• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

question on bradman

mohammad16

U19 Captain
almost everyone hails bradman as the undisputed greatest batsmen in the history of the game, ofcourse his stats support this claim

i solely agree with this claim since i have heard many experts state the same, well very few even argue it

but how great was this guy really, a 99 average is just out of this world

i mean tendulkar or lara would have to be from some next planet not even discovered yet to average in the 90s

in the modern game, more likely then not, u have to produce un playable deliveries to get them out.

i mean surely the quality of bowling back then could not have been as good as today, well consider the 80s and the 90s
the west indian bowlers, wasim waqar mgrath all produced nearly unplayable deliveries on a regular basis, now even if you are twice as good as lara or tendulkar, u woulldnt be able to lay bat on these balls

now people would say that, bradman was so much better then the modern greats, that he could play most balls that batsmen get out to today because of his talent and technique
but my question to them is that bowlers produce balls ranging from the ones that miss the bat by miles to ones that are jsut able to get that edge

we have all heard the phrase, he was too good of a batsmen, thats probably why he got a nick to it

now if bradman was actually alot better then the batsmen ranked after him, he should have been nicking those deliveries which great batsmen still are not able to nick

i just wonder how great bradman was
what was his strikerate like, did he really face quality bowling during his time? also we have to factor in he didnt play nowhere near as much cricket as tendulkar or lara, we have seen modern day batsmen averaging well above 70s if you dont consider all of thier careers
just on some other topic some guy mentioned pontings average in the last 65 tests was 75 something which is incredible, but it still doenst put him ahead of tendulkar or lara

bradman is a mystery to me, hes regarded as the undisputed greatest batsmen of all time
there must be some solid evidence to proove this claim apart from his stats
thats what im looking for
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
The fact that none of his peers averaged any more than slightly half his average would indicate he was that much better. You say bowlers have improved, and in absolute terms it probably true. Its also probably true that batsmen have probably improved as well, in absolute terms, in terms of their training and their equipment.

What you didn't mention was that Bradman and the other greats from his era achieved their success playing in an era of uncovered pitches. Generally in the 30s the game was weighed a bit more towards the batsmen than today, there have been rule changes to address this, before it has again swung to batsmen in the last decade. The massive exception to that generality was having to play on uncovered pitches when they got wet. Its probably not really possible for people our age who've never seen a wet wicket or a drying gluepot of a wicket to understand how much more difficult it is to bat in such conditions. Suffice to say that modern players, including Tendaulkar, Lara, Ponting and the others who whinge and bleat when a pitch is prepared with grass on it, or with a (shock horror) crack on a good length, or that wears, would fall over dead with shock if they were asked to bat in these conditions. Even the heavy rollers back then were much less effective than the modern equivalent, and they were sometimes pulled up and down the pitch by draft horses - yeah they had horses walking on the pitch during the match - imagine what Warne, Ambrose or McGrath could do with a hoof print on a good length (or if you prefer their 1930s equivalents O'Reilly, Larwood, and Bedser)

Now Bradman was not a great player on wet pitches, compared to a Hammond or a Hobbs, but despite this, he still played on them, and still managed to attain his remarkable average. He also had to deal with Bodyline at a time when laws hadn't been developed to limit bouncers as is the case today, or to limit the legside field you can set to a Bodyline attack. It certainly made it difficult for him to bat, and his average dropped down to a mere 50 for that series.

My point is that there were challenges he and his peers had to confront that the modern greats would find themselves ill-equipped to handle, just as he might find it more difficult against some of the great attacks of the last 30 years than was the case during his career.
 

mohammad16

U19 Captain
nice post

but is there any video footage of this guy playing, i dont think there is since he played so long ago.

Really though 99 is just an unreal average considering what his peers averaged during that time.

Im not really disputing he is the greatest

what im confused about is that if there is a such a great disperity amongst bradman and his peers, he either was crazily talented, too talented to even imagine, or his peers were generally alot less talented then the competition great players find today

but its hard to imagine a guy who can be more talented then viv richards

bradman must have been really out of this world
 

Dravid

International Captain
mohammad16 said:
nice post

but is there any video footage of this guy playing, i dont think there is since he played so long ago.

Really though 99 is just an unreal average considering what his peers averaged during that time.

Im not really disputing he is the greatest

what im confused about is that if there is a such a great disperity amongst bradman and his peers, he either was crazily talented, too talented to even imagine, or his peers were generally alot less talented then the competition great players find today

but its hard to imagine a guy who can be more talented then viv richards

bradman must have been really out of this world
We can't say he was less talented than Viv Richards either. But going by the people who lived during his time and saw him play, he was more talented than Sir Viv.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I think the other thing is not to confuse talent, as in hand-eye coordination and ability to hit the ball hard, with abilities of concentration, great and riskless shot selection, endurance, and an incredible appetite for runs. Bradman was clearly supremely talented in terms of hand-eye coordination, and was brilliant at almost any shot you cared to name, but several other batsmen have been just as good in this regard, probably: Richards, Trumper, etc. What set him apart was his ability to never lose concentration, to not get tired or play a lazy shot, and to never get sick of pounding bowlers into the ground. All champions possess these varying traits in different combinations, what set Don apart was he possessed them all by the bucketload.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Matt79 said:
I think the other thing is not to confuse talent, as in hand-eye coordination and ability to hit the ball hard, with abilities of concentration, great and riskless shot selection, endurance, and an incredible appetite for runs. Bradman was clearly supremely talented in terms of hand-eye coordination, and was brilliant at almost any shot you cared to name, but several other batsmen have been just as good in this regard, probably: Richards, Trumper, etc. What set him apart was his ability to never lose concentration, to not get tired or play a lazy shot, and to never get sick of pounding bowlers into the ground. All champions possess these varying traits in different combinations, what set Don apart was he possessed them all by the bucketload.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yup. His conversion rate is so unbelievably out of this world that no one really comes close. Forget the average.
 

archie mac

International Coach
The one criticism of Bradman was his poor batting on stick wickets, in fact Frank Woolley left him out of his all time side because of this perceived fault.

This prompted Bill O'Reilly (no lover of Bradman) to say 'I'd choose him, and take the odds on the weather'
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Bradman only played Test Cricket in England and Australia. It's hard to believe he would have maintained his average on the poor wickets in the West Indies in the 80's against Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft etc. On the other hand had he been around today batting on the friendly pitches currently around the world against the poorish standard of bowling he would probably have thrived.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
Bradman only played Test Cricket in England and Australia. It's hard to believe he would have maintained his average on the poor wickets in the West Indies in the 80's against Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft etc. On the other hand had he been around today batting on the friendly pitches currently around the world against the poorish standard of bowling he would probably have thrived.
Its unfair and useless comparing greats from different eras. There is no way to know if he would have averaged 35 or 105.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
Its unfair and useless comparing greats from different eras. There is no way to know if he would have averaged 35 or 105.

Of course there isn't any way of knowing, but I don't see anything wrong with a little conjecture.
 

archie mac

International Coach
He was once asked by Doug Walters, if he thought he would still average 99.94 in the modern game (70s). Bradman said he didn't think he would, but that he believed he would still average more then anyone else. (said according to Walters with no sign of boasting)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
Of course there isn't any way of knowing, but I don't see anything wrong with a little conjecture.
Of course not, or this forum wouldn't exist and I would have to admit my bowling and batting rankings are useless. :ph34r:

I think the cricketers in the professional era can be compared with each other though much more readily (with a few exceptions, like Bradman).
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
archie mac said:
He was once asked by Doug Walters, if he thought he would still average 99.94 in the modern game (70s). Bradman said he didn't think he would, but that he believed he would still average more then anyone else. (said according to Walters with no sign of boasting)

I think he would still have averaged in the 70's. I mean it was outrageous how much more he averaged, so he was clearly the supremely talented player far and away.
 

Top