How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Pratters]

According to me cricket standards do improve every two three decades. For instance we have off spinners bowling the doosra. Batsmen have so many more shots and are more attacking than they used to be. Plus the number of people playing the game has increased. So we should discount eras a bit in this context. How mugh for which era is unquantifiable. This does not mean WG wasn't great or Bradman wasn't great. WG in fact is easily one of the most important figures, if not the most important figure in cricket history.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

A lot of people base their ratings on Test cricket only though. Indeed it's actually a unspoken rule on CW. Grace was very good in Test cricket but not top-ten-of-all-time dominant in it. I actually rate Grace the second best batsman of all time based on his domestic exploits given how important domestic cricket was throughout his career and the fact that he was almost Bradmanesque in it, but if I'm asked to name an "all time Test XI" or "name my top ten Test batsmen of all time", he won't be in it.

 

[Pratters]

Why though? Cricket was played before 1877 as well. It's a bit like Sachin fans thinking cricket didn't exist before Sachin. If we discount that period because of very novice standards, it's another thing. But we shouldn't ever forget guys like Grace or Mynn just because tests were not played at the time.

 

[Hurricane]

According to me cricket standards do improve every two three decades. For instance we have off spinners bowling the doosra. Batsmen have so many more shots and are more attacking than they used to be. Plus the number of people playing the game has increased. So we should discount eras a bit in this context. How mugh for which era is unquantifiable. This does not mean WG wasn't great or Bradman wasn't great. WG in fact is easily one of the most important figures, if not the most important figure in cricket history.

I appreciate the honesty of how you calibrate your yard stick. But the only yardstick I like for evaluating eras is ancient footage.

 

[Pratters]

Till Hobbs came along, wasn't Grace considered the greatest batsman btw? And there were some vouching for Trumper between Grace and Hobbs..

 

[the big bambino]

Grace's fc average was 39 (admittedly over a long period). While great for the era it isn't that far ahead of his contemporaries and in the case of some not as good. Grace was the best batsmen up to the war but his advantage wasn't Bradmanesque. He is more Sobers or Imran like in his dominance being a more dominating AR than even a batsman.

 

[Hurricane]

Grace's fc average was 39 (admittedly over a long period). While great for the era it isn't that far ahead of his contemporaries and in the case of some not as good. Grace was the best batsmen up to the war but his advantage wasn't Bradmanesque. He is more Sobers or Imran like in his dominance being a more dominating AR than even a batsman.

No.

Using his average to judge him is not accurate. He was dominant compared to his peers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Grace's fc average was 39 (admittedly over a long period). While great for the era it isn't that far ahead of his contemporaries and in the case of some not as good. Grace was the best batsmen up to the war but his advantage wasn't Bradmanesque. He is more Sobers or Imran like in his dominance being a more dominating AR than even a batsman.

Someone post WG Grace 1871 and standardised average stats.

 

[the big bambino]

He was dominant that's true. But stats tell us by how far. It wasn't Bradmanesque.

 

[Furball]

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.

Again, other great batsmen from Bradman's era have averages and hundreds/innings ratios that are almost identical to modern greats. There is literally no evidence for what you're suggesting.

If you're chopping 35 runs off Bradman's average then you're saying the likes of Hammond were hacks who would have struggled to average more than 25, which is clearly ridiculous.

 

[Prince EWS]

Grace's fc average was 39 (admittedly over a long period). While great for the era it isn't that far ahead of his contemporaries and in the case of some not as good. Grace was the best batsmen up to the war but his advantage wasn't Bradmanesque. He is more Sobers or Imran like in his dominance being a more dominating AR than even a batsman.

Yeah this just isn't true. What he was averaging at the time was a loooooong way ahead of what anyone else was doing. I'll dig up my post that standardised his averages if I can find it.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

These standardised averages basically compared a batsman to the mean of his peers. Realistically he dominated domestic cricket as a batsman even moreso than Bradman dominated Tests (who had a standardised average of 95 or so in Tests), although obviously spreading the talent over however many counties makes the feat less impressive than Bradman's ability to do it in the Ashes.

 

[Hurricane]

He was dominant that's true. But stats tell us by how far. It wasn't Bradmanesque.

No.

You are going to drive me into making a very long post that will take me some time to compose. His stats do not accurately depict the man's dominance.

The only things I will briefly fend you away with for now while I search around for Fred's piece on Grace - is that there were seasons where he scored 10 centuries and the next bloke scored 2.

He also played on rank pitches where scoring any runs of note was an achievement. He is famous at one point for keeping out three shooters in a row and the crowd stood to give him a standing ovation as a result.
I have played a game on rank grass cut with a lawnmower in a proper grade of cricket. The ground was banned the following week. I got out to a shooter and I now regard them as being impossible to face. They bounce just short of a length and go straight along the ground at a fast speed.

Edit: PEWS' post is better than mine, Ignore the above.

 

[pardus]

According to me cricket standards do improve every two three decades. For instance we have off spinners bowling the doosra. Batsmen have so many more shots and are more attacking than they used to be. Plus the number of people playing the game has increased. So we should discount eras a bit in this context. How mugh for which era is unquantifiable. This does not mean WG wasn't great or Bradman wasn't great. WG in fact is easily one of the most important figures, if not the most important figure in cricket history.

As per this logic, West Indies team from more than 3 decades back -1983 (with Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd, Marshall, Holding etc.) wouldn't stand a chance against most of today's teams.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Interesting discussion re WG grace. In all footage I've seen of him he looks worse than an average under-12 no. 10 batsman that would be lucky to average 3 in modern cricket, and that might even be true (I doubt it though).

According to me cricket standards do improve every two three decades. For instance we have off spinners bowling the doosra. Batsmen have so many more shots and are more attacking than they used to be. Plus the number of people playing the game has increased. So we should discount eras a bit in this context. How mugh for which era is unquantifiable. This does not mean WG wasn't great or Bradman wasn't great. WG in fact is easily one of the most important figures, if not the most important figure in cricket history.

- off-spinners don't seem to bowl the doosra any more, ICC is practically banned it
- batsmen being more attacking isn't always considered a good thing, a lot of people have been complaining about the lack of "building an innings" and defensive technique in many modern players, and rightly so

Of course standards are increasing though, it's inevitably going to happen when you go from amateurs playing, to professionals making normal wages and then to superstars earning millions a year. It's basic economics.

 

[the big bambino]

These standardised averages basically compared a batsman to the mean of his peers. Realistically he dominated domestic cricket as a batsman even moreso than Bradman dominated Tests (who had a standardised average of 95 or so in Tests), although obviously spreading the talent over however many counties makes the feat less impressive than Bradman's ability to do it in the Ashes.

What was Richard Daft's standardised average?

Btw Hurricane that's all fine. But if you are not going to defer to the stats then, and respectfully, I can't take what you say on board this time.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Stop talking bollocks. In WG's time scores were a lot lower across the board which makes things a lot harder to compare.

In Bradman's era they're broadly similar to modern day, except for one man who was just about twice as good as anyone else.

By attempting to deny his ability and knocking 30% off his record you do that to everyone else and they all become mediocre.

It's not ****ing rocket science, you just have to learn to accept that he was just that damn good.

 

[the big bambino]

What was Richard Daft's standardised average?

And Arthur Shrewsbury's

 

[pardus]

Not sure why Bodyline is touted as an example. Bodyline tour was not how bowlers bowled generally. It created a furore as it was an anomaly.

The OP was suggesting that the level of cricket during Bradman's days was club-level in today's standards. From the brief video, Larwood's bowling looked genuinely quick and every bit Test class even in today's standards. Obviously Bodyline wasn't the norm, but Bradman's average of 56 in that series (with Larwood bowling like that) was super impressive. If anything, it was further affirmation that he was something special. Even if you look at the stats of modern batting greats, their averages generally take a big dent when they come across tough batting conditions, more so for stroke playing batsmen like Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell etc. I call it the "impacted" average. It is difficult to always statistically quantify tough batting conditions. For England, it could be facing Warne on a turner. For India it could be batting on a bouncy wicket or facing a genuinely great fast bowler etc. For example, during McGrath's playing days, Aus attack with McGrath would have been tougher than an Aus attack without McGrath (again during McGrath's active days). I am just choosing this as one example, because it is easy to statistically represent this (since McGrath did miss multiple series during his 13 year career).

McGrath against India makes an ideal example because 1. his career peaks overlapped significantly with quite a few great batsmen from India and 2. during his active days McGrath missed multiple Test series against India, but he also played in multiple Test series against them, and 3. the other ATG bowler in his team, Warne was a non-factor against India, and 4. the nature of the pitches when India played Aus with and without McGrath was pretty consistent (McGrath never bowled to India on genuinely fast bowler friendly pitches like Perth or Brisbane). So just taking how Indian batsmen fared against Aus during McGrath's playing days, you can get an idea of the impact just McGrath's presence had on the Indian batsmen. During McGrath's Test career days, Tendulkar averaged 92 against Aus when McGrath was absent, and 37 when McGrath was present. Pretty similar with Dravid as well (84 when McGrath was absent, 31 when McGrath was present). The dent in Laxman's stats is lesser but the impact is still there (66 without McGrath, 44 with McGrath). Again, the stats here were taken just during McGrath's active days.

The differences in the career averages and McGrath-impacted averages of the Indian batsmen is pretty significant and clear.

If Bradman's bodyline-impacted average was as high as 56, then to me it stands to good reason that his normal average being much higher is not an accident. The guy's career was just a freak.

 

[Hurricane]

What was Richard Daft's standardised average?

Btw Hurricane that's all fine. But if you are not going to defer to the stats then, and respectfully, I can't take what you say on board this time.

Had I have had the standardised stats at my finger tips I would also have used those to counter you so I do value stats, I just knew from my reading that 39 wasn't representative of his abilities but lacked a way of expressing that point in 3 sentences effectively. As mentioned I was planning on writing you a novel with each limiting factor on that average named - and with some legendary stories thrown in.