When 50= Greatness

[Shri]

I am not going to give any incorrect info here. But.....you are guessing. Imho. Serious.

 

[aussie]

You can't prove the first one any more than you can prove the second.

It depends on what kind of proof you want. Using the Bradman example if you actually want to see him face the windies 4-prong in 70s & 80s, to see if he would acutally average 99 againts them that will/could never happen for obvious reasons.

But as i said if you the fact the only time in his great career that he faced an attack similar to windies 4-prong in Larwood/Voce in bodyline 1932 & averaged 56 or soemthing - a 43 point drop in his career average. We do have a idea of how he would have gone if his career was in the 70s, 80s. Which for me has always been a valid enough reason why Bradman wouldn't average 99 in those difficult batting eras againts those great bowlers.

If you think otherwise well thats your opinion & i cant nor do i wish to change it..

 

[Sir Alex]

In 2004 he was out of form from IND 04 to NZ 05 en route to the 2005 Ashes.

In 2008 he had just came back from an injury which kept him out of cricket for 6-8 months before that tour.

Although he wasn't domiant like 01, he never struggled againts the spin in 2004 & 08. In 08for example Zaheer Khan trouled him the most.



No i saw both series & that was what occured. I didn't dream that. No way where Chauhan-Raju ind 98 better than Herath & Chandana in 2004



Haa. 98 & 2001 is a 3 year difference between tours sir.

For all the talk of comparing across eras the 90s & 2000s are very similar in many ways.




As i said i stop guessing. I am now correcting your inaccurate information about Hayden's career playing spin & the AUS tours to IND 98 & 2001.

You are just assuming Hayden would remain in peak as in 2001 and will never suffer injuries/ out of form through out that decade which is just pure guessing.

 

[aussie]

I am not going to give any incorrect info here. But.....you are guessing. Imho. Serious.

Nah i'm using similarities to make my point.

Its just dealing with a chick. If i say i 1999 all you need to do to sleep with a girl is to take her out to lunch, carry her shopping then you would defiantely get to hi that. The same thing would work in 2009.

...But if i didn't do that before i wouldn't have the experience/similarity to draw on.

Same thing with Hayden if i never saw Hayden do well againts a good pace attack in bowler friendly conditions. Then i can never make a comparison to how he would go in such conditions in the 90s - which would then be guessing. But i did - so you, I & anyone else can.

 

[JBH001]

A bit like Steve Waugh. I love the description of KB, not that I can remember it verbatim

As he walked out onto the field to bat, you could see the unionjack hanging from the back of his trousers

Wally Grout said that, and it was draped over his shoulders iirc.

 

[Shri]

Nah i'm using similarities to make my point.

Its just dealing with a chick. If i say i 1999 all you need to do to sleep with a girl is to take her out to lunch, carry her shopping then you would defiantely get to hi that. The same thing would work in 2009.

...But if i didn't do that before i wouldn't have the experience/similarity to draw on.

Same thing with Hayden if i never saw Hayden do well againts a good pace attack in bowler friendly conditions. Then i can never make a comparison to how he would go in such conditions in the 90s - which would then be guessing. But i did - so you, I & anyone else can.

That could be the case if bowling machines with preset plans are used in matches that have ready made pitches that all behave the same way, not when we have human bowlers bowling on pitches made in reality. Even if there is a 99% match in conditions, you are still guessing and nothing else.

 

[archie mac]

Wally Grout said that, and it was draped over his shoulders iirc.

Ah yes, good Old Wally, I have his book, but am yet to read it

 

[Furball]

It depends on what kind of proof you want. Using the Bradman example if you actually want to see him face the windies 4-prong in 70s & 80s, to see if he would acutally average 99 againts them that will/could never happen for obvious reasons.

But as i said if you the fact the only time in his great career that he faced an attack similar to windies 4-prong in Larwood/Voce in bodyline 1932 & averaged 56 or soemthing - a 43 point drop in his career average. We do have a idea of how he would have gone if his career was in the 70s, 80s. Which for me has always been a valid enough reason why Bradman wouldn't average 99 in those difficult batting eras againts those great bowlers.

If you think otherwise well thats your opinion & i cant nor do i wish to change it..

No you don't. You have an idea of how Bradman MIGHT have gone if he was around in the 70s and 80s.

I actually agree with you based on Bradman's Bodyline average, but it is complete guesswork. An educated guess based on what we know of Bradman's career, but it's still a complete and utter guess.

 

[fredfertang]

Bradman averaged 56 in 32/33 because he chose a high risk strategy against leg theory to enable him to score runs from it - had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series - it can't be used as a means of speculating in any meaningful way as to what he might have achieved in any later era

 

[aussie]

Bradman averaged 56 in 32/33 because he chose a high risk strategy against leg theory to enable him to score runs from it - had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series - it can't be used as a means of speculating in any meaningful way as to what he might have achieved in any later era

Hmmm thats a big call sir. Before i say i disagree what was this "high-risk" strategy that Bradman took?. Since of all the video clips i've seen of that series - what i've read - plus hear pundits talk about that series. I must say i've always been of the impression Jardine tactically found a way to keep "The Don" quiet a bit like what Mark Taylor/McGrath did with Lara in battles in the 90s..

 

[aussie]

No you don't. You have an idea of how Bradman MIGHT have gone if he was around in the 70s and 80s.

I actually agree with you based on Bradman's Bodyline average, but it is complete guesswork. An educated guess based on what we know of Bradman's career, but it's still a complete and utter guess.

Good thats basically what i'm doing with Hayden drawing a comparison based on what he did in his career to suggest he wouldn't have averaged 50 in the 90s. Of course no absolutely certainly will be there, but i dont mind putting my head on a block for an "educated guess" like that.

Look at this other example. A lot of people at times have suggested McGrath is the best fast-bowler of all-time given compared to Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose. Due to the fact that McGrath had to bowl in a era of less bowler freindly decks, but rather on alot of roads, where boundaries have been shortened, more aggressive minded batsmen etc..

Now do you think the effectiveness of of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose would decrease or their averages would have been higher if they played in the 2000s era of flat decks?.

My position on that matter has always been, a great fast-bowler of any era who had the unique skills to dismiss batsmen in all conditions would have been just as effective as McGrath was this era.

 

[fredfertang]

Hmmm thats a big call sir. Before i say i disagree what was this "high-risk" strategy that Bradman took?. Since of all the video clips i've seen of that series - what i've read - plus hear pundits talk about that series. I must say i've always been of the impression Jardine tactically found a way to keep "The Don" quiet a bit like what Mark Taylor/McGrath did with Lara in battles in the 90s..

With some trepidation as to what may follow Aussie I will do you the courtesy of responding

Jardinian leg theory was devised as a defensive tactic which is what the leg theory others had practiced before was all about - if you stop a batsman hitting the ball on the off then you can pack your legside field and restrict his scoring there too.

So Jardine offered batsmen the choice of leaving the ball alone and letting it sail by to the keeper or taking his chances and hooking the ball knowing there were two leg fielders in the deep and, of course, the risk of getting hit.

In the event leaving the ball alone turned out to be a risky call because the pitches had uneven bounce so if the ball pitched just short of a length the batsman couldn't be sure if the ball would sail harmlessly by or actually hit the stumps - Ponsford for one countered this by just letting taking the ball on the body.

Bradman, because of the exceptional speed of his reflexes and his hand/eye coordination had an extra choice which was to back away and try and cut the ball through the huge vacant areas on the off side - that carried a huge risk of dismissal for obvious reasons but no risk of getting hit and that was the tactic Bradman adopted.

He wasn't going to go leg side (like McCabe famously did in the first Test) because of the injury risk and he wasn't going to keep out of the way because Bradman not getting out but not scoring runs was no good to Australia

So that, briefly, is why I made the comment you highlighted

 

[aussie]

With some trepidation as to what may follow Aussie I will do you the courtesy of responding

Jardinian leg theory was devised as a defensive tactic which is what the leg theory others had practiced before was all about - if you stop a batsman hitting the ball on the off then you can pack your legside field and restrict his scoring there too.

So Jardine offered batsmen the choice of leaving the ball alone and letting it sail by to the keeper or taking his chances and hooking the ball knowing there were two leg fielders in the deep and, of course, the risk of getting hit.

In the event leaving the ball alone turned out to be a risky call because the pitches had uneven bounce so if the ball pitched just short of a length the batsman couldn't be sure if the ball would sail harmlessly by or actually hit the stumps - Ponsford for one countered this by just letting taking the ball on the body.

Bradman, because of the exceptional speed of his reflexes and his hand/eye coordination had an extra choice which was to back away and try and cut the ball through the huge vacant areas on the off side - that carried a huge risk of dismissal for obvious reasons but no risk of getting hit and that was the tactic Bradman adopted.

He wasn't going to go leg side (like McCabe famously did in the first Test) because of the injury risk and he wasn't going to keep out of the way because Bradman not getting out but not scoring runs was no good to Australia

So that, briefly, is why I made the comment you highlighted

Well yes sir, i'd say i probably was well aware of pretty much all of this based on what i read & clips i saw of bodyline myself.

Its just that when you said... had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series

The maintaining his 99+ average i question. Since lets say Larwood did play for ENG again after bodyline & he tested Bradman with a consistent diet bodyline bowling - but without the ridiculous leg-theory tactic (a bit like what the Windies 4-prong used to do to people). Can we sure Bradman would won round 2 & averaged 99?. I've always felt no..

 

[fredfertang]

Well yes sir, i'd say i probably was well aware of pretty much all of this based on what i read & clips i saw of bodyline myself.

Its just that when you said... had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series

The maintaining his 99+ average i question. Since lets say Larwood did play for ENG again after bodyline & he tested Bradman with a consistent diet bodyline bowling - but without the ridiculous leg-theory tactic (a bit like what the Windies 4-prong used to do to people). Can we sure Bradman would won round 2 & averaged 99?. I've always felt no..

Bradman's admirers will always point to Larwood's figure for the 1930 series on that one where he took just 4 wickets at 73 apiece - I believe that due to injuries/illness Larwood wasn't the same bowler in 1930 he was in 32/33 but I think there can be no doubt that had Larwood played in 1934 shorn of leg theory and two or three yards of pace that the outcome would have been more 1930 than 32/33

.... and I have to say that I don't think leg theory was ridiculous at all - but that's a different argument altogether

 

[MrIncredible]

Good thats basically what i'm doing with Hayden drawing a comparison based on what he did in his career to suggest he wouldn't have averaged 50 in the 90s. Of course no absolutely certainly will be there, but i dont mind putting my head on a block for an "educated guess" like that.

Look at this other example. A lot of people at times have suggested McGrath is the best fast-bowler of all-time given compared to Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose. Due to the fact that McGrath had to bowl in a era of less bowler freindly decks, but rather on alot of roads, where boundaries have been shortened, more aggressive minded batsmen etc..

Now do you think the effectiveness of of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose would decrease or their averages would have been higher if they played in the 2000s era of flat decks?.

My position on that matter has always been, a great fast-bowler of any era who had the unique skills to dismiss batsmen in all conditions would have been just as effective as McGrath was this era.

Agree with u here Aussie. In the 90s Mcgraths stats were very similar to Ambrose, Akram, Donald etc, they retired and he continued his 90s excellence. If Ambrose etc had been playing in the same Oz team (post 2000) I dont see them doing much worse than Mcgrath. Note i said playing in the Oz team. Playing in ne other team id expect the stats of the great 90s bowlers (mcgrath included) to be worse.

 

[aussie]

Bradman's admirers will always point to Larwood's figure for the 1930 series on that one where he took just 4 wickets at 73 apiece - I believe that due to injuries/illness Larwood wasn't the same bowler in 1930 he was in 32/33 but I think there can be no doubt that had Larwood played in 1934 shorn of leg theory and two or three yards of pace that the outcome would have been more 1930 than 32/33

Can't agree totally. Even if leg-theory wasn't there in the the return 1934 series, Larwood could still have tested him consistently with bowling at the ribs, like what the windies pacers on the 70s & 80s used to do.

Bradman may have done better i'd agree, but i maintaing the 99 average i dont believe he would have.

.... and I have to say that I don't think leg theory was ridiculous at all - but that's a different argument altogether

It was ridiculous i'd say because the it basically brought the game to an hault, unless the batsmen wanted to take a risk to play a shot.

Its just as bad as spinner bowling outside leg-stump to right-hand batsmen in a effort to stop him from scoring.

 

[fredfertang]

Can't agree totally. Even if leg-theory wasn't there in the the return 1934 series, Larwood could still have tested him consistently with bowling at the ribs, like what the windies pacers on the 70s & 80s used to do.

Bradman may have done better i'd agree, but i maintaing the 99 average i dont believe he would have.

I'd agree if it weren't for Larwood's pace being restricted after 32/33

It was ridiculous i'd say because the it basically brought the game to an hault, unless the batsmen wanted to take a risk to play a shot.

Its just as bad as spinner bowling outside leg-stump to right-hand batsmen in a effort to stop him from scoring.

The game evolves - as I said both McCabe and Bradman found ways to deal with it

 

[NZTailender]

Sami has just fallen out of greatness

 

[aussie]

I'd agree if it weren't for Larwood's pace being restricted after 32/33

It was?. Well if that was the case that potential rematch wouldn't have been Bradman at his best vs Larwood at his best...

The game evolves - as I said both McCabe and Bradman found ways to deal with it[/QUOTE]

They did & so have batsmen when spinners try bowling outside leg-stump to try to dry up the runs. But overall they where still ridiculous tactics...

 

[fredfertang]

Yes, the foot injury that forced him to leave the field in the final test in 32/33 was the cause - still a fine bowler, he topped the first class averages again in 1936, but the express pace was gone