Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 109

Thread: Bradman effect

  1. #91
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    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.

    Well well...

    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.

  2. #92
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    Bradman was twice the batsman of his peers.

    No one has ever done that before except Grace. Can't that be the deciding factor?

    BTW Bambi I'm really enjoying your posts lately.
    Thanks Flem. I have about 2 or 3 more on this thread. By that time I'm hoping we can afford DGB the same respect every other champion deservedly has earned.

  3. #93
    State Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,949
    Bambi has been reminding me of this guy recently:

    Thug Kitchen
    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.

  4. #94
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    Bambi has been reminding me of this guy recently:

    Thug Kitchen
    I'm only doing it for their own good!


  5. #95
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,833
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    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.

    Well well...

    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.
    Interesting stuff - if you get a moment, and can be bothered, how do those comparisons work out if you ignore Larwood's performances in 1930, when he was never really fit enough to play

  6. #96
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Interesting stuff - if you get a moment, and can be bothered, how do those comparisons work out if you ignore Larwood's performances in 1930, when he was never really fit enough to play
    I'll get back to it Fred. Generally I wouldn't be sympathetic to excising performances due to poor form or injury. Those fates are common to all cricketers and they just have to take the good and the bad. After all I would then have to deduct Donald's last 3 tests v Aus as his form was pretty bad by then. However bowling to Bradman is a unique experience and does tend to distort comparsions with other eras.

    Now the comparison. The columns against each team are:

    a) Average v Australia (the strongest opponent for each team)
    b) No of top 10 bowlers who averaged <30 v Aus
    c) Average v All teams
    d) Proportionally adjusted ave v All teams.
    e) No of top 10 bowlers who averaged <30 v All teams.

    Eng 27-39 (A) 34.84 (B) 4 (C) 30.24 (D) 28.42 (E) 8

    Eng 98-09 (A) 41.05 (B) 2 (C) 34.06 (D) 31.57 (E) 3

    Pak 88-00 (A) 37.66 (B) 3 (C) 29.72 (D) 30.17 (E) 4

    SA 93-04 (A) 37.22 (B) 2 (C) 29.03 (D) 27.65 (E) 4

    I picked 12 year periods to coincide with the length of the Bradman era up to the war. I tried to incorporate the 90s as much as possible for the modern teams. I started Pakistan in 1988 to capture their fine bowling performances v Aus and WI in that year. I started SA from the year they resumed test cricket against Australia. I selected the modern English period to take into account Flintoff's career as I think he was the driving force in 2 ashes victories when Aus really did have a team.

    The 27-39 English team is superior in 3 of the 5 columns, A B and E. Including the 2 most important which involve games against the strongest opponent. From that you can extrapolate overall quality. SA win column C and D. I think column C is the least important as it is compromised by questions of proportionality.

    The figure in column D attempts to smooth over distortions caused by proportionality (ratio of games against stronger and weaker opponents). If the figure in this column is smaller than the overall ave you spent more time bowling at stronger opponents. If it is higher than the overall ave you spent most of your time playing weaker opponents.

    Note that the Eng team of 27-39 is only behind SA on this score. However even here they played proportionally more matches against stronger teams than did the Saffers. If I adjust for that the difference btwn the 2 teams, already negligible becomes practically non existent.

    Lastly the figures for the 27-39 Eng team includes DGB's runs. They tend to show that this team is very competitive against the others even with this unique impediment.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 08-04-2013 at 02:03 AM.

  7. #97
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,833
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    I'll get back to it Fred. Generally I wouldn't be sympathetic to excising performances due to poor form or injury. Those fates are common to all cricketers and they just have to take the good and the bad. After all I would then have to deduct Donald's last 3 tests v Aus as his form was pretty bad by then.
    You are absolutely right of course, and I ask only out of interest (not that that means I won't necessarily use the figures disingenuously at a later date if someone has the temerity to, again, suggest that Larwood was anything other than an all time great)

  8. #98
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Fair enough Fred Maybe not tonight but I'll update it on this thread.

    Note the figures in column B. They are the number of bowlers from each side's top 10 bowlers who averaged <30 against Australia. Don't let your prejudgments assume the identity of those bowlers. Larwood and Tate are not amongst them. Neither are Donald, Waqar or Shoaib. Neither are Gough, Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison.

  9. #99
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,694
    yeah.. good stuff, bambi.. Further proves my point on how stupid it is to start looking at things in isolation to back up your argument.. And it is funny how selective it gets too. When talking up the batsman they love, suddenly the bad figures are a reflection of how well said batsman played the bowlers but when The Don is in question, it is because how crap the bowlers really were..
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  10. #100
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Thankyou HB. I'll do this post, one more for Fred and then a last talking about the myths of the Bradman era.

    First of all I agree with your post. You can isolate things til you get the outcome you want. But leaving the raw stats in place and unexplained can be misleading too. Frankly I think DGB was a victim of his own success as it allowed opportunity to revise the quality of his opponents. Therefore the only way to really judge the bowlers he faced is to take out his figures and see how much he distorted them. I think this is justifiable bcos a bat of his calibre is unique in the game's story this far. We then get an idea of how his opponents would be remembered if his distorting contribution was absent.

    When I take DGB's runs from the 27-39 Eng attack they are superior to the other mentioned in every column. Their bowling ave versus Australia falls 5.48 points from 34.84 to 29.36. To put that in perspective it is greater than the difference in the Pakistani group when playing Aus as opposed to India. That ave is the 3rd lowest in ashes history since that time.

    The no of bowlers who ave <30 v Aus increases from 4 to 7. The overall ave falls from 30.24 to 28.41. The no of bowlers who ave <30 v All teams goes from 8 to 9. The adjusted overall av falls 1 point to 27.4.

    Compare that to the Australians of 88-2000 whose overall av was 27.92 and adjusted av is 27.32. Their no of bowlers in the top 10 with averages <30 is 9 as well.

    With DGB's figures removed the 27-39 Eng is competitive with the Aus teams of 88-2000. No doubt some will huff incredulity without offering refutation. Even if we accept their complaints (and we have no reason to) we can include DGB's runs and state his opponents were competitive with Pak, SA and Eng of the periods chosen. And I don't think we can doubt their quality.

  11. #101
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Interesting stuff - if you get a moment, and can be bothered, how do those comparisons work out if you ignore Larwood's performances in 1930, when he was never really fit enough to play
    Fred. If I haven't confused myself then HL's Aussie av falls to 25.58 (from 29.88) if you remove his 30 figures and DGB's runs in other series. If you proportion him to play 19% of his games v Aus (instead of the 71%) his ave is 22.65. If you want I can pm you the way I worked it out. I mean its simple but their is a chance I may have misunderstood your question.

  12. #102
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,250
    In Bradman's time weren't there about 10000 FC fixtures for every test match? If I've got this right then even if he sux forevers because of only playing England and 52 tests or whatever, his FC average is probably even more indicative than his test average as to how far ahead of everyone else he is. The two good test teams argument falls down when you consider he has nearly 6000 runs at 98 for NSW and averages 100+ for South Australia. Australian domestic cricket back then, as ever, was no lark. I don't think you'll see too many other batsmen doing that.

    Incidentally I love how he averaged 11 for rest of Aussie. Who did they play in those two matches out of interest?

    *waits for someone to blame Roadalaide on his SA exploits*
    Last edited by Flem274*; 08-04-2013 at 10:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  13. #103
    State Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Thankyou HB. I'll do this post, one more for Fred and then a last talking about the myths of the Bradman era.

    First of all I agree with your post. You can isolate things til you get the outcome you want. But leaving the raw stats in place and unexplained can be misleading too. Frankly I think DGB was a victim of his own success as it allowed opportunity to revise the quality of his opponents. Therefore the only way to really judge the bowlers he faced is to take out his figures and see how much he distorted them. I think this is justifiable bcos a bat of his calibre is unique in the game's story this far. We then get an idea of how his opponents would be remembered if his distorting contribution was absent.

    When I take DGB's runs from the 27-39 Eng attack they are superior to the other mentioned in every column. Their bowling ave versus Australia falls 5.48 points from 34.84 to 29.36. To put that in perspective it is greater than the difference in the Pakistani group when playing Aus as opposed to India. That ave is the 3rd lowest in ashes history since that time.

    The no of bowlers who ave <30 v Aus increases from 4 to 7. The overall ave falls from 30.24 to 28.41. The no of bowlers who ave <30 v All teams goes from 8 to 9. The adjusted overall av falls 1 point to 27.4.

    Compare that to the Australians of 88-2000 whose overall av was 27.92 and adjusted av is 27.32. Their no of bowlers in the top 10 with averages <30 is 9 as well.

    With DGB's figures removed the 27-39 Eng is competitive with the Aus teams of 88-2000. No doubt some will huff incredulity without offering refutation. Even if we accept their complaints (and we have no reason to) we can include DGB's runs and state his opponents were competitive with Pak, SA and Eng of the periods chosen. And I don't think we can doubt their quality.
    I agree with most of what you say (as you can infer from my sig, I guess )

    I have only one concern with your analysis is that when I and others point out the non-replacement of Bradman with another (normal) batsman in the analysis, you have said that the replacement would have averaged somewhere around 30 (Chippendale was the example, I think). But you really need to factor that the batsmen at number 3 and 4 always average higher than the rest of the batting line up. They somehow toughen up, face a lot more deliveries, score a lot more runs, and take up the responsibility. Even if they average/averaged less in lower positions.

    What do you think?
    Last edited by harsh.ag; 08-04-2013 at 11:44 PM.

  14. #104
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    I agree with most of what you say (as you can infer from my sig, I guess )

    I have only one concern with your analysis is that when I and others point out the non-replacement of Bradman with another (normal) batsman in the analysis, you have said that the replacement would have averaged somewhere around 30 (Chippendale was the example, I think). But you really need to factor that the batsmen at number 3 and 4 always average higher than the rest of the batting line up. They somehow toughen up, face a lot more deliveries, score a lot more runs, and take up the responsibility. Even if they average/averaged less in lower positions.

    What do you think?
    Could have indeed but it wouldn't have been Chipperfield. You can only suggest the most likely outcome and for me that has to be Chipperfield. But I do agree someone else may have stepped up now that you mention it. And that person would most likely have been McCabe. I just don't know how to work out if he would have stepped up and by how many. I'm thinking the answer might best lay in a series where Bradman was absent. Luckily there was one against SA. It wont be a strict comparison but useful all the same. I don't think I'll use the instance of his famous bodyline innings as I think it was a oncer that coincided with DGB's absence.

  15. #105
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,046
    Harsh.skm: I think I've got an idea. Bare with me. McCabe did step up in that series but its not plausible that he would've maintained an 84 average over his career as he did in that series. Lets make a few assumptions. Lets try and bost the 30s batting ave (without DGB) to equal the batting ave of the 90s.

    First lets put Chipperfield's contribution back in to replace Bradman's. MCabe would need to find another 407 runs over his career to boost the decadal ave to equal the 90s. That would presume he is able to lift his batting ave from 48.21 to around 55.35 or thereabouts. Personally I think that would be about the limit a great player would expect to achieve and put him in the realm of SRT, Hammond, Hutton and the like. I don't think I'm being parochial in saying I reckon he could do it. It certainly is reasonable odds to think he could.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. How good would Bradman have been at POLE VAULT??
    By uvelocity in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16-07-2012, 07:19 PM
  2. The Hawkeye Effect
    By vic_orthdox in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 04:17 PM
  3. 1920-50 Bradman Cricket's greatest batsman
    By odonis in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 02:45 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
  •