If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[8ankitj]

So what you are saying is that conditions were different in the era that Lohmann bowled' date=' making his average not same as that of modern era bowlers?[/quote'] Yes, indeed. He did phenomenal for his era still. But for the small sample size would probably be Marshall's equal (or tad better) in terms of peer dominance.

[ganeshran]

Yes' date=' indeed. He did phenomenal for his era still. But for the small sample size would probably be Marshall's equal (or tad better) in terms of peer dominance.[/quote'] Marshall's average is 20.94, would a adjustment of 94% in his Lohmann's stats be justified statistically to normalize for the difference across eras? Also, the small sample size isnt an argument here. Its not Lohmann's fault that there was not much cricket played during that era - his career lasted 10 years

[8ankitj]

lmfao...if bradman was born in india most people right now would be defending his technique and these videos people are posting would be used to show his greatness!

Yeah. As I said before, one must do a small experiment to compare the following two: Of the group that thinks Tendulkar is the best of last 60 years, % that thinks Bradman is not the greatest of all time Of the group that thinks Tendulkar is NOT the best of last 60 years, % that thinks Bradman is not the greatest of all time I bet the proportion in the first set would be much higher. That's what irks me most in this debate. Those undermining Bradman's achievements are invariably the guys who think Tendulkar is the greatest thing to happen to cricket.

[8ankitj]

Marshall's average is 20.94, would a adjustment of 94% in his Lohmann's stats be justified statistically to normalize for the difference across eras? Also, the small sample size isnt an argument here. Its not Lohmann's fault that there was not much cricket played during that era - his career lasted 10 years

I am basing my statement on this - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html I will definitely have Lohman in my top 25 bowlers of all time. It's his small sample size that doesn't give one the confidence to put him on top.

[ganeshran]

I am basing my statement on this - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html I will definitely have Lohman in my top 25 bowlers of all time. It's his small sample size that doesn't give one the confidence to put him on top.

The problem is that Lohmann is not considered a bowling great by most cricket experts - even though his figures are statistically unimaginable to achieve in the modern era. He had a bowling average of 10.75 and strike rate of 34 odd. Even then, I would definitely not place him above the Windies pace battery of the 80s. The small sample size argument is moot in an era where not much cricket was played in the first place. Its not Lohmann's fault that others had a bigger sample size because of longevity. If you take a 100 wicket cut off, the guy out performed his nearest competitor (Sidney Barnes) by 52%. Even with smaller cut offs, he outperforms his nearest competitor by 20% and there are hardly 2-3 bowlers in the 10-16 bowling average bracket.

[zen]

The problem is that Lohmann is not considered a bowling great by most cricket experts - even though his figures are statistically unimaginable to achieve in the modern era. He had a bowling average of 10.75 and strike rate of 34 odd. Even then, I would definitely not place him above the Windies pace battery of the 80s. The small sample size argument is moot in an era where not much cricket was played in the first place. Its not Lohmann's fault that others had a bigger sample size because of longevity. If you take a 100 wicket cut off, the guy out performed his nearest competitor (Sidney Barnes) by 52%. Even with smaller cut offs, he outperforms his nearest competitor by 20% and there are hardly 2-3 bowlers in the 10-16 bowling average bracket.

Link Lohmann has been discussed before

[mishra]

context has changed now.. look at op

[Raghav_12]

Link Lohmann has been discussed before

Thanks for this link. I got to read this post from Bossbhai because of that. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1015861&postcount=161

Sigh ! the power of brainwashing. During DGBs times there were a grand total of 38 players who played test cricket after the age of 40yrs. For the last decade that number is a grand total of One player (Alec Stewart) . If this stat doesnt tell you the state of affairs then nothing else will .... and Iam sure it will be pretteeeee easy for me to sell that bridge next to your house to you ... it was ***ing built in that era too ...

Now, if this data is true, then there can't be better evidence to reflect on standards and ameteurishness of the cricket in the era Bradman played. This is really strong argument and very difficult to be countered. You can not really compare some 40+ uncles playing cricket with the time when whole world goes after you as soon as you turn 35.

[The Outsider]

Thanks for this link. I got to read this post from Bossbhai because of that. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1015861&postcount=161 Now, if this data is true, then there can't be better evidence to reflect on standards and ameteurishness of the cricket in the era Bradman played. This is really strong argument and very difficult to be countered. You can not really compare some 40+ uncles playing cricket with the time when whole world goes after you as soon as you turn 35.

And there were more cricketers playing cricket beyond 38 in the era of the great West Indies than there are today? And Dravid has scored more test tons after the age of 38 than any other cricketer in history? Don't you guys laugh at your own foolishness before jumping on the keyboard? Serious question? And after expressing such biased stupidity you run around proclaiming yourself to be a neutral? You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that Jordan, Khan, and Bolt are statistical outliers in modern sports and cry about not watching enough of these games when they are brought up as counter to your argument.

[Raghav_12]

And there were more cricketers playing cricket beyond 38 in the era of the great West Indies than there are today? And Dravid has scored more test tons after the age of 38 than any other cricketer in history? Don't you guys laugh at your own foolishness before jumping on the keyboard? Serious question? And after expressing such biased stupidity you run around proclaiming yourself to be a neutral? You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that Jordan' date=' Khan, and Bolt are statistical outliers in modern sports and cry about not watching enough of these games when they are brought up as counter to your argument.[/quote'] Dude, Calm down. No need to go hyper, I know you are very intelligent and knowledgable. Coming back to the point, on one side we talking about 38 players over age of 40 from very small sample size and on other side you countering that with example of one player over age of 38 (not even 40) from a sample size which is atleast 5-6 times from the earlier sample size. Let me tell about Bolt being outlier in 200 m, the point that you had made. Best times in 200 m - Bolt - 19.19 Yohan Blake - 19.26 M Johnson - 19.32 and you comparing that is similar level of dominance as Bradman Brdaman Average - 99.94 (some 60 years ago) Next Best avergare - Something in low 60's How many people would think if both are similar level of dominance?

[The Outsider]

I am basing my statement on this - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html I will definitely have Lohman in my top 25 bowlers of all time. It's his small sample size that doesn't give one the confidence to put him on top.

I am stuck on this forum being the founder of it to have to tolerate idiots - you seem to be a smart person. Here is my advice for you - quit this forum because the idiots and imbeciles on this forum will drag you down to their level very soon and you will be confronted with garbage like "time doesn't move", "I don't know jack about DFFITS, but will keep on arguing on statistical outliers with authority", "India had nuclear weapons 5000 years back" kind of nonsense.

[The Outsider]

Dude, Calm down. No need to go hyper, I know you are very intelligent and knowledgable. On one side we talking about 38 players over age of 40 from very small sample size and on other side you countering that with example of one player over age of 38 (not even 40) from a sample size which is atleast 5-6 times from the earlier sample size. Let me tell about Bolt being outlier in 200 m, the point that you had made. Best times in 200 m - Bolt - 19.19 Yohan Blake - 19.26 M Johnson - 19.32 and you comparing that is similar level of dominance as Bradman Brdaman Average - 99.94 (some 60 years ago) Next Best avergare - Something in low 60's How many people would think if both are similar level of dominance?

Did you take a look at the fracking graph I posted earlier in the thread regarding Bolt? Did you bother to read about Michael Jordan's dominance in Basketball?

[ganeshran]

Outy what statistical measure would you use to normalize the bowling averages across eras? Marshall's bowling average is 94% higher than Lohmann's. After applying which statistical measure would an expert rightly conclude that Marshall was a much better than Lohmann.

[The Outsider]

Outy what statistical measure would you use to normalize the bowling averages across eras? Marshall's bowling average is 94% higher than Lohmann's. After applying which statistical measure would an expert rightly conclude that Marshall was a much better than Lohmann.

You think you are some novel smart ass coming up with the Lohmann argument? It's been discussed many times, even on ICF by me and people like SJS who have watched much more cricket than you, me, and perhaps everyone on this thread put together. Use the search feature to see how and why Lohmann was not a statistical outlier.

[Raghav_12]

Did you take a look at the fracking graph I posted earlier in the thread regarding Bolt? Did you bother to read about Michael Jordan's dominance in Basketball?

I had checked that graph on Bolt that time as well, but didn't respond as you were getting personal there. That graph is outdated as that didn't include Blake's recent performance. Rt now we are here, along with issue of bunch of 40+ playing international test cricket.

Best times in 200 m - Bolt - 19.19 Yohan Blake - 19.26 M Johnson - 19.32 and you comparing that is similar level of dominance as Bradman Brdaman Average - 99.94 (some 60 years ago) Next Best avergare - Something in low 60's

How many people would think if both are similar level of dominance?

[CG]

Why cannot we simply say Bradman was best Batsman of his time and Sachin of his and move on.Respect both .

[The Outsider]

I had checked that graph on Bolt that time as well, but didn't respond as you were getting personal there. That graph is outdated as that didn't include Blake's recent performance. Rt now we are here: How many people would think if both are similar level of dominance?

Can you plot Blake on that graph and come back? What about Jordan? What about Jahangir Khan? What about Messner? You can keep crying for excuses, but the fact remains Tendulkar has not dominated cricket like these people have dominated sports in the modern and supposedly competitive era. And nothing is going to change that. Worshipers like you can keep on crying and keep on feigning ignorance to facts, but come back 10 years from now on this thread when the India shining inspired euphoria about Tendulkar has died down, and he will be the equivalent of what Sobers, Richards, and Gavaskar are today.

[zen]

A good post by SJS on Lohmann:

Its really nice to see cricket fans, young cricket fans if I may, talk of such old timers as George Lohmann in such glowing terms. Surely Lohmann was one the truly great bowlers of his times. . . and that is how every sportsman needs to be judged if we are to be objective. But that is where my appreciation of what is said in the thread starter ends. Stats alone cant be the judge of whether or not Lohmann was the greatest bowler of all times or whether he would bowl out a top batting line up of today for under 150 runs purely because his bowling average suggests so. We, surely need to look beyond his average for this. First and foremost, Lohmann lived in an era of poorly maintained and uncovered wickets. The bounce was uneven and wickets barely lasted even without the rain which, of course, played havoc on them. To fully appreciate LohmannÃÔ average of 10.76 per wicket we need to at least have a look at what other top bowlers around the world were doing at that time viz 1886-1896. As has been mentioned, there were only three Test playing countries then of these South Africa were the minnows to beat all later day minnows as we will find out a little later. To take the other top bowlers from England and Australia we find the following four two each from England and Australia , besides Lohmann himself.

England

: Johnny Briggs and Bobby Peel

Australia

: Charlie Turner and JJ Ferris

Here are the comparitive figures for those ten years of these bowlers and Lohmann

[B]Player	Tests	 W	 5w	 10w	 Avg	Wkts/Test[/B]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Lohmann	18	112	9	5	10.8	6.2[/COLOR]
Briggs	22	103	9	4	13.8	4.7
Ferris	9	48	4	0	14.3	5.3
Turner	17	101	11	2	16.5	5.9
Peel	15	72	3	1	16.8	4.8

Now we come to the question of Tests against South Africa. This was really a very poor side to be playing Test cricket. England sent teams full of debutants to South Africa, many of them never played again. This can easily be checked by anyone interested . Nevertheless let me just give one illustration. During the decade in question, South Africa played three series all against England. Not only did they lose all three of them, they lost every single Test played without even a draw. So, as we said at the beginning, Lohmann was the finest bowler of his generation but the figures of other top bowlers around the world were pretty remarkable by todayÃÔ standards too. With so many mediocre players in the English side, invariably, the one good bowler took most of the wickets. Have a look. 1. England in South Africa 1888-89

• # of Tests : 2
• Star Bowler : Briggs
• Wkts by Briggs : 21 at 4.8 each !

2. England in South Africa 1891-92

• # of Tests : 1
• Star Bowler : Ferris
• Wkts by Ferris : 13 at 7.00 each !

3. England in South Africa 1895-96

• # of Tests : 3
• Star Bowler : Lohmann
• Wkts by Lohmann : 35 at 5.8 !

Sixty nine wickets in six test matches by three different bowlers at under 6 per wicket ! It didnÃÕ matter what the name of that English bowler was. South Africa were so poor in their standards. In 12 test innings in the six Test matches, no South African managed a hundred. Forget a hundred, none of them managed a fifty ! It was massacre of the lambs. So in any analysis of this period, Tests involving South Africa should be kept aside for any meaningful comparison. If we do that for our five bowlers above, we get. . .

[B]Player	Tests	 W	 5w	 10w	 Avg	Wkts/Test[/B]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Lohmann	15	77	5	3	13	5.1[/COLOR]
Ferris	8	48	4	0	14.3	6
Turner	17	101	11	2	16.5	5.9
Peel	15	72	3	1	16.8	4.8
Briggs	20	85	7	3	17	4.3

Lohmann still tops the list, as befitting the leading bowler of his time, but the comparative figures are not startling. On these figures, if we claim Lohmann to be the greatest bowler of all time, we will have to give a spot to the other four, pretty high up on the same list and the current Indian team may not last long against any of them ☺ I think a fairer way of looking at the cricket of those times is to have a better appreciation of the averages of the batsmen of the times. An average of 30 or 35 was as good as fifty and more of today. Thats what we can learn from these stats. But overall we should best compare cricketers of an era, ideally with his own contemporaries and if he towers head and shoulders above them, we must grant him his place as a giant among his peers. We must see Grace and Bradman, for example, in this light instead of, say, judging Grace to be one-third the batsman the Don was ☺

[ganeshran]

You think you are some novel smart ass coming up with the Lohmann argument? It's been discussed many times' date=' even on ICF by me and people like SJS who have watched much more cricket than you, me, and perhaps everyone on this thread put together. Use the search feature to see how and why Lohmann was not a statistical outlier.[/quote'] There are only three bowlers in the 10-16 bowling average in test history - 50 wickets cut off. Regardless, his being a statistical outlier has no impact on his comparison with Marshall who still has a bowling average 94% higher than Lohmann. What kind of statistical normalization would show Marshall at a higher level than Lohmann

[Raghav_12]

Can you plot Blake on that graph and come back? What about Jordan? What about Jahangir Khan? What about Messner? You can keep crying for excuses' date=' but the fact remains Tendulkar has not dominated cricket like these people have dominated sports in the modern and supposedly competitive era. And nothing is going to change that. Worshipers like you can keep on crying and keep on feigning ignorance to facts, but come back 10 years from now on this thread when the India shining inspired euphoria about Tendulkar has died down, and he will be the equivalent of what Sobers, Richards, and Gavaskar are today.[/quote'] I never told that Tendukar is towering figure in current era the way Bradman or W G Grace were in their eras. IMHO he is best but just by a thin margin. All I say that era of Bradman was far away from current set up and let's not claim that Bradman was definitely better batsman than Sachin or Lara.