Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 337
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

  1. #151
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    What sets Bradman apart from your average batsman is his ability to regularly convert 100s into 'mega-centuries'. While the ability to do this would be highly desirable to every cricketer only a handful of batsman are able to score 'mega-centuries' because the strain on the necessary levels of concentration is enormous. Importantly, I don't think that raw batting talent alone (ie. 'hand-to-eye coordination) has much to do with achieving a very high batting average. A moderate average yes, a very high batting average no. One only has to consider Mark Waugh or David Gower to grasp that fact.

    Therefore, the question is - what would stop Lara or Sangakkara (for example) averaging 90+ during the 1930s should a miracle happen and they be transported back in time to Bradman's era at peak form? I can't think of any impediment because they have abundant raw batting talent, the proven ability to concentrate for long periods of time, and the relatively unique experience of playing cricket during the 90s-00s which would be invaluable. You would merely give them their brief and tell them to get on with it - 50 odd Test matches spread over a dozen playing years, no ODIs, flat tracks, and minimal numbers of express pace bowlers. The conditions couldn't be better for batting apart from the want of a helmet.
    Last edited by watson; 22-06-2013 at 08:08 PM.
    centurymaker likes this.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" - Oscar Wilde

  2. #152
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    Once again the raising of this disingenuous point that has been dealt with time and again. As a general comment hypocrites need to show just a little more artifice. Lara and SRT did not ave 100. They averaged 50-55. Therefore a true comparison with your so called point would be the removal of Hammond's stats. Or Hutton's. Or Headley's. Or Hobbs...

    I haven't done that. I've only removed Bradman's stats because his average is unique as you bloody well know. I remove them to counter deceitful arguments that is proposed by some on here that his competition was weak or he benefitted from minnows. In short no one questions Lara's or SRT's record. Ironically enough they don't question Hammond's or Headley's even though they played in the same era as Bradman! So I remove his stats to give you an idea of the bowling std of the day as if it it only had to deal with mere mortals like SRT, Lara, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Headley etc etc etc....

    Now I'm just running a comparative of the bowling sides in IVA's and DGB's eras. Up to the war in DGB's case as its a given Aus were clearly the best side just after the war. You'll be surprised how highly the Eng and Aus teams of the 27-39 era rate. Even with DGB's runs included against Eng. Get ready for some serious butthurt when I equalise both eras by removing DGB's stats. Get ready for some more when I equalise for games against so called minnows.
    Could you just please answer the question asked and please just tell me the bowlers that Bradman faced that are better than the ones I named that Viv faced. Please. no stats required. Just tell me which ones were better.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  3. #153
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    I find it interesting that Anderson has dismissed Tendulkar the most...
    In all probability that tally of 8 dismissals will only go up since Anderson will clean him next yr in England, just like he's done in the later stages of Tendulkar's career.

    Very few of the West Indian greats feature on Chappell's list..
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  4. #154
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    ]
    Therefore, the question is - what would stop Lara or Sangakkara (for example) averaging 90+ during the 1930s should a miracle happen and they be transported back in time to Bradman's era at peak form?
    Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's. And I think greats like Lara etc. could definitely average 90+. Progress in sport, or pretty much anything else really, is unidirectional though, so I don't think the reverse would be true - i.e. I really doubt batsmen from the 1930's would dominate if made to play in the modern era. I think they would fare a lot worse than usual.
    centurymaker likes this.


  5. #155
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's. And I think greats like Lara etc. could definitely average 90+. Progress in sport, or pretty much anything else really, is unidirectional though, so I don't think the reverse would be true - i.e. I really doubt batsmen from the 1930's would dominate if made to play in the modern era. I think they would fare a lot worse than usual.
    I would have to disagree somewhat. As I said in my post the requirement to achieving a 90+ average are 'mega-centuries' scored on a regular basis. Not all batsman are suited to scoring 'mega-centuries' even though they might be able to score a brilliant 100.

    The reason for this is that the ability to concentrate for many long hours is an inate gift, and so you either have it, or you don't. Lara and Sangkkara are proven to have the gift which is why I cited them as examples. Mark Waugh and Gower don't have the gift although they played many fine innings.
    Last edited by watson; 22-06-2013 at 08:37 PM.

  6. #156
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.

  7. #157
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.
    That's a very good point.

    What sets Harold Larwood apart from all the other fast-bowlers of his era is that he could sustain his pace and accuracy for long periods of time. The sustained pressure and stress of accurate fast bowling would eventually wear the batsman down and he would be dismissed.

    In the modern era these things are taken for granted in every fast-bowler of Test match standard. It is nothing unique or out of the ordinary, although Holding and Roberts, Lillee and Thomson, Imran and Wasim, Donald and Pollock are significantly better than many other new ball partnerships.

  8. #158
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.
    It'd be sort of like facing current minnows over and over again...

  9. #159
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.
    I would also have to question that assumption as well. While it is obvious to me that there was a shortage of quality fast bowlers (no offence intended to Bowes, Farnes, or Wall), the same cannot be said of spin bowlers. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, and Wright were each brilliant exponents of their trade. We know that because batsman like Hutton raved about O'Reilly and co. well into the 70s.

    Therefore, any modern batsman with 'lead feet' wouldn't succeed too well in Bradman's era. They would have to be able to play spin well.

  10. #160
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I would also have to question that assumption as well. While it is obvious to me that there was a shortage of quality fast bowlers (no offence intended to Bowes, Farnes, or Wall), the same cannot be said of spin bowlers. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, and Wright were each brilliant exponents of their trade. We know that because batsman like Hutton raved about O'Reilly and co. well into the 70s.

    Therefore, any modern batsman with 'lead feet' wouldn't succeed too well in Bradman's era. They would have to be able to play spin well.
    I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...
    Last edited by Ruckus; 22-06-2013 at 10:18 PM.

  11. #161
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...
    Again I would tend to disagree. I've seen some British Pathe footage of Grimmett bowling on a practice pitch with the camera man directly behind the stumps. There were enough deliveries recorded to convince me that Grimmett was an exceptional bowler. Unfortunately I can't locate it at the minute!

    The only thing I didn't like about Grimmett's bowling is that he bowled with a pronounced round-arm action that was relatively low. Consequently the ball didn't appear to get much above eye level, or have much over-spin. So I'm not sure how Grimmett could have beat the batsman 'in-flight'. It seems as though he would need to rely purely on side-spin to beat the batsman.

    This is why I prefer Warne and Mailey as leg-spinners. They both had a taller side-on action that enables just as much over-spin as it does side-ways spin. Therefore, judging where the ball will land is a lot tougher for the batsman, especially if the trajectory of the ball is above eye-level. From what I've seen Warne and Mailey looked very similar at the bowling crease.

  12. #162
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,013
    'tis the loop!

  13. #163
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    'tis the loop!
    OK smarty pants - Grimmett apparently bowled without much 'loop'.

  14. #164
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Yeah I remember seeing that footage too watson, but I can't comment becuase it was too long ago I saw it. Thinking Britishpathe might have cleaned out their online archives actually, because I can't find a few things I remember used to be on there.

  15. #165
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...
    Expert opinions are important when you don't have a bucket-load of footage available to analyse. As a general rule I tend to ignore one-off opinions that say "Batsman/Bowler X was superb" or "Batsman/Bowler X was mediocre". However, if the vast majority of contempory experts agree about a certain batsman/bowler then there must be some truth to be gained. Especially if those experts have played Test Cricket over 3 decades and have faced many different bowlers, as well as seen modern bowlers at close range in the nets - like Hutton.

    In short: Majority of expert witnesses agreeing over an extended period of time = truth.

Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why is Bradman the greatest ever?
    By jboss in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 04-12-2012, 05:48 AM
  2. 1920-50 Bradman Cricket's greatest batsman
    By odonis in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 02:45 AM
  3. Ricky Ponting is a better batsman than Don Bradman
    By Prince EWS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 12:16 PM
  4. Top 5 Australian batsman after Bradman.
    By pasag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 05:30 AM
  5. Best batsman to partner Bradman
    By Engle in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 23-11-2007, 06:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •