Amazing Bradman Fact

[PhoenixFire]

I was interested to see a breakdown of Bradman's average by innings (1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th), and I found an amazing stat that he averages 73.40 in 4th innings. Considering that he must have played on some pretty awful pitches in his time, it makes it even more impressive, with many of the knocks resulting in wins. Your views on this.

 

[silentstriker]

Great, but not phenomenal. Dravid averages 50+, Ponting averages almost 60!

In fact one of the prime arguments against Bradman was his perceived inability to make a big score on sticky wickets.

EDIT: Hobbs also averaged around 58.

 

[PhoenixFire]

But the difference must be massive between the 4th innings (often last day) wickets then and now. Very rarely do you see a pitch deterioate so badly that you just can't play on it.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, and Gavaskar also averaged 58.25, which is actually seven higher than his normal average.

So if compared to some of the other greats, Bradman actually does worse (compared to his own record in other innings), but obviously still comes out ahead in comparison with other greats.

 

[silentstriker]

But the difference must be massive between the 4th innings (often last day) wickets then and now. Very rarely do you see a pitch deterioate so badly that you just can't play on it.

Hobbs averaged 58 too. And considering the amount of folks who average 50+ on them, its not a special achievement really. So his 72 is great by comparison to others, as are other batting records, but really nothing exceptional.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A deteriorating last day pitch as a result of wear and tear is a totally different kettle of bananas to a "sticky wicket". Sticky wickets in England are playable (unless Derek Underwood is around) but in Australia they are impossible whether it be the first innings of the match or the fourth. Bradman's average is untouchable - as usual.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Thanks for raining on my parade, you could have said:

"Wow Phoenix, that's simply awesome, were on earth did you learn such an amazing array of immense facts, I wan't to be just like you, Glenn McGrath is poo"

 

[silentstriker]

But the difference must be massive between the 4th innings (often last day) wickets then and now. Very rarely do you see a pitch deterioate so badly that you just can't play on it.

Actually, I don't know if thats true. Looking at the fourth innings batting average for England from 1930-1960, its about the same as the batting average per wicket for England from 1960-current.

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman's average is untouchable - as usual.

That is not in dispute, nor did I imply that it was.

But taking just the fourth innings average, the difference between Bradman vs. Rest of the Pack is not as pronounced as Bradman overall vs. Rest of the Pack overall. But the difference is still clear and still there, when did I imply otherwise?

 

[silentstriker]

Wow Phoenix, that's simply awesome, were on earth did you learn such an amazing array of immense facts, I wan't to be just like you, Wilfred Rhodes is poo.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Thankyou

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That is not in dispute, nor did I imply that it was.

That's really interesting, but I hadn't even read your post when I made the post you quoted so it was not aimed at you or anyone in particular.


It would be interesting to see how many times Bradman batted in the 4th Innings of a Test, I suspect not many.

 

[silentstriker]

Something quasi unrelated:

England batting and bowling average by Era:

Era             Batting	Bowling
Pre-1919	25.1	22.1
1919-1945	36.6	31
1945-160	31.4	27.6
1960-1980	34.4	30.1
1980-2000	30.1	35.5
2000-2006	34.7	33.2

What is so amazing to me is that all of the eras are very similar in terms of averages (within 5 of each other). With the exception of the pre-1919, which we all agree was a markedly different game, cricket has changed and yet remained the same in many ways.

 

[PhoenixFire]

15 times, with 3 100s, 4 50s and 743 runs. Here's the full details.

 

[silentstriker]

That's really interesting, but I hadn't even read your post when I made the post you quoted so it was not aimed at you or anyone in particular.


It would be interesting to see how many times Bradman batted in the 4th Innings of a Test, I suspect not many.

He batted only 15 times, here are his scores:

1, 58, 37*, 131, 1, 0, 66, 0, 102*, 16, 56*, 63, 0, 30*, 173*

Actually, this shows him a little negatively if anything, scoring 3 ducks out of 15 innings and a total scores of 6/15 scores of under 20.

 

[shortpitched713]

Pitches in Bradman's time were flatter than they have been for most of the modern era, so I don't think his 4th innings average is particularly special in comparison to his overall record.

 

[silentstriker]

Pitches in Bradman's time were flatter than they have been for most of the modern era, so I don't think his 4th innings average is particularly special in comparison to his overall record.

Well the batting statistics for fourth innings certainly bear that out (i.e they haven't changed much between then and now).

 

[a massive zebra]

I think the fact that he averaged over 130 in wins is far more wonderous. No one has ever even approached this earth shattering level of achievement even for a short period, and to maintain it for a 20 year career is nothing short of stupendously astounding.

 

[silentstriker]

I think the fact that he averaged over 130 in wins is far more wonderous. No one has ever even approached this earth shattering level of achievement even for a short period, and to maintain it for a 20 year career is nothing short of stupendously astounding.

Yup, I rate that as his greatest achievement too. Sobers, Dravid, Inzy all average very high (70's) but 130 is just stupendous.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I always find it interesting that certain people manage to describe the pitches as flat roads when I'm talking about great batters, and deathbeds when I'm talking about great bowlers, implying that they're only good because of the surface, very interesting..................