Bradman effect

[JBMAC]

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.

Thanks AM for bringing some sanity to this thread

 

[the big bambino]

Since Fred and AM have given me some actual figures which I'd only previously estimated I'll update the pre war bowlers averages less the Bradman effect. Hopefully this wont upset kyear too much who has taken this exercise rather emotionally and badly.

Versus Australia

Tate actual 30.60 adjusted 27.98
Larwood Act 29.99 Adj 26.91
Geary Act 35.67 Adj 33.75
Allen Act 37.28 Adj 30.78
Voce Act 27.51 Adj 22.64
Bowes Act 24.70 Adj 22.52
Farnes Act 28.03 Adj 23.61

Their combined ave less Bradman's effect is 26.95 which is slightly superior to the post war group's ave of 27.66. Bradman alone inflated the pre war averages by 3.57 runs. That discrepancy is the equivalent of bowling to a side that is a level lower in class.

Btw most of the figues I have now are actuals with only the 36 and 38 series estimated.

Same bowlers above adjusted test averages overall:

Tate Act 26.16 Adj 24.65
Larwood Act 28.35 Adj 25.86
Geary Act 29.41 Adj 27.90
Allen Act 29.37 Adj 25.79
Voce Act 27.88 Adj 25.91
Bowes Act 22.33 Adj 21.28
Farnes Act 28.65 Adj 25.93

If I have time today I'll post the pre and post war group's averages against countries other than Australia. Before I do I'd like to correct a few claims and accusations that were made for some inexplicable reason.

I did not fudge these figures. I have simply taken bowling averages that anyone can check (I recommend cricketarchive) and deducted Bradman's contribution to make a fair comparison btwn the groups. The bulk of that contribution is made on real figures. The rest a reasonable guesstimate. The comparsion is fair as it removes an extraordinary item. While it is true that stats aren't everything in cricket they are nonetheless an awful lot. Besides the qualification is at a discount when you have taken information over a number of tests. So far I have accounted for 181 tests (v Australia) Evetually it will comprise 428 tests. More than enough I think to establish a link between stats, performance and quality.

I have not emphasised Larwood. As you can see I've picked a group of 7 pre war bowlers. I could take Larwood out of the comparison altogether and it would make little to no difference to the outcome.

A point has been made that the pre war bowler's overall figures are flattered by games against minnows. That they somehow massage the impact of Bradman's effect. This oddball claim was made in advance of my assessing their form against countries other than Australia.

It is also completely wrong. The opposite is true. It was the post war group whose averages received a far greater benefit by playing minnows more often.

 

[archie mac]

Thanks AM for bringing some sanity to this thread

Thanks mate

 

[smash84]

. Hopefully this wont upset kyear too much who has taken this exercise rather emotionally and badly.

dude, these are kyear's opinions and he doesn't need to justify them

 

[the big bambino]

If he's made them without any statistical or impartial backing then yes he does. Especially if he implies that I'm making actual stats up.

 

[fredfertang]

dude, these are kyear's opinions and he doesn't need to justify them

While I agree with that it does seem a rather pointless exercise to join in a debate on an internet forum and then not to seek to justify your opinions.

 

[smash84]

If he's made them without any statistical or impartial backing then yes he does. Especially if he implies that I'm making actual stats up.

While I agree with that it does seem a rather pointless exercise to join in a debate on an internet forum and then not to seek to justify your opinions.

I was just quoting kyear2 from another thread. You ask him

 

[the big bambino]

I was just quoting kyear2 from another thread. You ask him

Ya got me.

 

[the big bambino]

There is little statistical difference btwn the pre and post war group judging by their record against Australia. The comparison covered 181 tests which is more than enough to smooth out any extremes in figures. There is s correlation btwn stats, performance and quality so if you argue an opinion abt the quality of one group you also argue it for the other.

It would be persuasive for a comparison if the similarity in their stats against Aust could be replicated in other circumstances. Those circumstances would be their respective records against other teams.

A poster here raised the point abt the advantage bowlers get when they play against "minnow" teams. That comment is a convenient lead into this comparison though it gives the opposite outcome to what that poster believes.

Australia was Eng's strongest opponent in both eras. but there was also a similarity in the rating of their other opponents. For both eras it would be fair to rate SA and the WI at the next level and India, NZ and eventually Pakistan below them.

An interesting outcome arose when rating the WI teams of both eras. It didn't surprise to find the WI of the immediate post war era to be the strongest non Australian side. A rare instance in this exercise where the stats supported my pre conceived prejudices. The post war group's ave against the WI was 27.82 or abt the same as it was against Aust. However this is balanced by their combined ave of 22.94 v post war SA.

What did surprise me was the ave the pre war WI achieved against the pre war group. My pre conceived instinct was to rate them with Ind and NZ. But when you let the figures do the refereeing for you then you don't have to rate them with your subjective prejudices. Their ave was 24.68. Slightly superior to the pre war SA side and almost 2 above the post war SA. Since their ave fell in the range of the other sides I had to rate them accordingly. It would be baseless and stupid not too.

For convenience I grouped the SA and WI sides of both eras together. The post war group's bowling ave v their 2 opponents was 25.17. The pre war group's comparative ave was 24.53. Note I have included Allen's 3 post war tests v WI. In fairness I should take those stats away as Allen was 45. If I did the ave would fall to 24.09. However I've decided to keep them in.

The post war group averaged 18.08 against the next tier (Ind, Pak, NZ). The pre war group averaged 19.07 (v Ind and NZ). So in summary:

Post war group v SA and WI. Ave = 25.17. Versus Ind, Pak, NZ: Ave = 18.08
Pre war group v SA and WI: Ave = 24.53. Versus Ind, NZ: Ave = 19.07

 

[the big bambino]

As an additional comment I'll add the pre war SA side had batsmen like Taylor, Mitchell, Melville, Rowan and Nourse. Not as strong as the post war WI but certainly better than the post war SA (in the 50s atleast) who were the worst performing side.

I'll also mention that I left out Freddy Brown for this comparison. Just as Brown's inclusion assisted the post war group in the comparison with Australia his exclusion from the comparison versus others also assists the post war group.

 

[the big bambino]

You would expect that with one group averaging one run fewer against the SA and WI and one more run against the next level of opponent that they would just abt break even in a combined comparison versus countries other than Australia.

They don't. The pre war group's combined ave is 23.14. The post war group's ave is 21.93.

So what happened? Simple. The pre war group played far fewer matches as a percentage of their total against "minnows". Accordingly they only took 25.38% of their wkts against minnows.

However the post war group played a larger percentage of their combined tests against minnows and accordingly secured 45.64% of their wickets against them.

Well the more often you bowl at opponents against whom you average 18 or 19 the better it will be for your statistics than if you bowled against opponents whom you conceded btwn 22 and 27 runs a wicket.

So far from what was raised in ignorance by one poster it was the post war group who benefitted by playing many many more games against minnows. In fact 78 versus 21. Even more so when 2 of the pre war bowler's tests were actually played after the war when the bowlers concerned were approaching 40.

When you adjust for the number of tests each group played against minnows to even out the bias you get this result.

Post war group. Ave = 21.62
Pre war group. Ave = 21.80.

Just like the figures against Australia no real difference.

 

[the big bambino]

Basically the result is the less you bowl at Bradman and the more you bowl at minnows the better off you will be.

To which you would say well duh!

So would I. Yet such obvious facts go missing when discussing Bradman's record. So much so that people tend to rate him with nothing more than pig ignorant belief in their flabby and untested pre conceptions. So I had to go through this exercise to prove to those people what they should've known all along.

In my next couple of posts I'll talk abt Bradman's 1931/32 SA opponents. After that I'll take a big stick to all the subjective garbage and pre conceptions I've read that tries to revise and deconstruct Bradman and his era and hit them all out of the ball park.

 

[The Sean]

Really enjoying your efforts here TBB.

 

[the big bambino]

Thank you.

 

[smash84]

well played bambi

 

[Migara]

Now how would be to calculate the effect of 15 best batsmen of this era on bowlers stats?

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks Smalishah.

 

[MartinB]

Basically the result is the less you bowl at Bradman and the more you bowl at minnows the better off you will be.

Thank you for your efforts in calculating Bradmans effect on the Bowling averages. It is something I have meant to do but never got around to.

A couple of points

1. Strictly you should probably add another batsmen in to the averages
2. If Bradman had not been present, the English bowlers would of got to bowl at the
   Australian Tail a lot more often. This would counter act point 1. There would be matches where instead of picking up 15 Australian wickets and loosing, the English bowlers would pickup 20 wickets Australian wickets and win.
3. In some ways Bradmans average does not do him justice. Bradman scored Big and scored Quickly . Thats sets up wins !!!, it does not allow the opposition to escape with a draw.
4. If another batsmen comes along and averages 90+ but scored slowly and get's a lot of not outs, he would less dangerous than Bradman was.

 

[the big bambino]

Thank you for your efforts in calculating Bradmans effect on the Bowling averages. It is something I have meant to do but never got around to.

A couple of points

1. Strictly you should probably add another batsmen in to the averages
2. If Bradman had not been present, the English bowlers would of got to bowl at the
   Australian Tail a lot more often. This would counter act point 1. There would be matches where instead of picking up 15 Australian wickets and loosing, the English bowlers would pickup 20 wickets Australian wickets and win.
3. In some ways Bradmans average does not do him justice. Bradman scored Big and scored Quickly . Thats sets up wins !!!, it does not allow the opposition to escape with a draw.
4. If another batsmen comes along and averages 90+ but scored slowly and get's a lot of not outs, he would less dangerous than Bradman was.

Thanks Martin. I have added a batsmen back into the group's averages. It would be tedious adding back a batsmen into the individual averages but can be done. Lets say DGB took up tennis then the batsmen who would have replaced him would have been fringe players. This stands to reason bcos a good player (ave 40+) would have been a regular. When you consider that Kippax was a regular and averaged in the mid 30s v Eng (and overall too I think) the replacement player wouldve averaged even fewer.

To do a proper review you'd have to go through series by series and pick the best man in form. I have a few names like Rigg, Richardson, O'Brien, Nitschke in mind. But I made Arthur Chipperfield stand in all their stead as he was the one the selectors most preferred and had the best ave against England of the lot: which was about 29. If you add that score back in then the overall averages of the pre war group move up a little. I think its a less than 0.1.

Even that should be adjusted by your 2nd point but there isn't way I can calculate that. The speed of DGB's runs were a factor of our and his success. Remember too he saved us Border style, in Eng in 38 with 2 fine defensive innings.

 

[the big bambino]

With these figures you can quickly see the difficulty Bradman presented to pre war bowlers. Note that their average falls 3.57 points when Bradman's contribution is deducted. From that new point (26.95) it falls only 2.42 points to the best of the other sides, SA and the WI. The step up in class is greater between Australia's other batsmen to Bradman than it was from SA or the WI to all the other Australian batsmen.