"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
Would have masterd every bowler. Murali and Warne would have troubled him to a noticable degree, probably Kumble and Saqlain here and there. But could not tink what would a bowler like McGrath would have done by boring him down. And Malcolm Marshall would definietly have had his days against him.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
Two questions, SJS:
1. Did you get the books I sent you?
2. Could you do a similar analysis of W.G.'s first-class career from its beginning to the end of the 1870s?
Worth remembering, though, that Bradman fairly destroyed Larwood in 1930, and had Larwood had a fair crack of the whip he could very possibly have been one of England's greatest Test bowlers.
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.
As for the Murali / Warne situation, Bradman would have never played two spinners of this quality in his opposition. The nearest would be Headly Verity (who did reasonably well against him), but Verity cannot be classed with Murali and Warne as a spin legend. So I would expect him to be troubled by these two often than from pace bowlers,.
You're making a statement to Richard, when if you were reading the other thread, that by your own reckoning was a waste of time, you'd know what Richard thought.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)