Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[The Sean]

It does amuse me the way this subject polarises opinion,and particularly the way that folk who I assume are essentially intelligent human beings come out with such mindless drivel.

I'll admit to being in the "Bradman" camp, but not because I particularly like him, but because of his dominance over 20 years - yes that's 20 years - and he lost seven good years to the war - - his stats are so far ahead of his peers that it defies logic to compare his dominance with guys whose stats are very similar to at least half a dozen of their contemporaries.

If he played today I think the biggest problem Bradman would have would be with the quality of fielding. Piercing the gaps in the field was one of his great talents, and he'd find that harder, but then he'd have a much better bat, so perhaps that wouldn't matter.

He'd also have had to face more genuinely quick bowlers, and its said he didn't like real pace. But that's a silly argument really, 'cos what he didn't like to do was risk injury. The speed of his reactions and his hand/eye co-ordination were always superlative, so with all the modern protective equipment I reckon he'd have come off best against the quicks, like he did against Larwood in 1930.

And the change he'd have liked most would be covered wickets. His weakness on sticky wickets is overstated, if only because they cut everyone down to size, but it was undoubtedly the major flaw in his CV - he was no Sutcliffe - but he'd never encounter one now, so his biggest problem would be gone.

And don't forget Bradman was adaptable too - the biggest law change in his time was in the lbw law - a whole new aspect of the game opened up once bowlers no longer had to pitch the ball in line to get a decision. Bradman played just about exactly half his career under the old law and half under the new - he was out lbw 16 times pre 1935, and 11 times after, so he sorted that one out without any trouble - the suggestion that he wouldn't have adapted his technique to other changes is just ludicrous.

/thread

#wishfulthinking?

 

[sledger]

That is how to win at foruming right there.

 

[watson]

Some useful and interesting stats. Here are the top 3 batsman;


1. Bradman's best decade: 1929-1939 'Adjusted Average' = 103.93 (Top 7 Peer Average = 37.37)

2. Sober's best decade: 1958-1968 'Adjusted Average' = 73.75 (Top 7 Peer Average = 35.97)

3. Hobb's best decade: 1912-1926 'Adjusted Average' = 70.65 (Top 7 Peer Average = 34.47)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/621992.html


Therefore;

1. Bradman is 2.78 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

2. Sobers is 2.05 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

3. Hobbs is 2.04 times a better batsman than his batting peers.


Therefore, in relative terms Bradman is better than his nearest rivals, Sobers and Hobbs (over the course of a decade), by a factor of about 1.35

 

[centurymaker]

Where is Lara? He is not even on the list.

 

[centurymaker]

ohh I suppose he was a lot more inconsistent.

 

[watson]

ohh I suppose he was a lot more inconsistent.

You could easily find 10 excellent non-consecutive years in Lara's career. But the years 1996, 2000, and 2002 weren't very good and interrupt the flow.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

 

[NUFAN]

Do you really think it was a good idea to put an apostrophe before the S.

 

[the big bambino]

Some useful and interesting stats. Here are the top 3 batsman;


1. Bradman's best decade: 1929-1939 'Adjusted Average' = 103.93 (Top 7 Peer Average = 37.37)

2. Sober's best decade: 1958-1968 'Adjusted Average' = 73.75 (Top 7 Peer Average = 35.97)

3. Hobb's best decade: 1912-1926 'Adjusted Average' = 70.65 (Top 7 Peer Average = 34.47)

Blogs: Test players: a look into their best decades | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo


Therefore;

1. Bradman is 2.78 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

2. Sobers is 2.05 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

3. Hobbs is 2.04 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

I wonder why he didn't pick DGB's decade starting from 1928 and ending in 1938? Would've made more sense to me. Anyone know what the column "Values T7-Oth" mean? Yeah I wonder did he overlook Lara? Also Headley would've been interesting too. Wouldn't mind knowing Clarke's comparative over the last year and a half too.

 

[watson]

Do you really think it was a good idea to put an apostrophe before the S.

Why not? The decade belongs to Bradman. But I'm happy to have my grammar corrected.

Actually, just checked with my daughter who recently won a 'Henry Lawson Literature Prize' (I'm allowed a bit of parental bragging) and she says the apostrophe is OK. So it must be right.

 

[Coronis]

I wonder why he didn't pick DGB's decade starting from 1928 and ending in 1938? Would've made more sense to me. Anyone know what the column "Values T7-Oth" mean? Yeah I wonder did he overlook Lara? Also Headley would've been interesting too. Wouldn't mind knowing Clarke's comparative over the last year and a half too.

He did have a poor first few innings iirc.

 

[the big bambino]

Of course (red faced).

 

[watson]

I wonder why he didn't pick DGB's decade starting from 1928 and ending in 1938? Would've made more sense to me. Anyone know what the column "Values T7-Oth" mean? Yeah I wonder did he overlook Lara? Also Headley would've been interesting too. Wouldn't mind knowing Clarke's comparative over the last year and a half too.

Not sure as the relevant paragraph doesn't make it clear;

6. The Top-7 Batting average for the specific range of Tests is considered for peer comparisons. This is compared to the all-time Top-7 Batting average of 35.92 and then adjusted. Couple of examples will explain this.......

 

[ankitj]

It's fine to have an opinion. It ****s some people when that opinion constantly blathered on about on every cricket forum online ad nauseum by a billion people who will jump at every opportunity to say why Bradman wasn't that great, but neglect to answer why Tendulkar doesn't have double the average of the other great players of his time.

A billion people haven't heard of Bradman, I assure you.

 

[watson]

I think that the author's summary is worth quoting;

Bradman's best decade was between 1929 and 1939, as expected. The adjusted batting average is 103.93 (unadjusted avge 104.02), which is around 4% above his career batting average. This indicates that virtually any decade of Bradman is likely to produce a number around 100. Sobers, whose adjusted average is a magnificent 73.75 (73.04), between 1958 and 1968 is in second place. It is the first time a player, over a long period of 10 years, comes within 30% of Bradman. Hobbs, with a best decade spread across the WW1 (1912 to 1926) is next with 70.65 (65.21). Walcott and Weekes follow, with adjusted averages either side of 65.

Tendulkar, with a best decade of 1992 to 2002, appears next in the list with 63.19 (62.45), followed by the old-timers, Barrington, Sutcliffe and Hutton, comfortably in excess of 60. Jacques Kallis rounds off the top-10 with an adjusted average of 60.86, between 2001 and 2011, seriously adjusted downwards from 66.13. He is in fact third in the unadjusted table. This confirms the significant impact of adjusting against peer values.

 

[The Sean]

Some useful and interesting stats. Here are the top 3 batsman;


1. Bradman's best decade: 1929-1939 'Adjusted Average' = 103.93 (Top 7 Peer Average = 37.37)

2. Sober's best decade: 1958-1968 'Adjusted Average' = 73.75 (Top 7 Peer Average = 35.97)

3. Hobb's best decade: 1912-1926 'Adjusted Average' = 70.65 (Top 7 Peer Average = 34.47)

Blogs: Test players: a look into their best decades | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo


Therefore;

1. Bradman is 2.78 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

2. Sobers is 2.05 times a better batsman than his batting peers.

3. Hobbs is 2.04 times a better batsman than his batting peers.


Therefore, in relative terms Bradman is better than his nearest rivals, Sobers and Hobbs (over the course of a decade), by a factor of about 1.35

You can't compare the peer average with the adjusted average, because the adjusted average already accounts for the peer average when it is calculated - that's how it is "adjusted" in the first place. The adjusted average is the only number you need. So Bradman ends up 41% ahead of Sobers and 47% ahead of Hobbs. And well over 50% ahead of anyone else.

 

[ankitj]

I like this chart not for those who are present in it, but for those who are missing.

EDIT: Incidentally, the top 5 are the exact 5 bowlers that I always pick for my All time XI.

 

[watson]

I think that it is also worthwhile to point out the number of innings batted during the decade;

Bradman = 51
Sobers = 78
Hobbs = 55
Tendulkar = 138
Ponting = 172

The reason being that it is obviously more difficult to maintain a high average over the duration of 78 innings, than it is 51 or 55 innings. To maintain a high average over 139 or 172 innings like Tendulkar or Ponting would have taken an incredible amount of indurance, so kudos to them.

 

[centurymaker]

I wonder why he didn't pick DGB's decade starting from 1928 and ending in 1938? Would've made more sense to me. Anyone know what the column "Values T7-Oth" mean? Yeah I wonder did he overlook Lara? Also Headley would've been interesting too. Wouldn't mind knowing Clarke's comparative over the last year and a half too.

It's just the avg of the all the contemporaries of the respective players in their respective 10 year periods. (Top 7 batsmen in all line-ups)

Nah, Lara had a few bad years in between so wasn't able to string together 10 consecutive good yrs.

 

[centurymaker]

Going by that, Murali is soo under-rated.

edit-
Stuffed up, failed to quote 8ankitj

 

[The Sean]

I think that it is also worthwhile to point out the number of innings batted during the decade;

Bradman = 51
Sobers = 78
Hobbs = 55
Tendulkar = 138
Ponting = 172

The reason being that it is obviously more difficult to maintain a high average over the duration of 78 innings, than it is 51 or 55 innings. To maintain a high average over 139 or 172 innings like Tendulkar or Ponting would have taken an incredible amount of indurance, so kudos to them.

I think I'd agree with that if the fewer innings also came over a shorter period of time, but we're looking at the same timeframes here. I see what you're saying that it makes sense that it would be more difficult to maintain such an average over a greater number of innings.

On the other hand though, in the days of fewer matches being played I always felt it must have been hugely frustrating to be on a superlative run of form without being able to cash in as you'd like because you had to wait 18 months for your next match, by which time your form may or may not be as good.

I think that when the timescales involved are the same, there are arguments both ways.