W G Grace VS Donald Bradman

[shortpitched713]

I normalized using your 21 runs/wicket compared to about 30 for the modern day. Giving me 69.16 and 23.39. That's for an FC record though. Multiplied by .8 for batting and 1.25 for bowling to get something akin to a Test standard average of 55.33 and 29.23.

@Thala_0710

These are the numbers I get from Coronis's 20 year peak. It can give an idea of a good upper and lower bound for Grace's performance. The numbers as they are (given whatever standard high level cricket was back then) on the surface indicate the greatest batting all-rounder of all-time.

But especially on the batting side, they don't touch anything like Bradman numbers.

 

[Thala_0710]

Genuinely how?

Grace's era for batting is the worst in history.
Bradman's era fir batting is the best in history. Hence the extreme adjustment.
As I also said, If you don't believe that Grace's batting numbers to be like this, 2016 wkts @16 something makes him the greatest no?

 

[Thala_0710]

I mean, no. Looking at test matches from that time period… it was roughly 21.

Wait 21 runs per wicket, as in 210 runs avg for a completd inns? That seems too high to me for Grace's era. Let me check on those.

 

[Thala_0710]

I normalized using your 21 runs/wicket compared to about 30 for the modern day. Giving me 69.16 and 23.39. That's for an FC record though. Multiplied by .8 for batting and 1.25 for bowling to get something akin to a Test standard average of 55.33 and 29.23.

What is that 0.8 and 1.25 factor?

 

[DrWolverine]

Bradman vs Any cricketer
Bradman easily wins

 

[shortpitched713]

What is that 0.8 and 1.25 factor?

FC to Test. We're using FC numbers for Grace because during the early part of his peak, Test cricket didn't even exist (and what did wasn't quite at the level of prestige and importance of later years).

 

[Bolo.]

I normalized using your 21 runs/wicket compared to about 30 for the modern day. Giving me 69.16 and 23.39. That's for an FC record though. Multiplied by .8 for batting and 1.25 for bowling to get something akin to a Test standard average of 55.33 and 29.23.

These are Kallis/Sobers test numbers. Both of them averaged more with the bat in tests than FC. It's very common for test bats to average more than FC, although bowling does often get worse.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Becoming Leading run scorer and leading wicket taker with 20+ years longevity in Tests should beat Bradman. Imagine somebody eclipsing both Tendulkar and Muralitharan….
Same applies to First Class Cricket
Someone becoming the leading run-scorer (that too twice of the second best), leading wicket taker, most catches with 43 years longevity has to beat Bradman.

 

[DrWolverine]

Becoming Leading run scorer and leading wicket taker with 20+ years longevity in Tests should beat Bradman.

Imagine somebody eclipsing both Tendulkar and Muralitharan….
Same applies to First Class Cricket

Not happening

 

[sayon basak]

Not happening

Duh.

 

[shortpitched713]

These are Kallis/Sobers test numbers. Both of them averaged more with the bat in tests than FC. It's very common for test bats to average more than FC, although bowling does often get worse.

Yeah. But that's because the sample we pay attention to are the Test bats, and more specifically the better ones.

I found those modifiers a long time back, in an article which was doing some sort of meta analysis. The average FC cricketer who gets a chance to play Test cricket sees a pretty significant decline when going up to that level. Even Grace (albeit partly out of his peak years) had worse Test averages than FC.

I think the FC and Test calculated averages do present a useful upper and lower bound of what he would have been capable of given his Era.

And Grace's bowling is meaningfully better than either Sobers' or Kallis'. Although I haven't figured out the workload comparison there.

 

[shortpitched713]

Becoming Leading run scorer and leading wicket taker with 20+ years longevity in Tests should beat Bradman. Imagine somebody eclipsing both Tendulkar and Muralitharan….
Same applies to First Class Cricket
Someone becoming the leading run-scorer (that too twice of the second best), leading wicket taker, most catches with 43 years longevity has to beat Bradman.

Hate to meme but in this case it's true...

He was amassing those numbers batting against literal part time day laborers and farm workers, and bowling to inbred gentlemen nobles. Worth keeping in mind before we anoint him as some sort of Sobers+Hadlee all-rounder ubermensch.

 

[Thala_0710]

Hate to meme but in this case it's true...

He was amassing those numbers batting against literal part time day laborers and farm workers, and bowling to inbred gentlemen nobles. Worth keeping in mind before we anoint him as some sort of Sobers+Hadlee all-rounder ubermensch.

This also applies a lot 40-50 years later too though, not to the exact same degree but still. Professionalism in cricket (as we know it today), really begins at the top level from the 70s WSC Kerry Packer time, one would have downgrade everything from 1870-1960s (to various extents) if we start doing it.
While comparing Bradman to Sobers, Imran, Viv, Tendulkar etc. the argument always is how much better Bradman is to his peers compared to the modern cricketers. WG Grace vs Bradman should have the same consistent logic as well imo.

 

[Johan]

Professionalism in Cricket has been around since Test Cricket began, Kerry Packer didn't change anything regarding professionalism in Cricket. Kerry took a sport that was already a religion in England, West Indies and India, made it somewhat bigger in Australia and wanted to be remembered as a pioneer to Cricket. At the time, WSC was seen as a circus by Cricketing journalists and media. He pushed forward the ODI format which was a thing I'm sure most would be indifferent to today. Amateurism was losing since the Golden Age and were abolished in 1962 as well.

Cricketers made money always and were paid always, he just slightly altered the methodology.

 

[Coronis]

I normalized using your 21 runs/wicket compared to about 30 for the modern day. Giving me 69.16 and 23.39. That's for an FC record though.

Well first I’m not sure where you’ve got 30 from since I did say it was over a 20 year period. Since you simply asked runs per wicket I did that using the overall/aggregate tab, which gave me 21.18 for then and 32.56 for the past 20 years. (we’ll also remember thats actually only half Grace’s peak and prior to that the numbers would’ve been even lower)

So obviously we’re using different numbers in the first place - I divided his average in each discipline by 21.18 then multiplied by 32.56

But lets go even deeper using the actual batting and bowling aggregates since they slightly differ.

This gives us from 77-87 an actual batting average of 20.07, and bowling of 20.90.

We can either use the past 10 (because thats the sample size we’re using for the tests til the end of Grace’s peak) or 20 (because that’s how long the peak you asked for was)

So average batting for the last 10/20 years 29.22/30.88 and average bowling 30.41/32.33

So extrapolating from here we either get…

(10 years)
Batting 70.48
Bowling 23.82

(20 years)
Batting 74.48
Bowling 25.32

Take your pick.

For reference using the same method for Bradman (batting average during his career 31.85) you’d get 91.69 for the last 10 years (though doing that makes little sense for him) and 95.48 for the last 20 years (very close to his FC average).

Multiplied by .8 for batting and 1.25 for bowling to get something akin to a Test standard average of 55.33 and 29.23.

That makes no sense, sometimes players will have better test stats than FC stats - Bradman, Sobers (in batting), Smith, Hobbs, Richards, Warne, Steyn, and sometimes worse - Tendulkar, most of the rest of the very top tier bowlers.

Seems as though bowling is more likely to be worse and batting better. Though that’s far from a hardline rule.

Many factors at play there - quality of opposition, number of matches played in/out of peak, difference between domestic and international pitches.

 

[shortpitched713]

That makes no sense

Even if we accept that Grace wasn't your average Test player, he himself had worse Test averages than FC.

Which is the norm, and ven happens for great Tedt players like Hadlee. (Arguably, it's more like for players like Hadlee or Grace who had more insane averages at the lower level).

 

[Coronis]

Even if we accept that Grace wasn't your average Test player, he himself had worse Test averages than FC.

Which is the norm, and ven happens for great Tedt players like Hadlee. (Arguably, it's more like for players like Hadlee or Grace who had more insane averages at the lower level).

Read my edit. He also barely bowled in tests - the amount of bowling he did decreased a lot and was obviously less necessary in tests than FC - and that’s not the corresponding period you’d look at anyway

 

[shortpitched713]

I appreciate the effort you put in on this. 75 25 is a rather sick FC player. As an FC player, at least as impactful as Bradman.

The thing about him being close to Bradman though, is people first start with his batting. Adjusted for everything he's still a whole 20 runs off of Bradman's FC record. I hate to belabor a point, but that's the difference between a Jacques Kallis, and Jacques Rudolph, players who aren't really comparable.

In addition, Bradman's average went UP going to the Test level, meaning any higher levels weren't really troubling him at all. Given Grace's actual Test record there's no reason to think that he wasn't finding opportunities to pick on the lower standard players in FC he could find and 'make hay" against them where he could.

Given those features (and the obvious question of standard, at the very nascent end of Test cricket), I don't think the actual careers of Bradman and Grace are really comparable in quality. Grace, of course is a tremendous "what if", in terms of if he could have had the consistent international touring schedule of more recent players from the very start of his career, what kind of numbers for an all-rounder could he have accomplished? But yeah, absolute legend as he was I'm not seeing his cricketing accomplishment or greatness being that close to the alien that was Bradman.

 

[Coronis]

I appreciate the effort you put in on this. 75 25 is a rather sick FC player. As an FC player, at least as impactful as Bradman.

The thing about him being close to Bradman though, is people first start with his batting. Adjusted for everything he's still a whole 20 runs off of Bradman's FC record. I hate to belabor a point, but that's the difference between a Jacques Kallis, and Jacques Rudolph, players who aren't really comparable.

In addition, Bradman's average went UP going to the Test level, meaning any higher levels weren't really troubling him at all. Given Grace's actual Test record there's no reason to think that he wasn't finding opportunities to pick on the lower standard players in FC he could find and 'make hay" against them where he could.

Given those features (and the obvious question of standard, at the very nascent end of Test cricket), I don't think the actual careers of Bradman and Grace are really comparable in quality. Grace, of course is a tremendous "what if", in terms of if he could have had the consistent international touring schedule of more recent players from the very start of his career, what kind of numbers for an all-rounder could he have accomplished? But yeah, absolute legend as he was I'm not seeing his cricketing accomplishment or greatness being that close to the alien that was Bradman.

I mean, you’re also not mentioning him being a well above average (perhaps not great, definitely was not considered one of the very top) bowler as well. Compared to say Sobers and Kallis who were definitely below average bowlers. (tbf both were above average bowlers for parts of their career).

Now, personally, I’m going to stick with Bradman but I would say Grace is as close to Bradman as anyone could get, and its far from a walkover and definitely deserves discussion.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah. But that's because the sample we pay attention to are the Test bats, and more specifically the better ones.

I found those modifiers a long time back, in an article which was doing some sort of meta analysis. The average FC cricketer who gets a chance to play Test cricket sees a pretty significant decline when going up to that level. Even Grace (albeit partly out of his peak years) had worse Test averages than FC.

I think the FC and Test calculated averages do present a useful upper and lower bound of what he would have been capable of given his Era.

And Grace's bowling is meaningfully better than either Sobers' or Kallis'. Although I haven't figured out the workload comparison there.

What test players did the study look at? If that study included guys who bully the Ranji or similar, it sounds really plausible.

We are looking at the top domestic bat, from the top league, and the most difficult place to bat. I feel like bats with similar circumstances tend to be pretty comparable in tests. The top tests bats mostly better and weaker ones mostly worse. A big part of this is playing in a more reasonable age range. Which the complete opposite for Grace.