the guys passed on, get over it and appreciate him for the batsmen he was
"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.
"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
My guess is if Bradman played today we'd see a slightly different player. For a start in ODIs he'd play some lofted shots over the top, some would work, some wouldn't. In Australia or anywhere with relatively easy batting pitches he'd dominate more than in other areas.
Stuff it, I'll shorten the post and say he'd still be as good, give or take a few runs, if there were any technical deficiencies logic says he would have dealt with them like most other players do. He'd play slightly differently because of the style of game played today as well but he easily, easily has the ability to adapt.
His battles vs Murali would have been exciting tstl.
Another Bradman will come, records and standards are there to be broken and raised. Suspect whoever is lucky enough to get the next will dominate world cricket.
with the intoduction of technology i suspect another badman 99 avg.. is not going to happen again.. i suspect also not many test will make it to the 5th day.. if hot spot was udsed which i believe they are not .. the game could change over night.. ive mentioned this before.. its very hard to determin if bradman got a number of lucky breaks.. because the whole asppect of replys obvouisly didnt exist.. if you just use the run out tech.. as an example run outs that have been given since its introduction of said tech.. would not have been given before hand.. so on the other hand the fielding at those times would have been less inclined to take a shy at the stumps unless the player looked like not making it to the crease by a long shot.. bradman never had to deal with any of that type of pressure of analysing his game.. this can and is likely to carry some weight..
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.
This is the sort of question that it is impossible to answer. Cricket has become a very different game than it was. Really hard to compare players of different eras.
For all that's changed, much has remained the same.
There is, to me, no logical reasons whatsoever why Bradman would not remain far, far ahead of any other batsman in any other time, at least post-1900. And equally, I see fairly strong evidence that in very recent times he'd do even better than he did in his own.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)