With the passage of time athletes are getting stronger and better. One only needs to see how the times have been coming down with athletics, swimming etc. Same can be said with Tennis. For example a player with a top game in the eighties would struggle with the same game if he competed against today's best. It is hard go compare sportsmen from any era to another. Bradman with his numbers was clearly the best in his era but whether his 99 is equivalent to 90 or 80 0r 70 in today's context is debatable.
I don't think some people realise that if Bradman played more games against the likes of India his average would have been even higher! His average against England was 'only' 89.79.
Also back in the days when the Don played they didn't have covered pitches, boundaries brought in or being given not out on lbw appeals if the ball pitched outside the line of leg stump.
Re merlin, he may have 'struggled' (compared to his actual average) against the like of the 1970's and 1980's West Indies pacers, but consider he faced an equally grilling situation during the Bodyline series, where he averged a 'measily' 56! The next best Australian was McCabe with 42-point-something.
Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
So who are all the other batsmen from his era with inflated averages?
1920's / 30's Batting Averages:
97.94 Don Bradman 67.25 Len Hutton 66.71 George Headley 61.45 Wally Hammond 60.73 Herbert Sutcliffe 59.23 Eddie Paynter 58.50 Phil Mead 56.63 Jack Hobbs 55.00 Ernest Tyldesley
When you consider that no batsman has managed to average over 61 (bar Bradman) and only very few over 55, then the batting averages from this era was very high.
The point i'm trying to make is Bradman was quite clearly the best, and by some margin. Though his average would be mabe a little inflated, in other eras with more conservative field placings and helpful wickets his average might have been nearer 75 than 100. Still undisbutably the best bat of all time.
No matter how you try to finesse the stats. or make spurious comparisons with batsmen of a different era. Bradman is ahead - by the proverbial country mile.
But..... who would you put your mortgage on to make a hundred on a spiteful English drying wicket - Bradman or Hobbs? Any other takers?
Originally posted by B@sil: But..... who would you put your mortgage on to make a hundred on a spiteful English drying wicket - Bradman or Hobbs? Any other takers?
Hobbs was reputedly masterful under such conditions, as was the man in my signature. I don't know how often Bradman batted on difficult wickets.
Originally posted by B@sil: No matter how you try to finesse the stats. or make spurious comparisons with batsmen of a different era. Bradman is ahead - by the proverbial country mile.
But..... who would you put your mortgage on to make a hundred on a spiteful English drying wicket - Bradman or Hobbs? Any other takers?
I don't think you would put much money on Bradman in those conditions. Having said that, if he had been required to play regularly on stickies he would probably have mastered them.
Hobbs is probably the best ever in all conditions.
He also succesfully dealt with bodyline from Bowes in 1932 (Hobbs aged 50, scored 90) and scored a century against Voce in 1933. He made it clear that he didn't like it but could quite obviously deal with it.
The other serious contender for Bradman's crown as best ever would have to be WG Grace who dominated over other batsmen in the 1870s to an even greater extent than Bradman did in the 1930s.
(nb. Hammond averaged more than Bradman in pre-WW2 Ashes tests in Australia)
Originally posted by Pontoon: How many record examples are there of Trumper's mastery on wet wickets?
This is what Wisden had to say about Trumper in 1903 after the AUS 1902 tour of England:
"Having regard to the character of the season, with its many wet days and soft wickets, it is safe to say that no one-not even Ranjitsinhji-has been at once so brilliant and so consistent since W. G. Grace was at his best. Trumper seemed independent of varying conditions, being able to play just as dazzling a game after a night"s rain as when the wickets were hard and true. All bowling came alike to him and on many occasions, notably in the Test matches at Sheffield and Manchester and the first of the two games with the M. C. C. at Lord"s, he reduced our best bowlers for the time being to the level of the village green. They were simply incapable of checking his extraordinary hitting. Only a combination of wonderful eye and supreme confidence could have rendered such pulling as his at all possible. The way in which he took good length balls off the middle stump and sent them round to the boundary had to be seen to be believed. Though this exceptional faculty, however, was one of the main sources of his strength on soft wickets, he was far indeed from being dependent on unorthodox strokes. His cutting and off-driving approached perfection and he did everything with such an easy grace of style that his batting was always a delight to the eye. Risking so much, he plays what I should call a young man"s game, lightning quickness of eye and hand being essential to his success, and for this reason I should not expect him after twenty years or more of first-class cricket to rival such batsmen as Shrewsbury, A. P. Lucas and W. L. Murdoch, but for the moment he is unapproachable."
His reputation does seem to be largely built on that one season.
Apart from that tour (and even in the 1902 test matches) he was rather inconsistent. He averaged 32.8 against England, which was no more than OK even by pre-WW1 expectations.
Of his contemporaries, Clem Hill is unlucky to be considered the lesser player since he seems to have been more dependable and, at times, almost as good to watch.
BTW, hello to Lardy, Tailender and a few others from the old ABC forum. I'm back in Japan now.
So who was you?
_____________________________________________ Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Originally posted by Insouciant Bear: So, does anyone reckon anyone will ever come close to Bradman's average in the future? Or will this record stand forever?
Excluding statistical oddities (Andy Ganteaume had a career average of 112, for instance) I think Bradman's record is safe forever.
Anyone playing a 20 year career now would have to score 30,000 runs to average 100 (and more than 100 test centuries).
Originally posted by Insouciant Bear: So, does anyone reckon anyone will ever come close to Bradman's average in the future? Or will this record stand forever?
Zscore's book suggests that DGB is a one in 400,000 test cricketer.
Originally posted by the tactician: Sorry guys, this thread was meant as a p1ss take at all the previous threads trying to run down Bradman's achievement.
BTW, hello to Lardy, Tailender and a few others from the old ABC forum. I'm back in Japan now.
