Chunk of career vs whole career

[CricAddict]

If someone has a stretch of 52 tests averaging greater than Bradman but performs badly on either side of it and plays around 150 tests or so, will you rate the guy a better batsman than Bradman?

The question came from another thread where Bumrah has achieved better in 40 tests what Laker has done over his whole career already but there is a chance he might get bad after this. So, will you rate Bumrah better than Laker or worse if he got worse in his tests after this?

 

[capt_Luffy]

If someone has a stretch of 52 tests averaging greater than Bradman but performs badly on either side of it and plays around 150 tests or so, will you rate the guy a better batsman than Bradman?

The question came from another thread where Bumrah has achieved better in 40 tests what Laker has done over his whole career already but there is a chance he might get bad after this. So, will you rate Bumrah better than Laker or worse if he got worse in his tests after this?

I think the important question here is, how much worse we are talking about? If Bumrah plays 60 more Tests or so, and averages around 25 in them, then probably yes. If he averages 35; then no. As for the Bradman comparison, he didn't maintained that average for only 52 Tests, but close to 20 years. If a batsman has a magnificent 5 year peak, plays around 50 Test and pulls @100; then goes on to play 100 more Tests for 10 more years @45; he probably is the 2nd Greatest batsman. But Bradman pulled those numbers over a significantly larger period, and maintained those highs in FC as well. Laker though didn't exactly have that upper hand over Bumrah for missing too many matches.

 

[subshakerz]

If someone has a stretch of 52 tests averaging greater than Bradman but performs badly on either side of it and plays around 150 tests or so, will you rate the guy a better batsman than Bradman?

The question came from another thread where Bumrah has achieved better in 40 tests what Laker has done over his whole career already but there is a chance he might get bad after this. So, will you rate Bumrah better than Laker or worse if he got worse in his tests after this?

How much better than Bradman? Otherwise no.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If someone has a stretch of 52 tests averaging greater than Bradman but performs badly on either side of it and plays around 150 tests or so, will you rate the guy a better batsman than Bradman?

Lot of questions here. Main one being are the 52 tests spread across a long period of time. If they're spread across 10-12 years (at least) then maybe?

If it's 52 tests spammed in like 5 years then no. Can't compare two chunks of vastly different timespans like that. Part of what makes Bradman's test average (and FC average of 95) remarkable is that it took him maintaining that level of output for two decades.

 

[howitzer]

Lot of questions here. Main one being are the 52 tests spread across a long period of time. If they're spread across 10-12 years (at least) then maybe?

If it's 52 tests spammed in like 5 years then no. Can't compare two chunks of vastly different timespans like that. Part of what makes Bradman's test average (and FC average of 95) remarkable is that it took him maintaining that level of output for two decades.

Also needs a player to be available for a good majority of the Tests his side plays over that time frame. Can't have a player who is injured half the time being given full longevity for that time frame.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah longevity in years rather than tests is a better measure when comparing players across eras.

 

[number11]

I think it's best to take a player in their prime - 5 years is fine - and compare each man at his best. The overall record is a different debate.

I also think only limited direct comparison can be made between players in the uncovered era and those in the modern covered era.