Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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.

[sobers no:1]

okay

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

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

okay

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

What are you, 8?

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

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?

[BeardofAmla]

Originally Posted by archie mac

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?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by BeardofAmla

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

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

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.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

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.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by BeardofAmla

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.

[the big bambino]

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.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

Originally Posted by centurymaker

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.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Coronis

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 ?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by sobers no:1

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.

[sobers no:1]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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