Teja.
Global Moderator
Farce, I will take the opportunity to repeat.
-
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.
WHY do they say this?
- Thread starter hang on
- Start date
- Status
Furball
Evil Scotsman
For the record, Jack Hobbs and Sachin Tendulkar have exactly the same batting average, and Garry Sobers and Jacques Kallis have exactly the same century/innings ratio.
Don't take this as an endorsement of hang on's statement, but that's a terrible argument. Just because the best batting average in say women's cricket or Antiguan domestic cricket is near the best average in Intl. cricket, it doesn't mean the former are of the same level as the latter.
yes, greats adapt. But there might be some decrease/increase in performance here and there.
If someone says bradman would average 80 in this era, doesn't necessarily mean the likes of hammond, hutton etc would average 36-37 odd. They might go something in the 45-55 range ( just a rough range )
A sharper decline in average is more probable in the case of Don than in the case of wally/hutton if they played in this era. Its tougher to maintain that high an average as Don did than to maintain an average of 50 odd .
More variety in conditions, bowlers, improvements in fielding etc mean there is more of chance Bradman might struggle a bit ( relatively ) against certain bowlers or in certain conditions. Same for Wally/Hutton, but average drop would be more for Bradman than for Wally/Hutton - just pure math ...
Bradman would still be well above the rest considering his skills, but I don't think he'd average close to 100 in this era
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
It does. Because you can't expect a great batsmen to drop 20 points in average + without lesser batsmen dropping as many points too.
I don't buy some of those variances tbh. Conditions is one major thing that Bradman would be extremely used too - The pictures were uncovered! Furthermore, he's career spanned 20 years. I think he'd be used to a variety of bowlers.
On the other hand, Bradman would benefit from better protective equipment, better bats, smaller grounds, faster outfields, better medical facilities (Keeping in mind how sick at times he got) and covered wickets. With Bradman's immense hand eye coordination and other attributes, I don't see why he's average would logically drop
Last edited:
Teja.
Global Moderator
It's irrelevant how much he'd have averaged if someone magically transported him with the same technique onto the 00s though. His job was to score runs in the 30s and 40s, He did it comprehensively and beyond any doubt, better than anyone else in any era. For that alone, He's the greatest batsman ever.
great points here. especially about how would one account for non freakish or outlier greats like hammond and hobbs. i haven't the foggiest.
and i will be the first to say that i read gould's article a while ago. and there have been criticisms of that article ie it isn't gospel. it has also been referred to in ed smith's book; has anyone read it?
at a tangent, why isn't lohmann considered to be the bradman of bowling? a smaller sample set, granted, but still.....
regarding what percentage of indians might or might not believe tendulkar to be better than bradman, judging by polls conducted, whether in the australian, indian, or english media, it does seem that a significant percentage - perhaps even a majority? - of indians (assuming that most of the, er, iconoclasts are indians, that is) do consider tendulkar to be better. unless they are all taking the proverbial and getting the bradman constituency riled up...and having a larf on the side!
and i will be the first to say that i read gould's article a while ago. and there have been criticisms of that article ie it isn't gospel. it has also been referred to in ed smith's book; has anyone read it?
at a tangent, why isn't lohmann considered to be the bradman of bowling? a smaller sample set, granted, but still.....
regarding what percentage of indians might or might not believe tendulkar to be better than bradman, judging by polls conducted, whether in the australian, indian, or english media, it does seem that a significant percentage - perhaps even a majority? - of indians (assuming that most of the, er, iconoclasts are indians, that is) do consider tendulkar to be better. unless they are all taking the proverbial and getting the bradman constituency riled up...and having a larf on the side!
Last edited:
no, if you thought about it mathematically, it doesn't.
oh yeah , variety of bowlers with one major decent test playing team ? now really ? you had reverse swing and doosras then, did you ? PLEASE
yeah, there were uncovered wickets back then. But for the majority of his innings, conditions were pretty good for batting in that era ..... Sorry, but more countries and more grounds means quite a bit more variety.
Just plain bias if you can't accept this
yeah, some factors in favour of bradman for sure, but I see the variety factors and the better fielding eclipsing these effects .
archie mac
International Coach
George was a great bowler. I don't think that can be argued, he did however cash in on some pretty averages SA teams and also played Aust in Aust in a series where the pitches always seemed to be poor. Still was considered one of the best of his time and if not for illness may have be remembered as the best, even better than SF.
His batting at FC was also respected perhaps because he was not needed he did not fire in Tests. A bit like Hadlee who seemed to score runs only when his team really needed them.
George was also the first really great first slip, rarely dropping catches and taking some blinders
Migara
International Coach
No it's not.
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
I'm talking about this logically, not just mathematically.
One major decent test team? We're talking about playing the best test team over and over again. I don't know about reverse swing (Archie Mac?), but I'm not sure there was even a need for the doosra considering that conditions on uncovered pitches were ideal for spin anyway. Besides, players like Ponting and Tendulkar have dominated the Doosra in recent times.
I really don't see how a variety of different bowlers makes a massive difference. Bradman played for twenty years. I'm quite sure he would have played a massive variety of bowlers. And because the pitches were uncovered grounds would have had forced variety anyway
Could you find me some conclusive evidence about fielding too? Though bowlers have obviously sharpened their fielding a lot, do you really think improved fielding would account for 20 runs off an average considering Bradman's famous ability to hit the gaps?
archie mac
International Coach
It was not the science it is now, but it would sometimes reverse (going Irish) although the bowlers were unsure of why
One thing that bowlers would sometimes do was to bowl beamers, which was not against the laws. I remember Bailey saying he would sometimes bowl a beamer. Also Tom Richardson would bowl beamers although they were not called that in the 1890s
Last edited:
Some players just like playing the same team , even if it is the best and sometimes do worse against lesser teams ... See Laxman for example. The Poms wouldn't know why the Aussies make such a big fuss about him , would they !?
@ bold part, no he didn't. Just saying 20 years doesn't cut it. Remember he played for only about 12-13 years in that, played 'only' 52 tests and that there weren't many teams back then.
Some bowlers for some unknown reason(s) match up well against certain batsmen and vice versa. Its only exposure to a wide variety that shows these more , same for the conditions as well
don't think fielding alone would account for 20 runs difference, but variety in bowling and conditions with fielding probably would .... I just gave a rough estimate of the average. I think it would come down by some amount. Then there are other factors like ODI cricket - that would leave him less time to work on test cricket + that starts putting more question marks on longevity/fitness
Last edited:
Migara
International Coach
This has been done argument already. The standard of cricket was so different in 1930s and 1990s, it's a useless excercise comparing SRT vs DB.
If you enumerate plus points for each player,
1. Better equipment: Bradman would have no doubt benefited from better equipment. But the counter argument is that so would have been hs bowling opponets with better equipment.
2. Flatter pitches: Bradman played on some nasty pitches that won't be deemed fit to play today. So would play easily on flatter pitches of today. Having said that, there were some super flat tracks by Bradman's time too. I am quite positive that he would have cashed on those tracks.
3. Better training and medical care - Undoubtadly he would have done well, and so would have been guys like Barrington. The argument against this is that with better training (physical and psychological), bowlers also will be quicker, fitter and nastier. And fielding would have been much better.
4. Losing best years to war - Bradman would have done much better during his missed years, which was the best years for a batsman. And getting back to form after such a break is also a big ask. On the contrary, that was the best years for his opposing bowlers too, and bowlers tend to "get old" quicker than batsmen. Post war Bradman would have cashed on a set of unfit, old and out of from bowlers.
5. More variations in bowling - Bradman would have adapted for sure. But times will come that one or two bowlers tend to dominate a batsman how good they are. And these may not be the top bowlers of the world. (Ex. Ponting vs Harbhajan, Tendulkar vs Nash). More variations you get, the higher chance of something breaking through the defences. Since 1930s, fast bowlers discovered reverse swing,, slower ball, and slower bouncer, spinners discovered doosra and the carom ball, which are a hefty set of skills to be achieved.
6. Better planning - Bradman's time, the tactics were not close to what they were today. Once again this is also two way, bowlers can study batsmen and vice versa. But the major difference would be field seting. You don't see seven men in the circle when a batsman is 150+ not out today.
7. Quality of bowlers: Up to now every thing we have discussed were two way, but this one is heavily against Bradman. Bradman hardly played bowlers of class that Tendulkar played, especially the spinners. If we list top 20 bowlers all time, the ovewhelming majority will be mentioned in SRT's time.
If you enumerate plus points for each player,
1. Better equipment: Bradman would have no doubt benefited from better equipment. But the counter argument is that so would have been hs bowling opponets with better equipment.
2. Flatter pitches: Bradman played on some nasty pitches that won't be deemed fit to play today. So would play easily on flatter pitches of today. Having said that, there were some super flat tracks by Bradman's time too. I am quite positive that he would have cashed on those tracks.
3. Better training and medical care - Undoubtadly he would have done well, and so would have been guys like Barrington. The argument against this is that with better training (physical and psychological), bowlers also will be quicker, fitter and nastier. And fielding would have been much better.
4. Losing best years to war - Bradman would have done much better during his missed years, which was the best years for a batsman. And getting back to form after such a break is also a big ask. On the contrary, that was the best years for his opposing bowlers too, and bowlers tend to "get old" quicker than batsmen. Post war Bradman would have cashed on a set of unfit, old and out of from bowlers.
5. More variations in bowling - Bradman would have adapted for sure. But times will come that one or two bowlers tend to dominate a batsman how good they are. And these may not be the top bowlers of the world. (Ex. Ponting vs Harbhajan, Tendulkar vs Nash). More variations you get, the higher chance of something breaking through the defences. Since 1930s, fast bowlers discovered reverse swing,, slower ball, and slower bouncer, spinners discovered doosra and the carom ball, which are a hefty set of skills to be achieved.
6. Better planning - Bradman's time, the tactics were not close to what they were today. Once again this is also two way, bowlers can study batsmen and vice versa. But the major difference would be field seting. You don't see seven men in the circle when a batsman is 150+ not out today.
7. Quality of bowlers: Up to now every thing we have discussed were two way, but this one is heavily against Bradman. Bradman hardly played bowlers of class that Tendulkar played, especially the spinners. If we list top 20 bowlers all time, the ovewhelming majority will be mentioned in SRT's time.
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
Your speculations are pure guess work. I'd be repeating myself if I replied to them
Besides, what do you mean less time to work on Test cricket? When he wasn't scoring centuries he was off working in his stock-broking business or earlier on as a real estate agent. Furthermore, I dare say Bradman spent just as much time playing cricket as today's players. They might tour much more frequently, and might I add more comfortably, but they didn't spend as much time playing due to the high amount of First Class and tour matches that Bradman played. I don't think he's longevity or fitness can be comprehensively questioned.
I'll come back and reply to Migara's post later. I'm off to buy a new computer!
Last edited:
- Status