Amazing Bradman Fact

[silentstriker]

I always find it interesting that certain people manage to describe the pitches as flat roads when I'm talking about great batters, and deathbeds when I'm talking about great bowlers, implying that they're only good because of the surface, very interesting..................

If you look at the pitches, you will see that although overall the pitches were harder to bat on back then, the averages in the fourth innings weren't so different.

PS. If you're talking about me, I always rate the batting higher from that era and the bowling lower.

 

[shortpitched713]

If your talking about Bradman's era, from what I've heard pitches at that time were flatter than the era directly preceding it and comig after it. I'm not trying to knock Bradman or anything, but I'm just saying that universally rating batsmen from earlier on as better than the ones in more modern times because they "batted on minefields" is not really accurate, and a bit of a superficial analysis.

 

[Burgey]

Love to hear Hobbs' name mentioned. What a player he must have been - he and Sutcliffe still the best opening pair ever imo, especially on dodgy wickets.

 

[silentstriker]

Love to hear Hobbs' name mentioned. What a player he must have been - he and Sutcliffe still the best opening pair ever imo, especially on dodgy wickets.

Hobbs would be the #1 opener easily in any all time side. The guy to partner him is close between Sutcliffe, Gavaskar and Barry Richards.

 

[The Sean]

Love to hear Hobbs' name mentioned. What a player he must have been - he and Sutcliffe still the best opening pair ever imo, especially on dodgy wickets.

Absolutely - and to maintain his form so far into his 40s, bridging WWI, is quite an effort. By all accounts a true gentleman too - one of those rare players you never read a bad word about. My number 1 opener of all time, and personally my no.2 ranked batsman overall after The Don.

As for Hobbs-Sutcliffe - they opened together 37 times in Tests, and had 15 century opening stands. That's ridiculous.

 

[silentstriker]

Absolutely - and to maintain his form so far into his 40s, bridging WWI, is quite an effort. By all accounts a true gentleman too - one of those rare players you never read a bad word about. My number 1 opener of all time, and personally my no.2 ranked batsman overall after The Don.

#1 opener for me, but I rate him slightly below Sobers as a batsman.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Something quasi unrelated:

England batting and bowling average by Era:

Era             Batting	Bowling
Pre-1919	25.1	22.1
1919-1945	36.6	31
1945-160	31.4	27.6
1960-1980	34.4	30.1
1980-2000	30.1	35.5
2000-2006	34.7	33.2

What is so amazing to me is that all of the eras are very similar in terms of averages (within 5 of each other). With the exception of the pre-1919, which we all agree was a markedly different game, cricket has changed and yet remained the same in many ways.

Yet you can't rate Trumper who averaged 40 in the 25-averaging era...

 

[silentstriker]

Yet you can't rate Trumper who averaged 40 in the 25-averaging era...

No, among his contemporaries, he does not stand out as a lot of the others do.

 

[The Sean]

No, among his contemporaries, he does not stand out as a lot of the others do.

There are only a couple from that era who played a significant amount of cricket with a higher average. His relative average - near the top of his contemporaries but bettered by a few, is pretty similar to Tendulkar's in this era.

Note: I'm NOT saying Trumper is greater than Tendulkar!

 

[adharcric]

Hobbs would be the #1 opener easily in any all time side. The guy to partner him is close between Sutcliffe, Gavaskar and Barry Richards.

Hutton certainly belongs in there as well. Interesting that you rate Richards as one of the top four openers ever and haven't voted for him in the Ranking the Batsmen thread.

 

[silentstriker]

Hutton certainly belongs in that list as well. Interesting that you rate Richards as one of the top four openers ever and haven't voted for him in the Ranking the Batsmen thread.

He didn't play test cricket that much, so regardless of how I rate him, I wouldn't pick him in my all time side nor vote for him in these contests.

Same boat as Vijay Merchant really.

 

[adharcric]

He didn't play test cricket that much, so regardless of how I rate him, I wouldn't pick him in my all time side nor vote for him in these contests.

Same boat as Vijay Merchant really.

Then surely you didn't actually intend to include him in the contenders to partner Hobbs in an all-time XI?

 

[silentstriker]

Then surely you didn't actually intend to include him in the contenders to partner Hobbs in an all-time XI?

No, as I said I would never actually pick him, but he would be close on talent. So would Merchant for that matter.