Bradman vs The others

[roseboy64]

In terms of batting strength lacking i meant the West Indie sof the 30's when Headley played.Sorry about that retirement stuff about Bradman.

 

[PY]

I just noticed it was shy of a few specialist batsman.

Why did Pedro Collins go in above Holder in the first innings? Nightwatchman?

 

[a massive zebra]

In terms of batting strength lacking i meant the West Indie sof the 30's when Headley played.

Yes thats very true but you cannot accuse me of underrating Headley because I rate him as the best West Indian batsman ever and would pick him at number 3 in my all time West Indies team. A comparison with Bradman seems a little excessive, however, when you consider he scored around 40 runs per innings less and their careers were interlinked.

 

[marc71178]

Larwood did not manage to take 40 wickets in six Tests, nor take seven wickets for 12 runs in an innings because he did not have the opportunity to play a team as weak as the current West Indies side.

Weak side?

It contains the likes of Lara, Sarwan, Gayle, Chanderpaul - and that's weak?!

 

[roseboy64]

True but Headley played on worse pitches sometimes than Bradman had to play on.He still made pretty good runs on them though.Bradman wasn't really tested on bad pitches was he?

 

[roseboy64]

It's weak because they're inconsistent.Even Lara too falls into that batch but just barely.Chanderpaul too.

 

[a massive zebra]

Weak side?

It contains the likes of Lara, Sarwan, Gayle, Chanderpaul - and that's weak?!

Who might have good records but have been proven to be very weak on bouncing wickets. Australia did the same to them in 1998/99.

 

[roseboy64]

Exactly.

 

[a massive zebra]

True but Headley played on worse pitches sometimes than Bradman had to play on.He still made pretty good runs on them though.Bradman wasn't really tested on bad pitches was he?

Well he did play on a few wet wickets but failed on them. I believe Bradman averaged about 20 on wet wickets and Headley was about 39. So fair point.

You cannot really hold that against him when comparisons with modern players are made, because you do not know how they would have fared on such wickets.

 

[marc71178]

It's weak because they're inconsistent.Even Lara too falls into that batch but just barely.Chanderpaul too.

Inconsistent yet still averaging well into the 40's...

 

[roseboy64]

Well he did play on a few wet wickets but failed on them. I believe Bradman averaged about 20 on wet wickets and Headley was about 39. So fair point.

You cannot really hold that against him when comparisons with modern players are made, because you do not know how they would have fared on such wickets.

What do you mean by modern players?Graeme Pollock?He's the most modern player i've mentioned in relation to Bradman.

 

[a massive zebra]

What do you mean by modern players?Graeme Pollock?He's the most modern player i've mentioned in relation to Bradman.

Modern players in general since the imposition of covered wickets. It was not aimed squarely at Mr R.G. Pollock.

 

[a massive zebra]

Will it still be an insult to the Australian if Harmison's record after 40 Tests is still better than McGrath's was after 40? At what point will it stop being an insult to the Australian to point out that Harmison's record is superior and start becoming an insult to Harmison?

anythings possible with a helping of ignorance and a side of retardation.

 

[badgerhair]

Im not saying that Harmison is awful, im saying that you must be mad to compare two all-time greats (McGrath and Larwood) with a decent but erratic bowler who took advantage of a dreadful team.

Holding has probably only seen Harmison in the West Indies, and not at his normal wayward self. Even so, im sure he has the sense to place him several leagues below the likes of McGrath and Larwood.

In the next post you will probably we proclaiming Harmison 'the best bowler ever' on the basis that no one has even taken a 7-for so cheaply in Tests.

I am certainly not going to say that Harmison is the best bowler ever. Yet. He'll have to prove it first.

My basic point is that I don't accept this "normal wayward self" bit at all. He has not been "wayward" since the second innings at The Oval last year. At least, not for more than a couple of overs - and *every* bowler has had matches where they've bowled rather badly for a couple of overs.

At Lord's this weekend he wasn't wayward after those first two overs on day one. He may not have been all that threatening most of the time, but he is reported to have thought he bowled rather poorly. One of the tihngs about great bowlers, though, is thet even when they're not bowling well, they come up with the odd devastating spell - as Harmison did on the morning of day 2, and arguably on the afternoon of day four, when he was keeping pretty good control while bowling at 91mph.

If you are going to call his previous record into the argument, then I will have to point out that McGrath was just as wayward in his early Test matches, which is reflected in his early-Harmisonian record to that point.

Nobody has bowled as well for England as Harmison has in his last seven Tests since Bob Willis was in his pomp - and if Harmison only turns out as well as Willis did, we won't have done badly.

Some figures after 17 Tests. The PI is my own invention, being the square root of the average * strike rate, ie sqrt((Balls/wicket)*(runs/wicket)). It's pretty good at rating attacking effectiveness, with 42 being just Test class, 36 being very good, and 30 being world class (by examination of how things worked over all Tests in the 1990s).

W A SR PI

JN Gillespie 68 20.22 39.71 28.33
IT Botham 87 18.68 43.93 28.65
FH Tyson 76 18.56 45.42 29.03
Waqar Younis 80 20.92 41.11 29.32
FS Trueman 81 21.12 44.52 30.66
J Garner 89 19.64 49.16 31.07
IR Bishop 82 20.09 49.29 31.47
CA Walsh 71 21.58 47.27 31.94
AME Roberts 87 22.79 49.40 33.55
CEH Croft 81 23.74 48.11 33.80
MA Holding 76 22.90 50.05 33.85
JR Thomson 80 25.30 48.75 35.02
SJ Harmison 72 24.43 51.36 35.42
SM Pollock 58 23.39 56.38 36.31
DK Lillee 76 24.03 58.17 37.39
AA Donald 75 26.37 53.35 37.50
D Gough 69 27.39 53.18 38.17
JA Snow 74 26.89 57.78 39.41
ARC Fraser 75 25.62 62.11 39.89
DG Cork 71 29.43 56.97 40.95
CEL Ambrose 60 27.35 61.58 41.03
MD Marshall 55 28.83 59.36 41.37
Wasim Akram 53 26.83 64.00 41.44
GD McGrath 64 28.68 60.97 41.82
RGD Willis 55 29.67 59.55 42.03
JB Statham 42 28.07 69.00 44.01
AR Caddick 61 32.88 63.97 45.86
H Larwood 55 30.76 71.65 46.94
Imran Khan 70 33.32 67.74 47.51
NA Foster 48 33.77 70.45 48.84
DE Malcolm 59 37.42 69.03 50.82
J Srinath 46 35.08 80.35 53.09

(I'm sorry I have no idea how to get this awful editor to do a useful fixed pitch font with tabs)

It seems to me that Harmison is keeping some rather good company at his level in the table, and avoiding some rather bad company lower down. Lol's lowly position can be explained by over-exposure to the Don in an era when Tests were far less frequent affairs.

Face it. Harmison is well on course to be a great bowler.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

Some figures after 17 Tests. The PI is my own invention, being the square root of the average * strike rate, ie sqrt((Balls/wicket)*(runs/wicket)). It's pretty good at rating attacking effectiveness, with 42 being just Test class, 36 being very good, and 30 being world class (by examination of how things worked over all Tests in the 1990s).

W A SR PI

JN Gillespie 68 20.22 39.71 28.33
IT Botham 87 18.68 43.93 28.65
FH Tyson 76 18.56 45.42 29.03
Waqar Younis 80 20.92 41.11 29.32
FS Trueman 81 21.12 44.52 30.66
J Garner 89 19.64 49.16 31.07
IR Bishop 82 20.09 49.29 31.47
CA Walsh 71 21.58 47.27 31.94
AME Roberts 87 22.79 49.40 33.55
CEH Croft 81 23.74 48.11 33.80
MA Holding 76 22.90 50.05 33.85
JR Thomson 80 25.30 48.75 35.02
SJ Harmison 72 24.43 51.36 35.42
SM Pollock 58 23.39 56.38 36.31
DK Lillee 76 24.03 58.17 37.39
AA Donald 75 26.37 53.35 37.50
D Gough 69 27.39 53.18 38.17
JA Snow 74 26.89 57.78 39.41
ARC Fraser 75 25.62 62.11 39.89
DG Cork 71 29.43 56.97 40.95
CEL Ambrose 60 27.35 61.58 41.03
MD Marshall 55 28.83 59.36 41.37
Wasim Akram 53 26.83 64.00 41.44
GD McGrath 64 28.68 60.97 41.82
RGD Willis 55 29.67 59.55 42.03
JB Statham 42 28.07 69.00 44.01
AR Caddick 61 32.88 63.97 45.86
H Larwood 55 30.76 71.65 46.94
Imran Khan 70 33.32 67.74 47.51
NA Foster 48 33.77 70.45 48.84
DE Malcolm 59 37.42 69.03 50.82
J Srinath 46 35.08 80.35 53.09

Those ratings are rather random. They suggest that Gillespie and Botham are the best bowlers ever, that Ambrose, Marshall, Akram, McGrath and Imran are nothing special and all worse than Harmison, Fraser and Thomson.

I would be interested to know the ratings for SF Barnes and Muralitharan, who I consider to be the two best bowlers ever.

 

[a massive zebra]

Face it. Harmison is well on course to be a great bowler.

Face it. Harmison has had 3 good games against a poor team that cannot play on bouncy wickets and you are jumping to a conclusion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Face it. Harmison has had 3 good games against a poor team that cannot play on bouncy wickets and you are jumping to a conclusion.

A batting lineup with Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Devon Smith is not exactly poor and also, Harmison hasn't been too bad in the Tests before and after that series (not counting Bangladesh).

 

[a massive zebra]

A batting lineup with Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Devon Smith is not exactly poor.

It is on bouncy wickets. Australia did the same to you in 1998/99.

Devon Smith does not have a good enough defence to succeed consistently at Test level.

Harmison hasn't been too bad in the Tests before and after that series (not counting Bangladesh).

He's done nothing special in the Tests before and after that series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who might have good records but have been proven to be very weak on bouncing wickets. Australia did the same to them in 1998/99.

Brian Lara has played well on all sorts of wickets around the world. It's ridiculous to suggest that he's so weak on a bouncy wicket that a poor bowler could get him out.

 

[a massive zebra]

Brian Lara has played well on all sorts of wickets around the world. It's ridiculous to suggest that he's so weak on a bouncy wicket that a poor bowler could get him out.

He has struggled on the pacey bouncy wickets at times along with all the West Indians, and there is more to a team than one individual.