Repeating your falsified points, like Grandpa Simpson does his stories, doesn't make them any more interesting, Migara. To reject them again:
1) "Bradman dented averages more than others..." True! :-O Congratulations. Vastly and uniquely too.
2) "It was 0.72 which is meagre": False and false. It is 1.28. Which is vast. So much so it elevates the 30s decadal av above 4 other decades. Take DGB out and the 30s fall 4 places to 2nd lowest. No one else in the game's history can claim such an impact. Even if you replace his stats with another Hammond the 30s stays 2nd lowest. But in reality you wouldn't do that. You'd replace him with a fringe player who averaged about 30 and would have no impact on the decadal ave.
3) Then followed some genaralised blather abt DGB not facing guys like Marshall, Hadlee or Warne: Irrelevant. Neither did SRT face Roberts, Holding, Garner or Croft. Besides you don't know. Your comment is a simple colour (generational) bias. For eg if Hadlee played in the 30s he'd have played 8 tests as an unlikely maximum; and your prejudice wouldnot be allowed to concede Hadlee's greatness due to the small no. of games he played! :laugh: Therefore you rate opportunity NOT skill. Skill is revealed by stats. The stats show the 30s bowlers to be easily superior to the 05 English ashes winners. They are equivalent to Eng's bowlers of the 50s. Your bias has placed you in the unenviable position of effectively arguing that Trueman and Statham can't bowl...good luck with that without looking stupid.
4) "If DGB dented bowling ave's by 4-5 runs, others must have benefitted bowling at him otherwise his impact on the decadal ave wouldn't be 1.26". This statement neatly explains your ignorance. The 4-5 run figure refers to DGB's impact on individual BOWLING aves. On a selected, but representative group, he did inflate averages by atleast that many. The 1.26 figure refers to impact his 1.8% of innings had on the decadal BATTING ave. That is his 1.8% of innings had such an impact on the 98.2% played by others it elevated the entire decade's batting ave by 4 places which is unprecented in the game's history. Do you understand now that the 2 points are compatible, not contradictory?
5) "If a bowler concedes 31 to DGB.." STOP! No bowler I know of got off that lightly. The 10 best English bowlers DGB faced conceded 76 runs on av to him. The remainder paid around 150 runs for each Bradman dismissal! (5 cont) "...with a batsmen averaging 0 against the same bowlers it brings the av down..." Joke! :laugh:The accumulation of other batsmen these bowlers faced include Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Jackson, Kippax, Fingleton, Brown and Hassett. None of them averaged 0 against these bowlers and wouldn't have lasted if they did. The fact you even raised this point proves again the confusion in your mind that you can't distinguish the difference btwn an impact of individual bowling aves versus the impact on the decadal batting ave.
6) "Decadal aves in the 30s are just ashes averages...50-75% were ashes games". True but only to an extent. I don't know the actual % of ashes tests but they are the majority though not the only games played. But this means the best and greatest players played more often and thereby distorted the decadal ave moreso than any other era. That is why Hammond's impact on the 30s ave is 4(x) greater than SRT's impact on the 90s ave despite the similarity in their personal aves. Bcos, proportionally speaking Hammond played 4(x) as often. So if the 30s had as many bad players and teams as the 90s, and had them playing more often, the decadal batting ave would fall even further. Providing even greater statistical confrontation for your prejudice against that era's bowling to bear. :)
Bcos you don't get that point you don't get the importance of the disproportionately high no of their decade's innings DGB and Hammond played. Yes that is down to circumstances. Its a distortion that can't be repeated in modern eras.
But it has the real impact of inflating the decadal batting ave. Whereas the preponderance of crap modern players distort batting aves down, generally flattering the bowlers of the modern eras. So its far from a 2 way street. The inbuilt bias flows almost one way and in favour of the modern era.
Bradman had a similar average. Grimmet / O'Rielly test record is every bit as good as Warne's, Lindwall, Miller where exceptional pace bowlers. In 1946 NSW had Lindwall, Miller and O'Rielly, that NSW attack would be better than most Test Attacks.
Lindwall described bowling to Bradman as an exercise in Frustration
Also he did not play in any England~SA, England~WI, England-India match's. Bradmans affect is going to be concentrated in the bowlers who bowled to him.
A simple rough calculation should give you the idea.
Bradman averaged 140 run per Test match. Australia probably lost around 14/15 wickets
per test match. This would mean that the first 9/10 (140 / 14 ~ 140/15) runs of a Bowlers average against Australia was purely down to Bradman. It is vertually impossible for a bowler to average 21 when one batsmen is taking 10 run's per wicket.
- There would be no effect on Australian Test Bowling Averages
- No effect on average on England~WI, England~India
- The bradman effect is going to be concentrated in the bowlers who
Also England generally did not pick its best bowlers for match's against WI or India, they saved them for Australia.
For the top England Bowlers, match's against Australia (and Bradman) represented the a very large percentage of there career.
Out of curiosity lets give Murali a test program similar to a bowler in the 30s. As Murali played for a traditional weakling side lets do him a favour and give him the same no of tests as a particular South Africa bowler of the era. That would be 16 tests. 14 of those would have been played against the 2 strongest opponents. Only 2 would have been played against a so called minnow.
The 2 strongest opponents Murali played against were Australia and India. A comparable lesser side would be NZ. To make the comparison as consistent as possible the tests against Australia are all in Australia. Therefore if Murali was playing a 30s test program his stats would be:
v Aus. 12 wkts for 905 runs. Ave 75.41 (raised eyebrows) 5 tests
v India. 43 wkts for 1402 runs. Ave 32.61 (hmmm) 9 tests
v NZ. 12 wkts for 258 runs. Ave 21.53 (go get em Murali!) 2 tests.
Overall test program for Murali:
67 wkts for 2565 runs. Ave 38.28 ( :) )
You would then get a certain dimwit on this thread linking to cricinfo to prove what a rotten bowler he is :)
Now all of this is assuming that Murali would get a game if the rules were applied to all players instead of being bent for the benefit of one of them.