Don-graded: The Ultimate in Tall Poppies

[Player]

I don't know how you do things in Oz, but in New Zealand a batting average is the batsmans career runs divided by the number of times s/he gets out.

So why has the Australian Wisden downgraded Don Bradman's average from 99.9 to 84.5, taking into account improved fielding, neutral umpires, faster bowling etc.

Does this mean that current Australian bowlers are going to be scaled up because opposition batting is worse than twenty years ago?

WTF is wrong with some people, the late great Sir Don deserves better.

[Dipper]

Player,
If they'd just picked on him in isolation I'd agree with you but I think they're just trying (& it's laways gonna be a bit of guesswork) to work out 'real ' averages that are comparable over the whole of Test cricket.They worked out 'new' averages for a whole heap of batsmen, although I didn't see if they did it for bowlers.

If you look at batting averages fromm the 1920's & 30's there's a helluva lot of batsmen averaging well over 50, Hutton, Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe just from England off the top of my head.I've read various books/articles about this period & they talk of 'shirt front' pitches where batting was made a lot easier, when you add this to the fact that the balls then deteriorated a lot quicker partly due to how they were made & also due to less well watered & prepared outfields it is clear that quick bowlers particularly had it hard.The only thing going in the bowlers' favour was that the pitches were uncovered & so a small downpour of rain which enabled play to start again would screw the batsmen but obviously this didn't happen enough to totally even things out.

I reckon all batsmen's averages from this era should be 'downgraded' when you compare them with say todays cricketers.But I don't really agree with putting a definite figure on it but I suppose cricket people like doing that sort of thing.The thing that is clear is that the Don was so far clear of the next best that he would have been the best in any era, but he may have found it a bit harder batting on today's pitches against a ball that kept it's condition better & against bowlers who know how to reverse swing the ball with fielders who run round the pitch & throw themselves about like acrobats.

[Darky]

Originally posted by DIPPER
The only thing going in the bowlers' favour was that the pitches were uncovered & so a small downpour of rain which enabled play to start again would screw the batsmen but obviously this didn't happen enough to totally even things out.


One other thing in the bowlers' favour until the 1970s or so, was that no balls and wides were not counted in a bowlers "runs against".

When you consider that the Pakistani and West Indian bowlers in particular concede a lot of these sundries, you would find that their bowling averages would be a fair bit lower had they played in an earlier era.

[Victor Trumper]

Cricketers from the 20's and 30's didn't get the chance to pad thier averages against the like's of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

[Booze Hound]

But the New Zealand and Indian attacks were very weak, and the South African and West Indian attacks weren't that strong.

A lot of England's top players would miss these series, especially if touring.

The biggest difference for me in recent years is in the fielding.

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Darky


One other thing in the bowlers' favour until the 1970s or so, was that no balls and wides were not counted in a bowlers "runs against".

When you consider that the Pakistani and West Indian bowlers in particular concede a lot of these sundries, you would find that their bowling averages would be a fair bit lower had they played in an earlier era.


Yeah that's true, when I said the only thing in their favour I was really meaning on the pitch in regards of getting batsmen out but absolutely reagarding bowlers' averages this is a fair point.
It's bloody right that they should be counted against them as well.

[London Dave]

I think the LBW laws were a lot different in the before the 70's...couldnt be out padding up, ball had to pitch in line with stumps etc. Could help 'averages'.

Player, australian Wisden probably wrote the article to sell magazines.....controversy sells. What would this do to Glenn McGraths average???????