The Bradman effect on bowlers' averages

[thevortex]

While I am not for name calling, I think Lurker has got a point. How much do we think we can glean from Cricinfo and Statsguru about a player? What would we have made of a Flintoff if he had been of that era? An unremarkable player perhaps? Is that the truth? Come on guys, there is far more to cricket than just numbers.

[vvvslaxman]

Alright.. let us get involved in some serious mud-slinging :cantstop: . Where is the statsguru.

[vvvslaxman]

okay i got it 99.94 > 55

[vvvslaxman]

Even in the ICF poll Bradman won lol why are you fanboys still stuck with same theories and formulae

[teacup]

Even in the ICF poll Bradman won lol why are you fanboys still stuck with same theories and formulae

You mean the poll where less than half of the voters thought Bradman is the greatest? :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

You mean the poll where less than half of the voters thought Bradman is the greatest? :hysterical:

But only half of that less than half thought Tendulkar was the best.. So Bradman is still better than Sachin :cantstop:

[vvvslaxman]

It is ICF. indian forum. Odds are Tendulkar getting more votes. Yet majority think Bradman is better. Imagine this poll among fans from other parts of the world. It would have been clean sweep.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

While I dont disagree with what you are saying .... but I have also gone thru a lot of match reports from that era and you can get a reasonable idea of what it was like. But no one here is willing to look at the uncomfortable details such as the fact the Larwood was suffering with illness in a crucial match were DGB scored a boat loads of runs and that the bowling is described there as abject. Any serious follower of the game will tell you that these days bowlers win a lot more lbw's ... all this can be verified by stats .... the stats also tell you that Bradman was dismissed just 6 times as lbw. Just adding few lbws brings down his avg significantly. But the moment you say these things the next thing you see is a bunch of idiots getting bent out of shape.

May be because he was actually not out? :cantstop: Ever thought of that possibility?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

I have shown already that his average is no better without Bradman. His reputation is solely based on the Bodyline series and absolutely no one today would have remembered him otherwise.

Correction, you did NOT show anything, it was Cricinfo or Statsguru :giggle: You know that whole adage of monkey typing forever and getting something worthwhile written at the end? Holds true for "fans" like you who have access to a computer, internet and Cricinfo and consider them as experts.

Larwood averaged 40.90 against Australia if you exclude the Bodyline series.

There you go! Another gem from a I-can-find-stats-guy. The answer to a stats quandry is another stats quandry. Yes do keep on embarassing yourself with your knowledge, or lack there of cricket, and your search skills. By the by the reasons behind Larwood exploits, and his subsequent performance(or lack thereof) is well explained and buried in cricket books. Read up when you are mature enough to let go of Statsguru. xxx

[The Outsider]

Any serious follower of the game will tell you that these days bowlers win a lot more lbw's ... all this can be verified by stats .... the stats also tell you that Bradman was dismissed just 6 times as lbw. Just adding few lbws brings down his avg significantly. But the moment you say these things the next thing you see is a bunch of idiots getting bent out of shape.

Let's bust this one as well. In the 30s and 40s, out of 3931 dismissals, 495 were LBWs which is 12.6%. In the 90s and 00s out of 24905 dismissals, 4203 were LBWs which is 16.8%. Bradman was dismissed LBW 6 times out of 70 which is 8.6%, so he was already well below the average of his times. Now, today a batsman will get out LBW 4 more times than in the 30s out of 100 dismissals. Considering Bradman was dismissed 70 times and his lower than average LBW rate, he would have been out 2 more times LBW if he had batted today. Even allowing for those 2 dismissals to be for 0, his average would be 97.16 instead of 99.94.

[vvvslaxman]

or that the laws were different back then .. and ohhh your own expert Shreeman Benaud gets all excited when spinners get front foot lbws ... something that never used to happen back then ... :hysterical:

Did you see BD/England series. How many were upheld? :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

BB has lost it. Lbw is a factor? :hysterical: What is next? There were more bowleds in that era.. less bowleds in this era lol. One of the interesting side-effects of this revolution in bats may be the increase in net run-rate that is evident around the world in Test cricket. The great cricket statistician, Charles Davis, conducted some fascinating research into the percent of team scores that is the result of boundaries. During the 19th Century, just less than half a team’s runs were scored in boundaries. This figure remained remarkably consistent throughout the 20th Century, before starting to rise in 1990. It has now nearly reached 60%, a quite considerable increase in less than two decades, after being stationary for over a century. Some of this increased run-rate can naturally be ascribed to fast outfields, shorter boundaries, and possibly weaker opposition. However, it seems clear that the technological change in bats has also been a significant factor. Batsmen are not afraid to risk hitting sixes, as even mishits can still clear the boundary. Comparisons of bats from even twenty years ago show significant changes. The edges of bats are now measured in centimetres, not millimetres. The meat of the bat is now much lower in the blade, but also thicker. Bats now quite often have a pronounced ‘bow’ shape, in contrast to many of the straight blades of the past. The weights of bats have increased, and yet the feel and pickup of them has not been affected adversely. A recent quote by a friend summed up the difference ‘looks like a railway sleeper, picks up like a wand’. Shots that seemed to be forgotten during the 1970s such as the late cut have made a comeback. Batsmen are able to combine both touch and power within a wide range of shots, and run-rates have soared. :hysterical:

[Lurker]

or that the laws were different back then .. and ohhh your own expert Shreeman Benaud gets all excited when spinners get front foot lbws ... something that never used to happen back then ... :hysterical:

Nonsene and pure hypocritical. Do you know why Benaud gets all "excited" about front foot lbw?? Let me know cos I will pull out the exact paragraph from his book. Matter of fact I was reading that para the other day only :winky: I can safely assure you that law would have little impact on Bradman. Next :hmmm:

[vvvslaxman]

BB is getting absolutely pwned here. lol

[The Outsider]

^ Perhaps you had missed a gem from BB or one of the others where they had said, modern bats are not really beneficial because you are more likely to get caught off them. The entire cricketing fraternity are idiots to be using them of course.

[vvvslaxman]

My own experience I have used various bats. But the one i bought 2 years back is the best i have owned. Kukaboora beast. Heavy. But as he says amazingly light when you pick. Even mistimed balls were just flowing across the turf. 15 years back the bat i used was flat on the surface. You had to throw kitchen sink at it just to clear mid on. Bradman practiced with a stick and ball which many later said was hard to practice.

[The Outsider]

I can safely assure you that law would have little impact on Bradman. Next :hmmm:

Believe me, your assurance would have absolutely no effect on BB. In post # 33, I just showed in his preferred statistical way that it would have no impact, but I fully expect him to reply with some gibberish and quote how he absolutely owned the ones getting "bent out of shape" the next time the topic comes up.:giggle:

[Lurker]

the stats also tell you that Bradman was dismissed just 6 times as lbw.

And Kapil Dev was never dismissed through run out in Tests :giggle::giggle: (I am sure you know it since it is an outstanding record). Considering DG was run out atleast once we can rest assured that fielding during Kapil Dev's time went down the toilet as compared to DG :giggle: Arre bandhu less lbw could also be down to the fact that DG was an excellent judge of the length of the ball, and I repeat what I said earlier in the thread - Richie Benaud's reason about front foot lbw would harldly have impacted DG's performance. Let me know if you need more info. xxx