About the flattest tracks ever known - well I thought back then pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher.badgerhair said:
In the 19th century pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher. They had vastly improved by Bradman's time but were no better than now and you must also remember that he played on uncovered wickets which can be unplayable and bring averages down tremendously.chicane said:
Fair enough.chicane said:
You thought wrong, then. Batting averages were higher season by season in the 1930s than at any time in history - although it's fair to say that there has been a distinct swing back towards those kinds of figures in very recent years.chicane said:
Since the outfields of the 1930s were by no means slow, you can't use today's very similar outfields to cancel out the fielding standards.
How? The only time when the ball dominated the bat was in 1932-33, when England on some occasions bowled as many as three or four chest-high rib-ticklers in an over, helped out by a vast leg-side cordon. The leg-side field has been outlawed, not because of Bodyline because everyone eschewed the bouncer for decades afterwards, but because medium-pacers still spent their time plugging a leg-side line with a leg trap until the mid-50s.
Amazing. You've finally said something true.
So uneven wickets didn't make batting tougher? At least today's flat batting tracks have even bounce. And weren't outfields then far more uneven? Which should make them slower. But coming to think of it that doesn't outright cancel out with today's fielding standards.badgerhair said:
Well the two bouncers an over restriction does limit what the bowler can do especially against tailenders. Besides having hugely better protective gear, the batsmen can more or less predict when the bowler is gunning for his head, a major advantage is it not? And most cricket pundits believe bowling standards have also deteriorated off late. Look my knowledge of those times is limited so you are actually giving me a history lesson (and i'm grateful).badgerhair said:
Cheers!badgerhair said:
But the wickets in the 30s were not uneven. They were similar to today. Go back to the 19th century for uneven wickets.chicane said:
They would have done, had there been any in the 1930s, which there weren't. As I said earlier, the wickets in the 1930s were the flattest imaginable. The major grounds' pitches were laid in the late 19th century, and they hadn't been dug up or anything in forty years. They had just been rolled and rolled and rolled for decades, and were shirtfronts and featherbeds.chicane said:
Again, you appear to be confusing the 1930s with the 1890s. Pitches in the 1930s were flatter, had more even bounce, and had faster outfields (except when it rained) than we do today, although conditions today are fast approaching the batting paradise of 70 years ago.
Look, in the 1930s, bouncers didn't *get* head-high, with the possible exception of Larwood's, but he was easily the fastest bowler in the world by some considerable distance. Nobody else was fast enough to get that much bounce out of a 30s featherbed, and anyway It Was Not Done because it was against the spirit of the game as understood back then. The great outrage against the pampered life of the amateur batsman (compared to the professional bowler) was called *Body*line because it was aimed at the ribs and body - and there are no restrictions on chest-high short deliveries in Test cricket even today.
Average scores this century have been just as high as they were in the 30s. Conditions are about as favourable now as they were then.badgerhair said:
Thats correct. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, Larwood, Martindale. Thats about it.badgerhair said:
True, Bradman would have a Test average of roughly 84.32 if he played today.badgerhair said:
Nearly. But there are more countries playing, which has brought somewhat wider variation - remmeber that there was very little Test cricket outside England, Australia and South Africa, and Bradman didn't play any.a massive zebra said:
You've left out Kumble. But you can hardly call the retirements of Tate, Gregory and Macdonald comparable with the disappearance of Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar, not to mention the likes of Gough, Caddick and the old Chris Cairns, nor can you point at Ken Farnes and say he was comparable to the new generation of Edwards, Harmison, Irfan, Best, Jones, Sami and Anderson, plus any stragglers the Aussies care to dig up.
My estimate is a rather more parsimonious 72.63, but there you go.
...which is considerably less than 99.a massive zebra said:
Thats almost 30 runs off his career average, or almost a third, far too much in my view. Do you seriously think McCabe would only have averaged 32 if he played today (his average minus a third) or Sutcliffe about 40?badgerhair said:
Yes but if you are averaging over 50 you have hardly been 'seriously troubled', which was the point I was making.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
An imposter!!!badgerhair said:
The best batsmen tend to have had few troubles with Warne (and Murali) but those batsmen are experts at playing spin. As has been mentioned before, Bradman seldom truly had his expertise at playing spin tested.a massive zebra said:
So O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity were poor were they?Mr Mxyzptlk said:
If Hayden manages to average 72.63 over his whole career, lasting until at least 2012, then you will be able to make that comparison. That Hayden has been batting at Bradmanesque levels for three years is by no means unreasonable as an assertion.a massive zebra said:
That did not happen though. Bradman only made 300 twice and an innings of 175* would have done more for his average than an innings of 254, which was not untypical for him.badgerhair said:
