How does Brian Lara compare with Don Bradman and where does he rank overall?

[Harsh Thakor]

Lara was to me the equivalent of a Michelangelo or Rembrandt to batting.His strokes at his best were like the touches of a painters brush posessing the prowess of a magician. Witnessing him take opponents apart gave the sensation of the crescendo of a musical symphony.No batsmen was as mercurial for so prolonged a period as Lara since the war ,although in full flow Viv Richards was still the most decimating.Brian ,even in a crisis never curbed his aggressive instincts like Tendulkar.No great batsmen ever has so single-handedly turned games for such weak team like Brian.For pure genius arguably he was above everyone,with the possible exception of Trumper and Kanhai.

He broke the world record score twice and is the only batsmen ever to reach the milestone of 400 in test cricket.Lara's 5 best test innings are better than any batsmen ever like his 400,375,277,213 and 153.Lara has also scored his runs at a phenomenal strike rate for his era.No one since Bradman has compiled massive scores so frequently at such phenomenal speed since Bradman.On a bad wicket Bradman has not equalled Lara's unbeaten 153 at Barbados in 1999 v Australia,where he singlehandedly took his team home to a famous win.Lara has alpso played in an era of considerably better pace bowling and tackled spin better than any batsmen ever.After Bradman no batsmen has a higher average percentage score of the team's total like Lara.Like George Headley Lara played for a very weak batting team.Unlike Bradman,Lara played against teams like South Africa ,Sri Lanka and Pakistan .Hard envisaging the Don surpass Brian's unbeaten 153 at Barbados or 221 v Murlitharan .Lara revealed creative genius marginally more than Bradman and could execute strokes that were surreal.In Anantha Narayana's match performance ratings Lara is only 2nd to Bradman which ***** factors like strength of opposition,state of game,nature of wicket,impact on match. etc.Many opponents prized Lara's wicket marginally more than Sachin's like Glen Mcgrath,Jacques Kallis or even Wasim Akram.Lara could turn the complexion of game and was more mercurial than Tendulkar at his best.I have doubts whether even Bradman would have surpassed Lara's incredible scoring rate considering the era or been equaly mercurial as Lara at his best.Lara ,unlike Bradman made a century against each and every country .He also played for teams less than half as strong as Bradman or Viv Richards played for.No great batsmen has single-handedly carried the mantle of a weak batting side to turn the course of games like Brian.He literaly ressurected his team from the grave in the 1999 Frank worrel trophy with successive scores of 213 and 153 not out.Considering standard of bowling prevailing I doubt Bradman would surpass Lara's staggering 688 runs in 3 tests v Murlitharan reverse the fate of the 1999 Frank Worrel trophy as Lara did equal lLara's 2 monumental world record scores of 375 and 400 n.o. or his 500.No doubt Bradman would probably average around 20 runs more but it was touch and go between him and Brian in difficult conditions like broken or turning wickets.Ny a whisker Lara posessed more natural talent or genius than the Don.



In pure test cricket Brian was arguably a more worthy contender to Bradman than even Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards.Considering his overall impact on games at his best and the strength of the team he played for he may just edge Wasim Akram Jacques Kallis and Adam Gilchrist as a cricketer and for his extarordinary talent and mercurial style of play overshadow George Headley and Len Hutton amongst past greats.Relative inconsistency in career would place him below Bradman,Grace,Sobers,Warne,Hobbs,Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Imran,Hammond,Marshall,Lillee and Murlitharan etc.Still he in my book would stil be placed ahead of great players like Hadlee,Kallis,Botham,Headley,Mcgrath,Akram,Weekes,Greg Chappell or Sunil Gavaskar.To me Kalis just did not have the x factor of Lara and could not turn games single-handedly like Brian.With Wasim Akram Lara was the best cricketing artist of his time.Lara has strong claims to be the 2nd best test batsmen after Bradman,but this is again very subjective.Still probably the best left-handed batsmen of all.

ANALYSIS BY ANANTHA NARAYANA

BRIAN LARA


Balls faced information

Balls faced: 19753
Scoring rate: 60.5
Balls faced per inns: 85.1.

Amongst the top batsmen, only Sehwag, Richards and Pietersen are ahead of Lara in the scoring rate measure. The average balls faced per innings is, as expected, on the lower side.

Top 5 innings analysis

Top 5 inns (Runs) : 400 375 277 226 221 Total: 1499 Avge: 299.8

These small analytical segments bring new insights. The first is the average of the top-5 innings played by the concerned batsman. Lara's average of almost 300 is the highest of all batsmen. Next comes Bradman with 292.2 and then comes Sehwag, with 275.2. This confirms Lara's penchant for playing huge innings.

Top 5 inns (Balls): 582 538 372 360 354 Total: 2206 Avge: 441.2

The next one is to look at the top 5 innings in terms of balls faced. The balls played data is available even for many older players. But this is not a complete analysis. Notwithstanding his attacking play, Lara has genuinely played many long innings. His average for the top-5 innings is a huge 441. The leader in this regards is Hutton with 588, followed by Hammond, with 566. Amongst modern batsmen, Jayawardene leads with 463 and Lara comes next. Dravid's average is 438.

Lara as the highest scorer

HS Inns: 65
% of inns: 28.0
HS Runs total: 7613
HS Next Best: 3623
% of Lara's total: 47.6

This is a new piece of analysis. I have determined the number of innings in which Lara was the leading scorer in the innings and worked out this as a % of total innings. More importantly, to get a handle on the level of support, I have added the next highest scores and determined this total as a % of the total of Lara's innings. The numbers are very illuminative.

Lara has top-scored in 28.0% of the innings he played in. His is the highest amongst modern batsmen. Only Gavaskar matches this number. Of course, many old timers have figures in excess of 30, Bradman leading with 37.5%. The matching with Gavaskar indicates how often Lara carried his team.

The next one is an even more enlightening one. This defines the support received. Lara received the least support amongst all batsmen. The next best batsmen have totalled 47.6% of Lara's aggregate, below even half-way stage. He is the only batsman to have received below 50% support. Sehwag is next with 53.5% and then comes Hutton with 53.7%. Just as a comparison, the number for Tendulkar is 65.4% and for Ponting, 64.9%. This is a clear confirmation of how often Lara carried the burden.

Innings break-down

Sub-10 innings: No- 62 % of total-26.7%
Sub-25 innings: No-100 % of total-43.1%
Sub-50 innings: No-147 % of total-63.4%

In this new analysis I look at the pattern of low scores. Lara has had 26.7% of single-digit scores, 43% of scores below 25 and a huge 63.4% of sub-50 scores. This indicates that Lara was not a great starter. I have not looked at all batsmen but Michael Clarke (27.5%) has a higher single-digit component. The older batsmen all have figures below 15%. Sangakkara has a below-20% tally.

Team runs/balls analysis

Runs added with late order batsmen (7-11) : 1487 (25)
Avge runs added with late order batsmen : 59.5
Team runs while at crease : 21448
Batsman's % Runs contribution : 55.7%
Team balls while at crease : 38562
% of balls faced while at crease: 51.2%
Total team runs : 63049
Batsman Runs % : 19.0%

The runs added with late order batsmen are not very high. Lara's average is around 60. Tendulkar is much higher at 69.6. But let me say that 100% data is not available for the batsmen who started the career before 1992 or so.

Lara's overall runs contribution to his team total is a reasonably high 19%. Bradman has contributed 25%. Most batsmen contribute between 15 and 17%. It is understandable that Lara scores 55% of runs while at crease. He outscored his fellow batsmen often.
Innings analysis

Description T I N Runs Avge 100 50 Freq Team-Runs %



Inns 1 58 1 4000 70.18 12 12 4.8 18111 22.1%
Inns 2 72 0 4249 59.01 13 21 5.5 23053 18.4%
Inns 3 56 0 2264 40.43 7 8 8.0 12704 17.8%
Inns 4 46 5 1440 35.12 2 7 23.0 9181 15.7%

The innings runs and averages follow a similar pattern. Most batsmen have high-first, high-second, reasonable-third and average-fourth innings values. Lara is no exception. There are many other top batsmen who have better third and fourth innings figures. Kallis has a third innings average of 68.8 and Gavaskar, a fourth innings average of 58.7.

Home/Away analysis

Home 65 111 5 6217 58.65 17 26 6.5 32020 19.4%
Away 66 121 1 5736 47.80 17 22 7.1 31029 18.5%

This again has the same pattern as most batsmen. Lara has averaged 20% better at home. There are batsmen who have done 30-40% better at home. On the flip side, Cook averages 43.5 at home and 54.3 away. Dravid also averages better away. However no one can beat Barrington who averages 51.2 and 68.9. It is clear that Lara has not set the foreign grounds alight, barring probably Sri Lankan.


finishing with a flourish.

Break-up of Lara's Test career Period Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
1990-91 - 1995-96 33 3197 60.32 7/ 17
1996-97 - 2000-01 47 3356 39.95 8/ 16
2001-02 - 2006-07 51 5420 60.90 19/ 15


BY S.RAJESH OF CRICINFO


Part of the thrill of watching Lara was the uncertainty over which version would turn up - the sublime version could send spectators and critics into raptures, but equally, the scratchy version could be painful to watch. Lara's Test career lends itself to a neat three-way partition - for the first five years the runs came easily and he averaged 60; then came a more difficult period, when he averaged less than 40 over four seasons, and while it wasn't all bleak - that memorable Barbados innings came during this period, as did a fantastic series against Australia - for large periods it was hugely disappointing. In his last five seasons - starting with the outstanding series against Sri Lanka in 2001-02 - he has been among the runs again. In his last Test series - against Pakistan late last year - he averaged 89.60, with two hundreds, including a double. Talk about finishing with a flourish.

Break-up of Lara's Test career Period Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
1990-91 - 1995-96 33 3197 60.32 7/ 17
1996-97 - 2000-01 47 3356 39.95 8/ 16
2001-02 - 2006-07 51 5420 60.90 19/ 15

Through much of his career, Lara has had to battle for the mantle of best batsman with Sachin Tendulkar. Between 1992 and 1995 there was little to choose between the two, but Lara's slump coincided with a golden period for Tendulkar, when he averaged almost 62. Since November 2001, though, Lara has clearly been the superior batsman, and one of only five to average more than 60; over the same period Tendulkar average 49.70 only, with nine hundreds in 50 Tests.

Top Test batsmen since November 2001 Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Ricky Ponting 62 6501 71.43 25/ 22
Mohammad Yousuf 42 4318 66.43 16/ 15
Jacques Kallis 54 5001 62.51 15/ 27
Rahul Dravid 58 5128 61.78 14/ 25
Brian Lara 51 5420 60.89 19/ 15

Being a part of a mediocre West Indian team meant enduring more than his fair share of defeats - Lara is the only batsman with more than 5000 runs in defeats, more than 2000 runs clear of the second-placed Shivnarine Chanderpaul.


Lara against pace & spin in Tests since Nov 2001 Runs Balls Dismissals Average Runs per over
Pace 3144 5377 61 51.54 3.50
Spin 2276 3510 28 81.29 3.89

 

[Chrish]

2nd best bat from 90s and onward and one of the top 10 ever

 

[Proactive_]

Lara was definitely the best Test batsman of his generation, and a sure shot Top 5 all time.

 

[New Yorker]

Lara: A great batsman alongside other great batsmen of his era, like Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis. One of the 10 best of all time.

Bradman: The best of all time.

 

[Robert]

Certainly the best bat of his time. Would he get into the WI greatest eleven? Maybe not. I would be inclined to have Greenwich, Fredericks, Headley, Richards, Weekes and Sobers. Then Walcott to keep wicket.

 

[Chrish]

Weeks before Lara is a joke surely?

 

[Chrish]

Lara had the ability to play marathon innings and dominate series just like Bradman. Had he been more consistent; you can say he could have matched Bradman's numbers (averaging 60+ in current era)

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Second best after Viv.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Him and Tendulkar are the best test batsmen in my lifetime so far.

 

[Robert]

Weeks before Lara is a joke surely?

Why? Sir Everton has the better average. He got 15 hundreds in just 48 tests, facing excellent bowlers.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Why? Sir Everton has the better average. He got 15 hundreds in just 48 tests, facing excellent bowlers.

Was Lara not ahead of Viv in test cricket for the reasons I gave?Much more tested under pressure bearing the brunt of a weak team single handedly.Also scored more mammoth vscores thsn anyone.Played spin much better than Viv.

 

[Robert]

Was Lara not ahead of Viv in test cricket for the reasons I gave?Much more tested under pressure bearing the brunt of a weak team single handedly.Also scored more mammoth vscores thsn anyone.Played spin much better than Viv.

Interesting points. Lara did seem to play top quality spin better. But I rate Sir Viv higher because he was a team man who would die for WI on the field, while Lara seemed to be a jack-man at times, out for personal records instead of team wins.

 

[Chrish]

Why? Sir Everton has the better average. He got 15 hundreds in just 48 tests, facing excellent bowlers.

Averaged 24 in Australia and 33 in England

 

[Cric1234]

Lara had the ability to play marathon innings and dominate series just like Bradman. Had he been more consistent; you can say he could have matched Bradman's numbers (averaging 60+ in current era)

Averaging 75-80 year in year out might get close to Bradman the difficulty of a 100 average long term is underrated.

 

[Chrish]

Averaging 75-80 year in year out might get close to Bradman the difficulty of a 100 average long term is underrated.

If a modem player averages 60-65 with fair balance of home vs away record playing 120-130 tests they would match Bradman imo.

 

[Robert]

Averaged 24 in Australia and 33 in England

Fair enough, have Lara instead then.

 

[Cric1234]

If a modem player averages 60-65 with fair balance of home vs away record playing 120-130 tests they would match Bradman imo.

If that's true then the other good batsman of Bradmans era average would be 20-25 in today's era.
We've been here before Lara with a 53 average is 47 points away from Bradman that's a long way whichever way you look at it.

 

[Tusker]

If that's true then the other good batsman of Bradmans era average would be 20-25 in today's era.
We've been here before Lara with a 53 average is 47 points away from Bradman that's a long way whichever way you look at it.

No it is not and I gave you numerous valid reasons backed by evidence in the other 2 Bradman threads recently.. Your silence and inability to counter those points tells the story.

 

[New Yorker]

Lara had the ability to play marathon innings and dominate series just like Bradman. Had he been more consistent; you can say he could have matched Bradman's numbers (averaging 60+ in current era)

Quite a few bowlers have owned entire series. No one has ever over an entire career dominated like Bradman, over bowlers, in comparison to other batsmen.

If one believes that Lara came close then one must accept that so did anyone who averaged more or less the same as Lara in his time, ie 52. And that's a crowded field.

So the stakes of the argument should be made clear; it purports not merely that Lara was in Bradman's league, but also Ponting, Kallis, Waugh, Younis, Flower, Youhana, Hussey, Sanga, etc .

We are truly fortunate to have lived in age of 10-15 Bradmans.

 

[Tusker]

Quite a few bowlers have owned entire series. No one has ever over an entire career dominated like Bradman, over bowlers, in comparison to other batsmen.

If one believes that Lara came close then one must accept that so did anyone who averaged more or less the same as Lara in his time, ie 52. And that's a crowded field.

So the stakes of the argument should be made clear; it purports not merely that Lara was in Bradman's league, but also Ponting, Kallis, Waugh, Younis, Flower, Youhana, Hussey, Sanga, etc .

We are truly fortunate to have lived in age of 10-15 Bradmans.

Which is why Batting average alone is not a fool proof measure of batting ability !!!

 

[MenInG]

Does the level of entertainment feature in such analysis? Can a Lara in full flow easily beat the Don in terms of the entertainment he provided for the people who really matter - ie the audience?

 

[New Yorker]

Which is why Batting average alone is not a fool proof measure of batting ability !!!

How much better was Tendulkar than Kallis? Lara than Sanga? Ponting than Clarke? Younis than Miandad?
Vis a vis each other they all appeared very mortal; none were the undisputed number 1 ranked batsman
in the world for their entire career.

Career wise, it is hard to claim Tendulkar is better than Kallis. Neither scored a triple century, which even Inzimam managed. Both piled up centuries away against all opponents, but Kallis was relatively speaking more consistent than Sachin, indeed anyone else, with more centuries per Test by some distance.

Lara was more dominant than either when he was on song, but he also went missing far more often. Younis was better than any of them in the fourth innings, but Sanga was better than Younis. In other words, how you value any of these players is entirely subjective. What is clear is that there is not much distance among them. So again, we are truly blessed to have lived in an age of such abundant greatness.

 

[New Yorker]

Does the level of entertainment feature in such analysis? Can a Lara in full flow easily beat the Don in terms of the entertainment he provided for the people who really matter - ie the audience?

By this token, was Sehwag better than Lara?

Since the Don scored a century more than twice as often as anyone else one might argue that it evens out.

 

[Chrish]

Quite a few bowlers have owned entire series. No one has ever over an entire career dominated like Bradman, over bowlers, in comparison to other batsmen.

If one believes that Lara came close then one must accept that so did anyone who averaged more or less the same as Lara in his time, ie 52. And that's a crowded field.

So the stakes of the argument should be made clear; it purports not merely that Lara was in Bradman's league, but also Ponting, Kallis, Waugh, Younis, Flower, Youhana, Hussey, Sanga, etc .

We are truly fortunate to have lived in age of 10-15 Bradmans.

Lara didn't come any closer than other players to Don IMO. What I meant is those two shared few similar traits; like concentration required to play longer innings

 

[New Yorker]

Lara didn't come any closer than other players to Don IMO. What I meant is those two shared few similar traits; like concentration required to play longer innings

Sure. You could also say that Bradman also shared something with Kallis, or Dravid, in so far as both of these batsmen were for much of their careers likened by the opposition to an immovable object.

 

[Tusker]

Career wise, it is hard to claim Tendulkar is better than Kallis. Neither scored a triple century, which even Inzimam managed. Both piled up centuries away against all opponents, but Kallis was relatively speaking more consistent than Sachin, indeed anyone else, with more centuries per Test by some distance.

Again ... that would be the observation based on stats ... Those who have followed cricket closely in the 90s will tell you the difference between the two. Tendulkar of the 90s was a sight to behold and even with . Most importantly in the modern ERA ability to excel in ODIs is very important. There is no comparison between the two other than stats. Which is why it is meaningless to compare 2 batsmen even from the same ERA based on Batting avg. It is even more absurd to compare 99.94 from 70 yrs ago to the batting avgs more than 50 yrs later.

If you think otherwise then it implies that :

1. Bowling standards have remained same and that the really fast bowlers did not have any say in batting stats.
2. Playing conditions have remained same ( i.e Asian pitches have had ZERO impact on cricket )
3. Fielding standards have remained same since Bradman retired.

We know from benefit of hindsight that those 3 simple things are not true (and there are many other factors indeed some that were disadvantageous to Bradman ). It is dead obvious common knowledge that any serious cricket fan will acknowledge. So to keep comparing 99.94 with 50 is Extremely flawed.


And yes we are extremely fortunate to be living in times when we have been spoilt for choices. If only we realized it !!

Why woudnt there be so many great cricketers in the modern ERA ? Afterall more than 50% of all International cricket has been played in the last 30 yrs or so.

 

[Chrish]

Sure. You could also say that Bradman also shared something with Kallis, or Dravid, in so far as both of these batsmen were for much of their careers likened by the opposition to an immovable object.

No. He wasn't anything like Dravid/ kallis

 

[New Yorker]

Again ... that would be the observation based on stats ... Those who have followed cricket closely in the 90s will tell you the difference between the two. Tendulkar of the 90s was a sight to behold and even with . Most importantly in the modern ERA ability to excel in ODIs is very important. There is no comparison between the two other than stats. Which is why it is meaningless to compare 2 batsmen even from the same ERA based on Batting avg. It is even more absurd to compare 99.94 from 70 yrs ago to the batting avgs more than 50 yrs later.

If you think otherwise then it implies that :

1. Bowling standards have remained same and that the really fast bowlers did not have any say in batting stats.
2. Playing conditions have remained same ( i.e Asian pitches have had ZERO impact on cricket )
3. Fielding standards have remained same since Bradman retired.

We know from benefit of hindsight that those 3 simple things are not true (and there are many other factors indeed some that were disadvantageous to Bradman ). It is dead obvious common knowledge that any serious cricket fan will acknowledge. So to keep comparing 99.94 with 50 is Extremely flawed.


And yes we are extremely fortunate to be living in times when we have been spoilt for choices. If only we realized it !!

Why woudnt there be so many great cricketers in the modern ERA ? Afterall more than 50% of all International cricket has been played in the last 30 yrs or so.

I could not agree more. We are truly blessed. Not only have the new Test playing countries contributed a
steady stream of batsmen who are just as good if not better than Bradman, at least 20 of them, but
Australia, which once considered its favorite native son a once in a century phenomenon, has started churning out Bradman-clones by the droves. Waugh, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Border, Hayden...all of them pretty much as good as Lara and Sachin and so pretty much as good as Bradman.

If it is not clear yet, do note; I'm not arguing that Kallis is actually better; I'm pointing out that the difference appears to contentious, as evidenced by your need to mobilize spurious surplus criteria. ODI performance to judge a Test batsman?

'Something' to behold is not an objective criteria of performance. No of centuries, SR, Ave, quality of opposition, are. If you add these factors up you have captured most of what is important about a player, aesthetics aside. And by those standards there isn't really that much to separate 10-15 players who played during Lara's time. Maybe Lara was best, maybe Sachin, maybe Kallis. maybe Sanga. But none were that much better than the other, and all were clearly not as good than the others during some substantial part of their career.

With Bradman, there was not a smidgeon of a doubt about who was best, and there still isn't.

 

[New Yorker]

No. He wasn't anything like Dravid/ kallis

Yes. In so far as they were all very good at concentrating. Which allowed Kallis to score centuries more often than other cricketers. Just as Bradman did.

 

[Chrish]

Yes. In so far as they were all very good at concentrating. Which allowed Kallis to score centuries more often than other cricketers. Just as Bradman did.

No kallis was a blocker; and he didn't score as big as Lara

Bradmans estimated SR is 56 or above which is fair bit above most of modern greats. So similarity is rather minimal

 

[Suleiman]

Lara was a one of a kind. Don looked like Azhar Ali when batting maybe a notch or 2 better. If I had to watch one of them bat for entertainment it would be Lara. If I wanted one of them to bat for my life it will still be Lara because I am adventurous.

 

[Cric1234]

Lara was a one of a kind. Don looked like Azhar Ali when batting maybe a notch or 2 better. If I had to watch one of them bat for entertainment it would be Lara. If I wanted one of them to bat for my life it will still be Lara because I am adventurous.

Richards is also rated highly due to flair swagger and other things.
Watching Bradman he was like Mayweather with his feet movement there's a reason why he was so good.

 

[PakLFC]

Can't really judge Bradman by what we see on old video's. Can't say how he would have done against the West Indies quickies of the 1980's. For me Lara is one of the greatest stroke players I have ever seen, live. Bradman is not that.

 

[Suleiman]

Richards is also rated highly due to flair swagger and other things.
Watching Bradman he was like Mayweather with his feet movement there's a reason why he was so good.

Yes Mayweather is a better comparison to Bradman.

Ofc am not saying he was a limited batsman. He had all the strokes as well, some which most at the time weren't daring to play.

 

[Tusker]

I could not agree more. We are truly blessed. Not only have the new Test playing countries contributed a
steady stream of batsmen who are just as good if not better than Bradman, at least 20 of them, but
Australia, which once considered its favorite native son a once in a century phenomenon, has started churning out Bradman-clones by the droves. Waugh, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Border, Hayden...all of them pretty much as good as Lara and Sachin and so pretty much as good as Bradman.

If it is not clear yet, do note; I'm not arguing that Kallis is actually better; I'm pointing out that the difference appears to contentious, as evidenced by your need to mobilize spurious surplus criteria. ODI performance to judge a Test batsman?

You think I cannot make sarcastic remarks about the Bradman ERAs especially given the comical mickey mouse footage that is freely available ? Seriously ?

'Something' to behold is not an objective criteria of performance. No of centuries, SR, Ave, quality of opposition, are. If you add these factors up you have captured most of what is important about a player, aesthetics aside. And by those standards there isn't really that much to separate 10-15 players who played during Lara's time. Maybe Lara was best, maybe Sachin, maybe Kallis. maybe Sanga. But none were that much better than the other, and all were clearly not as good than the others during some substantial part of their career.

You want to discuss SRT stats ... fine. He remains the only Batsman to have made atleast one hundred in each of his first away series to England , Aus, SAF and he did this while he was a Teen. And repeated that in his next 2 trips t these countries. Go find one batsman that even comes close and we can discuss.

With Bradman, there was not a smidgeon of a doubt about who was best, and there still isn't.

So how does this translate into Bradman > SRT ? How does this translate into Bradman could handle modern day fast bowling where you will get laughed at if you complain about short bowling ? It just simply does not !! You can twist and turn as much as you like and try to construct fanciful models but there is no way you can claim that Bradman had the technique to handle modern bowling. And all available facts point to Bradman being extremely uncomfortable with even 75mph short bowling. these are the harsh realities that most Bradman fanatics don't like to discuss and therefore all these fancy theories to prove Bradman was twice as good as any player ever.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Lara was a one of a kind. Don looked like Azhar Ali when batting maybe a notch or 2 better. If I had to watch one of them bat for entertainment it would be Lara. If I wanted one of them to bat for my life it will still be Lara because I am adventurous.

Bradman regularly batted at 70+ SR. He was no Azhar Ali.

 

[Suleiman]

Bradman regularly batted at 70+ SR. He was no Azhar Ali.

Few posts above it says his avg SR was a 56. Which one is true?

 

[New Yorker]

You think I cannot make sarcastic remarks about the Bradman ERAs especially given the comical mickey mouse footage that is freely available ? Seriously ?




You want to discuss SRT stats ... fine. He remains the only Batsman to have made atleast one hundred in each of his first away series to England , Aus, SAF and he did this while he was a Teen. And repeated that in his next 2 trips t these countries. Go find one batsman that even comes close and we can discuss.




So how does this translate into Bradman > SRT ? How does this translate into Bradman could handle modern day fast bowling where you will get laughed at if you complain about short bowling ? It just simply does not !! You can twist and turn as much as you like and try to construct fanciful models but there is no way you can claim that Bradman had the technique to handle modern bowling. And all available facts point to Bradman being extremely uncomfortable with even 75mph short bowling. these are the harsh realities that most Bradman fanatics don't like to discuss and therefore all these fancy theories to prove Bradman was twice as good as any player ever.

I'm not arguing that Bradman is better than Tendulkar. SRT is the best there has ever been. I am just curious to know. How much better is SRT than Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, Clarke, Sanga, Younis, Youhana, Chanders, Flower, Border, Waugh, Dravid, etc etc not to mention Smith, Kohli. Twice as good? 25 % as good? And by what criteria? It's very nice that at some point in his teens he did well on debut. But he's not the only one who's scored big against the toughest opposition of the day. Why would that criterion be more important than say, the frequency with which he batsman scores a century per innings across his career? By which standards SRT ranks about 20th among modern day greats, the most consistently prolific in recent history having been Hayden, Kallis, Younis. The point is not that we can tell from these stats which is the best, because any number of stats could be marshalled in favor or one or the other. The point is that there really isn't that much to tell them apart. So yes we are wonderfully blessed to have witnessed this eruption of Bradmanesque quality in the modern era. And again, it is amazing how this happened even in Australia, a country which is still in denial about Bradman being their best batsman. One really feels for Hayden.

 

[New Yorker]

No kallis was a blocker; and he didn't score as big as Lara

Bradmans estimated SR is 56 or above which is fair bit above most of modern greats. So similarity is rather minimal

Sigh. Not if what you are comparing is ability to score centuries regularly.

I'm not comparing Lara and Kallis, but Kallis and Bradman.

 

[James]

Nowhere near.

 

[Cric1234]

If you compare Lara to a batsman averaging 43 it would be called an insult and that's a small difference of 10 runs compared to 47 with Bradman.

 

[TestMatch]

There was a book written a few years ago called Masterly Batting, by Patrick Ferriday and Dave Wilson. They tried to select the best test knocks, using algorithms to weigh quality of the attacks, amount of runs scored, chances given, series impact, match impact, pitch conditions, opposition strength, runs percentages, and strike rates. Nobody on the list had more innings selected than Lara and Bradman, who were tied, with Lara's knocks ranking cumulatively higher than Bradman's.

 

[Chrish]

Lara had amazing highs but also painful lows.

Can't really be compared to Bradman whose entire 20+ years of test/ FC career was basically purple patch

 

[Tusker]

I'm not arguing that Bradman is better than Tendulkar. SRT is the best there has ever been. I am just curious to know. How much better is SRT than Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, Clarke, Sanga, Younis, Youhana, Chanders, Flower, Border, Waugh, Dravid, etc etc not to mention Smith, Kohli. Twice as good? 25 % as good? And by what criteria? It's very nice that at some point in his teens he did well on debut. But he's not the only one who's scored big against the toughest opposition of the day. Why would that criterion be more important than say, the frequency with which he batsman scores a century per innings across his career? By which standards SRT ranks about 20th among modern day greats, the most consistently prolific in recent history having been Hayden, Kallis, Younis. The point is not that we can tell from these stats which is the best, because any number of stats could be marshalled in favor or one or the other. The point is that there really isn't that much to tell them apart. So yes we are wonderfully blessed to have witnessed this eruption of Bradmanesque quality in the modern era. And again, it is amazing how this happened even in Australia, a country which is still in denial about Bradman being their best batsman. One really feels for Hayden.

this nonsense about having to be twice as good as the next best guy is really a tired old argument that has been explained in many ways in recent Bradman threads from which you ran away. Have you found out the reason why competing in a class of 5 Amateurs is the same as competing in a class of 50 Professionals ? If you think both scenarios are equal then the problem is in your understanding of the situation and lack of knowledge on the subject of professionalism.

But then again you also think that Bedser, Tate and Bowes bowling at 110 - 115K Max presented the same challenge as Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib ... lol Come back here when you understand the difference.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Few posts above it says his avg SR was a 56. Which one is true?

His overall SR is estimated to be around 56-61 according to most sources.

But he had several innings of 70-100 SR. His SR for his 334 and the 254 vs England are usually cited as close to 90.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

His overall SR is estimated to be around 56-61 according to most sources.

But he had several innings of 70-100 SR. His SR for his 334 and the 254 vs England are usually cited as close to 90.

Both played in completely different eras.Lara played against far more diverse bowling attcks,in more difficult situations and against many more countries.Still Pertinent that Lara has highest tset and 1st class score.An interesting feature would be comparing their strike rate when scoring double centuries.Would like to get figure.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Can't really judge Bradman by what we see on old video's. Can't say how he would have done against the West Indies quickies of the 1980's. For me Lara is one of the greatest stroke players I have ever seen, live. Bradman is not that.

On pure talent a whisker ahead of Bradman and more mercurial in ful flow considering his more competitive era?I don't think even Viv equalled Lara's flair.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Lara didn't come any closer than other players to Don IMO. What I meant is those two shared few similar traits; like concentration required to play longer innings

Not even in Lara's 5 best innings?At his best Lara was the ultimate batting genius who single-handedly turned games for a weak bating side like no one.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Does the level of entertainment feature in such analysis? Can a Lara in full flow easily beat the Don in terms of the entertainment he provided for the people who really matter - ie the audience?

To me virtually on par.Remember the Lara classics like his 277,213 and 153 against Australia and 221 v Sri Lanka.Took creative genius to higher depths than Bradman.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Lara had the ability to play marathon innings and dominate series just like Bradman. Had he been more consistent; you can say he could have matched Bradman's numbers (averaging 60+ in current era)

Could not agree more.more natural talent than Viv and ahead in test cricket of Tendulkar?

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Would take Lara over bradman every day of the week, bradman can average 1000 against the fishermen from england but he won't survive the morden day cricket

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Lara: A great batsman alongside other great batsmen of his era, like Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis. One of the 10 best of all time.

Bradman: The best of all time.

At his best was he ahead of Tedulkar or Viv?

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Could not agree more.more natural talent than Viv and ahead in test cricket of Tendulkar?

How would lara be ahead of tendulkar in test cricket when tendulkar absolutely destroyed him in terms of average as well as longevity. Not only that Tendulkar destroyed him in the toughest era to bat i.e. the 1990s, tendulkar also destroyed him in away matches, tendulkar also destroyed him while playing in Australia (the toughest place to tour in that era). Your posts always amuse me.

 

[Proactive_]

How would lara be ahead of tendulkar in test cricket when tendulkar absolutely destroyed him in terms of average as well as longevity. Not only that Tendulkar destroyed him in the toughest era to bat i.e. the 1990s, tendulkar also destroyed him in away matches, tendulkar also destroyed him while playing in Australia (the toughest place to tour in that era). Your posts always amuse me.

Lara: 10.91 Tests / MOTM
Tendulkar :14.28 Tests / MOTM

And Lara never had the luxury of the likes of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly, Azhar, Gambhir, Pujara etc etc flanking him on both sides of the batting order. There's not even a comparison. Lara >>> Tendulkar.

 

[Tusker]

Lara: 10.91 Tests / MOTM
Tendulkar :14.28 Tests / MOTM

And Lara never had the luxury of the likes of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly, Azhar, Gambhir, Pujara etc etc flanking him on both sides of the batting order. There's not even a comparison. Lara >>> Tendulkar.

You are using MOTM to decide this .... so I suppose Garry Sobers , Sunny Gavaskar, Viv Richards , GRV are all crap because they would have lesser MOTM than Misbah.

 

[Proactive_]

You are using MOTM to decide this .... so I suppose Garry Sobers , Sunny Gavaskar, Viv Richards , GRV are all crap because they would have lesser MOTM than Misbah.

Nobody is comparing Misbah with Sobers. With a discussion like Lara-Tendulkar, MOTM obviously assumes greater importance because their numbers per se are much more similar as compared to between Sobers and Misbah.. oh and btw Misbah has just 2 MOTM in Tests so don't know why you randomly brought Misbah into this..

 

[Tusker]

Nobody is comparing Misbah with Sobers. With a discussion like Lara-Tendulkar, MOTM obviously assumes greater importance because their numbers per se are much more similar as compared to between Sobers and Misbah.. oh and btw Misbah has just 2 MOTM in Tests so don't know why you randomly brought Misbah into this..

Because Misbah has more MOTM than those other esteemed players ... therefore Misbah is a better player (according to your own logic)

 

[The_Odd_One]

Few posts above it says his avg SR was a 56. Which one is true?

Bradman has a 200 at 90+ SR, another at 72, and a triple at 75 SR.

 

[Proactive_]

Because Misbah has more MOTM than those other esteemed players ... therefore Misbah is a better player (according to your own logic)

That's like saying Suresh Raina is a better ODI player than Bradman because Bradman had 0 ODI runs.. no context.

 

[Tusker]

That's like saying Suresh Raina is a better ODI player than Bradman because Bradman had 0 ODI runs.. no context.

Not really because Iam not comparing ODIs and Tests ... I will give you a even better comparison ... Waqar Younis vs Philander .... going by your logic Philander has a MTOM/test ratio that is twice as good as Waqar. Therefore Philander > Waqar ?

you will get even funnier results if you compare Kapil and Shakib

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283704.html

 

[New Yorker]

At his best was he ahead of Tedulkar or Viv?

Methinks the debate on this and other similar threads becomes so...lively...for a fairly apparent reason.

Settling these kinds of questions is a fool's errand.

Whatever their relative strengths and weaknesses they were all of a similar calibre. As were Pointing,
Gavaskar, Hayden, etc.

Different yes, of course. Best, who knows?

People will have their subjective preferences. Because some players had a more attractive backlift. Because
they were Indian.

But the only player to soar above the pack, according to objective criteria, is Bradman.

 

[Cric1234]

Bradman critics dismiss his era as village cricket at the same time get upset when Kohli who is a few points ahead average wise in ODIs is said to cash in against easier bowling on flat wickets.
Then they say Tendulkar is more complete and better than Bradman but don't realise Tendulkar relatively failed batting against the new ball averaging 40 but still he's better than Bradman who averaged 103 at no3 position.
The best ever have to pass these tests already Dravid and Gavasker become better against the new ball than Sachin.

 

[Tusker]

Bradman critics dismiss his era as village cricket at the same time get upset when Kohli who is a few points ahead average wise in ODIs is said to cash in against easier bowling on flat wickets.

Have you found a Bedser, Tate, Bowes equal from Kohli's times who will gladly bowl (more like trundle) minimum 30 overs per day ?

Have you found a bowler getting banned for bowling short in Kohli's time ?

Have you imagined what the world would have said if Kohli only played in India and SL ?

Now here is something I will say ..... you will most likely not show up on this thread or continue to just ignore these pointed questions.

 

[Tusker]

But the only player to soar above the pack, according to objective criteria, is Bradman.

Pack of mainly Two Test playing nations when playing conditions where such that it was considered un-gentlemanly to bowl short ... whatta great achievement lol.

The fact that Britain and Australia came to a diplomatic standoff over short pitch bowling is just hilarious especially when you cannot even blame the Poms ... think about it .. )

 

[PakLFC]

On pure talent a whisker ahead of Bradman and more mercurial in ful flow considering his more competitive era?I don't think even Viv equalled Lara's flair.

I am gonna give Don the advantage of never having seen him in action. Lara was a touch player where as Viv was a power player.

 

[Cric1234]

I think you'll find in the recent test series against Sri Lanka Kohli faced fast bowlers who were hardly better than Bedser and Bowes but still averaged less than 50.

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FeG8hqQw1U8

Footage of Bradman during his playing days you can compare his strokeplay to Lara here.

 

[Chrish]

SRT would have to go back in time machine and fix his record against best bowler of his time to be considered best ever.

Conversely Lara should had scored few hundreds against quality genuine pace bowling..

Viv to fix his record against his own bowlers and Sobers to do the same against kiwis out of all teams

Until then Don shall remain the best ever..

 

[Tusker]

I think you'll find in the recent test series against Sri Lanka Kohli faced fast bowlers who were hardly better than Bedser and Bowes but still averaged less than 50.

Why don't you show me which of those Sri Lankan Bowlers bowled 30+ overs/day at speeds of about 110K ? If only that was true because the likes of Malinga and Matthews would have dearly loved to trundle along and not only just be able to play Test Cricket but actually thrive.

This is what is called progress. But then again for Bradman fans time runs in the opposite direction !! Laughable really.

 

[Cric1234]

It's better to compare Lara and others to Hammond Hutton and Headley after which it's entirely possible they are better batsmen overall.
Trying to compare with Bradman one can forget the other good batsman of his era like Hammond possibly the best English batsman of all time a mixture of Kallis and Inzimam overshadowed due to Bradmans achievements.

 

[Tusker]

It's better to compare Lara and others to Hammond Hutton and Headley after which it's entirely possible they are better batsmen overall.
Trying to compare with Bradman one can forget the other good batsman of his era like Hammond possibly the best English batsman of all time a mixture of Kallis and Inzimam overshadowed due to Bradmans achievements.

So basically you have no answer to my pointed question and you want to shift the goal post to a different zipcode ? Sounds very familiar.

 

[Cric1234]

So basically you have no answer to my pointed question and you want to shift the goal post to a different zipcode ? Sounds very familiar.

It's already been discussed in the other thread Bedser had a strike rate of 67 economy of under 2 that's why he averaged 25.
A normal economy rate of 3 would've meant an average of 30+ his bowling speed is not known but I doubt it's 110kph.

 

[Tusker]

It's already been discussed in the other thread Bedser had a strike rate of 67 economy of under 2 that's why he averaged 25.
A normal economy rate of 3 would've meant an average of 30+ his bowling speed is not known but I doubt it's 110kph.

In the other thread you tried your best to ignore (or pretend that it didnt matter) speeds of Bedser, Tate and Bowes who are CLEARLY very very slow bowlers and this is abundantly clear to anyone apart from the visually or mentally impaired. Don't even need to measure time or frames taken for ball to reach batsman. But Bradman fans don't like to go there for very obvious reasons. Nothing surprising here.

So for the last time -- The standards today have made bowlers like Bedser obsolete now !! You will NEVER find any Test team use a trundler to open bowling and have him bowl 30+ overs in a day. Just Aint happening. This is just one of the many reasons why comparing Bradman to modern batsmen is like comparing a graduate from Hicksville to a Harvard Graduate.

And lastly this doesn't mean I have no respect for Bradman. Absolutely not true. He is a great of the Game and will be so forever, but it gets tiring to keep seeing people ridicule modern players as though they play cricket with Tennis ball now. Madness.

 

[New Yorker]

Pack of mainly Two Test playing nations when playing conditions where such that it was considered un-gentlemanly to bowl short ... whatta great achievement lol.

The fact that Britain and Australia came to a diplomatic standoff over short pitch bowling is just hilarious especially when you cannot even blame the Poms ... think about it .. )

It doesn't matter Tusker. None of this matters. On the one side of the argument are your rather eccentric assertions. You watched an old video clip of one bowler which shows to you blah blah. On the one side facts. Averages. Centuries per Tests. And a lineage of players stretching from Bradman's time to the present, overlapping with each other, which allows us to confirm that there was never a dramatic break in overall performance standards. The very best batsmen averaged a bit more than 50 then and 50 now. The very best bowlers average a bit more than 20, irrespective of whether they are fast or slow, left arm or chinaman. All of which stands to reason. A human body in 1940 is much the same as a human body in 2010. . Forget about playing just two Test playing nations. What about one? That's what FC cricket is. Bradman is the only player to have averaged 100 in FC and international, over 20 years. Sachin, Kallis, Ponting, none of them did better than 60 or so in their own leagues. And for none of these players can we say that by objectively observable criteria they were better than the others. The only player for which we have such criteria is Bradman. You may argue that this evidence is unreliable, that no comparison is truly possible. If that is the case we don't have grounds to compare anyone. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. Unfortunately, it is well neigh impossible not to attempt to situate Bradman. Because we are not talking about minor variations. A difference of the order of 5-10 percentage points. We are talking about someone who was numerically twice as good as anyone else, ever, across any number of metrics. To disregard that gap in actual performance you would have to make an argument not merely for a scarcely fathomable decline in standards, but for an overturning of the laws of statistical distribution. Why was he the only batsman of a period spanning some 30-40 years, if one also counts players who overlapped with him, to benefit so outrageously from these supposedly low standards? You're never going to be able to get past this question. The idea that everyone else was crap until some elusive historical watershed - when was that break again? - is absurd.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

It all comes back to the same thing:

ATG batsmen average roughly 50-60, ATG bowlers average roughly 20-25. REGARDLESS OF ERA. This statistical barrier has remained the same since the end of world war 1. What it tells you is that conditions have changed over the decades but generally speaking the challenges balance themselves out.

And only one man managed to shatter this barrier completely. Not just break it by 1-2 runs, but demolish it.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

And people keep talking about bowling standard, pitches blah blah blah, but all batsmen have one key characteristic in common: immense mental strength. This is pretty obviously where Bradman surpassed everyone. Because being that ruthless day after day scoring hundred after hundred and not making a single mistake while batting the whole day... that is what he has above others, even other ATGs.

It's not that he had some supernatural technique... just a normal one, but he just didn't make mistakes as often as other batsmen.

 

[Tusker]

It doesn't matter Tusker. None of this matters. On the one side of the argument are your rather eccentric assertions. You watched an old video clip of one bowler which shows to you blah blah. On the one side facts. Averages. Centuries per Tests. And a lineage of players stretching from Bradman's time to the present, overlapping with each other, which allows us to confirm that there was never a dramatic break in overall performance standards.

Not just one bowler .... but footage for all bowlers from Bradmans time is available and it is ORDINARY !!! Confirmed by basic analysis from scorecards based on the total overs bowled in a day that these bowlers are most certainly SLOW bowlers by modern standards. Anyone denying this simple fact is the real eccentric one.

As per your fanciful theory of constructing a bridge across multiple ERA's ... it has no legs to stand on given that Bradman made a big song and dance about 120-125K short bowling (that too by only one Bowler) in the Bodyline series when for the first time the Poms decided to mix up the length and confused the heck out of the Aussies who now had to judge the length instead of assuming that everything was pitched in their half.

 

[New Yorker]

Not just one bowler .... but footage for all bowlers from Bradmans time is available and it is ORDINARY !!! Confirmed by basic analysis from scorecards based on the total overs bowled in a day that these bowlers are most certainly SLOW bowlers by modern standards. Anyone denying this simple fact is the real eccentric one.

As per your fanciful theory of constructing a bridge across multiple ERA's ... it has no legs to stand on given that Bradman made a big song and dance about 120-125K short bowling (that too by only one Bowler) in the Bodyline series when for the first time the Poms decided to mix up the length and confused the heck out of the Aussies who now had to judge the length instead of assuming that everything was pitched in their half. Sorry you have no case here. You can see this kind of drama in village cricket when someone breaks the code of conduct and all hell breaks lose. Funny to watch though !!

I wish I could believe you find it funny. The frothing-at-the-mouth-act has me a bit uncomfortable by now.

Can I suggest you revisit our discussion of lineage, in the earlier thread? You missed the point pretty heftily. And again, I suspect it was not by accident.

I don't have to make cases for Bradman's singular excellence, the case has already been made, several times over.

It is you who has to make a case, and unfortunately you are arguing a counterfactual, a what-if scenario.

It is built on a slew of mendacity and wishful thinking; what you claim to see in Youtube video's doesn't quite cut I am afraid.

I don't even see what is the point about Bodyline? He averaged 56 in that series.

It becomes no more persuasive because it is written in CAPITALS, or backed up by exclamation marks.

 

[New Yorker]

Not just one bowler .... but footage for all bowlers from Bradmans time is available and it is ORDINARY !!! Confirmed by basic analysis from scorecards based on the total overs bowled in a day that these bowlers are most certainly SLOW bowlers by modern standards. Anyone denying this simple fact is the real eccentric one.

As per your fanciful theory of constructing a bridge across multiple ERA's ... it has no legs to stand on given that Bradman made a big song and dance about 120-125K short bowling (that too by only one Bowler) in the Bodyline series when for the first time the Poms decided to mix up the length and confused the heck out of the Aussies who now had to judge the length instead of assuming that everything was pitched in their half.

From "A dummy's guide to Bodyline"

Who was Jardine's main weapon?
Harold Larwood was an olden-day version of shock and awe. A small fast bowler from the mines of Nottingham, he bowled like lightning and was the perfect man for the bumper-filled plan. Despite his series-winning 33 wickets, including Bradman's four times, he never played another Test. He had followed his captain's instructions immaculately, but when the controversy continued back in England he refused to sign an apology. While Jardine was hated in Australia, Larwood was appreciated, especially while making 98 in the final Test, and moved to Sydney in 1950.

How fast was he?
Speed cameras were decades away from being invented, but researchers somehow worked out a way to register Larwood's bowling at 96mph. Jeff Thomson holds the record at 99.7mph.

 

[Tusker]

I wish I could believe you find it funny. The frothing-at-the-mouth-act has me a bit uncomfortable by now.

Can I suggest you revisit our discussion of lineage, in the earlier thread? You missed the point pretty heftily. And again, I suspect it was not by accident.

I don't have to make cases for Bradman's singular excellence, the case has already been made, several times over.

It is you who has to make a case, and unfortunately you are arguing a counterfactual, a what-if scenario.

It is built on a slew of mendacity and wishful thinking; what you claim to see in Youtube video's doesn't quite cut I am afraid.

No frothing here but just responding to your sarcasm in equal measure ... but it is genuinely hilarious to see people support Amateur cricket using tedious logic such as claiming that numerous video clips are lying about bowling speeds.

For your viewing pleasure : https://youtu.be/1YRM6oQSuyI

You can see plenty of Bedser bowling in that footage. Tell me how that is wishfull thinking and lying when I say he is slow ? Keep in mind that he was rated the best by Bradman himself and made it to his XI ahead of some truly genuine fast bowlers.

I don't even see what is the point about Bodyline? He averaged 56 in that series.

It becomes no more persuasive because it is written in CAPITALS, or backed up by exclamation marks.

The point about BL series was in the context of the lineage theory (to equate Bradmans peers to Modern legends based on batting Avg and ignoring context and of course the non-existance of a level playing field) .

Larwoods bowling + Jardines tactics in that series is the closest ( and this is a stretch ) that comes to any modern standards. Therefore there is not even a need to indulge in theory that equates Bradman Peers to Modern greats who all avg between 50-60.

Then there is the matter of level playing field which is absent when you equate todays batting avg of 50 to the 1930s ERA batting avg because no batsman since Bradman has had the pleasure of facing both sets of bowlers. It took another 30 yrs or so for the first batch of true fast bowlers to emerge.