Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Don Bradman thread

  1. #1
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    southland
    Posts
    94

    Don Bradman thread

    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?

  2. #2
    First Class Debutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by trickster View Post
    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

  3. #3
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,648
    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.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  4. #4
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    Quote Originally Posted by trickster View Post
    I mean to say, how would he hold up against modern day bolwers?
    How would they hold up against him?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member stumpski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Medway valley
    Posts
    5,815
    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.'

  6. #6
    Cricketer Of The Year Turbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpski View Post
    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 .

  7. #7
    International Coach PhoenixFire's Avatar
    Curveball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bitch please, I'm from West Yorkshire
    Posts
    14,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbinator View Post
    Time for Sam to test out some of his new powers .
    Indeed, thanks for reminding me

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,557
    Quote Originally Posted by trickster View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Burgey; 17-06-2007 at 05:50 PM.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  10. #10
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    391
    "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.

  11. #11
    International Debutant iamdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,112
    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.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by iamdavid View Post
    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

  13. #13
    International Captain Piper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,350
    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.
    February 10th 2009 <3
    Rest In Peace Fardin
    Rest In Peace Sazza

  14. #14
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    391
    archie,
    What is the old LBW law?

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Ridiculous. Thank God it was changed.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* Sri Lankan Domestic Cricket Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 01:01 PM
  2. the goodbye thread
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 17-04-2007, 07:08 AM
  3. Formula 1 Prediction Thread - 2007
    By biased indian in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 16-04-2007, 04:47 AM
  4. The thread of international goodwill and fellowship
    By Matt79 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 17-03-2007, 03:30 AM
  5. **Official** South Africa in India Thread
    By Neil Pickup in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 453
    Last Post: 08-12-2004, 07:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •