Best After The Don

[kyear2]

Tough one, not sure I agree SRT is the 2nd best tbh but certainly right up there in the top contenders. The main pros and cons imo below

Pros
Uncovered pitches
poorer bats
protective gear
longer boundaries

Cons
better fast bowlers
more varied pitches
better fieldsman
more video footage for tactics

I would think Bradman would average 74.94

High 60's mid seventies sound about right. Not that convinced that Sachin is the second best though, but close enough.

 

[Red]

If people believe Bradman's average would have dropped significantly in the modern era, then what does it do to their opinion of guys like Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, McCabe, Ponsford etc?

If we argue arbitrarily that Bradman would only average 75 (about 25% off) in the 90s, surely that would mean someone like McCabe's average would drop to about 36, and if teleported to the 90s, Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 43-45 instead of close to 60? In which case, we can clearly argue that Taylor, Boon, Slater and Gooch were basically on par with Hobbs and Sutcliffe as test batsmen.

Am I doing this right?

 

[archie mac]

Ironically, that average of near 75 was my wild guess on one of our Bradman threads several months ago. This figure would also translate in rough terms to Bradman being 25% better than Tendulkar.

Fair enough.

High 60's mid seventies sound about right. Not that convinced that Sachin is the second best though, but close enough.

See what happens when three smarty pants get together? They agree

 

[watson]

If people believe Bradman's average would have dropped significantly in the modern era, then what does it do to their opinion of guys like Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, McCabe, Ponsford etc?

If we argue arbitrarily that Bradman would only average 75 (about 25% off) in the 90s, surely that would mean someone like McCabe's average would drop to about 36, and if teleported to the 90s, Hobbs and Sutcliffe would average 43-45 instead of close to 60? In which case, we can clearly argue that Taylor, Boon, Slater and Gooch were basically on par with Hobbs and Sutcliffe as test batsmen.

Am I doing this right?

Kind of. But what's easier to maintain? An average of 50 or an average of 100?

In order to maintain an average of 100 the batsman has to score a fair proportion of 'mega-tons' to offset the odd duck. This is extremely hard to do when facing Holding/Roberts, Wasim/Akram, Donald/Pollock, or McGrath/Warne etc etc.

In order to maintain an average of 50 the batsman merely has to be consistent without necessarily scoring 'mega-tons'. After all, Jardine managed an average of nearly 50 by scoring only one Test century in his career. But he did get a lot of 50s-75s.

(Or have I gone mathmatically mental with the above 'logic'?)

 

[Red]

Kind of. But what's easier to maintain? An average of 50 or an average of 100?

In order to maintain an average of 100 the batsman has to score a fair proportion of 'mega-tons' to offset the odd duck.

In order to maintain an average of 50 the batsman merely has to be consistent, After all, Jardine managed an average of nearly 50 by scoring only one Test century in his career. But he did get a lot of 50s-75s.

(Or have I gone mathmatically mental with the above 'logic'?)

So, by the same logic, if Tendulkar, or someone else from the modern era, went back to Bradman's era, what do you think he'd average?

 

[watson]

So, by the same logic, if Tendulkar, or someone else from the modern era, went back to Bradman's era, what do you think he'd average?

Over 50 something Tests, and following the same 'relaxed intinery' (Australia + England tours only) as Bradman - 70ish.

After all, Ponting managed to average about 70 over 50 Tests when he was in his pomp. I see no reason why Tendulkar couldn't do the same during the 1930s.

 

[centurymaker]

Ironically, that average of near 75 was my wild guess on one of our Bradman threads several months ago. This figure would also translate in rough terms to Bradman being 25% better than Tendulkar.

Fair enough.

Actually thats close to 40% better

or that tendulkar is 70% as good as Bradman...

percentages like that are always tricky to comprehend

 

[archie mac]

So, by the same logic, if Tendulkar, or someone else from the modern era, went back to Bradman's era, what do you think he'd average?

Over 50 something Tests, and following the same 'relaxed intinery' (Australia + England tours only) as Bradman - 70ish.

After all, Ponting managed to average about 70 over 50 Tests when he was in his pomp. I see no reason why Tendulkar couldn't do the same during the 1930s.

Interesting, he may struggle for quite a period. Mi****s now often go for six in Bradman's day they almost never did. Sticky wickets would have caused him trouble as well.

 

[centurymaker]

Over 50 something Tests, and following the same 'relaxed intinery' (Australia + England tours only) as Bradman - 70ish.

After all, Ponting managed to average about 70 over 50 Tests when he was in his pomp. I see no reason why Tendulkar couldn't do the same during the 1930s.

You know what, I am loving your input.

Btw I tend to agree with that avg of 70 (but not all current greats would, it'll depend on the player)

 

[watson]

Actually thats close to 40% better

or that tendulkar is 70% as good as Bradman...

percentages like that are always tricky to comprehend

Fair enough, didn't think it through enough.

But 50/75 is 0.67. Not sure how your 0.4 or 0.7 fits into it short of some strange rounding-up.

 

[watson]

You know what, I am loving your input.

Btw I tend to agree with that avg of 70 (but not all current greats would, it'll depend on the player)

Cheers. We do try

 

[Flametree]

Interesting, he may struggle for quite a period. Mi****s now often go for six in Bradman's day they almost never did. Sticky wickets would have caused him trouble as well.

Not to mention that the first time he misses a short one he's in hospital rather than just checking to see if he needs a new helmet...

 

[watson]

Interesting, he may struggle for quite a period. Mi****s now often go for six in Bradman's day they almost never did. Sticky wickets would have caused him trouble as well.

Bradman's stat's on 'sticky' wickets are not good, so I don't think he has any significant advantage there.

 

[archie mac]

Not to mention that the first time he misses a short one he's in hospital rather than just checking to see if he needs a new helmet...

Yes, the fear factor especially if he faced BL would have been a new thing.

Bradman's stat's on 'sticky' wickets are not good, so I don't think he has any significant advantage there.

Bit of a myth tbh. His average on four tours of England would suggest no real concerns surely?

 

[bagapath]

This is extremely hard to do when facing Holding/Roberts, Wasim/Akram, Donald/Pollock, or McGrath/Warne etc etc.


(Or have I gone mathmatically mental with the above 'logic'?)

It is not correct to assume that larwood, tate, bedser, verity and voce were club bowlers.

 

[archie mac]

It is not correct to assume that larwood, tate, bedser, verity and voce were club bowlers.

Don't forget Farnes

 

[watson]

Yes, the fear factor especially if he faced BL would have been a new thing.



Bit of a myth tbh. His average on four tours of England would suggest no real concerns surely?

CLR James questioned Bradman's ability on 'wet or uncertain' wickets and thought Headley the better batsman on such pitches;

Headley: Nascitur Non Fit

By CLR James

.....What I want to draw special attention to here is George’s play on wet or uncertain wickets. Here are his scores on such wickets in England;

1933
V Northhamptonshire: 52 out of 129 (Other high scores: 32 and 15)
V Yorkshire: 25 out of 115 (Other high scores: 25 and 16)
V Nottinghamshire: 66 out of 314 (Other high scores: 54 and 51)
V Lancashire: 66 out of 174 (Other high scores: 29 and 18)
V Leistershire: 60 out of 156 (Other high scores: 22 and 19)
V Leveson-Gower’s XI: 35 out of 251 (Other high scores: 70 and 44)

1939
V Surrey: 52 out of 224 (Other high scores: 58 and 52)
V Yorkshire: 61 out of 234 (Other high scores: 72 and 28)
V England: 51 out of 133 & 5 out of 4/43 (Other high scores: 47 and 16 & 13 and 11)
V Somerset: 0 out of 84 (Other high scores: 45 and 17)
V Gloustershire: 40 out of 220 & 5 out of 162 (Other high scores: 50 and 28 & 43 and 26)

In those 13 innings George passed 50 seven times. Three times only he scored less than double figures, and in his other three innings his scores of were 25, 35 and 40. I believe those figures would be hard to beat.

Look at a similar list made for Bradman by Ray Robinson in his fascinating book Between Wickets;

1928
Brisbane Test: 1 out of 66 (Top scorer: Woodfull 30 n.o)

1929
Sydney: 15 out of 128 (Top scorer: Fairfax 40)

1930
Notts Test: 8 out of 144 (Top scorer: Kippax 64 n.o)
Northants: 22 out of 93 (Top scorer: Bradman 22)
Glouster: 42 out of 157 (Top scorer: Ponsford 51)

1932
Perth: 3 out of 159 (Top scorer: McCabe 43)
Melbourne: 13 out of 19/2

1933
Sydney: 1 out of 180 (Top scorer: Rowe 70)

1934
Lords Test: 13 out of 118 (Top scorer: Woodfull 43)

1936
Brisbane Test: 0 out of 58 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Sydney Test: 0 out of 80 (Top scorer: O’Reilly 37 n.o)

1938
Middlesex: 5 out of 132 (Top scorer: Chipperfield 36)
Yorkshire: 42 out of 132 (Top scorer: Bradman 42)

In fifteen innings Bradman passed 50 only once, 40 only twice, and 15 only four times. His average is 16.66. George’s average is 39.85. You need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them.

Bradman’s curious deficiency on wet wickets has been the subject of much searching comment. George’s superior record has been noticed before, and one critic, I think it was Neville Cardus, has stated that Headley has good claims to be considered an all wickets the finest of the inter-war batsman. I would not go that far. It is easy to give figures and make comparisons and draw rational conclusions. The fact remains that the odds were 10 to 1 that in any Test Bradman would make 150 or 200 runs, and the more runs were needed the more certain he was to make them. Yet if Bradman never failed in a Test series, neither did George. I believe Bradman and Headley are the only two between the wars of whom that can be said. Hammond failed terribly in 1930 in England and almost as badly in the West Indies in 1934-35.

But there is another point I wish to bring out. Between 1930 and 1938 Bradman had with him in England Ponsford, Woodfull, McCabe, Kippax, Brown, and Hassett. All scored heavily. In 1933 and 1939 West Indian batsan scored runs at various times, but George had nobody he could depend on. In 1033 his average in the Tests was 55.40. Amoung those who played regularly the next average was 23.83. In 1939 his average in Tests was 66.80. The next best batsman averaged 57.66, but his total of 173 he made in 137 in one innings. Next was 27,50. It can be argued taht this stiffened his resistance. I do not think so. And George most certainly does not. ‘I would be putting on my pads and sometimes before I has finished I would hear that the first wicket had gone.’ This is what he carried on his shoulders for nearly 10 years. None, not a single one of the great batsman, has ever been burdened for so long......

From Beyond a Boundary (1963)

 

[Satyanash89]

All this talk about adjusting Bradman's average sets such a dangerous precedent.
Just consider Ponting. We all know that he did the bulk of his scoring in 2001-2006, his amazing purple patch.Thing is, he did it against attacks considered the weakest in decades. By everyone's logic here, Ponting's peak wouldn't have been anywhere near as high if he played his whole career in the 80s and 90s. You could probably adjust his average to the low 40s then. Doing so would be unfair and exceedingly silly don't you agree?

You can NEVER predict what Bradman's average might have been if he had played in the 90s. And seriously people are making the 90s out to be some sort of batsman's graveyard. Imran, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald etc were great bowlers, of course. They werent unbeatable gods FFS. Loads of batsmen found ways to score against them and maintained high averages throughout the 90s. Tendulkar averaged close to 60 in the 90s. Bradman wouldve been fine, he faced Bodyline, widely accepted to be dangerous and exceedingly difficult to score off, just the prospect of facing Larwood bowling bouncers at your neck with the leg side filled with fielders is a scary thought. Even with the odds stacked so heavily against him, Bradman averaged over 55 for the series

 

[smash84]

Ian Chappell picks Garry Sobers

The Jury's Out: Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[archie mac]

CLR James questioned Bradman's ability on 'wet or uncertain' wickets and thought Headley the better batsman on such pitches;

Funnily I was just reviewing Beyond a Boundary for CW.

First thing is CLR seems only to have picked the innings in which Bradman failed. Where was his great effort on a wet wicket during the 1938 Test series?

Also sticky wickets in Australia were much worse as a rule than those faced in England, the 1928-29 match was the first 'sticky' Bradman ever batted on.

Bradman was no Hobbs on wet wickets but you don't average near a 100 on four tours of England if you can't play on wet wickets

He didn't like them though that is not at question. Famously Jack Fingleton said Bradman pretended to injury himself during a Test at home against SA so he would not have to bat on a sticky wicket