View Poll Results: How would Sir Donald Bradman go in today's era of cricket?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very very good

    18 25.71%
  • He would of been found by the better quality of bowlers

    2 2.86%
  • Still would the best batsman ever

    39 55.71%
  • I have no idea

    11 15.71%
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 248

Thread: If Bradman played in today's era?

  1. #166
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    Great bowling, they don't bowl them at will and don't bowl batsman out for ducks every match. I am sure Bradman was beaten by the occasional great delivery
    You know it makes sense.

  2. #167
    International Debutant andmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Taking 39 steps
    Posts
    2,865
    Great picture
    Well the Irish did it on St Patrick's day

    Rip Fardin Qayyumi, Bob Woolmer and Craig.
    No offence Neil
    "No good thing ever dies." Andy Dufresne. The Shawshank Redemption.
    "Don't interupt the emeny when they're making a mistake" Napoleon

  3. #168
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,433
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    Hayden made a meal of a good delivery. The Bond ball was also good, but could have been played if the batsman did not overbalance. However, I could not see Bradman playing that Wasim delivery. The length inticed a cover drive whereas the inswing meant bowled or LBW was consequentially imminant.
    The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.

  4. #169
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    Great bowling, they don't bowl them at will and don't bowl batsman out for ducks every match. I am sure Bradman was beaten by the occasional great delivery
    I'm sure he was, otherwise he'd very possibly almost never have got out.
    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


  5. #170
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    There have been a few who have bowled finger spin well in Aust, they seem to be left armers though
    Like who?

    (Since Aussie wickets became covered, obviously)
    Also because it comes off the pitch slower in Aust (or seems to at any rate)
    But more significantly, on most Australian the fingerspun ball does not turn unduly.

  6. #171
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Like who?

    (Since Aussie wickets became covered, obviously)

    But more significantly, on most Australian the fingerspun ball does not turn unduly.
    None except Tayfield (right arm) have dominated a series, but the occasional one in a Test match has looked impressive, even at the SCG in the series that Hayden scored 380 the Zim. bowler (his name escapes) had the Aussies in trouble.

    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.

  7. #172
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    Hayden made a meal of a good delivery. The Bond ball was also good, but could have been played if the batsman did not overbalance. However, I could not see Bradman playing that Wasim delivery. The length inticed a cover drive whereas the inswing meant bowled or LBW was consequentially imminant.
    I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

    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..

  8. #173
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,728
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

    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..
    But so what if Bond terrorised the Aussie top order in one or two games? Devon Malcolm went through them at the Oval in 1993 as well. Bond > Malcolm of course, but saying Bond troubled Australia, Bradman would have been in the top order had he played, QED Bradman would have been troubled, is just, with respect, wrong.

    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
    "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

  9. #174
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,728
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Also, have a look at the photo in this article

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

    There are 8 fieldsman (at least) and the wk in this shot

    That field would be next to useless for Richards as he rarely fended at short balls

    In fact, Richards routinely destroyed bowlers every bit as quick as Larwood on quick wickets during the 70s with 3 men on the fence (2 behind, one in front). Basically, every fast bowler knew that bowling short to him would be a licence to score runs unless used as a surprise tactic.

    IMO, Richards would've had far more problems with a Bedser type bowler on a green track than anything served up by bodyline
    You may well be right, but the problem with Bodyline wasn't just the men around the bat, if you went hooking they would have 3 men back for the top edge. McCabe showed in Sydney with his 187 (best innings my grandfather ever saw he reckons, and he saw a lot of Bradman - lucky sod) that you could attack and get away with it, but he was not a factor in the rest of the series, such was the effort taken out of him by that knock.

    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.

  10. #175
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

    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..

    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..

  11. #176
    Cricket Web Content Updater roseboy64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    18,574
    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

  12. #177
    International Regular JBH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    You may well be right, but the problem with Bodyline wasn't just the men around the bat, if you went hooking they would have 3 men back for the top edge. McCabe showed in Sydney with his 187 (best innings my grandfather ever saw he reckons, and he saw a lot of Bradman - lucky sod) that you could attack and get away with it, but he was not a factor in the rest of the series, such was the effort taken out of him by that knock.

    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.
    Didn't Richards have a, from recollection, tough time against Lillee and Thommo in 75/76?

    Edit/ Btw, I think Bradman would still be the best ever. The man had an intensity matched to an intelligence that meant he would have triumphed in the end.

  13. #178
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by roseboy64 View Post
    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.
    Pitches are flat, bowling mostly poor, just like the 1930s, at the current time. There are also other things which help batsmen more, though.

    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.

  14. #179
    International Debutant a massive zebra's Avatar
    Eggs Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my ass @ the PC
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..
    I don't know where you got that idea from. Swing was just as important a component of the bowlers armoury in Bradman's day as in modern times. For instance, at a social gathering involving some journalists and a number of English players after the second day's of the first Ashes Test in 1948, Bill O'Reilly devised a strategy whereby Alec Bedser would target inswingers at Bradman's stumps with Len Hutton waiting for a catch at backward short leg. In the second over of the third morning, Bradman leg glanced a Bedser inswinger and Len Hutton, positioned at backward short leg, did not have to move. In the second innings, Bradman was held scoreless for nine balls, before receiving an inswinger from Bedser. Again, Bradman leg glanced and, for the first time in his career, was dismissed for a duck in England - caught Hutton at backward short leg, bowled Bedser.

    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

  15. #180
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    None except Tayfield (right arm) have dominated a series, but the occasional one in a Test match has looked impressive, even at the SCG in the series that Hayden scored 380 the Zim. bowler (his name escapes) had the Aussies in trouble.
    Raymond Price. His success came at the spinner's haven of The SCG. And he's a very fine left-arm fingerspinner, up with the best.

    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
    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
    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.

    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.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Today's weather
    By Craig in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 31-10-2003, 05:42 PM

Posting Permissions

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