Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
It's equivalent to a great now playing in a domestic circuit
(extreme eg- tendulkar playing in the ranji where he still averages close to a 100 )
if bradman had debuted between 1970-1990, i doubt he'd be anything more than 25% ahead of his contemporaries which is probably as good as being 100% ahead back in the old days,
Proud Supporter of All Blacks
I think the Don may have been being unduly self-effacing then. The Bodyline attack of Larwood, Voce and Allen was pretty fearsome - none of them had the durability of the great West Indians but all three were at their peak, comfortably, in that series, and they were backed up by as good an orthodox left arm spinner as the game has seen. They did of course reduce Bradman to an average of merely 56, but if he'd had the protective equipment he'd have had in the 80s against them, and there was no leg theory, nor chance of a sticky wicket, I'm pretty sure he'd have averaged well over 100
And while he may have been the "ultimate professional" in some ways, the fact remains that Hobbs, Hutton and Hammond were full time professionals and I don't believe they were any less dedicated than Bradman who did still have to earn a living outside the game - that he may well have not been so successful today may well be correct, but if it were I think the only reason would be because with all the analysis that coaches carry out now someone might actually detect a chink in his armour, and it would then be played on remorselessly by everyone - but I'm not convinced
I think all the revisionists heard the 1st bit but didn't stick around for the punchline.
Btw I don't know where the fallacy gained ground that cricket wasn't professional in the DGB era. It was. Infact Bradman was ostensibly the amateur and his English opponents the professionals. The difficulty here convincing people of their errors is firstly to show them that their misconceptions are contrary to the facts.
I'll reply to kyears post later.
Last edited by the big bambino; 17-02-2013 at 08:23 PM.
The point I'll raise later is the belief that Australia possessed the best bowlers of DGB's era. That is true in the late 40s but not at any time btwn the wars. Eng's bowlers were superior. And far from the WI being superior to SA back then the opposite is true.
Btw we appear to have abandoned the idea that Hobbs scoring runs into his 40s is a negative comment on his era. Progress indeed!
That will save me mentioning people like Jayasuriya and G Pollock. Or even Bobby Simpson who came 10 years out of retirement at 41 years age and captaining to victory a 3rd rate Aussie team over a full strength India possessing the "world's greatest batsman ever" in Gavaskar.
Then what about pace bowlers? They get older faster than batsmen don't they? So a fast bowler 35 years or over can be likened to a batsman over 40 right? Well what about Donald, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath and Walsh? The latter played onto almost 40! What does that tell us abt prevailing standards that such "old men" are competitive in the modern game?
Last edited by the big bambino; 17-02-2013 at 08:38 PM.
They do. The stats show England had the better bowling team though.
no better bowler than SFB
no better batsman than don/wg and headley
no batsman in his late 40s continued playing international matches in ATG level
all seems abnormal.
thats the problem.
another example from field hockey is dhyanchandh (he scores goals like runs in cricket - don )
Last edited by sobers no:1; 17-02-2013 at 09:04 PM.
IMO, the latter implies doing virtually everything in one's power to give yourself the best chance of being succesful.
In Bradman's case, he was notoriously meticulous in his preparation and his discipline to the task at hand was legendary whilst the same could not be said of his contemporaries (many of whom would not have survived in today's environment)
Some of the England teams that played the WI were 2nd rate at best and some close to 3rd. England always played their best team against Australia. GH was a great player but please don't compare him to Bradman no contest imo. The rest of your post it is simply unknown how Bradman would have faired against modern teams, no doubt still well in front
You know it makes sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)