The Bradman effect on bowlers' averages

[teacup]

DG Bradman          	4	8	1	396	56.57
SJ McCabe           	5	10	1	385	42.78
LS Darling          	2	4	0	148	37.00
WM Woodfull         	5	10	1	305	33.89
VY Richardson       	5	10	0	279	27.90
JHW Fingleton       	3	6	0	150	25.00
WH Ponsford         	3	6	0	141	23.50
WAS Oldfield        	4	7	2	136	22.67
LPJ O'Brien         	2	4	0	87	21.75
CV Grimmett         	3	6	0	42	7.00
WJ O'Reilly         	5	10	0	61	6.10
TW Wall             	4	8	1	42	6.00
H Ironmonger        	4	8	3	13	2.60

I guess I included only those matches in the series that Bradman played. Makes only a slight difference to the next best average though.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

you are missing the point .... the point is to not get hit .. with or without the helmet and not about bravado. Hence its easier to evade a bouncer at 85 rather than the one at well above 90MPH simply because of the amount of time you have to react is more in the case of former.

Bossbhai - I have avoided asking this question but I see no way how I can continue doing that. Have you played competitive cricket at a decent level? Some city/district leagues etc? If you had, I am sure you would not have asked the above question. 85 mph is not slow. And when you are batting and when the ball is a bouncer, it is not about the pace per se. It is about the accuracy, the length (determines who sharply it will bounce) and of course the vagaries of the pitch. There is another factor which is the height of the bowler which will have an overriding effect on all the above mentioned factors. And it is not just that the taller fast bowler will have a surprising bowler. Even shorter guys can have surprising bounce and their bounce can be dangerous too - since it often skids on off the wicket. You give me a choice between using a helmet and facing a 92 mph bowler who cannot bowl more than two bouncers an over and facing an 85 mph bowler bowling bodyline without any sort of protection - what do you think I will choose? The former every hour of every day of every week. And I am sure I wont be alone, Bossbhai.

[The Outsider]

I guess I included only those matches in the series that Bradman played. Makes only a slight difference to the next best average though.

you are right. I included the full series. But not much difference.

Not much difference? I hope you guys don't do any data interpretation for a living. :hysterical: He is averaging 40% more than his the next person in the list, McCabe, who BTW played one of the greatest innings of all time in the first test scoring 185* out of a team total of 280. And FWIW, Bradman topped the batting averages even when the English batsmen were included.

I hate to get into this debate, as i dont have the time for lengthy rebuttals. Can anyone answer these questions for me ? 1) What proportion of Bradman's career constituted Bodyline type attack ?

4 test matches. But the context in which Bodyline came up in the discussion is different. It figured in the discussion to show that Bodyline was much more than the 2 short pitch deliveries per over with fielding restrictions and a spacesuit that modern batsmen face. The only time Bodyline was used at Kingston in '76, a world record score chasing batting line up pretty much forfeited the match.

2) How does Bradman's average (57) compare to his peers in the bodyline series. Since Bradman's touted greatness is based on the gulf between his own avg and that of his peers, this is an important question.

40% higher than the next Australian and about the same as the highest English players, Hammond and Sutcliffe.

3) Are you guys suggesting that bodyline was the most difficult attack ever or implying that it is as good as any of the attacks of today ?

It was definitely the most fearsome attack ever. It was repeated briefly and sporadically in the next season or two before intimidatory bowling was finally outlawed.

4) The no-helmet & 'vanilla bat' disadvantage applies to even Gavaskar's era (till 80s). So not sure why this advances Bradman's greatness. (No am not comparing him to SRT, merely wondering about the 'Bradman being the greatest ever' claim).

Because the Gavaskars, Chappells, and Richards still averaged in the 50s, so did Sobers. Bradman averaged 100 with those disadvantages. In fact, all great batsman throughout history have been around the 50s mark, regardless the era they played in. Only one man has stood out, and stood out so spectacularly that there is no one remotely close to the mark he has set.

[vvvslaxman]

Bumps you missed a lot of fun .. let me fill you in ... we established that Donald was not as good as Gubby Allen (Iam sure you know this great bowler) .... That Aussies scored 900+ on a juicy track as there were no pattas back then (uncovered pitches you know) ... that having played in SAF,NZ,Ind,SL,WI does not really add any value to your credentials ... and that Globe trotting and living out of a suitcase for the best part of your life is not really a big deal. All these modern day bowlers who have avgs less than 25 are because all batsmen are useless these days. Bradman alone was responsible for hurting every single bowlers bowling avg over a period of 20 yrs ... Reverse swing is no big deal at all to handle. Warne and Murali = Verity ( Again Iam sure you know all bout this great spinner ) Playing on 57 different grounds is the same as playing on 10 grounds

Sohdat Hossain, ruble Hossain, Naimul Islam, Ian Salisbury and so many other bowlers like them were difficult to face. :cantstop:

[vvvslaxman]

Have you played competitive cricket at a decent level? Some city/district leagues etc? .

Reading his posts i very much doubt. Probably book cricket :cantstop:.

[vvvslaxman]

He is yet to give explanation for why Sachin could not dominate even a minnow even in one series like Bradman did in many series. When i say dominate "score huge" like Lara scoring 688 odd runs in a 3 test series against SL. How exactly he is going to do that in a completely different era if he can't do what his peers did.

[thevortex]

Reading his posts i very much doubt. Probably book cricket :cantstop:.

No, I was not out to taunt or give him offense in any way. Just that anybody who has played some cricket at some level will have come to realize the importance of protective equipment. I have nothing but awe and respect for somebody like Gavaskar for having faced Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Holding bareheaded! Then imagine what it must be for Bradman who countered leg theory the same way.

[vvvslaxman]

No, I was not out to taunt or give him offense in any way. Just that anybody who has played some cricket at some level will have come to realize the importance of protective equipment. I have nothing but awe and respect for somebody like Gavaskar for having faced Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Holding bareheaded! Then imagine what it must be for Bradman who countered leg theory the same way.

All these modern cricketers have the benefit of cricket evolution over the years something Bradman did not have. That is a very very huge difference. Even after that they do not seem to be as prolific as bradman. instead of analyzing why he was at the top of the tree where the others were only as good as the current these fan boys of sachin give scant respect how Bradman he honed his skill, how he could stay at the crease for such long periods, how he could pile up runs in almost every match he played. All they could do was comparing GO Allen and Donald when there are scores of rubbish bowlers in this era as well.

[Bumper]

40% higher than the next Australian and about the same as the highest English players, Hammond and Sutcliffe.

40% is misleading. Its about 14 points more interms of avg. Thats not surprising since Bradman was clearly the best Australian batsman. Kinda like the Tendulkar of the 90s Indian team -- head and shoulders above the rest. But the important point here is that the gulf (b/w Bradman and the rest) is no longer as wide as 99 vs 50s. (Its very comparable to the Indian batting averages chart of the 90s, with Sachin leading the pack). HUGE difference one bodyline attack has made. Since this (gulf in averages) was the biggest reason for Bradman's greatness claim, you will have to question this very reasoning.

It was definitely the most fearsome attack ever. It was repeated briefly and sporadically in the next season or two before intimidatory bowling was finally outlawed.

Most fearsome attack ever ? More fearsome than the WI quartet ? I take it that by 'fearsome' you just mean physically dangerous. Since we are talking batsman's averages here, the quality of the attack should be guaged based on its wicket taking potential not based on the bowler's ability to hit the batsman & injure him. I dont contest that Bradman may have been a brave batsman. He certainly was based on the evidence. But was he the best ever, there is no way you can tell.

Because the Gavaskars, Chappells, and Richards still averaged in the 50s, so did Sobers. Bradman averaged 100 with those disadvantages. In fact, all great batsman throughout history have been around the 50s mark, regardless the era they played in. Only one man has stood out, and stood out so spectacularly that there is no one remotely close to the mark he has set.

But averages are relative. Bradman too averaged in the 50s in the one series comparable to Gavaskar's era. As for Bradman being ahead of his peers, it only suggests that he was better than his peers. There were hardly one or two competitive nations playing the sport back then, with hardly a dozen players worth the mention. Bradman being that much ahead of his peers, says more about his peers to me than Bradman himself. In the modern world, dozen nations play the sport. Over 100-150 cricketers emerge in a decade from 8-10 diff nations. I dont think we are comparing apples and apples here.

[Bumper]

All these modern cricketers have the benefit of cricket evolution over the years something Bradman did not have. That is a very very huge difference. Even after that they do not seem to be as prolific as bradman. instead of analyzing why he was at the top of the tree where the others were only as good as the current these fan boys of sachin give scant respect how Bradman he honed his skill' date=' how he could stay at the crease for such long periods, how he could pile up runs in almost every match he played. All they could do was comparing GO Allen and Donald when there are scores of rubbish bowlers in this era as well.[/quote'] Benefit of cricket evolution ? It works both ways. As a sport evolves it also gets highly competitive. In the 1940s 100m sprinters hardly broke the 10 sec barrier. So a Jesse Owens was in some sense well ahead of his peers. Nowadays every 100m finalist finishes within 10 secs in almost every league. What used to be a benchmark for excellence has merely become a minimum qualification of sorts. Simple matter is that all sports have become very competitive with more folks playing it, setting higher and higher standards. While the newer generation benefits from the learnings of the past, it also suffers from the limited opportunity for innovation and staying ahead of the pack.

[The Outsider]

40% is misleading. Its about 14 points more interms of avg. Thats not surprising since Bradman was clearly the best Australian batsman. Kinda like the Tendulkar of the 90s Indian team -- head and shoulders above the rest. But the important point here is that the gulf (b/w Bradman and the rest) is no longer as wide as 99 vs 50s. HUGE difference one bodyline attack has made. Since this (gulf in averages) was the biggest reason for Bradman's greatness claim, you will have to question this very reasoning.

Come on, Bumper! You are a guy with a quantitative background. If Bradman averaged 57, would you really expect other batsmen to average 12 to keep the same absolute difference? It has to be considered in percentage point basis. And even so no English batsmen could top him and the only Australian who came with 40% played the innings of his life to do so. If 100 of that day is 55 of today, then were Hammond and Hutton the equivalents of Walsh and McGrath?

Most fearsome attack ever ? More fearsome than the WI quartet ? I take it that by 'fearsome' you just mean physically dangerous. Since we are talking batsman's averages here, the quality of the attack should be guaged based on its wicket taking potential not based on the bowler's ability to hit the batsman & injure him. I dont contest that Bradman may have been a brave batsman. He certainly was based on the evidence. But was he the best ever, there is no way you can tell.

Yeah, physically dangerous. I don't have much of a problem with the following reasoning - "players of different eras cannot be compared, X was the best at his time, Y was the best during his", which is what you seem to be saying. It's quite different from people proclaiming Tendulkar to be the best of all time.

But averages are relative. Bradman too averaged in the 50s in the one series comparable to Gavaskar's era.

No - there has never been any series and there never will be a series comparable to Bodyline. The tactics were outlawed within a couple of seasons and are beyond the rules of the game. I already gave you the closest analogy to Bodyline in modern cricket where a team which had chased down a world record total in the previous test, were confined to hospital beds and literally forfeited the test - and yes the team had Gavaskar in it. Bodyline is not comparable to any series in cricket history simply because intimidatory bowling is not within the laws of the game anymore.

As for Bradman being ahead of his peers, it only suggests that he was better than his peers. There were hardly one or two competitive nations playing the sport back then, with hardly a dozen players worth the mention. Bradman being that much ahead of his peers, says more about his peers to me than Bradman himself. In the modern world, dozen nations play the sport. Over 100-150 cricketers emerge in a decade from 8-10 diff nations. I dont think we are comparing apples and apples here.

So his peers were crap? How would you rate Hammond or Hutton as batsmen compared to let's say Rameez Raja or Mark Butcher? If you are saying Bradman was comparable to the Laras, Tendulkars, and Richards, surely the model should fit other batsmen of his times as well? You cannot construct a model to fit just one data point, can you?

[Lurker]

Benefit of cricket evolution ? It works both ways. As a sport evolves it also gets highly competitive. In the 1940s 100m sprinters hardly broke the 10 sec barrier. So a Jesse Owens was in some sense well ahead of his peers. Nowadays every 100m finalist finishes within 10 secs in almost every league. What used to be a benchmark for excellence has merely become a minimum qualification of sorts.

Frankly Bumper it is arguments like yours that make this whole discussion redudant. I mean if sensible folks make these kind of arguments what about the weirdos???? You are suggesting as if Jesse Owens performance would hold not much importance today?? Really?? Do you realize that Jesse Owens performance was picked as the greatest ever performance by by Bob Costas(during his Olympic prelude) by any athlete all the way from 1850 onwards?? This obviously does not mean everything but should be enough to seperate Jesse Owens from a Linford Christie and Leroy Burell. What bothers me is how easily people pick up Jesse Owens as if he was simply good amongst decent athletes, and not greatest amongst greats. Sample a few things: a) Jesse Owens had to run on bare ground, and the precursors to modern synethetic tracks. None of the mumbo jumbo of "fast tracks" of today that "adds" to a sprinter's speed. How many times have you followed an athletic meet and not heard the commentator go " Oh it is a fast track so we expect world record time". b) Jesse Owens did not have the starting bolt which pushes athletes off the block. Again check the commentators and see its value in an athletes performance. c) Jesse would wear the shorts and tshirts that would put modern gym goer to same, let alone a top pro athlete. None of the mumbo jumbo of spandex Nike that leaves little to imagination and cuts all the wind aidedness. All of these arguments can be checked by any picture of Jesse Owens. Have a look and think again if it is fair to match Jesse Owens with every athlete of today. heck who is to say with all the modern gears Jesse would simply run over, pun intentional, all athletes of today? xxx

[vvvslaxman]

Benefit of cricket evolution ? It works both ways. As a sport evolves it also gets highly competitive. In the 1940s 100m sprinters hardly broke the 10 sec barrier. So a Jesse Owens was in some sense well ahead of his peers. Nowadays every 100m finalist finishes within 10 secs in almost every league. What used to be a benchmark for excellence has merely become a minimum qualification of sorts. Simple matter is that all sports have become very competitive with more folks playing it, setting higher and higher standards. While the newer generation benefits from the learnings of the past, it also suffers from the limited opportunity for innovation and staying ahead of the pack.

Fact of the matter is if Tendulkar is put in that era.. will he be able to match him anywhere close to Bradman? I do no think so. If you Bradman has access to the facilities of modern coaching, bats, flat pitches would he be able to do better than what these guys do. Bet he would do better. So when you admit , it works both ways.. it means.. you should not even bring all these external factors into equation. You cannot set higher and higher standards.There is only so much you can do. YOu are not suggesting in 2100 someone will run 100 meter in 5 seconds. Are you? All those slight improvement can be put down to the modern coaching, dieting . They calculate how much salt you lose, they replenish with it. Even Rahul Dravid does that. They optimize the performance through lot of things

[Bumper]

Frankly Bumper it is arguments like yours that make this whole discussion redudant. I mean if sensible folks make these kind of arguments what about the weirdos???? You are suggesting as if Jesse Owens performance would hold not much importance today?? Really?? Do you realize that Jesse Owens performance was picked as the greatest ever performance by by Bob Costas(during his Olympic prelude) by any athlete all the way from 1850 onwards?? This obviously does not mean everything but should be enough to seperate Jesse Owens from a Linford Christie and Leroy Burell. What bothers me is how easily people pick up Jesse Owens as if he was simply good amongst decent athletes, and not greatest amongst greats. Sample a few things: a) Jesse Owens had to run on bare ground, and the precursors to modern synethetic tracks. None of the mumbo jumbo of "fast tracks" of today that "adds" to a sprinter's speed. How many times have you followed an athletic meet and not heard the commentator go " Oh it is a fast track so we expect world record time". b) Jesse Owens did not have the starting bolt which pushes athletes off the block. Again check the commentators and see its value in an athletes performance. c) Jesse would wear the shorts and tshirts that would put modern gym goer to same, let alone a top pro athlete. None of the mumbo jumbo of spandex Nike that leaves little to imagination and cuts all the wind aidedness. All of these arguments can be checked by any picture of Jesse Owens. Have a look and think again if it is fair to match Jesse Owens with every athlete of today. heck who is to say with all the modern gears Jesse would simply run over, pun intentional, all athletes of today? xxx

Lurks, you misinterpreted my reference to Jesse Owens. Not questioning Jesse's greatness. But merely pointing out how "being well ahead of his peers" alone does not make Jesse the greatest sprinter ever. Infact no one is suggesting that Jesse is the greatest sprinter ever. Whereas in the case of Bradman claims are being made as if its some kinda gospel truth.

[vvvslaxman]

Lurks' date=' you misinterpreted my reference to Jesse Owens. Not questioning Jesse's greatness. But merely pointing out how "being well ahead of his peers" alone does not make Jesse the greatest sprinter ever. Infact no one is suggesting that Jesse is the greatest sprinter ever. Whereas in the case of Bradman claims are being made as if its some kinda gospel truth.[/quote'] The thing is.. Tendulkar is nowhere close to 99 in terms of average. Going by your theory.. modern players should have more average !! So ofcourse Bradman is the greatest by a country mile!!

[King Tendulkar]

IF Tendulkar had played in back and white days he would average over 200. If Bradman had played 80 years later in modern times he would have averaged single digits But of course Bradman is greatest by miles:cantstop:

[Lurker]

Lurks' date=' you misinterpreted my reference to Jesse Owens. Not questioning Jesse's greatness. [b']But merely pointing out how "being well ahead of his peers" alone does not make Jesse the greatest sprinter ever. Infact no one is suggesting that Jesse is the greatest sprinter ever. Whereas in the case of Bradman claims are being made as if its some kinda gospel truth.

Well thats because Jesse Owens was much more than a sprinter Bumper. He ran 100m, 200m, 400m, 4*100, long jump, 60m dash, 110yard dash, heck the man ran against a horse once!! The closest competitor to him would be Carl Lewis who was also multi dimensional. As for the greatest sprinter tag there are not too many nominations there. Owens would easily be amongst the top 5. However unlike Bradman his "stats" have long been beaten. If Jesse Owens had run 100m race under 9 seconds there is no reason why he wouldnt be greatest ever.

[Bumper]

Come on, Bumper! You are a guy with a quantitative background. If Bradman averaged 57, would you really expect other batsmen to average 12 to keep the same absolute difference? It has to be considered in percentage point basis. And even so no English batsmen could top him and the only Australian who came with 40% played the innings of his life to do so. If 100 of that day is 55 of today, then were Hammond and Hutton the equivalents of Walsh and McGrath?

I think you misunderstood my point. I didnt expect a gulf of 40+ interms of average in the bodyline series. Merely pointing out that a 42 vs 56 difference (in the bodyline series) is very very comparable to modern day average charts, where the leading batsman averages in the 50s and the rest in the 40s. And worse, the opponent batsmen were able to match Bradman interms of numbers in the same series. This is important for this discussion, as claims about Bradman's greatness heavily hinge on the 'gulf in averages' premise, which is not really as big as you guys think when the heat was ON.

Yeah, physically dangerous. I don't have much of a problem with the following reasoning - "players of different eras cannot be compared, X was the best at his time, Y was the best during his", which is what you seem to be saying. It's quite different from people proclaiming Tendulkar to be the best of all time.

I dont think its possible to establish Tendulkar is the best of all time. But i dont think its obvious to me that Bradman is the greatest ever either.

No - there has never been any series and there never will be a series comparable to Bodyline. The tactics were outlawed within a couple of seasons and are beyond the rules of the game. I already gave you the closest analogy to Bodyline in modern cricket where a team which had chased down a world record total in the previous test, were confined to hospital beds and literally forfeited the test - and yes the team had Gavaskar in it. Bodyline is not comparable to any series in cricket history simply because intimidatory bowling is not within the laws of the game anymore.

Unfortunately with the length & quality of the footage available on the bodyline series, i dont know how we can deduce that it was the most fearsome series ever. May be a Viv Richards type player would have still thrived on such bowling & come out with flying colors. We simply dont have any information to extrapolate anymore on the bodyline series.

So his peers were crap? How would you rate Hammond or Hutton as batsmen compared to let's say Rameez Raja or Mark Butcher? If you are saying Bradman was comparable to the Laras, Tendulkars, and Richards, surely the model should fit other batsmen of his times as well? You cannot construct a model to fit just one data point, can you?

Am not saying his peers were cr@p. But merely implying that there was not much interms of competition for Bradman to take the "Bradman was so much greater than his peers" anymore seriously. And if the merit of Bradman's numbers are in question then you'll have to ask the same questions about Hutton & Hammond as well. But since Hutton & Hammond aren't proclaimed as the greatest ever there is less scrutiny on their achievements.

[Bumper]

The thing is.. Tendulkar is nowhere close to 99 in terms of average. Going by your theory.. modern players should have more average !! So ofcourse Bradman is the greatest by a country mile!!

Bogus analogy. Sprinting is an individual sport. You decide your own fate. Batting in tests is not just the work of an individual. Bowler's prowess, opponent captains, match situations etc play a big part in your success. So its incorrect to say that a higher skilled batsman should average more. Pit the same batsman against a low quality attack & the averages will bloat. In any case, i never claimed Tendulkar is the greatest ever. Personally i dont reckon players can be compared beyond their eras. Usually such comparisons/rankings are at best an opinion of a few.