Reality of 99.4 Average?

[GotSpin]

Of course - his average for that era (any era) is ridiculous, and I'm sure people in the 30s or whatever said the same thing. It's clear that he'd have been ahead of his contemporaries even if he had just turned 50, but I don't think the difference would be 99.94 to an approximate next best of 60.

If you look at the highest ever batting averages, excluding Voges and Labuschange (20 or fewer tests played) and Smith (freak - but hard to say if this is an extended peak/purple patch or what, we can only judge at the end of his career), most of the highest ever batting averages are all pre 70s.
The only modern players are Sanga and Kallis, both of whom made hay in the batting friendly 00s (clearly great batsmen, made the most of their circumstances given).
You have to go down to Chappell and Sachin, somewhere around the top 25 mark, to find modern players who didn't take advantage of the best batting conditions in decades (and that's a whole different thread re: Sachin not making hay in the 00s - his own fault/injuries etc so let's not go there).

The overall averages may or may not have gone up, but the highest averages have actually come down since the 60s. Surely cricket would have produced such a prodigious talent (not even talking about Bradman level - let's say next down to Pollock or Headley) who would have averaged 60 or 65+, especially given the easy batting conditions?

The mixture of number of tests played (see also, Ricky Ponting and his decline), number of other cricket games played (ODIs, T20s, IPL etc). All of it. On top of that, the pool you pick from is greater than ever before.

Hence I don't think it's likely that Bradman would have averaged what he did - he clearly was a man ahead of his time. And he would have likely been a man ahead of his time in the 90s/00s/10s too, but that would have meant averaging 60-75 rather than nearly 100.

(Of course, I know no one else managed to average close to Bradman even then, or even before that, - but again, the pool of people selected to play was just so small in comparison to what it is now that it makes that harder to judge. All it points to is that he was clearly ahead of his contemporaries).

Anyway this is a muddled up post cos it's 3:45am, but that's kind of the gist of it.

I guess what I'm saying is that even those who are clearly ahead of their competitors, it's harder NOW to succeed to the same level that Bradman did back then - because the average level has been raised, if not the extremes.

To put forward a completely irrelevant and perhaps erroneous comparison, but one that maybe can help explain what I'm trying to say - life expectancy. Life expectancy in the last 50 years has shot up. But the extremes haven't changed, it's just that less people are dying early than they used to. People still live as long as the oldest person used to. But most people live much longer than they used to.

In the same way, 60-75 (or thereabouts, not an exact score for it) is the new 99.

Thats a lot of garbage fitted into one post

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah but you only say that because Bradman was born then and not now. If he hadn't existed in the 30s then averaging 100 would've seemed as likely then as it does now.

This is right. If we think that progressive professionalism makes it harder for a sportsman to dominate then why didn't a Bradman occur earlier and then again immediately after? I think Stephen's point about increased workloads would have limited his average, as apart from tours of England, his program was relatively light.

Also Grimmett was better than Verity.

 

[Daemon]

I think it’s very fair to say it would be far more difficult to achieve the same level of dominance over his peers today. Can’t disagree that the game has not only increased in overall standards but also in participation.

Going further to put a number on it is where it’s pure guesswork.

 

[Daemon]

Ive never bought this argument. Modern players might have to travel more, but they play less and are pampered more.

I think it’s a bit irrelevant. Don’t forget the bowlers had a lot of miles in their legs every season and nowhere near the nutrition/training/recovery available today.

That’s why we try to compare with contemporaries isn’t it?

 

[mr_mister]

The different era argument means Hammond and Mccabe would have averaged 38 in today's game right? It's a silly one

 

[Daemon]

The different era argument means Hammond and Mccabe would have averaged 38 in today's game right? It's a silly one

Not really, it just assumes it gets increasingly harder the higher you go?

 

[the big bambino]

Just like the increased participants in tennis haven't been able to kill off grandpa Federer and need Djoker to brain a lines woman to have a chance of flumming a grand slam.

 

[Daemon]

Just like the increased participants in tennis haven't been able to kill off grandpa Federer and need Djoker to brain a lines woman to have a chance of flumming a grand slam.

Last I checked they weren’t 30 years into retirement.

You’re really saying the standard of cricket hasn’t gone up since the ‘30s?

 

[the big bambino]

Last I checked they weren’t 30 years into retirement.

You’re really saying the standard of cricket hasn’t gone up since the ‘30s?

Great checking. Wasn't aware. Thank you for informing. Wasn't aware sports standards only improve a certain length of time after some random great retires. Believed it was an incremental thing that the best players adapt to more successfully than others. Could we say a cricketer of the 80s would smash a cricketer of the 60s? Or that we toast Clive Lloyd as a great player ... except when he debuted?

 

[Daemon]

Great checking. Wasn't aware. Thank you for informing. Wasn't aware sports standards only improve a certain length of time after some random great retires. Believed it was an incremental thing that the best players adapt to more successfully than others. Could we say a cricketer of the 80s would smash a cricketer of the 60s? Or that we toast Clive Lloyd as a great player ... except when he debuted?

Answer the question lol, and please calm down.

 

[honestbharani]

Bradman was a freak. So to me, he would have still been a freak today. How much more of a freak he would have been given we already have freaks like Smith in tests and Kohli in LOs, is hard to tell. Its as subjective as it gets at that point but I kinda still expect him to average MUCH higher than the next best.

 

[the big bambino]

Answer the question lol, and please calm down.

What's the meme response? No you! Anyways, sports improve. So does life in general. But all players that remain competitive over a 10 or 20 year career have shown an ability to adapt to improving standards. So its unfair to raise doubts after they retire. And then compare the standard they retired at with the standards thereafter and of which they had no opportunity to benefit. if you reversed the order and put a modern player in the environment of the past without the benefits of modern professionalism would they have been the same player? Not really i'd say. Any sort of discussion about comparing sportsmen across generations implies some kind of equalisation otherwise there wouldn't be any need for a discussion. What's your best ever side? The one that played last week obvs.

 

[stephen]

Honestly Bradman's average today would probably be +/-15% on what it was back in the 30s and 40s. Removing him from the game, batting averages haven't changed that much since that era (They're virtually identical actually).

 

[mr_mister]

One thing i recently noticed though is 3 players(Woodfull, Kippax and Ponsford) all averaged around 70 in the shield but none cracked a test average of 50

Does this possibly mean Australian decks were roady? Or just an indication we had few good bowlers(unlike England who had a lot) which i guess doesn't hurt Bradmans cred much at all. The 974 series was in the UK after all

 

[stephen]

I think the consensus is that the 30s was a bit roady. A bit like the 00s.

 

[Coronis]

Bradman himself averaged 110 in the Shield. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/aust...areer_batting_average.html?id=114;type=trophy

 

[mr_mister]

Holy moly Monty Noble did alright. Choked hard in the test arena it appears

 

[vcs]

Bradman himself averaged 110 in the Shield. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/aust...areer_batting_average.html?id=114;type=trophy

Interesting to see lots of high averages around that era, though Bradman is predictably still head and shoulders ahead. Ponting's stats are also incredibly impressive given he must have played a lot of FC cricket at a very young age.

 

[stephen]

Holy moly Monty Noble did alright. Choked hard in the test arena it appears

I wouldn't say choked. He was still an all rounder who had a batting average of 30 and bowling average in the 20s, taking over 4wpm. Regardless of era that's pretty decent.

Wilfred Rhodes, who played across the same era as Noble had a similar batting and bowling average but the gap between his first class bowling averages was just as wide as Nobles' batting averages.

Using my huge sample size of two, it looks like first class cricket in Australia favoured batsmen while in England it favoured bowlers.

 

[mr_mister]

I wouldn't say choked. He was still an all rounder who had a batting average of 30 and bowling average in the 20s, taking over 4wpm. Regardless of era that's pretty decent.

Wilfred Rhodes, who played across the same era as Noble had a similar batting and bowling average but the gap between his first class bowling averages was just as wide as Nobles' batting averages.

Using my huge sample size of two, it looks like first class cricket in Australia favoured batsmen while in England it favoured bowlers.

Yeah true but a shield batting average of 68 definitely implies he could have potentially been Hobbs level. Wasn't even Trumper level in tests.