Bradman vs The others

[a massive zebra]

My estimate is a rather more parsimonious 72.63, but there you go.

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?

72.63 is roughly what Hayden has been averaging since 2001. Surely there is a huge gap between these two.

[a massive zebra]

...which is considerably less than 99.

Yes but if you are averaging over 50 you have hardly been 'seriously troubled', which was the point I was making.

[PY]

You'll no doubt be able to explain that, given that Bradman played in the era of the flattest tracks ever known, under an lbw Law which favoured the batsman outrageously, with fielding standards abysmal by today's standard, and in front of smaller stumps.

An imposter!!!

Where's the real "Cheers, Mike" ?

Why were they the flattest? I was under the impression that they were uncovered and this created huge problems for batsman?

Plus, the fact that averages in that era were better than they are now could be put down to a number of facts, not just that the pitches were flat. Granted you can't really use anything else as a comparision because of the timespan but to use averages would IMO be wrong as it has so many inaccuracies ie. ball used, bats and equipment in general.

I think Chicane has a point that things are a lot easier in one sense for batsman nowadays purely because they don't really have to fear for their life like batsman of yesteryear did.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I seriously doubt Warne would have troubled him considering Tendulkar utterly humiliated Warne most times they faced eachother. Bradman himself admitted that Tendulkar played in a similar manner to the Don, but the Australian had a hugely superior record which suggests he may have been an upgraded Tendulkar.

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.

Who would trouble him? I'd say Wasim in his prime with heavy cloud cover at Perth.

[a massive zebra]

Some amazing Don Bradman Stats


............................... M I NO Runs HS Avge 100s 50s
Record in matches won 30 43 6 4813 299* 130.08 23 4
Next best - Inzamam... 40 62 12 3785 329 75.70 14 14

6 200s in 3 consecutive series (3 against England in 1930, 1 against West Indies in1930/31, 2 against South Africa in 1931/32). No one else has more than 3 200s in 3 consecutive series.

............................... 200s/Matches/Matches per 200
Bradman.................... 12/52/4.33
Hammond................... 7/85/12.14
Lara.......................... 7/106/15.14
Javed Miandad............ 6/124/20.66
MS Atapattu.............. 5/71/14.20
R Dravid..................... 5/78/15.50
Zaheer Abbas............. 4/78/19.50
L Hutton..................... 4/79/19.75
GS Chappell................ 4/87/21.75
CG Greenidge.............. 4/108/27.00
SM Gavaskar............... 4/125/31.25

[a massive zebra]

As has been mentioned before, Bradman seldom truly had his expertise at playing spin tested.

So O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity were poor were they?

[badgerhair]

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?

72.63 is roughly what Hayden has been averaging since 2001. Surely there is a huge gap between these two.

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.

Also, Bradman's average was partly inflated because there was an enormous amount of time available for him to score his runs, a big difference from today. Tests in Australia were timeless, and in England a four-day Test match could quite happily accommodate 500 overs. Today's restrictions would require him to declare on 175* rather than go on to 300 more often than not.

The lesser players you mention would not have had to cap their scoring to anything like the same extent, so their averages would be coreespondingly less affected.

Cheers,

Mike

[Langeveldt]

Im not sure of the standard of quick bowling in the 1930's... When watching old footage it looks distinctly poor... Maybe thats a product of the old footage or me being cynical...

Anyway, if he had been given a modern cricket bat, and put up in front of todays Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis, he would be averaging about 145....

[chicane]

145

Why couldn't you just add five more?

[a massive zebra]

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.

Also, Bradman's average was partly inflated because there was an enormous amount of time available for him to score his runs, a big difference from today. Tests in Australia were timeless, and in England a four-day Test match could quite happily accommodate 500 overs. Today's restrictions would require him to declare on 175* rather than go on to 300 more often than not.

The lesser players you mention would not have had to cap their scoring to anything like the same extent, so their averages would be coreespondingly less affected.

Cheers,

Mike

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.

[a massive zebra]

Anyway, if he had been given a modern cricket bat, and put up in front of todays Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis, he would be averaging about 145....

Well he averaged 201 against South Africa and 178 against India. They were probably no worse than the current Zimbabweans or Bangladeshis, so it would probably exceed 145.

[Langeveldt]

Why couldn't you just add five more?

I could probably add about 30 more

[a massive zebra]

Im not sure of the standard of quick bowling in the 1930's... When watching old footage it looks distinctly poor... Maybe thats a product of the old footage or me being cynical...

Yeah Bill Bowes looks very unthreatening but had a very good Test record.

On the other hand Larwood looks seriously FAST and not as wayward as the likes of Harmison, yet Harmison has a better record.

It goes both ways really.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity were poor were they?

My mistake. I forgot about the great Indian bowlers - Akash O'Reilly, Avinash Grimmett and Narsingh Verity.

They didn't exactly bowl to him on the subcontinent, did they?

[chicane]

The Indian spin quartet of Bedi, Prasanna, Chandrasekhar and Venkat might've tested him.