Bradmanesque

[Kirkut]

Now that JBMAC has said it, I'll be waiting for the highlights of this innings.

 

[Flem274*]

am i the only one that thinks JB was taking the mickey a bit? he called ferguson as quick as thommo and while ferguson is no slouch, shoiab, lee and tait are all on record as quicker.

i hope he was being serious about warner though. reading about bradman's style from someone who saw him would be interesting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

am i the only one that thinks JB was taking the mickey a bit? he called ferguson as quick as thommo and while ferguson is no slouch, shoiab, lee and tait are all on record as quicker.

i hope he was being serious about warner though. reading about bradman's style from someone who saw him would be interesting.

Definitely serious. Not the first time he's made the comparison.

 

[Furball]

Nah, Bradman wouldn't have nearly need the luck Warner does to get to 3 figures from everything I've read of him.

I could easily see Warner going through a bad run of scores in ODIs due to the way he plays. There's a reason he averages 43 and not 53, even after these back to back hundreds & that's because he generally gives you a number of chances along the way where he miscues, or almost plays onto his stumps..

Everything I've read of Bradman is that he hardly gave you chance, and often pulled along the ground. Huge difference in so many respects.

Strike rate.

 

[91Jmay]

It doesn't remain to be seen whether Warner reaches Bradman's average ftr. He won't.

 

[JBMAC]

Anybody care to disagree after Warner's innings today? With only 5 players now scoring a ton in the first session of a Test , It does supply some more "ammo" to the discussion. It was the way Warner made his runs that make him so "Bradmanesque"

 

[jonbrooks]

Over the years I have been asked many questions about Don Bradmans batting as compared to cricketers who have come after him and how would he adapt to the shorter form of the game. For those who witnessed Warner's innings today.......That's How.

I have followed Warner since he exploded onto the scene in his pyjama game(20/20) and he bashed everything in sight. He pulled off impossible shots, scoring runs at a phenominal rate.

I said then ,on this forum, he is the only player I have seen who came close to Bradman. I still stand by that statement . As he has matured and applied his craft he has become even better in some respects. Bradman's favourite shot, played a lot of times, was to take a rising ball on the off and despatch it to square leg for the boundary. Warner does a similar type of shot . Probably the only difference is Warner moves his feet more

Whether or not he reaches the 99.94 remains to be seen, I for one will be surprised, but those fortunate to have see Don Bradman play, as I have, can be assured he is re-incarnate in David Warner.


FOOTNOTE: The young fast bowler on debut for NZ, Ferguson, is as consistently as fast as Jeff Thompson who I rate the fastest of all time.(Yes even quicker than Marshall)

You can't compare players from different eras. It is impossible to say how Bradman would have performed in the modern game. The game was very different back then compared to what it is now. Stats alone cannot give you the whole story.

One of the main reasons Bradman did so well was he played the same opposition year in year out. If NZ got to play Bangladesh every year I am sure we'd have batsmen with some pretty inflated averages as well. Also Bradman played all his games in either Australia or England, with England being pretty much a home ground for him.

 

[GotSpin]

Except Bradman always played the best without the benefit of TV replays or technology to actually follow his competition consistently. (this goes both ways of course)

 

[honestbharani]

Anybody care to disagree after Warner's innings today? With only 5 players now scoring a ton in the first session of a Test , It does supply some more "ammo" to the discussion. It was the way Warner made his runs that make him so "Bradmanesque"

Sehwag scored 284 in a day... And scored 99 off 75 balls and the only reason he did not get a 100 in a session was because the ****s only bowled 25 overs in the 2 hours... They were THAT afraid to bowl at him.

 

[Compton]

Except Bradman always played the best without the benefit of TV replays or technology to actually follow his competition consistently. (this goes both ways of course)

I'd have thought the use of replays etc would be of much more benefit to bowlers than batsmen.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Warner is essentially a T20/OD player who plays T20 opening in Test cricket. When he gets it right, you get the carnage we've seen against Pakistan, but there will be too many times he'll spoon one for eight, or even make a quick (and impressive for the team) 47 at a prodigious strike rate.

Bradman consistently made gigantic ball-busting innings (Warner has made only one double century) across his entire career and he did that as a genuine Test player, in an age when that was the only format, and largely against strong England attacks. For Warner to be Bradmanesque he would need to be scoring 200 plus scores 2-3 times a series.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Didn't Bradman only play along the ground to eliminate catches? Well that is something different between the two!

 

[viriya]

I remember an article written by Ian Chappell right after the day Sehwag scored 293 where he compared Sehwag's batting style with Bradman. According to him Bradman was a pure instinct player, see the ball hit the ball type.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/63624-sehwag-closest-thing-bradman.html

 

[Red]

You can't compare players from different eras. It is impossible to say how Bradman would have performed in the modern game. The game was very different back then compared to what it is now. Stats alone cannot give you the whole story.

One of the main reasons Bradman did so well was he played the same opposition year in year out. If NZ got to play Bangladesh every year I am sure we'd have batsmen with some pretty inflated averages as well. Also Bradman played all his games in either Australia or England, with England being pretty much a home ground for him.

This is all fine to say, but if it's the case then why didn't we have a number of men from the earlier eras averaging close to 100? If it was so much easier back then, what with playing the same opposition on familiar grounds as you state, then why didn't Ponsford, Woodfull or McCabe average close to 100? Or even close to 70 or 80? And why didn't anyone, bar Bradman, average over 60?

 

[jonbrooks]

This is all fine to say, but if it's the case then why didn't we have a number of men from the earlier eras averaging close to 100? If it was so much easier back then, what with playing the same opposition on familiar grounds as you state, then why didn't Ponsford, Woodfull or McCabe average close to 100? Or even close to 70 or 80? And why didn't anyone, bar Bradman, average over 60?

As I said it is impossible to compare eras. Way too many variables to extrapolate from.

 

[Athlai]

Ferguson isn't even the most consistently fast Kiwi in the last 10 years, nor can he keep up his pace for more than 3 overs anyway.

 

[Burgey]

Ferguson isn't even the most consistently fast Kiwi in the last 10 years, nor can he keep up his pace for more than 3 overs anyway.

That's why he's no Don Bradman.

 

[jonbrooks]

Ferguson isn't even the most consistently fast Kiwi in the last 10 years, nor can he keep up his pace for more than 3 overs anyway.

Bond was probably not as quick but averaged higher and he could sustain his pace for the full 10 overs. I've seen the guy come back in the latter stages and bowl yorkers at 148kph.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Warner is a legit FTB. He has one gear, and no concept of match awareness

 

[Red]

Warner is a legit FTB. He has one gear, and no concept of match awareness

He's an opener averaging 50. Give the guy some credit. Must be playing on a hell of a lot of FTs to average 50 opening.