Best After The Don

[Coronis]

Do you honestly belive that the bowlers that Bradman (and Hammond and Headley as well) were better than the ones faced by Sobers, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara or even Hutton? Or even comparable?

Do you belive that the LBW rule changes, the increase of stump size, increase of games played and overall level of competition and fielding (and importantly catching) and playing in more than two contries wouldn't have made a difference to his early career numbers.

The fact that the only two coutries that he scored over 100 againts had poor attacks and were not to the level of England, his own team's or even the W.I's of that era. That part of the difference in average between Bradman and Headley is partially explained that apart from both playing againts England, Headley had to face Australia's attack and Grimmett and Ironmonger and Bradman got India and South Africa.
That the closest attack that Bradman faced to a modern attack was Body line and he averaged 55, and that attack was devised by Jaradine because he though the Don was somewhat suspect to short pitched fast bowling and that the bolwers of body line cannot be compared to Lillle or Thompson, or Lindwall and Miller far less the 70's quartet or Marshall, Garner and Holding. He struggled initiall againts the W.I attack of Martindale and Constantine also being dropped before scoring (a very good) his first of only two hundreds in the series. The man was great and the best, he wasn't god.

Exactly.

 

[fredfertang]

There were at least dozen of bowlers from 1970-2000 who were distinctly better than Larwood.

.... and clearly so obviously that that sweeping statement doesn't even need to have any reasoning to back it up

 

[Viscount Tom]

And conveniently forgetting the different LBW rules and fewer games played quality of defensive techniques etc.

 

[harsh.ag]

Do you honestly believe that the bowlers that Bradman (and Hammond and Headley as well) were better than the ones faced by Sobers, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara or even Hutton? Or even comparable?

Do you believe that the LBW rule changes, the increase of stump size, increase of games played and overall level of competition and fielding (and importantly catching) and playing in more than two countries wouldn't have made a difference to his early career numbers.

The fact that the only two countries that he scored over 100 against had poor attacks and were not to the level of England, his own team's or even the W.I's of that era. That part of the difference in average between Bradman and Headley is partially explained that apart from both playing against England, Headley had to face Australia's attack and Grimmett and Ironmonger and Bradman got India and South Africa.
That the closest attack that Bradman faced to a modern attack was Body line and he averaged 55, and that attack was devised by Jardine because he though the Don was somewhat suspect to short pitched fast bowling and that the bowlers of body line cannot be compared to Lillee or Thompson, or Lindwall and Miller far less the 70's quartet or Marshall, Garner and Holding. He struggled initially against the W.I attack of Martindale and Constantine also being dropped before scoring (a very good) century, his first of only two hundreds in the series. The man was great and the best, he wasn't god.

I think there are some holes in these arguments.

1) You are not taking into account the fact that nobody before or after the Don (and his teammates in that series) had to encounter bodyline tactics, because of the rule that was put in place limiting the number of fielders behind square on the leg side to 2, not to mention that it became a taboo. So how do you know that other ATG batsmen would not have had a similar drop in their batting average if such a tactic was used against them?

2) If Bradman's average was inflated by weak attacks, would you say the fellow batsmen in his team also had inflated averages? How much would you want to lower the averages of Ponsford (48), Woodfull (46), Barnes (63), Hassett (46), McCabe (48) to "normalize" them? Perhaps they were the kind of batsmen who "actually" would have just averaged in the high 30s, right?

3) If things such as stump size, LBW rule changes, increase of games played and overall competition are so much of a factor, why don't Bradman's predecessors (and Hammond, the other ATG of that time apart from Headley who got to play against weak teams having not had to face his own side's good attack) have such a high average? Why didn't Hobbs break the barrier of 80+ average?

Did all of eternity conspire to aid Donald Bradman his record?

Now, read the sig.

 

[fredfertang]

There is, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable argument to be put forward that had Bradman played today then without the spectre of uncovered wickets, and the benefit of all the protective equipment that today's batsmen have, that he would have been even more effective than he was back in the day - don't necessarily subscribe to it myself, but to dismiss Bradman's figures out of hand on account of the time when he played is far too simplistic

 

[harsh.ag]

There is, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable argument to be put forward that had Bradman played today then without the spectre of uncovered wickets, and the benefit of all the protective equipment that today's batsmen have, that he would have been even more effective than he was back in the day - don't necessarily subscribe to it myself, but to dismiss Bradman's figures out of hand on account of the time when he played is far too simplistic

My position is that I won't accept an explanation which does not show why the averages of his teammates were completely normal during this time and not in the high 50s (apart from Barnes and he just played 13 tests).

 

[fredfertang]

My position is that I won't accept an explanation which does not show why the averages of his teammates were completely normal during this time and not in the high 50s (apart from Barnes and he just played 13 tests).

You won't get one from me - as an Englishman I've spent years trying to find a credible basis on which to assert that Bradman wasn't the best by a country mile, but there isn't one - there is an argument to be had as far as WG is concerned, but the evidence is far too tenuous

 

[Prince EWS]

You won't get one from me - as an Englishman I've spent years trying to find a credible basis on which to assert that Bradman wasn't the best by a country mile, but there isn't one - there is an argument to be had as far as WG is concerned, but the evidence is far too tenuous

If you judge a player purely relative to his peers than Grace was frankly every bit as good as Bradman as a batsman by that measure, and there's plenty of hard evidence to support that. I rate Grace the best cricketer ever for that reason - he was also a handy bowler - but in terms of Test cricket which we tend to use as a the basis for most of our opinions, lists and rankings on this website, he probably just lies in the very very good category. I rate Imran the best Test cricketer for reasons I've stated previously.

When people first hear those two opinions of mine then they tend to jump to the conclusion that I'm a Bradman-deriding sceptic who has some intriguing opinion on why the numbers don't tell the full story with him, but it's not so. He was always twice as good a Test batsman as his nearest rival across history, and I have no intention of bringing down an absolute freak of a player in explaining why I don't rate him the best cricketer or the best Test cricketer. All arguments to that effect seem to centre around the "logic" of "I can't possibly comprehend someone that good, therefore there must have been something afoot so I'm discounting him totally." In the end I think I just have more reasons to rate Grace and Imran up at that level as players than others do.

 

[fredfertang]

If you judge a player purely relative to his peers than Grace was frankly every bit as good as Bradman as a batsman by that measure.

.. on that measure alone probably a great deal better - I'm sure your aware of those stats I've trotted out a few times about centuries that illustrate his dominance - the trouble you have, in my view anyway, is that the game was at such a formative stage then that he very possibly had stolen a march, technique-wise, on his peers

 

[Prince EWS]

.. on that measure alone probably a great deal better - I'm sure your aware of those stats I've trotted out a few times about centuries that illustrate his dominance - the trouble you have, in my view anyway, is that the game was at such a formative stage then that he very possibly had stolen a march, technique-wise, on his peers

Yeah; he had an absurd period of 10+ years in the middle of his career in which his standardised average in county cricket was about 115 as well (Bradman's was about 95 in Test cricket using roughly the same measure).

In the end it depends which way you want to look at it. Realistically he probably wasn't as proficient technically or in terms of pure batsmanship as even Ed Cowan but by that logic there are probably hundreds of thousands of scientists alive right now better than Einstein, so I'd prefer to look at it the other way. If he got the jump technique-wise on his contemporaries then good on him I say; he deserves credit for taking his game to that level and being better than the mean by such a massive amount. To me, if we're going to deem the "relativity to one's peers method" as too flawed - and it does have some flaws, mainly relating to the levels of exposure and professionalism - then I don't think I could actually come up with another way to compare players between eras, so I'd give up the ghost entirely. It's certainly not a view I wish to ram down people's throats or argue profusely about, but it's the only way my mind can come to terms with the process we so regularly try to undertake here. I was merely contending your statement that the evidence is tenuous; we don't lack evidence, we just lack consensus of methodology. That's not a bad thing at all mind you.

 

[fredfertang]

Yeah; he had an absurd period of 10+ years in the middle of his career in which his standardised average in county cricket was about 115 as well (Bradman's was about 95 in Test cricket using roughly the same measure).

In the end it depends which way you want to look at it. Realistically he probably wasn't as proficient technically or in terms of pure batsmanship as even Ed Cowan but by that logic there are probably hundreds of thousands of scientists alive right now better than Einstein, so I'd prefer to look at it the other way. If he got the jump technique-wise on his contemporaries then good on him I say; he deserves credit for taking his game to that level and being better than the mean by such a massive amount. To me, if we're going to deem the "relativity to one's peers method" as too flawed - and it does have some flaws, mainly relating to the levels of exposure and professionalism - then I don't think I could actually come up with another way to compare players between eras, so I'd give up the ghost entirely. It's certainly not a view I wish to ram down people's throats or argue profusely about, but it's the only way my mind can come to terms with the process we so regularly try to undertake here. I was merely contending your statement that the evidence is tenuous; we don't lack evidence, we just lack consensus of methodology. That's not a bad thing at all mind you.

Indeed, not my finest moment in terms of articulating what I actually meant to say

 

[coolkuna]

Yeah, I have trouble rating bowler V batsman as if it was an individual contest. It just never is, in cricket.. There are way too many factors to be able to boil it down to such simplified levels. Very very rarely it is true.. Like SL Vs any top side in the 2000s esp in SL could well be thought of as Murali Vs that side but the flip side to that argument is the series against India when Mendis debuted.. So cricket is perhaps one of the most complex games to judge based on the pure stats that are available, simply because the game is affected by so many factors that it can never really be boiled down to a number V number for player comparisons assuming all other factors were the same. They just never are.

It isn't about particular bowler Vs particular batsman. To me, Aussie Test attack was great in 90s and 2000s mainly because of McGrath. Without him, it was just half the attack, imo. It is interesting to see the Aussie team performance stats with and without McGrath (while McGrath was still active). With McGrath, they lost 3 Test series (excluding the one-off Test against India in 96) from 94 to 2007, all 3 series losses came in the sub-continent. Of these 3 losses, 2 of them were very closely fought. Aussie Win-Loss ratio, excluding Zimb and Bang, was about 80-19 with McGrath in the team (about 4+ wins to 1 loss). Without McGrath, their Win-Loss ratio, excluding Zimb and Bdesh, collapses to 10-8, during the same era. Even in Ashes 2005, they did not lose a single test in which McGrath played (and lost both which he missed).

Even when Warne was banned for a year in 2003, Aus did not lose a single Test series. And their W/L record during entire Warne era, doesn't change as drastically just counting those matches when Warne was absent.

During McGrath's time, if averages of Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman against Aus collapse from 92/84/67 (in McGrath's absence) to 36/31/44 respectively (in McGrath's presence), then McGrath's presence definitely has a huge impact imo. The difference is drastic and very apparent to me.

And very importantly, all these three batsmen have played fair share of innings under both circumstances (with and without McGrath in the Aus line-up, at home and away) during McGrath's time. Tendulkar, for example, played 18 innings against Aus with McGrath (12 at home, 6 away) and 12 innings against Aus without McGrath (5 at home, 7 away) in this period.

Let me ask you your opinion instead, what do you think was the main reason for such a big difference in their batting stats? If anything, they had a lot more "home-advantage" while playing McGrath, and more batting-friendly conditions too (never faced McGrath at WACA or Gabba). Their stats should have been the other way around.

Yes, there might have been other factors which caused their stats to suffer so much in McGrath's presence, but to me McGrath's presence itself was an undeniable factor.

Again, the question isn't about a particular batsman against a particular bowler at all, it is about a particular batsman's performance against a decent attack imo (Aus without McGrath), as compared to his performance against a great attack imo (Aus with McGrath).

To a lesser extent, above could be said about Donald and RSA attack of Donald's time also.

 

[harsh.ag]

It isn't about particular bowler Vs particular batsman. To me, Aussie Test attack was great in 90s and 2000s mainly because of McGrath. Without him, it was just half the attack, imo. It is interesting to see the Aussie team performance stats with and without McGrath (while McGrath was still active). With McGrath, they lost 3 Test series (excluding the one-off Test against India in 96) from 94 to 2007, all 3 series losses came in the sub-continent. Of these 3 losses, 2 of them were very closely fought. Aussie Win-Loss ratio, excluding Zimb and Bang, was about 80-19 with McGrath in the team (about 4+ wins to 1 loss). Without McGrath, their Win-Loss ratio, excluding Zimb and Bdesh, collapses to 10-8, during the same era. Even in Ashes 2005, they did not lose a single test in which McGrath played (and lost both which he missed).

Even when Warne was banned for a year in 2003, Aus did not lose a single Test series. And their W/L record during entire Warne era, doesn't change as drastically just counting those matches when Warne was absent.

During McGrath's time, if averages of Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman against Aus collapse from 92/84/67 (in McGrath's absence) to 36/31/44 respectively (in McGrath's presence), then McGrath's presence definitely has a huge impact imo. The difference is drastic and very apparent to me.

And very importantly, all these three batsmen have played fair share of innings under both circumstances (with and without McGrath in the Aus line-up, at home and away) during McGrath's time. Tendulkar, for example, played 18 innings against Aus with McGrath (12 at home, 6 away) and 12 innings against Aus without McGrath (5 at home, 7 away) in this period.

Let me ask you your opinion instead, what do you think was the main reason for such a big difference in their batting stats? If anything, they had a lot more "home-advantage" while playing McGrath, and more batting-friendly conditions too (never faced McGrath at WACA or Gabba). Their stats should have been the other way around.

Yes, there might have been other factors which caused their stats to suffer so much in McGrath's presence, but to me McGrath's presence itself was an undeniable factor.

Again, the question isn't about a particular batsman against a particular bowler at all, it is about a particular batsman's performance against a decent attack imo (Aus without McGrath), as compared to his performance against a great attack imo (Aus with McGrath).

To a lesser extent, above could be said about Donald and RSA attack of Donald's time also.

If the accuracy and context of the numbers are proper, then this is quite a revelation. Great post man. Welcome to the forum! I do remember analyzing that Aussies lost Ashes because of McGrath's absence, but didn't know about the rest.

 

[Red]

That the closest attack that Bradman faced to a modern attack was Body line and he averaged 55, and that attack was devised by Jaradine because he though the Don was somewhat suspect to short pitched fast bowling and that the bolwers of body line cannot be compared to Lillle or Thompson, or Lindwall and Miller far less the 70's quartet or Marshall, Garner and Holding. He struggled initiall againts the W.I attack of Martindale and Constantine also being dropped before scoring (a very good) his first of only two hundreds in the series. The man was great and the best, he wasn't god.

- I refute the claim that Bodyline was used solely because Jardine thought Bradman susceptible to short pitched bowling. It was largely employed because it was the only method that could be used to curb the incredible influence Bradman was having on tests. It was allowed by the laws, but it was unsporting.

- Bradman still averaged above his contemporaries in Bodyline. McCabe was the only other batsman to average (just) above 40 in that series, while Bradman still averaged 55.

- Is there a legitimate reason you think the bowlers of bodyline can't be compared to more modern bowlers? Because I can't think of one. I've seen footage of Larwood and Voce bowling in that series, and it was no tea-party for the batsman. Larwood looks every bit as quick, hostile and accurate as any of the bowlers you mention above.

- Finally, and most importantly, the rules were changed after the bodyline series so that "direct attack" on the body was not allowed, and that no more than 2 fielders were allowed behind square on the leg side.

 

[fredfertang]

- I refute the claim that Bodyline was used solely because Jardine thought Bradman susceptible to short pitched bowling. It was largely employed because it was the only method that could be used to curb the incredible influence Bradman was having on tests. It was allowed by the laws, but it was unsporting.

Leg theory's purpose was to dictate where the batsman played the ball ie he had to let it go by or play to leg but couldn't play it on the off - it was actually meant to be, as it always had been in the past, a negative tactic - it turned into something else partly because of uneven bounce and partly because Larwood was so ****ing quick

I've never been convinced by the unsporting argument - it was no more unsporting than loading all the dice in the batsman's favour, as the rulemaker's had by then managed to do

 

[kyear2]

Leg theory's purpose was to dictate where the batsman played the ball ie he had to let it go by or play to leg but couldn't play it on the off - it was actually meant to be, as it always had been in the past, a negative tactic - it turned into something else partly because of uneven bounce and partly because Larwood was so ****ing quick

I've never been convinced by the unsporting argument - it was no more unsporting than loading all the dice in the batsman's favour, as the rulemaker's had by then managed to do

Leg theory never really ended, To varying degrees W.I tried it vs Hammond, Lindwall and Miller used it vs Weekes, Lillee and Thompson vs the W.I in '75 and the W.I used it pretty well vs Bedi's team when they famously declared in both innings.

 

[fredfertang]

Leg theory never really ended, To varying degrees W.I tried it vs Hammond, Lindwall and Miller used it vs Weekes, Lillee and Thompson vs the W.I in '75 and the W.I used it pretty well vs Bedi's team when they famously declared in both innings.

Indeed it didn't - Trevor Bailey for one used to employ it to slow the scoring rate down, but without the five or six close fielders on the leg side it was never Bodyline again and, since the restriction on close fielders behind square on the leg side came in in the 50s, never will be.

 

[complan]

- I refute the claim that Bodyline was used solely because Jardine thought Bradman susceptible to short pitched bowling. It was largely employed because it was the only method that could be used to curb the incredible influence Bradman was having on tests. It was allowed by the laws, but it was unsporting.

I'm no expert on the history of Bodyline. But I thought the main purpose was to psychologically scare Bradman, because Jardine thought he was "yellow". That's why they bowled Bodyline even against the other Australians, and even before the Test Series started. I remember reading somewhere that Jardine was of the firm belief that the real reason Bradman did not play the First Test, and was even willing to opt out of the series, was because he was scared (of being hit, being a failure).

 

[fredfertang]

I'm no expert on the history of Bodyline. But I thought the main purpose was to psychologically scare Bradman, because Jardine thought he was "yellow". That's why they bowled Bodyline even against the other Australians, and even before the Test Series started. I remember reading somewhere that Jardine was of the firm belief that the real reason Bradman did not play the First Test, and was even willing to opt out of the series, was because he was scared (of being hit, being a failure).

Not really - Jardine knew Bradman was far too fleet of foot to get hit, but you're right that he thought Bradman was scared of the short stuff, so that's why he reasoned that he'd just sway out of the way rather than take the leg theory on in the way that McCabe did in in his famous innings in the first Test. In that belief he was right of course, but what Bradman did do was to back away and try and cut the leg theory into the huge open spaces on the off side, but that's a different story

 

[Red]

I'm no expert on the history of Bodyline. But I thought the main purpose was to psychologically scare Bradman, because Jardine thought he was "yellow". That's why they bowled Bodyline even against the other Australians, and even before the Test Series started. I remember reading somewhere that Jardine was of the firm belief that the real reason Bradman did not play the First Test, and was even willing to opt out of the series, was because he was scared (of being hit, being a failure).

Not really - Jardine knew Bradman was far too fleet of foot to get hit, but you're right that he thought Bradman was scared of the short stuff, so that's why he reasoned that he'd just sway out of the way rather than take the leg theory on in the way that McCabe did in in his famous innings in the first Test. In that belief he was right of course, but what Bradman did do was to back away and try and cut the leg theory into the huge open spaces on the off side, but that's a different story

If anything, Bodyline highlights how completely and utterly brave Bradman was. And the same could be said of most cricketers in the pre-helmet era. The actual act of going to the middle to face something that hostile and quick, aimed at your body and your head, is staggeringly brave.

Fred, in terms of "taking on" Bodyline the way McCabe did, do you think there was much benefit in doing that during that series? I know McCabe managed it in that incredible innings he played, but really the odds were highly in favour of the batsman being hit and killed, or hitting it to one of the many fielders on the leg-side. If a batsman is bowled relentless quick bouncers over and over again, regardless of how quick his eyes or hands are, he WILL get hit, eventually. And the stakes (pre-helmet) were bloody high.