How can a modern batsman be considered better than Don Bradman?

[New Yorker]

And who is going to ensure that the playing field is fair and even? Today thanks to population, test playing nation count, popularity and $$ cricket attracts easily a 100 times higher participation levels (there fore significantly higher competition ) than anything that existed 100 yrs ago. How are you going to account for that?

By the fact that every other batsmen who played in Bradman's time enjoyed the same comparable advantage vis-a-vis contemporary batsmen. Yet he towered above them all, and still does. It is not a perfect method of comparison at all, but the problem is not where you think it lies.

 

[Tusker]

By the fact that every other batsmen who played in Bradman's time enjoyed the same comparable advantage vis-a-vis contemporary batsmen.

Like all those millions of aspiring players from Asia circa 1930s ? Do you really think people in pre=Independence India Pakistan SL had even opportunities to play cricket? Laughable really.

 

[On_the_up]

World population has never been higher than today.

There have never been more test teams than we have today.

Yet I wouldn't say the current standard of cricket is the best by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there isn't a single bowler who might be called great, looking back in 30 years playing at the moment.

The standard of play doesn't have a direct correlation to the number of people playing it. Otherwise a population of the WI could never have produced so many greats in their history relative to their small numbers.

 

[Tusker]

World population has never been higher than today.

There have never been more test teams than we have today.

Yet I wouldn't say the current standard of cricket is the best by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there isn't a single bowler who might be called great, looking back in 30 years playing at the moment.

Steyn, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Cummins, Ashwin, Rabada, Amir, Kohli , Smith, Williamson, De-Kock, ABD .... All look crap to you ?

The standard of play doesn't have a direct correlation to the number of people playing it. Otherwise a population of the WI could never have produced so many greats in their history relative to their small numbers.

I agree with that as is proven by WI, NZ and SL. But don't you realize how it proves my point ? Even in India Mumbai has produced a disproportionately large Number of Intl Cricketers compared to the rest of India put together. This is why I say even now we have not really tapped the full talent pool available in India and it can only happen if India is allowed to play atleast 6 to 10 international teams ( atleast in Limited overs Cricket). Even right now the power centers are very concentrated. If you aren't from one of the big centers your chances of playing Test cricket are slim. This is the state of affairs now. Imagine how dire it was in the 1920s !! I mean playing cricket would be the last thing on most peoples mind back then.

 

[On_the_up]

Steyn, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Cummins, Ashwin, Rabada, Amir, Kohli , Smith, Williamson, De-Kock, ABD .... All look crap to you ?

Steyn is finished. I am not even including him as playing at the moment.

Cummins? after 3 tests? Please, might as well add Shaun Tait, Wahab and anyone who can touch/exceed 150 kph as a great bowler.

And no I wouldn't class Stark, Hazlewood, Ashwin etc as great bowlers. Great bowlers are the likes of WI pacemen of the 80s, Wasim/Waqar/Imran/Hadlee/McGrath/Warne/Murali etc.

These guys playing today are at best very good and some not even that.

I said bowlers so I think that rules out Smith/Kohli etc. The fact that the bowling standard is so low, the stock of the quartet is artificially inflated. This ironically is the point you are making for the likes of Bradman and all the pre 50/60s players. Towering above a sea of carp isn't a measure of greatness.

 

[Sachin136]

Steyn is finished. I am not even including him as playing at the moment.

Cummins? after 3 tests? Please, might as well add Shaun Tait, Wahab and anyone who can touch/exceed 150 kph as a great bowler.

And no I wouldn't class Stark, Hazlewood, Ashwin etc as great bowlers. Great bowlers are the likes of WI pacemen of the 80s, Wasim/Waqar/Imran/Hadlee/McGrath/Warne/Murali etc.

These guys playing today are at best very good and some not even that.

I said bowlers so I think that rules out Smith/Kohli etc. The fact that the bowling standard is so low, the stock of the quartet is artificially inflated. This ironically is the point you are making for the likes of Bradman and all the pre 50/60s players. Towering above a sea of carp isn't a measure of greatness.

Many of the top bowlers today don't have established careers yet. If you looked at the first 2-3 years when Sachin, Lara etc started playing, you would think they aren't great batsmen either. You have to wait at least 5 years to make a judgement.

 

[New Yorker]

Like all those millions of aspiring players from Asia circa 1930s ? Do you really think people in pre=Independence India Pakistan SL had even opportunities to play cricket? Laughable really.

Right, and more consequentially, millions in in the Caribbean were also locked out of the game. And we know what happened when they finally were unleashed. The 'rest of the world' isn't just Asia.

And yet none of these regions have produced a batsman like Bradman. The closest in terms of overall talent that we have seen was Sobers. Again, from tiny Caribbean. Indeed, the changes in terms of statistical performance have been modest. A good batsman is still someone who averages 45-55. A good bowler 20-25.

So more good players, and more diverse skills yes; the Sub Continent, specifically Pakistan, invented reverse swing and the doosra. But the evidence does not suggest that the influx of more players have yielded a manifold increase in player quality. Bradman really was a freak.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

This ironically is the point you are making for the likes of Bradman and all the pre 50/60s players. Towering above a sea of carp isn't a measure of greatness.

There were loads of great bowlers and batsmen in that era.

Verity and Laker are two ATG spinners Bradman faced and dominated. But they are never mentioned in this thread.

 

[On_the_up]

Many of the top bowlers today don't have established careers yet. If you looked at the first 2-3 years when Sachin, Lara etc started playing, you would think they aren't great batsmen either. You have to wait at least 5 years to make a judgement.

So we can assess in another 5 years, at the moment it is a hypothetical argument.

 

[Tusker]

Right, and more consequentially, millions in in the Caribbean were also locked out of the game. And we know what happened when they finally were unleashed. The 'rest of the world' isn't just Asia.

like it or not but its the biggest part of the Cricket World that never had any serious representation even much after Bradman last played in 1948 ...

And England certainly isnt "Rest Of the World" like you are trying to make out.

And yet none of these regions have produced a batsman like Bradman. The closest in terms of overall talent that we have seen was Sobers. Again, from tiny Caribbean. Indeed, the changes in terms of statistical performance have been modest. A good batsman is still someone who averages 45-55. A good bowler 20-25.

How do you know ? You just don't know given that the Asian countries never really had a reasonable chance until much much later .... Australia and England had been playing Test+FC cricket for decades before Bradman.

So more good players, and more diverse skills yes; the Sub Continent, specifically Pakistan, invented reverse swing and the doosra. But the evidence does not suggest that the influx of more players have yielded a manifold increase in player quality. Bradman really was a freak.

Talk about contradicting yourselves in the same post !!! Don't you realize that the World would have never seen the likes of Wasim and Waqar had Pakistan never had the opportunity to play Cricket ? What kind of logic is this?

 

[Sachin136]

So we can assess in another 5 years, at the moment it is a hypothetical argument.

Why not compare the 90s and 00s with Bradman's era?

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

like it or not but its the biggest part of the Cricket World that never had any serious representation even much after Bradman last played in 1948 ...

And England certainly isnt "Rest Of the World" like you are trying to make out.




How do you know ? You just don't know given that the Asian countries never really had a reasonable chance until much much later .... Australia and England had been playing Test+FC cricket for decades before Bradman.



Talk about contradicting yourselves in the same post !!! Don't you realize that the World would have never seen the likes of Wasim and Waqar had Pakistan never had the opportunity to play Cricket ? What kind of logic is this?

The problem with the "not enough countries play tests" argument is that even now cricket is a niche sport played at the highest level by 10 nations, and at a relatively competent level by 8 nations.

10-15 years from now, there will probably be more countries playing tests and you will be posting then saying "Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Sanga were overrated because the powerful juggernaut of China had not been unleashed yet"

 

[Tusker]

The problem with the "not enough countries play tests" argument is that even now cricket is a niche sport played at the highest level by 10 nations, and at a relatively competent level by 8 nations.

10-15 years from now, there will probably be more countries playing tests and you will be posting then saying "Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Sanga were overrated because the powerful juggernaut of China had not been unleashed yet"

Absolutely ... thats why the only way you can compare across ERA's is by looking at quality of bowling faced. If Chinese go on to play test cricket and they produce bowlers that will make Starc and Johnson look slow in comparison then they will be rightly entitled to claim that this ERA was of lower standard.

 

[On_the_up]

Why not compare the 90s and 00s with Bradman's era?

I was answering:
1) the more people the play the better the standard.
2) Standard of modern cricket is better.

I gave examples which go against this argument.

Yes the mid 70s/80s and 90s was probably the best era in terms of standard of cricket but then that's what I saw myself (mid 80s onwards). I am not however not so quick to diminish everything before then on the basis of a few youtube clips and the "everything was rubbish back then" argument.

 

[On_the_up]

Absolutely ... thats why the only way you can compare across ERA's is by looking at quality of bowling faced. If Chinese go on to play test cricket and they produce bowlers that will make Starc and Johnson look slow in comparison then they will be rightly entitled to claim that this ERA was of lower standard.

Is this your only guide to greatness/quality?

A good spinner, seam/swing bowler (at lower pace) can make it difficult for a batsman too right?

 

[New Yorker]

like it or not but its the biggest part of the Cricket World that never had any serious representation even much after Bradman last played in 1948 ...

And England certainly isnt "Rest Of the World" like you are trying to make out.




How do you know ? You just don't know given that the Asian countries never really had a reasonable chance until much much later .... Australia and England had been playing Test+FC cricket for decades before Bradman.



Talk about contradicting yourselves in the same post !!! Don't you realize that the World would have never seen the likes of Wasim and Waqar had Pakistan never had the opportunity to play Cricket ? What kind of logic is this?

I don't think you are following my argument, and vice versa. I can't know whether those countries who did not play international cricket in Bradman's era could have produced another Bradman. It's a valid question. Perhaps they could have. But it's not pertinent to my argument. What I am pointing out is that since these countries started playing cricket, none of them have produced another Bradman. Nor have Australia. Which suggests that Bradman was something akin to a once in a century freak. I don't understand at all what is your point re Wasim and Waqar? Do you think I am arguing that Asian countries should never have been granted Test status? Why would you believe that?

 

[Tusker]

Is this your only guide to greatness/quality?

A good spinner, seam/swing bowler (at lower pace) can make it difficult for a batsman too right?

Sure but speed is the main ingredient ... thats why you will always have more fast bowlers playing at any given time than spinners. And over a period of time due to rise in standards slow dibly dobbly medium pacers like Bedser , Tate, Bowes etc have become extinct in Test Cricket. There can't be a more clear example of how standards are soo crucial in determining batting quality.

Look at it this way ... will you accept someone as a great batsman he avged 100 against minnows ?

 

[Black Zero]

Do you actually think that cricket has become easier since Bradman's time?

Please first counter my main argument.

 

[New Yorker]

Sure but speed is the main ingredient ... thats why you will always have more fast bowlers playing at any given time than spinners. And over a period of time due to rise in standards slow dibly dobbly medium pacers like Bedser , Tate, Bowes etc have become extinct in Test Cricket. There can't be a more clear example of how standards are soo crucial in determining batting quality.

Look at it this way ... will you accept someone as a great batsman he avged 100 against minnows ?

I might if nobody else averaged more than 50. That is what comparison is for.

 

[Tusker]

I don't think you are following my argument, and vice versa. I can't know whether those countries who did not play international cricket in Bradman's era could have produced another Bradman. It's a valid question. Perhaps they could have. But it's not pertinent to my argument.

How is exclusion of such a large cricket playing base (not just Asia btw) not a pertinent ?

BTW its not just about producing another Bradman ... its about producing bowlers and conditions ( standards !!) that make it impossible for a Bradman like player to happen !! This is the main difference.

What I am pointing out is that since these countries started playing cricket, none of them have produced another Bradman. Nor have Australia. Which suggests that Bradman was something akin to a once in a century freak.

he was more a product of unique circumstances.

I don't understand at all what is your point re Wasim and Waqar? Do you think I am arguing that Asian countries should never have been granted Test status? Why would you believe that?

See the above point about not letting batsmen dominate. Do you really think the competition back in the 20s and 30s was mature and intense enough to produce Wasims and Waqar's and Warnes who single handedly ended a lot of careers prematurely ? It just wasn't and the single biggest factor that led to this high standards is the post colonial ERA that first opened the doors of cricket to the masses outside White Countries and then the Professional ERA decades later. Why is it so hard to realize that these were responsible for producing some of the greatest cricketers ever ?

Bradman never ever had to deal with all that. The closest he came was when Jardine out manouvered him and all it took was a 70 mph bowler bowling short. Quite hilarious that it resulted in Larwoods expulsion. That right there is a big clue to what would have happened to Bradman in modern times.

 

[On_the_up]

Sure but speed is the main ingredient ... thats why you will always have more fast bowlers playing at any given time than spinners. And over a period of time due to rise in standards slow dibly dobbly medium pacers like Bedser , Tate, Bowes etc have become extinct in Test Cricket. There can't be a more clear example of how standards are soo crucial in determining batting quality.

Look at it this way ... will you accept someone as a great batsman he avged 100 against minnows ?

A good bowler is a good bowler, the Phillanders/Asifs are much better than Wahab. Even McGrath wasn't that quick.

As for the more pacers/less spinners argument, it depends on the pitch, there have been many instances of teams with spinners outnumbering the pacemen and even opening the bowling.

Yes of course the level of the opposition matters. Smith/Kohli/Root/Smith might not even have averaged 45 in the 80s or Viv/Miandad/Gavaskar possibly above 60 today.

But a career average of 100 both in Test and FC over 20 LONG years is almost beyond belief, and is so far above the norm/ (best of the rest in any era) that you have got have concrete facts before saying he wasn't the greatest.

I would doubt the likes of Tendulkar etc could even average 100 over 20 years if he played just against the minnows! That type of effort takes more than just skill, it takes a certain mindset and bloody minded determination of not relaxing when the going might be easy, the physical limitations of the body to bat hour after hour, to not get bored frankly.

And English bowlers were far better than what you call today's minnows.

 

[Tusker]

I might if nobody else averaged more than 50. That is what comparison is for.

Sorry not me. here is why : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval2=matches;template=results;type=batting

There is a reason why nobody takes minnow performances seriously. And the main reason is standards.

 

[New Yorker]

How is exclusion of such a large cricket playing base (not just Asia btw) not a pertinent ?

BTW its not just about producing another Bradman ... its about producing bowlers and conditions ( standards !!) that make it impossible for a Bradman like player to happen !! This is the main difference.




he was more a product of unique circumstances.



See the above point about not letting batsmen dominate. Do you really think the competition back in the 20s and 30s was mature and intense enough to produce Wasims and Waqar's and Warnes who single handedly ended a lot of careers prematurely ? It just wasn't and the single biggest factor that led to this high standards is the post colonial ERA that first opened the doors of cricket to the masses outside White Countries and then the Professional ERA decades later. Why is it so hard to realize that these were responsible for producing some of the greatest cricketers ever ?

Bradman never ever had to deal with all that. The closest he came was when Jardine out manouvered him and all it took was a 70 mph bowler bowling short. Quite hilarious that it resulted in Larwoods expulsion. That right there is a big clue to what would have happened to Bradman in modern times.

we're running in circles again. all of these considerations that you bring up are certainly pertinent. yes of course many things have changed in cricket over the years. the competition has become more fierce in some regards, but also less so in others. we have fewer truly great fast bowlers in the khan, hadlee and marshall mould today.

yet all of this is really beside the point. the one question you have to reckon with is this: if bradman had such an easy time of it, comparatively speaking, why were there not a dozen bradman's in his era? why could no other batsman, who was similarly fortunate not to have to face asian spinners etc, unable to average even 70 or 80? again. the word is comparison.

 

[On_the_up]

So [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] who do you regard as the greatest batsman of all time?

 

[On_the_up]

Sometimes a picture puts the point across better than words.

 

[Tusker]

yet all of this is really beside the point. the one question you have to reckon with is this: if bradman had such an easy time of it, comparatively speaking, why were there not a dozen bradman's in his era? why could no other batsman, who was similarly fortunate not to have to face asian spinners etc, unable to average even 70 or 80? again. the word is comparison.

Because its irrelevant !! Why ? Because the World that Constituted Cricket was soo small that it makes no sense to pretend that it is the same thing as the current cricket world. Its not Bradman's fault that the Cricket world expanded but neither is it the modern batsmans fault.

Secondly nobody denies that Bradman was the greatest batsman of his time. But its silly to pretend that current batsman have exactly the same hurdles infront of them as Bradman did in his times ... therefore until and unless they are twice as good as the next guy.

 

[TalhaSyed]

No it doesn't. Why? Because Bradman never had to deal with competition from Asia. And even in England cricket really wasn't the No.1 sport. That's why the playing field is not even and is heavily in favor of Bradman.

...what? I'm sorry but thats one of the worst theories I've heard

Ok....The likes of Kohli & Smith cannot be call ATG's because they haven't had to face the South American competition yet....

Don Bradman averaged 179 against India (the only Asian team around at the time). 1......7......9

 

[New Yorker]

Because its irrelevant !! Why ? Because the World that Constituted Cricket was soo small that it makes no sense to pretend that it is the same thing as the current cricket world. Its not Bradman's fault that the Cricket world expanded but neither is it the modern batsmans fault.

Secondly nobody denies that Bradman was the greatest batsman of his time. But its silly to pretend that current batsman have exactly the same hurdles infront of them as Bradman did in his times ... therefore until and unless they are twice as good as the next guy.

there are two arguments here. one, what is in fact a compound argument; a. the cricket world has changed and no comparison is possible because we are talking apples and oranges; b. cricket today is much much harder than during bradman's era. he would simply have been torn to shreds by asian spinners etc and wasim and waqar.

two, mine, regardless of how much cricket has changed, one can still compare the relative performance of players in their own eras.

so, again, and again; why have we not seen anyone break away from the pack in the way that bradman did in his time?

in recent times, there is virtually no difference average wise among tendulkar, waugh, ponting, sanga, kallis what have you. 2-3 points at most.

so here are two possibilities. one, these players and any other player averaging around 50-55 are all modern -day incarnations of bradman, give or take a bit, and would all have been averaging 85-100 if they had played in his time.

i find that implausible to say the least.

the other explanation is that we have not seen anyone break away from the pack because there has not emerged another player of bradman's calibre. i find this explanation much more plausible, but i understand that you will remain unconvinced.

 

[New Yorker]

...what? I'm sorry but thats one of the worst theories I've heard

Ok....The likes of Kohli & Smith cannot be call ATG's because they haven't had to face the South American competition yet....

Don Bradman averaged 179 against India (the only Asian team around at the time). 1......7......9

the absurdity is in: "That's why the playing field is not even and is heavily in favor of Bradman."

why only bradman, of all the players in his era? why didnt everyone average 100? or at least 75?

 

[Tusker]

...what? I'm sorry but thats one of the worst theories I've heard

Ok....The likes of Kohli & Smith cannot be call ATG's because they haven't had to face the South American competition yet....

It will become a factor if in future Argentina becomes one of the leading Test Playing nation just like how India, Pakistan , WI and SL went on to become Test Playing nations. Do you seriously think Cricket had completed its evolution by the time Bradman finished in 1948 ?

Don Bradman averaged 179 against India (the only Asian team around at the time). 1......7......9

And Mohammad Yousuf Averages 250 against BD ... ergo Moyo >> Tendulkar then ? India was a minnow back in 1948 and Pakistan did not exist yet. Os its laughable to assume that its the same Indian team that you see now. Moreover he never toured India.

But going by your own ludicrous theories then Pakistan never have any significant contributions to the game in the bowling department that are responsible for evolution of higher batting standards ?

 

[Tusker]

the absurdity is in: "That's why the playing field is not even and is heavily in favor of Bradman."

why only bradman, of all the players in his era? why didnt everyone average 100? or at least 75?

And you don't see the absurdity in equating standards and competition levels from a Pre-WWII era cricket world that only consisted of 2 Nations to Todays Professional ERA Cricket world ? This is like saying all the nations that came afterwards contributed very little to cricket.

 

[New Yorker]

And you don't see the absurdity in equating standards and competition levels from a Pre-WWII era cricket world that only consisted of 2 Nations to Todays Professional ERA Cricket world ? This is like saying all the nations that came afterwards contributed very little to cricket.

i dont think anyone is equating standards at all. the point is that one doesn't have to.

now please answer the question.

why couldn't anyone else in bradman's era come even remotely close to him?

 

[New Yorker]

It will become a factor if in future Argentina becomes one of the leading Test Playing nation just like how India, Pakistan , WI and SL went on to become Test Playing nations. Do you seriously think Cricket had completed its evolution by the time Bradman finished in 1948 ?



And Mohammad Yousuf Averages 250 against BD ... ergo Moyo >> Tendulkar then ? India was a minnow back in 1948 and Pakistan did not exist yet. Os its laughable to assume that its the same Indian team that you see now. Moreover he never toured India.

But going by your own ludicrous theories then Pakistan never have any significant contributions to the game in the bowling department that are responsible for evolution of higher batting standards ?

i think you understand that bradman's claim to greatness does not rest on his performances against india. it was simply a rebuttal of the notion that bradman would have been a babe in asia. more generally, what is rather curious is this assumption that the subcontinent is always the death of overseas batsmen....plenty of english and australian and south african batsmen have done very well in the subcontinent in modern times. many more have managed to get through a tour without laying waste to their average, ie managed at least 20 or 30 on average. on what basis do we assume that bradman would have been constitutionally incapable of playing at least half as well as say, cook? he would have had to average 5 in the subcontinent for it significantly dent his average. which would still have been in the 80's - 90 range. ie far ahead of everyone else. nothing in this argument makes any sense.

 

[Tusker]

i dont think anyone is equating standards at all.

Thank lord for the small mercies but believe me there is no shortage of those who firmly believe in the opposite. Madness !!

the point is that one doesn't have to.

I don't agree ... because Standards and competition levels are the single biggest reasons why batting avgs are lower. For example in the 90s only 3-4 batsmen avgd above 50 do you think rest all were crap ? It doesn't work that way.

now please answer the question.

why couldn't anyone else in Bradman's era come even remotely close to him?

Because they were crap. It was a Amateur ERA. By definition they don't attract the best talent. Why ? because not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to play cricket for free and also risk injury which would further affect their earnings. Bradman himself would have stopped playing cricket had his employer not been kind enough to offer him time to tour.

This is the same reason why the early Indian teams would have a lot of royalty. These people did not obviously play because they had exceptional skills ... they never had to worry about working for a living. All of this is widely known not sure why its sooo hard for people to believe this.

The net effect of the Amateur ERA is that it is much more easier for cricketers with lesser skills to get to the top unlike today. I will give you two good examples : Hobbs played Test cricket till 48 (FC till 53!!) , Hammond captained England in Test Cricket at the age of 43 while being severely affected by Arthritis and essentially stood at slips all the time. Imagine such things happening today to even the Afghan side. Impossible. This is why such 2x equations are ludicrous and cannot stand any serious scrutiny.

 

[Haz95]

Soo ? How does this prove He would Avg 70 today without having made a single run under significantly tougher conditions ?

But this reminds me of The dialogue from sholay where Jay is pitching for Veeru who is a drunk jobless gambler.

BTW since you have professional in quotes. ... Do you know that back then the consensus was that Amateurs were better and you had to be a Amateur to be a captain? How can anyone even take that era seriously?

LET ME TYPE IT OUT REAAAAAAL SLOW FOR YOU AND REAL CLEARLY

1)THE QUALITY WAS POOR

2)CRICKET WAS NOWHERE NEAR AS ADVANCED

3)THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF HOW ADVANCED OR POOR THE ERA WAS AND WHICH ERA IS BETTER

4)THERE ARE OTHER UNMENTIONED FACTORS

5)BUT DON BRADMAN IS NOT RATED FOR THAT

6)HOW CAN THE PEOPLE OF THE 1930S HAVE TAKEN WILLIAM GRACE'S ERA SERIOUSLY WHEN NO ONE EVEN AVERAGED 20/30 ODD WITH THE BAT? BECAUSE THEY KNEW CRICKET WAS DIFFERENT THEN, JUST LIKE IT IS NOW, YET THEY STILL RATED GRACE. THIS ISN'T BASED ON WHICH ERA IS SUPERIOR.

7)NOWHERE DID I SAY BRADMAN WILL AVERAGE 70 IN TODAYS ERA (this is why I post ad hominem responses because your retard3d drivel frustrates me). I SAID THAT IN ORDER TO BETTER BRADMAN, ONE WILL ONLY NEED TO AVERAGE 70 ODD DUE TO BEING SO MUCH MORE ADVANCED NOW.

Now let me paint an argument as clearly as I am capable of, DON BRADMAN IS RATED FOR HAVING A RIDICULOUSLY HIGH ANOMALOUS STATISTIC WHICH IS UNIQUE IN CRICKET. NO ONE IN THE OLD OR NEWER ERA HAS ACCOMPLISHED THAT FEAT, THIS MAKES HIM AN ANOMALOUS CASE AND THEREFORE NONE OF THOSE FACTORS MATTER, ONLY THE ONE THAT HE AVERAGES 99 WHICH MAKES HIM THE BONAFIDE GOAT BATSMAN FOR BEING SUCH AN ANOMALOUS AND UNUSUAL CASE.

I am getting tired of writing the same old stuff again. If you are about to spew the same old 2 rubbish bakwas responses about cricket being poor and how different era's were better/worse or that you can't accept Bradmans average is ANOMALOUS, don't bother. I will not reply.

 

[Coconut]

Bradman played against only one team and he played on similar types of pitches throughout his career.


There r many modern batters who averages 100 or close to 100 against a particular country or in a particular venue/country. Bradman surely would've struggled if he had to play against different types of bowlers on different types of pitches/conditions.


Modern batters like Tendulkar, viv or lara r easily better than him. Ranking of the best batters of all time should be like this.

1. Tendulkar

(slight gap)

2. Viv

3. Bradman

4. Lara

..................

Rest of the Batters

 

[Tusker]

Now let me paint an argument as clearly as I am capable of, DON BRADMAN IS RATED FOR HAVING A RIDICULOUSLY HIGH ANOMALOUS STATISTIC WHICH IS UNIQUE IN CRICKET. NO ONE IN THE OLD OR NEWER ERA HAS ACCOMPLISHED THAT FEAT, THIS MAKES HIM AN ANOMALOUS CASE AND THEREFORE NONE OF THOSE FACTORS MATTER, ONLY THE ONE THAT HE AVERAGES 99 WHICH MAKES HIM THE BONAFIDE GOAT BATSMAN FOR BEING SUCH AN ANOMALOUS AND UNUSUAL CASE.

Based on the RED part of your post it implies that you expect players today to stand far ahead of others in order to be considered equal to Bradman. My point is if we replicate the circumstances from that ERA (which you accept in points 1-4 of your post ) that lead to this anomaly we will see numerous modern batsmen will avg over 100 under such circumstances. So before you draw out your guns and start shooting blindly from your hips think about it over a thand lassi or three.

But you obviously think those circumstances are irrelevant as can be inferred from the BLUE part of your post.

This means that you think current batsmen who will never ever have the luxury of playing in ONLY ONE away Country against weak and friendly opponents (that everyone will pretend is a tough opponent like they do for Bradman ) is the same exact and EVEN Playing field as the current ERA where players have to go thru a dog fight every tour playing 3 formats in atleast 5 to 8 different away countries where it is inevitable that you will be found out somewhere thereby denting your avg.

If thats the case then there cannot be a reasonable discussion that can be had between us as clearly our cricketing know how is quite opposite.

But reality is nobody gives a crap about the Amateur ERA playing conditions when having a Amateur status was more important than fitness to captain England. Nobody even thinks remotely closely along those lines and It is evident in how Cricket is played and Administered.

 

[Tusker]

Doesn't have to be twice as good imo and an average of 70 over a career would definitely match it.

Steve Smith over the last 4 yrs ... avg ~ 70 at a decent S/R and most importantly runs made in all parts of the world.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting


Yes I know its not a FULL Career Avg and he is not done yet but thats a very good sample size that is co-incidentally just as long as Bradman's entire career ( = 80 inngs ) .

 

[Chrish]

Impressive part for Bradman is his FC career more than his test career. Playing 200+ games and he still averaged 95. No one comes close.

 

[Chrish]

Bradman played against only one team and he played on similar types of pitches throughout his career.


There r many modern batters who averages 100 or close to 100 against a particular country or in a particular venue/country. Bradman surely would've struggled if he had to play against different types of bowlers on different types of pitches/conditions.


Modern batters like Tendulkar, viv or lara r easily better than him. Ranking of the best batters of all time should be like this.

1. Tendulkar

(slight gap)

2. Viv

3. Bradman

4. Lara

..................

Rest of the Batters

Forget Bradman there is no clear reason to put Sachin above Viv and Sobers.

 

[Chrish]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/284199.html

List of highest FC averages. When you anylaze the numbers the gap between 2nd, 3rd, 4th ranked guys is marginal however the gap between 1st and 2nd rank is significant!

He averaged what he did playing 234 games while loosing 6-8 prime years to war!

That leads to only one explanation: He was better than anyone else

 

[On_the_up]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/284199.html

List of highest FC averages. When you anylaze the numbers the gap between 2nd, 3rd, 4th ranked guys is marginal however the gap between 1st and 2nd rank is significant!

He averaged what he did playing 234 games while loosing 6-8 prime years to war!

That leads to only one explanation: He was better than anyone else

No because everyone in his time was total crap. He was at best an above average batsman in an era of armatures with only 2 teams playing and the bowlers were dibbly dobblers with pace rivaling that of today's woman (pace being the defining attribute of any half decent bowler don't you know). The minnows of today would have given the likes of Hobbs/ Sutcliffe/ Hammond/ Hutton/ Compton/ Larwood/ Laker a decent game.

He was actually the luckiest batsman to have ever lived (from that regard) but the best, no sir. That honor goes to .... (------) someone I haven't actually mentioned but all these oldies are overrated mythical beings and should be consigned to the last chapter of any cricket history book worth it's salt.

Actually, come to think of it, modern cricket is so great, with so many teams/world population playing the sport that you can't even say for sure the likes of Chris Martin/Rahat Ali are actually inferior to the Don.

 

[Chrish]

Sachin's career has intertwined with Border and Border was very good. Border's with Gavaskar and Gav was great. Gav's with Sobers and Sobers was awesome as usual. Sobers' with Harvey and Harvey was excellent. Harvey's with Bradman and Bradman absolutely put him in the shade.

So by some magical formula, Bradman can actually be compared with modern day players. Another thing that Bradman only played against 4 teams. Well Cricket popularity in Australia and England was never higher. They had the best pool of young talents available to them since everyone wanted to escape the mining. It's only in 50s/60s Cricket popularity in England started declining in favor of Football. Also keeping in mind, Bradman never actually played the true minnow of the time: New Zealand.

If Bradman were playing today he would face more quality opposition but also more of the mediocracy. He would face more quality bowlers but on the other hand two of his biggest weaknesses will also be gone: sticky wickets and risk of injury due to protective gears!

 

[Tusker]

Bradman played against only one team and he played on similar types of pitches throughout his career.


There r many modern batters who averages 100 or close to 100 against a particular country or in a particular venue/country. Bradman surely would've struggled if he had to play against different types of bowlers on different types of pitches/conditions.


Modern batters like Tendulkar, viv or lara r easily better than him. Ranking of the best batters of all time should be like this.

1. Tendulkar

(slight gap)

2. Viv

3. Bradman

4. Lara

..................

Rest of the Batters

But but But .... Tendulkar does not even have a better average than freakin Vinod Kambli and you have the Temerity to rank him above Bradman who avgd almost TWICE as much as the next best guy .... so what if the next best guys were arthritic, middle aged and amateurs ... its not Bradmans fault you know ... and then there is this magical formula that I have which proves decisively that Bradman > Tendulkar ... yada yada yada )

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Sachin's career has intertwined with Border and Border was very good. Border's with Gavaskar and Gav was great. Gav's with Sobers and Sobers was awesome as usual. Sobers' with Harvey and Harvey was excellent. Harvey's with Bradman and Bradman absolutely put him in the shade.

So by some magical formula, Bradman can actually be compared with modern day players. Another thing that Bradman only played against 4 teams. Well Cricket popularity in Australia and England was never higher. They had the best pool of young talents available to them since everyone wanted to escape the mining. It's only in 50s/60s Cricket popularity in England started declining in favor of Football. Also keeping in mind, Bradman never actually played the true minnow of the time: New Zealand.

If Bradman were playing today he would face more quality opposition but also more of the mediocracy. He would face more quality bowlers but on the other hand two of his biggest weaknesses will also be gone: sticky wickets and risk of injury due to protective gears!

Wish Tusker read your posts. You are saving me lots of time by making the points I wanted to!

 

[New Yorker]

No because everyone in his time was total crap. He was at best an above average batsman in an era of armatures with only 2 teams playing and the bowlers were dibbly dobblers with pace rivaling that of today's woman (pace being the defining attribute of any half decent bowler don't you know). The minnows of today would have given the likes of Hobbs/ Sutcliffe/ Hammond/ Hutton/ Compton/ Larwood/ Laker a decent game.

He was actually the luckiest batsman to have ever lived (from that regard) but the best, no sir. That honor goes to .... (------) someone I haven't actually mentioned but all these oldies are overrated mythical beings and should be consigned to the last chapter of any cricket history book worth it's salt.

Actually, come to think of it, modern cricket is so great, with so many teams/world population playing the sport that you can't even say for sure the likes of Chris Martin/Rahat Ali are actually inferior to the Don.

assertions don't become true because you inject them with vehemence. i would suggest you let up on the patronizing a bit.

a few things to note

one of the most apparent problems with your fixation on the supposedly inferior standards of the bradman era is that he, unlike every other cricketer who has ever lived, surpassed those standards by an extraordinary margin.

every other cricketer who has ever played since bradman can be located on a curve alongside their peers. that is true for tendulkar, kallis, lara as much anyone else. none of them put more than 2-3 percentage points of distance between themselves and the competition.

yet comparing batsmen we might commonly say that someone who averages 50 in Tests is "twice as good" as someone who averages 35, even though 50 is not twice as much as 35. by these standards bradman was not merely twice as good as the competition, he was literally playing another game.

in fact, we would have to look very hard in the history of sport to find someone who so towered above the rest of the field. it simply defies the laws of probability. and bradman's career spanned twenty years. it was clearly not the matter of a purple patch.

on this understanding, the argument that standards were lower in his time, for which you have not provided any shred of evidence, barring anecdotes, would not be sufficient to claim that he must merely have been mediocre by contemporary standards. His standard was literally not the standard of the day. nor of today, one would wager.

yet the fact that bradman was far from the only cricketer to enjoy a 20 year career tells you something about the relative importance of talents like concentration vs fitness and professionalism in cricket, particularly when it comes to batsmen. tubby bellies and poor running rarely stopped a good bat from making hay.

one of pakistan's best batsmen ever, our current selector in chief, was a literal potato. a man who actually walked unto his own wickets and was chronically liable to run himself or others out. he couldn't have looked any more amateurish if he had tried. and he wasn't playing in the bradman era.

it is also a curious fact of cricket that no matter where we look, international performance stats rarely diverge very much from FC stats. At most we observe say a 5 point variance. This applies to Tendulkar (Intl Ave 53, FC 57) - Bradman's would be heir, as much as anyone else.

Andy Flower, a great recent international batsman who averaged 51 over his career and was ranked no 1 in the world for some time, including a time when Tendulkar was playing, averaged only 54 in domestic Zimbabwean cricket; the minnow league of minnow leagues if there ever was one.

What this ironclad fact gives lie to is the notion that even if we could actually define and quantify them, atmospheric variables like standards can tell us all we need to know about the quality of an individual player. The clinching factoid in this regard, as Cut has pointed out, is that Bradman averaged as much in FC as he did in international cricket. The reason for why we would expect the numbers to converge is simply the law of averages.

 

[On_the_up]

assertions don't become true because you inject them with vehemence. i would suggest you let up on the patronizing a bit.

a few things to note

one of the most apparent problems with your fixation on the supposedly inferior standards of the bradman era is that he, unlike every other cricketer who has ever lived, surpassed those standards by an extraordinary margin.

every other cricketer who has ever played since bradman can be located on a curve alongside their peers. that is true for tendulkar, kallis, lara as much anyone else. none of them put more than 2-3 percentage points of distance between themselves and the competition.

yet comparing batsmen we might commonly say that someone who averages 50 in Tests is "twice as good" as someone who averages 35, even though 50 is not twice as much as 35. by these standards bradman was not merely twice as good as the competition, he was literally playing another game.

in fact, we would have to look very hard in the history of sport to find someone who so towered above the rest of the field. it simply defies the laws of probability. and bradman's career spanned twenty years. it was clearly not the matter of a purple patch.

on this understanding, the argument that standards were lower in his time, for which you have not provided any shred of evidence, barring anecdotes, would not be sufficient to claim that he must merely have been mediocre by contemporary standards. His standard was literally not the standard of the day. nor of today, one would wager.

yet the fact that bradman was far from the only cricketer to enjoy a 20 year career tells you something about the relative importance of talents like concentration vs fitness and professionalism in cricket, particularly when it comes to batsmen. tubby bellies and poor running rarely stopped a good bat from making hay.

one of pakistan's best batsmen ever, our current selector in chief, was a literal potato. a man who actually walked unto his own wickets and was chronically liable to run himself or others out. he couldn't have looked any more amateurish if he had tried. and he wasn't playing in the bradman era.

it is also a curious fact of cricket that no matter where we look, international performance stats rarely diverge very much from FC stats. At most we observe say a 5 point variance. This applies to Tendulkar (Intl Ave 53, FC 57) - Bradman's would be heir, as much as anyone else.

Andy Flower, a great recent international batsman who averaged 51 over his career and was ranked no 1 in the world for some time, including a time when Tendulkar was playing, averaged only 54 in domestic Zimbabwean cricket; the minnow league of minnow leagues if there ever was one.

What this ironclad fact gives lie to is the notion that even if we could actually define and quantify them, atmospheric variables like standards can tell us all we need to know about the quality of an individual player. The clinching factoid in this regard, as Cut has pointed out, is that Bradman averaged as much in FC as he did in international cricket. The reason for why we would expect the numbers to converge is simply the law of averages.

I would encourage you to read my earlier posts on this thread. The whole picture will become clear and would have saved you a lot of time too.

 

[New Yorker]

Sorry not me. here is why : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval2=matches;template=results;type=batting

There is a reason why nobody takes minnow performances seriously. And the main reason is standards.

sidestepping for a moment the awkward transposition of bangla ca 2005 as england 1930....i don't think this helps you very much. the top 10 batsmen against bangladesh based on averages are basically the top ten players of their era - tendulkar, lara, sanga, chanders, yousuf, yk - albeit not always in the order we would expect. yet the sample size is tiny; yousuf only played 5 Tests against Bangla in the early 2000s when they were very weak, and a few not outs with that kind of sample will always inflate averages. that said, this chart actually shows that even against a weak opposition, the relative cream tends to float to the relative top. if one made every player on the chart play at least 33 Tests against Bangla we'd see the distribution shake out further presumably.

 

[New Yorker]

I would encourage you to read my earlier posts on this thread. The whole picture will become clear and would have saved you a lot of time too.

i don't think they are as clarifying as you think to them to be. sorry.

 

[On_the_up]

i don't think they are as clarifying as you think to them to be. sorry.

I was summarizing [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] viewpoint on the matter as we seemed to be going round and round in circles.

 

[Tusker]

assertions don't become true because you inject them with vehemence. i would suggest you let up on the patronizing a bit.

a few things to note

one of the most apparent problems with your fixation on the supposedly inferior standards of the bradman era is that he, unlike every other cricketer who has ever lived, surpassed those standards by an extraordinary margin.

every other cricketer who has ever played since bradman can be located on a curve alongside their peers. that is true for tendulkar, kallis, lara as much anyone else. none of them put more than 2-3 percentage points of distance between themselves and the competition.

yet comparing batsmen we might commonly say that someone who averages 50 in Tests is "twice as good" as someone who averages 35, even though 50 is not twice as much as 35. by these standards bradman was not merely twice as good as the competition, he was literally playing another game.

in fact, we would have to look very hard in the history of sport to find someone who so towered above the rest of the field. it simply defies the laws of probability. and bradman's career spanned twenty years. it was clearly not the matter of a purple patch.

on this understanding, the argument that standards were lower in his time, for which you have not provided any shred of evidence, barring anecdotes, would not be sufficient to claim that he must merely have been mediocre by contemporary standards. His standard was literally not the standard of the day. nor of today, one would wager.

yet the fact that bradman was far from the only cricketer to enjoy a 20 year career tells you something about the relative importance of talents like concentration vs fitness and professionalism in cricket, particularly when it comes to batsmen. tubby bellies and poor running rarely stopped a good bat from making hay.

one of pakistan's best batsmen ever, our current selector in chief, was a literal potato. a man who actually walked unto his own wickets and was chronically liable to run himself or others out. he couldn't have looked any more amateurish if he had tried. and he wasn't playing in the bradman era.

it is also a curious fact of cricket that no matter where we look, international performance stats rarely diverge very much from FC stats. At most we observe say a 5 point variance. This applies to Tendulkar (Intl Ave 53, FC 57) - Bradman's would be heir, as much as anyone else.

Andy Flower, a great recent international batsman who averaged 51 over his career and was ranked no 1 in the world for some time, including a time when Tendulkar was playing, averaged only 54 in domestic Zimbabwean cricket; the minnow league of minnow leagues if there ever was one.

What this ironclad fact gives lie to is the notion that even if we could actually define and quantify them, atmospheric variables like standards can tell us all we need to know about the quality of an individual player. The clinching factoid in this regard, as Cut has pointed out, is that Bradman averaged as much in FC as he did in international cricket. The reason for why we would expect the numbers to converge is simply the law of averages.

Wait a minute ... are you seriously trying to suggest that standards in Bradman's time were good and infact comparable to modern ERA ?

 

[TalhaSyed]

It will become a factor if in future Argentina becomes one of the leading Test Playing nation just like how India, Pakistan , WI and SL went on to become Test Playing nations. Do you seriously think Cricket had completed its evolution by the time Bradman finished in 1948 ?



And Mohammad Yousuf Averages 250 against BD ... ergo Moyo >> Tendulkar then ? India was a minnow back in 1948 and Pakistan did not exist yet. Os its laughable to assume that its the same Indian team that you see now. Moreover he never toured India.

But going by your own ludicrous theories then Pakistan never have any significant contributions to the game in the bowling department that are responsible for evolution of higher batting standards ?

yes MY ludicrous theories

Following your theory you can never call anyone an all time great in any field, since in the future at some stage the field may evolve and in your opinion that would render the current crop out dated

 

[TalhaSyed]

the absurdity is in: "That's why the playing field is not even and is heavily in favor of Bradman."

why only bradman, of all the players in his era? why didnt everyone average 100? or at least 75?

Absolutely!

Thats why I dont get what [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] is on about.

If averaging 99.94 was such a simple achievement since apparently the sport had "not evolved" and was not "as competitive" then why is the next best average at the time no where near 99.94

 

[New Yorker]

Wait a minute ... are you seriously trying to suggest that standards in Bradman's time were good and infact comparable to modern ERA ?

I'm saying a few things.

First: "His standard was literally not the standard of the day." Ie, you cant extrapolate his ability from the standard of the opposition, because he was playing to another standard entirely. This is not hyperbole but statistically observable fact. He was off the curve. This is what sets him apart from Tendulkar, who was not an outlier, merely the top of the pyramid for some time. In this respect Bradman was a rare exception in the history of sport itself.

Second: We don't have much evidence to establish that batting was always easier in Bradman's era (reverse swing had yet been invented, but neither did Wasim or Imran or Waqar end up with better averages than those who did not reverse, ie Marshall, Thompson, Lillee, McGrath); some evidence to suggest it was harder to bat during Bardman's era (worse bats, sticky wickets, no helmets) but mostly evidence to suggest the overall for whatever reason the net difference was not that significant. To recap arguments others have made:

We can construct a lineage of players who overlapped with Bradman and then overlapped with later generations of greats and confirm that standards seemed to have held up, more or less. Certainly there were no 15-20 percentage point swings in average averages, let alone 40-50, as would be required to bring Bradman's stats in line.

The only significant difference is in the number of countries who play cricket. New additions to the cricketing fraternity have contributed a wealth of talent and skill and refashioned the game. But to this date Asia does not produce cricketers that are orders of magnitude better than say Australia or England, if they are better at all. Kohli doesn't average 40 points more than Cook. And if a Gavaskar could learn to play a swinging ball, why could not a Bradman?

Meanwhile, we know from the Caribbean example over the past decade that a country's participation is not as important as enthusiasm for the game in that country. Which was at a height during Bradman's era in England and Australia. In other words, there is, net of all consideration, no reason whatsoever to suggest that an average of 99 in Bradman's would be worth only 50-60 in the current era.

 

[Tusker]

yes MY ludicrous theories

Following your theory you can never call anyone an all time great in any field, since in the future at some stage the field may evolve and in your opinion that would render the current crop out dated

So in your world where time flows in reverse gear .... it is just as hard to stand out in a class of 10 people than to stand out in a class of 100 people ... this is your theory ?

 

[Tusker]

We can construct a lineage of players who overlapped with Bradman and then overlapped with later generations of greats and confirm that standards seemed to have held up, more or less. Certainly there were no 15-20 percentage point swings in average averages, let alone 40-50, as would be required to bring Bradman's stats in line.

.

Well then can you show me some first choice Strike Bowlers today who bowl as fast as Bedser, Bowes, Tate and can hold their spot for few yrs and take 100s of wkts bowling at that pace ( 100-110Ks ) . ?

This is where these "lineage"theories fall apart.

And BTW todays bowling is difficult not because of just one or two factors like Reverse swing and dosra's. There are multiple factors that combined together make the standards higher. Chief among them is fielding.

 

[R0H1T]

Common sense says that when you;re facing more ATG players, than the ones in your team, your output would decrease prime example being Ponting pre & post McWarne era. That's why Federrer has 4 more GS than Nadal & nowhere near what Margaret Court had. Too bad common sense is rarer than air in such threads! Funny none bring this argument into such a debate,

 

[New Yorker]

Well then can you show me some first choice Strike Bowlers today who bowl as fast as Bedser, Bowes, Tate and can hold their spot for few yrs and take 100s of wkts bowling at that pace ( 100-110Ks ) . ?

This is where these "lineage"theories fall apart.

And BTW todays bowling is difficult not because of just one or two factors like Reverse swing and dosra's. There are multiple factors that combined together make the standards higher. Chief among them is fielding.

No that is exactly where lineage holds up. It allows one to trace continuity despite change.

If we didnt' have lineage we would not have an intermediary variable to enable comparison, e.g the 'a' in (a)(x)= 3. we could only surmise what difference a claimed difference in speeds might make.

And it is not even apparent what we should surmise,. See McGrath vs Lee, Asif vs Shoaib.

But lineage gives us that variable.

What the evidence tells us is that many things change. The range of available talent changes, bat sizes change, certain skills become more or less relevant.

What the numbers tell us is that net of all of the changes we have see, the relative difficulty of cricket has not shifted nearly enough to transpose a 99 average in 1945 to a 55 average today.

Nor should any reasonable person believe this were possible. Because ultimately human bodies, what they are capable of, have not changed so radically between 1930 and 2017.

Yet again, this is what makes Bradman's record so freakish. And this, again, is what you consistently fail to address in your attempts to cut him down to size.

We can go on forever and ever about how cricket 'standards' have changed. But the point again is that Bradman clearly, with statistical certainty, did not play to the same standards everyone else.

He was numerically at least 40-50 percentage points better than the best of the rest, by average and centuries per Test. Whereas the Tendulkars and Kallises are, statistically speaking, only 5 percentage points better than the best of the rest.

 

[TalhaSyed]

So in your world where time flows in reverse gear .... it is just as hard to stand out in a class of 10 people than to stand out in a class of 100 people ... this is your theory ?

Ah in my opinion man that's such a flawed argument.

Let's break this down.

Don's Career Span: 1928-1948

Average of Top 20 Test run scorers between 1928 & 1948 (bar Don himself): 51
Average of Top 20 Test run scorers since 2000: 50

Don's average: 100

Its abundantly clear from that the batting averages have not drastically improved or worsened in todays era compared to the era in which the Don played - yet Don is still miles ahead of anyone else regardless of which era you look at.

I get what you are saying about the bowling having evolved over the years, however, so has the batting - yet Don is still miles ahead of any one regardless of which era you look at.

Now if your theory is that average 50 today is a lot trickier than it did in the 1928-1948 era - we both know that is complete BS due to a large number of reasons which include:

> Flatter pitches today due to limited over cricket
> Uncovered pitches in the era when Don played
> Smaller bats when Don played
> Smaller boundaries when Don played
> No limitation on bouncers when Don played
> Worse protective equipment for batsmen when Don played
> A lot more batsmen friendly rules regarding field restrictions and power plays in todays game
etc. etc.

 

[Tusker]

No that is exactly where lineage holds up. It allows one to trace continuity despite change.

If we didnt' have lineage we would not have an intermediary variable to enable comparison, e.g the 'a' in (a)(x)= 3. we could only surmise what difference a claimed difference in speeds might make.

And it is not even apparent what we should surmise,. See McGrath vs Lee, Asif vs Shoaib.

Flawed Analogy because I can actually show you McGrath bowling in the 140ks. Unless you can show me Bedser and Tate and Bowes like fast bowlers with keeper's standing up you have no case.

 

[New Yorker]

Flawed Analogy because I can actually show you McGrath bowling in the 140ks. Unless you can show me Bedser and Tate and Bowes like fast bowlers with keeper's standing up you have no case.

I don't think you understand what is the lineage argument. Re read [MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION]'s post maybe?

 

[Tusker]

I don't think you understand what is the lineage argument. Re read [MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION]'s post maybe?

I know what it is . Fancy way of equating value of runs scored across eras ignoring reality. It falls apart when people start asking awkward pointed questions. Like do you REALLY think scoring runs against 110k bowling is as difficult as against 140ks? Simple answer please.

 

[Chrish]

Bowlers SRT struggled against most are: Cronje, Mcgrath and Anderson; all medium/ fastish medium pacers

There is no way to tell how he would have fared against medium pacers of the past on wickets much more suitable to their bowling.

No pace doesn't equate to quality.

 

[Chrish]

For past few years, I have tried hard to find a reason why Bradman isn't undoubtedly the best batsman ever, but there isn't one.

The more closely one examines his record, the more miraculous it appears. I haven't come to the conclusion out of fanboism (I am not a fan), but after filtering down every single possibility one by one.

 

[Tusker]

Ah in my opinion man that's such a flawed argument.

Let's break this down.

Don's Career Span: 1928-1948

Average of Top 20 Test run scorers between 1928 & 1948 (bar Don himself): 51
Average of Top 20 Test run scorers since 2000: 50

Don's average: 100

Its abundantly clear from that the batting averages have not drastically improved or worsened in todays era compared to the era in which the Don played - yet Don is still miles ahead of anyone else regardless of which era you look at.

so if I show you club/U-19/Associate level stats that are similar then will you also accept that they all are playing at Test Level ?

I get what you are saying about the bowling having evolved over the years, however, so has the batting - yet Don is still miles ahead of any one regardless of which era you look at.

Now if your theory is that average 50 today is a lot trickier than it did in the 1928-1948 era - we both know that is complete BS due to a large number of reasons which include:

> Flatter pitches today due to limited over cricket
> Uncovered pitches in the era when Don played
> Smaller bats when Don played
> Smaller boundaries when Don played
> No limitation on bouncers when Don played
> Worse protective equipment for batsmen when Don played
> A lot more batsmen friendly rules regarding field restrictions and power plays in todays game
etc. etc.

These are all not entirely accurate and there is more to the story ... for example the bouncer limits really do not mean anything as back then using bouncers was considered un-sportsmanlike. Hence why Larwood got into big trouble when he started bowling short as they could no longer assume the length. Today you will get laughed at if the same rules are bought back. The bats were pretty much the same till about late 90s. Uncovered pitches become uplayable only when it rains and you have to bat. Bradman did that on only a few occasions and once famously sent No 10 and 11 to open so that he could buy time till the pitch dried when he eventually came into bat at No 7 and scored a double hundred. So such hilarious situations can only come about in a totally amateur ERA. And most importantly the pitches were just as flat as they ever were ... its one of those myths that Bradman fanatics have successfully converted to fact. I can point you to articles but I doubt you really want to disturb your cricketing opinion. Too far brainwashed to let any facts in. Good luck !

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=3474]TalhaSyed[/MENTION] ... one more thing ... look up the LBW law in Bradmans time ... the ball had to pitched in line with the stumps and ofcourse hitting the stumps to be given out lbw. Pitch outside off was Not out just like how pitching outside leg stump is. And ofcourse you could do deliberate padding. for anything pitched outside off/leg.

So if you still think batting was difficult in those times then there is nothing one can do to help you realize that it is near impossible to rack up really big scores if conditions are sooo bowler friendly as you try to paint them and that these batsmen could keep playing for days under such conditions in timeless tests. Doesnt work that way.

 

[Chrish]

The LBW rule changed in the middle of Bradman's career (actually he was the one advocated it because he believed it would help the bowlers), and he averaged more after the rule change than before.

Someone like Sutcliffe on the other hand got completely found out under new rule since he heavily relied on padding.

 

[New Yorker]

I know what it is . Fancy way of equating value of runs scored across eras ignoring reality. It falls apart when people start asking awkward pointed questions. Like do you REALLY think scoring runs against 110k bowling is as difficult as against 140ks? Simple answer please.

try again...the point is you construct it by looking at players who straddled eras, playing both X player and the later Y player. If someone faced both Imran and Wasim one should be able to compare the relative quality of Imran and Wasim's bowling by looking at that batsman's stats vis a vis them, and vice versa for batsmen. Then you compare Wasim and Shoaib. Until you get to say Amir. It doesn't matter if one bowls 110 and the other 140; if it makes a difference the average will tell. Then you link up two series like that and you have a basis for actual comparison, in terms of results and averages. All of your arguments are based on presumption, on your belief in the effect that such and such variable will have, better pace must equal better bowling etc, in fact if you are to be found right, better pace must always equal 100 % better bowling. A presumption which goes against all evidence available to us today, if we compare the bowling averages of fast bowlers and so called trundlers. More pace does not invariably mean better averages. let alone 40-50 point differences in averages, which are required to bring Bradman down to scale. The problem is you can't actually base yours arguments on results. My argument is based on outcomes, the actual results we can observe. And in aggregate the numbers don't lie.

 

[Tusker]

try again...the point is you construct it by looking at players who straddled eras, playing both X player and the later Y player. If someone faced both Imran and Wasim one should be able to compare the relative quality of Imran and Wasim's bowling by looking at that batsman's stats vis a vis them, and vice versa for batsmen. Then you compare Wasim and Shoaib. Until you get to say Amir. It doesn't matter if one bowls 110 and the other 140; if it makes a difference the average will tell.

Yes it makes a big difference (and its not just pace but pace + accuracy + fielding) ... because otherwise you would see bowlers like Ganguly , Hansie , Steve Waugh etc averaging < 25 with atleast 100+ wkts . If you think otherwise then I suspect there can't be any honest discussion that we can have here.

Then you link up two series like that and you have a basis for actual comparison, in terms of results and averages. All of your arguments are based on presumption, on your belief in the effect that such and such variable will have, better pace must equal better bowling etc, in fact if you are to be found right, better pace must always equal 100 % better bowling.

It is not an assumption or presumption ... it is based on empirical evidence. Today Noobody bowls at 110K with the keeper standing up. At best just part timers. And again dont equate Bedser,Tate and co with McGrath & Co ... this is just NOT true at all. If pace doesnt make difference then there would trundlers galore.

A presumption which goes against all evidence available to us today, if we compare the bowling averages of fast bowlers and so called trundlers. More pace does not invariably mean better averages. let alone 40-50 point differences in averages, which are required to bring Bradman down to scale. The problem is you can't actually base yours arguments on results. My argument is based on outcomes, the actual results we can observe. And in aggregate the numbers don't lie.

Show me the evidence where you see a Bowler like Tate,Bowes,Voce,Bedser today who has 200+ wkts at < 25. Your opinion <> Evidence and PLEAAASE don't equate Bedser with McGrath and Philander. Both are significantly faster, accurate and backed by exceptional fielding sides than Bedser & Co.

 

[Tusker]

try again...the point is you construct it by looking at players who straddled eras, playing both X player and the later Y player. If someone faced both Imran and Wasim one should be able to compare the relative quality of Imran and Wasim's bowling by looking at that batsman's stats vis a vis them, and vice versa for batsmen. Then you compare Wasim and Shoaib. Until you get to say Amir. It doesn't matter if one bowls 110 and the other 140; if it makes a difference the average will tell.

BTW I don't think you will ever agree with me but do this if you trust your fellow Pakistan cricket fans.... open a poll here and ask if Imran+Waz+Waqar+Shoaib would have been just as succesfull bowling 110K's instead of the 140K's

 

[Robert]

How are modern batters better than Bradman?

They can hit for more power.

They can sprint short singles quicker.

That's all I can think of.

 

[Convict]

Its fairly obvious that any pre 1970s bowlers aren't as fast as modern bowlers.

I believe that Thomson could have been faster than Lee and Akhtar based on looking at his action and his history as a javelin thrower but anyone before the 1970s when players at least had the training if not the wages of professionals and I am fairly dubious.

 

[Chrish]

Spend a year in mine and see how strong you become. Many of pace bowlers in particular were miners: Larwood, Trueman etc

As for batsman, if Inzmam is the epitome of modern day fitness I have no reason to believe past players couldn't hold a candle. They kept themselves healthy by playing cricket; lots and lots of it

 

[Haz95]

Not here to reignite another argument with one of the worst posters on PP, so this isn't intended at you.

However, would just like to say that it is a myth that todays athletes have far better diets, routines and whatnot. A lot of food today is all GMO/Pumped/Steroids and etc while injuries too are much more common now. As a result, there's no surprise that cricket was peaking from 70s-90s when everything became professional since nutrition and stuff too was better due to mentioned reasons. Not saying today doesn't have more advancements, tech and etc. But it's nowhere near as good as people make it sound.

These 'professional' environments brings about a bunch of softies. Look how naturally gifted Afghan/Windies/Pakistani athletes are..3rd world countries are much harsher, the village type people are much stronger physically. If only they were as well educated too.

 

[TalhaSyed]

[MENTION=3474]TalhaSyed[/MENTION] ... one more thing ... look up the LBW law in Bradmans time ... the ball had to pitched in line with the stumps and ofcourse hitting the stumps to be given out lbw. Pitch outside off was Not out just like how pitching outside leg stump is. And ofcourse you could do deliberate padding. for anything pitched outside off/leg.

So if you still think batting was difficult in those times then there is nothing one can do to help you realize that it is near impossible to rack up really big scores if conditions are sooo bowler friendly as you try to paint them and that these batsmen could keep playing for days under such conditions in timeless tests. Doesnt work that way.

[MENTION=3474]TalhaSyed[/MENTION] ... one more thing ... look up the LBW law in Bradmans time ... the ball had to pitched in line with the stumps and ofcourse hitting the stumps to be given out lbw. Pitch outside off was Not out just like how pitching outside leg stump is. And ofcourse you could do deliberate padding. for anything pitched outside off/leg.

So if you still think batting was difficult in those times then there is nothing one can do to help you realize that it is near impossible to rack up really big scores if conditions are sooo bowler friendly as you try to paint them and that these batsmen could keep playing for days under such conditions in timeless tests. Doesnt work that way.

Ok - so lets just make one thing clear.

Do you think it was easier to average 50 in the era when Don Bradman played, or today?

 

[Tusker]

Ok - so lets just make one thing clear.

Do you think it was easier to average 50 in the era when Don Bradman played, or today?

Its obviously much tougher now ... granted time runs differently to yours. But since time runs backwards where you live and perhaps fast bowlers have found out that it pays to "upgrade" to trundling you think fast bowling is outdated ... so yeah there is that .....

 

[TalhaSyed]

Its obviously much tougher now ... granted time runs differently to yours. But since time runs backwards where you live and perhaps fast bowlers have found out that it pays to "upgrade" to trundling you think fast bowling is outdated ... so yeah there is that .....

Let's compile the list of hilarious claims you have made so far:

- "bouncer limits really do not mean anything" Even though the infamous bodyline series, and subsequent rise of bouncers in cricket was solely due to Don Bradman himself & the bodyline series took place 15 years before Don retired, so it wasn't as if he had to put up with it for a short period of time....

- "The bats were pretty much the same till about late 90s." Ok....and was their anyone else who averaged anywhere near what Don averaged until the late 90's?.....Is their anyone since the late 90's who has gotten close to Bradman? And sure...there is practically no difference between these two bats....

- "Uncovered pitches become uplayable only when it rains and you have to bat." Even according to the articles you allude to in your post - about 25% of Don's innings were on sticky/rain effected wickets, yet his career average was maintained at 99.94. We all know what modern batsmen are capable of in cloudy conditions with covered pitches - never mind uncovered pitches after the rain

- "the pitches were just as flat as they ever were". If anyone has even seen cricket played in England & Australia (where Don played A LOT of his cricket) from the 90's compared to now, the difference in pitches is abundantly clear - never mind the pre-limited over cricket era

- "Bowlers from Don's era were trundlers & since then bowling has evolved"

Speed cameras were decades away from being invented, but researchers somehow worked out a way to register Larwood's bowling at 96mph.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/bodyline/content/story/316343.html

Larwood's speed was estimated at between 90 and 100 mph.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/quiet-man-dealt-in-terror-at-100mph-1592794.html

But Tusker and his YouTube videos prove that bowling had not evolved back then and pace bowlers were trundlers ....



You know what - let's look at your theories and play along for a while.

You are saying that the pitches that Don played on and pitches today are just as flat.

You are saying that Don used similar bats to what batsmen up until the late 90's used, and since the late 90's the bats have evolved.

You are saying that Don didn't have to deal with many bouncers since it was seen as un-sportsman like and today batsmen dont have to deal with many bouncers due to the rules implemented by the ICC.

You are saying that uncovered pitches weren't too tricky to bat on unless it rained (which Don had to do for 25% of his innings), however todays batsmen have covered pitches so they dont even have to worry about that at all.

You are claiming that pace bowlers back then were incapable of bowling fast, even though studies prove otherwise & their was not even any technology around at the time to ensure that bowlers were bowling legally.

You seem to have accepted (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the the fielding restrictions today and the better protective gear, makes life a bit easier for batsmen.

So in summary, in your opinion, Don and batsmen today are playing in very similar conditions apart from:

1) In your opinion bowlers today bowl faster then they did in Don's era.....even though studies suggest otherwise

2) Batsmen today have the added advantage of fielding restriction, better bats, better protective equipment and better technology to practice and study their opponents

Yet even then, no one is able to get anywhere near what Don's average was.

Please man - just give it a break. You're stubborn and hilariously delusional posts are making it insanely difficult to take you seriously.

 

[SL_Fan]

People tend to forget that Bradman also piled on 28k+ runs in FC cricket @ 95. He's just a freak plain and simple.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Its obviously much tougher now ... granted time runs differently to yours. But since time runs backwards where you live and perhaps fast bowlers have found out that it pays to "upgrade" to trundling you think fast bowling is outdated ... so yeah there is that .....

If it was so easy why was no one averaging more than 50-60? Does it not strike you as curious that in every era post WWII, the averages have remained almost totally constant? The best players in EVERY ERA averaged the same (approximately) because advantages and disadvantages of all eras have cancelled each other out and produced a level playing field. Only one man has defied this constant. You have zero counter to this.

 

[Cric1234]

Bradman without wet wickets and bodyline 2 things which no modern day batsmen has had to deal with averaged over 125 in test cricket.