The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
It has been awhile since a great left hand finger spinner has appeared on the scence, but we should not write it off 'as a never again'. As they did about leg spin
Last edited by archie mac; 14-05-2008 at 04:16 PM.
bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..
wasim had it down to a fine art.. and new when to use it..
bond devasted aussie top order regulary and bradman would have been part of that top order..
It's always going to be a matter of opinion of course and we're all as right as each other because it's educated guess work.
The analogy you seek to draw in this case is like my saying Lee went through, say the WI top order, they couldn't handle him. Richards, Greenidge and Haynes, had they been around, would have been in that top order, QED they would have struggled and Lee would have gone through them. Or to swap the batting and bowling roles around - Zoe Goss bowled Brian Lara at a game at the SCG. Lara was one of the two greatest batsmen of his time, ergo all other test players would have struggled against Zoe Goss. I don't think you can say that (and I'm not saying you are FWIW).
I just think part of being a great player is adaptability - the great players adapt, be it to rule changes, different conditions, innovations in the game, different formats. It's a large part of what makes them great imo.
No doubt Bradman's game would have changed in this era - it would have to. But I don't see how you can go past the fact that he averaged 99.94. The very number is so high, and so far ahead of not just his contemporaries but every other player to have played the game for any worthwhile length of time in any era, that he purely and simply was the greatest batsman the game has seen, at least in test cricket (others will argue Grace and fair enough, but I make the point re test matches).
I think something which sometimes gets overlooked was that Bradman was ruthlessly efficient. Based on all I've heard or read about him, he cared not one whit for style over substance - it was all business to him. Given that was the case, that he brought a single mindedness to his batting and was interested in not "how" but "how many", I just don't see how he would fail to still be the greatest batsman ever, and by a considerable margin.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Certainly I would imagine Richards as being better equipped than most to cope wit Bodyline, but I suspet it would have nullified him to some extent as well, just as it did Bradman and the other fine players of his era.
ok sorry i may have over stated bond ability against aussie.. he only played two matches aginst them.. however he did get langer, s.waugh and hayden all for ducks...
but i was basing his ability on odi format.. and i do agree bradman probably would have shone the brightest.. but we only know his ability based on test format.. odi's require a different type of approach ..and id be inclined to think bradman would have played the game at a bevan type tempo..
Sensationalism IMO. Sure he'd average more than most but in the 90s? No. Certainly not 150 either or him not having an average. Game's tougher in some sense and easier with the protective equipment and bats.He'd certainly overcome the challenges btu not to the extent where he'd own every year. Can see an average in the 70s or late 60s considering what Kallis, Ponting and Dravid average as he'd be better than them. With the better and different variety of bowlers as well as pitches, I fail to be convinced he'd be not just the best ever but a demi-god. Rubbish.
Anyone can use clips to impress a favourable opinion of a player. Just show their best innings and you convince people. Of course though, I get that his style of batting, technique, concentration and other positives will see him being better than all with the adjustments he'd. However, the more cricket, better bowlers, better ways of finding out weaknesses and exploiting them, different conditions, different styles of different teams( certainly more than he played), professionalism of everyone playing not just him, and greater media and public criticism would mean he'd not dominate every single bowler. Not every thing in the past is better than now. For a long time I just accepted he was the best no question. Now I still think he's the best and would be if he played today but he'd not be as great or even greater. Anyone who says so is a sensationalist AFAIC.
Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson = Greatest Ever Manager
"One from ten leaves zero." - Eric Williams, former T&T PM
Member of Cricket Web Green
Member of Northside Power
R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi
Therefore it really makes sense to suggest he'd have done better in very recent times, though probably a little (and not much more than that) well in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc.
More cricket - favours batsmen
Better bowlers - not a chance IMO
Better ways of finding weaknesses and exploiting them - works both ways
Different conditions - probably less variation in conditions at the current time than there has ever been in cricket history
Different styles of different teams - so?
Greater media and public criticism - those sound of mind are not overtly bothered by this. Look at Sachin Tendulkar.
Bradman overcame this tactic later in the series, shouldering arms and allowing the ball to strike his pads. He adopted a more patient game, no longer playing any leg glances against Bedser, who eventually gave up - his inswingers being met with a left leg thrust firmly forward. However, this example just shows how swing bowling played just as prominent a part in top class cricket in Bradman's day as it does today.
Last edited by a massive zebra; 15-05-2008 at 02:41 AM.
THE ULTIMATE CRICKET WEB ARCADE EGGS CHAMPION
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1990-2006
RIP Craig Walsh (AKA "Craig"), 1985-2012
Having the odd good Test (most of which will have come at The SCG or a turner at The WACA) is not the trick, however - the point is that fingerspin
Thing is, though, with fingerspin it's not a case of the talent not being around, as it usually is with wristspin, but a case of the conditions no longer offering enough encouragement to make the art a viable option under all circumstances.It has been awhile since a great left hand finger spinner has appeared on the scence, but we should not write it off 'as a never again'. As they did about leg spin
Look back, to uncovered wickets. Wristspin was still a once-in-several-generations art for those who bowled it to the highest of standard. It's something only a tiny, tiny number can do. Yet fingerspin dominated - many teams played with two fingerspinners, occasionally even more. Any number of the best bowlers between 1900 and 1970 were fingerspinners - Rhodes, Verity, Laker, Underwood, Tayfield, Wardle, Valentine, etc. Yet these days the best fingerspinners - Bedi, Prasanna, Emburey, Edmunds, Saqlain, Harbhajan, Panesar, etc. - are not even remotely close to being as effective everywhere as the best seamers. They're often less effective than the average fingerspinners of earlier generations - the Illingworths, Locks (remove New Zealand and his Test record is nothing particularly remarkable), Johnsons, etc.
Fingerspin will remain "dead" globally unless pitches start to be uncovered again, because uncovered wickets are the only way to regularly produce at all grounds spin-friendly pitches. Only in some grounds in the subcontinent and some grounds in West Indies are pitches regularly produced which help fingerspinners. And without help from the pitch, no fingerspinner can be more than a useful bit-part player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)