How successful would 'The Don' be if he was playing in the current era?

[Steulen]

Who is to say he couldnt have averaged 120?

He could have. Thing is, you could debate this into the next ice age and you still wouldn't know. I am a firm believer in trying to build a statistical model that incorporates as much relevant data as you can find and treat the outcome as the most likely indicator of what would have been. You'll never know for sure, but you can always come up with an educated guess.

SJS's data so far support the notion that Bradman's average, were he playing in this era, would be lower than 99.94, because the field has levelled out, reflected in a lower sd for batting averages. That's all.

 

[Richard]

I think Bradman would have been a Good but not a exellent batsman in this era. Sure bradman faced class bowlers in the English team...other than that he faced Average bowlers. Considering players like Walsh, Akram, Ambrose, Akthar and Donald i think these players are much better than Larwood back then.

I don't see any evidence to assume that.

Also take the spinners who played for the last ten or so years like Murali, Saqlain, Kumble . these guys cannot be even compared to the spinners back then.

Why not?
Have you watched how much the ball could turn back then?
Pitches on which bowlers like Ashley Giles and Robert Croft would turn the ball miles were not uncommon at all.
And there were spinners for whom there is evidence that they were far better than Kumble and Saqlain, such as Grimmett and O'Reilly.

This is another classic case of what-I-know-must-be-best.

 

[Steulen]

Have you read my attempt to show why that's not the case?

Yes I have. I'm struggling to accept it, though, but that's purely based on a gut feeling that differences between countries will be bigger than differences within countries. I can't quantify this.
What can be quantified is the distribution of batting averages, and so far SJS's data show that these were more spread out in Bradman's era than the current era. That does support my argument a bit.

 

[Richard]

A great player in one era will be a great player in another.

Except, IMO, in the case of fingerspinners.
Fingerspinners can no longer be great in the way they were in the 1960s and before.
Of course, they've still got a shot if they're from the subcontinent.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I honestly dont understand what the standard deviation will show but since I have the figures, here are the standard deviations for each era for whatever its worth

Bradman Era 19.58
Hobbs Era 15.51
Sobers Era 14.57
Lara Era 14.62
Richards Era 13.8
Trumper Era 12.11

I think it may be more interesting to see how the batsmen of the era were fairing since the averages include the bowlers also.

What are the Z-scores?

 

[Richard]

Yes I have. I'm struggling to accept it, though, but that's purely based on a gut feeling that differences between countries will be bigger than differences within countries. I can't quantify this.

That's the problem with gut-feelings.
Taking a look at some of the pitches (and where possible how they played) in the 1930s and 40s is interesting!
If there were ever two pitches that resembled each other in the way so many do at present I'll eat my computer.
Pitch-preparation was a primative science compared to how it is now. Not to mention covering.

 

[Pratters]

SJS's data so far support the notion that Bradman's average, were he playing in this era, would be lower than 99.94, because the field has levelled out, reflected in a lower sd for batting averages. That's all.

The average batting average is more or less the same during the era of Bradman as it is today. So it seems.

If you consider the easy runs that can be had today against the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, not to mention batting conditions in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the batting is simpler today. So the batting standard seems to have declined despite the poorer bowling.

Bradman faced in Australia, England and South Africa where the wickets are far more difficult to bat on. I would take that into consideration before saying he has an inflated average.

And then playing round the clock in various contries as I hve earlier mentioned should reduce his average..

We can always debate it till the ice age.. It doesnt make sense. Bradman could have had an average of 70 or 120. There are too many suppositions to ever say his averae would definitely have been inflated or deflated.

 

[SJS]

To me, it still doesn't constitute proof. Sorry 'bout that.
Looking at the sd's, Bradman would have averaged in the 70's in the current era. But that's based on maybe not the correct pool of data. What these preliminary results show to me is that it is likely that Bradman's figures werre inflated, relative to greats of other era's, due to the context of his time.
He may very well be the best ever by far, but I would be a bad scientist if I took this at face value.

You dont HAVE to take it at face value.

But you cant just decide he wouldnt have been good enough.

There are those who have seen him and other greats. Read their accounts. These are some great cricket writers.

AA Thomson covered criket for sixty years from the 1910's to the 1960's. He saw all those I have mentioned in my analysis barring Richards and lara.


Benaud has seen Bradman and is still covering the game. There have been others in between. Its not as if we are talking of prehistoric days for us to think everything written about cricketers who played just fifty years ago is mythical. This shows a lack of sense of proportion .

I have taken these six batsmen and their careers just about touched each others. Trumper was playing his last few games when Hobbs started and so on right upto Lara. All these cricketers themselves have written about those who went before (whom they saw as well as played with) and those who followed them.

For us to discount all that these cricketers themselves have written about their seniors and juniors and assign to ourselves the authority to decide who was greater than whom with not a shred of visual evidence is the height arrogance as well as a display of ignorance.

The other day , someone said on this forum that Sobers was not as great a batsman as he is made out to be. I am amazed. At least in the case of Sobers plenty of footage is available of his innings, Forget the fact that so many have sen him, yours truly included. Have you ever bothered to get hold of a recording of one of his innings. they are available but not in much demand i suppose.

Even towards the end of his career he played one of the greatest innings of all time in Australia, smashing Lillee for a big double hundred. Of course, there are those who doubt that Lillee was one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time. Already !!

 

[Richard]

The regular specialist batsmen today average about the same as they did back then

Eh?
Have you looked at some run-of-mill batsmen back then?
All right, the best (Hammond, Ponsford et al) had similar averages to Ponting, Kallis etc. but that only suggests that they were far better than the batsmen of the current age.

 

[SJS]

If there were ever two pitches that resembled each other in the way so many do at present I'll eat my computer.
.

Hi Richard. Are you counting ? You are heading for indigestion

 

[SJS]

Eh?
Have you looked at some run-of-mill batsmen back then?
All right, the best (Hammond, Ponsford et al) had similar averages to Ponting, Kallis etc. but that only suggests that they were far better than the batsmen of the current age.

Also Hammond and Ponsford's averages are at the end of their careers. Kallis and Ponting are at their peak. These averages will drop.

 

[SJS]

Except, IMO, in the case of fingerspinners.
Fingerspinners can no longer be great in the way they were in the 1960s and before.
Of course, they've still got a shot if they're from the subcontinent.

I am not so sure Richard. The conventional wrist spinners we can talk of comes down to Warne and McGill. I personally feel, if Warne had a reaaly good googly and bowled a middle to off line as the old leg spinners did more often, he would have got many more wickets. I think by bowling a line on the leg stump, he has deprived himself of a major weapon. Leg spinners traditionally got a very large number of batsmen driving. This is not happening in his case.

McGill has a better line but hasn't Warne's control but his record is still pretty imposing.

Its interesting to see how stumpings have reduced over time as a proportion of dismissals. This has not just to do with fewer spinners but also the change in line that has come about with the tendency of spinners to try and be less expensive. There was a time about 20-25 years ago when spinners were being considered a luxury and expensive (the limited over game also affected the thinking) and around that time the spinners changed to bowling a more restrictive line.

 

[Richard]

I am not so sure Richard. The conventional wrist spinners we can talk of comes down to Warne and McGill. I personally feel, if Warne had a reaaly good googly and bowled a middle to off line as the old leg spinners did more often, he would have got many more wickets. I think by bowling a line on the leg stump, he has deprived himself of a major weapon. Leg spinners traditionally got a very large number of batsmen driving. This is not happening in his case.

McGill has a better line but hasn't Warne's control but his record is still pretty imposing.

Its interesting to see how stumpings have reduced over time as a proportion of dismissals. This has not just to do with fewer spinners but also the change in line that has come about with the tendency of spinners to try and be less expensive. There was a time about 20-25 years ago when spinners were being considered a luxury and expensive (the limited over game also affected the thinking) and around that time the spinners changed to bowling a more restrictive line.

This is all very interesting - certainly I agree with you about Warne, I think he could have got many more wickets than he has.
In a sense, the "conventional" wristspinner has never been a good bowler - he has been someone like MacGill, who will turn-in the odd match-winning performance but by-and-large will be too expensive (and cost too many games) to be really considered a Test-class bowler.
There have only ever been a few genuine Test-class wristspinners that I've heard of (obviously, your scope is far larger than mine and you might like to add to my list), those being Barnes, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Abdul, Warne and Muralitharan (Kumble for most of his career spun with as much his fingers as his wrists). Mushtaq's career, sadly, declined after 1997, otherwise he'd have been part of the list, too. Danish Kaneria could well be added in a few years' time.
All were special because they could control wristspin the way most are unable to.
My original post, though, you might notice, related to [bi]fingerspinners[/b]. In the age of uncovered wickets, pitches that helped fingerspin were commonplace anywhere in The World you wanted to go, but most especially in England, where it rained (and still does) more than anywhere else.
Nowadays, the only places where fingerspin-friendly wickets occur regularly enough to help a bowler be of use to a team are in the subcontinent. So it's no real surprise that most success for fingerspinners nowadays occurs in the subcontinent. And that the bowlers who play regularly there (ie are Indian or Sri Lankan especially) are those who are most worth their places, and have the best averages.
However, someone playing most of their cricket in the rest of The World will invariably struggle to bowl fingerspin effectively, because most places don't produce sufficient turning pitches to make them useful.

 

[SJS]

This is all very interesting - certainly I agree with you about Warne, I think he could have got many more wickets than he has.
In a sense, the "conventional" wristspinner has never been a good bowler - he has been someone like MacGill, who will turn-in the odd match-winning performance but by-and-large will be too expensive (and cost too many games) to be really considered a Test-class bowler.
There have only ever been a few genuine Test-class wristspinners that I've heard of (obviously, your scope is far larger than mine and you might like to add to my list), those being Barnes, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Abdul, Warne and Muralitharan (Kumble for most of his career spun with as much his fingers as his wrists). Mushtaq's career, sadly, declined after 1997, otherwise he'd have been part of the list, too. Danish Kaneria could well be added in a few years' time.
All were special because they could control wristspin the way most are unable to.
My original post, though, you might notice, related to [bi]fingerspinners[/b]. In the age of uncovered wickets, pitches that helped fingerspin were commonplace anywhere in The World you wanted to go, but most especially in England, where it rained (and still does) more than anywhere else.
Nowadays, the only places where fingerspin-friendly wickets occur regularly enough to help a bowler be of use to a team are in the subcontinent. So it's no real surprise that most success for fingerspinners nowadays occurs in the subcontinent. And that the bowlers who play regularly there (ie are Indian or Sri Lankan especially) are those who are most worth their places, and have the best averages.
However, someone playing most of their cricket in the rest of The World will invariably struggle to bowl fingerspin effectively, because most places don't produce sufficient turning pitches to make them useful.

I agree with much of what you say. But firstly, when I am talking wrist spin I am refering ro legspinners and when I say conventional I rule out Kumble Chandra shekhar and the like.

Actually, wrist spin by its very nature, obtains turn from most surfaces. The additional venom that it thrives on is bounce and speed off the track as it turns. Thats why Australia and South Africa in an earlier era, produced so many wrist spinners. The softer, wet tracks of England are more suitable for the finger spinners who rely on the 'grip' on the surface. So more off spinners and left arm spinners from the Old Blighty.

Of course, once you have mastered the art, like Grimmett or Benaud, then any surface will be good enough for you to do a reasonable job but its the initial period when a budding wrist spinner will give up if not successful, that was more available in Australia and South Africa.

Its a difficult art to master with control being much easier in the case of finger spin, so naturally more youngsters take to the latter. The changing nature of wickets, worldwide is not a great motivator for finger spinners.

In India, many smaller clubs stilll play on mattings and this is what brings the leg spinner so much more reward in India in their early phase and encourages them to continue. I will not be surprised if the same is true for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Matting surfaces are much easier and cheaper to maintain for the hand to mouth financial condition of all but the top most clubs in South Asia.

 

[Richard]

I agree with much of what you say. But firstly, when I am talking wrist spin I am refering ro legspinners and when I say conventional I rule out Kumble Chandra shekhar and the like.

Actually, wrist spin by its very nature, obtains turn from most surfaces. The additional venom that it thrives on is bounce and speed off the track as it turns. Thats why Australia and South Africa in an earlier era, produced so many wrist spinners. The softer, wet tracks of England are more suitable for the finger spinners who rely on the 'grip' on the surface. So more off spinners and left arm spinners from the Old Blighty.

Of course, once you have mastered the art, like Grimmett or Benaud, then any surface will be good enough for you to do a reasonable job but its the initial period when a budding wrist spinner will give up if not successful, that was more available in Australia and South Africa.

Its a difficult art to master with control being much easier in the case of finger spin, so naturally more youngsters take to the latter. The changing nature of wickets, worldwide is not a great motivator for finger spinners.

Yeah, I know all of this - you don't have to give me a lesson on The History And Circumstances Of Spin Bowling, you know.
The whole point of wristspin is it's effective on any surface; but equally it's an art few can master.
Fingerspin was so much easier in days gone by; now the poor fellows have only really got a chance on certain pitches, whereas in days gone by any surface could turn into one that suited you, just like that. A bit of rain is all it takes.

In India, many smaller clubs stilll play on mattings and this is what brings the leg spinner so much more reward in India in their early phase and encourages them to continue. I will not be surprised if the same is true for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Matting surfaces are much easier and cheaper to maintain for the hand to mouth financial condition of all but the top most clubs in South Asia.

I never knew this, though.
You learn something new every day - especially when conversing with SJS.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, I know all of this - you don't have to give me a lesson on The History And Circumstances Of Spin Bowling, you know.
The whole point of wristspin is it's effective on any surface; but equally it's an art few can master.
Fingerspin was so much easier in days gone by; now the poor fellows have only really got a chance on certain pitches, whereas in days gone by any surface could turn into one that suited you, just like that. A bit of rain is all it takes.

I never knew this, though.
You learn something new every day - especially when conversing with SJS.

The shock of that has almost scared the flu right out of me....but put your tongue back in Richard,starting to look like Hoggy

 

[Richard]

Eh?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still... if it helps you get over the flu... glad to help...

 

[Richard Rash]

Except, IMO, in the case of fingerspinners.
Fingerspinners can no longer be great in the way they were in the 1960s and before.
Of course, they've still got a shot if they're from the subcontinent.

Dan Vettori looks like now that he is back on track that he will give it a good crack

 

[SJS]

Yeah, I know all of this - you don't have to give me a lesson on The History And Circumstances Of Spin Bowling, you know.
The whole point of wristspin is it's effective on any surface; but equally it's an art few can master.
Fingerspin was so much easier in days gone by; now the poor fellows have only really got a chance on certain pitches, whereas in days gone by any surface could turn into one that suited you, just like that. A bit of rain is all it takes.

I never knew this, though.
You learn something new every day - especially when conversing with SJS.

Sorry Richard. That was not my intention. I am aware of the depth of your basics really. I think, somettimes in making a point one gets a bit verbose. You are familiar with that no doubt

Yes, of course, wrist spin is more difficult to master compared to finger spin but I think Murali and Harbhajan and Saqlain before them are doing more than just taking advantage of sub-continental conditions. They have really taken finger spin to a newer plane with more variations and made it as potent as the rarer (in the hands of a master) wrist spin used to be.

My feeling is that the UK cricketer, particularly the spinner, is less inclined to put in the long hours in the nets that mastering this form of bowling requires. I could be wrong but its the feeling I get. It may have to do with the work-reward ratio which deters them at an early age but it is so. Saqlain and Murali have been very effective in the English domestic circuit also which shows that given the requisite skills, finger spin is still a potent weapon in UK too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sorry Richard. That was not my intention. I am aware of the depth of your basics really. I think, somettimes in making a point one gets a bit verbose. You are familiar with that no doubt

I don't believe you have any need to apologise SJS (although it's to your credit as a gentleman that you do). I think there's a strong possibility that not every CW user has Richard's in depth knowledge of the sport's history.

I, for one, found your discussion v interesting.

It is something on a mystery why England (adverse conditions notwithstanding) in the better part of 130 years of test cricket hasn’t produced one really world-class leg spinner. Law of averages wise, that’s pretty amazing when one considers it! I still have hopes that a second or third generation Asian Englishman may break the mode, having been coached in the art by a wily father or grandfather! Nasser was a promising leggy in his youth, but famously lost the ability to land the ball after his pubescent growth spurt.

Here's hoping!