Busting myths about the Bradman Era: The Don's average on sticky wickets was 20.29!

[b555]

Whenever batsmen of the Bradman Era are discussed, one takes it for granted that uncovered pitches and inadequate protection against fast bowling loaded factors against them. Arunabha Sengupta looks at facts and figures to point out that much of the supposed handicaps are imagined. --- After this writer wrote in a recent article that Virender Sehwag is the second fastest run-getter in history, there was a deluge of questions about the strike-rate of Don Bradman, Wally Hammond and some other venerable cricketers of the past. There have been some excellent studies in this regard which estimate that Bradman scored at 61.5, Hammond at 45.4 and so on. Well, that makes Bradman pretty fast even by todayÃÔ standards, and Hammond was just a tad slower. However, in many quarters, it required severe mental readjustment to align these commonplace numbers beside the great heroes who have been painted in mythological colours by the pens of Neville Cardus and his tribe. The rationalisation was predictable. And it is not limited to discussions on strike rates. Whenever batsmen of the Bradman era are discussed alongside modern masters, the argument follows the unwavering: Å£atting in those days without adequate protection and on uncovered wickets ... We tend to believe that the days when Hammond and Bradman played, things were loaded in favour of the bowlers especially the fast ones. The past rolls towards us along the bejewelled memory lanes, picking up gold dust of time, and when finally it stands side by side with the present, the current suffers in contrast. We tend to attribute superhuman skills to people whom we have seldom seen, at least never on television, playing and missing like a modern day mortal. For Don Bradman and his contemporaries, even YouTube videos are few and grainy. We are left to prosaic records on paper, and the eulogies scripted by the likes of Cardus that cloak the achievements in a lustre relegating whatever chinks there might have been to rare unread archives. BradmanÃÔ not-so-flattering numbers Let me assure all that I am as much in awe of the amazing stats of Don Bradman as the next man. The numbers do tell his story so eloquently that argument is both foolhardy and farcical. Bradman stands head and shoulders above any batsman in history before or since, Victor Trumper, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar included. However, my peeve here is the undue importance given to the playing conditions of that era. There is no way that Bradman and the worthy men of his times batted in more difficult conditions. Uncovered wickets may have been faced frequently, but BradmanÃÔ numbers are not very respectable in those conditions. If there is anything that undermines BradmanÃÔ genius, it is his batting on sticky wickets. To put it in blasphemous but irrefutable figures, the average dipped by around hundred when the wickets became rain affected.

Full article : http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/Busting-myths-about-the-Bradman-Era-The-Don-s-average-on-sticky-wickets-was-20-29/19492

[BeautifulGame]

Apart from merely stating where does he proof or provide a link that Bradman only ave. 22 in sticky ?

[Old guy]

this thread has potential .

[velu]

how to check sticky average for modern batsmen ?? :dontknow:

[Crookbond]

In fact, successful fast bowlers evolved later, with Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller showing the way, followed by Fred Trueman, Brian Statham, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith and others. With time they became more numerous. Helmets according to many have changed the way fast bowlers have dominated the game. This is not really a statistically-verified fact. The story that numbers tell has been demonstrated in this article, but this is another favourite half-truth that we like to cling on to. If we come to think about it, the helmet is not a very sophisticated technical marvel. If lives of batsmen were really in constant peril because of dangerous fast bowling, such contraptions would have come into play a lot sooner. Necessity is after all the mother of invention.

What a BIG chewtiya! So, because the cure to AIDS is not found for the next 100 years AIDS is not a BIG deal of a disease. :facepalm:

[Raghav_12]

What a BIG chewtiya! So' date=' because the cure to AIDS is not found for the next 100 years AIDS is not a BIG deal of a disease. :facepalm:[/quote'] This has been discussed multiple times. Cure of AIDS was not needed some 200 years ago because disease was not commom and not many lives were threatened because of that. Similarly, helmet was not needed in Bradman's time bacasue bowling was innocuous and batsmen were not threatened for their life. As soon as fast bowling evolved in 60-70's, helmets came in the picture, of course with some time lag. After bodyline, world cricket had two choices a) Deal with fast threatening bowling with skills enhancement and better equipment b) Simple get those bowlers declared "outlawed" and against the spirit of gentlemen game. Unfortunately, world cricket went for option B.

[indiaregulator]

Yeah, didnt bradman score a century in 3 overs once in test cricket? That makes his sr of 60 sound unreasonable. Hell, they didnt even record balls recieved in those days so how on earth has this guy dug out those numbers.

[Number]

https://twitter.com/senantix you can abuse him there.. :P

[The Outsider]

While it's certainly true that Bradman was not considered as good as Hobbs and Trumper on sticky wickets, the writer has completely gone nuts by pulling out just some random stats. In fact this innings of Bradman was played on a sticky when he reversed the batting order to buy some more time: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62643.html

Probably a blind Sachinista trying to dig into Bradman. He completely made up the strike rates of Hammond and Bradman. Wow, this article is a complete load of tosh. If it can even be described as an "article."

Trust me - people would not have discussed this bar Tendulkar. Where has the author come up with SR's btw? :dontknow:

That number of early 60s or so is a good estimate. A lot of Bradman's innings, specially the longer ones which are going to contribute more, have balls recorded on them. From what I remember around 6000 of his total runs have balls recorded, so it's going to a fairly accurate number.

[ganeshran]

This thread is not about SRT, please keep the discussion to Bradman. If you want to discuss Bradman vs SRT, bump an existing thread for that.

[King Tendulkar]

This thread is not about SRT, please keep the discussion to Bradman. If you want to discuss Bradman vs SRT, bump an existing thread for that.

Are there any threads which discuss Bradman v SRT? Shall I create one?

[maniac]

Are there any threads which discuss Bradman v SRT? Shall I create one?

:hysterical:

[b555]

https://twitter.com/senantix you can abuse him there.. :P

:hysterical: