Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[Richard]

I believe there's no reason Bradman couldn't average even more had he played post-2001/02 than he did in the 1930s, because the pitches are even easier and the standard of bowling is possibly even lower - and make no mistake, there were few good bowlers in the 1930s (the few who were were spinners). And I believe that had he played at some point between 1974 and 2001 then he could easily have averaged 70-80.

Some people may indeed look at the past through rose-tinted specs, like Neil Harvey and to some extent Fred Trueman, but I don't believe the greater majority are guilty of this.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Richard

I believe there's no reason Bradman couldn't average even more had he played post-2001/02 than he did in the 1930s, because the pitches are even easier and the standard of bowling is possibly even lower - and make no mistake, there were few good bowlers in the 1930s (the few who were were spinners). And I believe that had he played at some point between 1974 and 2001 then he could easily have averaged 70-80.

Some people may indeed look at the past through rose-tinted specs, like Neil Harvey and to some extent Fred Trueman, but I don't believe the greater majority are guilty of this.

Bradman would've broken down.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

Have you read any accounts and biographies of players? People took the game unbelievably seriously as early as the 1900s - in fact even earlier, but it was a slightly different game they were taking seriously then.

The game was dominated by professionals whose livelihoods depended on the game every bit as much as they do now and to be an amateur in that sort of competition you had to be good - damn good.

By your own argument, the wickets is the early part of this century were amongst the flattest in history and yet McGrath averaged 20 and a bit

The only reasons that he wouldnt have averaged 5 on uncovered wickets against semi-pro unfit cricketers in the early 1900s were because:

a. the batsmen wouldnt have got bat on ball; or

b. the slips fieldsmen wouldnt have been good enough to catch it

Anyway, I'll come back when this debate has raged for another 20 pages or so

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Bradman would've broken down.

By-and-large the term "broke down" is applied only to seam bowlers.

How many times have you heard of a batsman "breaking down"?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by social

By your own argument, the wickets is the early part of this century were amongst the flattest in history and yet McGrath averaged 20 and a bit

The only reasons that he wouldnt have averaged 5 on uncovered wickets against semi-pro unfit cricketers in the early 1900s were because:

a. the batsmen wouldnt have got bat on ball; or

b. the slips fieldsmen wouldnt have been good enough to catch it

Slip fielding at that time was actually much better than for a good deal of McGrath's career. Anyway the reason McGrath, and anyone else, wouldn't have averaged 5 is because there's a floor to everything you can achieve. It's exceptionally unlikely that McGrath would average 5 if he played week-in-week-out against Exeter Second XI, because to do that takes greater consistency than any cricketer is capable of. McGrath could indeed have conceivably averaged 17-18 had he got the chance to play on rain-damaged wickets, but that's not tremendously different to his record in his own time.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

Slip fielding at that time was actually much better than for a good deal of McGrath's career. Anyway the reason McGrath, and anyone else, wouldn't have averaged 5 is because there's a floor to everything you can achieve. It's exceptionally unlikely that McGrath would average 5 if he played week-in-week-out against Exeter Second XI, because to do that takes greater consistency than any cricketer is capable of. McGrath could indeed have conceivably averaged 17-18 had he got the chance to play on rain-damaged wickets, but that's not tremendously different to his record in his own time.

WTF?????????

A group of coal miners that felt it beneath themselves to dive (sorry Rich but this was the attitude until at least the 60s) were highly unlikely, on average, to have been better fieldsmen than the local C-grade team today

[GuyFromLancs]

Have to broadly agree with "Social" here, Richard.

I believe Bradman would have averaged (assuming he could adapt) 55-60 at anytime in the past 20 years. I am sure he has stated this himself in the 90s.

Bearing in mind he has probably never seen express pace or organised fielding in his career, which takes us back to the quality of bowling.

Maybe this deserves its own thread.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Richard

By-and-large the term "broke down" is applied only to seam bowlers.

How many times have you heard of a batsman "breaking down"?

Almost every batsman in the modern era who have played more than 50 test matches with a substantial amount of touring and ODIs backing it up have been in the doc's room or worse under the scalpel atleast once.

Tendulkar's case is a master example. He was ranked as World No. 2 ever by Wisden in 2002. Wisden then "predicted" that Sachin would go to score over 50-60 test 100s and over 20000 runs before he retired because there was every case supporting that. He had not touched 30 yet which usually was the age when batsmen peaked, the pitches were getting better and better for batsmen, good quality fast bowlers in the league of Ambrose, Walsh, etc were becoming scarce etc.

What happened was that Tendulkar endeavoured through his career's worse period from 2003 to 2007 early when Ian Chappel himself called for his retirement. The reason? A tennis elbow injury. However with god's grace Tendulkar has overcome that and is now on a purple patch again.

There is a very good chance that Don Bradman would have had to play more than 300 perhaps even 400 ODIs had he was born in todays time. To say that wouldn't have had an effect on his fitness, his love for the game, is just being blind to the game as of today.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by Richard

Slip fielding at that time was actually much better than for a good deal of McGrath's career. Anyway the reason McGrath, and anyone else, wouldn't have averaged 5 is because there's a floor to everything you can achieve. It's exceptionally unlikely that McGrath would average 5 if he played week-in-week-out against Exeter Second XI, because to do that takes greater consistency than any cricketer is capable of. McGrath could indeed have conceivably averaged 17-18 had he got the chance to play on rain-damaged wickets, but that's not tremendously different to his record in his own time.

I couldn't see McGrath averaging more then 10 with the ball, on rain-damaged wickets against a 2nd XI team. Not only due to the conditions, but I doubt that any of the 2nd XI batsman would be able to score more then 10 runs in an innings off McGrath in those sort've conditions.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by social

A group of coal miners that felt it beneath themselves to dive (sorry Rich but this was the attitude until at least the 60s) were highly unlikely, on average, to have been better fieldsmen than the local C-grade team today

Haha, you patronising ****.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs

Have to broadly agree with "Social" here, Richard.

I believe Bradman would have averaged (assuming he could adapt) 55-60 at anytime in the past 20 years. I am sure he has stated this himself in the 90s.

Bearing in mind he has probably never seen express pace or organised fielding in his career, which takes us back to the quality of bowling.

Maybe this deserves its own thread.

He did, but he was making a joke. Someone asked him what he'd average now and he replied "About 60", when the interviewer asked why he thought he'd do so much worse nowadays Bradman replied,

"Because I'm 85"

Given no-one has got within 35 runs of the great man I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that he'd dominate similarly whenever he played.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

He did, but he was making a joke. Someone asked him what he'd average now and he replied "About 60", when the interviewer asked why he thought he'd do so much worse nowadays Bradman replied,

"Because I'm 85"

Given no-one has got within 35 runs of the great man I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that he'd dominate similarly whenever he played.

So would he dominate the West Indies bowlers of the 1970s, 80s and 90s?

[social]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

So would he dominate the West Indies bowlers of the 1970s, 80s and 90s?

He was actually gracious enough to admit that he'd never played against an attack like that

[social]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Haha, you patronising ****.

I'm still bitter at being made to chase balls to third man from square leg by my first A-grade skipper - an England player who stood like a statue at slip

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs

Have to broadly agree with "Social" here, Richard.

I believe Bradman would have averaged (assuming he could adapt) 55-60 at anytime in the past 20 years. I am sure he has stated this himself in the 90s.

Bearing in mind he has probably never seen express pace or organised fielding in his career, which takes us back to the quality of bowling.

Maybe this deserves its own thread.

It's had many. Better to discuss it there than here, but I warn you, everything that you've said and much besides has been said and said again.