If Bradman played in today's era?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by slugger

the reason the swing bowlers was raised.. because initially someone wrote if the average player can handle swing bowling then Bradman would have no trouble at all.. the you tubes i grabbed is only a small selection of these "average batsmen" handling swing bowling.. therefore if bradman was to face swing bowling of the quality that can be employed to day it could be considered debateable of how good he really couldve been .. for example ponting has played aginst bond in 9 matches in ODI bond has claimed his wicket 6 times. he avg 17.49 (and i would consider ponting an above average player)

Your problem is that you are brought up in an age where swing bowling has become "rare" and not something that has been discovered now. Swing bowling wasn't prevalent in the earlier years of cricket but from the early 20th century bowlers who swerved the ball in the air became more and more common till most new ball bowlers would move it one way or the other. By the time Bradman played (1930's) it had been fully developed and been in existence for long (barring reverse seing which came in more recent times).

Bradman not just played it but wrote one of the finrst technical pieces on why the cricket ball swings. After sixty years, it still remains the best piece one has read on this complex subjest. Read Bradman's Art of Cricket.

This art is almost defunct today and THAT is a tragedy. Today when a left arm bowler (new ball) brings the ball in to the right hander it takes a great player like Sachin Tendulkar to comment "he has a God given gift of being able to bring the ball naturally in to right handers". In the 60's and 70's every single left arm bowler I saw could do it.

Even a left arm spinner (as long as he had a good action) could make the ball swerve in the air by just coming in and bowling without applying spin on the delivery.

I have seen Bishen Bedi do it in the nets and it was absolutely fascinating to see how he could make decent batsmen look like idiots with the big swing on what looked like mouth watering half-volleys.

Its not your fault that you think Bond is performing a miracle for he is in a world where not many of the top new ball bowlers are doing it but he is by no means the only one and as anyone who knows his cricket he is no where close to being one of the pioneers. For that he should have been born a century ago.

I can start listing the

[slugger]

I didnt really want to be part of this debate.. I was only clearing up why i posted the swing bowlers taking care of these average players.. these "average players" were ment to be able to handle swing bowling.. with that small snippet it demonstrated when swing bowling used right it is effective wheather youre an avg or better than avg player..

I dont doubt bradman played well.. his stats prove that.. lol.. and i dont doubt it played against swing bowling.. i just think he was by far ahead of his contemparies at every level.. and it got to point that teams just gave up.. bodyline was like the last straw .. they just seemed to have nowhere to turn..

if he played today.. i still think he would've been great.. i just dont believe the coach, the capt. the team the key players.. would shrug their shoulders and focus on getting everyone else out besides bradman..

look out how nz got out martyn (martyns not bradman) but they had a plan a trap you can call out .. and he played into time and time agian ..his great scoring shot was reduced to a do or die shot..

[SJS]

Originally Posted by slugger

if he played today.. i still think he would've been great.. i just dont believe the coach, the capt. the team the key players.. would shrug their shoulders and focus on getting everyone else out besides bradman..

look out how nz got out martyn (martyns not bradman) but they had a plan a trap you can call out .. and he played into time and time agian ..his great scoring shot was reduced to a do or die shot..

No one did that, But it wasnt that his problem was one shot, he played all of them and with ruthless efficiency. Again strongly recommend you read up on Bradman.

Coming back to coaches/captains etc just concentrating on getting others out. Far from it. There was an England captain called Jardine who went ahead and thought of one of tyhe most devastating plans to 'counter' Bradman. It not just countered Bradman (bringing his average down to 56 !!) but created a furore large enough to come close to causing a permanent rift in relations between the two countries !!

Enough to stretch the laws of the game to as far as they could be stretched without being outlawed. The laws were amended subsequently to the relief of batsmen till today.

No Sir, the captains did not sit back and enjoy the Bradman show as you sem to suggest. Just that they had a big problem tackling it and everything they tried failed.

Just as the captains around the world had a big problem tackling the endless hordes of fast bowlers that came out of the West Indies for almost two decades. They did not sit back or try to concentrate on other West Indian weaknesses. They just tried to counter and failed till the threat became less of a decisive factor as the stream of fast bowlers finally dried up.

[Richard]

Because purely and simply, sometimes in cricket some players are just too good.

The players should and will never give-up. But the fans must accept this from time to time.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by roseboy64

I see your points but I was really arguing that there's not much that indicates he'd be averaging 99. I can see in the 70s and maybe 80s but not the 90s. I'm fairly convinced the only good attacks he faced were from England. Pretty sure the West Indies attacks he faced weren't up to much. Not sure about the South Africans but he did magnificently against them. India don't seem too hot either. South Africa, India, England and Sri Lanka all have good to decent attacks.

Really not sure about that. The only team who've consistently had an excellent attack for the last 7 years has been Australia. Sri Lanka probably had the 2nd-best over that entire time, but even their spearhead (Vaas) can be either brilliant or awful. India's attack has often been threadbare (though of course Kumble in Bradman's time would have been deadly on uncovered wickets - but in his own he was mostly a home-track bully). Pakistan have had many useless bowlers and the one decent one they've had has not played anywhere near as much as he should have. England and South Africa have had the odd superlative attack and much rubbish.

These attacks were little if at all better than the South African and West Indian attacks of the 1930s.

Oh and I also meant climatic conditions. Not the conditions of the wickets alone which is why I mentioned the him only playing in England and Australia.

Also, that bowlers bowling longer with less ill effects means they don't tire as quickly as a result.

Climatic conditions don't really have all that much effect on batsmen, though. The most difficult climatic conditions to counter as a batsman have always generally been in England, and he played here much.

[Ikki]

To those that are saying Bradman would have been "Very very good" and not "Still would the best batsman ever", if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

These attacks were little if at all better than the South African and West Indian attacks of the 1930s.

Please stop typing. You have absolutely no clue. Stop misguiding those that may not know better.

Even England in the 90s had a better bowling attack than both S.Africa and West Indies in the 30s.

You are an absolute shocker.

[Richard]

Yes, of course, having studied extensive pitchmaps of the bowlers in question you know who was better, don't you(!)

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

Really not sure about that. The only team who've consistently had an excellent attack for the last 7 years has been Australia. Sri Lanka probably had the 2nd-best over that entire time, but even their spearhead (Vaas) can be either brilliant or awful. India's attack has often been threadbare (though of course Kumble in Bradman's time would have been deadly on uncovered wickets - but in his own he was mostly a home-track bully). Pakistan have had many useless bowlers and the one decent one they've had has not played anywhere near as much as he should have. England and South Africa have had the odd superlative attack and much rubbish.

These attacks were little if at all better than the South African and West Indian attacks of the 1930s.

Climatic conditions don't really have all that much effect on batsmen, though. The most difficult climatic conditions to counter as a batsman have always generally been in England, and he played here much.

1. Always thought Murali was SL's spearhead personally

2. Since their return, SA have had 1 or more of Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Steyn forming the basis of their attacks. Those guys are in a different league to anything from that country in the 30s and have almost always been backed by perfectly serviceable operators i.e. they were never rubbish

3. English climatic conditions are often replicated in NZ and SA for starters (I assume you're talking about cloud, etc rather than heat) whilst most will tell you that the heat and humiditity of the subcontinent is every bit as difficult to counter

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, of course, having studied extensive pitchmaps of the bowlers in question you know who was better, don't you(!)

Because pitch maps show more than the average bowler's average in an era. Dire.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by social

1. Always thought Murali was SL's spearhead personally

Nope, never bowled the first over and only in exceptional circumstances opened the attack. Vaas always did that.

2. Since their return, SA have had 1 or more of Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Steyn forming the basis of their attacks. Those guys are in a different league to anything from that country in the 30s and have almost always been backed by perfectly serviceable operators i.e. they were never rubbish

Between 2001/02 and 2005/06 SA have had a Pollock who could only be effective on seaming pitches, a Ntini who was sometimes that and never effective on non-seamers, a Steyn who was rubbish in the few Tests he played, a Nel who bowled well occasionally, and nothing else.

3. English climatic conditions are often replicated in NZ and SA for starters (I assume you're talking about cloud, etc rather than heat) whilst most will tell you that the heat and humiditity of the subcontinent is every bit as difficult to counter

England and SA have very little similarity.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

Because pitch maps show more than the average bowler's average in an era. Dire.

As was pointed-out in recent times, looking at bowling averages doesn't say how relatively well a bowler bowled. Of course a pitchmap does that infinitely better. You have to watch the bowling to realise how relatively poor or good it was compared to others.

I love the way you supported the notion that bowling averages weren't the be all and end all for the post-2001 period and now reject it, according to your purposes at the time.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

As was pointed-out in recent times, looking at bowling averages doesn't say how relatively well a bowler bowled. Of course a pitchmap does that infinitely better. You have to watch the bowling to realise how relatively poor or good it was compared to others.

I love the way you supported the notion that bowling averages weren't the be all and end all for the post-2001 period and now reject it, according to your purposes at the time.

Bowling averages and batting averages are not the be-all and end-all. I despise the kind of debate where one member picks a player over another player based on 1-2 runs on average or that in 2-3 tests a player didn't perform.

The stat that I gave you is of a 10 year block. The scenario you describe above is not relevant and is a poor reply to the logic presented forward. Whether you think that 1-2 runs on average should be discarded because of some perceived standard is your choice. The fact that they're largely the same presents a correlation. Ignoring this...is just stupid.

You could not address the little difference of batting averages between decades and this facet of the debate is similar. Generalisations are always somewhat dangerous but your generalisations are poorly thought out. For god's sake, you just said every country bar Australia of the past few years is on par with S.Africa and W.Indies of the 30s. You should be kicked out of the forum for this statement alone.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

He was a bloody good rugby league player too!

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by neville cardus

Alack, I have to disagree with you there. It can only be George Freeman. No speed vendor ere or since has invoked such high reckoning in the most important judges of all, his colleagues. I am assuming, of course, that you have read Old Ebor's Talks, which goes some way towards putting the matter beyond question. If you have not, however, I should strongly recommend that you (and anyone else deigning to pass comment) do. Aside from conferring on this unsung leviathan the laurels that he so richly deserves, it is (as Archie's review affirms) a massively entertaining read.

Everytime I read one of your posts I feel like I'm eavesdropping on correspondence from the royal letter writer.