall and Ambrose quite an amount better than Larwood). Realistically I would think it will be 45-55, which is one heck of a performance against them IMO.

2. Bradman never played spinners of quality as current players. Murali and Warne are some way better than Verity the best he played. (Note that O'Riely and Grimmet were in his side, not in opposition, who were the premier spinners by then and are comparable to Murali and Warne in all accounts. And Jim Laker was learning his craft when he first bowled to Bradman). Kumble, Qadir, Saqlain and Harbhajan are as good as Verity. If there was a bowler who had lot of victories against Bradman it was Verity. It's probable that against a barrage of better spinners in modern day cricket he won't be having the same freedom.

I would think Bradman would average around 65-70, which still would make him the king of all.

I think you make some good points here, though there are a couple I'd comment on. You're not the first person to say that Bradman only averaged 56 against Larwood, but that's not strictly true - in Bradman's worst series, when Larwood was at his peak and spearheading an attack designed solely to blunt Bradman, and which has now been declared illegal, The Don still averaged 56. In 1930 Bradman faced Larwood and destroyed him (and everyone else, for that matter).

Secondly, I think you're under rating Verity - while I'm with you that he'd be a notch below Warne and Murali, I'd personally disagree with the idea that Kumble, Qadir, Saqlain and Harby are as good as him. I'd have Verity above all four of those bowlers.

It's true that Bradman's limited opposition and playing in only two countries could count against him, but it's something of a double-edged variable in that at the same time it does mean that he played the overwhelming majority of his cricket against the best opposition the world had to offer. Imagine what his average might have been if he'd played as often against South Africa or India has he did against England. Or alternatively, what even the best players of the 70s/80s/90s might have averaged if they'd had to play three quarters of their cricket against WI or Australia.

All ifs and buts and IMOs obviously, but that's part of the fun.

 

[The Sean]

I speak as one who's been gently reprimanded by The Sean in the past, and who has learnt from the experience!

Had completely forgotten about that. You're such a gun poster I actually feel mildly embarrassed to have ever reprimanded you about anything TBH.