Sir Donald Bradman & One Day Cricket

[Dasa]

Disgusting comment, how can you be so sure? its unknown so you cant say itd be so one sided

Why is it a disgusting comment??! It's an opinion!
You yourself have made many a truly disgusting comment in your short time on these forums.

 

[C_C]

Disgusting comment, how can you be so sure? its unknown so you cant say itd be so one sided

Like i said, educate yourself.
read the famous authors from the interwar period.
You would find that along with facing quality pace bowling, the only other chink in the Don's armor was batting on sticky wickets.
I can provide you with the articles if you wish to educate yourself but Sir Braddles i think averaged in the teens on sticky wickets and Headley averaged 40+.

 

[benchmark00]

Why is it a disgusting comment??! It's an opinion!
You yourself have made many a truly disgusting comment in your short time on these forums.

doesnt he pride himself on saying facts, not oppinions?

 

[C_C]

doesnt he pride himself on saying facts, not oppinions?

Its not 100% certain but according to leading cricket journalists and scorers in the relevant era, braddles averaged in the teens on sticky wicket and headley 40+.
what the hell is so hard for you understand ?

 

[Richard]

plenty of reasons are there actually. Here's one
CLR James wrote in late 50s that Wes Hall bowled at a pace not seen in the interwar period ( except for the case of Learie Constantine in patches).......
Wes Hall later said that he didnt bowl THAT fast, high 80s/low 90s stuff and his prime weapon was the steep bounce he could generate.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS: NEITHER CLR JAMES NOR WES HALL - NOR ANYONE ELSE SUCH AS MOHAMMMAD NISSAR - HAD ANY IDEA HOW FAST ANYONE WAS BOWLING BECAUSE NO-ONE CAN TELL HOW FAST THEY OR THOSE AROUND THEM WERE BOWLING.
The invention of speed-guns showed-up how many false perceptions there really were about bowlers' speeds. The human eye is one of the worst instruments for deciphering speed - and worse still when you're facing it.
We will never know for certain how fast any bowler was before 1998. And there is no reason to think that average bowling speeds should be any slower or faster at any point in the game's history.

 

[benchmark00]

Its not 100% certain but according to leading cricket journalists and scorers in the relevant era, braddles averaged in the teens on sticky wicket and headley 40+.
what the hell is so hard for you understand ?

oh so theres no solid evidence that is 100%? only reports?... well how can you say that 10/10 he would be better? 10/10 is 100%.... but didnt you say its not 100%.......

Show me a score book that says 'Pitch: Sticky' or 'Pitch: Hard'...

 

[C_C]

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS: NEITHER CLR JAMES NOR WES HALL - NOR ANYONE ELSE SUCH AS MOHAMMMAD NISSAR - CAN TELL HOW FAST THEY OR THOSE AROUND THEM WERE BOWLING.
The invention of speed-guns showed-up how many false perceptions there really were about bowlers' speeds. The human eye is one of the worst instruments for deciphering speed - and worse still when you're facing it.
We will never know for certain how fast any bowler was before 1998. And there is no reason to think that average bowling speeds should be any slower or faster at any point in the game's history.

You cannot tell with the naked eye the speed of a particular delivery. But you can tell that person A is consistently slower than person B.
I dont need a speed gun to tell me that Glenn McGrath is a LOT slower than Shoaib Akhtar or Corey Collymore is a LOT slower than Ntini.

We wont be able to put a number to their speed, but we definately did know that Mikey Holding was a faster bowler than Richard Hadlee and Denis Lillee was a faster bowler than Kapil Dev.
Same argument in the interwar period and wes hall's case.

 

[C_C]

oh so theres no solid evidence that is 100%? only reports?... well how can you say that 10/10 he would be better? 10/10 is 100%.... but didnt you say its not 100%.......

Show me a score book that says 'Pitch: Sticky' or 'Pitch: Hard'...

reports from the said era by said scorers.
And while the scorecard doesnt say the status of the pitch, one who is aware of the match/knows his cricket knows the status of the pitch in a particular match.

If a reputed author from bradman's era writes that according to scorers, Bradman averaged in the teens on sticky wicket and headley in the 40s, you are talking about as much of a difference as between damien martyn and jason gillespie.

 

[benchmark00]

You cannot tell with the naked eye the speed of a particular delivery. But you can tell that person A is consistently slower than person B.
I dont need a speed gun to tell me that Glenn McGrath is a LOT slower than Shoaib Akhtar or Corey Collymore is a LOT slower than Ntini.

We wont be able to put a number to their speed, but we definately did know that Mikey Holding was a faster bowler than Richard Hadlee and Denis Lillee was a faster bowler than Kapil Dev.
Same argument in the interwar period and wes hall's case.

yes but dont you agree its a different scenario if youre comparing a players 100 years ago to a person of today.....? i mean it would take more than 1 person to provide a comparison and come to a conclusion so the whole thing becomes more complicated

 

[Richard]

You cannot tell with the naked eye the speed of a particular delivery. But you can tell that person A is consistently slower than person B.
I dont need a speed gun to tell me that Glenn McGrath is a LOT slower than Shoaib Akhtar or Corey Collymore is a LOT slower than Ntini.

We wont be able to put a number to their speed, but we definately did know that Mikey Holding was a faster bowler than Richard Hadlee and Denis Lillee was a faster bowler than Kapil Dev.
Same argument in the interwar period and wes hall's case.

We know nothing of the sort.
From what I can tell Kapil was slower than the other two but it's perfectly conceivable that the other three were about the same speed in their early careers.
It's almost impossible with players who you're watching concurrantly (no, you can't tell that Ntini is a lot quicker than Collymore - you can guess - and you can be wrong) and with players who are God-knows-how-many years apart it's beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[C_C]

yes but dont you agree its a different scenario if youre comparing a players 100 years ago to a person of today.....? i mean it would take more than 1 person to provide a comparison and come to a conclusion so the whole thing becomes more complicated

its a different scenario but not a completely baseless one.

I think an accurate judgement can be made by an individual following cricket with a 20-30 year span, especially when there is a noticable difference.
Eg, Lillee(younger days) was in the same pace bracket as Mohammed Sami.....and considerably faster than Pollock.
And if someone has seen lillee and pollock asserts than Lillee is considerably faster, then another who has seen Lillee and Lindwall or Trueman can logically deduce how Pollock compares to Lindwall or Trueman in terms of speed.

 

[C_C]

We know nothing of the sort.
From what I can tell Kapil was slower than the other two but it's perfectly conceivable that the other three were about the same speed in their early careers.
It's almost impossible with players who you're watching concurrantly (no, you can't tell that Ntini is a lot quicker than Collymore - you can guess - and you can be wrong) and with players who are God-knows-how-many years apart it's beyond the realms of possibility.

Well then i must say your eyesight and cricketing insticts are pathetic really.
Ntini is and looks a couple of yards faster than collymore(who bowls in high 70s/low 80s FYI).

And Hadlee was never outrageously fast-so i find it preposterous a claim that he could've been same speed as holding or lillee early in his career.

Like i said, if two bowlers are close to each other ( Lee-Akhtar, Zaheer Khan-McGrath), you can err but there is no error in claiming that Akhtar is definately faster than Fazle Akbar or Chaminda Vaas from watching.

And if someone claims categorically that A was faster than B, i dont see any reason why they would be wrong if the speeds were far apart.

 

[benchmark00]

its a different scenario but not a completely baseless one.

I think an accurate judgement can be made by an individual following cricket with a 20-30 year span, especially when there is a noticable difference.
Eg, Lillee(younger days) was in the same pace bracket as Mohammed Sami.....and considerably faster than Pollock.
And if someone has seen lillee and pollock asserts than Lillee is considerably faster, then another who has seen Lillee and Lindwall or Trueman can logically deduce how Pollock compares to Lindwall or Trueman in terms of speed.

Yes but werent you trying to compare people you havent even seen to modern players? players that are more or less 70 years apart

 

[Richard]

Because the human eye is poor and is no good judge of speed.
Sorry, there's no two ways about that.

 

[C_C]

Because the human eye is poor and is no good judge of speed.
Sorry, there's no two ways about that.

like i said richard, you need to understand someting completely before assessing it.
It is a poor guage for speed to acurately assess speed ( ie, tell how fast something is moving). But if there is a large enough gap between the velocities of object A and object B, the human eye can tell which one is faster accurately.

there is a helluva difference between 85-89mph stuff and 94-97mph stuff, easily discernable by the human eye.

Yes but werent you trying to compare people you havent even seen to modern players? players that are more or less 70 years apart

all you need is for someone to have seen the two players that are forming the link in th comparison.

Its a case of A > B and B > C then A ? C
If you have someone who's compared A and B and another B and C, you can deduce the relationship between A and C.
All the timeframe indicates is that instead fo a 3 variable chain, it will be a 5-6 variable chain......but one thats just as logically sound.

 

[benchmark00]

like i said richard, you need to understand someting completely before assessing it.
It is a poor guage for speed to acurately assess speed ( ie, tell how fast something is moving). But if there is a large enough gap between the velocities of object A and object B, the human eye can tell which one is faster accurately.

there is a helluva difference between 85-89mph stuff and 94-97mph stuff, easily discernable by the human eye.




all you need is for someone to have seen the two players that are forming the link in th comparison.

Its a case of A > B and B > C then A ? C
If you have someone who's compared A and B and another B and C, you can deduce the relationship between A and C.
All the timeframe indicates is that instead fo a 3 variable chain, it will be a 5-6 variable chain......but one thats just as logically sound.

Yes, but how many people do you know that have faced Larwood AND Akhtar?

 

[C_C]

Yes, but how many people do you know that have faced Larwood AND Akhtar?

...............................

nevermind.
its obvious that you didnt understand one iota of what i posted and tried to explain.

 

[benchmark00]

...............................

nevermind.
its obvious that you didnt understand one iota of what i posted and tried to explain.

well to establish a correct comparison wouldnt one have to face the 2 bowlers? not stand 200 metres away?

 

[Richard]

like i said richard, you need to understand someting completely before assessing it.
It is a poor guage for speed to acurately assess speed ( ie, tell how fast something is moving). But if there is a large enough gap between the velocities of object A and object B, the human eye can tell which one is faster accurately.

there is a helluva difference between 85-89mph stuff and 94-97mph stuff, easily discernable by the human eye.

Not over 50 years it's not.

 

[C_C]

well to establish a correct comparison wouldnt one have to face the 2 bowlers? not stand 200 metres away?

watching two bowlers operate is good enough. But like i said, to compare two bowlers, you need not have seen both of them. all you need is a common comparing factor or a few common comparing factors.