How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Pratters]

You do realise that by saying that you are effectively writing every other batsman from his era as rubbish as they were so far behind him. That's what makes this line of thinking a load of codswallop.

Not really. Would you consider the third best batsman of WG Grace's era as good as the the third best batsman in Bradman's era? Then how can you consider the same for the 40s and 50s compared to the 90s and 2000s. Do you deny the pool of players has increased or that standards have improved over time? Your line of thinking is what's codswallop if you do deny it. Thanks.

 

[Pratters]

Given he was similarly dominant at First Class level where he played no small matter of 338 innings and again no-one else got close to him, I think we can more or less rule out the chance of it being mostly a matter of lack. Even if we very generously say that he had a strike rate of 70 in First Class cricket, that'd be over 40,000 deliveries faced for his average of 95.

This is what always gets me as well. It would be interesting to see his breakup of first class runs. A) Averages in Australia, England and else where. B) What was the first class average batting across board in his time in Australia and England.

 

[Pratters]

Took a look at Bradman's record team wise. It makes for interesting reading.

Against South Australia: 1269 runs @ 63.45
Against Yorkshire (which was a remarkably strong side): 460 @ 65
Against MCC 1449 @ 58

 

[Pratters]

Any ways, maintain he would have averaged 65 or so in modern times at best. Maybe 70 even, who knows. Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell have all been mighty good batsmen and none of them even average more than 55 over their career. This should really put things in perspective.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Averaged 11 against NZers. Clearly struggled against good teams.

 

[Pratters]

That's just one test. Any ways, not saying he was a hack because of those. I always find it interesting to analyse stats break ups.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Took a look at Bradman's record team wise. It makes for interesting reading.

Against South Australia: 1269 runs @ 63.45
Against Yorkshire (which was a remarkably strong side): 460 @ 65
Against MCC 1449 @ 58

Wait what does that prove? He also averaged 109 vs NSW who had O'Reilly, and 107 vs Victoria who usually had Ironmonger in the team. He even has a couple of hundreds vs Victoria when Johnston and Johnson played. If you're trying to prove Bradman only averaged 60s vs great bowlers, the argument just does not hold up at all.

 

[Pratters]

Yorkshire was a strong side at the time, not just a team with strong bowlers. They won seven county championships on the trot and were as legendary a side as any. It shows he could average lower versus strong sides. For instance, he does average 90 v England compared to 99.94 over all. So, would average lower against a better overall bowling standard in the modern era. Any ways, I repeat - not saying he was a hack because of those. I always find it interesting to analyse stats break ups.

 

[the big bambino]

How exactly do you mean it moves from 5th place to 9th place? And how was it that you removed Bradman's contribution?

Also how is the bolded part a fallacy when Bradman himself admits that the wickets were better back then than they were later on?

Cricket can be divided into 2 eras as far as bowling averages are concerned. The 1870s-1910s had low averages reflecting the state of pitches imo. The averages from 20s to 2010s range between 31.5 to 35 with the exception of the 50s when the ave fell to 28.5, no doubt reflective of pretty poor pitches throughout. If you place them in order from highest to lowest the 30s bowling ave (which is comparable with the decadal bowling aves of the 60s-90s) falls from 5th place to 9th, or second lowest, if you remove Bradman's runs and times dismissed from the 30s averages.

I remove his stats for 3 reasons. First he is an outlier that distorts the decadal ave. Apart from the 40s no other decade's figures are distorted by such a statistical outlier. Its not just his average either. He also distorts the bowling ave by having batted more times in proportion to the overall number of innings played in the decade than say SRT's proportion of innings in the 90s. For the very same reason Hammond has a greater impact on the bowling average of the 30s than SRT has upon the bowling ave of the 90s despite both averaging about the same (59 and 58 respectively)

Secondly I remove them bcos Bradman perversely has become a victim of his own success. Leave his stats in and bowling aves appear higher in his era. Too many then conclude that no one could bowl. Better to remove his stats so we can see a base average of the bowlers before Bradman destroyed them.

Finally the comparison with the 60s-90s is convenient. Bradman is victimised by a sort of generational jingoism that disrespects the past generally. How often have you heard "explanations" of Bradman's success put down to the belief that he didn't have any competition? A list of names is then provided. They usually come from the aforementioned decades and stating Bradman "never faced the like". It is pointless responding with a corresponding list of names that constitute Bradman's contemporaries to show he didn't play in an era of uninterrupted ease. Corresponding lists are blown a raspberry of scorn by the generational jingoist as they've made it clear they don't rate anyone or thing from the past. So I respond with stats. There is a correlation btwn them and quality in cricket. If you really think the 60s-90s to be that much better in bowling they should be deal less than the 0.64 to 0.05 per wicket than the 30s ave. Where does the argument stand when the 30s ave is lower than all of them when you remove Bradman's stats?

I am guessing that Bradman made his comment about wickets at a time when it could be said. I'm guessing when he made them the game had a history of poor wickets leading up to the great war and again in the 50s. In that context pitches of the 30s and 40s were good. If he lived to have the accumulated evidence of the 6 decades from 1960 he'd have every cause to reconsider his opinion.

 

[the big bambino]

No, it will narrow the gap between him and the rest. Relatively it will appear to make him worse, but everybody will improve if trained under today's conditions, but the rest will gain more than Bradman. Additionally he will have to face more uber-talented opponents than during his playing days.

Personally I think the standards question is another issue. The game, like all sports, has moved on and improved from the 80s too. That doesn't mean the players then were useless. Bradman faced India, SA, WI as well as England. If you consider India an amalgamation with Pakistan it is difficult to see whom out of SL, NZ, Zimbabwe or Bangla Desh would have found him out.

 

[the big bambino]

Typing out an email to the ECB to explain that they need to get players working on facing future standards of equipment and opposition to be considered good, rather than trying something pointless like winning matches

Ok; you're the winner.

 

[Pratters]

Can some one post batting and bowling averages in each decade since tests started for reference?

 

[the big bambino]

Unrelated but thought this might be a good place to ask. What was the state of swing bowling like during Bradman's era? How adept were the bowlers at exploiting it? Question relates to movement in the air, not off the seam.

Probably Fred would be best to answer and maybe he can correct some of the things I'll say now. I've heard that swing (or swerve) was developed in the early 1890s with Yorky Hirst and American Barton KIng pre eminent. The skill developed and was exploited in Bradman's era. Fred has an essay on Bill Bowes who could move the inswinger naturally and developed the outswinger after reading a manual discussing the topic and written by Herbert Sutcliffe, I think. He could bowl both without a perceptible change in action. I've heard Nissar, the Indian, could move the ball in and out at a full length. His method, on reading, appear similar to Waqar. Tate, according to Arlott, swung them in and away. Wall had a great outswinger, Voce moved them in and Cowie's outswinger certainly got Hutton's attention. No doubt there were others.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Can some one post batting and bowling averages in each decade since tests started for reference?

You mean batting averages for top 7 batsmen?

Why 55 is the new 50 | Decade Review 2009 | ESPN Cricinfo

This will provide you 1930 through to 2010.

It will also provide bowling averages.

 

[Pratters]

WG was dominant like Bradman was in his time. We don't some how consider him in the top ten greatest batsmen. Yet we do not follow the same measure to discount Bradman a bit. What about the bowlers as well. Weren't some bowlers very dominant as well?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wait what does that prove? He also averaged 109 vs NSW who had O'Reilly, and 107 vs Victoria who usually had Ironmonger in the team. He even has a couple of hundreds vs Victoria when Johnston and Johnson played. If you're trying to prove Bradman only averaged 60s vs great bowlers, the argument just does not hold up at all.

Not to mention those stats were from very small sample sizes. No doubt his averages would have normalised with a higher volume of appearances.

 

[the big bambino]

WG was dominant like Bradman was in his time. We don't some how consider him in the top ten greatest batsmen. Yet we do not follow the same measure to discount Bradman a bit. What about the bowlers as well. Weren't some bowlers very dominant as well?

Yeah but it's not the same to make a point about the quantity of bradmans opponents by reference to the duopoly in graces time. Nevertheless Grace was only a few runs ahead of his eras ave not 60 as was Bradman. At most every point in the games history there have only been two maybe three teams who have been a cut above the others of any era . Considering Australia has usually been one of top sides you can draw an optimistic inference from Grace's record against us.

 

[Pratters]

Grace was Bradmanesque for a long while in English cricket which was the game regarded as most important.

 

[Hurricane]

WG was dominant like Bradman was in his time. We don't some how consider him in the top ten greatest batsmen. Yet we do not follow the same measure to discount Bradman a bit. What about the bowlers as well. Weren't some bowlers very dominant as well?

Half of us, like me, do put him in the top ten players of all time. Half of us don't. Those who don't suggest that the game has evolved too much since the 1890s. The footage of the bowling then is quite questionable. Some of those who do discount Grace don't discount Bradman because the footage of Larwood in particular is compelling. I have also read accounts that people estimated him as being about 140 clicks.

Some reports use a bit of hyperbole and report him as being even faster

It was taken for granted by those facing him that the ball would fly at them between 95mph and 100mph, and no one disputed that Larwood was capable of maintaining that pace while bowling with extraordinary accuracy.

From pit-pony boy to fastest bowler ever | Sport | The Guardian

 

[Hurricane]

Half of us, like me, do put him in the top ten players of all time. Half of us don't. Those who don't suggest that the game has evolved too much since the 1890s. The footage of the bowling then is quite questionable. Some of those who do discount Grace don't discount Bradman because the footage of Larwood in particular is compelling. I have also read accounts that people estimated him as being about 140 clicks.

Some reports use a bit of hyperbole and report him as being even faster

From pit-pony boy to fastest bowler ever | Sport | The Guardian

Personally I think that Pratters has a point nonetheless. If you rate Bradman as number 1 then you should rate Grace as a top ten batsman.
The logic of rating Bradman number 1 really falls back on - "he was so far ahead of his peers at the time". That statement also applies to Grace.