What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Red]

I'm yet to be convinced by anyone that modern scheduling is a hindrance to cricketers. I'd actually argue that playing more cricket is better, particularly for batsmen. As is not having to sit on a boat for weeks or months as preparation for a test series. Warwick Armstrong and Ted McDonald had to shovel coal in the ship to keep their fitness.

In all seriousness, how many days does a modern player actually spend representing his nation. I just don't but the "heavy modern schedule" thing. Modern players virtually never represent their states, ever. And in Bradman's era, check the schedule of what they did. They were playing cricket against England or a county side nearly every day they weren't travelling between grounds while on tour.

For real…how many days of cricket has Michael Clarke played in the last year? I'd be interested to know...

 

[kyear2]

There have been 3 batsman who have averaged in the 70s over 52 Test matches;

Ricky Ponting (2002 to 2006) = 74.52
Garry Sobers (1957 to 1968) = 72.90
Jacques Kallis (2001 to 2006) = 71.20

And there have been 16 other batsman who have averaged in the 60s (eg Dravid = 66.89) over 52 Test matches.

The List: Who is closest to Don Bradman, George Lohmann and Joel Garner? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

So as far as Ponting, Sobers, and Kallis are concerned the gap sits at about 25% to 30% for an equivalent amount of Test matches. Given the variety of attacks that they faced in varying conditions, the higher standard of fielding, and in the case of Ponting and Kallis the heavy scheduling of ODIs inbetween the Tests, I would say that the gap between them and Bradman is even closer than the numbers suggest.

In full agreement with this. When the volume of bowling that Sobers and to a lesser extent Kallis had to contribute we will also never know how much it would have affected their batting and how much otherwise they could have scored.
Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Sobers, Richards, Hutton and Gavaskar all faced some tremendous attacks in their careers and Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Sobers and Richards did it while dominating the bowling. This is not about denigrating Bradman, rather just showing how good the other truly are in comparison.
Additionally, players like Sobers, Gilchrist and Kallis also would have had an overall greater impact for their teams and as overall players (especially Gilly and Sir Garry*) stands right up there with the Don.

* Those two more than Kallis due to domination with the bat and Sobers also carried greater responsibility with the ball while Gilchrist was a top flight keeper. I know others will disagree, just my opinion.

 

[Red]

The man bad a perfect storm and capitalized on it. .

All I can say is that all those other blokes in Bradman's teams must've been ****ing hacks. Guys like Ponsford, Woodful, McCabe, Harvey, Morris, Hassett. All averaged about 40-50 (like everyone else in history) while Bradman was able to capitalise on this apparent "perfect storm".

Phwww….c'mon….

 

[Dan]

Also, Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad were good bowlers kyear. They'd have even better records if they didn't have to bowl to the greatest batsman of all time.

Yeah, this is the inherent problem you get in this debate. Circular logic at its finest.

> Bradman never faced a good attack because the bowlers all averaged in the early 30s.
> Attacks averaged in the early 30s because they conceded so many runs...against Bradman.

He literally cannot win, no matter what he does. If he averaged 99.94 against Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts the argument would be that they're a poor attack because their averages are no longer in the early-20s, because they conceded so many runs against Bradman. It wouldn't be coming from kyear, I'm sure, but some anti-Bradman person would be peddling it.

Being that good devalues your own achievement.

 

[Prince EWS]

It wouldn't be coming from kyear

Elaborate..

 

[kyear2]

Also, Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad were good bowlers kyear. They'd have even better records if they didn't have to bowl to the greatest batsman of all time.

Vinoo averaged 41 vs Australia and 50 vs the W.I. being trounced at home and in the Caribbean. Weekes scored 4 straight hundreds against his team.

Aramath averaged 28 vs Bradman and the Australians, 87 vs the W.I.

Then again Bradman did say Weekes was the closest W.I batsman to himself, but seriously the W.I destroyed them more than the Aussies.

They were not ATG bowlers by any means.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It wouldn't be coming from kyear

Elaborate..

Seconded

 

[watson]

Vinoo averaged 41 vs Australia and 50 vs the W.I. being trounced at home and in the Caribbean. Weekes scored 4 straight hundreds against his team.

Aramath averaged 28 vs Bradman and the Australians, 87 vs the W.I.

Then again Bradman did say Weekes was the closest W.I batsman to himself, but seriously the W.I destroyed them more than the Aussies.

They were not ATG bowlers by any means.

Dan is perfectly correct with his point about 'circular logic' so there is little point discussing the relative strengths of the various batsman and bowlers.

However, it is pertinent to consider various aspects of the modern game that might have a negative impact on the ability of Bradman to repeatedly churn out massive scores while at the same time not overly impacting batsman like McCabe, Hutton, or Richards who maintained a more manageable average of around 50.

For example, one of the reasons cited by Bill Lawry and Ian Chappell for their failure during the 1971 tour of South Africa was that it was on the back of a difficult tour of India. One minute they were facing Bedi and Chandra on a dust bowl, and the next minute they were facing Procter on a green top. These sorts of juxtapositions are encountered farely regularly by the modern player, but were rarely encountered by pre-War Australian players.

 

[Red]

For example, one of the reasons cited by Bill Lawry and Ian Chappell for their failure during the 1971 tour of South Africa was that it was on the back of a difficult tour of India. One minute they were facing Bedi and Chandra on a dust bowl, and the next minute they were facing Procter on a green top. These sorts of juxtapositions are encountered farely regularly by the modern player, but were rarely encountered by pre-War Australian players.

Are they?

 

[watson]

Are they?

Relative to a 1930s player yes. For example, Ponting had his average dented by 3 unsuccessful tours against India due to some strong bowling by Harbie inparticular. I don't think that any of the 1930s players went on 3 long tours of India to face such a strong and determined opposition.

Please note Monk that I am not attempting to downgrade the achievements of Bradman, but rather elevate the status of the modern greats who had their own unique and difficult battles to fight. Sure we can make an absolute hero of Bradman, but not at the expense of the heros of our own time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There have been 3 batsman who have averaged in the 70s over 52 Test matches;

Ricky Ponting (2002 to 2006) = 74.52
Garry Sobers (1957 to 1968) = 72.90
Jacques Kallis (2001 to 2006) = 71.20

And there have been 16 other batsman who have averaged in the 60s (eg Dravid = 66.89) over 52 Test matches.

The List: Who is closest to Don Bradman, George Lohmann and Joel Garner? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

So as far as Ponting, Sobers, and Kallis are concerned the gap sits at about 25% to 30% for an equivalent amount of Test matches. Given the variety of attacks that they faced in varying conditions, the higher standard of fielding, and in the case of Ponting and Kallis the heavy scheduling of ODIs inbetween the Tests, I would say that the gap between them and Bradman is even closer than the numbers suggest.

This is what people mean when they say modern schedules can be a blessing in disguise. Because these cricketers play far more matches on average every year it's much easier for them to put together a run of scores like this when they're at the peak of their powers. Ponting and Dravid were beyond sensational in 2001-06 but it's the fact that they played a lot during this period that helped them capitalise on their peak form and plunder attacks for fun. Granted, this is counterbalancedby by the fact that towards thread of their careers, they also played lots of matches at a time when they were clearly in decline.

Yet, you're using only the peak portion of their careers. Just look at it the other way around. What if, like the Don, Ponting and Dravid had played those 52 tests across 20 years instead of 5? Would they still have averaged 70? The answer is an emphatic no, imo. It's why peaks shouldn't be the sole criteria for judging batsmen. Peaks, troughs, good times and bad they all show how good a batsman is. Which is why I found it an absolute joke that you're comparing Don's ENTIRE career, peaks and troughs included, over a 20 year period with the absolute peak purple patch of a modern batsman, disregarding those periods where he was woefully out of form, just to somehow diminish the gap between Bradman and the rest.

And despite all this unbalanced and unfair filtering, he's STILL 30 runs ahead of the next best. I'm yet to hear any statistical argument why Bradman isn't miles better than anyone else. Sobers' peak is undoubtedly more impressive than the others as its a decade long period but at the end of the day, that's still exactly that. A peak. If even his purplest of purple patches is miles behind Bradman's overall career stats, then that settles it. He's nowhere close to Don as a batsman.

 

[hendrix]

There have been 3 batsman who have averaged in the 70s over 52 Test matches;

Ricky Ponting (2002 to 2006) = 74.52
Garry Sobers (1957 to 1968) = 72.90
Jacques Kallis (2001 to 2006) = 71.20

And there have been 16 other batsman who have averaged in the 60s (eg Dravid = 66.89) over 52 Test matches.

The List: Who is closest to Don Bradman, George Lohmann and Joel Garner? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

So as far as Ponting, Sobers, and Kallis are concerned the gap sits at about 25% to 30% for an equivalent amount of Test matches. Given the variety of attacks that they faced in varying conditions, the higher standard of fielding, and in the case of Ponting and Kallis the heavy scheduling of ODIs inbetween the Tests, I would say that the gap between them and Bradman is even closer than the numbers suggest.

What we're assuming by all of this, is that Bradman's 52 tests were played at his absolute peak. Which is highly unlikely.

 

[Red]

Relative to a 1930s player yes. For example, Ponting had his average dented by 3 unsuccessful tours against India due to some strong bowling by Harbie inparticular. I don't think that any of the 1930s players went on 3 long tours of India to face such a strong and determined opposition.

Please note Monk that I am not attempting to downgrade the achievements of Bradman, but rather elevate the status of the modern greats who had their own unique and difficult battles to fight. Sure we can make an absolute hero of Bradman, but not at the expense of the heros of our own time.

I don't think modern schedules would see a recurrence of the 1971 India/SA type tour schedule though.

And if Harbhajan is the biggest challenge faced by Ponting, well…

All that shows is a bit of a deficiency Ponting had against one bowler in one environment. Damian Martyn was very successful in India in the same era...

 

[kyear2]

This is what people mean when they say modern schedules can be a blessing in disguise. Because these cricketers play far more matches on average every year it's much easier for them to put together a run of scores like this when they're at the peak of their powers. Ponting and Dravid were beyond sensational in 2001-06 but it's the fact that they played a lot during this period that helped them capitalise on their peak form and plunder attacks for fun. Granted, this is counterbalancedby by the fact that towards thread of their careers, they also played lots of matches at a time when they were clearly in decline.

Yet, you're using only the peak portion of their careers. Just look at it the other way around. What if, like the Don, Ponting and Dravid had played those 52 tests across 20 years instead of 5? Would they still have averaged 70? The answer is an emphatic no, imo. It's why peaks shouldn't be the sole criteria for judging batsmen. Peaks, troughs, good times and bad they all show how good a batsman is. Which is why I found it an absolute joke that you're comparing Don's ENTIRE career, peaks and troughs included, over a 20 year period with the absolute peak purple patch of a modern batsman, disregarding those periods where he was woefully out of form, just to somehow diminish the gap between Bradman and the rest.

And despite all this unbalanced and unfair filtering, he's STILL 30 runs ahead of the next best. I'm yet to hear any statistical argument why Bradman isn't miles better than anyone else. Sobers' peak is undoubtedly more impressive than the others as its a decade long period but at the end of the day, that's still exactly that. A peak. If even his purplest of purple patches is miles behind Bradman's overall career stats, then that settles it. He's nowhere close to Don as a batsman.

Considerably better bowlers faced, much more varied conditions and attacks, heavy bowling load, more difficult LBW rules. The arguments are there, you choose not to accept them. Imagine if Sobers only had to play against India, Pakistan and England, couldn't be out lbw of the ball pitched outside his off stump and played all of his matches at home and in England. Also say Trueman only played in two of those series versus you and only one at his best. Tell me what his average would have been then.
Richards faced Lillee, Hadlee, Snow, Imran, Wasim. Lara faced Wasim, Waqar, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali. Tendulkar, all those plus Ambrose, Steyn etc. Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, Ramadhin, Valentine, O'Reilly etc. I listed who Sobers faced on the previous page, one cannot say there is not a disparity there.

 

[watson]

What we're assuming by all of this, is that Bradman's 52 tests were played at his absolute peak. Which is highly unlikely.

We are showing that it is easier to maintain an excellent average over a relatively small number of Tests matches. Maintaining an average of 100 over 52 Tests is one thing, but keeping it there for 93-200 Tests is another thing altogether. Especially when the flow of Test matches is interupted by numerous ODI tournaments, and demanding back-to-back tours.

I think that it is fairer and more accurate to assess the best years of Ponting, Sobers, or Kallis when making a comparison with Bradman.

 

[hendrix]

We are showing that it is easier to maintain an excellent average over a relatively small number of Tests matches. Maintaining an average of 100 over 52 Tests is one thing, but keeping it there for 93-200 Tests is another thing altogether. Especially when the flow of Test matches is interupted by numerous ODI tournaments, and demanding back-to-back tours.

I think that it is fairer and more accurate to assess the best years of Ponting, Sobers, or Kallis when making a comparison with Bradman.

I understand that, but what makes Ponting's peak a peak is that their were long lean periods as well. The lean periods were fewer than 52 tests, and that's what makes his average not in the 70s.

Bradman's lean periods still didn't drop his average below 99. So we have no reason to conclude that he wouldn't have maintained it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Considerably better bowlers faced, much more varied conditions and attacks, heavy bowling load, more difficult LBW rules. The arguments are there, you choose not to accept them. Imagine if Sobers only had to play against India, Pakistan and England, couldn't be out lbw of the ball pitched outside his off stump and played all of his matches at home and in England. Also say Trueman only played in two of those series versus you and only one at his best. Tell me what his average would have been then.
Richards faced Lillee, Hadlee, Snow, Imran, Wasim. Lara faced Wasim, Waqar, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali. Tendulkar, all those plus Ambrose, Steyn etc. Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, Ramadhin, Valentine, O'Reilly etc. I listed who Sobers faced on the previous page, one cannot say there is not a disparity there.

Imagine this, imagine that. Sheesh that's always what this comes down to.

Imagine if Sobers played on uncovered wickets. Imagine if Sobers lost 6 years in the middle of his career due to a war. Whatever disparity there is in the quality of opposition they faced, it's made up by other factors and the fact that this disparity is minuscule compared to the humongous chasm in the statistical output between the two.

And Bradman faced bowlers of high calibre like O'Reilly and lindwall and Miller (like you mentioned for hutton) in FC cricket and still averaged 95. Over 234 matches in a 23 year period. And that should hopefully answer watsons question of whether Bradman would maintain his average over 200 matches 200 matches like Tendulkar. If you still choose to ignore this I have precious little to add because this should be enough.

Now lets prove Sobers would average even a meagre 72 over a 23 year period over 200 matches. Glad to listen

And again you bring out the lbw law. The law changed halfway through Don's career (he was one of the foremost campaigners) he averaged MORE after that happened.

 

[OverratedSanity]

We are showing that it is easier to maintain an excellent average over a relatively small number of Tests matches. Maintaining an average of 100 over 52 Tests is one thing, but keeping it there for 93-200 Tests is another thing altogether. Especially when the flow of Test matches is interupted by numerous ODI tournaments, and demanding back-to-back tours.

I think that it is fairer and more accurate to assess the best years of Ponting, Sobers, or Kallis when making a comparison with Bradman.

It's far far more difficult to maintain you average over a period of years rather than purely number of matches as I pointed out before

 

[smash84]

Imagine this, imagine that. Sheesh that's always what this comes down to.

Imagine if Sobers played on uncovered wickets. Imagine if Sobers lost 6 years in the middle of his career due to a war. Whatever disparity there is in the quality of opposition they faced, it's made up by other factors and the fact that this disparity is minuscule compared to the humongous chasm in the statistical output between the two.

And Bradman faced bowlers of high calibre like O'Reilly and Landfall and Miller (like you mentioned for hutton) in DC cricket and still averaged 95. Over 234 matches in a 23 year period. And that should hopefully answer watsons question of whether Bradman would maintain his average over 200 matches 200 matches like Tendulkar. If you still choose to ignore this I have precious little to add because this should be enough.

Now lets prove Sobers would average even a meagre 72 over a 23 year period over 200 matches. Glad to listen

And again you bring out the lbw law. The law changed halfway through Don's career (he was one of the foremost campaigners) he averaged MORE after that happened.

I actually also searched Sobers playing against Miller and Lindwall. It turns out that he only played a total of 4 matches against Miller and Lindwall right at the beginning of his career.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[harsh.ag]

Agree with OS here. Btw, after the lbw law change in 1935, Don played 24 tests and averaged 101.51 with 14 centuries.