WG was at his best in the years 1866 to 1876. A 12 year period and not short by any standards. I have absolutely no doubt that his fast increasing girth had an increasingly detrimental effect on his performance even in his early thirties. Its only because he was so FAR above his contemporaries that he could continue to play.
- During this period he averaged an astonishing 56.67 per innings !!
- The rest of the players averaged just 14.91 during this period.
- That makes WG's figures 3.8 times those of his contemporaries.
- Extrapolating over 2000-2007 it would need a batting average of 119.9 for someone to dominate in the current decade as WG did in those 12 years in the 3rd quarter of the 19th century !!
During this period WG scored a third of all centuries scored in England (56 out of 123) !!
Last edited by SJS; 10-05-2008 at 07:51 AM.
Last edited by a massive zebra; 10-05-2008 at 12:25 PM.
THE ULTIMATE CRICKET WEB ARCADE EGGS CHAMPION
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1990-2006
RIP Craig Walsh (AKA "Craig"), 1985-2012
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
Last edited by a massive zebra; 10-05-2008 at 11:54 AM.
If you take away Bradman's average from that era, it would be fair to take away the other great's average from his era also. Which would make the comparison as under.
The Rest of the world average in the era's of the five greats and Don's extrapolated average
I am afraid the final conclusion remains the same even though the figures are slightly different - Bradman's era was the best of the lot for batting ........ or had the best batsmen take your pickCode:Player/Era ROW avg Don's avg Richards 29.94 97.86 Gavaskar 30.08 98.34 Brian Lara 30.30 99.04 Wally Hammond 30.21 98.73 Don Bradman 30.58 99.94
I am pretty sure he'd be an excellent batsman - but averaging in the 90's? Heh, no chance. Not even close.
What makes you think that, then?
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
The only man who should be mentioned in the same breath as Bradman is Muhammad Ali. Although unlike The Don he's not unequivocally recognised as the greatest ever in his field (although many argue that he is), in terms of impact on the sport, and in particular global recognition, he outstrips everyone.
I think there are three things which might lower his average.
1. the much greater quality of fielding
2. bowlers who are tall and can extract bounce from the pitch. Bradman was vertically challenged.
3. Scientific captaincy. In those days captains tended to move the fieldsmen where the last boundary went. I've read a lot of books on that era and this is commented on ad nauseam. Today with computer analysis, there would be much greater probing of a key batsman's weaknesses.
If you ever read a description of all his innings, it's amazing how often he was dropped. Sometimes more than once. And fieldsmen in those days didn't dive for the ball so you would find he would score slower today with fielders able to cut off boundaries.
If you look at the old tapes, there seemed to be a lot of pie chuckers from that era. And they all seemed to be under six feet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)