Reducing cricket to numbers

[vvvslaxman]

He is full of contradictions always. But this one takes the cake.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

The age factor came in because of your legendary "he beat the sheet out of his peers" statement ... so I ask again where you talking about bowlers or batsmen ?

No, I ask you again - if I am comparing Bradman's batting average with his "peers" would his "peers" be golf players?

[The Outsider]

Since, 1970, 176 centuries have been made by batsmen with age 35+. By BB's legendary definition, all these attacks they were made against would have been crap. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=35;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batted_score;runsmin1=100;runsval1=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

And speaking of bowlers you can only imagine the quality of bowling that was bowling against sides that had avg ages above 35.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I wouldnt be surprised if you said that actually ... its pidly compared to what else you have said .. the latest one being that JH might have made another 100 FC centuries past 50 had he played in the current day and age.

So, are you trying to find out how many teams had average age of 35+ in Bradman's time. While you are at it, also find me how many teams had an average age greater than the following 33 years : http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/249226.html which was one of the most successful teams of all times? :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

^ So in short, there are no teams that Bradman played for/against which had an average age of 35+ as you were proclaiming? And all those 176 centuries listed above were against crap attacks? :hysterical:

[Roshanrocks]

:hysterical: so bradman is also tailunted?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Do you really think it would make any difference even if I showed you one ? It aint going to matter jack ... I mean FFS you think JH would score 100 FC post age 50 if he was around today.

:orderorder::orderorder::orderorder: I must say I would most likely never meet another person, definitely not an Indian, who would be so worried about how all these FC stats were set.:winky:

[The Outsider]

Do you really think it would make any difference even if I showed you one ? It aint going to matter jack ... I mean FFS you think JH would score 100 FC post age 50 if he was around today.

Not one, you'll have to show quite a few because you were claiming like it was a commonplace thing in Bradman's time for teams to have average age of 35+. And why not, if Sami can be a better bowler than Marshall because Sami played with more naujawan, hausledaar, and tandarust players than Marshall, why couldn't Hobbs have scored another 100 FC centuries if he was playing today with better medical facilities and training?:hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Your own comrades made me dig into FC records in that other thread on DGB ... are you now turning against your own tribesmen ?

Since you keep lumping me with others, let me take you up on that and show what the "tribesmen" have showed.

• That your assertion that DG scored against people aged 40 plus is a total joke.
• That the era of 70s and 80s have been no different in having "older" players in the team.
• That cricketers these days play lot more cricket and hence tend to retire early(at which time you switched your baja to FC).
• Cricketers of today are no more fitter than yesterday, and you could not pull out examples to show Indian cricketer of 30s that could match Powar and Malhotra.

Now you can keep repeating the same tune, as you tend to do, or look into it and get enlightened, for once :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[SJS50]

It is true that the careers of players, particularly professionals, tended to be longer earlier than they are today but to use that argument to run down Bradman's record is to stretch the point beyond credulity. I am sure if one had the inclination one could find the number of players in their 40's who played in the same tests as Bradman. It may not be a large number but it will be more any way that anything in the current time but that is not the point. Was Bradman scoring those massive hundreds against geriatrics? That is more pertinent. In 1934, George Geary played two Tests against the Australians in England. He was 41 and these were the last two Tests of his career. He got Bradman's wicket once in those two Tests. This is the only time Bradman's wicket fell to a bowler who was 40 or above. More importantly, of the 32 bowlers who got his wicket even once, only four played any Test cricket in their 40's and none of them bowled a single ball in a test match in which Bradman was playing, beyond their 30's. Its a lot of work to go through all the other bowlers who bowled in these 52 Tests but a quick glance shows no serious bowlewr playing for England who bowled a spell in these games. So what is the point? And if there were half a dozen, maybe ten, players who played some of these 52 Tests in which Bradman played over two decades, unless all of them played in the same game, surely we are not thinking that he scored his runs against a team full of fielders with their feet in the grave. There are other arguments to take, if one is hell bent on blasting Bradman off his pedestal as the greatest batsman of all time. The biggest one over history has been his, relative weakness on sticky wickets. There is no denying the fact that on a sticky wicket Hobbs was a better batsman but as Bradman has said repeatedly, how often did he come across a sticky wicket. Why should he mould his game for some rare type of condition and not make use of his skills to master the type of wickets he was most likely to face. His record shows his surmise was not to be faulted. In any event, we cant use the argument of sticky wicket batting to bolster the claim of modern day greats. They haven't been within a couple of generations of one. The second argument that can be used against Bradman is that the bowling of England, his main opponents, wasn't at its peak during his career. This is not completely without merit. The express pace bowlers of England, barring Larwood in 1932-33 were not amongst any short list of all time greats during the period of Bradman's reign. But this argument can not account for Bradman's amazing superiority over his peers. Every great has to be compared with others of his time and Bradman's record in this regard is truly amazing and it is this that distinguishes him from the others.

[Gunner_Mania]

Reducing cricket to numbers. This time it is age if not centuries/averages/strike rates:protest:

[The Outsider]

Very well said, SJS. The premise to build any model first and foremost is for it to pass a few sanity checks and this one fails spectacularly. As shown earlier in the thread there were 45 cricketers in the 70s-90s who played beyond the age of 38 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=38;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=01+Jan+2000;spanmin1=01+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Since 2000, there have been only 5 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=38;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Mar+2010;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting If the number of young players is to be an indicator of the overall standard of cricket being played, then surely going by the above numbers the cricket being played today would be of a much higher level than from 70s-90s. Were Gavaskar, Kapil, Richards etc. all crap players then? In fact, you can use this argument to show that Sami is a better bowler than Marshall, it is so preposterous. And as you've already written above, there was but 1 bowler who bowled at Bradman at the age of 40+ : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=2;orderby=wickets;player_involve=492;spanmax1=01+Jan+1950;spanmin1=01+Jan+1930;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling And in fact, Bradman never faced up to teams which were really old in their average age. The Auusie team which played the Sydney test against England in 2007 had an average age of 33. I doubt there are any teams which Bradman played which had an average age greater than that, certainly not enough for age to be a factor in this achievement. And is there even a need to reiterate the quality of that Aussie side in 2006-07 - at an average age of 33 they inflicted a 5-0 whitewash on England, with most of the top performers being the older lot. Simpson, who is considered nowhere as close to the greatest batsmen in terms of ability came out of a 10 year retirement at the age of 42 to score hundreds against Bedi and Chandra. Brian Close, a mediocre batsman by all accounts, scored over a 100 runs in a test against Holding and Roberts at the age of 46. Lindwall ran 100 yards in 10.6 seconds......can Munaf Patel run it in 100 seconds?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

No one atleast me said anything about facing bowlers over 40 (in any case the bowlers start decline much earlier than 40 ) ... My point was about this business of dominating peers which is used ad-nauseum by the Bradman fanclub. The peers included mainly Jobbs and Hammond ... and both played a lot of cricket past 40. I have explained this in previous posts.

Kya yaar kuch bhi? You make all these blanket comments in this Internet era without realizing they can readily be verified? Jack Hobba played in grand total of 1 series against Australia during DG's presense. You are sounding off as if JH was competing with DG in every other series, that too with Hobbs being around 40 plus. Wally Hammond played in 7 series against DG and was aged 25,27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 43. By the way you conviniently forgot other greats: Len Hutton - played in 2 series aged 22 and 30 at the time. Dennis Compton - 20, 28, 30 at the time. Herbert Sutcliffe - 34, 36, 38 and 40. Your comment that DG was competing against English geritaric batsmen is absolutely hollow. I am pretty sure I can pull out the age on Australian side as well but hopefully this shall end this discussion. xxx