Interesting take on Bradman's concentration levels.

[ashley bach]

It's weird because what they believe is demonstrably wrong, yet they hold onto it anyway. Completely deranged. The point with tennis is interesting and debunks the so called foundational argument used against Bradman.

I think Fed, Djoker and Nadal peaked at the around the same time. Don't forget Murray was there too and he was a great player but totally overshadowed by the others. Previously tennis went through eras with the older player dominating the younger star until time eventually reversed the order. So Tilden dominated until Vines who dominated until Budge, who dominated until Riggs, who dominated until Kramer, who dominated until Gonzalez, who dominated until Rosewall, Laver, who dominated ...

The big 3 era was very enjoyable though my favourite players to watch were Agassi and McEnroe.

You can't be serious?

 

[shortpitched713]

It's weird because what they believe is demonstrably wrong, yet they hold onto it anyway. Completely deranged. The point with tennis is interesting and debunks the so called foundational argument used against Bradman.

I think Fed, Djoker and Nadal peaked at the around the same time. Don't forget Murray was there too and he was a great player but totally overshadowed by the others. Previously tennis went through eras with the older player dominating the younger star until time eventually reversed the order. So Tilden dominated until Vines who dominated until Budge, who dominated until Riggs, who dominated until Kramer, who dominated until Gonzalez, who dominated until Rosewall, Laver, who dominated ...

The big 3 era was very enjoyable though my favourite players to watch were Agassi and McEnroe.

Tennis is different, the more comparable stat I think isn't number of Major titles, but points won percentage. The golden era greats of Pancho Gonzalez and Rosewall had much higher points won percentages, than the more modern big 3, and no one really doubts that. The big 3 have been as superb as they are at winning majors due to exceptional mental strength, and I guess homogeneous conditions across surfaces that suit their styles, allowing them to be so successful, but yeah it's still absolutely wild what they've accomplished collectively. Think Novak's record will almost certainly be eclipsed within our lifetimes, however.

 

[ashley bach]

Tennis is different, the more comparable stat I think isn't number of Major titles, but points won percentage. The golden era greats of Pancho Gonzalez and Rosewall had much higher points won percentages, than the more modern big 3, and no one really doubts that. The big 3 have been as superb as they are at winning majors due to exceptional mental strength, and I guess homogeneous conditions across surfaces that suit their styles, allowing them to be so successful, but yeah it's still absolutely wild what they've accomplished collectively. Think Novak's record will almost certainly be eclipsed within our lifetimes, however.

Those greats playing so much against each other may be a small reason their winning points% is lower tbf
Not so sure it's likely we'll live to see Novak's record broken.

 

[the big bambino]

There is a demarcation in tennis between the pro/amateur and open eras. In the first era Wimbledon and the US championship plus the Davis Cup were the big tournaments. The French Championships fed off Wimbledon and had prestige due to the 4 musketeers but was secondary to the other majors. It was difficult for the Australian Championship getting the big foreign amateur stars and I guess we have to thank Budge for popularising the idea of the slam for its prominence in the modern game.

The pro tour looked like hard work for the top players and they also had competing majors. But their big event was the head to head between the 2 leading pros, then sometimes 3 or 4. They could play up to almost 100 times a season as they traversed the US. I'm not sure how often Fed, Djoker and Nadal have played HTH - no doubt a lot. But not as often as the top players of the old pro tours. Eventually tournament format replaced HTH contests.

 

[Coronis]

There is a demarcation in tennis between the pro/amateur and open eras. In the first era Wimbledon and the US championship plus the Davis Cup were the big tournaments. The French Championships fed off Wimbledon and had prestige due to the 4 musketeers but was secondary to the other majors. It was difficult for the Australian Championship getting the big foreign amateur stars and I guess we have to thank Budge for popularising the idea of the slam for its prominence in the modern game.

The pro tour looked like hard work for the top players and they also had competing majors. But their big event was the head to head between the 2 leading pros, then sometimes 3 or 4. They could play up to almost 100 times a season as they traversed the US. I'm not sure how often Fed, Djoker and Nadal have played HTH - no doubt a lot. But not as often as the top players of the old pro tours. That as a result of tournament format replaved HTH contests.

Yeah was gonna say lol, bring up head to head stuff didn’t seem like an argument for the modern guys.

 

[Coronis]

Some H2H’s

Federer (16) vs Nadal (24)
Federer (23) vs Djokovic (27)
Nadal (29) vs Djokovic (31)

(some records here have been lost from pro tours)

Laver (89) vs Rosewall (75)
Laver (43) vs Gonzalez (22)
Laver (49) vs Emerson (18)
Laver (38) vs Hoad (21) - started 0-8
Laver (21) vs Ashe (3) - started 18-0
Laver (15) vs Newcombe (6)

Even vs Emerson he almost played as many times as Nadal and Djokovic, despite one being pro and one being amateur for the majority of their careers iirc the matches vs Gonzales were only from 64-70 yet they got in more matches than Nadal and Djokovic throughout their careers (played each other between 06-22)

 

[the big bambino]

Vines beat Tilden 41-16 then Vines beat Perry 32-29 then 48-35
Budge beat Vines 22-17

I think the Gonzalez tours were even bigger.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Also averaged <95 (can't be bothered calling exactly) from an addition 182 FC matches in Australian FC level.

I don't think that's right. Averaged 110 in the Sheffield Shield, and I doubt the other first-class matches played in Australia at the time (vs Tassie or WA, select XI's, etc.) would have changed that much. Overall first class average of 95.14, and I suspect his lowest average was English tour matches.

The rest is irrelevant.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Re this question, besides Frank Roro (arguably) and 1870s Grace, Merchant is another one who averages 98 in Ranji Trophy. Also IIRC, Headley does 90 in WI.

 

[Spikey]

bevan averaged 80 odd in 55 odd FC games at the SCG which I suppose is a minor batting feat worth comparing to, but I suspect the best ones would fall along the lines of the Steve Smith one I'm about to post, which is that he averages 83 in the first innings of the game: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting - and I dare say his best "52" match run would be very close to 100.

too much attention gets paid to bradman's average and not enough to the conversion rate. the average is just the end result of the conversion rate. a lot of people would average close to 99.94 if they never got out once they made a start. so why is bradman the only person ever to do anything like that. and if you look at smith above, he was doing something close enough with his conversion rate there

edit: 1st innings batting average min 15 innings: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...ualval1=innings;template=results;type=batting

and steve smith 1st batting average after I take out the 2010 tests: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting - 90.43

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah but Smith batted in a foundational era of cricket ...

 

[centurymaker]

In 2nd, 3rd & 4th inns put together Smith's average comes to a mere 41.87

10 hundreds in 137 inns.

Home avg 49
Away avg 35

This is almost 70% of Smith's career.

 

[ataraxia]

In 2nd, 3rd & 4th inns put together Smith's average comes to a mere 41.87

10 hundreds in 137 inns.

Home avg 49
Away avg 35

This is almost 70% of Smith's career.

Buffoon.

 

[centurymaker]

Buffoon.

You or Smith?

I assume the former.

 

[ataraxia]

You, yes.

 

[Coronis]

too much attention gets paid to bradman's average and not enough to the conversion rate. the average is just the end result of the conversion rate. a lot of people would average close to 99.94 if they never got out once they made a start. so why is bradman the only person ever to do anything like that. and if you look at smith above, he was doing something close enough with his conversion rate there

Honestly this is why it made me think how incredibly stupid an article trying to criticise his concentration was.

69% of the time when he made a 50 he went on to make 100. Add that to the fact that he was making a 50+ score in over 50% of his innings (only Sutcliffe even gets above 45%). And of course not only that but the ridiculous fact that 41% of the time he made a ton he took it to a double ton. Nobody else I recall was over 33% except Atapattu.

He scored at a SR of 61 at yet still faced the most average balls per innings in test history at 164 (27.2 overs).

I’m not sure how his level of concentration can be criticised in any possible way. Smacks of desperation.

 

[the big bambino]

Honestly this is why it made me think how incredibly stupid an article trying to criticise his concentration was.

69% of the time when he made a 50 he went on to make 100. Add that to the fact that he was making a 50+ score in over 50% of his innings (only Sutcliffe even gets above 45%). And of course not only that but the ridiculous fact that 41% of the time he made a ton he took it to a double ton. Nobody else I recall was over 33% except Atapattu.

He scored at a SR of 61 at yet still faced the most average balls per innings in test history at 164 (27.2 overs).

I’m not sure how his level of concentration can be criticised in any possible way. Smacks of desperation.

The roar is basically national enquirer level. The conversion rate point is a good one and Bradman's ability in that regard was derided even his time. Which is an amazing criticism. Basically it went that someone like Hobbs could've done it too except he was too chivalrous to do so. It must've irked Bradman because he responded eventually saying that even if we did compulsorily retire batsman at 100 he still got there 1 in 3 times as opposed to Hobbs 1 in 6! Great response. George Headley however appreciated Bradman's ability to turn over huge scores regularly. Headley made some big scores too and was in awe of Bradman's stamina to regularly do so.

 

[Coronis]

The roar is basically national enquirer level. The conversion rate point is a good one and Bradman's ability in that regard was derided even his time. Which is an amazing criticism. Basically it went that someone like Hobbs could've done it too except he was too chivalrous to do so. It must've irked Bradman because he responded eventually saying that even if we did compulsorily retire batsman at 100 he still got there 1 in 3 times as opposed to Hobbs 1 in 6! Great response. George Headley however appreciated Bradman's ability to turn over huge scores regularly. Headley made some big scores too and was in awe of Bradman's stamina to regularly do so.

Him still holding the records for most test double centuries, equal most triple centuries and most FC double and triple centuries is crazy.

 

[peterhrt]

I don't think that's right. Averaged 110 in the Sheffield Shield, and I doubt the other first-class matches played in Australia at the time (vs Tassie or WA, select XI's, etc.) would have changed that much. Overall first class average of 95.14, and I suspect his lowest average was English tour matches

Bradman in first-class matches in Australia
Tests: 4322 runs @ 98.22. 18 centuries.
Sheffield Shield: 8926 @ 110.19. 36 centuries.
Other first-class: 4982 @ 73.26. 22 centuries.
Total: 18230 @ 94.45. 76 centuries.

First-class in England
Tests: 2674 runs @ 102.84. 11 centuries.
Other first-class: 7163 @ 94.25 30 centuries.
Total: 9837 @ 96.44. 41 centuries.

Non first-class (minor) cricket (in Australia, England, North America)
22664 runs @ 84.88. 94 centuries.

Grand Total
50731 runs @ 90.26. 211 centuries.

 

[Starfighter]

The roar is basically national enquirer level.

The scary is thing is I'm not sure it's even the worst 'actually Bradman wasn't that special' article I've seen on there. There's a least two others vying for it.