If Bradman played in today's era?

[Richard]

We all know that Marshall was a complete bowler. Marshall was the quickest among WI pacies (exception being Patrick Patterson, who had a liking to the opposition batsmen's skulls), possibly quicker than Larwood, and much more crafty operator than Larwood as seen by his performance on Indian wickets. I would thing even for Bradman it would be hard to destroy him time and time out.

Oh, undoubtedly I'd rate Marshall's chances better than Larwood's. But still, no bowler, even Marshall, can bowl unplayable outswingers every ball. And generally, this is what it would take to get Bradman out. He just hardly ever got himself out. Marshall is a bowler I'd back ahead of any single other bowler (SF Barnes excepted) to bowl deliveries that would get Bradman or anyone else out. But still, Marshall, like all bowlers, profited from the fact that many batsmen got themselves out to him. What put Bradman so far ahead was that he hardly ever did.

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,.

It's an interesting question. Undoubtedly, on a good pitch Murali > Verity by several miles. However, in Verity's day he had assistance from the fact that pitches were uncovered and a relatively small amount of rain (not at all unusual in this country - for five or six full days to go by without rain is fairly rare even in summer) followed by a bit of sunshine could turn a good pitch into one that offered great help to a high-class fingerspinner, which Verity certainly was.

Murali, of course, would gain assistance from covered pitches had he played on them, in addition to presenting a threat on good wickets - had a Murali been around in Bradman's day, I'd be fairly confident Bradman would have done less well than he did, if only a little. But I don't neccessarily think the threat offered by Murali in his day was enormously greater than that which Verity offered in his day.

 

[Richard]

Larwood probably WAS England's greatest fast bowler.

At domestic level, very possibly. However, there's no way he was even close at Test level. His Test career was almost destroyed by Bradman in 1930, and had Jardine not conceived the Leg-Theory tactic, who knows, maybe he would never have played again - less still played with great effect.

Had Larwood played at a time different to Bradman, I'm pretty confident he could have been regarded as this country's finest, at all levels. But in the end, he owes most of his fame at the Test level to an illicit tactic. Which is sad. But it's the truth.

 

[SJS]

WG Grace

A quick look at Grace's stats

WG Grace for his times was as great a cricketer as Bradman was in his. This alone makes him worthy of being placed at the very top of any shortlist of all time great cricketers. Unfortunately we tend to look at his stats and tell ourselves

• Come on he averaged just 32.3 in test matches.
• His first class average at 39.45 is no great shakes either (remember Bradman averaged in the nineties)
• If a fat fifty year old was playing active cricket the standards couldn't be that great could they?

and so on and so forth​

What we need to understand is

1. When test cricket started, it wasn't considered the ultimate to participate. The English domestic cricket was THE cricket. Many players did not take interest in it and opted out of an opportunity to play tests particularly if there was money to be made elsewhere.
2. WG played his first test at 32, his second at 34, his 3rd at 36 !! By the time he played his 9th test he was 40.
3. He did not go to Australia for ALL the first eight tours England made down under !! and he was by a zillion miles England's (and the world's premier batsman of the times).
4. He was in his 44th year and well past his prime when he played his firsat test in Australia.
5. The fact that he played till past fifty does not mean he was as good a player at fifty as he was when younger. He was well past his prime. Its just that he was still good enough to play first class cricket. Surelyy it affected his averages as it would affect any player's (including Bradman) if he continued playing competitive cricket well past his prime. Thats why instead of looking at Grace's figures in totality over the entire career, we need to first understand that he was at his prime in his twenties and early thirties and then declined as any cricketer would.

Here are WG's first class figures broken up by decades to show how he declined as he grew older.

WG was born in 1848, so I have taken him to be 20 years old in 1968, 40 years old in 1988 and so on. I have taken full calendar year records even though he was born in July because the records are available more easily on calendar year (English domestic season mainly) basis.

[B]              	M's	Inns	NO	Runs	Ave	100	50	Ct	St	M/100	M/50plus[/B]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Teens/20's	222	366	35	17927	54.2	58	65	300	3	3.8	1.8[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]30's          	223	385	30	13058	36.8	25	69	277	2	8.9	2.4
40's          	279	485	25	15947	34.7	30	77	240	0	9.3	2.6[/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]50's onwards	146	242	14	7279	31.9	11	40	59	0	13.3	2.9[/COLOR]

[B]OVERALL   	870	1478	104	54211	39.5	124	251	876	5	7.0	2.3[/B]

• As a batsman, WG clearly has three distinct phases. He was at his peak till he gets to the age of thirty.
• He was not just younger till then he was not as fat as he was to become.
• From then for the next two decades he is clearly a lesser batsman though he did have a sudden lease of life from 1895 to 1898 (his 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th years) he scored 7526 runs at a very impressive 44.0) scoring 20 centuries and crossing 2000 runs in a season twice while crossing 1500 on the other two occasions.
• He declined very fast after this second wind and his 100's became much less frequent though he was not so bad with fifties. Clearly the body was very tired.

...to be continued

 

[SJS]

No, it's really not important to me what Richard thinks, as it's usually so off-base that it makes little sense. In essence, I am agreeing with you and disagreeing with him.

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.

I generally express my own opinions and while they are clearly influenced by what I have read (and understood) particularly about cricketers I haven't seen, I am afraid they are never influenced by what anyone else says here.

I can have a difference of opinion with anyone as they can have with me - after all they are just that - mere opinions

 

[Engle]

DGB would have a feast. 40 centuries would not be beyond his grasp, most of which would be high 100's. On retirement, his numbers would be unassailable.

 

[adharcric]

Oh, undoubtedly I'd rate Marshall's chances better than Larwood's. But still, no bowler, even Marshall, can bowl unplayable outswingers every ball. And generally, this is what it would take to get Bradman out. He just hardly ever got himself out. Marshall is a bowler I'd back ahead of any single other bowler (SF Barnes excepted) to bowl deliveries that would get Bradman or anyone else out. But still, Marshall, like all bowlers, profited from the fact that many batsmen got themselves out to him. What put Bradman so far ahead was that he hardly ever did.

Getting yourself out, as you call it, also has plenty to do with the quality of the bowler you're facing. Bradman would probably "get himself out" more often if he faced better bowlers than he actually did so you can't just say that Bradman by definition doesn't get himself out and there Marshall would suffer against him.

 

[Richard]

A quick look at Grace's stats

WG Grace for his times was as great a cricketer as Bradman was in his. This alone makes him worthy of being placed at the very top of any shortlist of all time great cricketers. Unfortunately we tend to look at his stats and tell ourselves

• Come on he averaged just 32.3 in test matches.
• His first class average at 39.45 is no great shakes either (remember Bradman averaged in the nineties)
• If a fat fifty year old was playing active cricket the standards couldn't be that great could they?

and so on and so forth​

Possibly the most infuriating trait under all circumstances, to look at the stats you're spoon-fed and not even understand their context. And in Grace's case (allied to the misunderstandings about his shape, age and size), more so than ever.

 

[Migara]

It's an interesting question. Undoubtedly, on a good pitch Murali > Verity by several miles. However, in Verity's day he had assistance from the fact that pitches were uncovered and a relatively small amount of rain (not at all unusual in this country - for five or six full days to go by without rain is fairly rare even in summer) followed by a bit of sunshine could turn a good pitch into one that offered great help to a high-class fingerspinner, which Verity certainly was.

Murali, of course, would gain assistance from covered pitches had he played on them, in addition to presenting a threat on good wickets - had a Murali been around in Bradman's day, I'd be fairly confident Bradman would have done less well than he did, if only a little. But I don't neccessarily think the threat offered by Murali in his day was enormously greater than that which Verity offered in his day.

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. SL left arm seamers are quite short and slightly built, they rarely create any useful rough out side RHBs off stump. Murali has taken 99% of his wickets without bowling in to the rough unlike Warne. I could not imaginge whether even a batsman of quality of Bradman can score freely if Murali was bowling in to the rough out side off stump of the RHB. If their are right conditions, Murali will be fair wy deadlier than Verity.

 

[Goughy]

WG was born in 1848, so I have taken him to be 20 years old in 1968, 40 years old in 1988 and so on.

Edit?

 

[Richard]

Getting yourself out, as you call it, also has plenty to do with the quality of the bowler you're facing. Bradman would probably "get himself out" more often if he faced better bowlers than he actually did so you can't just say that Bradman by definition doesn't get himself out and there Marshall would suffer against him.

Obviously, by bowling a succession of fullish away-swingers just outside off, a bowler can coerce a batsman into getting himself out, which certainly offers the bowler considerable credit while the batsman is not free of fault - as opposed, for instance, to the Long-Hop that is pulled to mid-wicket or the nothing ball just short of a Half-Volley that is driven to mid-off, where the batsman is entirely at fault and the bowler deserves zero credit.

Whether Bradman would indeed do this (the former, not the latter, of course) more when facing Marshall is an interesting question. I honestly wouldn't want to know the answer, having never seen Bradman bat ball-by-ball. I find it very conceivable either way.

 

[Richard]

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. SL left arm seamers are quite short and slightly built, they rarely create any useful rough out side RHBs off stump. Murali has taken 99% of his wickets without bowling in to the rough unlike Warne. I could not imaginge whether even a batsman of quality of Bradman can score freely if Murali was bowling in to the rough out side off stump of the RHB. If their are right conditions, Murali will be fair wy deadlier than Verity.

Oh, very true, certainly. However, 1) two big left-armers is not particularly commonplace and 2) I wasn't exactly picturing this as the scenario. If it were, I'm sure Bradman (as anyone) would be troubled by Murali more than any other spinner.

 

[funnygirl]

He would have been averaged around 150.

 

[Leslie1]

Laws of nature would dictate one day we will get another Bradman in this game. Golf had Niklaus and then Woods showed up, basketball had MJ the same equivalent of modern great, and I'm sure we will see another Bradman show up in a sport like cricket. A freak of nature that isn't just recognized by fans of the sport but by the world in general for being so good at his sport.

 

[Goughy]

Laws of nature would dictate one day we will get another Bradman in this game. Golf had Niklaus and then Woods showed up, basketball had MJ the same equivalent of modern great, and I'm sure we will see another Bradman show up in a sport like cricket. A freak of nature that isn't just recognized by fans of the sport but by the world in general for being so good at his sport.

Noone mentioned compares. Other sports have not had their Bradman yet. They have had their Sobers etc (ie players that dominate the game and take it to a new level) but noone so far ahead of the pack as Bradman is.

Tough to expect a 2nd Bradman in cricket when few, if any, are comparable from the history of other sports.

 

[slugger]

for every genius discovered.. a 1000 go un-noticed..

mj was afine bball player and probably one of the 1 in thousand discovered.. however remember his dad liked baseball if he had gone into baseball as his dad wanted him to.. bball (nba) would be none the wiser... and when his dad passed he did play a little baseball.. maybe his age held him back slightly but he didnt blow the roof off the sport..

bradman played tennis and by all accounts was pretty good.. if he had continued with tennis.. whether he would have been a great tennis player we will never know.. im sure he would have been pretty good.. but cricket would have been none the wiser..

there is probably 1000s of bradmans in india and pakistan.. playing cricket onn the street with a stick.. just as bradman did aginst the water drum and a golf ball.. but many circumstances are required to allign themselves for that opportunity to become a reality..

these probably a bunch of us reading this now.. who love cricket and believe they a wicket or century away from playing cricket for there country.. when in fact if they had put on a pair of ice skates they good be winning gold for their country in the winter olympics....

 

[adharcric]

Noone mentioned compares. Other sports have not had their Bradman yet. They have had their Sobers etc (ie players that dominate the game and take it to a new level) but noone so far ahead of the pack as Bradman is.

Tough to expect a 2nd Bradman in cricket when few, if any, are comparable from the history of other sports.

Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind. Thoughts?

 

[Ikki]

Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind. Thoughts?

Don't even think Wilt the Stilt comes close.

 

[whitedazzler]

the guys passed on, get over it and appreciate him for the batsmen he was

 

[Top_Cat]

Wayne Gretzky was a bit of a Bradman of ice hockey. Other players have come close or matched one of his statistical categories in a given season but no-one has done them all at once like he did for many years in a row when he was at Edmonton.

 

[weldone]

Or Ishant Sharma

Why not Harmison, Hogg, Flintoff, Ntini, Sami or Oram for that matter?...