Bradmanesque

[jonbrooks]

Ignoring the fact that all of this is complete rubbish, "in the body-line series when proper tactics were used"?

You're one of the aforementioned empty vessels, that's for sure!

as in tactics that have since been effectively banned and led to a long-term change in cricketing laws and wouldn't even be allowed today? Those are "proper tactics"?

Were they legal back then?

 

[karan316]

"You guys need to be more open minded"

"Anyone who says Bradman is the best is talking BS"

Nice try, twist my words as much as you want. I never said that, I just said that comparing him to players from other eras make no sense. He was the best of his era, but on what basis can you judge that he would have been equally good in a more professional and competitive era.

 

[jonbrooks]

How do you know that Bradman was the only 'good' batsman of his era?

How do you know the other batsmen weren't as good as I said they were?

 

[Spark]

That is the keyword, "statistical outlier". Like I have said previously, nothing against him, but comparing him with greats from other era and rating Bradman above them is pure BS. Takes away all the hardwork from players from other area who have played in a more professional era in varied conditions.

Yeah, players back then were so lazy, didn't apply themselves at all.

 

[Spark]

I think Howe_zat put it best a while back, any argument basically slicing Bradman's average in half also implies that basically everyone else was garbage, including some genuinely great players like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond etc etc.

Oh, and that this every-batsman-in-the-world-is-**** suddenly shifted all of a sudden about 1950 which just happens to be after Bradman retired.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm sure karan316 would agree that anyone who says that it's BS to rank Bradman better than other batsmen is just a so-called cricket fan.

 

[Red]

The reason others didn't average as high was purely because they were not good enough. Bradman was, within the confines of the game as they were back then. For the record, in the body-line series when proper tactics were used Bradman's average was a more down to earth 55. That is the biggest clue as to how he would have fared in the modern game where it is a whole lot more tactical and opposition players are ruthless.

Proper tactics that have since been outlawed because they made the game both dangerous for players and **** for spectators?

People carry on about Bodyline as though it is some masterstroke of genius. It wasn't. And never before in the game has such an appalling tactic been used to curb the influence of one player.

If Australia had of returned fire with bodyline, English batsmen are on record as saying they'd tell Jardine to stop it. Vic Richardson said he would have used the tactic back at them, but Woodfull took an ethical stand against it. Because he saw it as wrong, the same as the English batsmen did.

Let's not pretend Bodyline gives any indication of how Bradman would have fared in the modern game. Because it seriously doesn't.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Saying bodyline is most comparable to what Bradman would've faced in the modern era is just so laughably false. Bodyline was horrible to face not purely because of the bouncers aimed at the body. It was because of the field placings. I don't think many modern captains have 8 fielders on the leg side.

Question whether Bradman would've succeeded all you want, but at least put in the effort of reading up on what bodyline actually was.

 

[Red]

That is the keyword, "statistical outlier". Like I have said previously, nothing against him, but comparing him with greats from other era and rating Bradman above them is pure BS. Takes away all the hardwork from players from other area who have played in a more professional era in varied conditions.

yeh, and by "statistical outlier" we might as well say "Bradman averaged twice what is accepted from a batsman we'd call an ATG".

And if you think it "takes away from all the hardwork from players from other era", please! Show me one other batsman who has averaged 25% more than all his other contemporaries in his era. You can't. And even if you could, he'd only be 75% of what Bradman was in terms of output.

 

[Red]

Saying bodyline is most comparable to what Bradman would've faced in the modern era is just so laughably false. Bodyline was horrible to face not purely because of the bouncers aimed at the body. It was because of the field placings. I don't think many modern captains have 8 fielders on the leg side.

Question whether Bradman would've succeeded all you want, but at least put in the effort of reading up on what bodyline actually was.

This, plus the genuine risk that someone could have been actually killed. Appalling display from the English.

 

[jonbrooks]

Proper tactics that have since been outlawed because they made the game both dangerous for players and **** for spectators?

People carry on about Bodyline as though it is some masterstroke of genius. It wasn't. And never before in the game has such an appalling tactic been used to curb the influence of one player.

If Australia had of returned fire with bodyline, English batsmen are on record as saying they'd tell Jardine to stop it. Vic Richardson said he would have used the tactic back at them, but Woodfull took an ethical stand against it. Because he saw it as wrong, the same as the English batsmen did.

Let's not pretend Bodyline gives any indication of how Bradman would have fared in the modern game. Because it seriously doesn't.

It was a master stroke. The only one for its time when cricket was a "gentleman's game" with opposition players putting Bradman up on a pedestal and clapping his shots to the boundary. That's why they wussed out and changed the rules. By the way body line bowling still exists today. NZ's Neil Wagner is an effective proponent of it. He's got a whole bunch of wickets recently using this strategy.

 

[jonbrooks]

Saying bodyline is most comparable to what Bradman would've faced in the modern era is just so laughably false. Bodyline was horrible to face not purely because of the bouncers aimed at the body. It was because of the field placings. I don't think many modern captains have 8 fielders on the leg side.

Question whether Bradman would've succeeded all you want, but at least put in the effort of reading up on what bodyline actually was.

I never said bodyline is what Bradman would face in the modern era. I said he would be up against tactics that would be light years ahead of anything he faced back in he 1930s. You're taking my comments about bodyline out of context. I am saying that when tactics e.g. bodyline, were used Bradman was not as effective as his 99 average would suggest.

 

[jonbrooks]

yeh, and by "statistical outlier" we might as well say "Bradman averaged twice what is accepted from a batsman we'd call an ATG".

And if you think it "takes away from all the hardwork from players from other era", please! Show me one other batsman who has averaged 25% more than all his other contemporaries in his era. You can't. And even if you could, he'd only be 75% of what Bradman was in terms of output.

Your statistical quote is irrelevant. As I've said you cannot compare eras. Way too many variables.

 

[Adders]

By the way body line bowling still exists today. NZ's Neil Wagner is an effective proponent of it. He's got a whole bunch of wickets recently using this strategy.

OMG?? Surely you understand the difference between some uncomfortable short bowling on leg stump to that same bowling with 7 or 8 fielders on the leg side??? There is no way that you can compare leg theory with the odd leg side strangle that we see today.

 

[Spark]

I never said bodyline is what Bradman would face in the modern era. I said he would be up against tactics that would be light years ahead of anything he faced back in he 1930s. You're taking my comments about bodyline out of context. I am saying that when tactics e.g. bodyline, were used Bradman was not as effective as his 99 average would suggest.

What tactics? Bowling on a good length outside off stump?

 

[Red]

It was a master stroke. The only one for its time when cricket was a "gentleman's game" with opposition players putting Bradman up on a pedestal and clapping his shots to the boundary.

You can't just talk crap and pretend it's true. If you think cricket was a gentleman's game prior to Bodyline, your cricket history is seriously lacking. Ever heard of Gregory and McDonald? Ashes 1921: Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald blow England away within two days at Nottingham - Cricket Country

That's why they wussed out and changed the rules.

No, mostly they changed them because they were ruining the game as a spectacle, and there was a danger of getting killed. Love internet heroes saying "they wussed out". You wouldn't even consider facing Larwood in his prime, helmet-less

By the way body line bowling still exists today. NZ's Neil Wagner is an effective proponent of it. He's got a whole bunch of wickets recently using this strategy.

Rubbish. Unless they've changed the rules and Wagner is bowling with fields like this...

 

[Adders]

Great post RH........LOL, Wagner getting wickets with bodyline bowling. Someone doesn't know their history/cricket.

Edit:

But credit where credits due, jonbrooks was right about one thing...............Bodyline was a masterstroke.

 

[Red]

Your statistical quote is irrelevant. As I've said you cannot compare eras. Way too many variables.

The crap people talk staggers me. Cricket is not a vastly different game now to what it was in the 20s/30s and 40s. What do you actually think has changed so much in the game since then that you can't compare eras?

 

[Shri]

If he played today, he would still probably be the best by some distance but the gap wouldn't be as big with analysts obsessing over finding flaws in his game. He would probably not be affected by the tactics employed or the obsessive scrutiny of his technique but the second part of his career when he gets old would not be anywhere near as successful, imo of course.

 

[Spark]

It doesn't make sense either. What do people think cricket was based on back then, picking mushrooms?

You hit a leather ball with a wooden stick and run up and down a pitch of twenty yards, there are three wooden things in the ground at either end that you have to protect using your bat and you can't get caught on the full.

Not aware that any of that has changed since Bradman's time.

If he played today, he would still probably be the best by some distance but the gap wouldn't be as big with analysts obsessing over finding flaws in his game. He would probably not be affected by the tactics employed or the obsessive scrutiny of his technique but the second part of his career when he gets old would not be anywhere near as successful, imo of course.

This might be true but the main reason he averaged ~100 is pretty clearly because he was just so much better than anyone else at avoiding mistakes when he got in (in the same way that Smith is marginally today, but to a much much much larger degree). That part of the game hasn't changed one bit since 1877.

You might find some minor deficiency, but then he might also fix it, and either way he'll still get plenty of starts and he'll be far better at turning his starts into big scores than anyone else.