PDA

View Full Version : Statistician finds Bradman's "missing" runs


reverse_swing
August 23, 2008, 06:39 PM
SYDNEY, Australia (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/22/sports/AS-CRI-Bradman-Missing-Runs.php#): An Australian cricket statistician claimed Saturday to have found four "missing" runs which would lift Don Bradman's test average to 100.
Bradman, regarded as the greatest cricketer of all time, needed four runs in his last test innings against England at the Oval in 1948 to end his famous career a test average of 100 runs per innings.
It has passed into cricket folklore that Bradman was bowled for a duck by little-known Englishman Eric Hollies, finishing a 52-test career in which he scored 28,067 runs with an average of 99.94.
Statistician Charles Davis now claims to have studied old test match scorebooks and to have found a "tantalizing clue" that Bradman may have scored four more runs than he has been awarded.
Writing in Fairfax newspapers Saturday, Davis said his research had found that errors and anomalies arose quite regularly in old test match scorebooks.
Davis reviewed the scorebook of the eight-day fifth test of the 1928-29 series against England in Melbourne, when Bradman was batting with Jack Ryder.
"There are four runs attributed to Ryder that are in the wrong place in both the batting section of the score and in the bowling section." Davis said.
"There is no doubt that a recording error of some kind has occurred. So where do these runs belong?"
Davis said either Ryder may have scored the runs at some other point of the innings, they were not scored at all or "just perhaps" they were scored by Bradman.
"It is all about the scoring, an activity usually taken for granted," he said.
Davis, a former scientist, said more potential errors could be found in other scorebooks that could lower Bradman's test average.

IHT>> (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/22/sports/AS-CRI-Bradman-Missing-Runs.php)

<byline>Charles Davis -- </byline>Could this be the Don's missing four runs? (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/could-this-be-the-dons-missing-four-runs/2008/08/22/1219262525317.html)

MohammedC
August 23, 2008, 07:01 PM
99.94 sounds much better then 100.

mahbubH
August 24, 2008, 02:13 AM
If this is correct, then The Don may have got some runs incorrectly... so no need to correct one scorecard to get that magic figure.

Tintin
August 24, 2008, 02:28 AM
You should ignore the IHT article and go to the original one written by Charles Davis at SMH. IHT talks only of the four runs and as if it is a proved case, but it is far from so.

For one thing, four to Bradman is one of the several possibilities. Second, Davis mentions not only the four runs Bradman gained, but a run that he lost in another scorecard, so it is still not quite 100 even if you believe the revisions are right.

To quote from Davis' article :

There are a number of possible resolutions to the question over Ryder's four runs in that Melbourne Test of 1928-29. They are complicated by the presence of an unmarked leg bye.


At least one resolution involves transferring the boundary to Bradman. If so, a "Holy Grail" of statisticians, four more runs to Bradman, has been found, and the "perfect" average of 100.00 achieved.


Is it really possible? Well yes it is, but unfortunately it is unlikely. Newspaper accounts do not mention an extra boundary to Bradman, and other possibilities, giving the runs to Ryder earlier in his innings, seem rather more likely.


Most of Bradman's scorebooks have not been checked at this level of detail. It is painstaking work. However, the chances of finding other anomalies, based on experience with many other scores, seem high

Gowza
August 24, 2008, 02:51 AM
If this is correct, then The Don may have got some runs incorrectly... so no need to correct one scorecard to get that magic figure.

exactly if it's possible to not have been given runs when he should have been then it's also possible to have been given runs when he wasn't meant to be given them

Sovik
August 24, 2008, 08:47 AM
99.94 sounds much better