The stats do not do him justice!

[Migara]

I wasn't talking about the attacks, I was talking about your want of <25 bowlers.

scope of the discussion was whether Bradman faced world class attacks other than English one. The answer is a clear resounding "NO". Ben was nit picking on Tendulkar's performances against good bowlers. And the fact is Bradman never had to play 10+ sub 25 bowlers in his career. He played probably less than 5 of them. I think it was only Larwood and Laker.

The 3 sides of India, WIndies and S.Africa in Bradman's time weren't strong. But the SRs for those days are misleading because very few bowlers had SRs in the 50s and being in the 60s was very good.

I never talked about SRs. Due to similar reasons the ER was low then. I was looking at Average (which is SR / ER) whhch has not changed much since 1930s on global scale.

Being in the 70s was good-to-average. And having two bowlers with sub 30 averages in an attack certainly wasn't bad. I think "decent" is apt. So for being not near Australia nor England, they weren't shabby. Regardless, few batsmen could consistently average 100+ against them.

Agree on that, but, these attacks were not world class as Tendulkar faced up to. That's the reason behind my self believing that the difference is far less tha 40 runs in their averages. May be 10-12 IMO.

 

[Burgey]

scope of the discussion was whether Bradman faced world class attacks other than English one. The answer is a clear resounding "NO". Ben was nit picking on Tendulkar's performances against good bowlers. And the fact is Bradman never had to play 10+ sub 25 bowlers in his career. He played probably less than 5 of them. I think it was only Larwood and Laker.

I never talked about SRs. Due to similar reasons the ER was low then. I was looking at Average (which is SR / ER) whhch has not changed much since 1930s on global scale.

Agree on that, but, these attacks were not world class as Tendulkar faced up to. That's the reason behind my self believing that the difference is far less tha 40 runs in their averages. May be 10-12 IMO.

CBF reading back through the past few pages, but Migara, are you a subscriber to the "Tendulkar > or = Bradman" school of thought?

 

[MrIncredible]

scope of the discussion was whether Bradman faced world class attacks other than English one. The answer is a clear resounding "NO". Ben was nit picking on Tendulkar's performances against good bowlers. And the fact is Bradman never had to play 10+ sub 25 bowlers in his career. He played probably less than 5 of them. I think it was only Larwood and Laker.

I never talked about SRs. Due to similar reasons the ER was low then. I was looking at Average (which is SR / ER) whhch has not changed much since 1930s on global scale.

Agree on that, but, these attacks were not world class as Tendulkar faced up to. That's the reason behind my self believing that the difference is far less tha 40 runs in their averages. May be 10-12 IMO.

Well then in that case it would imply that other batsmen similar in achievements to Tendulkar (Lara, Viv, Sobers, Chappell) would be with in 10-12 runs of Bradman or even less since i dont consider Sachin to be the 2nd best batsman of all time.

 

[Migara]

CBF reading back through the past few pages, but Migara, are you a subscriber to the "Tendulkar > or = Bradman" school of thought?

No. for me Bradman > Tendulkar. But not Bradman >>> Tendulkar.

 

[Migara]

Well then in that case it would imply that other batsmen similar in achievements to Tendulkar (Lara, Viv, Sobers, Chappell) would be with in 10-12 runs of Bradman or even less since i dont consider Sachin to be the 2nd best batsman of all time.

May be. But too much ifs there. But my point is Bradman is very much less likely to avrage insane 99 in this era (1990-2000). Because bowling is a tier better than in his days. 10-12 may be OT reaction. May be 20. Saying that, Batsman averaging 70-75 in current day is still pretty special.

 

[MrIncredible]

Well yes i agree with that. I thinks its highly unlikely he'd average ne where close to 100 now. Id say ne where from 65 to 75. Taking the teams he played in his times. In the 90s he would have faced infinitely better WI attacks (Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose especially in the WI), South Africa (Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers), India (Srinath, Kumble especially in India). England of the 90s are probably a lot worst than they were in tne 30s so i can see the Don cashing in against them (not unlike the Laras and Tendulkars of the 90s).

 

[Top_Cat]

Bradman himself said he wouldn't average as high in the modern era.....but he'd still be the highest. Gotta love that confidence.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I fail to see how anyone can say how anyone can be close to Bradman. It's not as if he fluked a Test average against Test average of 99.94 because he averaged 95 in first-class cricket from 230 odd games. He also played easily the best side in the world of his generation for 75% of his career and still managed to average 90 against the best team in the world whilst in the 1990s, Tendulkar averaged in the 30s against South Africa and Pakistan and only has an overall average of 36 against Australia if you exclude the matches that didn't feature Glenn McGrath. He did however do well in the few games he played against the West Indies, averaging 60, but yet that's still 30 less runs per innings then the Don's average vs England and Tendulkar only played 5-6 games against Ambrose & Walsh opposed to Bradman's 37 against England.

 

[SJS]

There is one player whose stats are really very good yet we tend to rate him below his contemporaries because of a limited look at the aggregate statistics.

No one denies that Frank Worrell was a world class batsman but it is a tendency by a majority of cricket fans to rate him, as a batsman, below the other two 'W's basically because of their career figures which read as under :-

[B]Player	Tests	Runs	50's	100's	Avg[/B]

Weekes	48	4455	19	15	58.6
Walcott	44	3798	14	15	56.7
Worrell	51	3860	22	9	49.5

By any and every criteria, the stats appear to show Worrell's performance with the bat as being inferior to that of his illustrious colleagues. This is not borne out by a closer look at these figures.

While all three of them made their debut in the same year ,1948, they did not play all the series together. Worrell, particularly was unable to play in a few series, mostly because of his personal reasons - generally academic. Plus while Weekes retired in 1958 and Walcott in 1960, Worrell played till 1963 mainly because West Indies needed him to lead them as the first ever black captain of the West Indian cricket team.

The three series that Worrell missed were against the then minnows of Test cricket ;-

- India 1948-49 (5 Tests)
- Newzealand 1955-56 (4 Tests - Only Weekes played in this series)
- Pakistan 1957-58​

Its interesting to note the number of runs Weekes and Walcott scored in these three series.

[B]Player	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg[/B]

Weekes	14	1652	8	4	86.9
Walcott	9	837	3	4	76.1

Clearly they made merry against the weak attacks. Take away these three series and the comparative figures of the three W's for 1948-1960 become :-

[B]Player	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg[/B]

Weekes	34	2803	7	15	49.2
Walcott	35	2961	12	10	52.9
Worrell	36	3011	9	12	52.8

Thats better but thats not all. There is more to it.

Walcott and Weekes were absolute butchers on the home tracks which in those years were as true batting wickets as you could get anywhere in the world. However, when playing away from home, these two were reduced to more mortal figures. Here is how the three W's fared at home and away during this period.

[B]Player        	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg[/B]

Weekes-Away	16	838	1	7	28.9
Weekes-Home	18	1965	6	8	70.2

Walcott-Away	14	762	2	3	33.1
Walcott-Home	21	2199	10	7	66.6

Worrell-Away	16	1459	5	5	54.0
Worrell-Home	20	1552	4	7	51.7

The difference is too stark to require any comment and shows the relative batting strengths of the three in true light.

As I have always maintained, statistics rarely tell you everything although you can see a bit (just a bit) more out of them if you are willing to look a bit more carefully.

I had always, as a youngster been amazed at how much Worrell's batting was written in glowing terms while the same were not used for his two contemporaries. Then came internet and the ease with which one could look at all statistics in far greater detail and one saw the difference even in the figures - although by all accounts, Worrell's fabulous batting was difficult to capture in numbers.

 

[NUFAN]

Awesome work SJS. Love that analysis.

 

[Top_Cat]

I thought the cow was a sacred animal in India SJS? Because you just butchered a few with that post.

 

[SJS]

Awesome work SJS. Love that analysis.

I thought the cow was a sacred animal in India SJS? Because you just butchered a few with that post.

Thanks guys

I have always been wanting to do this ever since Worrell did not make CW's top 25 batsmen list while Weekes and Walcott did. I remember you, NUFAN, as one of those few who nominated him.

 

[Briony]

I fail to see how anyone can say how anyone can be close to Bradman. It's not as if he fluked a Test average against Test average of 99.94 because he averaged 95 in first-class cricket from 230 odd games. He also played easily the best side in the world of his generation for 75% of his career and still managed to average 90 against the best team in the world whilst in the 1990s, Tendulkar averaged in the 30s against South Africa and Pakistan and only has an overall average of 36 against Australia if you exclude the matches that didn't feature Glenn McGrath. He did however do well in the few games he played against the West Indies, averaging 60, but yet that's still 30 less runs per innings then the Don's average vs England and Tendulkar only played 5-6 games against Ambrose & Walsh opposed to Bradman's 37 against England.

One advantage though that Bradman had was that he was a ruthless man with a professional attitude (and think the preparation in his childhood) in an era of largely amateurs. The likes of Larwood juggled working in coalmines alongside playing. And you can criticise Tendulkar etc. for some lower stats against various countries but remember that Bradman only batted in two countries. And if you factor in when Sachin didn't play against McGrath for instance, think of some of the pie attacks Bradman faced. England was ravaged by war and many critics suggest that it turned out some of the weakest attacks in history because of this, especially post the second World War.

 

[zaremba]

There is one player whose stats are really very good yet we tend to rate him below his contemporaries because of a limited look at the aggregate statistics.

No one denies that Frank Worrell was a world class batsman but it is a tendency by a majority of cricket fans to rate him, as a batsman, below the other two 'W's basically because of their career figures which read as under :-

[B]Player    Tests    Runs    50's    100's    Avg[/B]
 
Weekes    48    4455    19    15    58.6
Walcott    44    3798    14    15    56.7
Worrell    51    3860    22    9    49.5

By any and every criteria, the stats appear to show Worrell's performance with the bat as being inferior to that of his illustrious colleagues. This is not borne out by a closer look at these figures.

While all three of them made their debut in the same year ,1948, they did not play all the series together. Worrell, particularly was unable to play in a few series, mostly because of his personal reasons - generally academic. Plus while Weekes retired in 1958 and Walcott in 1960, Worrell played till 1963 mainly because West Indies needed him to lead them as the first ever black captain of the West Indian cricket team.

The three series that Worrell missed were against the then minnows of Test cricket ;-

- India 1948-49 (5 Tests)
- Newzealand 1955-56 (4 Tests - Only Weekes played in this series)
- Pakistan 1957-58
​

Its interesting to note the number of runs Weekes and Walcott scored in these three series.

[B]Player    Mts    Runs    100s    50s    Avg[/B]
 
Weekes    14    1652    8    4    86.9
Walcott    9    837    3    4    76.1

Clearly they made merry against the weak attacks. Take away these three series and the comparative figures of the three W's for 1948-1960 become :-

[B]Player    Mts    Runs    100s    50s    Avg[/B]
 
Weekes    34    2803    7    15    49.2
Walcott    35    2961    12    10    52.9
Worrell    36    3011    9    12    52.8

Thats better but thats not all. There is more to it.

Walcott and Weekes were absolute butchers on the home tracks which in those years were as true batting wickets as you could get anywhere in the world. However, when playing away from home, these two were reduced to more mortal figures. Here is how the three W's fared at home and away during this period.

[B]Player            Mts    Runs    100s    50s    Avg[/B]
 
Weekes-Away    16    838    1    7    28.9
Weekes-Home    18    1965    6    8    70.2
 
Walcott-Away    14    762    2    3    33.1
Walcott-Home    21    2199    10    7    66.6
 
Worrell-Away    16    1459    5    5    54.0
Worrell-Home    20    1552    4    7    51.7

The difference is too stark to require any comment and shows the relative batting strengths of the three in true light.

As I have always maintained, statistics rarely tell you everything although you can see a bit (just a bit) more out of them if you are willing to look a bit more carefully.

I had always, as a youngster been amazed at how much Worrell's batting was written in glowing terms while the same were not used for his two contemporaries. Then came internet and the ease with which one could look at all statistics in far greater detail and one saw the difference even in the figures - although by all accounts, Worrell's fabulous batting was difficult to capture in numbers.

top post

 

[Ikki]

...

I was looking over the 3 players' stats and I found:

- Worrell did play against New Zealand and India then.

- 10 tests against India, 730 runs @ 60.83. -- Weekes and Walcott also played 10 against them; just averaged higher: 107 and 70 respectively.

- 2 tests against NZ, 233 @ 116.50 -- Walcott played only 2 tests against them also, but averaged 66. Weekes played 6 tests against them and averaged 60.

- Where he didn't play was against Pakistan where Weekes played 5 tests averaging 65 and Walcott played 4 averaging 96.

- Of course, this would change their home and away averages too, and I imagine they are closer than what you put them.

---

Of course, I agree that no stats should be taken directly at face value.

 

[Migara]

I fail to see how anyone can say how anyone can be close to Bradman. It's not as if he fluked a Test average against Test average of 99.94 because he averaged 95 in first-class cricket from 230 odd games. He also played easily the best side in the world of his generation for 75% of his career and still managed to average 90 against the best team in the world whilst in the 1990s, Tendulkar averaged in the 30s against South Africa and Pakistan and only has an overall average of 36 against Australia if you exclude the matches that didn't feature Glenn McGrath. He did however do well in the few games he played against the West Indies, averaging 60, but yet that's still 30 less runs per innings then the Don's average vs England and Tendulkar only played 5-6 games against Ambrose & Walsh opposed to Bradman's 37 against England.

Now to get the question in a nutshell, was the English attack that Bradman faced better than West Indies, South African or Australian attacks that Tendulkar played?

 

[zaremba]

Now to get the question in a nutshell, was the English attack that Bradman faced better than West Indies, South African or Australian attacks that Tendulkar played?

The 1932/3 attack was probably as difficult a pace attack as any of those. And there were plenty of fine bowlers in the other series he played too, including Bedser, Verity, Tate, Farnes, Laker et al.

Relatively speaking I'd think (without undertaking a tedious trawl through the stats) that Tendulkar has faced more poor bowling attacks than Bradman ever did. Bradman played almost all of his Test cricket against the strongest opposition that existed. Tendulkar has been more fortunate in that respect.

 

[The Sean]

But contrary to your belief, that isn't proof of Bradman being a better batsman than Tendulkar (since "better" in sport is largely opinion based), as I said countless times before statistics are relevent only in comparing the era.

Talent means everything when the person you are arguing with (ie- me) is saying that whilst Bradman was more successful than Tendulkar, he wasn't better (aka more talented) than him (or Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards or Garry Sobers etc).

I think a lot of the conflict in this thread is a result of differing criteria to determine who the “best” is. You for example believe that talent/batsmanship, rather than tangible success, represents who the best is and are (understandably) resisting what you think is a better stats = better player culture put forward by some posters – though FWIW I don’t actually believe we have many posters at all who think stats are the be-all and end-all.

Where I’d disagree with you mate is in your fundamental argument that “most talented” is the same as “best.” I’m firmly of the opinion that natural ability is just one element of the overall picture – don’t get me wrong, it’s very difficult to attain greatness without it – but without concentration, dedication, temperament and the ability to translate into actual performance it’s not enough. To mention an oft-cited example, Mark Waugh was generally considered to be the more naturally talented of the Waugh twins, but very few people would consider him to be the better of the two due to Steve’s far greater ability to translate ability into achievement.

You argue that in terms of pure batsmanship and shotmaking ability the likes of Tendulkar, Pollock, Richards x 2 etc are Bradman’s equal and to be fair I don’t think you’re a long way off the mark. Bradman himself claimed that he didn’t necessarily have any more natural ability than other players - his famous quote “I saw more talented batsman than me, plenty of them, they just kept getting out” alludes to this.

But Bradman was more than just an exceptionally talented strokeplayer – he allied his talent to the most remorseless concentration and determination, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for making runs in vast quantities. To rack up the kinds of scored Bradman did with such inhuman regularity takes more than just talent, it takes a certain kind of person with such drive and mentality the likes of which come along so rarely as to be all-but unique.

Certain players unquestionably can compare with one or more of the things that made Bradman special – some (though not many) could claim to have something close to his natural ability as a batsman, some (Ponsford and Hanif spring to mind) had his appetite for amassing massive scores – though, it should be added, without the ability to do it anywhere near as often, a few (perhaps S Waugh or Boycott) have been blessed with such exceptional powers of concentration as to be virtually unflappable, while others (Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe, Ponting, Sangakarra) have had, like Bradman, the luck to play in an era where bat dominated ball and their talent was able to shine to its full extent.

But no one player has ever before – or IMO will ever again – been able to marry all of those things and more into a single incomparable runscoring machine in the way that Bradman did. It’s for this reason, as much as the near-mythical 99.94, that so many of us have no question in acknowledging him the very best there has ever been, and probably ever will be.

 

[SJS]

I was looking over the 3 players' stats and I found:

- Worrell did play against New Zealand and India then.

- 10 tests against India, 730 runs @ 60.83. -- Weekes and Walcott also played 10 against them; just averaged higher: 107 and 70 respectively.

- 2 tests against NZ, 233 @ 116.50 -- Walcott played only 2 tests against them also, but averaged 66. Weekes played 6 tests against them and averaged 60.

- Where he didn't play was against Pakistan where Weekes played 5 tests averaging 65 and Walcott played 4 averaging 96.

- Of course, this would change their home and away averages too, and I imagine they are closer than what you put them.

---

Of course, I agree that no stats should be taken directly at face value.

When you try to punch holes into anyone's statistics the least you can do is take the trouble of checking their stats.

I am aware that Worrell played one series against New Zealand (in Newzealand in 1951-52). Weekes and Walcott too played that series. The figures of all three are included in my stats. Check up.

However, there was another series against New Zealand in 1955-56 in which only Weekes played and scored 418 runs in 4 Tests with 3 centuries and an average of 83.6).

Similarly, Worrell did play in the series against India in 1952-53 as did the other two. However he did not play the series against India of 1948-49 in which both Weekes and Walcott played. This is how they fared in THAT series :-

[B]Player        	Mts	Runs	100s	50s	Avg[/B]
Walcott, 	5	452	2	2	64.6
Weekes, 	5	779	4	2	111.3

I never said Worrell did not play against India, Newzealand and Pakistan, I just said that he missed three series during the period 1948-1960 (when their careers overlap) and all three were against these three countries. In order to compare their figures objectively one has to take away these series in my humble opinion particularly since these were the weakest bowling attacks of the times.

And all of my stats are absolutely accurate in every respect as is what I have written about them. Check them if that sort of a thing is up your street.

 

[Ikki]

The whole basis of your statistics was that two players beefed up on minnows, and the other didn't. Does it matter that one played NZ in 1952 and the other did in 1955? No, because they were still minnows. And they all played them 10 times each, for example. So they all had a fair crack at building up their scores. Which makes removing those records, entirely, inaccurate when you wish to measure them as batsmen IMO.