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.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
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.
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.
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.
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.
Archie's review affirms) a massively entertaining read.
Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 01:01 PM.
"To go to a cricket match for nothing but cricket is as though a man were to go into an inn for nothing but drink." - Neville Cardus
"What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?" - CLR James
Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 11:42 AM.
Last edited by neville cardus; 15-05-2008 at 01:00 PM.
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
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.
One thing for sure - bowling at Bradman would make bowlers more fatigued than they normally are.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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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 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).
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.
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).
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)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)