-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Interesting take on Bradman's concentration levels.
- Thread starter centurymaker
- Start date
Coronis
International Coach
Yes, it is.
Coronis
International Coach
Rest days were common in all tests iirc. I don’t know the origins of that.
According to Charles Davis they were 6 hour days, exactly as today. The second session was 15 mins longer than the first, and the final session was 15 mins shorter.
Coronis
International Coach
Oh and for anyone interested - the relevant bodyline series stats as well.
5 hour days (90 min + 120 min + 90 min)
Timeless tests
SCG
1 - 88
2 - 100.2
3 - 113.2
4 - 92
5 - 1
MCG
1 - 78
2 - 90
3 - 76
4 - 26
Adelaide
1 - 98
2 - 94
3 - 94
4 - 99
5 - 84
6 - 32
Gabba
1 - 90
2 - 81
3 - 88
4 - 90
5 - 79
6 - 25
SCG (2)
1 - 79
2 - 86
3 - 98
4 - 79
5 - 63
5 hour days (90 min + 120 min + 90 min)
Timeless tests
SCG
1 - 88
2 - 100.2
3 - 113.2
4 - 92
5 - 1
MCG
1 - 78
2 - 90
3 - 76
4 - 26
Adelaide
1 - 98
2 - 94
3 - 94
4 - 99
5 - 84
6 - 32
Gabba
1 - 90
2 - 81
3 - 88
4 - 90
5 - 79
6 - 25
SCG (2)
1 - 79
2 - 86
3 - 98
4 - 79
5 - 63
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
capt_Luffy
International Coach
Why only 80-100 and no 90-100??
shortpitched713
International Captain
We assume Bradman was the greatest because of his unmatchable record. People really don't understand the statistics of how truly insane it is (just like Jirachi's Iron Head, our intuition about this sort of number and its sheer degree of mathematical specialness tends to fail human intuition).
But even assuming he was the greatest, we certainly know he played bowling opposition who were far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far from the greatest.
Whatever number we end up picking for his average between 40-120, or whatever is no more well reasoned than blindfold throwing darts at the wall. This is one of the things we truly can't know. Sorry to both fans and haters.
But even assuming he was the greatest, we certainly know he played bowling opposition who were far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far from the greatest.
Whatever number we end up picking for his average between 40-120, or whatever is no more well reasoned than blindfold throwing darts at the wall. This is one of the things we truly can't know. Sorry to both fans and haters.
Coronis
International Coach
I believe you mean Stone Edge.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Nah, the question I polled competitive smogon players was what they thought the expected value of Jirachi Iron Head (BP 80) would be given it's Serene Grace flinch chance (60%), assuming it is faster than the opponent. Most people picked answers significantly lower than the actual expected multiplier/BP equivalent which are 2.5 and 200 respectively.
And these are folks who play with number/probability intuition all day. But they too are subject to the very human long tail distribution/big number intuition fallacy. In this case it's that because the most likely and middle outcome of iron head is to get a single flinch (and very often no flinch), people assume the expected value should be closest to that, but it's pulled away from the median by the low frequency outcome where there are many repeated flinches, and is much higher than expected.
A similar psychological failing happens when you give people two lines, and ask them to draw a single line without any ruler freehand 1/10 of the way between the lines. People don't have an intuition for 1/10, and will draw it around 1/5 to 1/3 of the way between the lines.
Bradman's statistical excellence similarly seems plausible to the common man. Well 50 is the average a great to very, very good batsman nowadays gets, it's just double that. They don't get how small the incremental increase in each standard deviation of batting average is, or how the distribution of those averages along a bell curve imply about the probability of this feat.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
I was about to compose a long rant/analogy comparing the skill difference implied by Bradman's career outcome to be something that might be expected by the god emperor of mankind in Warhammer 40k, not an actual human, and analogizing the different levels of cricket to the tiers of superhuman found in that universe.
But instead I'll ask this:
Bradman achieved 100 average from 52 Tests spanning about 14 years (taking away the war years). Also averaged <95 (can't be bothered calling exactly) from an addition 182 FC matches in Australian FC level.
Do we know of any player playing cricket at any level, achieving a comparable statistical batting feat? Surely there could be a ringer somewhere playing multiple levels down who equalled this over a similar span/match number? I'll take any half decent source as evidence, btw. I think it's unlikely it would even be tolerated.
And "tolerate" is the correct question to ask about such a level of dominance. We like to consider the world, environment, media, fans etc. as something like impartial observers when analyzing statistical achievement. But just as we cannot observe an electron without influencing it's velocity and momentum via a photon, our observations of the all time greats of any sport are not impartial, and I think there are significant cultural and historical factors that explain the reaction and tolerance of the greatness of Bradman.
We all know about the "tall poppy syndrome", and how the norm is to cut down the tall poppy. In the modern (~20th century onward in this context) history of sports in the Western world, the general rule is that the greatest performers are most often cut down in this way, with rules set up to curtail the extent of their dominance, i.e. Wilt Chamberlain in basketball with free throw rules, and legislation of physical contact.
All things equal we would expect the same tall-poppying of the extraordinary performance of Bradman. But all things are not equal (putting aside race in this case, which is another factor all-together to consider). The era in which Bradman played WAS special, in that out of the relative prosperity of the last century and a half, it was the time of the Great Depression, WWII break, and the immediate postwar years.
This reminds me of the old episode of the hit children's cartoon Recess , in which they uncover a book of rules of the old King Mortimer.
https://recess.fandom.com/wiki/King_Mortimer . The children of the playground are dumbstruck from how silly the rules seem in their prosperous context. And so too I believe there was something different about the psyche of the observers of cricket during the Great Depression, a setting unlike any of the others of the relative prosperity of the last ~125-150 years in the Western industrialized sporting context.
In that context the tall poppy effect may have been flipped. The struggling common man could be inspired in a superheroic way by the otherwordly achievement of Bradman in a way the cricketing establishment might unconsciously have felt they needed to facilitate. In fact, the stark reaction to the singular mid career moment in which he actually received the sort of boundary testing resistance that would be welcomed in most sports, is telling. Instead of celebrating the Bodyline tactics that Jardine executed via the bowling Larwood and Voce, instead there was a great public and official outcry at the happenings of the tour. Rules were changed to prevent such a thing ever being used against Bradman again, but although short pitched bowling in and of itself was not outlawed, and only a framework built around it, the short term effect for Bradman's career was I believe sealed. No one was going to risk facing the kind of derision and career impact that Larwood's villification, for instance, brought him. Which is ironic, as improvements in pace bowling, and the use of short pitched ball as part of a pace battery would mark the transition into modern cricket brought about by the West Indies of later decades.
The career of Bradman was one of absolute excellence at a craft during it's golden era. Greats in other sports and games also find outsized success in early era's of a sports development, be it Babe Ruth in baseball, Wilt Chamberlain in basketball, Pele in football, Paul Morphy in chess, etc. etc. But the lie of the statistics detailing Bradman's excellence is that it would necessitate us putting him ahead of the greats in any other sport, or even the more modern greats of our own sport of cricket, due to their sheer magnitude. Bradman was a unique product of a combination of unique historical moment, cultural and sporting environment, and no shortage of skill, amalgamating together to produce something insane. Extrapolating any further beyond that is a mistake we would do well to avoid.
But instead I'll ask this:
Bradman achieved 100 average from 52 Tests spanning about 14 years (taking away the war years). Also averaged <95 (can't be bothered calling exactly) from an addition 182 FC matches in Australian FC level.
Do we know of any player playing cricket at any level, achieving a comparable statistical batting feat? Surely there could be a ringer somewhere playing multiple levels down who equalled this over a similar span/match number? I'll take any half decent source as evidence, btw. I think it's unlikely it would even be tolerated.
And "tolerate" is the correct question to ask about such a level of dominance. We like to consider the world, environment, media, fans etc. as something like impartial observers when analyzing statistical achievement. But just as we cannot observe an electron without influencing it's velocity and momentum via a photon, our observations of the all time greats of any sport are not impartial, and I think there are significant cultural and historical factors that explain the reaction and tolerance of the greatness of Bradman.
We all know about the "tall poppy syndrome", and how the norm is to cut down the tall poppy. In the modern (~20th century onward in this context) history of sports in the Western world, the general rule is that the greatest performers are most often cut down in this way, with rules set up to curtail the extent of their dominance, i.e. Wilt Chamberlain in basketball with free throw rules, and legislation of physical contact.
All things equal we would expect the same tall-poppying of the extraordinary performance of Bradman. But all things are not equal (putting aside race in this case, which is another factor all-together to consider). The era in which Bradman played WAS special, in that out of the relative prosperity of the last century and a half, it was the time of the Great Depression, WWII break, and the immediate postwar years.
This reminds me of the old episode of the hit children's cartoon Recess , in which they uncover a book of rules of the old King Mortimer.
https://recess.fandom.com/wiki/King_Mortimer . The children of the playground are dumbstruck from how silly the rules seem in their prosperous context. And so too I believe there was something different about the psyche of the observers of cricket during the Great Depression, a setting unlike any of the others of the relative prosperity of the last ~125-150 years in the Western industrialized sporting context.
In that context the tall poppy effect may have been flipped. The struggling common man could be inspired in a superheroic way by the otherwordly achievement of Bradman in a way the cricketing establishment might unconsciously have felt they needed to facilitate. In fact, the stark reaction to the singular mid career moment in which he actually received the sort of boundary testing resistance that would be welcomed in most sports, is telling. Instead of celebrating the Bodyline tactics that Jardine executed via the bowling Larwood and Voce, instead there was a great public and official outcry at the happenings of the tour. Rules were changed to prevent such a thing ever being used against Bradman again, but although short pitched bowling in and of itself was not outlawed, and only a framework built around it, the short term effect for Bradman's career was I believe sealed. No one was going to risk facing the kind of derision and career impact that Larwood's villification, for instance, brought him. Which is ironic, as improvements in pace bowling, and the use of short pitched ball as part of a pace battery would mark the transition into modern cricket brought about by the West Indies of later decades.
The career of Bradman was one of absolute excellence at a craft during it's golden era. Greats in other sports and games also find outsized success in early era's of a sports development, be it Babe Ruth in baseball, Wilt Chamberlain in basketball, Pele in football, Paul Morphy in chess, etc. etc. But the lie of the statistics detailing Bradman's excellence is that it would necessitate us putting him ahead of the greats in any other sport, or even the more modern greats of our own sport of cricket, due to their sheer magnitude. Bradman was a unique product of a combination of unique historical moment, cultural and sporting environment, and no shortage of skill, amalgamating together to produce something insane. Extrapolating any further beyond that is a mistake we would do well to avoid.
Last edited:
capt_Luffy
International Coach
Frank Roro. Read of him, it's really tragic.
Coronis
International Coach
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
I think this is the best symbol of Bradman derangement syndrome I've seen. Shout a nonsense into the void and let the echo validate it. The aforementioned syndrome is one of the most enduring and interesting afflicting cricket fans, especially in the way fans justify holding onto it.
It was common on CW not to rate pre war cricketers - not enough tests; small sample size. But that doesn't stop them contradictorily dismissing them as the above quote shows. There are ways to get around this problem, or rather convenience to justify relevancy bias. Fortunately pre war cricketers played the majority of their games against their strongest opponents. You can compare that sample with modern cricketers versus their strongest opponents and draw a conclusion. Or you could compare for example, bowling units from one era to the next. There are enough tests, even in the earlier eras, to make a comparison.
In the case of bowlers Bradman faced they stack up well. Particularly the pre war English. Even more so when you edit their averages for Bradman's effect on them. Nonetheless the negative impression persists. I don't think Bradman revisionists can just baldly claim Bradman was rubbish as they once did. They realised it made them look foolish. They adjusted by talking down his opponents instead. But this is even more absurd when your doubts are based on diminishing an entire era just to cut one player down to size.
Bradman Derangement Syndrome is actually a compliment to his unique status. It is saying I admit to the reality of his record but I still don't believe it. Which is why its so interesting. Then you have to wonder what motivates it. Personally I think its generational bias but is there also nationalistic or even a darker element? After all, and as Burgey noticed, why aren't there ever revisionist articles on say the great WI teams from the late 70s to mid 90s? Bradman succeeded far too well for the tolerance of some.
Last edited:
ataraxia
International Coach
Grace 1870s.
shortpitched713
International Captain
After thinking about it for a bit, I'm taking back what I say about them being that much worse than modern bowlers. Far, far worse sure. But maybe not enough to justify the use of 17 consecutive instances of the modifier far.
I think the other aspects of the unique historical moment, cultural and sporting environment, and no shortage of skill possessed combined together in a way that statistically no other GOAT athlete in any other sport could even hope to match. And these were the vastly biggest components rather than only the natural progression of bowling talent being less in a previous time allowing him to feast.
Bradman was crazy good, he absolutely had to have been. I just think we can't know just exactly "how" crazy good compared to others outside of his era or sport, in any meaningful sense.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
It will continue to persist unless treated.
shortpitched713
International Captain
So I take it for something comparable, we take a 14 year FC peak from 1865-1880, and see how it stacks up relative to the scoring totals of the time, right?
I have no clue where to even start with such an exercise, honestly...
shortpitched713
International Captain
I get what you're talking about, but I don't think it applies. I absolutely believe Bradman's career happened. I absolutely believe it puts him at a statistically untouchable spot in the history of the game.
However, my idea is that the concept of measuring solely the statistical phenomenon of it contributes to "the lie". The truth is he was ONE example of the human ability for excellence, professionalism and skill through means of devotion of craft applied to a god gifted ability.
He wasn't the only best example out of all in the history of the world in all spheres of sporting achievement, nor did he posses a supernatural ability beyond a human being, as a bare reading of the statistics in a sterile sense devoid of context might lead one to believe.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
I just don't believe you're approaching this with clean hands. Of course you can make comparisons with stats. It is the most impartial measure and it is linked to performance. Yes there are contexts such as improving standards but that is countered by the fact great players adjust to improvements otherwise their careers would've abruptly ended. I think they're peripheral to cross era comparisons whereas I think you are using them to make a point but without providing examples to justify it.
ataraxia
International Coach
Wrong. He is.