Rodney Hogg’s controversial stance on Donald Bradman

[Trevor_Philips]

Rodney Hogg said Don Bradman wouldn’t average 99.94 in 2017

Interesting.

 

[Samuels]

He might actually be true. Given how much exercise, diet control etc. are done by the players I believe Don would have had a little tough time against modern day bowlers or even that of 70s and 80s when the world had a plethora of great bowlers. The pace of the bowlers that Don played against would have certainly been much lesser compared to the average speed of a fast bowler today which would have been difficult to evade despite all the bigger bats and batsmen friendly rules.

Then again, one might think if that if Don was to have played today, he would also have an aggressive mindset, more shots in his repertoire and also top fitness levels like some of the best batsmen of the modern era. It is very very difficult but I still tend to agree with Rod because the amount of cricket that is being played around the world, the opposition with all the latest technologies are quick to expose the weaknesses of a player.

 

[Trevor_Philips]

He might actually be true. Given how much exercise, diet control etc. are done by the players I believe Don would have had a little tough time against modern day bowlers or even that of 70s and 80s when the world had a plethora of great bowlers. The pace of the bowlers that Don played against would have certainly been much lesser compared to the average speed of a fast bowler today which would have been difficult to evade despite all the bigger bats and batsmen friendly rules.

Then again, one might think if that if Don was to have played today, he would also have an aggressive mindset, more shots in his repertoire and also top fitness levels like some of the best batsmen of the modern era. It is very very difficult but I still tend to agree with Rod because the amount of cricket that is being played around the world, the opposition with all the latest technologies are quick to expose the weaknesses of a player.

Hmm, but its tough to beat that average no matter what the era is.

 

[Fake Passport]

Deliberately redacted.

 

[Samuels]

Hmm, but its tough to beat that average no matter what the era is.

That is a no brainer but the point put forward by Hogg is that Don would not have achieved that average in first place in the modern era.

 

[Trevor_Philips]

That is a no brainer but the point put forward by Hogg is that Don would not have achieved that average in first place in the modern era.

That's there, its impossible in the current era, even going above 60 would be a huge ask.

 

[blockerdave]

That is a no brainer but the point put forward by Hogg is that Don would not have achieved that average in first place in the modern era.

there's 2 points i think that misses:

1) averages of good players are going up: bigger bats, flatter pitches, weaker teams etc. i grew up in the 80's/90's where a a good player was considered to average 40 and "great" would be 45+. I'd argue that today you have to increase both of those marks by 5.
2) the mark of bradman's genius is not his average of 99.94 per se, but the fact he stood above everyone in his era so much... nobody has ever done that. it's not like everyone in bradman's era was averaging 70/80, and he managed 99. if you take the top 10 finished career averages of all time (so you exclude Voges and Smith), half of them come in Bradman's era (Bradman, Suttcliffe, Headley, Paynter and Hammond), and in fact they take up 4 of the top 5. So it's not unreasonable to argue he played in an era that was favourable to batsmen, but he towered above that era: there's a 39.11 run differential between him and George Headley (2nd of the era, 3rd overall behind Pollock), whereas only 2.38 runs separate Headley and Hammond (5th of the era, 8th of the top overall). Nobody has ever dominated or stood apart from their era quite so much... So in an era when a limited player like Adam Voges can average 61.87 over 31 innings, it's surely not beyond possible that the Don could stand apart from this era too?

 

[Aislabie]

The argument that modern players have a plethora of advantages that Bradman's opponents did not does rather ignore the fact that Bradman also did not have those advantages.

I have little to add to Dave's point that nobody has ever towered above an era in the same way as Bradman. Even if you accept that there's more competition now so it's harder to stand out, nobody stands out in the same way as Bradman did compared to his peers.

Really, the closest we have to a modern Bradman is Chris Gayle (I am referring strictly to Twenty20 cricket). He presently averages more than any other batsman with more than 40 innings, and does so at roughly a run per over more than those with otherwise comparable numbers. He has also scored as many Twenty20 hundreds as the next three batsmen combined. But even then, he's nowhere near as far ahead of his nearest competition (Virat Kohli, imo) as Bradman was in front of his.

It's also worth asking the question: are there any bowling Bradmans? Yes. Dale Steyn, Fred Trueman, Dainty Ironmonger, Sydney Barnes* and George Lohmann*.

• 2010s -- Best bowler: Dale Steyn (21.14) / Second-best: Ravi Ashwin (25.04) / Difference: 15.6%
• 2000s -- Best bowler: Glenn McGrath (20.53) / Second-best: Muttiah Muralitharan (20.97) / Difference: 2.1%
• 1990s -- Best bowler: Curtley Ambrose (20.14) / Second-best: Wasim Akram (21.45) / Difference: 6.1%
• 1980s -- Best bowler: Imran Khan (19.12) / Second-best: Richard Hadlee (19.28) / Difference: 0.8%
• 1970s -- Best bowler: Dennis Lillee (23.78) / Second-best: Bob Willis (24.78) / Difference: 4.0%
• 1960s -- Best bowler: Fred Trueman (22.01) / Second-best: Lance Gibbs (27.84) / Difference: 20.9%
• 1950s -- Best bowler: Jim Laker (18.46) / Second-best: Alec Bedser (19.84) / Difference: 7.0%
• 1940s -- Best bowler: Bill Johnston (18.51) / Second-best: Ray Lindwall (19.17) / Difference: 3.4%
• 1930s -- Best bowler: Dainty Ironmonger (15.05) / Second-best: Bill Bowes (21.58) / Difference: 30.3%
• 1920s -- Best bowler: Maurice Tate (25.16) / Second-best: Tich Freeman (25.86) / Difference: 2.7%
• 1910s -- Best bowler: Sydney Barnes (14.08) / Second-best: Bill Whitty (20.18) / Difference: 30.2%*
• 1900s -- Best bowler: Hugh Trumble (18.67) / Second-best: Colin Blythe (19.26) / Difference: 3.1%
• 1890s -- Best bowler: George Lohmann (10.80) / Second-best: Charlie Turner (22.76) / Difference: 52.5%*
• 1880s -- Insufficient data (Best bowler: Johnny Briggs)
• 1870s -- Insufficient data (Best bowler: Fred Spofforth)

* By this point, the sample sizes - both in terms of the amount of cricketers playing and the amount of cricket they play - are less than a quarter of those available in modern times. This may make it more difficult to draw valid conclusions from.

 

[Aislabie]

It's also worth asking the question: are there any bowling Bradmans? Yes. Dale Steyn, Fred Trueman, Dainty Ironmonger, Sydney Barnes* and George Lohmann*.

Applying the same statistical approach to batsmen, our near-Bradmans are Sachin Tendulkar, Clyde Walcott (as a keeper-batsman), Denis Compton, George Headley, Jack Hobbs and Ranjitsinhji, but they're not actually anywhere near Bradman in any way. Bradman was an out-and-out freak of nature and hard work.

• 2010s -- Best batsman: Kumar Sangakkara (61.40) / Second-best: Steven Smith (60.15) / Difference: 2.1%
• 2000s -- Best batsman: Jacques Kallis (58.70) / Second-best: Mohammad Yousuf (58.53) / Difference: 0.3%
• 1990s -- Best batsman: Sachin Tendulkar (58.00) / Second-best: Steve Waugh (53.10) / Difference: 13.1%
• 1980s -- Best batsman: Allan Border (55.11) / Second-best: Javed Miandad (54.77) / Difference: 0.6% *
• 1970s -- Best batsman: Geoffrey Boycott (55.97) / Second-best: Sunil Gavaskar (55.91) / Difference: Negligible
• 1960s -- Best batsman: Garfield Sobers (60.03) / Second-best: Ken Barrington (59.78) / Difference: 0.4% *
• 1950s -- Best batsman: Clyde Walcott (61.35) / Second-best: Len Hutton (56.83) / Difference: 8.0%
• 1940s -- Best batsman: Don Bradman (105.72) / Second-best: Denis Compton (61.95) / Difference: 70.7%
  • Second-best: Denis Compton (61.95) / Third-best: Bill Edrich (53.09) / Difference: 16.7%
• 1930s -- Best batsman: Don Bradman (102.77) / Second-best: George Headley (66.71) / Difference: 54.1%
  • Second-best: George Headley (66.71) / Third-best: Wally Hammond (59.70) / Difference: 11.7%
• 1920s -- Best batsman: Wally Hammond (67.56) / Second-best: Herbert Sutcliffe (64.34) / Difference: 5.0%
• 1910s -- Best batsman: Jack Hobbs (65.51) / Second-best: Aubrey Faulkner (50.72) / Difference: 29.1%
• 1900s -- Best batsman: Clem Hill (38.60) / Second-best: Reggie Duff (35.59) / Difference: 8.5%
• 1890s -- Best batsman: Ranjitsinhji (53.88) / Second-best: Tom Hayward (44.36) / Difference: 21.5%
• 1880s -- Best batsman: Billy Murdoch (40.04) / Second-best: WG Grace (36.13) / Difference: 10.8%
• 1870s -- Insufficient data (Best batsman: Charles Bannerman)

* The difference between Miandad and the third-best (Viv Richards) is 11.4%
* The difference between Barrington and the third-best (Bob Simpson) is 16.7%

- - - - - - - - - - -

All-in-all, that process gives us an all-time XI of:

Jack Hobbs
Ranjitsinhji
Don Bradman
Denis Compton
Sachin Tendulkar
Clyde Walcott
Garfield Sobers
Fred Trueman
Sydney Barnes
Dale Steyn
Dainty Ironmonger

George Lohmann (12th man)

It also plainly shows that no player, batsman or bowler, has ever been nearly so far ahead of their competition as Bradman was. Bradman is the only player to have lauded over not one but two decades, and in both he was further ahead of his contemporaries than any other player has ever been. I cannot stress enough by how great a margin Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time.

 

[Till Valhalla]

Bows in respect.

 

[Bluebagger]

If Bradman is so overrated how come nobody in any era comes even remotely close to him. Where are the people averaging over 60 in the 50 odd years before him or in the same era as him let alone averaging upward of 70? I saw Jeff Thomson say that in the 1970's he bowled to Bradman when he was in his 50's or 60's with no pads, no gloves and smashed everything Thomo had to offer him. If Bradman could only do it in a so called easy era how come nobody else did? Hogg's argument of using English batsman makes no sense. There's always somebody trying to make a case for the obvious to not be what it is.

Give Bradman a helmet, a GN kaboom, full time training, flat highway pitches that are protected from the elements and plenty of weak bowling attacks to plunder and there is simply no way he doesn't live up to what he achieved at a minimum.

 

[Yash.]

If Bradman is so overrated how come nobody in any era comes even remotely close to him. Where are the people averaging over 60 in the 50 odd years before him or in the same era as him let alone averaging upward of 70? I saw Jeff Thomson say that in the 1970's he bowled to Bradman when he was in his 50's or 60's with no pads, no gloves and smashed everything Thomo had to offer him. If Bradman could only do it in a so called easy era how come nobody else did? Hogg's argument of using English batsman makes no sense. There's always somebody trying to make a case for the obvious to not be what it is.

Give Bradman a helmet, a GN kaboom, full time training, flat highway pitches that are protected from the elements and plenty of weak bowling attacks to plunder and there is simply no way he doesn't live up to what he achieved at a minimum.

No one is saying he is overrated ... But the point put forward by Samuels is correct... If he was in this era, he would not have reached the average of 99...

 

[Bluebagger]

No one is saying he is overrated ... But the point put forward by Samuels is correct... If he was in this era, he would not have reached the average of 99...

There is nothing "correct" about speculation. He didn't play in this era or any other era besides the one he played. Again, I say why wouldn't have averaged 99 when he was so far ahead of anybody who has ever played the game in 140 odd years of international cricket, just because they all have diets and exercise now lol ridiculous argument ignoring the fact that Bradman himself would have been doing the same thing on top of his freakish ability that nobody has ever had before or after

 

[Aislabie]

Here is the Jeff Thomson interview. For context: in 1978, Bradman was 70 years old. Thomson, meanwhile, was at his peak: 27 years old with 125 Test wickets to his name at less than 25 apiece, and at roughly that time he was clocked bowling at 99 miles per hour with an upset stomach.

- - -

In his era, Bradman averaged 99.94, as I'm sure nobody needs telling. The mean batting average over the course of his career was 33.39. This means that he was 2.993 better than average.

Since 2000, the mean batting average has been 34.08. If we apply the same multiplier, then Rodney Hogg is quite right: Bradman would not have averaged 99 - he would have averaged exactly 102.

 

[Bluebagger]

Here is the cricket legends video that the excerpt was taken from