If Bradman played in today's era?

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Briony

Though the bowlers in those days weren't as physical equipped as they are in contemporary times.

Bowes was a very tall man, and Voce was very wide across the chest, and Larwood was the fastest of them all

Your point?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Richard

On the many occasions I've heard that famous story, it's generally tended to be his room-mate Sam Loxton who was asked to go to Bradman for advice.

Yes it could be Loxton. I have heard Harvey confirm that (advise by the Don) on film.

[Ikki]

With regards to shortness: there is a clip on Youtube with Sachin showing how his height had played to his advantage. Shorter levers being one key factor. When your arms/fore-arms are shorter you can flash the blade faster and choose the right stroke quicker.

[Migara]

Bradman was known to hit the ball alomg the ground. With Superior fielding of today we can expect fieldsmen to cut off at least 10-15 runs. But even with that, Avg of 84 is truely extrodinary.

The other points that may make Bradman's life difficult in current era are;

#1 - Reverse swing - this was un known in his time, but not an art that could be mastered by batsman. But best strikers of world cricket have been very good swing bowlers. And guys like Waqar and Bond, who use reverse swing very well, have best of the SRs over long periods of time. So I expect fast bowler to bowl few more unplayable deliveries in a match with the old ball than Larwood or Voce.

#2 - Invention of doosra - this elevated finger spinners to wicket taking bowlers once more, after covered wickets offered very little to them.

#3 - Wider variety of pitches and clmatic conditions - Bradman did play in serious heat of Perth, but never played test cricket in gruelling heat of Chennai or Colombo, that saps out most touring players. And Indian dustbowls seems to behave different to their English or Aussie counterparts as well.

#4 - TV replays. We all knaow how O'Riely told Bedser to aim inswingers at Bradman's middle and leg, and the way it came off. With todays computer analysis, Bradman would have not been looked as a demi-god with his tecnique.

#5 - LBW law. The law was such that ball ahd to pitch on stumps to get an LBW in Bradman's time. This made getting LBW's difficult at that time. And as in #1, reverse swing bowlers will get most of their batsman bowled or LBW, and this change of law will become very important in deciding his performance.

This does not mean that Bradman could not master these, but in that long run mastering these type of bowling, there will be more failures too.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Migara

Bradman was known to hit the ball alomg the ground. With Superior fielding of today we can expect fieldsmen to cut off at least 10-15 runs. But even with that, Avg of 84 is truely extrodinary.

The other points that may make Bradman's life difficult in current era are;

#1 - Reverse swing - this was un known in his time, but not an art that could be mastered by batsman. But best strikers of world cricket have been very good swing bowlers. And guys like Waqar and Bond, who use reverse swing very well, have best of the SRs over long periods of time. So I expect fast bowler to bowl few more unplayable deliveries in a match with the old ball than Larwood or Voce.

#2 - Invention of doosra - this elevated finger spinners to wicket taking bowlers once more, after covered wickets offered very little to them.

#3 - Wider variety of pitches and clmatic conditions - Bradman did play in serious heat of Perth, but never played test cricket in gruelling heat of Chennai or Colombo, that saps out most touring players. And Indian dustbowls seems to behave different to their English or Aussie counterparts as well.

#4 - TV replays. We all knaow how O'Riely told Bedser to aim inswingers at Bradman's middle and leg, and the way it came off. With todays computer analysis, Bradman would have not been looked as a demi-god with his tecnique.

#5 - LBW law. The law was such that ball ahd to pitch on stumps to get an LBW in Bradman's time. This made getting LBW's difficult at that time. And as in #1, reverse swing bowlers will get most of their batsman bowled or LBW, and this change of law will become very important in deciding his performance.

This does not mean that Bradman could not master these, but in that long run mastering these type of bowling, there will be more failures too.

1=If average Test players of today can survive against it, I have no doubt that the greatest batsman of all time would adapt to this type of bowling. The same thing was said of WG and that he would not be able to handle the wrong-un. Just silly imo

2=The umpires of Bradman's time would have called the bowler, so would not have been a worry, but again the doosra as not worked very well on Aust pitches

3=Bradman was one of the fittest cricketers of his time, with many saying that he looked frest after scoring a double ton, and some of the Aussie batsman coming in would ask him to lay off the quick singles, plus I think most of those dust bowls are often batsman friendly

4=Works both ways, Bradman could view the bowlers on replay as well

5=The law changed in 1937 (from memory), and Bradman's average did not change hardly at all, under the new law. In fact he was still averaging near 100 during the 40s. It suggests that when at his peak (before the war), his average would not have changed

On the other side, Bradman played all of his Test cricket on uncovered pitches, with no protective gear, and in 1948 a new ball was due every 60 overs. Plus with no fielding restrictions, no roped in boundaries, no bats where the ball would go for six even when you miss-timed it, and no back to back Tests which meant that bowlers were not as over bowled.

His average would still be 80+ imo but it is fun to try and surmise what would happen do the Don in the modern era

[morgieb]

Had he made his debut in 2001, he wouldn't have an average

[SJS]

The whole point of showing a players dominance factor over his contemporaries is to show that he was a superior sportsman BY FAR in those times in those conditions. There is no reason to believe that the changes that take place in the game in a different era would not be equally well adapted to by the greats of one era in the other.

Thus Bradman in today's times would have overcome the different conditions in so far as they make batting more difficult while also benefitted from the advantages that better equipment/conditione stc provide.

Similarly a Tendulkar or a Lara born in, say, WG's time would have been greats under those conditions becuse those are the conditions they would have been brought up under.

To say that Bradman would have been less successful in the 21st century is as silly as saying he would have been less successful in the 19th !

By this argument almost all greats can be shown to be great only in their own times and less successful in all others. This is argument devoid of rational thinking since it denies the basic fact that a great athlete is a great athlete and his style and adaption to the conditions of the times is purely incidental and automatic.

[Athlai]

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

Of course you cant put transport him to modern times on a time machine and not expect him to feel the difference but the same would apply to modern players taken back in time. Thats just the point we have ben trying to make from the beginning. You can only compare a player with his contemporaries who played under similar conditions, laws etc etc. Then how dominant they were in their times can be compared with how dominant players of other eras were in THEIR OWN times.

It is ridiculous to say Bradman would have been less of a player in these times for there is no way to compare him with those brought up in completely different eras. The same applies to players down the different eras. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that a Lara or a Tendulkar will not be dominant in other eras if they were BORN THEN.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

I am not so sure about that "better" bit. That is completely arbitrary. Better or worse, he would have to be different for he would have been brought up on a diet of different wickets, bowlers, with helmets, better gloves and leg-guards, different set of laws, etc etc.

Anyone who suggests that everything about today's cricket is tougher on the batsmen of the day needs to take some lessons on the evolution of the game.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by archie mac

5=The law changed in 1937 (from memory), and Bradman's average did not change hardly at all, under the new law. In fact he was still averaging near 100 during the 40s. It suggests that when at his peak (before the war), his average would not have changed

Precisely. Since reverse swing was not usen in 1930s, and reverse swin benefits most from the change of law as well, above argument is rather difficult to believe.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

The umpires of Bradman's time would have called the bowler, so would not have been a worry, but again the doosra as not worked very well on Aust pitches

Really not sure whether they'd have called Saqlain Mushtaq (obviously would have Harbhajan Singh). But it's less a case of the Doosra not being effective in Australia than fingerspin in general not being very effective there.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Richard

Really not sure whether they'd have called Saqlain Mushtaq (obviously would have Harbhajan Singh). But it's less a case of the Doosra not being effective in Australia than fingerspin in general not being very effective there.

There have been a few who have bowled finger spin well in Aust, they seem to be left armers though

Also because it comes off the pitch slower in Aust (or seems to at any rate)

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Migara

Precisely. Since reverse swing was not usen in 1930s, and reverse swin benefits most from the change of law as well, above argument is rather difficult to believe.

What I wrote about reverse swing: is that if the average Test batsman can handle it then I have no doubt (not even a little) that Bradman (the greatest Test batsman in the history of the game) would master it

[slugger]

heres a couple of avg batsmen (cpmpared to bradman) handling an inswinger..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Prj2iOje-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AIbZfycZI0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HwbW...eature=related