If Bradman played in today's era?

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by 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

Great bowling, they don't bowl them at will and don't bowl batsman out for ducks every match. I am sure Bradman was beaten by the occasional great delivery

[andmark]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/maga...ry/335697.html

Great picture

[Manee]

Originally Posted by 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

Hayden made a meal of a good delivery. The Bond ball was also good, but could have been played if the batsman did not overbalance. However, I could not see Bradman playing that Wasim delivery. The length inticed a cover drive whereas the inswing meant bowled or LBW was consequentially imminant.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Great bowling, they don't bowl them at will and don't bowl batsman out for ducks every match. I am sure Bradman was beaten by the occasional great delivery

I'm sure he was, otherwise he'd very possibly almost never have got out.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

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

Like who?

(Since Aussie wickets became covered, obviously)

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

But more significantly, on most Australian the fingerspun ball does not turn unduly.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Richard

Like who?

(Since Aussie wickets became covered, obviously)

But more significantly, on most Australian the fingerspun ball does not turn unduly.

None except Tayfield (right arm) have dominated a series, but the occasional one in a Test match has looked impressive, even at the SCG in the series that Hayden scored 380 the Zim. bowler (his name escapes) had the Aussies in trouble.

It has been awhile since a great left hand finger spinner has appeared on the scence, but we should not write it off 'as a never again'. As they did about leg spin

[slugger]

Originally Posted by Manee

Hayden made a meal of a good delivery. The Bond ball was also good, but could have been played if the batsman did not overbalance. However, I could not see Bradman playing that Wasim delivery. The length inticed a cover drive whereas the inswing meant bowled or LBW was consequentially imminant.

I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..

wasim had it down to a fine art.. and new when to use it..

bond devasted aussie top order regulary and bradman would have been part of that top order..

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by slugger

I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..

wasim had it down to a fine art.. and new when to use it..

bond devasted aussie top order regulary and bradman would have been part of that top order..

But so what if Bond terrorised the Aussie top order in one or two games? Devon Malcolm went through them at the Oval in 1993 as well. Bond > Malcolm of course, but saying Bond troubled Australia, Bradman would have been in the top order had he played, QED Bradman would have been troubled, is just, with respect, wrong.

It's always going to be a matter of opinion of course and we're all as right as each other because it's educated guess work.

The analogy you seek to draw in this case is like my saying Lee went through, say the WI top order, they couldn't handle him. Richards, Greenidge and Haynes, had they been around, would have been in that top order, QED they would have struggled and Lee would have gone through them. Or to swap the batting and bowling roles around - Zoe Goss bowled Brian Lara at a game at the SCG. Lara was one of the two greatest batsmen of his time, ergo all other test players would have struggled against Zoe Goss. I don't think you can say that (and I'm not saying you are FWIW).

I just think part of being a great player is adaptability - the great players adapt, be it to rule changes, different conditions, innovations in the game, different formats. It's a large part of what makes them great imo.

No doubt Bradman's game would have changed in this era - it would have to. But I don't see how you can go past the fact that he averaged 99.94. The very number is so high, and so far ahead of not just his contemporaries but every other player to have played the game for any worthwhile length of time in any era, that he purely and simply was the greatest batsman the game has seen, at least in test cricket (others will argue Grace and fair enough, but I make the point re test matches).

I think something which sometimes gets overlooked was that Bradman was ruthlessly efficient. Based on all I've heard or read about him, he cared not one whit for style over substance - it was all business to him. Given that was the case, that he brought a single mindedness to his batting and was interested in not "how" but "how many", I just don't see how he would fail to still be the greatest batsman ever, and by a considerable margin.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by social

Also, have a look at the photo in this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

There are 8 fieldsman (at least) and the wk in this shot

That field would be next to useless for Richards as he rarely fended at short balls

In fact, Richards routinely destroyed bowlers every bit as quick as Larwood on quick wickets during the 70s with 3 men on the fence (2 behind, one in front). Basically, every fast bowler knew that bowling short to him would be a licence to score runs unless used as a surprise tactic.

IMO, Richards would've had far more problems with a Bedser type bowler on a green track than anything served up by bodyline

You may well be right, but the problem with Bodyline wasn't just the men around the bat, if you went hooking they would have 3 men back for the top edge. McCabe showed in Sydney with his 187 (best innings my grandfather ever saw he reckons, and he saw a lot of Bradman - lucky sod) that you could attack and get away with it, but he was not a factor in the rest of the series, such was the effort taken out of him by that knock.

Certainly I would imagine Richards as being better equipped than most to cope wit Bodyline, but I suspet it would have nullified him to some extent as well, just as it did Bradman and the other fine players of his era.

[slugger]

Originally Posted by slugger

I dont agree with the bond ball .. ganga is shaping to play it from off stump.. because thats where it looks like its heading.. by the time he realised it was swinging into leg it was to late..

bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..

wasim had it down to a fine art.. and new when to use it..

bond devasted aussie top order regulary and bradman would have been part of that top order..

ok sorry i may have over stated bond ability against aussie.. he only played two matches aginst them.. however he did get langer, s.waugh and hayden all for ducks...

but i was basing his ability on odi format.. and i do agree bradman probably would have shone the brightest.. but we only know his ability based on test format.. odi's require a different type of approach ..and id be inclined to think bradman would have played the game at a bevan type tempo..

[roseboy64]

Sensationalism IMO. Sure he'd average more than most but in the 90s? No. Certainly not 150 either or him not having an average. Game's tougher in some sense and easier with the protective equipment and bats.He'd certainly overcome the challenges btu not to the extent where he'd own every year. Can see an average in the 70s or late 60s considering what Kallis, Ponting and Dravid average as he'd be better than them. With the better and different variety of bowlers as well as pitches, I fail to be convinced he'd be not just the best ever but a demi-god. Rubbish.

Anyone can use clips to impress a favourable opinion of a player. Just show their best innings and you convince people. Of course though, I get that his style of batting, technique, concentration and other positives will see him being better than all with the adjustments he'd. However, the more cricket, better bowlers, better ways of finding out weaknesses and exploiting them, different conditions, different styles of different teams( certainly more than he played), professionalism of everyone playing not just him, and greater media and public criticism would mean he'd not dominate every single bowler. Not every thing in the past is better than now. For a long time I just accepted he was the best no question. Now I still think he's the best and would be if he played today but he'd not be as great or even greater. Anyone who says so is a sensationalist AFAIC.

[JBH001]

Originally Posted by Burgey

You may well be right, but the problem with Bodyline wasn't just the men around the bat, if you went hooking they would have 3 men back for the top edge. McCabe showed in Sydney with his 187 (best innings my grandfather ever saw he reckons, and he saw a lot of Bradman - lucky sod) that you could attack and get away with it, but he was not a factor in the rest of the series, such was the effort taken out of him by that knock.

Certainly I would imagine Richards as being better equipped than most to cope wit Bodyline, but I suspet it would have nullified him to some extent as well, just as it did Bradman and the other fine players of his era.

Didn't Richards have a, from recollection, tough time against Lillee and Thommo in 75/76?

Edit/ Btw, I think Bradman would still be the best ever. The man had an intensity matched to an intelligence that meant he would have triumphed in the end.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by roseboy64

Sensationalism IMO. Sure he'd average more than most but in the 90s? No. Certainly not 150 either or him not having an average. Game's tougher in some sense and easier with the protective equipment and bats.He'd certainly overcome the challenges btu not to the extent where he'd own every year. Can see an average in the 70s or late 60s considering what Kallis, Ponting and Dravid average as he'd be better than them. With the better and different variety of bowlers as well as pitches, I fail to be convinced he'd be not just the best ever but a demi-god. Rubbish.

Anyone can use clips to impress a favourable opinion of a player. Just show their best innings and you convince people. Of course though, I get that his style of batting, technique, concentration and other positives will see him being better than all with the adjustments he'd. However, the more cricket, better bowlers, better ways of finding out weaknesses and exploiting them, different conditions, different styles of different teams( certainly more than he played), professionalism of everyone playing not just him, and greater media and public criticism would mean he'd not dominate every single bowler. Not every thing in the past is better than now. For a long time I just accepted he was the best no question. Now I still think he's the best and would be if he played today but he'd not be as great or even greater. Anyone who says so is a sensationalist AFAIC.

Pitches are flat, bowling mostly poor, just like the 1930s, at the current time. There are also other things which help batsmen more, though.

Therefore it really makes sense to suggest he'd have done better in very recent times, though probably a little (and not much more than that) well in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc.

More cricket - favours batsmen
Better bowlers - not a chance IMO
Better ways of finding weaknesses and exploiting them - works both ways
Different conditions - probably less variation in conditions at the current time than there has ever been in cricket history
Different styles of different teams - so?
Greater media and public criticism - those sound of mind are not overtly bothered by this. Look at Sachin Tendulkar.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by slugger

bradman never had to deal with swing bowling at any level of his game.. todays bowlers have that as their magic bullet..

I don't know where you got that idea from. Swing was just as important a component of the bowlers armoury in Bradman's day as in modern times. For instance, at a social gathering involving some journalists and a number of English players after the second day's of the first Ashes Test in 1948, Bill O'Reilly devised a strategy whereby Alec Bedser would target inswingers at Bradman's stumps with Len Hutton waiting for a catch at backward short leg. In the second over of the third morning, Bradman leg glanced a Bedser inswinger and Len Hutton, positioned at backward short leg, did not have to move. In the second innings, Bradman was held scoreless for nine balls, before receiving an inswinger from Bedser. Again, Bradman leg glanced and, for the first time in his career, was dismissed for a duck in England - caught Hutton at backward short leg, bowled Bedser.

Bradman overcame this tactic later in the series, shouldering arms and allowing the ball to strike his pads. He adopted a more patient game, no longer playing any leg glances against Bedser, who eventually gave up - his inswingers being met with a left leg thrust firmly forward. However, this example just shows how swing bowling played just as prominent a part in top class cricket in Bradman's day as it does today.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by archie mac

None except Tayfield (right arm) have dominated a series, but the occasional one in a Test match has looked impressive, even at the SCG in the series that Hayden scored 380 the Zim. bowler (his name escapes) had the Aussies in trouble.

Raymond Price. His success came at the spinner's haven of The SCG. And he's a very fine left-arm fingerspinner, up with the best.

Having the odd good Test (most of which will have come at The SCG or a turner at The WACA) is not the trick, however - the point is that fingerspin

It has been awhile since a great left hand finger spinner has appeared on the scence, but we should not write it off 'as a never again'. As they did about leg spin

Thing is, though, with fingerspin it's not a case of the talent not being around, as it usually is with wristspin, but a case of the conditions no longer offering enough encouragement to make the art a viable option under all circumstances.

Look back, to uncovered wickets. Wristspin was still a once-in-several-generations art for those who bowled it to the highest of standard. It's something only a tiny, tiny number can do. Yet fingerspin dominated - many teams played with two fingerspinners, occasionally even more. Any number of the best bowlers between 1900 and 1970 were fingerspinners - Rhodes, Verity, Laker, Underwood, Tayfield, Wardle, Valentine, etc. Yet these days the best fingerspinners - Bedi, Prasanna, Emburey, Edmunds, Saqlain, Harbhajan, Panesar, etc. - are not even remotely close to being as effective everywhere as the best seamers. They're often less effective than the average fingerspinners of earlier generations - the Illingworths, Locks (remove New Zealand and his Test record is nothing particularly remarkable), Johnsons, etc.

Fingerspin will remain "dead" globally unless pitches start to be uncovered again, because uncovered wickets are the only way to regularly produce at all grounds spin-friendly pitches. Only in some grounds in the subcontinent and some grounds in West Indies are pitches regularly produced which help fingerspinners. And without help from the pitch, no fingerspinner can be more than a useful bit-part player.