SA Footy

Another interesting stat is the percentage of teams runs scored. Steve Smith currently sits 2nd behind Bradman for Australian players. Neil Harvey with 16% is 3rd for Australia.

Bradman scored 24% of his teams runs.
Headley scored 21% in 2nd (22 games)
Lara 18% in 3rd
Smith sits 9th with 17%

Hutton, Hobbs, Nourse, Weekes, Mitchell, Sutcliffe, Sangakarra the others over 17%.

Tony Clifton wrote:It has been pretty standard throughout cricket's history that a batsman who averages 40 is a good player and someone who averages 50+ is a great player.

Perhaps a few more are tipping over the 50 threshold now compared to previously but it's still a pretty decent measure of a player's worth. Times change, pitches change, rules change but that 40/50 mark remains a pretty solid guide.

There is just one outlier in any era - Bradman.

Very true.

Not sure it’s as bad as you think regarding averages though.

Only 7 current players average over 50 - smith, pujara, root, kohli, handscomb (11 tests), Williamson Khan.

A lot of players dip just below it due to poor ends to their career (Sehwag Clarke Ponting et al)


The real outlier is Voges managing to average 61.87 over his 20 tests. Smith is on 61.23, really hope he manages to overtake Voges and stay there

bennymacca wrote:Smith is on 61.23, really hope he manages to overtake Voges and stay there

The way he's going, I think that's a serious possibility.

Seriously good no matter how you look at it.

Is there a bigger single outlier in the history of sport?

Off the top of my head I can’t think of one.

Not that familiar with American sports though so there could be one there

We’ve had this discussion before I think.

Phil Taylor is the one I can think of that may come close, and I think there is some squash player that usually gets mentioned too

bennymacca wrote:Is there a bigger single outlier in the history of sport?

Off the top of my head I can’t think of one.

Not that familiar with American sports though so there could be one there

We’ve had this discussion before I think.

Phil Taylor is the one I can think of that may come close, and I think there is some squash player that usually gets mentioned too

Jahangir Khan was near unbeatable for years, Jansher(not sure if I spelt that correctly) wasn't a whole lot behind. Without blokes like that Chris Dittmar would've been a multiple times world champion. They had to change the rules of billiards simply to counteract Walter Lindrum being unbeatable.

I reckon Heather McKay was unbeaten for a ridiculous amount of time as well.

Heather McKay (Squash) and Walter Lindrum (Billiards) are two Aussies that get mentioned alot as being Bradmanesque in their sports. Pretty obscure sports though. Tennis (men and women) has had "generation" players with Bradman type dominance whilst they have played but as one retires another one soon comes along. There is statistical proof that Bradman has never had close to an equal.

Back to the no covers issues and some of the comments. They also had timeless tests until around 1930? plus a rest day right up until the 1980's plus if you had a poor test you could get some touch back with 3 or 4 hits against a lesser standard before your next test. Look at Cook after the Gabba. He just gets a few net sessions to try and get things right for Adelaide. So there are many factors that make comparisons very difficult, its just that the "and they had no covers" thing has always annoyed me a little. Bradman and co. didn't have 194cm plus athletes getting the ball up around their throat 2 or 3 times an over either. Some of the Bodyline footage shows how inept some of them were against genuine short pitched bowling. Less so Bradman but it was more the now illegal field placings that tempered his scoring in that series.

The Bedge wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:

heater31 wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!

Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....

The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.

Pitches would've been very average by the end of tests, not just the start. I doubt there would've been groundsman who were committed full time to producing a beautiful deck like these days.

Not just soft sticky wickets, would've got a few that crumbled or opened up badly over the course of a game.

Think pitch difference is a valid point.

Apart from the pitches though, bats weren't nearly as good as now and grounds were full size, not roped off 20m in like these days as well.

Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.

I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.

Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.

I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.

Not sure those points are that valid... Every other batsman back then got to face the same pie chuckers yet still no one comes close.

Down the Hill wrote:Heather McKay (Squash) and Walter Lindrum (Billiards) are two Aussies that get mentioned alot as being Bradmanesque in their sports.

Obscure yep but unbeaten from 1933 to retirement in 1950 and the rules (baulk line) were changed because of him.

reppoh_eht wrote:

Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.

I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.

Not sure those points are that valid... Every other batsman back then got to face the same pie chuckers yet still no one comes close.

No different to the likes of SAngakkara and Murili batting and bowling against the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Bradman played 52 tests all bar 15 (5 against South Africa in 31-32, 5 against WI in 30-31 and 5 against India 47-48) were against England.

Tate, Larwood, Allen, Hammond, Voce, Bedser all quality

If you look at most of the Aussie batters of recent times they all averaged less against England so it makes Bradmans average even more impressive.
Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Clarke all good players but averaged less against England then their all time averages.........from memory and stats I saw recently.

reppoh_eht wrote:

Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.

I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.

Not sure those points are that valid... Every other batsman back then got to face the same pie chuckers yet still no one comes close.

I must say whenever I see the footage of the bowling back in Bradmans era... it looks pretty friendly. However the point is well made that all the other batters in the same era couldn't get close to his numbers. I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.

The Bedge wrote:

Down the Hill wrote:

heater31 wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!

Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....

The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.

Pitches would've been very average by the end of tests, not just the start. I doubt there would've been groundsman who were committed full time to producing a beautiful deck like these days.

Not just soft sticky wickets, would've got a few that crumbled or opened up badly over the course of a game.

Think pitch difference is a valid point.

Apart from the pitches though, bats weren't nearly as good as now and grounds were full size, not roped off 20m in like these days as well.

Who's to say wickets wernt watered to some degree each night to keep them fresh? In hot australian conditions they would dry by the morning of the next day but still stay together longer if this was the case. Is there any documentation that wickets couldnt be watered during games?

Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.

I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.

Gozu wrote:

Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.

I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.

Or as boof used to say... you can hit it in the air, just not near the fielders.

Corona Man wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.

I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.

Or as boof used to say... you can hit it in the air, just not near the fielders.

Reckon Boof only said that to piss off The Don.....

Heres my opinions based on here and there historical research on Sir Donald George GOAT Bradman , and cricket of the times

The ovals in Australia in Don Bradmans playing days were bigger, hence by definition it would have been harder to score boundaries

Don Bradman scored quickly ,looks like he scored close to a run per minute in a lot of innings, teams invariably dont do that these days

The pitches were uncovered in his days, so he would have batted on some difficult sticky wickets in some innings

The question I will raise is, if the bowlers were no good in his playing days, why did he have a batting average close to double most other good batsmen of the times?

A comparison of sorts these days would be
Steve Smith averaging about 110 with the bat
Gary GOAT Lyon averaging about 10 per test wicket

Or for more of a view on how much better Bradman was in his day it would be akin to Ken farmer kicking about 200 goals in almost every season he played in the SANFL

I have only posted , with some considereable bias toward Don Bradman
We dont know if he would have been as good now, with the amount of Test cricket played , the bats, etc etc
But the undeniable fact is, anyone who averages close to twice as much as the best of the times, in any sport,in any era , is freakish

heater31 wrote:

Corona Man wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.

I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.

Or as boof used to say... you can hit it in the air, just not near the fielders.

Reckon Boof only said that to piss off The Don.....

Don Bourke?