Everytime Sachin Tendulkar scores a century, the debate as to who is the greatest batsman of all time intensifies. While Bradman supporters boast of his incredible batting average of 99.94 even while playing in the era of uncovered pitches, without protective gears, no restriction on bouncers, playing through depression and war etc., supporters of Tendulkar put forth all kinds of ststistical records by him over a carrer spanning 22 years, even while playing against greater variety of bowling attack , on all kinds of surfaces all over the world and with the burden of expectation of a billion fans. Some even argue that the quality of bowling/fielding in Bradman's time was far inferior to what it is today beause in 1930s it would take just 2.5 minutes to bowl an over whereas today it is slightly more than 4 minutes per over.If we compare the playing conditions/rules of different era we are not essentially discussing the quality of players playing in the two era. What a player tries to achieve is to perform at his best within the given playing conditions/playing rules. Hence, considerations like uncovered pitches, no restriction on bouncers, bowling variety etc. become irrelevant when comparing the greatness of the two batsmen. But one statistic that is a very good indicator of the class of the two players is their career batting averages. On this score, Bradman seems to scores heavily over Tendulkar since Don's batting average of 99.94 apparently stands over 30 runs taller than that of sachin. But did he really outclass Sachin by such a wide margin ?
Here is an interesting piece of statistics which throws light on how the batting averages of the two greats should compare. Bradman scored 6694 runs in a test career spanning 52 tests in which he played 80 innings out of which he was dismissed on 70 occasions. The break up of his 70 dismissals read as under:
Bowled- -------23(33%),
LBW-----------6(9%),
Caught--------39(56%),
HW--------------1,
Run out---------1.
Sachin Tendulkar on the other hand, in a career spanning 177tests and playing 290 inninggs scored 14692 runs at an average of 56.94. In this period he was dismissed on 252 occasions in the following modes:
Bowled-------46(18%)
LBW----------52(20%)
Caught------152(60%)
Stumped----01
Runout-----07
We see that Bradman had a very low percentage of dismissals on account of LBW vis-a-vis Bowled. While in the case of Tendulkar 20% of dismissals were accounted for by LBW, in the case of Bradman it was abysmally low at 9%. The two forms of dismissal viz. bowled as well as LBW arise on account of similar mistake by the batsmen i.e. judging the line of the ball correctly. According to Bradman's own admission, Sachin Tendulkar had a style of play which resembled his own. it is therefore, fair to assume that Bradman erred in judging the line of the ball which would have gone on to hit the stumps but for the legs coming in between, as often as sachin Tendulkar did. Yet Bradman having such a low percentage of LBW dismissals (only 9% compared to Sachin's 20%) can be on account of the fact that the umpires , in his era, were more liberal in giving benefit of doubt, on LBW appeals, to batsmen than they are now. (Nowadays batsmen are declared LBW even while playing on the front foot, which as Mr. Bedi pointed out was unimaginable in 70s or 80s).If we discount such benefits of doubt to Bradman (which he would never have had if he was playing today), his dismissal by way of LBW would be in the same range as that of Tendulkar. Considering that Tendulkar was dismissed by way of LBW 1.11 times more often than he was bowled and applying the same ratio of LBW/bowled dismissals in the case of Bradmen, we find that bradman was dismissed on 26 occasions (approx) by LBW but was actually given out on just 6 occasions. This should make his actual tally of dismissals go up to 93 and his average come down to 75.2. Further, on all such 20 (26-6) occasions when he was the beneficiary of LBW appelas, he went on to bat and pile up runs till he was either dismissed otherwise or his innings ended. It is reasonable to presume that these 20 beneficial LBW decisions allowed him to add 1504 (20*75.2) more runs to his tally which on present day umpiring standards would have never accrued to him. If we take out these runs from his tally, he had a legitimate career aggregate of 5490 over 93 innings. This would make his career average stand at 59.03!
The staggering difference in career averages of the two greats is not because of any significant difference between their calibres but largely on account of the difference in the UMPIRING STANDARDS OF THE TWO ERAS.
Here is an interesting piece of statistics which throws light on how the batting averages of the two greats should compare. Bradman scored 6694 runs in a test career spanning 52 tests in which he played 80 innings out of which he was dismissed on 70 occasions. The break up of his 70 dismissals read as under:
Bowled- -------23(33%),
LBW-----------6(9%),
Caught--------39(56%),
HW--------------1,
Run out---------1.
Sachin Tendulkar on the other hand, in a career spanning 177tests and playing 290 inninggs scored 14692 runs at an average of 56.94. In this period he was dismissed on 252 occasions in the following modes:
Bowled-------46(18%)
LBW----------52(20%)
Caught------152(60%)
Stumped----01
Runout-----07
We see that Bradman had a very low percentage of dismissals on account of LBW vis-a-vis Bowled. While in the case of Tendulkar 20% of dismissals were accounted for by LBW, in the case of Bradman it was abysmally low at 9%. The two forms of dismissal viz. bowled as well as LBW arise on account of similar mistake by the batsmen i.e. judging the line of the ball correctly. According to Bradman's own admission, Sachin Tendulkar had a style of play which resembled his own. it is therefore, fair to assume that Bradman erred in judging the line of the ball which would have gone on to hit the stumps but for the legs coming in between, as often as sachin Tendulkar did. Yet Bradman having such a low percentage of LBW dismissals (only 9% compared to Sachin's 20%) can be on account of the fact that the umpires , in his era, were more liberal in giving benefit of doubt, on LBW appeals, to batsmen than they are now. (Nowadays batsmen are declared LBW even while playing on the front foot, which as Mr. Bedi pointed out was unimaginable in 70s or 80s).If we discount such benefits of doubt to Bradman (which he would never have had if he was playing today), his dismissal by way of LBW would be in the same range as that of Tendulkar. Considering that Tendulkar was dismissed by way of LBW 1.11 times more often than he was bowled and applying the same ratio of LBW/bowled dismissals in the case of Bradmen, we find that bradman was dismissed on 26 occasions (approx) by LBW but was actually given out on just 6 occasions. This should make his actual tally of dismissals go up to 93 and his average come down to 75.2. Further, on all such 20 (26-6) occasions when he was the beneficiary of LBW appelas, he went on to bat and pile up runs till he was either dismissed otherwise or his innings ended. It is reasonable to presume that these 20 beneficial LBW decisions allowed him to add 1504 (20*75.2) more runs to his tally which on present day umpiring standards would have never accrued to him. If we take out these runs from his tally, he had a legitimate career aggregate of 5490 over 93 innings. This would make his career average stand at 59.03!
The staggering difference in career averages of the two greats is not because of any significant difference between their calibres but largely on account of the difference in the UMPIRING STANDARDS OF THE TWO ERAS.
No comments:
Post a Comment