Best After The Don

[Migara]

You only proved your ignorance. No bowler benefitted bowling to Bradman. Here are the facts. He increased the overall Eng bowling averages by almost 6. The South Africans by 12. The WI by 4. Not the 0.9 you erroneously state.

The figure you misquote and misunderstand (it is actually 1.2 or abouts) is the impact he had on the DECADAL BATTING AVERAGE: NOT INDIVIDUAL BOWLING AVERAGES. I have put your error up in capitals and in bold not to humiliate but to assist you to a better understanding.

Take even the decadal stuff. There will be players like SRT and Lara who would have dented averages from 95-2005 in a bigger way than whole careers. If one decadal average takes a bigger hit, the next one will be spared, because what ever you do, the net effect should approach the figure I have given. That's the global impact of Bradman. What ever subset of data you take, once the union of such sets are considered the figure is 0.018* 100 or 1.8 runs.

 

[Viscount Tom]

WI attack of the 80s were lucky that they never had to bowl at Don. He would have embarassed them and spoiled their averages. If they played reasonable number of tests agaist him, they would have ended up with an average in the 30s.

Perhaps but there's no way of knowing and it would depend on which set of rules your playing under, those of the 80s or those of the 1930s.

 

[abmk]

And this is an example of what I mean. This poster set the parameters by saying that Eng benefitted playing weak sides. I then countered by stating the averages of some of the 90s weaker sides against the better attacks of the era. In short countering within the parameters set by this poster.

Then he shifts the goal posts by quoting the overall batting averages of these weaker 90s sides. Well of course they'll improve. Because they benefit by playing against each other! In other words giving them the benefit he highlights to discount the efforts of the English attack of 27-39.

That seems to be the MO of the DGB revisionists. Cherry pick the stats and then play both sides of the street.

Either way he is wrong. The 27-39 English attack played a far greater proportion of their matches v their strongest opponent than any side of the modern era. Just as notable is that the weaker sides of the 27-39 era recorded their averages by almost exclusively playing Aus and Eng. In short they never got the advantage of improving their averages by playing each other as the moderns do.

yeah, because England bowling in the 90s was weak, so were India, SL, NZ at home

each one of Aus, WI, Pak, SA attacks was better than the England attack from 27-39

yet the only team that goes below 25 avg or below even any of the 3 ( NZ, WI, Ind ) from 28-39 , vs these 4 attacks combined is zimbabwe

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

in the 90s, except for zimbabwe who are close, all the other teams had distinctly better batting than - NZ, WI and Ind in the 1928-39 time-frame ...

you mentioned the decline of WI batting .... true ....but what depth did the WI batting in the 30s have ? who was there apart from headley ? you just avoided answering that .......

reality is even with decline, the WI batting in the 90s was still quite clearly better ...

 

[the big bambino]

Take even the decadal stuff. There will be players like SRT and Lara who would have dented averages from 95-2005 in a bigger way than whole careers. If one decadal average takes a bigger hit, the next one will be spared, because what ever you do, the net effect should approach the figure I have given. That's the global impact of Bradman. What ever subset of data you take, once the union of such sets are considered the figure is 0.018* 100 or 1.8 runs.

Thanks. We've been over this. Proportion is a key distorting factor. SRT had a minimal impact on the decadal ave of the 90s. Bcos his proportion of innings was less. Thus Hammond had a greater impact on the 30s decade av bcos he played proportionally more innings. Even though he had the same ave (or thereabouts). That is why Bradman distorts the decadal av. Bcos of his unprecented ave and bcos he played a larger proportion of that decade's innings than he would have if he played in any other decade.

 

[the big bambino]

yeah, because England bowling in the 90s was weak, so were India, SL, NZ at home

each one of Aus, WI, Pak, SA attacks was better than the England attack from 27-39

yet the only team that goes below 25 avg or below even any of the 3 ( NZ, WI, Ind ) from 28-39 , vs these 4 attacks combined is zimbabwe

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

in the 90s, except for zimbabwe who are close, all the other teams had distinctly better batting than - NZ, WI and Ind in the 1928-39 time-frame ...

you mentioned the decline of WI batting .... true ....but what depth did the WI batting in the 30s have ? who was there apart from headley ? you just avoided answering that .......

reality is even with decline, the WI batting in the 90s was still quite clearly better ...

Ok. here is what you have done.

1) You isolated old era Eng's weaker opponents.
2) I then isolated the modern era's weaker opponents.
3) You then looked at those weaker opponents OVERALL figures. Not their ave against the better modern attacks in isolation.
4) That is changing the goal posts and not consistent with your initial argument. Which is less than scrupulous imho.

I have also mentioned I'll be looking at Eng's attack from 98-2009; a time when they won 2 ashes against great opponents.Yet you deride that attack as weak? Come on man...

 

[Coronis]

All this crap trying to find blemishes in Bradman's record is pointless. Wait until someone comes along with a record thats even close to his, then you can try.

 

[archie mac]

It amuses me to read these silly arugments trying to convince anyone that Bradman is not just the best but the best by a mile.

It's more of pity that most are SRT supporters, I think you have enough trouble trying to convince anyone who knows their cricket that he is even No2

 

[fredfertang]

It amuses me to read these silly arugments trying to convince anyone that Bradman is not just the best but the best by a mile.

It's more of pity that most are SRT supporters, I think you have enough trouble trying to convince anyone who knows their cricket that he is even No2

Couldn't agree more - I haven't always been able to resist sticking my nose into this thread although I've given up now - but I do admire TBB's tenacity, but quite frankly he might as well start repainting the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a toothbrush for all the good its going to do him given some of the reasoning being adopted against him

 

[watson]

One argument that I think is a reasonably valid one is the 'burn-out' argument. Modern day batsman have the problem of maintaining enthusiasm, fitness, and form during their hectic scedule of Tests and ODI matches. Not only that, but their hectic schedule is conducted on many continents and on a variety of pitches and conditions.

One of the main reasons for Bradman's success was his bloody-minded tenacity. This was reasonably easy to maintain during the 1930s when the pace of life, and cricket, was less demanding.

However, it is reasonable to assume that the pace of modern living and the demands of modern international cricket would place a significant strain even on the fitness, technique, and psychology of such a committed batsman as Bradman.

For reasons of 'burn-out' I don't think that Bradman could maintain an average of 99 if he played his quota of Tests during the 1970s, 80s, 90s or 2000s.

 

[fredfertang]

Wasn't "burn out" supposedly a factor in his missing the first Test of the Bodyline series?

 

[watson]

Wasn't "burn out" supposedly a factor in his missing the first Test of the Bodyline series?

I'm not sure. But if it was then surely he would fair even worse if having to play on 3 continents (Tests and ODIs) in the same year like Chappell, Waugh, or Clarke.

If you look at Bradman's list of matches then it is apparent that he had it relatively easy. Unlike Bill Lawry or Ian Chappell he wasn't coping with Bedi, barren pitches, and riots in India one day, then Mike Procter at Newlands the next. Whoever dreamt up that itinery must have been a sadist.

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

However, having said all that, the effect of modern scheduling wouldn't have sent his average crashing. We are looking at a minor/moderate readjustment only.

 

[Migara]

Thanks. We've been over this. Proportion is a key distorting factor. SRT had a minimal impact on the decadal ave of the 90s. Bcos his proportion of innings was less. Thus Hammond had a greater impact on the 30s decade av bcos he played proportionally more innings. Even though he had the same ave (or thereabouts). That is why Bradman distorts the decadal av. Bcos of his unprecented ave and bcos he played a larger proportion of that decade's innings than he would have if he played in any other decade.

Thanks. It brings out the obvious bleeding hole in Bradman's record, that is lack of oppositions and playing conditions. He kept bashing the same old attack of England, which was the only good attack at that time. There was no other good attack where he could be tested. Obviously Bradman has no wrong in that he had to bash the same attack, neither he gets credit that most of his innigs were against the same opposition, where others were deprived of proper cricket due to no wrong of theirs.

Had he played more vs Martindale and Constantine, the Bradman effect would have dimnished, so, would have been hsi average. If someone suggests Martindale and Constantine are better than Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh, there's no point discussing further.

 

[sledger]

turd posting

 

[archie mac]

One argument that I think is a reasonably valid one is the 'burn-out' argument. Modern day batsman have the problem of maintaining enthusiasm, fitness, and form during their hectic scedule of Tests and ODI matches. Not only that, but their hectic schedule is conducted on many continents and on a variety of pitches and conditions.

One of the main reasons for Bradman's success was his bloody-minded tenacity. This was reasonably easy to maintain during the 1930s when the pace of life, and cricket, was less demanding.

However, it is reasonable to assume that the pace of modern living and the demands of modern international cricket would place a significant strain even on the fitness, technique, and psychology of such a committed batsman as Bradman.

For reasons of 'burn-out' I don't think that Bradman could maintain an average of 99 if he played his quota of Tests during the 1970s, 80s, 90s or 2000s.

He did have to work fulltime and also missed 8 years of his peak time due to the war, though I agree you have a vaild point, still a long way off explaining his huge advantage over his contemporaries

 

[archie mac]

Thanks. It brings out the obvious bleeding hole in Bradman's record, that is lack of oppositions and playing conditions. He kept bashing the same old attack of England, which was the only good attack at that time. There was no other good attack where he could be tested. Obviously Bradman has no wrong in that he had to bash the same attack, neither he gets credit that most of his innigs were against the same opposition, where others were deprived of proper cricket due to no wrong of theirs.

Had he played more vs Martindale and Constantine, the Bradman effect would have dimnished, so, would have been hsi average. If someone suggests Martindale and Constantine are better than Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh, there's no point discussing further.

Good idea, suggest you follow your own advice

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If anything Don Bradman had more reason to be burnt out than any cricketer in history, especially on a tour of England. Away from the cricket he had a relentless schedule of interviews, after dinner speaking and answering letters. He often went days or weeks with little sleep never mind relaxation.

 

[Satyanash89]

No one's going to mention how many first class games cricketers played in those days, plus the ridiculously long journeys they had to make, often even months on end? Ok then...
Each era comes with its own set of demands from players , physical and mental.

 

[archie mac]

No one's going to mention how many first class games cricketers played in those days, plus the ridiculously long journeys they had to make, often even months on end? Ok then...
Each era comes with its own set of demands from players , physical and mental.

Yes, there are many arguments for all eras but in the end 99.94 keeps coming up!

 

[Coronis]

Yes, there are many arguments for all eras but in the end 99.94 keeps coming up!

Post of the thread, in my opinion.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why in god's name are people voting for Kallis here in such numbers?