What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[Prince EWS]

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

Both factors make it harder. It's actually the main reason I find comparing between eras rather difficult.

It's easier to maintain a good record for 30 Tests across 3 years than it is 30 Tests across 10 years, but by the same token it's easier to maintain a good record for 30 Tests across 10 years than it is 100 Tests over 10 years. Just judging by years unfairly favours early Test cricketers, while just judging by the Tests played unfairly favours modern players.

Everyone's going to have a slightly differing opinion on where the line of equivalence is too. It's why when I started measuring peaks via my standardised averages rating program, I experimented with finding a peak across X time and finding a peak across X Tests, and then averaging those two peaks for each player. Never finished that and published the results, might do so in a few weeks.

 

[smash84]

And another 4 matches against Alan Davidson.

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

and add to that the fact about Don's domestic record where he faced his own team's bowlers and he does stand head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think modern technology that allows for players and coaching staff to analyse each others' games to the minutest detail will ensure that we'll never see another Bradman again. The playing field may have been level in the olden era, but it is my opinion that it allowed for exceptional geniuses to employ tactics for a longer period before getting caught out. Then they adapt and restart the long chase again. Something as simple as access to video footage of opponents democratizes the game drastically beyond actual face to face encounters and verbal exchange of information between peers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Both factors make it harder. It's actually the main reason I find comparing between eras rather difficult.

It's easier to maintain a good record for 30 Tests across 3 years than it is 30 Tests across 10 years, but by the same token it's easier to maintain a good record for 30 Tests across 10 years than it is 100 Tests over 10 years. Just judging by years unfairly favours early Test cricketers, while just judging by the Tests played unfairly favours modern players.

Everyone's going to have a slightly differing opinion on where the line of equivalence is too. It's why when I started measuring peaks via my standardised averages rating program, I experienced with finding a peak across X time and finding a peak across X Tests, and then averaging those two peaks for each player. Never finished that and published the results, might do so in a few weeks.

Yeah never said it's not the only thing to consider. But really I only complained because we're discussing player peaks. I have no doubt in my mind that modern players benefit here because when they're in top of the world they get more chancesto cash in. Over the length of career, oobviously number of tests and number of years both count almost equivalently

 

[Red]

Here's an interesting fact. Bradman's batting average was 99.94…

Unbelievable, isn't it? Must be a way we can make him seem less than he was, and make the people we like seem better than they were, so they're almost the equivalent of him….

 

[ankitj]

Seconded

How do you quote including the previous quote?

 

[Prince EWS]

How do you quote including the previous quote?

Just manually put quote tags inside your quote tags.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Awta

 

[watson]

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

I disagree. To a tenacious batsman completely focused on scoring runs his itinery couldn't have been better - 7 home series, and 4 away series to England spread-out evenly and regularly. Under those conditions it would be a relatively easy task to prepare, and then be at peak form prior to the first Test match of a series.

There were no back-to-back Ashes series, no arduous tours to India, no tours of the West Indies to get hammered by a unique battery of 4 ATG fast bowlers, no tours of Pakistan to take on the best exponents of reverse-swing, and above all no interuptions by ODI World Cups and a plethera of other limited over tournaments. All that Bradman had to do was play himself into form during Shield or County matches, then focus his appetite for runs on the Test series at hand which was at home more often than not. Nothing more.

The complexity of modern cricket with its miriad of games and conditions would have put an enormous strain on a batsman more reliant on appetite and focus than your typical ATG batsman. I take my hat off to the likes of Chappell, Border, Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, and Dravid for scoring their mountain of Test match runs as they did.

 

[smash84]

There were no back-to-back Ashes series, no arduous tours to India, no tours of the West Indies to get hammered by a unique battery of 4 ATG fast bowlers, no tours of Pakistan to take on the best exponents of reverse-swing, and above all no interuptions by ODI World Cups and a plethera of other limited over tournaments. All that Bradman had to do was play himself into form during Shield or County matches, then focus his appetite for runs on the Test series at hand which was at home more often than not. Nothing more.

How many of these did Sobers cope with? And if he didn't then would you also downgrade his peak?

 

[Red]

Just manually put quote tags inside your quote tags.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WpuYGqCEHDg/UBznzaqReKI/AAAAAAAAB_0/0Vc8_mnnhqw/s1600/mind-blown.gif]

 

[Red]

Nah….doesn't work with pics…

Anyway…

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Look, take out Bodyline and the bloke averaged 104.76

I'd like to see any of the batsmen of the modern era batting with that 'protective' gear of the era and matchstick thin bats.

Most dominant sportsperson of all time.

End of story.

 

[watson]

How many of these did Sobers cope with? And if he didn't then would you also downgrade his peak?

How many of these did Sobers cope with? And if he didn't then would you also downgrade his peak?

I'm not trying to downgrade any batsman. Rather, I'm trying to elevate modern batsman by pointing out the unique difficulties that they faced. Difficulties that Bradman could only dream about from his 1930s point of view.

One difficulty that Sobers had to overcome was that he happened to be a key bowler in his team for most of his career. Sobers had to focus on both his batting and bowling. Bradman had no such distraction to his prime goal of scoring runs. Sobers' career was also more varied than Bradman's despite playing only one ODI. He toured India, Pakistan and NZ regularly, as well as the more obvious Australia and England. And as stated before, I believe it to be more difficult for a batsman to maintain his average if he plays against a variety of bowlers on their home turf.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah….doesn't work with pics…

Anyway…

Of

course

it

does

^^^^

 

[smash84]

I'm not trying to downgrade any batsman. Rather, I'm trying to elevate modern batsman by pointing out the unique difficulties that they faced. Difficulties that Bradman could only dream about from his 1930s point of view.

So Sobers was modern and Bradman wasn't? Between 1948 and 1954 the modern era was ushered in?

One difficulty that Sobers had to overcome was that he happened to be a key bowler in his team for most of his career. Sobers had to focus on both his batting and bowling. Bradman had no such distraction to his prime goal of scoring runs. Sobers' career was also more varied than Bradman's despite playing only one ODI. He toured India, Pakistan and NZ regularly, as well as the more obvious Australia and England. And as stated before, I believe it to be more difficult for a batsman to maintain his average if he plays against a variety of bowlers on their home turf.

Ermmm so? We are comparing Bradman and Sobers as batsmen, not as cricketers. If Sobers for xyz reasons could not bat as well as Bradman and we can only speculate how much better he would have batted without the bowling burden then we have to go along with the proposition that as batsmen there is a significant difference between the two (statistically speaking). After all, if my aunt had a dick she may have been my uncle

Bradman also had England, SA, and India to play against (which are conveniently classifed as minnows)

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm not trying to downgrade any batsman. Rather, I'm trying to elevate modern batsman by pointing out the unique difficulties that they faced. Difficulties that Bradman could only dream about from his 1930s point of view.

One difficulty that Sobers had to overcome was that he happened to be a key bowler in his team for most of his career. Sobers had to focus on both his batting and bowling. Bradman had no such distraction to his prime goal of scoring runs. Sobers' career was also more varied than Bradman's despite playing only one ODI. He toured India, Pakistan and NZ regularly, as well as the more obvious Australia and England. And as stated before, I believe it to be more difficult for a batsman to maintain his average if he plays against a variety of bowlers on their home turf.

Can't really see how Sobers' touring more countries than Bradman can be of any real relevance here because Sobers failed the few times he toured NZ (averaged 15 there) , and wasn't flash in Pakistan in the solitary tour there either (ave 32). The only other overseas country left which Bradman didn't face is India, where Sobers was magnificent. But then, they were minnows in Bradman's time anyway weren't they? Wouldn't have made much of a difference in most people's minds.

I'm not trying to prove Sobers was some home track bully or something, I'm just saying using the fact that he toured more countries than Bradman doesn't really prove anything either way. It would be a fair point in favour of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Viv etc. But not to Sobers.

 

[watson]

Smali, I understand and agree with much of what of you are saying. But suffice to say, at this point in time I am of the general opinion that for a variety of reasons some post-War/modern ATGs are under-rated relative to Bradman.

I do enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate (someone has to do it), but I think that the issues have been pretty well exhausted unless you can come up with something completely brand new.

 

[smash84]

Smali, I understand and agree with much of what of you are saying. But suffice to say, at this point in time I am of the general opinion that for a variety of reasons some post-War/modern ATGs are under-rated relative to Bradman.

I do enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate (someone has to do it), but I think that the issues have been pretty well exhausted unless you can come up with something completely brand new.

Watson, my point is that this "exhaustive" discussion of yours is only exhaustively silly. Most of the points that you apply to Bradman apply to Sobers as well so I fail to see how Bradman and Sobers are very close as batsmen. If anybody is getting under rated here its Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Sobers did play on uncovered wickets and when when Bradman came back after the war he played India and what was seen as one if the worst bowling attacks England has produced as the we're recovering after the war. Bradman's average improved after the change because the bowling got worst. Tate was long gone and Larwood was banished.
And when Ak said imagine Sobers only playing England, India and Pakistan I don't mean imagine what he could have done I mean use his stats from those math ups and imagine he didn't have to play stiffer opposition outside of them because e that's what Bradman did. Played England and three poor attacks. West Indies actually gave him some trouble initially because of their pace but the other two were used to booster the stats of every batsman of the era. Just watch cricket and tell me how much lbws decisions Steyn, Marshall, Imran and others would have if they played under the old law. It's near impossible. Fast keg spinners and LH spinners were more succesful for that very reason. He averaged over 100 vs two awful bowling attacks and earlier in batting friendly conditions and somehow that would transfer to every other more competitive era of cricket.
Come on guys this is just logic.