Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 109
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Bradman effect

  1. #1
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233

    Bradman effect

    I posted on another thread a comment that Bradman was basically a victim of his own success whenever someone tries to deconstruct his career. Statements were made about the dubious class of the bowlers he faced inspite of the fact no other Aussie batsman of the era got even half his average. That contradiction made me suspicious and led me to think a proper rating of the class of bowler he faced had to be made without the distorting impact his own efforts had on them.

    I then reviewed the selected averages of Eng's immediate post war generation in the 40s/50s and noticed their statistical advantage over their counterparts in the 20s/30s was close. Maybe it could be explained by one group having to bowl at a man who averaged almost 100/innings while the other group didnot.

    It would be beyond my patience and resources to compare every bowler from 1920-1959 so I selected a representative group of bowlers for comparison. So i set a few parameters. I'd only look at DGB's pre war competition as I agree that immediately post war Australia had easily the best side. I only compared English bowlers as they were our main competition in both eras. Though I will make some comments about the SA side that DGB faced and maybe the WI one too. I picked the best pace bowlers from both eras for comparison. One day I'll do the spinners. I believe it is justified in picking these groups, whom I'll identify shortly, as they were the men Eng relied on to beat Australia in both eras. Therefor I think a general point can be made from comparing these specific bowlers.

    Conveniently these men identify themselves quite easily. I picked men who played atleast 6 tests v Australia. That seems a fair cut off point and the men who achieved that number are generally recalled by cricket's historians while those with fewer generally are not.

    The post war group are Bedser, Bailey, Brown, Statham, Trueman and Tyson. If I have to explain Brown's presence then all I can say is that he qualifies. After all he bowled medium pace against Auatralia after the war instead of his formerly preferred leg spinners. Don't believe that his inclusion is a none too subtle attempt to inflate the figures of this group. On the contrary. His inclusion actually brings down the overall bowling averages of this group.

    The pre war group is Tate, Larwood, Geary, Voce, Allen, Bowes and Farnes.

    Btw if anyone knows the exact no. of runs Bradman scored off each bowler he faced in tests I'd appreciate it if you show me the data.

  2. #2
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    The raw stats are: Post war group played (v Australia) 99 tests, bowled 23039 balls, conceded 9703 runs, took 348 wickets and averaged 27.88. The range of individual averages are 23.81 (Brown) to 32.69 (Bailey).

    When you deduct the runs Bedser conceded to DGB (243 run for 6 dismissals) there is a maginal improvement in the stats: 9460 runs/342 wkts = 27.66 average.

    The pre war group played 82 tests (v Aus), bowled 23212 balls, conceded 9952 runs for 326 wickets at an average of 30.52. On the raw stats a about a 2.5 run diff in favour of the post war group.

    The pre war group suffers from the inclusion of Voce's 2 wicketless tests in 46/47 when he was too old, unfit and rusty after the war and ideally would not have played those games. However I've included those games when I think I could fairly exclude them. This will weigh the comparison against the pre war group.

    I think the comparison is legitimate even though one group played 17 more tests. Unless told otherwise with a reasonable explanation I think a set containing 99 sources is comparable to one containing 82. To consolidate that opinion notice the pre war group actually bowled more balls (probably reflective of the effort needed to dismiss Bradman) despite playing cumulatively 17 fewer games. The difference in balls bowled is less than 200 which makes both groups comparable imo.

  3. #3
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    The problem has always been finding the runs Bradman scored against each individual bowler. So again I ask if anyone knows the breakdown then I'd be grateful if you show me the data. However I do know some actual stats. Apart from the stat against Bedser I know that Bradman made;

    Off Tate. 390 runs for 5 dismissals.
    Off Larwood. 324 runs for 5 dismissals.
    Off Allen in 1930 and 32/33. 143 runs no dismissals.
    Off Voce in 32/33. 42 runs no dismissals.
    Off Geary in 1930. 56 runs no dismissals.

    Total 955 runs for 10 dismissals. Average 95.5 runs for each dismissal.

    Taking these knowns into account the ave of the pre war group adjusted for Bradman's effect is: 8997runs/316 wkts for an average of 28.47. Already the pre war group's ave has fallen by just over 2 runs a wkt. The difference btwn the 2 groups is reduced from 2.86 to 0.81 in favour of the post war group. A marginal difference.

    Now how to account for my inability to find the runs scored against the other bowlers and the bowlers listed but in other series.

  4. #4
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,157
    Talking to yourself ****.
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.


  5. #5
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Talking to yourself ****.
    Well you can see why after such a ruuuuuude remark!

    Hmmfp

  6. #6
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,998
    It's one of the weird things about cricket, and in fact, all sport in general. When you have lots of success, you obviously damage the reputations and records of others, meaning your own achievements are devalued.

  7. #7
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,395
    Quick question but are those stats the actual runs my grandfather scored off them or the average score he made when dismissed by that bowler?
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

    Over 0.2: Putland to Nevill, OUT, no run, full ball swings in late to crash into his pads. Nevill is almost falling over trying to get bat on it but can't. Huge shout for LBW and Umpire Martell eventually raises the finger! P.Nevill - lbw b:Putland 0 (1 ball, 1 minute).

  8. #8
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    If you listen to Ian Chappell then your grand father was a bit of a ****. But who cares about that bcos - hey: What a cricketer!

    The runs are actuals not cricinfo's rubbishy stats.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 26-02-2013 at 08:05 PM. Reason: Filter fail

  9. #9
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    It's one of the weird things about cricket, and in fact, all sport in general. When you have lots of success, you obviously damage the reputations and records of others, meaning your own achievements are devalued.
    Yeah good point. Federer 04-06 is similar case.

  10. #10
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,534
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Well you can see why after such a ruuuuuude remark!

    Hmmfp
    Liking this Bambino bloke. Must admit.

  11. #11
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    You blokes are good sledgers on here...

    The problem has always been locating the remaining actual stats or finding a reasonable method guesstimating them. I wrote to a well known cricket statistician asking if he knew the actual figures or if he had the scorebooks I'd pay him to work it out.

    Well he never got back to me so screw him. So I've had to guesstimate them. I settled on working out the % of runs Bradman scored against the team total and (x) that percentage against the runs conceded by each nominated bowler innings by innings. I didn't deduct the extras off the team total. I guess I should have bcos they're not reflected in bowling figures. I was just too lazy and rationalised it by saying it is a conservative bias built in estimating Bradman's effect.

    I then ran the guesstimate over some known figures (Voce, Allen, Larwood and Tate) and it came pretty close. Except Tate. That was quite a discrepancy. But I think its an outcome that is unique to him and not relevant since have his actual stats anyway. So I had some confidence in applying the guesstimate over the circumstances where I didn't have the actual figures.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    You blokes are good sledgers on here...

    The problem has always been locating the remaining actual stats or finding a reasonable method guesstimating them. I wrote to a well known cricket statistician asking if he knew the actual figures or if he had the scorebooks I'd pay him to work it out.

    Well he never got back to me so screw him. So I've had to guesstimate them. I settled on working out the % of runs Bradman scored against the team total and (x) that percentage against the runs conceded by each nominated bowler innings by innings. I didn't deduct the extras off the team total. I guess I should have bcos they're not reflected in bowling figures. I was just too lazy and rationalised it by saying it is a conservative bias built in estimating Bradman's effect.

    I then ran the guesstimate over some known figures (Voce, Allen, Larwood and Tate) and it came pretty close. Except Tate. That was quite a discrepancy. But I think its an outcome that is unique to him and not relevant since have his actual stats anyway. So I had some confidence in applying the guesstimate over the circumstances where I didn't have the actual figures.
    Good stuff. I think Fender gives the runs scored by each batsman of each bowler in his Ashes books for the 28-29, 1930 and 1934 series
    You know it makes sense.

  13. #13
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    Boy that would be handy.

  14. #14
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    Running the guesstimate per innings I get the runs for DGB against these men;

    Off Voce 203 runs for 2 dismissals
    Off Farnes 205 runs for 2 dismissals
    Off Bowes 205 runs for 5 dismissals
    Off Allen 201 runs for 2 dismissals
    Off Geary 98 runs for 3 dismissals.

    I believe the similarity in figures is down to the fact 3 mentioned bring the same amount of games to the estimate while a 4th brings 5 games but got hammered by DGB in 2 of them which increased the no. of runs he conceded. Geary has only 4 games and got off lightly bcos he seemed to strike Bradman at intervals in his career when he was down on a bit of form.

    So the above figures come to an average of 65.14 which is conservative when compared to Bradman's overall average. I will bring that down by another 33 runs for reasons I'll explain if you ask. So the new total is 879 runs/14 dismissals = 62.78 average.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 27-02-2013 at 08:07 PM.

  15. #15
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,233
    The post war group had an ave versus Australia of 27.66 after adjusting the figures for Bedser.

    The pre war group had an ave of 28.47 when Bradman's known figures are deducted.

    When their average is adjusted again after applying the guesstimate above it falls to 26.88. Or marginally superior to the post war group.

    The impact on each individual bowler is striking. Here are their actual averages v Australia compared to their figures when Bradman's effect is deducted.

    Tate. Actual ave 30.60 Adjusted ave 27.56
    Larwood. Actual ave 29.88 Adjusted ave 26.91
    Allen. Actual ave 37.28 Adjusted ave 30.70
    Geary. Actual ave 35.67 Adjusted ave 33.70
    Voce. Actual ave 27.51 Adjusted ave 22.64
    Bowes. Actual ave 24.70 Adjusted ave 21.44
    Farnes. Actual ave 28.03 Adjusted ave 23.88

    All compare competitively with the range of averages of the post war group of 23 to 32.

    Their adjusted overall test averages are

    Tate. Actual 26.6 Adj 24.4
    Larwood. Actual 28.47 Adj 25.8
    Voce Actual 27.88 Adj 25.9
    Allen Actual 29.37 Adj 25.7
    Bowes Actual 22.33 Adj 20.85
    Farnes Actual 28.65 Adj 26.1
    Geary Actual 29.41 Adj 27.88

    As an aside Verity's falls from 24.37 to 22.86.

    All compare competitively with the post war group whose averages ranges from 18.56 (Tyson) to 29.21 (Bailey). Statham and Bedser averaged just under 25 and Trueman just over 21. I think there is a reason explaining the post war group's low averages and it centres on the higher percentage of games they played against weaker opponents.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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, 08:19 PM
  2. The Hawkeye Effect
    By vic_orthdox in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 05:17 PM
  3. 1920-50 Bradman Cricket's greatest batsman
    By odonis in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 03:45 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
  •