The Bradman effect on bowlers' averages

[vvvslaxman]

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. .

Are you suggesting we are playing bodyline series these days? Tendulkar average 15.83 in Srilankan series in 3 tests. So can we call that a Bodyline series of modern times?

[vvvslaxman]

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.

Yea.. But those factors are not included in scorecards. Bradman might as well have had those factors affecting him. It will all even out in the end. So we just have to go by how the batsman dominated the opposition. He set a standard in the 1930s. Nobody has gone remotely close to achieving that. The thing is Bradman did the very best in the era he played in. You either have to break his record and claim you are better than him or STFU and accept you are the second best. I can accept +/- 10 avge for the "external" factors. But 44 point difference is too large a difference to be hidden by all the excuses thrown in by fanboys. There is nothing wrong in being second best of all time. But Sachin fanboys can't digest it. I am not saying you are saying that. But i am talking about fanboys.

[Bumper]

Are you suggesting we are playing bodyline series these days? Tendulkar average 15.83 in Srilankan series in 3 tests. So can we call that a Bodyline series of modern times?

Just to set the record straight, here is my take on the bodyline subject. "Bodyline = Fearsome" is all about physical threat to the batsman. Thats not the only way you can bring down the average of a batsman (though its a damn good way). Note that "average" is the only relevant point here for discussion, as everything about Bradman's greatness comes down to his 99.94 There is swing, reverse swing, bouncers, googly, doosra, sliders, media pressure, fitness, hectic schedule & a whole bunch of factors that can work against batsman's averages. In the example you point out, Mendis was out of this world when he debuted. He completely bamboozled all our batsmen. He was good enough to bring down everyone's averages. On just the "quality of attack" metric, I think it was comparable to any of the best attacks of the past. And besides, bodyline lasted for just 4 test matches. Even had Bradman scored a fat zero in each innings of the body line series, his average would still be 95.00 (take out the 396 out of the 6996 runs he scored). He could still be called the greatest on averages alone (and how he led his peers). This is why using bodyline to argue about his greatness is flawed. OTOH, had Bradman faced this type of bowling for half his career & ended up with a mid 80s average then you would have a case.

[Lurker]

"Bodyline = Fearsome" is all about physical threat to the batsman. Thats not the only way you can bring down the average of a batsman (though its a damn good way). Note that "average" is the only relevant point here for discussion, as everything about Bradman's greatness comes down to his 99.94

I beleive thats the gap between your thought and those opposing it. Bradman's average of 99.94 is merely a part of his stature as the greatest batsman. His ability to score runs at will, a century every 3 innings or so, most double centuries in Test cricket, most triples, most runs scored in a day etc etc are just a few numbers that suggest his greatness. Almost every record of batting was held by him. You can use any of the following:

• Innings required to make a century
• Number of double centuries
• Number of triple centuries
• Number of runs in a day

..and see how noone compares to him. Not Lara, not Sachin, not Viv. Indeed it is the critics who know very well they can not compete on this front and hence try to suggest Bradman was great because he scored@99.94. Heck he could have scored at 75 and still beaten Sachin's pants off. Would that make you feel any better though? xxx

[vvvslaxman]

Just to set the record straight, here is my take on the bodyline subject. "Bodyline = Fearsome" is all about physical threat to the batsman. Thats not the only way you can bring down the average of a batsman (though its a damn good way). Note that "average" is the only relevant point here for discussion, as everything about Bradman's greatness comes down to his 99.94 There is swing, reverse swing, bouncers, googly, doosra, sliders, media pressure, fitness, hectic schedule & a whole bunch of factors that can work against batsman's averages. In the example you point out, Mendis was out of this world when he debuted. He completely bamboozled all our batsmen. He was good enough to bring down everyone's averages. On just the "quality of attack" metric, I think it was comparable to any of the best attacks of the past.

How about missing cricket due to world war for 10 years when you are in prime. How about working in army. How about not having millions and zillions of dollars pouring your way and getting the highest medical attention. In the same series Virendar Sehwag outscored and pwned Tendulkar. Basically Tendulkar is not even the best among his own peers in every series. So how would you put him above Bradman. What is that Veeru had that Tendulkar did not?

[Bumper]

I beleive thats the gap between your thought and those opposing it. Bradman's average of 99.94 is merely a part of his stature as the greatest batsman. His ability to score runs at will, a century every 3 innings or so, most double centuries in Test cricket, most triples, most runs scored in a day etc etc are just a few numbers that suggest his greatness. Almost every record of batting was held by him. You can use any of the following:

• Innings required to make a century
• Number of double centuries
• Number of triple centuries
• Number of runs in a day

..and see how noone compares to him. Not Lara, not Sachin, not Viv. Indeed it is the critics who know very well they can not compete on this front and hence try to suggest Bradman was great because he scored@99.94. Heck he could have scored at 75 and still beaten Sachin's pants off. Would that make you feel any better though? xxx

Not quite. To me the amount of runs Bradman scored is never a problem. He could have scored half the runs for all i care. And the diff metrics you have pointed out (innings per century, no. of 100s, 300s, SR etc) are just diff ways to slice & dice the same achievement of his - which is the amount of runs he has scored, which is all captured in his average of 99.94. My issue is only about the odds he has faced - the quality and the diversity of the attack, fitness issues, stress of travel, media pressure et al. I dont believe cricket was as competitive in the 1940s as it is today to take Bradman's numbers anymore seriously. The bodyline series was as close to a convincing argument. But its not good enough as it did not last long enough. I dont believe we are going to convince each other as the nature of this topic is such (very polarizing)!

[Bumper]

How about missing cricket due to world war for 10 years when you are in prime. How about working in army. How about not having millions and zillions of dollars pouring your way and getting the highest medical attention. In the same series Virendar Sehwag outscored and pwned Tendulkar. Basically Tendulkar is not even the best among his own peers in every series. So how would you put him above Bradman. What is that Veeru had that Tendulkar did not?

But what has this to do with the opposition ? How does this inflate the quality of the attacks Bradman faced. I wouldnt think twice about Bradman's numbers if am convinced that he faced quality attacks when he piled those runs. There is nothing that I have seen that suggests that. His numbers, the gulf in avg over his peers etc just look at the whole issue from one side of the equation. Based on these you can conclude that Bradman was the best of his era. They dont help you make relative comparisons with other eras. And i dont know why you are asking me about Sachin again & again. I never claimed anything about Sachin being the greatest ever. Infact to the contrary I dont think anyone can deduce that.

[Lurker]

Not quite. To me the amount of runs Bradman scored is never a problem. He could have scored half the runs for all i care. And the diff metrics you have pointed out (innings per century, no. of 100s, 300s, SR etc) are just diff ways to slice & dice the same achievement of his - which is the amount of runs he has scored, which is all captured in his average of 99.94.

I dont think scoring humongous amount of runs and stating averages are simply different way of slicing and dicing one's achievements. To give you an analogy, if someone tells me James Cameron is the most successful Director all times because Avatar made 1.5 billion USD(or whatever it actually did) I probably would not be serious about that. Now if he followed it with how Avatar is number 1 all time grosser, and number 2 all time grosser (Titanic) is also his work he will have my attention. You keep Terminator movies, Abyss etc piling up and yes before long I have to admit Cameron is indeed the most successful director ever. Now multiply the same analogy multiple times over and you would see Bradman is basically unchallenged in scoring matters. Sure you can throw issues like competitiveness(or lack thereof) etc as argument but the same would hold true for Mr. Cameron as well, even today my experts suggest Avatar was a huge success because of reccession and depression and hence people looking for an escapist media. However some simply accept it as a landmark movie that would be a hit in any era. Same with Bradman. xxx

[CSK Fan]

I dont think scoring humongous amount of runs and stating averages are simply different way of slicing and dicing one's achievements. To give you an analogy, if someone tells me James Cameron is the most successful Director all times because Avatar made 1.5 billion USD(or whatever it actually did) I probably would not be serious about that. Now if he followed it with how Avatar is number 1 all time grosser, and number 2 all time grosser (Titanic) is also his work he will have my attention. You keep Terminator movies, Abyss etc piling up and yes before long I have to admit Cameron is indeed the most successful director ever. Now multiply the same analogy multiple times over and you would see Bradman is basically unchallenged in scoring matters. Sure you can throw issues like competitiveness(or lack thereof) etc as argument but the same would hold true for Mr. Cameron as well, even today my experts suggest Avatar was a huge success because of reccession and depression and hence people looking for an escapist media. However some simply accept it as a landmark movie that would be a hit in any era. Same with Bradman. xxx

Wouldnt that Cameroon analogy be more suited for Sachin? Highest run getter in tests, highest century getter in tests, etc, etc

[vvvslaxman]

But what has this to do with the opposition ? How does this inflate the quality of the attacks Bradman faced. I wouldnt think twice about Bradman's numbers if am convinced that he faced quality attacks when he piled those runs. There is nothing that I have seen that suggests that. His numbers, the gulf in avg over his peers etc just look at the whole issue from one side of the equation. Based on these you can conclude that Bradman was the best of his era. They dont help you make relative comparisons with other eras. And i dont know why you are asking me about Sachin again & again. I never claimed anything about Sachin being the greatest ever. Infact to the contrary I dont think anyone can deduce that.

A bowling attack become quality when the batting attack is average and vice versa.

[vvvslaxman]

A couple of nice pieces on stats: Sir Don Bradman - a fresh analytical look Adjusting batting averages to account for bowling strengths

Basically Tendulkar's average goes below his career average :hysterical:. So it is still 90 vs 47!!! Our fanboys won't accept this!

[zen]

Basically Tendulkar's average goes below his career average :hysterical:. So it is still 90 vs 47!!! Our fanboys won't accept this!

Based on that yes. But I would take that with a pinch of salt as there is no way Tendulkar is below MoYo, who has hardly scored runs against SA and OZ! The purpose was to show that no matter what analysis you do in the end the margin b/w 100 and 56 is too huge that it makes most of the factors discussed here as irrelevant. And that batting in modern era doesn't automatically mean that your adjusted average will be better than what you have! I guess, this closes the case for factors being relevant to justify the difference in averages. Which means we have to rely on the same old 100>56

[The Outsider]

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.

Actually the fact that none of the English batsmen, which included the likes of Hammond and Sutcliffe, were able to outperform Bradman even in the Bodyline series is a confirmation of Bradman's greatness. The English were not facing Bodyline! Modern day players have never played Bodyline, so we don't know what the average chart would look like for them, do we? As I've stated multiple times on this thread, the only time Bodyline was used a line up of Gavaskar, Viswanath, and Amarnath basically conceded the test.

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.

Which I am okay with. If someone lays the claim that no one can hold the rights to be the best batsman in cricket, I can live with it. On the other hand, if the claims say that a Tendulkar, Lara, or Richards was the best batsman ever then they've got some major competition in Bradman.

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.

If we are discussing hypotheticals then Bradman would have savaged the modern day attacks to average 200+

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.

I like that line of reasoning and would be interested in knowing where you place the likes of Hammond and Hutton in the all time great batsman list. One data point cannot be used to fit a model, so Hammond according to the theory above would be a player along the lines of Rameez Raja. But I would like you to expand on the above point.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

You keep harping about Bodyline as though it was practiced throughout the 52 tests of DGB. And as far as Amarnath is concerned the man used to have his upper body beaten up black and blue every time he come back to the dressing room after facing the WI quicks. Shall we nominate him as the best ever ?

I am not the one harping about Bodyline - you and your jingoistic fools brought it into the discussion stating Bodyline as if batsmen face Bodyline day in and out these days, which I have showed to be factually incorrect with the very basic fact that Bodyline aka intimidatory bowling is illegal now. The only time it was "allowed" half the team was hospitalized! :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Actually the fact that none of the English batsmen, which included the likes of Hammond and Sutcliffe, were able to outperform Bradman even in the Bodyline series is a confirmation of Bradman's greatness. The English were not facing Bodyline!

Why change the criteria to outperform ? Outperforming colleagues is only good for establishing that a batsman is the greatest of his era. The criteria for Bradman's all time greatness has always been the gulf in averages between him & the rest. Going by that 42 vs 56 is not that big a gulf. I cannot emphasize enough how important this point is, since this brings out: a) A direct comparison of averages between Bradman and his lesser peers (which is not as significant as it was in the non-body line tests) b) A direct comparison of Bradman and his lesser peers against the SAME bodyline attack (however fearsome bodyline may be, Stan McCabe who is not even an all time top tenner must have faced the same fearsome attack & yet managed an avg of 42, which should put the odds theyfaced in perspective) The gulf between Bradman and his peers has been the central theme of almost all posts proclaiming Bradman's all time greatness. Hence these are important issues that cannot be overlooked. Speaking of bodyline, as I mentioned above, even had Bradman scored zero in each bodyline innings he would still average 95, be well ahead of his peers and would still be called the greatest ever. Bodyline is too small a sample to advance any argument here.

I like that line of reasoning and would be interested in knowing where you place the likes of Hammond and Hutton in the all time great batsman list. One data point cannot be used to fit a model, so Hammond according to the theory above would be a player along the lines of Rameez Raja. But I would like you to expand on the above point.

How or where can i place Hammond & Hutton in an all time list. Such rankings will invariably be based on stats, literature and hearsay. I think these players are best left unranked or only worth comparisons with players of their own era

[zen]

Why change the criteria to outperform ? Outperforming colleagues is only good for establishing that a batsman is the greatest of his era. The criteria for Bradman's all time greatness has always been the gulf in averages between him & the rest. Going by that 42 vs 56 is not that big a gulf. I cannot emphasize enough how important this point is, since this brings out: a) A direct comparison of averages between Bradman and his lesser peers (which is not as significant as it was in the non-body line tests) b) A direct comparison of Bradman and his lesser peers against the SAME bodyline attack (however fearsome bodyline may be, Stan McCabe who is not even an all time top tenner must have faced the same fearsome attack & yet managed an avg of 42, which should put the odds theyfaced in perspective) The gulf between Bradman and his peers has been the central theme of almost all posts proclaiming Bradman's all time greatness. Hence these are important issues that cannot be overlooked. Speaking of bodyline, as I mentioned above, even had Bradman scored zero in each bodyline innings he would still average 95, be well ahead of his peers and would still be called the greatest ever. Bodyline is too small a sample to advance any argument here.

In fact the difference b/w 56 and 42 is big when you consider that bodyline is arguable the most challenging series for batsmen. To put that in to perspective, you only have to look at career averages of Ganguly and Tendulkar. Ganguly averages in early 40s (if I am not wrong) and Tendulkar in 50s. Since these are career averages, it includes playing on a variety of surfaces. Even so that difference in the averages of early 40s and 56 is seen as belonging to two different leagues. Now consider Ganguly and Tendulkar averaging the same in a series like bodlyline series. And then you can see that the difference looks even bigger :winky: Bodlyline may be a small sample but you have to realize that not many of today's batters get to face that type of bowling with little protective gear. If you have followed debates on modern batsmen, you would have seen how people struggle to find too many examples of where a batsman would have done well on a difficult wicket or against hostile bowling.

[vvvslaxman]

Based on that yes. But I would take that with a pinch of salt as there is no way Tendulkar is below MoYo, who has hardly scored runs against SA and OZ! The purpose was to show that no matter what analysis you do in the end the margin b/w 100 and 56 is too huge that it makes most of the factors discussed here as irrelevant. And that batting in modern era doesn't automatically mean that your adjusted average will be better than what you have! I guess, this closes the case for factors being relevant to justify the difference in averages. Which means we have to rely on the same old 100>56

As a supplement his first class average of 95 can be included. He simply owns Sachin or anyone else for that matter with an imposing consistency. He plays cricket for a while. Goes into wilderness for 10 years. Comes back and averages another 100. He was simply born to play cricket. Rest of the players including Sachin Tendulkar never fail to recognize that. So couple of fan boys disagreeing won't change opinions of millions of cricket followers around the world.

[zen]

As a supplement his first class average of 95 can be included. He simply owns Sachin or anyone else for that matter with an imposing consistency. He plays cricket for a while. Goes into wilderness for 10 years. Comes back and averages another 100. He was simply born to play cricket. Rest of the players including Sachin Tendulkar never fail to recognize that. So couple of fan boys disagreeing won't change opinions of millions of cricket followers around the world.

In the end what it shows is that we have to respect an average of 100. It is easy to be one dimensional and look at that average theatrically and come up with pro Tendulkar arguments abut when you also look at it practically esp the challenge of being able to average 100 after 50 tests then it appears like a super human effort. Many times you are not only fighting against the opposition but also against your own self, your struggles, your form, etc and still if you can do that (avg 100 and play like that) then it's simply phenomenal For those who look at this from 360 degrees, it's never a doubt as to who is the greatest batsman. And if one has to bring in various factors, formats, etc and still struggle to show that guys like Tendulkar are in Don's league then what's the point. Doesn't struggling to put all that together show who the greatest batsman is :winky: