Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 496

Thread: Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

  1. #406
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Anyway moving right along I once asked a statistician to give me the runs per wkt averages of Eng and Australia btwn the yrs 28-38 and then remove Bradman's contribution to get an idea of how much he distorted the initial statistic. The reason was to prove or otherwise the competitiveness of Eng's bowlers. I mean it is just possible that the bowlers he faced had such high averages bcos DGB alone blew them out. Since DGB is cricket's ultimate outlier it would be fair to compare the figures of the bowlers who faced him without his distorting contribution.

    The initial stat showed Australia's bowlers conceded an extra 1.5 runs in obtaining their wkts. However when you took DGB's contribution out the difference extended to 8 runs a wicket. The chap who gave me this result said it was the biggest discrepancy in runs per wkt in any era of ashes cricket. What that effectively equates to is Eng scoring on ave 80 more runs an innings or 160 more runs a match.

    Bradman alone almost made good that discrepancy.

    It tells you that Eng's bowlers were far more efficient in dismissing the opposition than Australia's bowlers, O'Reilly and Grimmett notwithstanding. It tells you DGB faced a very competitive English side and he alone brought Australia to something resembling parity.

    I also have a breakdown of the runs DGB scored against certain relevant English bowlers. When I find it I'll post a comparison I've done showing their figures with and without DGB's contribution and comparing it with certain English bowlers of the 50s.

    I just have to find it first...
    Actually that is a good point. The reason 30s english bowlers average skewered towards high 20s is mostly due to Don. If you look at their records with australian counter parts in FC cricket (excluding intl) its pretty similar.

  2. #407
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,616
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Anyway moving right along I once asked a statistician to give me the runs per wkt averages of Eng and Australia btwn the yrs 28-38 and then remove Bradman's contribution to get an idea of how much he distorted the initial statistic. The reason was to prove or otherwise the competitiveness of Eng's bowlers. I mean it is just possible that the bowlers he faced had such high averages bcos DGB alone blew them out. Since DGB is cricket's ultimate outlier it would be fair to compare the figures of the bowlers who faced him without his distorting contribution.

    The initial stat showed Australia's bowlers conceded an extra 1.5 runs in obtaining their wkts. However when you took DGB's contribution out the difference extended to 8 runs a wicket. The chap who gave me this result said it was the biggest discrepancy in runs per wkt in any era of ashes cricket. What that effectively equates to is Eng scoring on ave 80 more runs an innings or 160 more runs a match.

    Bradman alone almost made good that discrepancy.

    It tells you that Eng's bowlers were far more efficient in dismissing the opposition than Australia's bowlers, O'Reilly and Grimmett notwithstanding. It tells you DGB faced a very competitive English side and he alone brought Australia to something resembling parity.

    I also have a breakdown of the runs DGB scored against certain relevant English bowlers. When I find it I'll post a comparison I've done showing their figures with and without DGB's contribution and comparing it with certain English bowlers of the 50s.

    I just have to find it first...
    These are some very good points.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  3. #408
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    okay

    bradman 100% better than viv .
    hw mch wd b the difference between viv and WG ? 110 % ?? 90% ??

  4. #409
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    okay

    bradman 100% better than viv .
    hw mch wd b the difference between viv and WG ? 110 % ?? 90% ??
    What are you, 8?
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.


  5. #410
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Anyway moving right along I once asked a statistician to give me the runs per wkt averages of Eng and Australia btwn the yrs 28-38 and then remove Bradman's contribution to get an idea of how much he distorted the initial statistic. The reason was to prove or otherwise the competitiveness of Eng's bowlers. I mean it is just possible that the bowlers he faced had such high averages bcos DGB alone blew them out. Since DGB is cricket's ultimate outlier it would be fair to compare the figures of the bowlers who faced him without his distorting contribution.

    The initial stat showed Australia's bowlers conceded an extra 1.5 runs in obtaining their wkts. However when you took DGB's contribution out the difference extended to 8 runs a wicket. The chap who gave me this result said it was the biggest discrepancy in runs per wkt in any era of ashes cricket. What that effectively equates to is Eng scoring on ave 80 more runs an innings or 160 more runs a match.

    Bradman alone almost made good that discrepancy.

    It tells you that Eng's bowlers were far more efficient in dismissing the opposition than Australia's bowlers, O'Reilly and Grimmett notwithstanding. It tells you DGB faced a very competitive English side and he alone brought Australia to something resembling parity.

    I also have a breakdown of the runs DGB scored against certain relevant English bowlers. When I find it I'll post a comparison I've done showing their figures with and without DGB's contribution and comparing it with certain English bowlers of the 50s.

    I just have to find it first...
    This is very useful information. Thank you for taking the trouble to get this analysis here. But shouldn't that extension from 1.5 to 8 be tempered by the fact that if not Bradman, there would have been some other, regular number 3 playing for Australia who too would have scored a fair number of runs, at an average of say 40-45. So, maybe the true number is between 4-5. Whatsay?

  6. #411
    Cricket Spectator BeardofAmla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ganspan
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    Cricket was more popular with the average Englishman at the time than now, when it is more of a privileged game.

    No one knows what speed they bowled but Kortwright (spelling) was very quick
    When Grace played. Was it very fast directed at his nose?
    Twenty-over cricket can be “boring”. It has grown up. It takes concentration. It is no longer a game for the post-literate generation. They need the distractions, the loud music to disguise the boredom. They never warned you about that.

  7. #412
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,891
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardofAmla View Post
    When Grace played. Was it very fast directed at his nose?
    Up until the 1890s, by which time Grace was a veteran, the pitches were generally pretty diabolical, so bowlers didn't have to be too quick to be lethal

  8. #413
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    okay

    bradman 100% better than viv .
    hw mch wd b the difference between viv and WG ? 110 % ?? 90% ??
    Nobody has ever said anything of the sort.

  9. #414
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    This is very useful information. Thank you for taking the trouble to get this analysis here. But shouldn't that extension from 1.5 to 8 be tempered by the fact that if not Bradman, there would have been some other, regular number 3 playing for Australia who too would have scored a fair number of runs, at an average of say 40-45. So, maybe the true number is between 4-5. Whatsay?
    Good point. In fact I have done a dinky analysis factoring in a replacement player. However if such a man was able to average 40-45 he would have been a regular in the side for a start. That ave is pretty close to a Woodfull or a McCabe for example. In fact it would be lower than 34 which is what Kippax averaged and he was a regular too.

    It stands to reason that the player replacing DGB would have been a fringe player normally. To be thorough you would have to go back series by series and select the most in form fringe candidate of the time. Some names you could think of would be (in no particular order) Richardson, Bromley, O'Brien, Nitchske, Rigg, Chipperfield. These men averaged around 23 to 29 against England. For the sake of convenience lets allow Chipperfield to stand in all their stead. This kind of makes sense bcos he played most games against Eng of those mentioned which meant the selectors considered him the best of the fringe players. His ave was 29.66 v England.

    So if we factor in his runs over 38 dismissed innings to make up for DGB then the result improves for Aus by 0.25% or 5 runs a match only which equates to almost no discernible difference.

  10. #415
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by BeardofAmla View Post
    When Grace played. Was it very fast directed at his nose?
    Well Ernie Jones did bowl one through his beard and apologised with Sorry Doc; she slipped - or so the story goes. I agree with Fred. Pitches were pretty bad and that is documented. No one would bowl short and give the batter an opportunity when they could achieve lift or mullies by pitching at a length.

  11. #416
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    I will also try and get the comparison I did accounting for DGB's effect on bowling averages and post that in the next day or so. Hopefully people will think it interesting. I will also take time to explain the method I used as I don't have all of the raw data on the runs he scored against individual bowlers.

  12. #417
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,583
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    If Bradman played in the modern era and therefore tallied 100-150 Test matches, as well as a similar amount of ODIs, do you think that he would average near 100?
    One can't ask that question and not factor in that Bradman would also be privy to all the technological, scientific and tactical advancements that coincides with that change in amount of games played.

    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    assuming that he would've played at least 100 tests, not just 52
    The way you frame it is disingenuous. Bradman played for 20 years. Whether he played 100 tests or less is a debatable factor in his success. Does one average more if he gets to take advantage of his good form more (playing more at your peak)? Or is it harder to keep consistency when games aren't as frequent and hence keeping form is an issue? The converse to those questions is also valid, which is what makes the above a debatable factor and not something to be stated as a matter of concluded fact.
    Last edited by Ikki; 20-02-2013 at 07:43 PM.
    ★★★★★

  13. #418
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Nobody has ever said anything of the sort.
    50 % ??
    a batsman of 90 avg is 50% better than a batsman with avg.60
    is that ok?

    i want to know , why only bradman is clearly better than modern greats ? why not WG ?

  14. #419
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,503
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    50 % ??
    a batsman of 90 avg is 50% better than a batsman with avg.60
    is that ok?

    i want to know , why only bradman is clearly better than modern greats ? why not WG ?
    Grace was a lot better. Hobbs and Alfred Mynn too. Your heroes are false idols and all pale in comparison to not only Bradman but scores of former players. I am glad you are finally starting to realise this, and I'm happy to answer any more questions you have about it.

    Time to change your avatar I think; how about this one?



    It's William Lillywhite; by gosh he was gun. So far ahead of his peers that he earned the nickname Nonpareil. Wasim Akram was closer to Suranga Lakmal in performance than he was to this round arm slow bowler.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 21-02-2013 at 01:07 AM.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  15. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Grace was a lot better. Hobbs and Alfred Mynn too. Your heroes are false idols and all pale in comparison to not only Bradman but scores of former players. I am glad you are finally starting to realise this, and I'm happy to answer any more questions you have about it.

    Time to change your avatar I think; how about this one?



    It's William Lillywhite; by gosh he was gun. So far ahead of his peers that he earned the nickname Nonpareil. Wasim Akram was closer to Suranga Lakmal in performance than he was to this round arm slow bowler.
    grace , mynn , bradman and now this... hmm lillywhite ..
    this makes sobers the only human in top 5

    btw , no need to change the avatar , it features greatest film actor ever

Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 08:32 AM
  2. Poll: Greatest Cricketer amongst this lot
    By smalishah84 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 09:14 AM
  3. The CW50 - No.30-21
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 03:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •