I didnt say that he could not have been any good
What I said was that it was easy to pick holes in his resume such as the fact that he never played with or against any of the races that now dominate the sport
Given that we have no idea of how he would have fared if he had, it's best just to take his record at face value
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
I love the game now and its history. Someome here complained abt O'Reilly and Harvey dissing the modern generation. I agree. Its a pity then after making the complaint some indulge in a bit of modern era jingoism. Bcos there are some things said here that just aren't right.
I suspect that the deconstruction of DGB comes mainly from the sub con and for parochial reasons. Heady with their influence in the game today some Indian supporters seek to exaggerate their modern stars bcos they haven't achieved much as a team historically. So they put Sunny and Sachin ahead as greatest ever. Small problem. They have to explain away DGB's average and they come up with all kinds of non sensical qualifications like DGB didn't play in Multan and did he score a hundred against a Sri Lankan while suffering Dengue fever. As if the might of Rome is tarnished bcos they couldn't be bothered conquering the Shetlands. So with those justifications they suggest Sunny's 51 ave or SRT's 54 ave is superior to DGB's. But stripped away to its bare bones the argument is basically this: 51 and 54 are greater then 99! If you want to argue that then go ahead. But as they say in the classics, good luck with that one.
There are a few more misconceptions here. 1st that cricket wasn't professional back then. Yes it was. Particularly England and most especially Yorkshire. Neither does amatuer mean a complete novice. Back then it meant a player who didnot earn his living from cricket. Some of the best players were amatuer. Some amatuers included Jardine and Bradman. Neither were unprofessional.
I think I've effectively blown the ageism argument away with examples of modern batsmen and bowlers succeeding into their cricketing dotage. You'll note all of the players mentioned were champions. Such occurences are rare and are a commentary on the player's greatness not the ease of his opposition. I mean why are you surprised that cricketing immortals have such a long life?
Apparently DGB didn't face enough ATG bowlers. I've never heard of such a silly concept. ATG discussions are the preserve of nutters on cricket sites and have no meaning in the real cricket world. People like Hadlee, Dev and Walsh would have struggled to play even 10 tests in the 30s and accordingly would not have been called ATGs. Moreover the appelation is meaningless as batsmen would have found Waqar a much tougher opponent as an unknown 19 yo than later in his career when he was accorded ATG status. Bowling is either good or bad. No one cares about ATG status.
Neither was the 30s a period of flat batting piches. I adjusted a cricinfo comparison of runs per wkt by decade and the 30s came out very competitive once you removed DGB's contribution.
Then there's the belief that DGB didn't face much competition. Maybe after the war. However from 28-38 England won 13 tests to Australia's 8. Contrast that to the 1989 - 2004 period when we won 28 tests to 7. Right there that should tell you something. It tells you that Eng were more competitive despite the presence of DGB, Tiger and Grimmett. I believe that without Don we'd have struggled to win a test and would have definately lost the 36 and 38 series. Neither were SA minnows. They played the same Eng side Australia struggled against in 4 series and won 2 of them. Could you imagine an actual minnow like BD beating the modern SA in 2 series out of 4?
But now I read that DGB can't be rated bcos he didn't face the WI. Well I give up. Unlike Sunny Bradman had a pretty good reason being 30 years retired. But if you aren't convinced I have done a comparison btwn the fast bowlers DGB faced when playing Eng and compared them to the Eng teams of the 50s. The results show little difference btwn the 2 groups. However you could argue that the likes of Trueman couldn't really bowl and remain skeptical...
Anyway moving right along I once asked a statistician to give me the runs per wkt averages of Eng and Australia btwn the yrs 28-38 and then remove Bradman's contribution to get an idea of how much he distorted the initial statistic. The reason was to prove or otherwise the competitiveness of Eng's bowlers. I mean it is just possible that the bowlers he faced had such high averages bcos DGB alone blew them out. Since DGB is cricket's ultimate outlier it would be fair to compare the figures of the bowlers who faced him without his distorting contribution.
The initial stat showed Australia's bowlers conceded an extra 1.5 runs in obtaining their wkts. However when you took DGB's contribution out the difference extended to 8 runs a wicket. The chap who gave me this result said it was the biggest discrepancy in runs per wkt in any era of ashes cricket. What that effectively equates to is Eng scoring on ave 80 more runs an innings or 160 more runs a match.
Bradman alone almost made good that discrepancy.
It tells you that Eng's bowlers were far more efficient in dismissing the opposition than Australia's bowlers, O'Reilly and Grimmett notwithstanding. It tells you DGB faced a very competitive English side and he alone brought Australia to something resembling parity.
I also have a breakdown of the runs DGB scored against certain relevant English bowlers. When I find it I'll post a comparison I've done showing their figures with and without DGB's contribution and comparing it with certain English bowlers of the 50s.
I just have to find it first...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)