I'm sure this has been done before but anyway..........

[howardj]

Why are you so sure of these ? Isnt your making that assumption displaying the same 'arrogance' you accuse others of ?

Not really. Being 'sure' (by the way, saying "I'm sure" is really similar to saying "I think" - they're used interchangeably) of those things, is just based on what other 'great' players have done - Bradman, I think, would overcome the use of technology by opponents, just as other greats have done. As for the 'arrogance', that was more directed at people who automatically assume - or have it as the premise of their argument - that because today's game is extremely professional, an 'ameteur' like Bradman would be less successful than what he was when he played.

 

[Jono]

Think Jacques & you should compare notes....

I'm not denying he's a great player, it's just sometimes the value he obviously sets by his wicket is to the detriment of his team. The example I always think of is the 5th test of our 04/05 series. SA needed quick runs on the board to give themselves any chance, but he was content to potter along with the smell of the red ink in his nostrils.

What irks me even more is that he can score quickly when he's minded to; witness his record-breaking 50 versus the Zimbas.

Yeah I agree with you for the most part, all I was saying was the theory that more not outs proved what many suspected (me included), i.e that he has a habit of playing for himself (or his average) rather than the team was incorrect, or rather not always right. I know the innings you are referring to (You and a few others have brought it up many times) however I can't help but think that perhaps him being not out wasn't the best piece of evidence to prove that he played selfishly in that knock, but rather his strike rate (as you referred to his scoring rate in your post).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah I agree with you for the most part, all I was saying was the theory that more not outs proved what many suspected (me included), i.e that he has a habit of playing for himself (or his average) rather than the team was incorrect, or rather not always right. I know the innings you are referring to (You and a few others have brought it up many times) however I can't help but think that perhaps him being not out wasn't the best piece of evidence to prove that he played selfishly in that knock, but rather his strike rate (as you referred to his scoring rate in your post).

I can see your point, but there's obviously some kind of relationship between scoring rate & finishing unbeaten. When AB De V had his ton (his maiden 100, IIRC) he tried to accelerate with time pressing & the declaration imminent; Kallis seemed unwilling to chance his arm. The more cynically minded of us see this as evidence of his perceived (on our part) selfishness.

 

[marc71178]

I had to check, but The Don's % of NOs seem about the same as some of today's champion batters. He had 10 in 80 innings (12.5% of his innings) which roughly corresponds with Dravid's 18 in 158 (11.4%) & Ponting's 22 in 161 (13.7%). Tendulkar does the worst, with only 21 asterisks next to his 201 innings (10.4%), but Kallis (confirming a few suspicions many have about him being as selfish player) has 27 NOs from only 157 innings (17.2%).

Erm, Lara?

 

[Neil Pickup]

He has a record breaking 50?

Fastest 50 in Tests. Against Graeme "Neil Pickup" Cremer.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Erm, Lara?

You're about 5 and a half hours late, son! See post #37:

Actually, I've done BCL as massive disservice. He's only had 6 not outs in 214 innings! That's only 2.8% of his innings. And that's from a non-opener too!

 

[sqwerty]

Are there any rule changes that may have favoured batsmen of Bradman's era?

Bodyline changed things a little bit but I assume, say, the LBW rule is still the same is it not?.

 

[Pratters]

I would rally like to know the perspectives of people from Bradman's era and the past on how the game has changed. A lot of the people are dead but they must have said some thing.

Also, people who have played a lot of cricket - 20 years and beyond at the top level could give a lot of perspective on this.

A serious cricket discussion with 5-7 people in total with a bowler and batsman from 2 decade periods - whoever we could get - could be very interesting.

There are so many variables. We can think of a few never having played the game.

This question entails how cricket has changed over the years. Its such an interesting research point of the game that we cricket fans will never get tired of analysing it.

 

[sqwerty]

I would rally like to know the perspectives of people from Bradman's era and the past on how the game has changed. A lot of the people are dead but they must have said some thing.

Also, people who have played a lot of cricket - 20 years and beyond at the top level could give a lot of perspective on this.

A serious cricket discussion with 5-7 people in total with a bowler and batsman from 2 decade periods - whoever we could get - could be very interesting.

There are so many variables. We can think of a few never having played the game.

This question entails how cricket has changed over the years. Its such an interesting research point of the game that we cricket fans will never get tired of analysing it.

I'm convinced the standard of bowling was worse in the old days (so I suppose the batting was as well). Looking at old footage from the Bradman era every bowler looks like rubbish with laughable bowling actions.

I don't know if they were doing anything with the ball because the cameras are always side on but they all looked like parkies to me.

 

[C_C]

I think that every single player from so long ago would've struggled to play the game in a modern context ( 60s-onwards) and even the behemoths like Bradman would've ended up with a lower average.
It is simply indisputable that the quality of cricket has improved massively since the 20s and 30s. If Bradman started his career 5 years ago, i can see him average in the 80s but if he started atleast when Tendy/Lara did or in the 70s/80s, i dont see him averaging over 70. Simply because it is harder for batsmen( and bowlers) to do as much as they did before- the field is more competitive, so you dont get easy scalps/runs as often as in the past, where someone excellent like Hobbs is at one end and a no-name Joe Blow at the other with skills equivalent of a club player today. The variety of pitches and higher intensity of the game would probably ensure a harder challenge than before and thus, everyone's average would suffer.

 

[GotSpin]

I, so you dont get easy scalps/runs as often as in the past,.

Bangladesh, Zim?

 

[C_C]

Bangladesh, Zim?

Its easy to differentiate in professional sports - since professional sports ensure that the relative competency of the selected XI is a lot closer than the relative competency of an amatuer XI ( where you could have a huge difference in quality).
As a result, you can easily evaluate how good a player is by comparing/contrasting his performance against 'strong' teams vs 'weak' teams.
In those days, the team itself had a few who wouldnt make it in any world XI today barring ZIM/BD at best.
Its a bit like having an XI comprising of a few players who wouldn't even make the first XI of a good FC team.
The overall quality was lower, as well as the dilution in quality was higher.

 

[swede]

I had to check, but The Don's % of NOs seem about the same as some of today's champion batters. He had 10 in 80 innings (12.5% of his innings) which roughly corresponds with Dravid's 18 in 158 (11.4%) & Ponting's 22 in 161 (13.7%). Tendulkar does the worst, with only 21 asterisks next to his 201 innings (10.4%), but Kallis (confirming a few suspicions many have about him being as selfish player) has 27 NOs from only 157 innings (17.2%).

Bradman NOs also seem broadly akin to some of the greats of his own era too: Sutcliffe had 9 in 84 innings (10.7%), Headley 4 in 40 (10%), Hammond 16 in 140 (11.4%) & Hutton 15 in 138 (10.9%). However Hobbs seems the most selfless of the greats with only 7 NOs in 102 innings (6.9%).

thanks, I was just guessing but you are absolutely right.

I dont think Bradman was selfish in any way and he argued in favour of further changes to the LBW law that was changed in 1935 to make it more diffcult for the batsman and he was also against the hopeless pitches that began to appear in the 1930s making huge scores possible.

Looking at his figures again, though, Its noticeably that he gets at least a half-century every other time he bats. This is somewhat higher than most other batters, certainly those today. (Bradman 53%, Lara and Tendulkar both around 37%)

It suggests that he achieved his average by rarely failing. Basically getting more 70s and fewer ducks rather than lots of huge scores.

It also suggests that he is right when he himself considered his powers of concentration as his great force.

 

[swede]

Are there any rule changes that may have favoured batsmen of Bradman's era?

Bodyline changed things a little bit but I assume, say, the LBW rule is still the same is it not?.

Bodyline cut Bradman´s average in half as he averaged 50-odd in that series.

The LBW rule has been changed twice since he started.

In the middle of his career, in 1935, it was expanded to include balls that were blocked in line but pitched outside off. before that only balls that pitched in line could lead to LBW.
It was done to stop batters just padding balls away but Bradman was hardly a big "padder" I dont think, considering his rapid scoring and triple century in a day in 1930.

In 1970 the LBW rule was changed again. Again to stop pad-play. now to to stop players from "padding" outside off, this was included in the LBW-law which was thus expanded again, but at the same time, batters would now be reprieved from both the 35 and 70 expansions if they genuinely played the ball.

I dont think this have influenced Bradman much.

What really favoured him must have been the pitches which began to get way to "good" in the 1930´s resulting in high scoring and was considered a big problem not least by Bradman.

Regarding amateurs/pro´s its worth noting that Bradman was an amateur but scored most of his test runs against english pro´s.

When he played Sheffield Shield home matches he actually worked near- full time even during the match going to his business at 7 in the morning and then to the cricket at noon,
And there werent that many sheffield games or tests, meaning he essentially worked full time his entire career only the 4 lengthy tours to England as the major exception

 

[open365]

I'm convinced the standard of bowling was worse in the old days (so I suppose the batting was as well). Looking at old footage from the Bradman era every bowler looks like rubbish with laughable bowling actions.

I don't know if they were doing anything with the ball because the cameras are always side on but they all looked like parkies to me.

Thats exactly what i think,though i'm too scared to admit it.

Apparently Frank Tyson was pretty nifty,but from all the footage i've seen the whole game seems a completely lower leel than it is today,and i think Bradman was just way ahead of his time.

 

[C_C]

Regarding amateurs/pro´s its worth noting that Bradman was an amateur but scored most of his test runs against english pro´s.

Every crickter before WWII ( and for a while after) was an amatuer.

 

[swede]

Every crickter before WWII ( and for a while after) was an amatuer.

England has had pro cricketers for as long the game has existed.
Australians were all amateurs and they faced english sides comprised of typically 3 amateurs and 8 pro´s

 

[swede]

I would rally like to know the perspectives of people from Bradman's era and the past on how the game has changed. A lot of the people are dead but they must have said some thing.

Also, people who have played a lot of cricket - 20 years and beyond at the top level could give a lot of perspective on this.

A serious cricket discussion with 5-7 people in total with a bowler and batsman from 2 decade periods - whoever we could get - could be very interesting.

There are so many variables. We can think of a few never having played the game.

This question entails how cricket has changed over the years. Its such an interesting research point of the game that we cricket fans will never get tired of analysing it.

Couldnt agree more.would be very interesting to read.
I certainly wouldnt tire of it..

Do you know you can read parts of all Wisdens going back to the late 1800´s on the cricinfo site. including the editors notes and articles from the players of the times on the state of the game.
Reading that, it seems through most of the 1900´s there has been a massive and growing worry about the bat becoming ever more dominant (using it for tedious super slow wars of attrition) until such a time as everyone remembering anything else had probably died.

Bradman writes in wisden 1939, as his opinion on how many days matches should last, that its essentially the wrong way of looking at it because with the right pitches a game should find a natural conclusion in 3-4 days.
He was so right, though that balance never really returned until the 1990´s or even the ashes 05 a very unique series with no really long innings, players going for shots, high run rates etc. the way cricket should be played and was also played 100 years ago, I think.

 

[Googenheim]

I wouldnt place too much emphasis on the opinions of old-timers.

I'm pretty sure that when I'll be discussing the legends of the game with my grandson years from now, I'll be pooh poohing players of that period and claiming how Sachin, Lara, Dravid etc were gods, even if someone better came along.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I'm convinced the standard of bowling was worse in the old days (so I suppose the batting was as well). Looking at old footage from the Bradman era every bowler looks like rubbish with laughable bowling actions.

I don't know if they were doing anything with the ball because the cameras are always side on but they all looked like parkies to me.

Eh, I've seen film of Larwood, including the ball that fructured Oldfield's skull and it's hardly rubbish. Bowling actions have become more beautiful over the years, but a lot of these guys, like Lindwall, were smooth & their actions became the model for the next generation of fast bowlers.