Worlds greatest team

[WindieWeathers]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Nice one!! .

 

[WindieWeathers]

They were clearly very good and comparable. The road block anyone critiquing Bradman's record hits is that even if the opposition was not the best of all time (i.e. Attacks of then 90s) they were nowhere near that bad to allow someone to average almost 100 against them. That is absurd. The WIndies attack may be better, but they're still going to get dominated.

It's not just about the bowlers alone though, one could question the fielding too!!, you could have the best bowlers in the world but if your fielding isn't up to par it's a waste of time, Bradman clearly was a special talent but until questions are answered over the level of opposition he faced i don't believe he could be hailed "the best cricketer of all time" over Sobers, most of Sobers brilliance is on tap, is Bradman's?.

 

[Migara]

You're not only underestimating bowlers during that era but the impact that Bradman would have had on them.

I just had a quick search and stumbled on some interesting statistics - They are not mine I just found them compiled. They clearly illustrate the effects of having to bowl to Bradman

1. Bedser
Career : 24.9
Without Bradman : 21.3

2. Larwood
Career : 28.4
Without Bradman : 23.2

3. Voce
Career : 27.9
Without Bradman : 28.1

4. Verity
Career : 24.4
Without Bradman : 22.4

5. Mankad
Career : 32.3
Without Bradman : 30.7

6. Constantine
Career : 30.1
Without Bradman : 26.8

7. Allen
Career : 29.4
Without Bradman : 21.9

8. Tate
Career : 26.1
Without Bradman : 22.9

9. Bowes
Career : 22.3
Without Bradman : 20.5

10. Quinn
Career : 32.7
Without Bradman : 28.8

How was this calculated? ideally you have to reduce runs that Bradman took off these bowlers and reduce the times that Bradman was dismissed by them. I find statsguru not able to do such a complex function. Unless it's the case above averages are useless, What it only shows is averages without Bradman's team.

 

[Malleeboy]

Oddly you can't have it both way A Davidson av 18 in matches with Sobers in them, just a part of that 2nd rate not as good as the WI pace attack, the aussies would have to rely on.

 

[GotSpin]

How was this calculated? ideally you have to reduce runs that Bradman took off these bowlers and reduce the times that Bradman was dismissed by them. I find statsguru not able to do such a complex function. Unless it's the case above averages are useless, What it only shows is averages without Bradman's team.

I didn't do this myself but its of bowlers overall averages and their averages in matches not including Bradman. Of course such a method is not perfectly reliable, but it does give quite a telling story.

 

[GotSpin]

It's not just about the bowlers alone though, one could question the fielding too!!, you could have the best bowlers in the world but if your fielding isn't up to par it's a waste of time, Bradman clearly was a special talent but until questions are answered over the level of opposition he faced i don't believe he could be hailed "the best cricketer of all time" over Sobers, most of Sobers brilliance is on tap, is Bradman's?.

I've supplied evidence of a number of quality bowlers that played during Bradman's era.

 

[Migara]

I didn't do this myself but its of bowlers overall averages and their averages in matches not including Bradman. Of course such a method is not perfectly reliable, but it does give quite a telling story.

Only problem I find with Bradman's time is that even one minnow / bad team can skew the stats so much unlike today, where there are large number of teams playing.

 

[GotSpin]

Only problem I find with Bradman's time is that even one minnow / bad team can skew the stats so much unlike today, where there are large number of teams playing.

You must also consider that Bradman played most of his matches against the best cricketing nation, other than Australia, which was England obviously. He didn't have a plethora of weaker nations to play like there is today.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I've supplied evidence of a number of quality bowlers that played during Bradman's era.

Decent bowlers but not GREAT bowlers like in the more recent era's, and like Migara said those stats are not really conclusive evidence tbh.

 

[Malleeboy]

Bradman played 71 % of his matches against England, clearly at that time the top team he could play against and av 89.78. With 5 matches each against I, SA, WI, so if you include all 3 other nations as minnows they only lifted his av about 10 or about 9% of his career average.

However compare that to Tendulkar's Career 13447 runs at 55.56 and subtract his 1738 with 18 outs against Zim and Bang and his average drops to 52. Or a 4 av drop. Which amazingly is about 9% of his long term average.

So the impact of minnows on Bradman's career is equivalent in % to that on Tendulkars. (Actually more precisley Bradman's is 8.98% and Tedulkar's is 9.4%, so slightly in Bradman's favour.)

Obviously this only a very rough guideline, who do you class as Minnow's today, clearly some teams Aus, SA, India and England are at times better and other teams at times struggle. But you can only compare very roughly. How many years since NZ have won a test against Aus (home or away), does that make them a minnow? Bradman played more games as a % against minnows then Tendulkar but he also played more % against the top team.

If the bowling of the era was so crap, why weren't the other batsman av so far better then todays?

 

[Migara]

Bradman played 71 % of his matches, clearly at that time the top team he could play against and av 89.78. With 5 against I, SA, WI, so if you include all 3 other nations as minnows they only lifted his av about 10 or about 9% of his career average.

However compare to Tendulkar Career 13447 at 55.56 subtract his 1738 and 18 wickets against Zim and Bang and his average drops to 52. Or a 4 av drop. Which amazing is about 9% of his long term average.

So the impact of minnows on Bradman's career is equivalent in % to that on Tendulkars.

I am more interested in Bradman vs Sobers, not Tendulkar. Sobers did not play minnows of such. NZ of his day would be closer to a minnow or a top team is debatable. And his worst performances were against the bottom team of his era.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bradman played 71 % of his matches against England, clearly at that time the top team he could play against and av 89.78. With 5 matches each against I, SA, WI, so if you include all 3 other nations as minnows they only lifted his av about 10 or about 9% of his career average.

However compare that to Tendulkar's Career 13447 runs at 55.56 and subtract his 1738 with 18 outs against Zim and Bang and his average drops to 52. Or a 4 av drop. Which amazing is about 9% of his long term average.

So the impact of minnows on Bradman's career is equivalent in % to that on Tendulkars. (Actually more precisley Bradman's is 8.98% and Tedulkar's is 9.4%, so slightly in Bradman's favour.)

Bradman averaged 89.78 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 99.94. ie a drop in average by 10.16%

Lara averaged 51 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 52.88. ie a drop in average by 3.55%

Tendulkar averaged 56.08 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 55.56. ie an increase by 0.93%

Laxman averaged 55.10 against the best team of his time, compared to a career average of 46.64. ie an increase by 18.13%


Therefore, Laxman >> Tendulkar > Lara >> Bradman

 

[Malleeboy]

GI Joe,

I can salvage something from your post....

You clearly think Australia is the best team of the modern era!

Also that Bradman's average change due to play minnow's is not that statistically revelant.

Has anyone else with over 20 matches against the best team in the world managed an average near 90 over an entire career?

 

[GotSpin]

What would Bradman have averaged if you exclude the Bodyline series. Every Australian batsmen had there averages seriously depleted from that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

GI Joe,

I can salvage something from your post....

You clearly think Australia is the best team of the modern era!

Well, post 2009, Sachin and Laxman hindered by the fact that they can't play India, tbh.

 

[Spark]

What would Bradman have averaged if you exclude the Bodyline series. Every Australian batsmen had there averages seriously depleted from that.

That he still averaged 50+ against that is a phenomenal achievement in itself.

 

[gwo]

Averages 94.53 against England sans Bodyline.

96.5 against England if you cut out his last game where he got that famous duck.

98.4 Pre war if you cut out Bodyline.

Post war he was 38/40 so the drop is understandable =p

 

[Ikki]

It's not just about the bowlers alone though, one could question the fielding too!!, you could have the best bowlers in the world but if your fielding isn't up to par it's a waste of time, Bradman clearly was a special talent but until questions are answered over the level of opposition he faced i don't believe he could be hailed "the best cricketer of all time" over Sobers, most of Sobers brilliance is on tap, is Bradman's?.

You're clutching at straws. I know we said we wouldn't make fun of new members; but it is post like these that scream "newb".

Sobers' is not even clearly the best all-rounder of all time for mine. In fact, it's pretty close between him, Miller and Imran. Of course, you can look into the relevant threads to know why.

There is no way Sobers is as important to a side as Bradman. Some argue that Sobers is better because he did more things well; but Bradman is so far ahead in the batting stakes that it makes up every little deficiency he may have.

 

[GotSpin]

Averages 94.53 against England sans Bodyline.

96.5 against England if you cut out his last game where he got that famous duck.

98.4 Pre war if you cut out Bodyline.

Post war he was 38/40 so the drop is understandable =p

Imagine if he didn't lose all those years to the war

 

[Johnners]

You're clutching at straws. I know we said we wouldn't make fun of new members; but it is post like these that scream "newb".
[/B]
Sobers' is not even clearly the best all-rounder of all time for mine. In fact, it's pretty close between him, Miller and Imran. Of course, you can look into the relevant threads to know why.

There is no way Sobers is as important to a side as Bradman. Some argue that Sobers is better because he did more things well; but Bradman is so far ahead in the batting stakes that it makes up every little deficiency he may have.

Ikki, it's comments like this that generally always lead to the downfall of a thread and for that reason I'd advise you to refrain from making them in future. Just saying you disagreed would have been suffice before you went on to elaborate why.