Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@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.......
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@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 ?!?!
Hayden could get the opener's discount perhaps.
For the sake of discussion, I downloaded the highest average record from Cricinfo (qualification is 20 innings - seems reasonable to me) and calculated averages without NOs.
There are 42 players on that list with a conventional average of 50+. That drops to 16 when NOs are ignored, with Lara being one of them (51.52), but Sangakkara (53.21) still being ahead of Lara. Tendulkar drops to 48.39, Kallis to 47.46, Hayden to 46.88. Of current players, Smith drops to 55.17 but Labucschagne stays put at 63.43 (no NOs apparently!).
-
@Godder said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@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 ?!?!
Hayden could get the opener's discount perhaps.
For the sake of discussion, I downloaded the highest average record from Cricinfo (qualification is 20 innings - seems reasonable to me) and calculated averages without NOs.
There are 42 players on that list with a conventional average of 50+. That drops to 16 when NOs are ignored, with Lara being one of them (51.52), but Sangakkara (53.21) still being ahead of Lara. Tendulkar drops to 48.39, Kallis to 47.46, Hayden to 46.88. Of current players, Smith drops to 55.17 but Labucschagne stays put at 63.43 (no NOs apparently!).
I love stats like this, makes Lara look good which makes me happy as to me he's the closest to genius I've ever seen play.
Sangakkara is a genuine great who is easily forgotten for whatever reason. Even more so when he hung up the gloves.
I do remember Kallis getting loads of not outs despite batting pretty high up, S Waugh and Border too but obviously they batted 5-6 for so much of their career so more not outs was inevitable.
Labuschagne has obviously had an amazing start to his career but way to early to mention him in any shape or form.
-
@Godder apply those same criteria to NZ and we only have three above 40 Richardson 43.27 , Crowe 42.19 and Williamson 41.25
Only nine others make it over 35 - Turner, Ryder, Latham, Jones, McCullum, Taylor, J F Reid, Wright, Fleming.
Mind you the likes of Laxman, Stackpole, Bell, Stokes, Stewart, Chanderpaul don't even get to 35!
-
@dogmeat said in Modern batting averages:
@Godder apply those same criteria to NZ and we only have three above 40 Richardson 43.27 , Crowe 42.19 and Williamson 41.25
Only nine others make it over 35 - Turner, Ryder, Latham, Jones, McCullum, Taylor, J F Reid, Wright, Fleming.
Mind you the likes of Laxman, Stackpole, Bell, Stokes, Stewart, Chanderpaul don't even get to 35!
Rigor is our GOAT !!!!! That'll piss off a bunch of snowflakes.
KW, for shame
but seriously, it's one of those 'intangibles'......I'd say Adam Gilchrist as one example smashed some quick unbeaten runs against a demoralised attack on numerous occasions and padded the average....but Hayden up top averaged more blunting the attack with statistically far less chance of a not out.
Chanderpaul was obviously bloody careful ( as I remember him with his strange stance )....that's a massive drop of over 15 runs !
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
Sangakkara is a genuine great who is easily forgotten for whatever reason. Even more so when he hung up the gloves.
I like Kumar, but I can't say he ever really excited me. You didn't stop what you were doing because you heard Sangakkara had come to the crease.
A great cricketer, fantastic career, amazing numbers but missing a bit of X-factor IMO.
-
@barbarian said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
Sangakkara is a genuine great who is easily forgotten for whatever reason. Even more so when he hung up the gloves.
I like Kumar, but I can't say he ever really excited me. You didn't stop what you were doing because you heard Sangakkara had come to the crease.
A great cricketer, fantastic career, amazing numbers but missing a bit of X-factor IMO.
yeah but you could say the same about Kallis, Border, S Waugh, Dravid......all undoubted greats but none particularly thrilling to watch.
-
Did Don Bradman’s cricketing genius make him a statistical outlier? - Significance magazine
The test career batting average of Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman of 99.94 runs per innings is one of the most famous and iconic sporting performance statistics in history. Bradman...
-
@NTA said in Modern batting averages:
Did Don Bradman’s cricketing genius make him a statistical outlier? - Significance magazine
The test career batting average of Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman of 99.94 runs per innings is one of the most famous and iconic sporting performance statistics in history. Bradman...
I like it when nerds back up shit I’m trying to say with graphs and shit
