Bradman - Hype or Real

[Gambit]

I remember doing some research a long while back and found only one or two bowlers from Bradman's era having sub 25 bowling averages.

Found it. Only 4 bowlers that the Don extensively played against had sub 26 averages: Verity (24) Bedser (25) Bowes (22) Tate (26)

[Guest HariSampath]

The question of the topic was Is Bradman a hype or Real.. Well, although there are millions of answers to that here is one by the BBC when he passed away: I think that this is enough indication of what a cricketer he was. ************************************************************************************** Sir Donald Bradman ( 1908-2001) The Don - A cricket legend Don Bradman was the most efficient, most relentless batsman cricket has ever seen. Not the most dashing or flamboyant perhaps, but his sheer appetite for runs set him apart. Although his total of 6,996 Test runs has been surpassed, it was the rate at which he scored them which was the true mark of his place in the game. He scored a century or more every third time he batted. In 52 Test matches, either side of the Second World War, he averaged 99.94 runs. It was no surprise then, when, in 2000, an international panel of 100 former cricketers and journalists unanimously voted him the greatest ever. The former Australian batsman Jack Fingleton once quipped, "You didn't bat with Bradman, you ran for him." Don Bradman was born in Cootamundra, in New South Wales, Australia, in 1908, the son of a carpenter. He would practice batting with just a cricket stump. At the age of 19, he became the youngest player to score a century in Test cricket in the Ashes against England. In 1930, he made 452 not out for New South Wales against Queensland at Sydney, the highest score ever made in first-class cricket. Bradman made his first tour of England later that year, and in the Test matches he made 974 runs, an average of more than 139. His innings of 334 against England at Headingley, at that time the highest individual score in Test cricket, was perhaps the most famous of his career. Some 309 of his runs were scored in one day. So feared was Bradman's batting that the English devised the controversial tactic of "bodyline" bowling on the tour of Australia in 1932. Fast, short-pitched bowling from Harold Larwood and Bill Voce was aimed at the body, above all to restrict Bradman. Though it worked to a degree, Bradman still managed to average more than 50 in that infamous series which, for a time, poisoned the relationship between the two countries. During the war Bradman was invalided out of the Australian army, but by 1946 he was well enough to captain Australia in the first post-war Tests. His fourth and last tour to England came in 1948 when he led Australia to an overwhelming victory. By contrast, in his last Test innings, at The Oval, in which he needed just four runs to take his average to 100, he was bowled by Eric Holles for nought. When he retired shortly afterwards, he had made more than 28,000 runs including 117 centuries. He was awarded a knighthood in 1949 and he went on to become President of the South Australian Cricket Board and Chairman of Australia's selectors. He also became a successful writer on cricket. But it was his mastery of the art of batting which earned Sir Don Bradman his place in the game's history and his nickname - The Don ******************************************************************************************

[Bongosamaj]

Found it. Only 4 bowlers that the Don extensively played against had sub 26 averages: Verity (24) Bedser (25) Bowes (22) Tate (26)

Well done. Now please explain to our jingoistic pandava brother here the logical conundrum he faces- how do you play against a batsman who averages 99 extensively and STILL average 21-22 with the ball, for batting average and bowling average are directly linked to each other ????

[Lurker]

What about the fact that Shane Warneone of the greatest bowlers as claimed by Sachin is himself not a sub-23 bowler ??( I mean I know he is great' date=' but just applying your twisted logic) :finger:[/quote'] In my opinion there is little reason to hold any such logic as "How many bowlers of sub 23 average did Bradman play?" For two reasons: 1) On top of my head I can rattle off names like Hedley Verity, Maurice Tate and Alec Bedser who ALL have average around 25. How does a 23 differ from 25?? 2) How in the world is a bowler supposed to average 23 when he is up against a batsman who averages 100??? By any sensible logic his average is going to go up. I actually dug further into this Hari/BB and a good example of Alec Bedser shall help prove point 2. Bedser's overall career average 24.89 Bedser's average in the series against Bradman 38.22. xxx

[Lurker]

Well done. Now please explain to our jingoistic pandava brother here the logical conundrum he faces- how do you play against a batsman who averages 99 extensively and STILL average 21-22 with the ball' date=' for batting average and bowling average are directly linked to each other ????[/quote'] Hahaha just wrote that Bongosamaj...Are you stalking me :bowwow:

[Bongosamaj]

Great minds think alike, Lurker :D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Bradman's average is questionable, not greatness. Why dont we ask better questions of Bradman ? As headcoach would ask, was Bradman selfish or selfless ? Since he was old, didnt vacate his spot for junior players, strictly batted at no. 4, revelled in battering the same team, prided on his lofty averages, I reckon he was prolly selfish.:tounge_smile:

[Guest HariSampath]

The fact of the matter is ALL bowlers who ever bowled to Don Bradman, even the relatively successful of them, had their figures much altered because of his devastating batting. In many ways you could say that the Don was the biggest reason why it was so, and the fact these bowlers could still maintain very good averages against other batsmen ( mind you high quality Aussies of that era, but jkust totally overshadowed by Don), shows that they were very good bowlers by themselves against high quality batting, but when it came to the Don, everything changed. This is another major proof.

[Bumper]

The fact of the matter is ALL bowlers who ever bowled to Don Bradman' date=' even the relatively successful of them, had their figures much altered because of his devastating batting. In many ways you could say that the Don was the biggest reason why it was so, and the fact these bowlers could still maintain very good averages against other batsmen ( mind you high quality Aussies of that era, but jkust totally overshadowed by Don), shows that they were very good bowlers by themselves against high quality batting, but when it came to the Don, everything changed. This is another major proof.[/quote'] But Hari thats devious logic isnt it ? That way you can justify the poor averages of pretty much all mediocre bowlers.

[Bongosamaj]

Bedser played a grand total of 2-3 matches against DGB

True. But as Lurker proves categorically- if you play against Bradman, your bowling average suffers. That and that alone is the reason why Verity, Larwood, Voce etc did not average 20-21. For they had to face a batsman who averaged 99 in tests !

But I gotta go unfortanetly

Ah. When it was just Hari & me talking, you didn't have to go. but in comes Lurker, yoda, bumper etc., all trashing your assinine comparison and degrading comments about Bradman and now you gotto go. Gotcha! :haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

Trust me ONE batsman cannot alter a bowlers Bowling Avg

False. If one batsman averages 99, its literally having TWO batsmen each averaging 60 and 7 batsmen + keeper in the 6+1+4 format that is/was commonplace. You are clearly, incorrect, to think that having an 'extra' Tendulkar or Dravid in the fray wont affect your average negetively. Remember, we arnt talking about just 'one' batsman- we are talking of one who is LITERALLY the equivalent of two alltime greats!

the usual suspects have stepped in and spammed this thread ..... didnt take long though.

So you do have some semblance of logical thought if you can forecast most people here taking issue with your twisting of fact and crunching numbers without any cogent basis (as has been pointed out numerous times in the past). Keep in mind that some here are more qualified than you are at making sense o statistical analysis and differentiating between statistical analysis and data-mining that you specialize in.

. It will take me time to crunch that data but I can most certainly do it.

So can a five-year old with a calculator and a link to statsguru. Whopee !

[Lurker]

Bradman's average is questionable, not greatness. Why dont we ask better questions of Bradman ? As headcoach would ask, was Bradman selfish or selfless ? Since he was old, didnt vacate his spot for junior players, strictly batted at no. 4, revelled in battering the same team, prided on his lofty averages, I reckon he was prolly selfish.:tounge_smile:

Bumper. I know you may have asked this question in jest. But if you are interested you would probably like to know that Bradman was indeed tagged as selfish. He had many a run-ins with free-thinkers of the time and it was indeed because of his ironclad discipline regime that Keith Miller never got a chance to lead Australia. Lesser known cricketer got the honours but Miller never did. There are myriad stories of the differences between them. Even in 70s this continued(Bradman was Chairman of Australia board then). Ian Chappell, then skipper, got so peeved at him(dont recall the incident now) that during a game he faced towards the Players area where Don sat, dropped his pants and adjusted his abdomen guard.. :mail:

[Guest HariSampath]

Trust me ONE batsman cannot alter a bowlers Bowling Avg ... if you want that to be explained via numbers let me know. It will take me time to crunch that data but I can most certainly do it. but on a side note ... as I had forecasted ... the usual suspects have stepped in and spammed this thread ..... didnt take long though.

NO ONE is spamming, all are saying highly logical things, the fact is just that you are not answering even my first question after even 6 pages , go to just my question and see, any arguments, and for your argument ( if any) what is the backup? As I said earlier, you are required just to answer me and my points.... please do it

[Bongosamaj]

As I said earlier, you are required just to answer me and my points.... please do it

Err...just a friendly warning- don't go down that road lest you embarass the moderator enough to provoke his trigger-happy 'ban-finger'. Bheem does not specialize in answering questions or debating. Only in making points and avoiding points that destroys his line of thinking. Notice how he ran away when i explained to him the difference between covered and uncovered pitches and exposed his blatant falsehood of 'uncovered pitches are only harder when it rains' nonsense.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

. I would prefer not to dig through the trash

Translation : I ignore points that go against my line of thinking. What did i tell you Hari ? :haha::haha: Wait a minute- didn't you have to 'go' somewhere ? Or is that the usual smokescreen you dish out when someone destroys your jinogism-based points that have nothing to do with cricket ?

[Guest HariSampath]

There is an interesting incident about how Bradman himself took greatest pride in his cricketing superiority, and would mercilessly flog any bowler to death even if was whispered within his hearing that bowler may have got the better of Bradman even in a club game. Lurker you would have probably heard of this ?, this was Michael Parkinson . ******************************************************************************** Michael Parkinson on Don: There is, for instance, the tale of Bill Black, an off-spin bowler playing for Lithgow, who on a memorable day in 1931 bowled Bradman for 52. The umpire was so excited that when the ball hit Bradman's wicket he called out: "Bill, you've got him." The ball was mounted and given to Black as proof that he had dismissed the greatest batsman in the world. Later that season Don Bradman again played against Black. As the bowler marked out his run, Don said to the wicketkeeper: "What sort of bowler is this fellow?" The wicketkeeper, a mischief-maker like the rest of his tribe, replied: "Don't you remember this bloke? He bowled you out a few weeks ago and has been boasting about it ever since." "Is that so?" said Bradman. Two overs later Black pleaded with his skipper to be taken off. Bradman had hit him for 62 runs in two eight-ball overs. He made 100 in three overs and finished with 256, including 14 sixes and 29 fours. ******************************************************************* Lol what murder, even in a junior school game today that would be considered a total destruction

[Gambit]

I suggest you educate yourself better on the nature of cricket played in the bygone days and if you want, i can recommend some very nice books on it. Or you can talk to Salil, he is far more knowledgable than you or me on the batting of that era.

Or you could lend him your Headley tapes? :D