Let's say we get a new Bradman...what happens?

[Dan]

It'd be lol-worthy if Joe Root was Bradman 2.0, and all the young Aussie quicks had their averages wrecked because they played so many Ashes series. I can imagine a future-virya already:

"Nah Root never made runs against any good bowlers. Pattinson and Cummins both sucked because they averaged 32, even though they bowled at near-150km/h with good accuracy, good movement, had good bowling brains and ripped up poles for fun against all the minnows of the 2020s like South Africa and India (lol that Kohli guy sucked, only averaged 40 against those crap Aussie quicks when Root averaged 100). No good bowlers were around -- only Chris Woakes was any good because he averaged 28, and he was on Root's team!"

 

[viriya]

Nah, calling bs on this.

Best spinners, certainly -- Grimmett & O'Reilly (and to a lesser extent Ironmonger) were absolute guns, but Hedley Verity really wasn't too far behind them (especially considering his stats got nerfed by, y'know, bowling to Bradman whereas Grimmett/O'Reilly never had to do that at Test level).

But FMD Australia played some absolutely rubbish pace bowlers during Bradman's time. Pre-war, Tim Wall was the only Australian quick to hit 50 Test wickets during Bradman's career. The next highest wicket taker during that period appears to have been Stan McCabe (tied with Ernie McCormick). Now Australia wasn't the easiest place to bowl pace in that era, but in that very same era you had the following English fast bowlers running around:

Voce, Allen, Tate, Bedser, Bowes, Farnes, and some bloke named Larwood who was, in my opinion at least, the GOAT until Lillee and Marshall came along to challenge him. Not a bad pace bowling unit.

And they were ably supported by a spin attack of Verity, Robbins, Peebles, Jack White and latter-day Tich Freeman, as well as very early Jim Laker (who didn't do too well) and I suspect in any other era Doug Wright would've had stats that looked significantly better than the numbers that ended up next to his name. Only Verity was good enough to challenge the levels of O'Reilly/Grimmett, but that support is pretty solid.

Meanwhile Australia's depth bowlers on the 1930 Ashes tour were Alan Fairfax (who opened the bowling and batted top 7), Percy Hornibrook (who, by the sounds of things, was more a spinner than a quick) and Ted a'Beckett. Bit of a drop-off from the 1921 tour where Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald were ripping up.

Then the West Indies had Manny Martindale and Learie Constantine along with Herman Griffith. Even India had two passable seamers FFS, in Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh! And then NZ put out Jack Cowie.

On pure stats taken out of context, Australia was literally the worst fast bowling unit on the face of the planet between about 1930-38. Certain English counties put out stronger pace attacks!

So yeah, two bowlers who played for Australia in that period were undoubtedly the best in the world. But the rest sucked in comparison to the attacks England was putting out. Bradman being so good devalued his own achievement, because he completely wrecked the reputations (statistical and otherwise) of the very, very, very good bowlers he came up against.

It's not BS when O'Reilly and Grimmett were just plainly the best bowlers during Bradman's time. Not saying he didn't dominate them in domestic cricket. It's just fact.

And not sure why you're even bringing up players like Bedser when he started playing just 2 years before Bradman retired..

You act like just because Bradman was a "double" batsman he single-handedly destroyed England bowler records. That's really pushing it a bit. His team's batsmen had something to do with it too.

Only Verity had a career that could be considered great for England during Bradman's time.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I hope the new Bradman is a gay vegan.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's not BS when O'Reilly and Grimmett were just plainly the best bowlers during Bradman's time. Not saying he didn't dominate them in domestic cricket. It's just fact.

And not sure why you're even bringing up players like Bedser when he started playing just 2 years before Bradman retired..

You act like just because Bradman was a "double" batsman he single-handedly destroyed England bowler records. That's really pushing it a bit. His team's batsmen had something to do with it too.

What does it matter when Bedser started playing against the Don? If anything, it's to Bradman's credit that even at the twilight of his career, he was able to dominate a great bowler like Bedser.

And on the last line, someone post that analysis which showed how much Bradman's batting affected bwolers' averages in the 30s and 40s. Was really eye-opening.

 

[viriya]

What does it matter when Bedser started playing against the Don? If anything, it's to Bradman's credit that even at the twilight of his career, he was able to dominate a great bowler like Bedser.

Bradman 1928-48
Bedser 1946-55

How is Bedser a relevant example of a bowler Bradman faced? Bedser was not the Bedser he became till 1950.

Laker 1948-59
^ Should not even be in the discussion.

 

[Red]

Why doesn't everyone just stop already.

Bradman was really ****ing good.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Maybe Bradman would've used today's coaching, sports psychology, video analysis, training, nutrition etc. to his advantage against modern bowlers.

I have no idea why this argument comes up repeatedly that things like video analysis can only be used against batsmen.

I reckon Bradman used a lot of modern training, sports psychology etc. against the bowlers of his own age. I think of him more as a trailblazer who taught us how to cricket rather than a statistical freak.

 

[viriya]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Bradman was "not as good as you might think" or "he would've averaged 75" or something ridiculous like "Sachin was better", just that I wouldn't categorize the bowling he faced at Test level as great.

imo he would've averaged 85+ in modern cricket comfortably.

 

[Athlai]

I reckon Bradman used a lot of modern training, sports psychology etc. against the bowlers of his own age. I think of him more as a trailblazer who taught us how to cricket rather than a statistical freak.

I think it's a bit of both.

 

[Dan]

Give me one reason why an attack looking like this shouldn't be considered 'great':

Larwood, Voce, Allen, Verity/Bowes, Hammond.

 

[Dan]

Meanwhile in 1934 Australia used the early-2000s India tactic of picking one specialist quick, getting Stan 'Ganguly' McCabe to bowl 3 overs upfront, and giving the ball to the spinners -- O'Reilly/Grimmett -- for as much of the remainder of the innings as possible, and having a third spinner there for moral support.

 

[viriya]

Give me one reason why an attack looking like this shouldn't be considered 'great':

Larwood, Voce, Allen, Verity/Bowes, Hammond.

Bradman faced Larwood and Verity in the same game a grand total of 3 times. Australia lost all three games and Bradman averaged 49, dismissed 4 times by Larwood and twice by Verity.
We remember those games as "Bodyline".

 

[morgieb]

ITT: People not understanding skill relativism.

 

[morgieb]

Bradman faced Larwood and Verity in the same game a grand total of 3 times. Australia lost all three games and Bradman averaged 49, dismissed 4 times by Larwood and twice by Verity.
We remember those games as "Bodyline".

....in which Bradman's average was still twice as good as the rest of his team......

 

[viriya]

....in which Bradman's average was still twice as good as the rest of his team......

You're joining the discussion at the wrong point. It's not about how great Bradman was, just about the bowling attacks he faced.

I'm not denying he's the GOAT by a mile.

 

[Jono]

What if years from now we found out Bradman was an alien?

 

[Daemon]

It'll be a bit like people's reaction to Philander in his early Test career. When he started taking wickets for fun you could really tell lots of people just refused to believe anyone could be that good and took pleasure in watching his average rise to a more 'acceptable' level.

edit: ftr this is a reply to the OP and not to Jono's nonsensical post

 

[Red]

Lady Jessie was a bit of a fox, while Bradman was a funny looking little gnome.

Batted above his average in all facets.

 

[JBMAC]

Bradman was an enigma. Sure he played at a time when only Test cricket was played internationally but having seen him play quite a number of games over the years he would have adapted to the new forms and IMPO led the averages in those forms as well. Some of the shield games I saw him play at The Gabba resembled ODIs. If ANY bowler threw up rubbish to him then he spanked it for whatever the maximum he could get. Should a bowler try g to get on top of him then he would find or manufacture a way to hurt that bowler. For those who have not seen him play you have missed a rare treat. He truly was magnificient as a cricketer. Unfortunately he did not have the diplomatic or professional skills to take into his reign as boss of aussie cricket. But, who did in those days? He was definitely classier than Sachin, Viv et al.

 

[duffer]

Heh