Plenty of bowlers from around SFB's era have comparable records to him.
No one from Bradman's era has anywhere near his record, nor has anyone else from any other era had a record so far above his own team mates and opposition as Bradman did.
This all stems from the fact you think Bradman is overrated. Seriously cannot believe it's still going.
If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.
We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.
Last edited by watson; 18-02-2013 at 02:02 AM.
And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....
You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 18-02-2013 at 02:04 AM.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
If they did have comparable standardised averages though, it would have to mean there were an astonishing amount of players who were truly, truly useless to their teams. You can't have that many players so far ahead of the mean without a ridiculous amount of complete passengers. I find it unlikely that they'd record similarly ridiculous standardised averages over long periods like Grace did, but I'll let you know. The fact that he played so long really hurts his raw stats, as does the fact that scores were typically so much lower (in terms of how we view his raw stats, anyway).
Either way, he was further ahead of the average, typical county cricketer than Bradman was of the average, typical Test player. That to me is what dominating your peers is about, being a long way ahead of the mean, rather than being a long way ahead of #2. You can have more than one player well ahead of the rest of the pack, if you get me.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 18-02-2013 at 02:38 AM.
We therefore just have to accept that the DOn was simply just that good.
Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
So Hobbs and co would be mid 30s then, bull****.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)