The stats do not do him justice!

[wfdu_ben91]

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?

What this guy said...

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.

 

[Manee]

Two points...
- Excellent analysis SJS.
- Facinating how Ben has flipped from a view that any bowling pre-1980s was rubbish (Marshall a trundler, lack of quality shoes, etc) to the view that the 1930s was the golden age of bowling.

 

[SJS]

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.

NO.

My entire post is based on the same premise as I think is the only one that can be used (if at all stats can be used in a limited way) that of comparing players in the same conditions and match situations where possible. Thus since these three played in the same period (approximately), I have started my post with bringing the stats first down to the common denominator of the Tests/series where they all played. Thus I have taken for my stats the eight series in which all three played and the one series in which only Walcott and Worrell played (Weekes having retired). My entire post is based on this.

The conclusion that Weekes and Walcott were minnow beaters is amply proved by their stats one does not have to take too much trouble to see that except to shed one's blinkers.

Just one figure should be enough (not for you I am sure ) Weekes has 6 centuries (out of 15) against the three minnows, Walcott has 10(out of 14) and Worrell has 2 out of 9

Finally their figures at home and away tell their own story. Of course, you dont have to believe them for there are many other stories one can build with statistics. Why we even had a functioning stats factory on CW once that could prove anything. You must try this sometimes

 

[Fusion]

Too long to quote

Too long to quote.

Totally OT and irrelevant I know, but surely these must be the two longest post/replies in CW history? Have to be in the top 5 for sure! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

[zaremba]

Totally OT and irrelevant I know, but surely these must be the two longest post/replies in CW history? Have to be in the top 5 for sure! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I know. I have to admit that I only ever read these sorts of posts if they're written by me, or in response to a post of mine. Generally they're a bad sign that you're getting sucked into a quarrel.

 

[SJS]

I think it is best to combine the quality of opposition with the home/away stats. So here are the stats for the three W's only against England and Australia (1948-1960) with the break up for home and away games.

[B]Player        	Mts	Runs	100s	Avg[/B]
				
Weekes-Away	14	778	1	29.9
Weekes-Home	13	1249	3	59.5
				
Walcott-Away	12	563	1	28.2
Walcott-Home	16	1742	8	64.5
				
Worrell-Away	14	1226	4	49.0
Worrell-Home	15	1154	3	52.5

 

[The Sean]

I know. I have to admit that I only ever read these sorts of posts if they're written by me, or in response to a post of mine.

You could have told me that before I wrote my long one!

 

[Migara]

What this guy said...

Bedser was good indeed
Murali, Warne>Verity, Mushtaq = Verity
Ambrose, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Pollock > Tate, Farnes
Laker - very young when bowled to Bradman

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.

Sorry, their stats suggest otherwise

 

[zaremba]

Bedser was good indeed
Murali, Warne>Verity, Mushtaq = Verity
Ambrose, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Pollock > Tate, Farnes
Laker - very young when bowled to Bradman

Given that Verity bowled on uncovered pitches, he was clearly a massive handful for a batsman. And Tate and Farnes were both bowlers of very high class. Whether, say, Verity was as good as Warne or Tate as good as Pollock is of very little interest to me in this context, because it runs the risk of getting involved in an academic hair-splitting exercise which detracts from the point of the discussion.

Anyhow let's agree about one thing: these were all fine bowlers.

And of course to this list you can add Larwood, who like Bedser was a great bowler. And there were other fine bowlers: Voce, Allen, Bowes, Hammond, White, Wright, Geary. The 13 bowlers I've named were all high-class, and 12 of them were the 12 bowlers who bowled the most overs in Ashes Tests when Bradman played (Laker being the exception).

England's was very far from being a popgun attack at any point during Bradman's career.

 

[Ikki]

NO.

My entire post is based on the same premise as I think is the only one that can be used (if at all stats can be used in a limited way) that of comparing players in the same conditions and match situations where possible. Thus since these three played in the same period (approximately), I have started my post with bringing the stats first down to the common denominator of the Tests/series where they all played. Thus I have taken for my stats the eight series in which all three played and the one series in which only Walcott and Worrell played (Weekes having retired). My entire post is based on this.

But how different is NZ of 52 to that of 55, for example? Not much. It's essentially the same opponent/a minnow. I had not much problem with your conclusion, just that the method you took was not very accurate. There's no need to remove minnows, IMO, if both had ample opportunity at playing them. Unless you simply want to say that Worrell was a tougher nut to crack against better opposition. That's a valid conclusion. What is not a valid conclusion is that Worrell didn't have the opportunity to gouge himself on minnows and the others did. They all pretty much did.

 

[zaremba]

What is not a valid conclusion is that Worrell didn't have the opportunity to gouge himself on minnows and the others did.

Isn't that what Steve Irwin did, but on a smaller scale?

 

[Ikki]

I think it is best to combine the quality of opposition with the home/away stats. So here are the stats for the three W's only against England and Australia (1948-1960) with the break up for home and away games.

The reality is: they all failed in Australia and only Worrell succeeded in England.

           [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]In Australia   In England[/COLOR][/B]
[B]Worrell[/B]:      35.60         46.86
[B]Weekes[/B]:       24.50         33.31
[B]Walcott[/B]:      14.50         34

And I think you have your stats wrong. How could Worrell average 49 away in those two countries when the highest average he has is in England and is 44? Yes, I just checked, Worrell averaged 52.5 at home and 41.5 away.

 

[MrIncredible]

He probably meant up until the time Weekes and Worrell retired.

 

[Ikki]

Possibly. They all retired within a few years of each other, though.

 

[Richard]

I don't think these are mutually exclusive alternatives. On the contrary, batsmen very often cause bowlers to bowl badly. Very few players are able to play as if in a vacuum, oblivious to what's going on around them (and when they do, they hit the heights - I think it's what's termed being "in the zone"). And because a batsman might be capable of scaring, or frustrating, the bejeesus out of a bowler, or of upsetting his all-important rhythm, he will be able to exert real control over events.

Yes there's always the possibility of the "unplayable" delivery but they're very very rare and the possibility of their occurrence is therefore of only peripheral relevance in assessing whether the bowler is truly "in control" of events.

Realistically unplayable deliveries aren't as rare as I think you're suggesting. In a Test on a pitch with anything much in it for the bowlers, it's rare to see the match go by without one or two - sometimes more. On a properly bowler-friendly deck, there might well be a large number in the game.

Same way really intimidating batsmen can "scare" average bowlers (eg Gilchrist - he did, many times, I watched it palpably in effect), equally really good bowlers aren't intimidated by anything and in fact relish the contest with batsmen prepared to go after them - and thus win such contests on perhaps 80 or so occasions out of 100. Shane Warne was never able to get on top of Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara but it wasn't because they intimidated him out of bowling at his best.

I'd certainly not say batsmen "often" cause bowlers to bowl badly by making a conscious effort to try to score quickly off them. If such a thing happens, you know a bowler's got a bad mentality. In fact there are bowlers who some people identify as such things - sometimes wrongly so, indeed, as in the cases of Andy Caddick and Allan Donald.

 

[Richard]

Totally OT and irrelevant I know, but surely these must be the two longest post/replies in CW history? Have to be in the top 5 for sure! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I know. I have to admit that I only ever read these sorts of posts if they're written by me, or in response to a post of mine. Generally they're a bad sign that you're getting sucked into a quarrel.

Totally AWTz. I've had plenty of long, multiple-broken-down-quote posts in my time here, but I'm pretty sure I pressed the PgDn button more times in two single posts there than I ever have in comparable cases before now.

There've been a good few similar ones involving ol' KaZoH0lic and various parties though.

 

[Richard]

That's an interesting point, and probably well right.

What's also interesting is people often (rightly imo) make such an allowance in that case, but don't allow for the fact that other players may not have been at their best/ not have developed yet, in the previous decade.

I certainly make such allowances - irritates the hell out of me when people honestly think I'm suggesting Ponting(\Kallis\whoever) was likely to have continued to average 41-42 had pitches not flattened-out and bowling quality declined in 2001/02. However, the point is that it is completely and totally ridiculous to suggest that 5-6 batsmen all made this "development" to the exact same extent at the exact same time.

The notion that pitches did not flatten-out, considerably, and the quality of bowling decline, considerably, from 2001/02 onwards is one that, IMO, makes precisely no sense at all. That, to my mind, played a far greater part in the explosion of scoring than any development of any one batsman did.

 

[SJS]

He probably meant up until the time Weekes and Worrell retired.

Thank you Mr Incredible. Thats exactly it. I meant Weekes and Walcott retired of course.

For the others . . . . the red colour is to draw attention and the bolds to help with vision problems.

Take away these three series and the comparative figures of the three W's for 1948-1960 become :-

.....

Here is how the three W's fared at home and away during this period.

..... I just said that he missed three series during the period 1948-1960 (when their careers overlap) .

.... I have started my post with bringing the stats first down to the common denominator of the Tests/series where they all played. Thus I have taken for my stats the eight series in which all three played and the one series in which only Walcott and Worrell played (Weekes having retired). My entire post is based on this.

So here are the stats for the three W's only against England and Australia (1948-1960)

He probably meant up until the time Weekes and Worrell retired.

. . . read my lips. . . and Good bye.

I have no more time to waste on this.

 

[Beleg]

^

that might be because you dont have much of a point?

 

[SJS]

^

that might be because you dont have much of a point?

I rarely have.