How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[JBMAC]

WHEN SIR DON BRADMAN STRUCK A CENTURY IN 22 BALLS (3 EIGHT-BALL OVERS):

On 2nd November 1931, when Sir Don Bradman batted for New South Wales in the first match on a new pitch in Blackheath (in Blue Mountains), he smashed exaxtly 100 runs in only three 8-ball overs with 2 balls being faced by his partner. The first over went for 33 (6, 6, 4, 2, 4, 4, 6, 1), second for 40 (6, 4, 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4) and third for 29 (1, 6, 6, 1, 1, 4, 4, 6).


In 2008, Syd Edgar who watched the innings from the top of a pine tree as an eight year old said: "During the innings I was shouting hit it here, hit it there and he hit one past my head out of the ground."

The match was not a first-class match and that is why it is not recorded as the fastest century in professional cricket.

Faster than DeVilliers in 31

 

[the big bambino]

Apparently he was facing a country bowler who bowled him in an earlier match. Bradman didn't recognise him and asked the keep what sort of a bowler he was. The keep answered it was the same bloke who bowled you at Lithgow and he's been bragging about it ever since. Next thing you know; 100 in 3 overs.

 

[Hurricane]

@mister mister
I have not played any decent cricket. My highest accolade was being selected for Hamilton under 18s but I declined due to the need to study for my exams. I did play in vancouvers premier grade it is a league with 60 teams but the standard was nothing to write home about even though we had some former fc players amongst us and plenty of grade cricketers.

These days I muck around in wellingtons 3rd grade.

 

[mr_mister]

id like a source on that

edit - directed @ bambino, not you huricane lol

Hamilton is a big place right? Ive heard of it lol

 

[Hurricane]

Hamilton would be small by international standards but I think it is new Zealand's 4th largest city. It only had 120 000 when I grew up.
These days the city is marred by having a terrible reputation amongst other kiwis. I found it a good place to grow up.

 

[the big bambino]

id like a source on that

edit - directed @ bambino, not you huricane lol

Hamilton is a big place right? Ive heard of it lol

It was in Irving Rosenwater's book on Bradman. I have the book at home. I'll get the page number for you. I believe it was in the 31/32 season and the bowler was a chap called Bill Black.

 

[fredfertang]

There's a publication solely concerned with that innings Bradman at Blackheath | The Cricket Publishing Company

 

[Camo999]

Only thing is I don;t believe he will average 100 if he played under today's conditions, even if grew in the system. The talent pool is much larger, because the number of players taking up cricket has exponentially increased when it comes to test cricket. I believe standard of cricket now is higher than that of 40s.

Average of 75 today, that would be my guess.

Then again, the boundaries have been brought in 20m. Bat technology and protective equipment have improved. The Don wouldn't even have to work a full time job. There are hardly that many champion bowlers around these days either.

Chanderpaul, Sanga, McCullum, Mathews, Brathwaite, Smith and Root all averaged more than 70 in 2014. I reckon he'd average at least 130.

 

[Migara]

Then again, the boundaries have been brought in 20m. Bat technology and protective equipment have improved. The Don wouldn't even have to work a full time job. There are hardly that many champion bowlers around these days either.

Chanderpaul, Sanga, McCullum, Mathews, Brathwaite, Smith and Root all averaged more than 70 in 2014. I reckon he'd average at least 130.

I'd rather like to get my reference point to late 90s and early 2000s, where bowlers ruled the roost and SRT, Lara and Ponting were magical. I don't think none of the bowlers Bradman faced were as good as top tier of bowlers of late 90s and early 2000s (Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, McGrath, Bond, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Saqlain). Early 80s had lot of pace with them but were rather thin on spin bowling. 95 - 2005 was the era of best of the bowlers in cricket.

 

[Burner]

No no. Pardus is quite right and you are quite wrong to call his logic flawed. If you compare the averages from the 10 decades since the 20s then the bowling average of the 30s falls from 5th place to 9th place if you remove Bradman's contribution. His impact was that profound. It is even more profound on individual bowling stats. He alone brought Australia to parity with England in tests before the war otherwise Eng would have dominated. While there is no doubt standards have improved (as they have in all sports and as they have in all sports since the fabled WI quartet) the idea that pitches were any more perfect for batting in the 30s or that the bowling was weak is without foundation, and fallacies when advanced as possibilities for Bradman's success.

How exactly do you mean it moves from 5th place to 9th place? And how was it that you removed Bradman's contribution?

Also how is the bolded part a fallacy when Bradman himself admits that the wickets were better back then than they were later on?

 

[the big bambino]

Hi Burner do you mind if I get back to you in a few hours or even tmrw.

mr_mister. The anecdote about bradmans 100 in 3 overs is on P156 of Rosenwaters book on bradman

 

[pardus]

I've heard those stories before about Bradman at Adelaide speaking to both the Australian team and Paterson. They may well be true, but they don't have the ring of truth to them AFAIC. I just don't see Bradman making comments like those, especially the one to Paterson. They seem very much out of character to me.

I read about this Don-Patterson story from multiple sources. Can't say about Don's response, but it is very highly plausible for Patterson to have behaved in that way. Back then, that guy was somewhat of a maniac, a beast.
Patterson's introduction to Viv Richards also went on very similar lines. In mid 1980s, when Patterson first came into his own, he left a trail broken bones and broken bodies all across the Caribbean (through his bowling).
Back then, most established West Indian batsmen didn't take Shield cricket too seriously. However that one year WICB put it's foot down and made it mandatory for all Test batsmen to participate in Shield cricket.
Jamaica was playing the Islands, and when Viv came into bat, Patterson bowled literally as if he wanted to kill Viv. The first ball a very quick bouncer completely surprised Viv. It is still a mystery how Viv avoided getting beheaded.
Next ball another bouncer, and a hurried hook for a boundary. Third ball, another vicious bouncer, a wild hook shot caught by Walsh at long leg and Sabina Park just goes berserk.

Their next encounter happened when Somerset took on Lancs the following year. Once again Patterson bowled as if he wanted to kill Viv. But this time Viv was prepared.
A fusillade of bouncers were countered with thundering hooks/pulls. 2 overs of Patterson flew for 33 runs, and he was taken off.

 

[Ikki]

I think it's mental, but a bit more than just concentration. Players who are just that much better IMO tend to discover a pocket of information in the game that no one else has quite figured how to take advantage of. Combine it with an incredible technical ability and it becomes a matter of timing. I think Bradman through his training with the stump gained a great strength in hand-eye coordination and through quick footwork and being able to read a bowler could just play the highest percentage shot. He admittedly would keep it on the floor and thus killed one big weapon of the opposition to get him out.

When you look at Messi IMO it's similar. His body-type/speed and low centre of gravity gives him an ankle-breaking change of pace. Few can keep up with him 1v1, and many times he'll beat several players. He's obviously incredibly skilled technically but you can see him just lining up defenders, reads how they're positioned, and just attacks them; zig-zagging so fast and at such an angle which makes it almost impossible for them to stop him. He knows where to put the ball or where the ball should be for the opposition player (lots of the time a keeper) to have no chance.

 

[Compton]

He glued the bails on.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains - Thomas Carlyle

I happened to meet a notable sports writer/commentator a couple of times this summer.

I knew him best for his work on boxing - although I understand he now covers other sport.

I asked him what he thought of the long term prospects of 2012 Olympic super heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua, who is now going well in the pro ranks.

"He has the ability but that's only 30% of it it" came the reply "there are many other factors, including how he is handled............ and luck."

 

[Victor Ian]

Perhaps one of our database enabled guru's can run a test for me. Lets use Tendulkar, and maybe a few others like Ponting, Lara, Sanga and Kallis if generous. If you divide his total runs by number of times out not caught (but still including caught behind), what does his average become? Could it just simply be that if you take away 30-40% of outs by not playing through the air you can become a Bradman. Granted, to keep to ball on the ground requires a mental endurance beyond many. Also, taking away airy shots would curtail the scoring of so many shots, so Bradman must have had exceptional placement too, so that he didn't just occupy time.

Talking down the bowling in Bradman's era overlooks the one indisputable fact that if it really were easier, this would be reflected in others having Bradman like scores. He was an anomalous outlier amongst his peers where everything was equal. I agree with Camo999 that Bradman would have a significantly better average were he to be playing today.

 

[Victor Ian]

I just did a quick calculation based on my idea.

name	runs	average	% caught
Tendulkar	15921	94	42
Ponting	13378	91	43
Lara	11953	89	41
Sanga	12400	126	54
Kallis	13289	89	37

But now I see a large error in this idea. Bradman is out caught 41% of the time. So you can not just remove caughts. For a comparison you would have to only remove the caught shots that were not the result of great bowling. I can not do that. I'm surprised, for someone who is touted as playing everything along the ground, that he is caught just as often as the others. So, um, yeah!

 

[Migara]

Talking down the bowling in Bradman's era overlooks the one indisputable fact that if it really were easier, this would be reflected in others having Bradman like scores. He was an anomalous outlier amongst his peers where everything was equal. I agree with Camo999 that Bradman would have a significantly better average were he to be playing today.

Sorry to differ. The total standard of cricket was much lower. It doesn't mean to score 50 for a grade 5 paper is same as achieving 50 for a grade 10 paper. The second paper has much better standard.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I just did a quick calculation based on my idea.

name	runs	average	% caught
Tendulkar	15921	94	42
Ponting	13378	91	43
Lara	11953	89	41
Sanga	12400	126	54
Kallis	13289	89	37

But now I see a large error in this idea. Bradman is out caught 41% of the time. So you can not just remove caughts. For a comparison you would have to only remove the caught shots that were not the result of great bowling. I can not do that. I'm surprised, for someone who is touted as playing everything along the ground, that he is caught just as often as the others. So, um, yeah!

You probably need to differentiate caught behind and in front of the wicket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Only thing is I don;t believe he will average 100 if he played under today's conditions, even if grew in the system.

People before Bradman's time wouldn't have believed a batsman could average 100 either. If guys like Sanga, AB, Ponting, Kallis can have extended periods of time where they average 70+ I have no idea why Bradman can't average a heck of a lot more.