Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[NUFAN]

Absolutely ridiculous that the other thread would be closed when it was still going and I was replying to a post. Just delete the posts that you don't like Mods...

 

[sledger]

Yeah, and delete a few graphs for good measure.

 

[Ruckus]

Absolutely ridiculous that the other thread would be closed when it was still going and I was replying to a post. Just delete the posts that you don't like Mods...

apologies bro, feel like I, ah, contributed to that

 

[the big bambino]

Nup. Good decn. It was getting too stupid.

 

[sledger]

apologies bro, feel like I, ah, contributed to that

 

[NUFAN]

And being faster, fitter and stronger would not help cricketers whatsoever?

It can help in some ways as I mentioned before, but when a batsman takes guard and has to focus for that half a second, it means zilch. The art of hitting a ball has not improved in the last 20-25 years. In hindsight I shouldn't have said fitter because it sounds like I'm suggesting that you can be as fat as anything and it wont matter. But being fit like past Cricketers and being super fit - does it really make a difference to performance?

Obviously better diet and conditioning leads to more runs (unless you're touring India, in which case a good diet can help prevent runs). It's when you're tired physically that mistakes creep in mentally to your game, which is particularly relevant in a sport where an opening batsman can be facing the last over of the day having been out in the field for 6 hours.

So how did Cricketers from the past actually bat through a day? Do you think they only batted out the day because all the bowlers were tired too which meant the standard of Cricket from tea to stumps every day was of a low standard because Cricketers weren't conditioned enough to be able to handle 6 hours of Cricket. Mistakes creep into a Cricketers game all the time, its part of the game.

 

[Furball]

My point is that someone who's in better condition (of which diet plays a huge part) will be less fatigued and therefore less likely to make a daft mistake due to a lack of concentration.

 

[NUFAN]

My point is that someone who's in better condition (of which diet plays a huge part) will be less fatigued and therefore less likely to make a daft mistake due to a lack of concentration.

I understand your point, but why are there as many daft batting mistakes in the game now as there was 20 years ago? In fact, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say there is more these days.

Talking from the genuine batsman here..

 

[sledger]

It can help in some ways as I mentioned before, but when a batsman takes guard and has to focus for that half a second, it means zilch. The art of hitting a ball has not improved in the last 20-25 years. In hindsight I shouldn't have said fitter because it sounds like I'm suggesting that you can be as fat as anything and it wont matter. But being fit like past Cricketers and being super fit - does it really make a difference to performance?

This isn't really what I am getting at. Fitness will not necessarily have a bearing on raw talent. If you cannot hold a bat, for example, becoming fitter will not turn you into Brian Lara. Whilst being fitter won't necessarily improve your technique and so on, it will improve your ability to bat for longer. Not only will fitness aid your physical performance, but also your mental performance, and concentration and so on. I don't think it's a great stretch to suggest better fitness = better performance, in general terms. Whilst it's not the be all and end all, I do get the feeling you are underplaying it's significance.

 

[Furball]

I understand your point, but why are there as many daft batting mistakes in the game now as there was 20 years ago? In fact, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say there is more these days.

Talking from the genuine batsman here..

How many of these daft mistakes are because of aggressive batsmen? They're not mistakes borne out of a lack of concentration, they're mistakes as a result of batsmen backing themselves too much.

 

[marc71178]

I understand your point, but why are there as many daft batting mistakes in the game now as there was 20 years ago?

Ian Bell wasn't playing 20 years ago.

 

[NUFAN]

How many of these daft mistakes are because of aggressive batsmen? They're not mistakes borne out of a lack of concentration, they're mistakes as a result of batsmen backing themselves too much.

Or perhaps these daft mistakes are from mentally unfit cricketers. Also, I completely disagree that they are not through a lack of concentration. Not every single occasion, but lack of concentration undoubtedly plays a part.

 

[Furball]

Ian Bell wasn't playing 20 years ago.

Nice.

 

[NUFAN]

Ian Bell wasn't playing 20 years ago.

Exactly. A perfect example

 

[Red]

It can help in some ways as I mentioned before, but when a batsman takes guard and has to focus for that half a second, it means zilch. The art of hitting a ball has not improved in the last 20-25 years. In hindsight I shouldn't have said fitter because it sounds like I'm suggesting that you can be as fat as anything and it wont matter. But being fit like past Cricketers and being super fit - does it really make a difference to performance?



So how did Cricketers from the past actually bat through a day? Do you think they only batted out the day because all the bowlers were tired too which meant the standard of Cricket from tea to stumps every day was of a low standard because Cricketers weren't conditioned enough to be able to handle 6 hours of Cricket. Mistakes creep into a Cricketers game all the time, its part of the game.

I actually think that being "super fit", especially with regards to body definition, is a hinderance in cricket. Shane Watson is an example of this imo. And I also think that the majority of people in the "olden days" were a better kind of fit than the supplement taking gym junkies of nowadays. They walked a lot more, they chopped wood, did more physical labour.

 

[Burgey]

You have to have a certain level of ability, obvs. But even at the level I played, the difference it made to my batting when I was fit compared with when I wasn't, was enormous.

 

[kyear2]

Nup. Good decn. It was getting too stupid.

Do you honestly believe that the bowlers that Bradman faced were better than the ones that Richards faced, because I call bull**** on that one.

 

[Red]

You have to have a certain level of ability, obvs. But even at the level I played, the difference it made to my batting when I was fit compared with when I wasn't, was enormous.

This is true. I think cardio fitness is vital.

I've had seasons where I've been really fit, and I've made a lot more runs, and seasons where I've been too fat and unfit and made no runs. Surprisingly it doesn't effect my bowling as much as my batting.

Running lots of singles or a few 2s and 3s in a row can be a real killer if you're unfit....

 

[the big bambino]

Do you honestly believe that the bowlers that Bradman faced were better than the ones that Richards faced, because I call bull**** on that one.

Yep. In some cases better. As I've shown you.

 

[the big bambino]

Technical standards of batting and bowling haven't changed much for many decades and probably leading back to the beginning of last century. This is borne out in the relative consistency in the decadal averages since the 1900s. There was a transitional decade or so that saw batting catching up with bowling and ending the era of bowling dominance from the 1880s to around 1900, 1905.

So if the only improvements are in fitness levels then how seriously can we take those who argue today's generation are naturally superior to those past? On the face of it you'd believe it. Every other sport has improved so why not cricket? But cricket's stds, across generations, can't be so easily measured as in other sports like running or swimming. Quite an irony for such a stats dominated game. Neither is cricket (like golf) so completely reliant on athleticism to make a visible case in improved play like you can see in football. In those body contact games fitness does mean better play.

So we're at a place now where people are claiming fitness hasn't seen cricket improve to any great degree and the technical skills haven't changed much in 100 years. So maybe there's very little to credit the improved stds argument (in cricket atleast) and the only obvious distinction is provided by exceptional players rather than exceptional overall stds.