Don Bradman thread

[trickster]

Is he really the best?
I'm not so sure, things were a lot different back then.
I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?
From what i remember of the "bodyline" series, he didn't like the ball aimed at his body!
How would he fare nowadays now that the bowlers pick the batsmans weaknesses and go for it?
If it was recognised early in bradmans career that he didn't like the short ball, and it had been utilised against him as it would be these days, would his average still be 99.94?

I think not, i just wonder how much it would have affected him if his weakness had been used against him during his whole career, instead of in just one series?

 

[The_Bunny]

Is he really the best?
I'm not so sure, things were a lot different back then.
I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?
From what i remember of the "bodyline" series, he didn't like the ball aimed at his body!
How would he fare nowadays now that the bowlers pick the batsmans weaknesses and go for it?
If it was recognised early in bradmans career that he didn't like the short ball, and it had been utilised against him as it would be these days, would his average still be 99.94?

I think not, i just wonder how much it would have affected him if his weakness had been used against him during his whole career, instead of in just one series?

I think he still would have been the best... but I doubt that he would have averaged quite as high..... still 70+ though

 

[Prince EWS]

He still averaged 50 odd in the bodyline series didn't he? Would have been a great series by anyone else's standards.

Anyway, really, this is a question that can't really be answered - cricket has evolved since then and has become more professional, so one would assume the standard is better now. Furthermore, Bradman played on a lot of batsman-friendly pitches in his time.

The real clincher though, and what makes it essentially a foregone conclusion that Bradman was the best of all time, was the sheer margin between him and everyone else. It's not just as if Bradman was better by a little bit in comparison - he is literally almost twice as good statistically as his closest rivals. Even if you take all variables into consideration and assume Bradman had it easy, to say he'd average 50 runs less than what he did would be ridiculous really. Hence, it is fairly undisputed.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?

How would they hold up against him?

 

[stumpski]

I know a lot of people aren't bothered about these things, but even if you omit the 'Sir', I think the greatest batsman in the history of the game should at least have a capital 'b.'

 

[Turbinator]

I know a lot of people aren't bothered about these things, but even if you omit the 'Sir', I think the greatest batsman in the history of the game should at least have a capital 'b.'

Time for Sam to test out some of his new powers .

 

[PhoenixFire]

Time for Sam to test out some of his new powers .

Indeed, thanks for reminding me

 

[archie mac]

I am not sure about this flat pitches stuff, the pitches they have served up here in Aust in the last few years have been flatter than a woopy cushion sat on by Eddie Hemmings.

Also they have things called helmets these days, and covered pitches

 

[Burgey]

Is he really the best?
I'm not so sure, things were a lot different back then.
I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?
From what i remember of the "bodyline" series, he didn't like the ball aimed at his body!
How would he fare nowadays now that the bowlers pick the batsmans weaknesses and go for it?
If it was recognised early in bradmans career that he didn't like the short ball, and it had been utilised against him as it would be these days, would his average still be 99.94?

I think not, i just wonder how much it would have affected him if his weakness had been used against him during his whole career, instead of in just one series?

1. Yes - he is the best. Full stop.
2. He would dominate, I think.
3. You can't get more of a tactic than bodyline for picking a weakness and going for it - he stll averaged 57.
4. Yes he still would have succeeded.

Bradman did not illustrate a weakness vs the short ball per se. He averaged 57 vs Bodyline with a 1-8 leg side field, and was the only Australian top order player not hit during the series, despite playing in a very unorthodox and, frankly dangerous manner in backing away and hitting chest high balls through the off side. Had there been a modern field with only 2 behind square on the leg side and people bowled short to him, it would have been grist to the mill.

If we want to say that Bradman would average far less today, we must also do so in relation to the other great players of that era. So, if Bradman would average, say 55 today, would Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, McCabe et al average 20-25? I don't think so, because they were all great players.

Players adapt to things. The pitches, the bowling, the conditions. The great players adapt and prosper, which is what sets them apart. Personally, I think he would absolutely dominate today, as he did then. Whether he would average 99.94, 104.94,89.94 or 79.94, he would still be the greatest batsman in the world today by a great margin. In order to get him down to the realm of the Pontings, Yousefs, Dravids, you have to accept that his average would lessen by more than 1/3. That in itself is staggering and a measure of his genius.

 

[Isura]

"Is he really the best?"

Who knows, probably.

"I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?"

I think he would be a top 5 batsmen.

"From what i remember of the "bodyline" series, he didn't like the ball aimed at his body!"

You were alive for the bodyline series???

"ow would he fare nowadays now that the bowlers pick the batsmans weaknesses and go for it?"

I don't think that is a particularily new strategy.

"If it was recognised early in bradmans career that he didn't like the short ball, and it had been utilised against him as it would be these days, would his average still be 99.94?"

Bodyline wasn't just about short pitched bowling. It was short pitched legside bowling with very packed legside field . The fielding restrictions today would not make short pitched bowling very effective.

"I think not, i just wonder how much it would have affected him if his weakness had been used against him during his whole career, instead of in just one series?"

You do realize that the rest of the Aus team didn't do so well in that series either? Bodyline was a defensive strategy meant to slow down the scoring rate and injure the batsmen.

 

[iamdavid]

As you say things were very different back then, but I think many of the changes since have been in the batsmans favour (covered wickets, boundary ropes, better bats, helmets).
Everyone these days seems to be whinging about how changes have made it too easy a game for batsman....Bradman succeeded before such changes.
Sure its all a little more proffesional nowdays and fielders are better (??lol)...but still.

It's always hard to compare players of today with those pre about 1970....But I spose you could say Lara and Tendulkar started their carears as Viv Richards was finishing his...and Viv still looked good compared to them...Sobers ended his carear right when Viv started and Sobers still looked good compared to Richards...Len Hutton finished his carear a year after Sobers started, and Hutton was still great in comparison with Sobers....and of course Bradman played a decent part of his carear in the Hutton era...and he put Hutton well and truly in the shade....so by my weird reasoning Bradman compares very well with the best batsman of today and would probably still stand head and shoulders above if he played in the modern era.

 

[archie mac]

As you say things were very different back then, but I think many of the changes since have been in the batsmans favour (covered wickets, boundary ropes, better bats, helmets).
Everyone these days seems to be whinging about how changes have made it too easy a game for batsman....Bradman succeeded before such changes.
Sure its all a little more proffesional nowdays and fielders are better (??lol)...but still.

It's always hard to compare players of today with those pre about 1970....But I spose you could say Lara and Tendulkar started their carears as Viv Richards was finishing his...and Viv still looked good compared to them...Sobers ended his carear right when Viv started and Sobers still looked good compared to Richards...Len Hutton finished his carear a year after Sobers started, and Hutton was still great in comparison with Sobers....and of course Bradman played a decent part of his carear in the Hutton era...and he put Hutton well and truly in the shade....so by my weird reasoning Bradman compares very well with the best batsman of today and would probably still stand head and shoulders above if he played in the modern era.

Good post, the only thing I will say is that Bradman played a large part of his career under the old LBW law

 

[Piper]

He was a legend for sure, but there is no way you could tell if he is the best ever. I would like to think he is, but we will never know for sure. Would he have been able to cope with the modern day bowlers. But I know one thing, I would pay money to see it.

 

[Isura]

archie,
What is the old LBW law?

 

[Richard]

Ridiculous. Thank God it was changed.

 

[Prince EWS]

archie,
What is the old LBW law?

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was the same as the current one other than the fact that the ball had to pitch in line as well as hit in line.

 

[Burgey]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was the same as the current one other than the fact that the ball had to pitch in line as well as hit in line.

Yeah, that's my understanding - if the ball pitched outside off you could leave it with impunity.

 

[JBMAC]

The LAW 24 Bradman played under states the following:-

" The Striker is out if with any part of his person he stops the ball, which in the opinion of the Umpire at the bowler's wicket shall have been pitched in a straight line from it to the striker's wicket, and would have hit it:-"Leg Before Wicket(LBW)"

SOURCE: The Making of A Cricketer[Chapter V111]..Umpiring and The Rules
Author MCC..Printed in 1920

Hope this clarifies things for this discussion.