question on bradman

[mohammad16]

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

[Nnanden]

Everyone else`s record who played in that era?

[Nnanden]

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/aust...ayer/4188.html

Just look at his first-class record. Unbelievable.

[Dravid]

We need no proof against the Don.

[Dravid]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/aust...ayer/4188.html

Just look at his first-class record. Unbelievable.

His conversion rate I believe is more unbelievable than his avg

[archie mac]

I read some stats, that the likes of Bradman comes along once in every 100000 years

[Matt79]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mohammad16

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Matt79

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]

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

[archie mac]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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.