Ok. I guess I just disagree with the extent of his clear domination. I've been looking at fc averages of players btwn the 1865-94 period. To me Shrewsbury is close to Grace's 40 ave. Daft at 26 ave over the same period is not bad either. I would imagine their standardised averages would be very high too.
"Grace's 40 ave"
Bradman never played in SC, and we have seen many greats brought down on their knees by the conditions. And, SL had Murali and NZ had Hadlee, easily better than what ever Bradman faced during his test career. The India / SAF / WI Bradman faced were minnows or just above them. At best like Zimbabwe of 90s.
I've kind of have I think. The 40 ave is up to 1894. After that it was a still respectable 35.
No. It's far more difficult to get 99 than 65 in today's era. Maybe Bradman would average 65-70 and maybe batsmen who average 50 80 years back would average 42 or so today. That doesn't make them poor players. Some one who averaged 55 would probably still average 45 say which wouldn't make them bad players.
SC was a very different place in the day. Ironically SA pitches were slower or turned more. Been thru the minnow/amateur nonsense before. You have no idea what kind of bowling Bradman faced and are really an example of what I said earlier about the sort of person who just subjectively throws names around bcos you can't admit eras past have class acts too. For eg would you rate Murali a great if he played say only 20 odd tests? Or Hadlee if he played less than 10? What about Donald if he only played btwn 15 or 20 games?
Not really. Windies team was so good that they would still beat almost all teams of the last twenty thirty years.
So why not Bradman then?
If Bradman averaged 70 in the 90s, it wouldn't just be good, it would be mindblowingly amazing.
Who is saying he wouldn't? Neil Harvey was am asute student of the game I believe and he watched Bradman and Tendulkar both. He though t Bradman was easily better. We don't have any tji g to go by to suggest Bradman wouldn't boss today's cricket. I think he would too.
But you yourself said, that the game standard improves significantly every 20 to 30 years. So that means the 83 Windies team was playing cricket at a significantly lower standard (32 years back, right?).
I said it improves every 20-30 years. By how much is subjective.
What do you think Tendulkar would've averaged in the 30s and 40s against guys like Johnson, Johnston and Bedser considering his well known weird issues against slow-medium paced bowling? Avergae would've taken a hit imo.
But essentially Windies of 83 and Aussies of 75-76 were playing lower standard of cricket than today, right? Then how can the Windies of 83 have a chance against today's teams?
The cricketing community as a whole. So the awesomeness of WI gets diluted in the direness of India during that time.
Just forget SRT. Think how SRT, Lara and Ponting would have done in each situation.
That's interesting. Modern players would average more than they do today as long as they didn't have issues playing without helmets. They are professionals today while they were amateurs in the 30s and 40s. Tendulkar 10-20% more.