Basically its all about proportion. Why am I fixated on it? Bcos the DGB revisers are. It is a key to their argument that he, or Eng, benefitted greatly by bashing minnows. Therefore I have adjusted the overall averages to reflect an outcome as if they played the same no. of games against all opponents. To remove a key distorting factor on the overall averages. It shows that Eng 27-39 played the greater % of its games against stronger opponents. This contradicts what the revisers will have you think. Here is an example of what I'm getting at.
2 batsmen, Mutt and Jeff, ave 50 against team A and 40 against team B. If they split their games evenly btwn both teams their ave should be around 45. However if Mutt averages 48 and Jeff 42 it doesn't so much reveal a 6 run difference in quality as the fact Mutt benefitted by playing team A more often.
Now an example witn real players. One clown wrote that Larwood was an ordinary bowler in effect and said he was nothing on Donald for eg. After all the fmr averaged 28 and the latter 22. But they are overall figures which are distorted by proportion.
Donald played 19% of his games v Aus (his strongest opponent) but Larwood 71%. Therefore it isn't surprising that Larwood's overall figure will be skewed towards the high end. Now let us reverse the circumstances and give Donald Larwood's test program. That would be 15 tests v Aus at 31.07, 3 v Eng (as opposed to HL's SA), 2 tests v WI and a rained out test against NZ.
As a result of that configuration Donald's test ave increases dramatically to abt 28.4, or Larwood's ave. Save your bitching; there's more to come. Larwood faced Bradman. Donald never faced a batsman whose career ave remotely approached 100. Lets reverse the circumstances. Larwood's ave falls to 25.9. Donald's increases to 30.53.
Save your bitching; there's more to come. What if we reverse the percentages for Larwood so that he faced Australia only 19% of the time? In those circumstances Larwood's ave falls to 23.72. In short the circumstances each man experienced explains their respective averages. We would probably then have some fools arguing Donald could not bowl...
Is this comparison fair? Well I can argue that it isn't. However the Bradman revisers can't. After all they superficially judge Larwood under exactly the same circumstances.
Therefore I think the overall averages are corrupted by lack of proportion. I've tried to correct for that. I'm not sure if the attempt works but it appears to have. What I have done is added up each average a team earned against each individual opponent and divided that figure by the no. of opponents. So if Team C averaged 36, 20 and 19 against 3 opponents its adjusted overall ave should be 25 if it played each opponent 33% of the time. Whereas in reality it may have played against team A most of time thereby skewering its overall ave to the higher figure, 36.