Any facts about wet wickets?

[Vijay.Sharma]

I am missing that great PEWS quote - that would be quite apt for this thread.

Anyways I have always believed that there's no way you can compare two players from different era. You can only judge them by how good they were compared to players of their own era. If, say, Bradman was 189% better than the average player of his era and Lara was 53% better than the average player of his era that's the only thing you have to compare them. You would never know how Bradman would do facing reverse-swinging yorkers from Waqar Younis, neither will you know how a helmet-less Brian Lara would fare facing up to Douglas Jardine's leg theory and Bodyline tactics.

Ah so finally some perspective begins to come through!

So what exactly would you base your opinions on as far as who is better than whom is concerned? Clearly there is a comparison being made when the claim is made that x is the greatest ever, right?

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Ah so finally some perspective begins to come through!

So what exactly would you base your opinions on as far as who is better than whom is concerned? Clearly there is a comparison being made when the claim is made that x is the greatest ever, right?

It is my personal opinion, and entirely my own, that comparing players across eras that are radically different (Headley vs. Ponting, for instance) is a pointless exercise and however much one may try, consistency cannot be maintained.

It's better to go with gauging how a player stacks up against his peers. That's a fair indicator, IMHO. Jack Hobbs, for instance, was regarded as being quite ahead of his contemporaries with his sound technique and ability to play near-perfect even on dodgy tracks. In later eras, you'd find that a bunch of players are better than the others, but on very few occasions is an individual so far ahead of his peers.

And as most people agree, an ATG from a particular era would most likely remain an ATG if he's hypothetically transported to some other era. The basic raw materials to achieve true greatness haven't changed much in the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

I am missing that great PEWS quote - that would be quite apt for this thread.

Anyways I have always believed that there's no way you can compare two players from different era. You can only judge them by how good they were compared to players of their own era. If, say, Bradman was 189% better than the average player of his era and Lara was 53% better than the average player of his era that's the only thing you have to compare them. You would never know how Bradman would do facing reverse-swinging yorkers from Waqar Younis, neither will you know how a helmet-less Brian Lara would fare facing up to Douglas Jardine's leg theory and Bodyline tactics.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

It is my personal opinion, and entirely my own, that comparing players across eras that are radically different (Headley vs. Ponting, for instance) is a pointless exercise and however much one may try, consistency cannot be maintained.

It's better to go with gauging how a player stacks up against his peers. That's a fair indicator, IMHO. Jack Hobbs, for instance, was regarded as being quite ahead of his contemporaries with his sound technique and ability to play near-perfect even on dodgy tracks. In later eras, you'd find that a bunch of players are better than the others, but on very few occasions is an individual so far ahead of his peers.

And as most people agree, an ATG from a particular era would most likely remain an ATG if he's hypothetically transported to some other era. The basic raw materials to achieve true greatness haven't changed much in the game.

I agree with you mostly. However I am not sure that an ATG in one era would necessarily be an ATG in another era. He may be very good but not great.

And although I have done lots of stats analysis I understand totally that they are very limited and context specific and hence just cannot be used for comparison across eras. In case you want to attempt to use stats to compare across eras then you msut find a way to introduce the subjective aspects and quantify them.

Anyway, the more pertinent issue is when people start bigging up Bradman as the absolute greatest based on mythology. This thread itself has exposed that none of the "back in the day" brigadiers even have a decent estimate as to how many wet wicket innings were played and how poor Bradman was on them whereas 'lesser' ATGs like Headley, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, etc have numbers thaty are bradmanesque in comparison to Bradman;s numbers on wet wickets.

Seeing the video clips of those guys I have no doubt in my mind that those fellows wouldn't have been in the caliber of Gavaskar, Chappell, Richards, Sachin, Inzi, Lara, Pawning, Miandad, Kallis, and Rahul. They might definitely make it to the second tier greats or decade greats like Zaheer, Vishy, Lax, Hayden, Lloyd, Chanders, etc

 

[fredfertang]

The question of sticky wickets is an interesting one in itself but I fail to see how it is relevant to the comparison you seek to make between Bradman and his contemporaries on the one hand and Tendulkar, Lara et al on the other

Batting on sticky wickets is difficult - of that there is no doubt - neither is there any doubt about the fact that Tendulkar, Lara and friends have never had to bat on one, not at First Class or Test level anyway, so in that sense they have had an easier time.

It's also unarguable that in statistical terms Bradman was about 50% better than the best of his contemporaries - Grace apart no one else has approached his level of dominance.

That he might need a few overs to adjust to modern equipment, conditions and techniques I don't doubt but I really struggle with the idea that Bradman would be anything other than the best by a distance if he was suddenly reincarnated as a batsman today

There is a bit of mythology about Grace, and Trumper and Ranji as well for that matter but there's no rheumy eyed romanticism about Bradman - he was just ruthlessly efficient.

 

[fredfertang]

.... and this article by our very own Dave Wilson will tell you exactly how many times Bradman batted on a sticky

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

The question of sticky wickets is an interesting one in itself but I fail to see how it is relevant to the comparison you seek to make between Bradman and his contemporaries on the one hand and Tendulkar, Lara et al on the other

I think you misunderstand me there. What I am not ready to buy in is the myth that yesteryear players played on wet wickets so they are automatically better. And second thing is, does anyone have any idea as to how often they played on stickies and very importantly were they like unplayable muddy trenches (because that is just unbelievable coz u cannot play cricket once the pitch becomes a little wet...u can still play on mats that are wet).

Batting on sticky wickets is difficult - of that there is no doubt - neither is there any doubt about the fact that Tendulkar, Lara and friends have never had to bat on one, not at First Class or Test level anyway, so in that sense they have had an easier time.

Ya easier time. It would really help if any of youi can actually tell me how often the yesteryear fellows played on stickies. See that is my whole point - there is too much myth going around and it happens all the time in all walks of life - back in the day was the time to live, things were the greatest, people were the bestestest.

It's also unarguable that in statistical terms Bradman was about 50% better than the best of his contemporaries - Grace apart no one else has approached his level of dominance.

Sure, definitely that is a fact but it is also unarguable that in one analysis on stickies Bradman was found to be hardly 40% as good as some of the guys he was better off against by about 70%.

That he might need a few overs to adjust to modern equipment, conditions and techniques I don't doubt but I really struggle with the idea that Bradman would be anything other than the best by a distance if he was suddenly reincarnated as a batsman today

And more importantly, what makes you conclude the following based on the above? there is absolutely no real evidence except for non fact based beliefs that the following is possible. It is simple, plain, belief. Nothing wrong with having such an opinion but it is when ppl act like as if their opinion is better than someone else's then you will really need to scrutinize it.

There is a bit of mythology about Grace, and Trumper and Ranji as well for that matter but there's no rheumy eyed romanticism about Bradman - he was just ruthlessly efficient.

Yes, he was and no denying that fact. All power to him but him averaging 100 against his peers is no guarantee that he would average 200 or 50 or 25 against 70s and 90s attacks. Given the evidence of his ATG peers' (not just peers but ATG peers) doesn't give me the confidence that he being so statistically greater than his ATG peers is any great thing. Frankly after seeing some of those clips his peers are disappointing to say the least.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

.... and this article by our very own Dave Wilson will tell you exactly how many times Bradman batted on a sticky

pretty revealing innit.

By my reckoning there were fifteen of Bradman's Test innings which we can consider rain-affected and treat them separately - here are the adjusted averages:-

MATCHES INNINGS RUNS NO AVERAGE HS 100 50 0
11 15 284 1 20.29 82 0 1 4
41 65 6712 9 119.90 334 29 12 3

As we can see, there is a significant difference between his performances on rain-affected pitches as compared with those which were unaffected - not only was he merely mortal on those wickets, he was not even good; he made only one fifty in fifteen innings, or a rate of 6.7%, compared with 41 out of 65 on unaffected pitches, or a rate of 63.1%. Also, four of his seven ducks were achieved on damp pitches (including, of course, that most famous duck, in his final test innings).

Anyway the one I had referred to had 13 innings and an average of 15.xx.

So Bradman was piss poor on stickies. Let's just never use that stickies/wet wickets argument again for bigging up Bradman.

 

[fredfertang]

Sorry mate you've lost me now - the sticky wicket issue is universally recognised as the biggest chink in Bradman's armour - it's hardly bigging him up to point that out is it?

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Sorry mate you've lost me now - the sticky wicket issue is universally recognised as the biggest chink in Bradman's armour - it's hardly bigging him up to point that out is it?

You are possibly the very few people I have come across who firstly know about Bradman's pathetic show (the other guys who have been arguing in this thread don't seem to know it or remember it) on stickies and secondly openly admit it.

Now, given Bradman was pathetic on stickies, would you still consider him the best batsman among his peers in spite of his great average? His English and WI counterparts like Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley played on greater variety of wickets and managed to do well on all kinds of wickets?

What is an Average? Average is the ratio of the numbers of runs scored to the times you were dismissed. The runs scored depends upon -
quality of opposition
quality of wickets you batted on
variety of wickets you batted on
quality of bowlers you faced
variety of bowlers you faced
variety of opposition you faced

Which of those above contextual items justify that he is the very best ever?

Suppose you consider him greater than his peers also, how can anyone unequivocally consider Bradman as the greatest ever? I mean nothing justifies that except faith that back in the day they were greater

 

[Neil Pickup]

If you continue to post in such a passive/aggressive manner, you aren't going to get anywhere beyond such retorts as "how can you consider Tendulkar the greatest ever when he won't even bat at number 3 when his team are under the pump, and there are injuries dictating a reshuffle in the batting order?".

We're not interested in flame bait, and we can see through it. Tread carefully.

 

[fredfertang]

You are possibly the very few people I have come across who firstly know about Bradman's pathetic show (the other guys who have been arguing in this thread don't seem to know it or remember it) on stickies and secondly openly admit it.

Now, given Bradman was pathetic on stickies, would you still consider him the best batsman among his peers in spite of his great average? His English and WI counterparts like Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley played on greater variety of wickets and managed to do well on all kinds of wickets?

What is an Average? Average is the ratio of the numbers of runs scored to the times you were dismissed. The runs scored depends upon -
quality of opposition
quality of wickets you batted on
variety of wickets you batted on
quality of bowlers you faced
variety of bowlers you faced
variety of opposition you faced

Which of those above contextual items justify that he is the very best ever?

Suppose you consider him greater than his peers also, how can anyone unequivocally consider Bradman as the greatest ever? I mean nothing justifies that except faith that back in the day they were greater

There were more rain effected wickets in England than in Australia. I don't anticipate that that will prove controversial, so let's ignore for these purposes Bradman's tall scoring at home and concentrate on the four full English seasons he played being 1930, 1934, 1938 and 1948

In those four seasons Bradman averaged 98, 84, 115 and 89

Hammond averaged 53,76 and 75 - he was retired by 1948

Sutcliffe, also gone by 1948, averaged 64, 49 and 41

Hutton, a marvellous bad wicket player averaged 60 in 1938 and 64 in 1948

Headley is trickier as his two English seasons were different, 1933 and 1939, but for completeness he averaged 66 and 72.

As an Englishman nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to construct a cogent argument to illustrate that Bradman is not the greatest batsman ever to walk to the wicket, and I have tried, but it ain't possible

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

There were more rain effected wickets in England than in Australia. I don't anticipate that that will prove controversial, so let's ignore for these purposes Bradman's tall scoring at home and concentrate on the four full English seasons he played being 1930, 1934, 1938 and 1948

In those four seasons Bradman averaged 98, 84, 115 and 89

Hammond averaged 53,76 and 75 - he was retired by 1948

Sutcliffe, also gone by 1948, averaged 64, 49 and 41

Hutton, a marvellous bad wicket player averaged 60 in 1938 and 64 in 1948

Headley is trickier as his two English seasons were different, 1933 and 1939, but for completeness he averaged 66 and 72.

As an Englishman nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to construct a cogent argument to illustrate that Bradman is not the greatest batsman ever to walk to the wicket, and I have tried, but it ain't possible

Sir, I am totally aware of these stats...I have spent quite a long time studying each and every aspect of stats for the 20 ATGs that are part of my analysis. There is really nothing much new I can learn as far as stats of these 20 fellas are concerned. I have done the analysis from scratch in excel sheets looking through every scorecard of every game these fellows played.

My question is simple - why on Earth is the position of the greatest batsman awarded to someone when we fully well understand that despite the freakishness of his numbers they have a context to them. Why do people who have never seen him bat swear by his unquestioned top spot in spite of understanding that comparison across eras is next to impossible? I have no problem if those are personal opinions and people don't ridicule others who don't think Bradman is above all others (of course the last bit is not a question posed to you directly since I haven't seen you ridiculing me for not considering Bradman as the absolute greatest).

 

[fredfertang]

For me the answer to your simple question is also simple, and just relates to the distance between Bradman and his peers. Either Bradman isn't the greatest, and Hammond, Hobbs, Headley etc are markedly inferior to the giants of the 21st century, or alternatively they and their not dissimilar records are all much of a muchness and Bradman is in a different class of his own (well him and Andy Ganteaume anyway) - I believe its the latter - I may be wrong of course - but I'm pretty confident I'm not

 

[centurymaker]

You are possibly the very few people I have come across who firstly know about Bradman's pathetic show (the other guys who have been arguing in this thread don't seem to know it or remember it) on stickies and secondly openly admit it.

Now, given Bradman was pathetic on stickies, would you still consider him the best batsman among his peers in spite of his great average? His English and WI counterparts like Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley played on greater variety of wickets and managed to do well on all kinds of wickets?

What is an Average? Average is the ratio of the numbers of runs scored to the times you were dismissed. The runs scored depends upon -
quality of opposition
quality of wickets you batted on
variety of wickets you batted on
quality of bowlers you faced
variety of bowlers you faced
variety of opposition you faced

Which of those above contextual items justify that he is the very best ever?

Suppose you consider him greater than his peers also, how can anyone unequivocally consider Bradman as the greatest ever? I mean nothing justifies that except faith that back in the day they were greater

His first-class record takes out the 3 categories that I have bolded.

Fact- Quality of cricket has been going up almost every decade, just like any other sport so you can't really use the argument that back in days the quality of cricket was pretty mediocre/poor when rating the players of yesteryears..

 

[The Sean]

Let's just never use that stickies/wet wickets argument again for bigging up Bradman.

Who has EVER done that?

 

[Ruckus]

Who has EVER done that?

Don't think you should bother, the real motive of this thread (and the other ones he has started) is starting to crystallise. It's goes something like this:

-Start seemingly innocuous thread about wet wickets in general.
-Bring the Bradman being poor at playing on wet wickets argument into it.
-Try to establish an argument that Bradman was worse at playing on wet wickets than a select few of his contemporaries.
-Argue that because of that Bradman wasn't the best of his contemporaries.
-Use that to try and confirm Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time, 'The Batting Buddha' (haha).

This thread needs to be closed like the other one ASAP.

 

[JBMAC]

Don't think you should bother, the real motive of this thread (and the other ones he has started) is starting to crystallise. It's goes something like this:

-Start seemingly innocuous thread about wet wickets in general.
-Bring the Bradman being poor at playing on wet wickets argument into it.
-Try to establish an argument that Bradman was worse at playing on wet wickets than a select few of his contemporaries.
-Argue that because of that Bradman wasn't the best of his contemporaries.
-Use that to try and confirm Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time, 'The Batting Buddha' (haha).

This thread needs to be closed like the other one ASAP.

Definitely agree with these sentiments. Fred probably put up the best arguementable substantiated facts and still "our learned friend" knows better.

 

[GotSpin]

Don't think you should bother, the real motive of this thread (and the other ones he has started) is starting to crystallise. It's goes something like this:

-Start seemingly innocuous thread about wet wickets in general.
-Bring the Bradman being poor at playing on wet wickets argument into it.
-Try to establish an argument that Bradman was worse at playing on wet wickets than a select few of his contemporaries.
-Argue that because of that Bradman wasn't the best of his contemporaries.
-Use that to try and confirm Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time, 'The Batting Buddha' (haha).

This thread needs to be closed like the other one ASAP.

Yep. Was a clear agenda from the beginning of the thread and his time posting here. Ridiculous if you ask me

 

[Burgey]

Of course, were Bradman playing today, he wouldn't have to bat on wet wickets, would he?

Just saying.