Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
For players playing right now I have Kohli at number one as his numbers across all formats are incredible. He had a pretty slow start to his test career but his average has been climbing for some times now.
-
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Whilst that argument has merit, Bradman was also sooo far ahead of anyone else of his own time. Would he have averaged in the 90s? Who knows, but for sure he’d have been head and shoulders above the next bloke.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
-
Hard to compare across eras, different bats, technology, pitch conditions, laws, protective equipment etc. Not a completely different game, but not the same either. Herbert Sutcliffe averaged over 60 as a test opener between 1924-35 (and never fell below 60 at any point in his test career) - if we're looking for a second greatest average before the modern era, it's probably that.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
I do get what you're saying. But the counter argument can be made that he didn't get as many opportunities to pad the average against shit teams ( he never played NZ as an example and we were terrible then )
Neither of us can say conclusively but your mark of 20 less still puts the career average at 79. That's still rather decent.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
Neither of us can say conclusively but your mark of 20 less still puts the career average at 79. That's still rather decent.
Certainly, which would still have him as the best test cricketer, no question. But the myth that he was nearly twice as good as every other batsman based on 99.94 is up there with every other myth about him.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
played on uncovered pitches of course.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
Neither of us can say conclusively but your mark of 20 less still puts the career average at 79. That's still rather decent.
Certainly, which would still have him as the best test cricketer, no question. But the myth that he was nearly twice as good as every other batsman based on 99.94 is up there with every other myth about him.
When you write it down like that then yeah, it looks ridiculous but by your reckoning does Hammonds career average drop to 38 ? ( which puts him in a Craig McMillan/Nathan Astle bracket )
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
Neither of us can say conclusively but your mark of 20 less still puts the career average at 79. That's still rather decent.
Certainly, which would still have him as the best test cricketer, no question. But the myth that he was nearly twice as good as every other batsman based on 99.94 is up there with every other myth about him.
When you write it down like that then yeah, it looks ridiculous but by your reckoning does Hammonds career average drop to 38 ? ( which puts him in a Craig McMillan/Nathan Astle bracket )
Proportionally it would possibly be in the mid-high 40s I'd guess. There was the 563 he averaged in New Zealand...
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
He still averaged over 50 during bodyline. And that was with no helmet and primitive protection. Give him modern kit and time to adapt and he probably would have mastered it.
Its just so difficult to gauge anything regarding Bradman. His stats are so ridiculous that comparisons are pretty much meaningless. As a youngster I presumed that there must have been a heap of guys with averages in the 70s and 80s from his era. But there aren’t. The guy was an utter freak.
-
And I do think that modern era batting averages are swayed high by smaller grounds, restrictions on bowling and fielding, tree trunk bats etc.
Real cricket was played during the 70s and 90s.
-
Not sure how we're defining the modern era, but if it's players still playing, then Smith has it in tests, with the caveat that things change between the peak of a career and the end.
If it's completed careers of players who played in the 80s or later, I'd say Tendulkar or Sangakkara, although Kallis is in the conversation as well.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
And I do think that modern era batting averages are swayed high by smaller grounds, restrictions on bowling and fielding, tree trunk bats etc.
Real cricket was played during the 70s and 90s.
Definitely. It was exciting when Richards, Beefy, Chris's Dad Lance, etc hit big sixes. Now it's so common that it's boring at times.
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
Not sure how we're defining the modern era, but if it's players still playing, then Smith has it in tests, with the caveat that things change between the peak of a career and the end.
If it's completed careers of players who played in the 80s or later, I'd say Tendulkar or Sangakkara, although Kallis is in the conversation as well.
No love for Ponting, Hayden or ( most shocking of all ) Lara ?!?!
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
He still averaged over 50 during bodyline. And that was with no helmet and primitive protection. Give him modern kit and time to adapt and he probably would have mastered it.
Its just so difficult to gauge anything regarding Bradman. His stats are so ridiculous that comparisons are pretty much meaningless. As a youngster I presumed that there must have been a heap of guys with averages in the 70s and 80s from his era. But there aren’t. The guy was an utter freak.
Well no, at the risk of sounding like a broken record the next best is Smith ( not counting Labuschagne, his will surely dip ) and he's still THIRTY SEVEN runs behind......or to put it another way, a whole Nathan Astle behind.......
