• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ruckus

International Captain
1) Footage is not evidence. Like others I've seen a lot of old footage from sports, war, cinema or people just walking in the streets. People have never moved as jerkily as old film makes them appear. Your comments could be more accurately directed to the std of cinematography. (Btw you've fallen for that old Mold clip. Its just a net mate. He's bowling to a 50 yo and is 38 himself).
The footage is fine. It doesn't have to be super-HD quality for one to notice (what I would consider to be) very obvious differences in batting/bowling standards. I was perfectly aware of the context of the Mold clip. I included because it is off particularly good quality, and still provides useful insight into the game in that era (there's no need to just cherry pick that one anyway).

1)
2) Modern batting techniques were laid down by Grace along while ago. Bowling improved via the development of over arm then seam, swerve and the wrong'un. All well entrenched by WW1. Since then there may have been the flipper (credited to Grimmett), the doosra and reverse swing. Well that's not a lot over 100 yrs and old stagers might look on reverse swing as old fashioned inswing. The kids may have thought they invented it just like a boy band reprising an old Elvis song. However if someone revolutionised technique like basketball did in its shot making or high jumpers did then you could identify an improvement in stds. Cricket underwent its revolutions quite early and its fundamentals stayed much the same ever since. Hence it is hard to attribute an improved std, albeit subjectively, by revolutions in the fundamentals of batting and bowling. Also the game was pro from an early stage.
How do you explain a famous video like this then Don Bradman - YouTube (Bradman demonstrating some shots at the 3-ish mark)? Or, even if you assume what you said is true, batsmen in the vast majority of footage from that era (including the stuff I posted before) simply don't possess technique similar to modern batsmen. Either the principles of batting technique were not immutable, or they were simply not executed properly by batsmen. Once again, if you want to claim that batsmen in those eras used modern technique, I simply disagree. You don't have to completely remodel (or revolutionize) something for there to be significant changes to it over time; the basic principles were probably largely in place, but gradual changes and improved execution over many decades have lead to what it looks like today.

1)

3) It can...or it can't. Even your comment is speculative which is an admission the game doesn't have an objective measure. Now think of it this way. What if the consistency in averages is a result of the settled batting/bowling fundamentals mentioned above? To my eye that is certainly possible. After all bowling did dominate originally. Then batting caught up. Improved pitches being the catalyst I believe and there is certainly evidence for that. Batting and bowling has remained in a war of attrition decade by decade ever since. The only time the averages have gone up or down has coincided with pitch preparation (low in the poor wkt era of the 50s and high in the road era on the noughties). There has not been a documented improvement in batting or bowling fundamentals to explain the outcome.

4) I'm glad you believe that talent isn't a preserve of modern players. I don't either. I believe that if there has been an improvement in stds it is down to the advantages available to a modern generation. If you could transport golden oldie to the modern world then he could also better exploit his talent. Still I don't think you understood my comment when you replied to it. Did you notice it was a question? If you don't have an objective measure, if the batting and bowling fundamentals are basically the same, if the impact of fitness can't be assessed then how srsly can we take the assertion that stds have improved on nothing more than a belief that they must have. We all might believe it but we can't actually measure it.
I just don't think this is a viable argument. Footage doesn't suggest that, and neither does common sense. Why would it stay the same? I think it's almost an insult to the history of the sport to suggest that over a century of progression, there hasn't been any significant changes to the technical approaches used by batsmen and bowlers. What exactly has the massively expanded coaching staff, infrastructure, technology etc. etc. etc. actually achieved then, nothing?

On point 4, who cares about measuring it? You don't need to objectively measure something to know it has changed from previous state. Just use your eyes. If your eyes tell you that it hasn't changed, well then so be it, I think it has. And if you don't value footage enough to make a judgement, then you are basically relying on some statistical trends in justifying your belief that it hasn't changed, which is flimsy evidence at best.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha, **** knows what I was thinking of.

42 matches for Bombay/Mumbai since 1988 is ridiculous though.
I really wish international cricketers would start playing more FC cricket. I understand the demands of their schedules but it'd be great for the domestic competitions if they did, not just for the obvious benefit of raising standards but also to increase the general populations interest in it as well.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
The Home of CricketArchive

110 for Mumbai, 80 for Bombay. No idea which ones are in the Ranji, but very impressive nonetheless.

Crazy stats, tbh.. shows what a beast he would have been in FC cricket.. But Daemon, pretty sure the record includes other games for Mumbai.. So surely not just Ranji... :)


Remember him taking apart Australia a couple of times playing for Mumbai and a couple of 100s in the Irani as well for them...
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Its interesting, Cricinfo has Shield stats, but no stats for the other domestic competitions.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
The footage is fine....
The premise of your post is to elevate your view of a few old films as proof of an argument. I understand that; ok? I just don't accept it as objective. Your eyes aren't a std let alone a measure of anything. Now before you go off again I have my own subjective view. I am just making an observation that neither you or I or anyone else has a way of measuring improvement in cricket. I'd just love it if you don't misunderstand an observation as an argument and feel the need to attack it on the basis of your misunderstanding.

Ruckus said:
I just don't think this is a viable argument. Footage doesn't suggest that...
There you go again... No one has to share your opinion, drawn from old footage that has more to say about camera technology than the subject filmed, if you insist they accept it as their standard too. In the absence of a measurable standard I offered reasons as to why cricket averages remained static. First that fitness stds have little impact on batting and bowling performances and negate each other anyway. Second that cricket had settled its fundamentals in the early part of last century and ahead of sports like high jumping and basketball which would explain a divergence in performance. So where I'm asking for a measure or something objective in its stead you are offering only the "certainty" of your opinion. Which is valid in the absence of a std but not objective.

Don't get so cute about the Mold clip. You included it in the context to prove standards were lower. Well I'm calling it as disingenuous as it clearly isn't serious practice let alone match play. Do you think that any writer of the time, who described Mold as the most intimidating bowler on the county circuit, would write that if what you saw in that clip was his standard delivery? I admire your chutzpah though, calling me a cherry picker. All I did was pick it out as an example of your cherry picking and a reason why I don't trust your eyes when they are clearly unable to read context.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
As I already said, I didn't put the Mold clip there for that reason (don't even include it in this analysis for all I care). There is no need for me to cherry pick and find footage which paints a biased, 'unfair' picture of cricket in that era, the links I chose were essentially random ones that I found with little effort. I could post you another 50 links of cricket from that era, and my opinion on the standards won't change - I've seen enough to think they just, simply, were not as good.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Things evolve in response to a stimulus rather than together simultaneously. In cricket this means that one of the protagonists will obtain an advantage the other will match over time. If there is subsequently little evolution in fundamentals then you'd expect consistency. The decadal averages reflect this. From the 1880s to 1900 averages were low. Batting, through the refining of technique, caught up soon after WW1 and averages have remained consistent ever since. This suggests the last great evolution of stds occurred around the time of WW1 and the only competitive advantage since that time being the negligible one of improved fitness and preparation.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
As I already said, I didn't put the Mold clip there for that reason (don't even include it in this analysis for all I care). There is no need for me to cherry pick and find footage which paints a biased, 'unfair' picture of cricket in that era, the links I chose were essentially random ones that I found with little effort. I could post you another 50 links of cricket from that era, and my opinion on the standards won't change - I've seen enough to think they just, simply, were not as good.
Hey Ruckus. I think its time to kiss and say goodbye.

How about you just post that in your opinion cricket stds have improved. I'll quote it with the disclaimer "Subjective opinion though valid is not to be advanced as if it were objective fact"
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah, of course it is. Especially seeing as though 1: a lot of the footage out there is actually very decent quality, and 2: a judgement only has to be made on overall standards across the sport (which is far easier to spot), rather than having to say for e.g. exactly how good x player was.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
He doesn't believe in using old footage as evidence, so even if he gives an answer it can only be reliant upon raw stats and anecdotes.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Still waiting to see which bowlers Bradman faced that were better than Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Underwood, Snow and the Indian quartet at home.
Love the qualification. ;)

And what happened to Proctor? :laugh:

Now listen kyear. I could show you again the tables showing the English bowling being statistically superior to the SA, Pak and Eng bowlers ranging from 1988-2009. Trouble is you've wilfully ignored it bcos it hurts your dainty feelings or something. So why would I be any more confident you'd take it in this time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top