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 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 248

Thread: If Bradman played in today's era?

  1. #181
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

    Were the pitches flat in the 30's? I thought they were uncovered.
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  2. #182
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    They were. And so if it rained, they were quite a bit worse than those these days.

    But if it didn't, they were pretty similar.
    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

  3. #183
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    They were. And so if it rained, they were quite a bit worse than those these days.

    But if it didn't, they were pretty similar.
    Flat, dry and well kept? I can't find anything that suggest otherwise so far so I guess I'll have to believe you. Engish wickets would have been tough wouldn't they?

  4. #184
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    By-and-large English wickets in the 1930s were very flat - when it didn't rain. But when it rained, they were as bad as in any other (uncovered) decade in this country when it rained. When it rained in this country, at any time when the pitches were uncovered, there was always a chance it'd start to turn, plenty.
    Last edited by Richard; 15-05-2008 at 04:08 AM.


  5. #185
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,657
    In England "sticky-dog" wickets could still be combated by skilled batsman, in Australia they were as near to unplayable as it's possible to get and the batsman had to rely too much on luck to make them a worthwhile contest.

  6. #186
    International 12th Man neville cardus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    Larwood probably WAS England's greatest fast bowler.
    Alack, I have to disagree with you there. It can only be George Freeman. No speed vendor ere or since has invoked such high reckoning in the most important judges of all, his colleagues. I am assuming, of course, that you have read Old Ebor's Talks, which goes some way towards putting the matter beyond question. If you have not, however, I should strongly recommend that you (and anyone else deigning to pass comment) do. Aside from conferring on this unsung leviathan the laurels that he so richly deserves, it is (as Archie's review affirms) a massively entertaining read.
    Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 01:01 PM.
    Cheers,
    Rodney Ulyate

  7. #187
    International 12th Man neville cardus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Migara View Post
    if Murali is bowling in a side with two big left arm seamers (like Mitchell Jhonson and Brett Schultz), like Warne bowling in a team with two big right arm seamers making foot marks on his length (McGrath and Gillespie), he'll be deadlier than what he's even now.
    No he would not, because he would not have the chance to be. The main reason for Murali's baronial stats is the relative insipidity of his fellows. Were he supported by worthies like Johnson, Schultz and Warne, he would bowl far less, as a consequence of which his quantitative figures would be far worse.
    Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 11:42 AM.

  8. #188
    International 12th Man neville cardus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    A quick look at Grace's stats.....continued
    So how did WG Grace fare against his contemporaries in the English first class seasons over the 20 year period of 1868-1887
    • WG averaged 45.17 during this period.
    • The average of all others who played in the first class game in those years put together is 16.00.
    • This gives WG a multiplier of 2.82 over his contemporaries in these two decades.
    • The average in the English season in the 21st centuries (2000-2007) has been 31.55
    • Thus if there was someone who dominated English first class cricket today as WG did for those 20, he would have had to average 89.06 !!

    An average of 89.06 for a period of 20 years !!
    Not too different from Bradman's career first class average of 95.14 .
    Now consider that W.G. was arguably the greatest fielder of his time -- Felix rated his display in the 1882 Test Match, when The Old Man was all of thirty-four, the best he ever saw -- and, according to Allan Steel in 1887, England's best change bowler "bar none"; indeed, when Grace was forty-seven years of age, he clean-bowled Ranjitsinhji, and the Oriental genius promptly repeated Steel's judgment.
    Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 01:00 PM.

  9. #189
    Cricket Web Content Updater roseboy64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    18,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    All pitches are flat now compared to then? Also, bowling is mostly poor....How do you get that? For most Test teams, a good portion of their bowling attack is good and overall their attacks are at least decent. Up to a few years ago the West Indies and Zimbabwe had decent bowling attacks as well.

    More cricket favours batsmen over bowlers true, but more cricket isn't a blessing for batsmen. They experience fatigue as well and more so with playing more games. They'll only be slightly better off than bowlers. Someone like Bradman would be batting a long time, thus more stress and fatigue.

    Better bowlers is linked to the exploiting weaknesses. There are differences in laws and bowling styles and techniques now to then. As was mentioned before the inswinger and doosra weren't around then. Also, bowlers these days are fitter and thus bowl longer feeling less ill effects. They're more attacking too which leads to more runs but a better chance of getting wickets. Ignoring all that why are bowlers then better?

    Less variation now than before.....How do you know that? You were there in the 1930s to experience them? Ignoring that climatic conditions are changing it still doesn't make sense. India, Australia, England, the Caribbean, Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa are all similar according to your logic. Considering he only played in England and Australia I don't see how that wouldn't be a factor.

    Can't remember what I was getting at there.

    Bradman and Tendulkar are not the same people. Unless you put him in the situation you can't judge objectively.
    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

  10. #190
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by roseboy64 View Post
    All pitches are flat now compared to then? Also, bowling is mostly poor....How do you get that? For most Test teams, a good portion of their bowling attack is good and overall their attacks are at least decent. Up to a few years ago the West Indies and Zimbabwe had decent bowling attacks as well.
    Yes, up to a few years ago. But not since 2001/02. And this is the time that the likes of Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Hussey are averaging 70+. There have been plenty of attacks in the last 7 years which have been composed of bowlers of whom none could be said to be Test-class. What a batsman of the calibre of Bradman, on flat pitches, would have done to these attacks does not bear thinking about.

    I'd be very surprised if his performances wouldn't have been reduced a bit in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc. when there was generally more in wickets for bowlers and better bowlers in general. But even so I can still see him averaging 80-90.
    More cricket favours batsmen over bowlers true, but more cricket isn't a blessing for batsmen. They experience fatigue as well and more so with playing more games. They'll only be slightly better off than bowlers. Someone like Bradman would be batting a long time, thus more stress and fatigue.
    One thing for sure - bowling at Bradman would make bowlers more fatigued than they normally are.

    Thing to remember is that while far more international cricket is has been played in the last 10-20 years than ever before, cricket as a whole has not increased in volume. Bradman still batted about as regularly as does a batsman today, just at different levels.
    Better bowlers is linked to the exploiting weaknesses. There are differences in laws and bowling styles and techniques now to then. As was mentioned before the inswinger and doosra weren't around then. Also, bowlers these days are fitter and thus bowl longer feeling less ill effects. They're more attacking too which leads to more runs but a better chance of getting wickets. Ignoring all that why are bowlers then better?
    The inswinger most certainly was around in the 1930s and 1940s, as was the outswinger. And while the Doosra wasn't that was mainly because it didn't need to be. Mostly wickets allowed fingerspinners to turn the ball more in Bradman's day, so a good arm-ball sufficed. And on wickets where the standard fingerspinner's ball doesn't turn (which did still exist of course), nor does the Doosra, so neither are a great threat.

    And what on Earth gives you the idea that bowlers bowl more these days? There may have been more unfit bowlers, but the best bowlers were every bit as fit then as now. They use more sophisticated methods these days, but that just means getting fit is easier.

    There's no way to my mind that bowlers of the 1930s and 2001/02-current-day are significantly different. In both cases quality was fairly minimal.
    Less variation now than before.....How do you know that? You were there in the 1930s to experience them? Ignoring that climatic conditions are changing it still doesn't make sense. India, Australia, England, the Caribbean, Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa are all similar according to your logic. Considering he only played in England and Australia I don't see how that wouldn't be a factor.
    It's very well known that before covered wickets the amount of variety in a single country was massively greater than it is nowadays. And just because one wasn't around doesn't mean one can't compare - you can look at how a wicket played, read of what people talked about how a wicket played.

    It's very likely there was more, not less, variance in wicket types in the 1930s than currently. As I say - there has never been a time when wickets have been more conformative to stereotype than the 2001/02-onwards period. Yes, sometimes you can indeed rock-up in South Africa and find a wicket near enough identical to one in England; likewise in New Zealand and Pakistan. Other things vary, but a flat pitch is a flat pitch, and there were a hell of a lot of them around 2001/02-2005/06 (been a few more spicy ones in the last couple of years but still far too many flatties).

  11. #191
    Cricket Web Content Updater roseboy64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    18,573
    I see your points but I was really arguing that there's not much that indicates he'd be averaging 99. I can see in the 70s and maybe 80s but not the 90s. I'm fairly convinced the only good attacks he faced were from England. Pretty sure the West Indies attacks he faced weren't up to much. Not sure about the South Africans but he did magnificently against them. India don't seem too hot either. South Africa, India, England and Sri Lanka all have good to decent attacks.

    Oh and I also meant climatic conditions. Not the conditions of the wickets alone which is why I mentioned the him only playing in England and Australia.

    Also, that bowlers bowling longer with less ill effects means they don't tire as quickly as a result.

  12. #192
    Cricket Web Staff Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Interesting comparative article

    Puts Bradman in context of all-time world sport.

    (Apologies if someone else posted it, 11 pages is a lot to look at when it's gone midnight).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_..._sport_context

  13. #193
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Someone mentioned earlier about Bradman never having had to face swing and then talked of the Bond ball and Wasim's hving perfected it (swing) to a fine art.

    I honestly cant say if this is funny or ridiculous. But I suppose it is just sad. So sad that there is so much feeling for the game and yet so little knowledge of its history and its finer points which are really what make it the great game that it truly is.

    Who is responsible for such terrible cricket illiteracy ?

  14. #194
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,398
    Quote Originally Posted by chasingthedon View Post
    Puts Bradman in context of all-time world sport.

    (Apologies if someone else posted it, 11 pages is a lot to look at when it's gone midnight).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_..._sport_context
    I'd read about that analysis before - makes his achievements all the more remarkable really.
    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

  15. #195
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    Someone mentioned earlier about Bradman never having had to face swing and then talked of the Bond ball and Wasim's hving perfected it (swing) to a fine art.

    I honestly cant say if this is funny or ridiculous. But I suppose it is just sad. So sad that there is so much feeling for the game and yet so little knowledge of its history and its finer points which are really what make it the great game that it truly is.

    Who is responsible for such terrible cricket illiteracy ?

    the reason the swing bowlers was raised.. because initially someone wrote if the average player can handle swing bowling then Bradman would have no trouble at all.. the you tubes i grabbed is only a small selection of these "average batsmen" handling swing bowling.. therefore if bradman was to face swing bowling of the quality that can be employed to day it could be considered debateable of how good he really couldve been .. for example ponting has played aginst bond in 9 matches in ODI bond has claimed his wicket 6 times. he avg 17.49 (and i would consider ponting an above average player)

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •