Bradman effect

[the big bambino]

The description minnow in this context is just as silly and meaningless as the term ATG. The stats against the post and pre war bowlers in this selection show the WI and SA over both eras were comparable and none were minnows. Far from it. Though a level lower again, neither could any other side (apart from the possible exceptions of NZ and India in the 50s) could be compared in awfulness as the ZIm and BD of today.

 

[Prince EWS]

The description minnow in this context is just as silly and meaningless as the term ATG. The stats against the post and pre war bowlers in this selection show the WI and SA over both eras were comparable and none were minnows. Far from it. Though a level lower again, neither could any other side (apart from the possible exceptions of NZ and India in the 50s) could be compared in awfulness as the ZIm and BD of today.

I've always thought of them more comparable to the current West Indian side or the pre-political-turmoil Zimbabwe side. Sure they usually lost to good opposition but they each had a few world class players that made them challenging to perform against for each individual player. Essentially just at the bottom end of the Test class level rather than seeming an entirely different level of cricket altogether like true minnows.

 

[archie mac]

Yes but sadly I missed the chance to buy it - effectively it's just a plain piece of paper with the same design as the cloth boards

Oh no, I know that feeling. A few times Mrs Mac has stopped me buying books only for me to regret it

 

[Migara]

The description minnow in this context is just as silly and meaningless as the term ATG. The stats against the post and pre war bowlers in this selection show the WI and SA over both eras were comparable and none were minnows. Far from it. Though a level lower again, neither could any other side (apart from the possible exceptions of NZ and India in the 50s) could be compared in awfulness as the ZIm and BD of today.

Definition of minnows.

Batting and bowling averages of Index was calculated one taking parellel mean and other taking the product.

Here are the results:

[SIZE="5"]Bangladesh[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]2000s 	 	18.95	53.19	33.13	33.22	0.57	0.62	0.6	0.6[/COLOR]
								
[SIZE="5"]India	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1930s 	 	22.04	38.4	31.61	31.94	0.7	0.83	0.76	0.76
1940s 	 	24.66	46.67	36.25	34	0.68	0.73	0.7	0.7[/COLOR]
1950s 	 	26.45	35.09	27.53	27.68	0.96	0.79	0.87	0.87
1960s 	 	28.06	34.14	31.3	31.8	0.9	0.93	0.91	0.91
1970s 	 	30.05	33.4	30.9	31.64	0.97	0.95	0.96	0.96
1980s 	 	32.13	36.39	30.17	31.42	1.06	0.86	0.96	0.96
1990s 	 	33.1	33.46	29.09	31.3	1.14	0.94	1.03	1.04
2000s 	 	35.34	34.78	31.53	33.94	1.12	0.98	1.05	1.05
								
[SIZE="5"]New Zealand[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1930s 	 	23.78	46.03	31.73	31.38	0.75	0.68	0.71	0.72[/COLOR]
1940s 	 	30.11	42.11	34.56	35.01	0.87	0.83	0.85	0.85
1[COLOR="Red"]950s 	 	18.73	38	28.45	27.86	0.66	0.73	0.69	0.7[/COLOR]
1960s 	 	22.66	31.79	32.06	32.14	0.71	1.01	0.85	0.86
1970s 	 	26.05	38.95	31.34	31.22	0.83	0.8	0.82	0.82
1980s 	 	27.82	30.38	30.8	32.31	0.9	1.06	0.98	0.98
1990s 	 	27.44	36	29.73	30.98	0.92	0.86	0.89	0.89
2000s 	 	29.76	33.76	32.14	34.06	0.93	1.01	0.97	0.97
								
[SIZE="5"]Pakistan	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
1950s 	 	24.42	30.1	27.68	28.41	0.88	0.94	0.91	0.91
1960s 	 	27.41	35.72	31.13	31.86	0.88	0.89	0.89	0.89
1970s 	 	33.13	33.52	30.46	31.71	1.09	0.95	1.01	1.02
1980s 	 	33.69	30.68	29.98	32.36	1.12	1.05	1.09	1.09
1990s 	 	29.03	28.52	29.51	31.9	0.98	1.12	1.05	1.05
2000s 	 	33.3	34.79	31.81	33.96	1.05	0.98	1.01	1.01
								
[SIZE="5"]South Africa[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1880s 	 	7	22.95	18.91	19.17	0.37	0.84	0.56	0.6
1890s 	 	10.85	25.65	25.85	25.15	0.42	0.98	0.64	0.7[/COLOR]
1900s 	 	22.24	21.65	24.11	25.39	0.92	1.17	1.04	1.05
[COLOR="Red"]1910s 	 	21.16	33.14	29.43	24.02	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.72[/COLOR]
1920s 	 	26.2	34.15	33.69	33.03	0.78	0.97	0.87	0.87
1930s 	 	26.7	38.12	32.02	31.24	0.83	0.82	0.83	0.83
1940s 	 	30.64	42.97	34.92	34.3	0.88	0.8	0.84	0.84
1950s 	 	24.81	28.78	27.73	28.51	0.89	0.99	0.94	0.94
1960s 	 	31.65	30.26	30.74	32.28	1.03	1.07	1.05	1.05
1970s 	 	38.67	21.12	30.68	32.05	1.26	1.52	1.38	1.39
1980s 								
1990s 	 	31.64	27.05	29.24	32.02	1.08	1.18	1.13	1.13
2000s 	 	35.87	30.97	31.45	34.5	1.14	1.11	1.13	1.13
								
[SIZE="5"]Sri Lanka[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1980s 	 	24.22	39.53	30.89	31.75	0.78	0.8	0.79	0.79[/COLOR]
1990s 	 	28.9	35.67	29.51	31.12	0.98	0.87	0.92	0.93
2000s 	 	34.58	29.57	31.67	34.57	1.09	1.17	1.13	1.13
								
[SIZE="5"]West Indies[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1920s 	 	16.1	40.32	32.53	33.12	0.49	0.82	0.64	0.66[/COLOR]
1930s 	 	24.6	35.34	32.04	31.82	0.77	0.9	0.83	0.83
1940s 	 	42.89	31.2	33.41	35.88	1.28	1.15	1.21	1.22
1950s 	 	33.74	31.2	26.31	28.06	1.28	0.9	1.07	1.09
1960s 	 	33.66	31.81	30.37	32.16	1.11	1.01	1.06	1.06
1970s 	 	34.54	33.49	30.09	31.61	1.15	0.94	1.04	1.05
1980s 	 	33.05	25.02	30.03	33.69	1.1	1.35	1.22	1.22
1990s 	 	27.89	29.23	29.66	31.83	0.94	1.09	1.01	1.01
2000s 	 	28	38.49	32.51	33.5	0.86	0.87	0.87	0.87
								
[SIZE="5"]Zimbabwe	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
1990s 	 	24.4	36.05	29.78	33.96	0.82	0.94	0.88	0.88
[COLOR="Red"]2000s 	 	24.94	43.46	32.36	33.66	0.77	0.77	0.77	0.77[/COLOR]

SAF in 1930s and 1940s and WI in 1930s were just a bit better than what SL was in 1980s.

 

[Daemon]

man this thread sure is exciting

 

[the big bambino]

Definition of minnows.

Batting and bowling averages of Index was calculated one taking parellel mean and other taking the product.

Here are the results:

[SIZE="5"]Bangladesh[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]2000s 	 	18.95	53.19	33.13	33.22	0.57	0.62	0.6	0.6[/COLOR]
								
[SIZE="5"]India	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1930s 	 	22.04	38.4	31.61	31.94	0.7	0.83	0.76	0.76
1940s 	 	24.66	46.67	36.25	34	0.68	0.73	0.7	0.7[/COLOR]
1950s 	 	26.45	35.09	27.53	27.68	0.96	0.79	0.87	0.87
1960s 	 	28.06	34.14	31.3	31.8	0.9	0.93	0.91	0.91
1970s 	 	30.05	33.4	30.9	31.64	0.97	0.95	0.96	0.96
1980s 	 	32.13	36.39	30.17	31.42	1.06	0.86	0.96	0.96
1990s 	 	33.1	33.46	29.09	31.3	1.14	0.94	1.03	1.04
2000s 	 	35.34	34.78	31.53	33.94	1.12	0.98	1.05	1.05
								
[SIZE="5"]New Zealand[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1930s 	 	23.78	46.03	31.73	31.38	0.75	0.68	0.71	0.72[/COLOR]
1940s 	 	30.11	42.11	34.56	35.01	0.87	0.83	0.85	0.85
1[COLOR="Red"]950s 	 	18.73	38	28.45	27.86	0.66	0.73	0.69	0.7[/COLOR]
1960s 	 	22.66	31.79	32.06	32.14	0.71	1.01	0.85	0.86
1970s 	 	26.05	38.95	31.34	31.22	0.83	0.8	0.82	0.82
1980s 	 	27.82	30.38	30.8	32.31	0.9	1.06	0.98	0.98
1990s 	 	27.44	36	29.73	30.98	0.92	0.86	0.89	0.89
2000s 	 	29.76	33.76	32.14	34.06	0.93	1.01	0.97	0.97
								
[SIZE="5"]Pakistan	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
1950s 	 	24.42	30.1	27.68	28.41	0.88	0.94	0.91	0.91
1960s 	 	27.41	35.72	31.13	31.86	0.88	0.89	0.89	0.89
1970s 	 	33.13	33.52	30.46	31.71	1.09	0.95	1.01	1.02
1980s 	 	33.69	30.68	29.98	32.36	1.12	1.05	1.09	1.09
1990s 	 	29.03	28.52	29.51	31.9	0.98	1.12	1.05	1.05
2000s 	 	33.3	34.79	31.81	33.96	1.05	0.98	1.01	1.01
								
[SIZE="5"]South Africa[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1880s 	 	7	22.95	18.91	19.17	0.37	0.84	0.56	0.6
1890s 	 	10.85	25.65	25.85	25.15	0.42	0.98	0.64	0.7[/COLOR]
1900s 	 	22.24	21.65	24.11	25.39	0.92	1.17	1.04	1.05
[COLOR="Red"]1910s 	 	21.16	33.14	29.43	24.02	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.72[/COLOR]
1920s 	 	26.2	34.15	33.69	33.03	0.78	0.97	0.87	0.87
1930s 	 	26.7	38.12	32.02	31.24	0.83	0.82	0.83	0.83
1940s 	 	30.64	42.97	34.92	34.3	0.88	0.8	0.84	0.84
1950s 	 	24.81	28.78	27.73	28.51	0.89	0.99	0.94	0.94
1960s 	 	31.65	30.26	30.74	32.28	1.03	1.07	1.05	1.05
1970s 	 	38.67	21.12	30.68	32.05	1.26	1.52	1.38	1.39
1980s 								
1990s 	 	31.64	27.05	29.24	32.02	1.08	1.18	1.13	1.13
2000s 	 	35.87	30.97	31.45	34.5	1.14	1.11	1.13	1.13
								
[SIZE="5"]Sri Lanka[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1980s 	 	24.22	39.53	30.89	31.75	0.78	0.8	0.79	0.79[/COLOR]
1990s 	 	28.9	35.67	29.51	31.12	0.98	0.87	0.92	0.93
2000s 	 	34.58	29.57	31.67	34.57	1.09	1.17	1.13	1.13
								
[SIZE="5"]West Indies[/SIZE]								
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
[COLOR="Red"]1920s 	 	16.1	40.32	32.53	33.12	0.49	0.82	0.64	0.66[/COLOR]
1930s 	 	24.6	35.34	32.04	31.82	0.77	0.9	0.83	0.83
1940s 	 	42.89	31.2	33.41	35.88	1.28	1.15	1.21	1.22
1950s 	 	33.74	31.2	26.31	28.06	1.28	0.9	1.07	1.09
1960s 	 	33.66	31.81	30.37	32.16	1.11	1.01	1.06	1.06
1970s 	 	34.54	33.49	30.09	31.61	1.15	0.94	1.04	1.05
1980s 	 	33.05	25.02	30.03	33.69	1.1	1.35	1.22	1.22
1990s 	 	27.89	29.23	29.66	31.83	0.94	1.09	1.01	1.01
2000s 	 	28	38.49	32.51	33.5	0.86	0.87	0.87	0.87
								
[SIZE="5"]Zimbabwe	[/SIZE]							
Decade  	Bat Av	Bowl Av	Gbat	Gbowl	Bat Ab	Bowl Ab	PI	OI
1990s 	 	24.4	36.05	29.78	33.96	0.82	0.94	0.88	0.88
[COLOR="Red"]2000s 	 	24.94	43.46	32.36	33.66	0.77	0.77	0.77	0.77[/COLOR]

SAF in 1930s and 1940s and WI in 1930s were just a bit better than what SL was in 1980s.

SL in the 80s looks better than SL in the 90s when they were good enough to win a world cup. Not bad for a minnow or sure says alot about the prevailing standard.

EDIT. I was looking at the wrong columns. Sorry about that. I've read a little of the thread and there is certainly some research. I'd never have looked at assessing the standards of sides that way. I took the lazy way. I'm not sure how many tests or series SL won in the 80s. I believe BD and Zim have won very few in their histories. I just look at the records of teams, most notably their test and series wins to prioritise them. SA beat Eng twice in series the 28-39 period and just lost another. Yet in ashes Eng won more tests. (I think they would have aced every series too but for Bradman). So on that basis I rate SA highly. Similarly the WI even though their wins were against B sides mainly though more impressive than any minnow could attain.

But I would agree about the status of Ind and NZ in both eras. Also Pakistan though they had wins against Eng away and WI and Aus at home. (India in the 50s had wins at home against Eng, though not at full strength). Overall though their records were unimpressive against the main sides and it can't be argued they were behind both SA and the WI let alone Aus and Eng both pre and immediate post war.

 

[kyear2]

The description minnow in this context is just as silly and meaningless as the term ATG. The stats against the post and pre war bowlers in this selection show the WI and SA over both eras were comparable and none were minnows. Far from it. Though a level lower again, neither could any other side (apart from the possible exceptions of NZ and India in the 50s) could be compared in awfulness as the ZIm and BD of today.

When Larwood and Tate played againts the W.I. it was their first test series, there was no Headley and they were true minnows. They were embarred to the point that England, as previously mentioned didn't send any of their first choice bolwers to the W.I for the return series.
Bowling wise, especially by the time Bradman and Hammond subsequently faced them, Martindale and Constatine had come into their own and they were more competitive, but the batting still revolved around Headley and a much lesser extent Roach.
Regarding S.A, if they were truely seen as Test class, why were they only afforded three, 3 day matches and the only time they won a match in the third game was with Larwood off the park. It is often mentioned that Headley didn't face Larwood, but of the 3 great batsmen of the era, he couldn't bowl to Hammond and never faced Headley either.
Regarding the bowling of S.A and India, especially when they faced Bradman were not test class and neither were their fielding with Bradman in the first match being dropped twice before scoring 20, before scoring 226 vs S.A. and I don't understand how the Indian team of the 50's was minnow like, but not that of the '48 team that Bradman collered.
I do understand though the efford put forward to defend the other teams of Bradman's era to somehow boost the players that he and Larwood played againts the justify the performances of both, but truth be told, they were only two good teams of the era, and to use the minnows that Larwood and Tate faced to show that that was their true performances and that Bradman's presence was the outlier, is disengenuous. The argument can be put forward that neither was truely indicative and the truth lies some where in the middle but if Larwood was by far the best of his era as suggested, his numbers should still have better than Voce and Allen and quite frankly they were just about the same and first class averages don't sway me, unless it is presented in the lack of evidence of test cricket or to collaborate test numbers, not to contridict them. Even Grimmett to an extent struggled againt England (avg 30), but greatly enhanced his numbers againts the lesser teams, they were monnow of the day, but understand the reluctance of such acceptance.

 

[the big bambino]

When Larwood and Tate played againts the W.I. it was their first test series, there was no Headley and they were true minnows. They were embarred to the point that England, as previously mentioned didn't send any of their first choice bolwers to the W.I for the return series.
Bowling wise, especially by the time Bradman and Hammond subsequently faced them, Martindale and Constatine had come into their own and they were more competitive, but the batting still revolved around Headley and a much lesser extent Roach.
Regarding S.A, if they were truely seen as Test class, why were they only afforded three, 3 day matches and the only time they won a match in the third game was with Larwood off the park. It is often mentioned that Headley didn't face Larwood, but of the 3 great batsmen of the era, he couldn't bowl to Hammond and never faced Headley either.
Regarding the bowling of S.A and India, especially when they faced Bradman were not test class and neither were their fielding with Bradman in the first match being dropped twice before scoring 20, before scoring 226 vs S.A. and I don't understand how the Indian team of the 50's was minnow like, but not that of the '48 team that Bradman collered.
I do understand though the efford put forward to defend the other teams of Bradman's era to somehow boost the players that he and Larwood played againts the justify the performances of both, but truth be told, they were only two good teams of the era, and to use the minnows that Larwood and Tate faced to show that that was their true performances and that Bradman's presence was the outlier, is disengenuous. The argument can be put forward that neither was truely indicative and the truth lies some where in the middle but if Larwood was by far the best of his era as suggested, his numbers should still have better than Voce and Allen and quite frankly they were just about the same and first class averages don't sway me, unless it is presented in the lack of evidence of test cricket or to collaborate test numbers, not to contridict them. Even Grimmett to an extent struggled againt England (avg 30), but greatly enhanced his numbers againts the lesser teams, they were monnow of the day, but understand the reluctance of such acceptance.

1) When compared to the 2 sets of bowlers the WI of the 20s/30s had a competitive and comparable average to the other sides. I will make the comparison at some other time.

2) Bradman never faced Martindale.

3) Your story about SA winning when Larwood was off the park is exciting but a fiction. I repeat again that SA beat Eng in 2 series out of 4 in the 28-39 period. Minnows can't do that. To define them as minnows is to ignore facts to console a prejudice. 3 days was the normal for tests in Eng up to 1930. Even for Australia. I believe only Australian games increased to 4 days after that. The Oval tests were timeless. Even for SA. Tests in Australia were timeless. Did you know this?

4) I've made no comment about the Indian team DGB faced. Please stop inferring as if I have.

5) The SA bowling DGB faced certainly had class though and were praised by umpires and players alike. Once again you have fallen for the trap of rating them without removing Bradman's contribution to their averages. I will do that soon enough for you to show you how much you have been, understandably, misled.

6) I make no comment abt fielding. You'll find that most big innings have been assisted by dropped catches or some other form of luck.

7) I am not attempting to justify Larwood's record. That would be impertinent. I am removing DGB's contribution from selected bowler's averages to compare them with another group of Englishmen to show there is little difference statistically, and by extension, quality. This is to reject with facts and stats the prejudice Bradman didn't face any good bowlers. You can only believe that now if you also believe the likes of Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Bedser can't bowl...

8) ...therefore I have not defended any other teams as you have said but confined my stats to those selected English bowlers. I have only mentioned the other teams when others have brought them up and I have had something to say in response to what had been said. In time I will make comments abt the SA bowlers of the 31/32 series. Maybe you can refrain from responding, let alone calling it disingenuous, until I actually make the point?

9) Grimmett did not "struggle" against England. If you want to see someone struggle against the best opponents of his era see Warne against India. Yet no one (sensible) downplays Warne's results bcos of that blemish or the fact he murdered a pretty uncompetitive English team of his era. The reason why they were uncompetitive was largely down to Warne. Hence the reason Aus thrashed a strong SA side (that was capable of beating England) was largley down to Grimmett's efforts.

10) In light of the 9 corrections above I'm bound to ask out of genuine curiosity, that should not be taken as rudeness, if you actually understand anything written in this thread?

 

[archie mac]

It should also be noted that even Australia were not given more than 3 day Tests in England until 1930 and then they were only given four days

 

[the big bambino]

One of several corrections that I have made to kyear's post.

 

[archie mac]

One of several corrections that I have made to kyear's post.

Yes, but I didn't think you made it very clear

 

[the big bambino]

Yes, but I didn't think you made it very clear

I've had to re edit it as I've found more and more I disagree with. You'll find its in there now.

 

[archie mac]

I've had to re edit it as I've found more and more I disagree with. You'll find its in there now.

Haha, much better

 

[kyear2]

1) When compared to the 2 sets of bowlers the WI of the 20s/30s had a competitive and comparable average to the other sides.

2) Bradman never faced Martindale.

Doesn't assist your argument, Bradman scored two hundred in 5 matches, and in his 223 was dropped when on four.

3) Your comment about SA winning when Larwood was off the park is exciting but a fiction. I repeat again that SA beat Eng in 2 series out of 4 in the 28-39 period. Minnows can't do that. To define them as minnows is to ignore facts to console a prejudice. 3 days was the normal for tests in Eng up to 1930. Even for Australia. I believe only Australian games increased to 4 days after that. The Oval tests were timeless. Even for SA. Tests in Australia were timeless. Did you know this?

Were speaking of when Larwood played againts them it is factual, Larwood was the focus of the comparrison. W.I also defeated England at home in '35, no one would say we were not a weak team, but once again we were discussing at the time Larwood was playing.

4) I've made no comment about the Indian team DGB faced. Please stop inferring as if I have.

You did when you implied that they were no minnows until the '50's

5) The SA bowling DGB faced certainly had class though and were praised by umpires and players alike. Once again you have fallen for the trap of rating them without removing Bradman's contribution to their averages. I will do that soon enough for you to show you how much you have been, understandably, misled.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Let me save you the trouble. They were not very good.
6) I make no comment abt fielding. You'll find that most big innings have been assisted by dropped catches or some other form of luck.

Especially in a less professional era where they were only two good teams.

7) I am not attempting to justify Larwood's record. That would be impertinent. I am removing DGB's contribution from selected bowler's averages to compare them with another group of Englishmen to show there is little difference statistically, and by extension, quality. This is to reject with facts and stats the prejudice Bradman didn't face any good bowlers. You can only believe that now if you also believe the likes of Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Bedser can't bowl...

And you are making those comparrisons excluding the only good team they faced and that existed in that era. Hence the argument is flawed.
8) ...therefore I have not defended any other teams as you have said but confined my stats to those selected English bowlers. I have only mentioned the other teams when others have brought them up and I have had something to say in response to what had been said. In time I will make comments abt the SA bowlers of the 31/32 series. Maybe you can refrain from responding, let alone calling it disingenuous, until I actually make the point?

9) In light of the 8 corrections above I'm bound to ask out of genuine curiosity, that should not be taken as rudeness, if you actually understand anything written in this thread?

Yes, totally. Just respectfully disagree.

Kindly note responses above

 

[the big bambino]

Kindly note responses above

I note but can't credit them. I issue the following corrections. Some are repeats.

Sigh: When I say I make NO COMMENT about fielding that is what I mean. So when you talk abt people being dropped at 4 I just shrug my shoulders and say so what. You might make that comment. But lets be clear. Its not in response to anything I've said.

Larwood is not the focus of the comparison. Never was. He was just one of 13 bowlers I have compared. You not being able to understand this makes no difference to the point being made.

I repeat I made no comment about the Indian team DGB faced. After all the comparsion is for the yrs 28-39. Surely you can even understand that there can be no reference to a side Bradman didn't face in that timeframe?

Thanks for the cricinfo stats. I know of them. Now what did I say previously? That you have fallen for the trap of using averages Bradman has destroyed to say the bowlers he faced must have been rubbish. Just wait til I do a comparison without his distorting effect. Comment all you like then.

I have made the comparison with Australia - yes. But I will make it with other countries soon. I have said this a few times. The argument isn't flawed bcos you have interupted it! Look here is an example of what you have done. My bet is that when I do you will argue the comparison is flawed bcos you wont recognise SA and the WI as anything other than minnows right? Note that I'm not shoving those words down your mouth but I predict its what you'll do.

Happily I see that you aren't revisiting "arguments" raised in error in your previous post. Glad to see that you no longer dispute the length of tests in England. Or imply Martindale bowled to Bradman. Or SA beat Eng in a test when Larwood was off the park. Or dispute SA beat England in 2 out of 4 series. Now a gracious person would acknowledge those errors but it seems that ignoring what is inconvenient is about as gracious as you can get. So I accept your thanks even in the absence of them.

 

[kyear2]

I note but can't credit them. I issue the following corrections. Some are repeats.

Sigh: When I say I make NO COMMENT about fielding that is what I mean. So when you talk abt people being dropped at 4 I just shrug my shoulders and say so what. You might make that comment. But lets be clear. Its not in response to anything I've said.

Larwood is not the focus of the comparison. Never was. He was just one of 13 bowlers I have compared. You not being able to understand this makes no difference to the point being made.

The point that you are trying to make is that the bowlers that Bradman faced are better than their over all stats because he didtorted their figures, the point that I an making is that the other teams they played againts were very weak, and so they too are not reflective of a true average, and that a clear indication is somewhere in the middle and that is where they ended up, taking their true averages againts minnows is just as misleading, and as Larwood was seen as the best of the bunch, he was used as the example. You are trying to manipulate figures to prove a point.

I repeat I made no comment about the Indian team DGB faced. After all the comparsion is for the yrs 28-39. Surely you can even understand that there can be no reference to a side Bradman didn't face in that timeframe?

Thanks for the cricinfo stats. I know of them. Now what did I say previously? That you have fallen for the trap of using averages Bradman has destroyed to say the bowlers he faced must have been rubbish. Just wait til I do a comparison without his distorting effect. Comment all you like then.

The links that I posted showed their average againts all teams they faced and none of them were much better, if not worse is some cases.

I have made the comparison with Australia - yes. But I will make it with other countries soon. I have said this a few times. The argument isn't flawed bcos you have interupted it! Look here is an example of what you have done. My bet is that when I do you will argue the comparison is flawed bcos you wont recognise SA and the WI as anything other than minnows right? Note that I'm not shoving those words down your mouth but I predict its what you'll do.

The West Indies team were playing their first ever test series againts Larwood and Tate, they had no real Test quality plaers at that time, what would you call them.

Happily I see that you aren't revisiting "arguments" raised in error in your previous post. Glad to see that you no longer dispute the length of test days in England. Or imply Martindale bowled to Bradman. Or SA beat Eng in a test when Larwood was off the park. Or dispute SA beat England in 2 out of 4 series. Now a gracious person would acknowledge those errors but it seems that ignoring what is inconvenient is about as gracious as you can get. So I accept your thanks even in the absence of them.

I was wrong about the length of test days, the fact that Martindale weakens your argument not mine, and what I was trying to say is that of the tests that Larwood played againts S.A., the only one England won was with Larwood off the park, will have to check what I actually said, but it's 4am, if I said something different, my bad. What I said about S.A. beating England is that, one it was after Larwood and Tate retired, and that the the era and time in dispute and that the W.I alse defeated England in '35, but that doesn't dispute that the W.I was still a weak team and so was S.A.

My final point of the argument is that yes Bradman was the greatest batsman to play the game, but yes he was the product of flat pitches, weaker bowling that his main rivals in history and what was at the time some really weak minnow attacks that helped him to boost his average, and benefitted from a very strong supporting batting cast. As Fred stated earlier, the pitches in Australia were so flat that it discouraged fast bowlers. Trying to boost the status of the bowlers he played againts doen't make them better than they were, Larwood was given a rough hand, and if allowed to continue may have been able to improve his stats vs Australia, but overall the level of bowlers he faced were not of the highest class and the best bowlers of his era played on his team. To repeat, saying that they performed well in games not played againts Bradman, when the games played were agints S.A, and W.I and insome instances N.Z, is disengenuous and doesn't factor in that they were not very good teams, even if you don't consider them minnows, they were not up to the level of England or Australia. Australia were a batting juggernaught, and it wan't just Bradman, they were the best team of the era, and by a fair distance. Also the exercise of removing a player from your record is unprecendented, no one removes Lara and Tendulkar from Warne's record, because that is not a true representation of how he performed againts all comers, if you are good enough you can compete againts anyone. The Great ones did.
Anyway, typing and sleeping, will let you believe what you will and continue along in your thread. Out.

 

[archie mac]

Just a couple of things:

Australia were not that far in front of England as a Test team. England won the 1928-29 Series 4-1, lost the 1930 & 34 & 36-37 series in the final Test, drew the 1938 series and won the 1932-33 series.

That to me is pretty close working it out in my head before the war in series that Bradman played England won 13 Tests to 10.

Bradman had no trouble with any of the Aust. bowlers in SS cricket in fact he smashed them all including Tiger who has a great SS average. You keep suggesting Bradman would not have scored as well against them which is wrong, no one ever worried him for more than an innings or two.

Flat pitches can also be negated by uncovered wickets and in one series Bodyline.

I think it fair to take out Bradman's scores, after all there is no one near him average wise he was a freak and comparing him to Lara and Sachin when they were average wise no better than a couple of others from their era is silly.

 

[the big bambino]

1st of all kyear, to the sneaky responses you made in post 56 that I can't quote easily. You raise the old trying to manipulate figures argument. This is typical when a person doesn't have a rational response and just want to assert the primacy of their own prejudice.

The comparison I have done so far concerns only the record of both groups against AUSTRALIA. There it is in capitals. What is clear is that the pre war group's average v Australia is comparable, even maginally superior, to the post war group. This is even after I kindly throw in Freddy Brown to lessen the post war group's average. Therefore any discussion abt other team's smoothing out the Brdman effect is irrelevant bcos they in no way play a part in the comparison. While it is true I adjusted the pre war group's overall averages nothing can be read into this. After all if the post war group also played "minnows" and their overall averages benefitted from the gift too!

You also seem fixated on Larwood. DGB faced more than him. I can't help if stats show him to be not as good as his contemporaries as you may have believed. That may be confronting to your pre conceptions but that isn't my fault. If stats have been presented that you can't counter then you are obliged to accept their implications.

I don't care abt the Saffies averages against other teams. Bradman played for Australia - not Eng or NZ. So the relevant stat is the one in 31/32 when Aus played SA. You will get an idea of how well they bowled in that season when you remove the DGB stats. Then and only then can you make a judgment abt the strength or otherwise of the oppsoition HE faced.

The WI team of 28 is only part of the equation. I am talking abt their form over 11 years not one. Their stats against this bowling group show them to be competitive. As an aside it is rather hypocritical for you to talk abt manipulating figures when you try and cherry pick one season out of 11 for comment.

There was no argument abt Martindale. There was a statement from you. It was wrong. End of discussion on that one I think. SA beat a full strength Eng in 35. They weren't weak just bcos Larwood wasn't there. I can only rate such an argument as a non sequitor.

 

[the big bambino]

Just a couple of things:

Australia were not that far in front of England as a Test team. England won the 1928-29 Series 4-1, lost the 1930 & 34 & 36-37 series in the final Test, drew the 1938 series and won the 1932-33 series.

That to me is pretty close working it out in my head before the war in series that Bradman played England won 13 Tests to 10.

Bradman had no trouble with any of the Aust. bowlers in SS cricket in fact he smashed them all including Tiger who has a great SS average. You keep suggesting Bradman would not have scored as well against them which is wrong, no one ever worried him for more than an innings or two.

Flat pitches can also be negated by uncovered wickets and in one series Bodyline.

I think it fair to take out Bradman's scores, after all there is no one near him average wise he was a freak and comparing him to Lara and Sachin when they were average wise no better than a couple of others from their era is silly.

Exactly. The fact Eng won more tests than Aus DGB, Grimmett and O'Reilly notwithstanding, shows they were more than competitive. In fact without DGB I believe Eng would have been dominant. The fact SA then beat Eng twice shows up the idea they were minnows as the non sense it is.

 

[the big bambino]

1)My final point of the argument is that yes Bradman was the greatest batsman to play the game, but yes he was the product of flat pitches, weaker bowling that his main rivals in history and what was at the time some really weak minnow attacks that helped him to boost his average, and benefitted from a very strong supporting batting cast.

2) As Fred stated earlier, the pitches in Australia were so flat that it discouraged fast bowlers.

3) Trying to boost the status of the bowlers he played againts doen't make them better than they were, but overall the level of bowlers he faced were not of the highest class and the best bowlers of his era played on his team. To repeat, saying that they performed well in games not played againts Bradman, when the games played were agints S.A, and W.I and insome instances N.Z, is disengenuous and doesn't factor in that they were not very good teams, even if you don't consider them minnows, they were not up to the level of England or Australia.

4) Australia were a batting juggernaught, and it wan't just Bradman, they were the best team of the era, and by a fair distance.

5)Also the exercise of removing a player from your record is unprecendented, no one removes Lara and Tendulkar from Warne's record, because that is not a true representation of how he performed againts all comers, if you are good enough you can compete againts anyone. The Great ones did.
Anyway, typing and sleeping, will let you believe what you will and continue along in your thread. Out.

1) Trouble with the flat pitches, weak bowler meme is that it should have produced other batters with averages just as good. Bradman's uniqueness is a counter to the argument you raise. I mean I've heard of pitch doctoring to favour a team but you are advocating that pitches were doctored to favour 1 player.. without explaining how the curators managed to do it. Look; runs/wkt ave in the 30s was no different to most other eras. Lower than most when DGB's stats are taken out.

All players benefit against minnows. It happens that DGB played against them less often than most others.

2) Eng's pace bowlers generally went better in Aust. As did our pace bowlers. Spinners like Grimmett went better in Eng. As would have Ironmonger if he was allowed to tour there. In short the facts contradict the point you raised.

3) Once again you prefer comfy prejudice over contradicting stats. Any difference btwn the pre and post war groups in my comparison is in favour of the pre war group. 26.95/wkt (corrected) v 27.66/wkt. (These figures are versus Australia only). Stats also show the runs/wkt difference btwn Aus and Eng to be at its greatest in 28-39 era and in favour of England, on the proviso you take DGB's stats out. Therefore Eng, not Aus, had the best bowlers inspite of the presence of O'Reilly and Grimmett. It was that dominance that played a large part in Eng winning 13 tests to 10. One shudders to think what would have happened if DGB wasn't there.

To repeat for you I have only made the comparison with Australia. So your comments abt SA, WI and NZ aren't just irrelevant but betray an inability to comprehend what you have read. However I will make the comparison with other countries soon and it will show the post war group benefitted from playing minnows to a greater degree than the pre war group. I can't wait for your squeal when you read that. Those stats will refute your objection here which you made in advance and which I predicted.

4) It was Eng who had Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Hardstaff, Hendren, Edrich, Jardine, Compton, Leyland, Paynter, Mead, Woolley, Tyldesley and Walters. Apart from DGB we struggled to find men who could ave 45+. Even fewer who could achieve that against Eng. Eng was the juggernaut, not Aus.

5) It is unprecented bcos DGB's ave was unprecedented. Your attempt to conflate cricket's most obvious outlier with Lara and SRT is, as has been mentioned, silly. To which I'll add desperate.