Bradman vs The others

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

I seriously doubt Warne would have troubled him considering Tendulkar utterly humiliated Warne most times they faced eachother. Bradman himself admitted that Tendulkar played in a similar manner to the Don, but the Australian had a hugely superior record which suggests he may have been an upgraded Tendulkar.

Which totally misses the fact that Tendulkar has so much more experience of playing spinners on Sub-Continental wickets than Bradman.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Which totally misses the fact that Tendulkar has so much more experience of playing spinners on Sub-Continental wickets than Bradman.

Warne posed no problems for Tendulkar in Australia either. They have not just played against eachother in the subcontinent.

[Sanz]

I haven't watched Sir Don Bat, but with that kind of record at Internation level, I believe, he must have got some super natural ability as a batsman. IMO he was just too good to be troubled by any bowler present or past.

[chicane]

The great one would be even better on today's flat tracks, fast outfields and rules.

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by chicane

The great one would be even better on today's flat tracks, fast outfields and rules.

You'll no doubt be able to explain that, given that Bradman played in the era of the flattest tracks ever known, under an lbw Law which favoured the batsman outrageously, with fielding standards abysmal by today's standard, and in front of smaller stumps.

[chicane]

Originally Posted by badgerhair

You'll no doubt be able to explain that, given that Bradman played in the era of the flattest tracks ever known, under an lbw Law which favoured the batsman outrageously, with fielding standards abysmal by today's standard, and in front of smaller stumps.

About the flattest tracks ever known - well I thought back then pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher.
The fielding standards then and the fast outfields today cross each other out.
The LBW laws cross out with other restrictions on bowlers. Besides batsmen today have far better protective gear and equipment. They also make use of a lot of technology and have much better means to work on their fitness and stamina.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by chicane

About the flattest tracks ever known - well I thought back then pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher..

In the 19th century pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher. They had vastly improved by Bradman's time but were no better than now and you must also remember that he played on uncovered wickets which can be unplayable and bring averages down tremendously.

Originally Posted by chicane

The fielding standards then and the fast outfields today cross each other out.The LBW laws cross out with other restrictions on bowlers. Besides batsmen today have far better protective gear and equipment. They also make use of a lot of technology and have much better means to work on their fitness and stamina.

Fair enough.

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by chicane

About the flattest tracks ever known - well I thought back then pitches were uneven and used to break up very quickly and batting was tougher.

You thought wrong, then. Batting averages were higher season by season in the 1930s than at any time in history - although it's fair to say that there has been a distinct swing back towards those kinds of figures in very recent years.

The fielding standards then and the fast outfields today cross each other out.

Since the outfields of the 1930s were by no means slow, you can't use today's very similar outfields to cancel out the fielding standards.

The LBW laws cross out with other restrictions on bowlers.

How? The only time when the ball dominated the bat was in 1932-33, when England on some occasions bowled as many as three or four chest-high rib-ticklers in an over, helped out by a vast leg-side cordon. The leg-side field has been outlawed, not because of Bodyline because everyone eschewed the bouncer for decades afterwards, but because medium-pacers still spent their time plugging a leg-side line with a leg trap until the mid-50s.

I'm sure you'll be able to explain what other restrictions there are on today's bowlers and how the effect of them cancels out the huge advantage to the batsman of being able to pad away anything which pitches outside off stump, whether or not it would hit the wicket.

Besides batsmen today have far better protective gear and equipment. They also make use of a lot of technology and have much better means to work on their fitness and stamina.

Amazing. You've finally said something true.

Cheers,

Mike

[chicane]

Originally Posted by badgerhair

You thought wrong, then. Batting averages were higher season by season in the 1930s than at any time in history - although it's fair to say that there has been a distinct swing back towards those kinds of figures in very recent years.Since the outfields of the 1930s were by no means slow, you can't use today's very similar outfields to cancel out the fielding standards.

So uneven wickets didn't make batting tougher? At least today's flat batting tracks have even bounce. And weren't outfields then far more uneven? Which should make them slower. But coming to think of it that doesn't outright cancel out with today's fielding standards.

Originally Posted by badgerhair

How? The only time when the ball dominated the bat was in 1932-33, when England on some occasions bowled as many as three or four chest-high rib-ticklers in an over, helped out by a vast leg-side cordon. The leg-side field has been outlawed, not because of Bodyline because everyone eschewed the bouncer for decades afterwards, but because medium-pacers still spent their time plugging a leg-side line with a leg trap until the mid-50s.I'm sure you'll be able to explain what other restrictions there are on today's bowlers and how the effect of them cancels out the huge advantage to the batsman of being able to pad away anything which pitches outside off stump, whether or not it would hit the wicket.

Well the two bouncers an over restriction does limit what the bowler can do especially against tailenders. Besides having hugely better protective gear, the batsmen can more or less predict when the bowler is gunning for his head, a major advantage is it not? And most cricket pundits believe bowling standards have also deteriorated off late. Look my knowledge of those times is limited so you are actually giving me a history lesson (and i'm grateful).

Originally Posted by badgerhair

Amazing. You've finally said something true.

Cheers,

Mike

Cheers!

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by chicane

So uneven wickets didn't make batting tougher? At least today's flat batting tracks have even bounce.

But the wickets in the 30s were not uneven. They were similar to today. Go back to the 19th century for uneven wickets.

[chicane]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

But the wickets in the 30s were not uneven. They were similar to today. Go back to the 19th century for uneven wickets.

yeah well ok uncovered wickets.

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by chicane

So uneven wickets didn't make batting tougher?

They would have done, had there been any in the 1930s, which there weren't. As I said earlier, the wickets in the 1930s were the flattest imaginable. The major grounds' pitches were laid in the late 19th century, and they hadn't been dug up or anything in forty years. They had just been rolled and rolled and rolled for decades, and were shirtfronts and featherbeds.

You appear to be under the impression that Bradman played his cricket alongside WG Grace. He didn't.

At least today's flat batting tracks have even bounce. And weren't outfields then far more uneven? Which should make them slower. But coming to think of it that doesn't outright cancel out with today's fielding standards.

Again, you appear to be confusing the 1930s with the 1890s. Pitches in the 1930s were flatter, had more even bounce, and had faster outfields (except when it rained) than we do today, although conditions today are fast approaching the batting paradise of 70 years ago.

Well the two bouncers an over restriction does limit what the bowler can do especially against tailenders. Besides having hugely better protective gear, the batsmen can more or less predict when the bowler is gunning for his head, a major advantage is it not? And most cricket pundits believe bowling standards have also deteriorated off late. Look my knowledge of those times is limited so you are actually giving me a history lesson (and i'm grateful).

Look, in the 1930s, bouncers didn't *get* head-high, with the possible exception of Larwood's, but he was easily the fastest bowler in the world by some considerable distance. Nobody else was fast enough to get that much bounce out of a 30s featherbed, and anyway It Was Not Done because it was against the spirit of the game as understood back then. The great outrage against the pampered life of the amateur batsman (compared to the professional bowler) was called *Body*line because it was aimed at the ribs and body - and there are no restrictions on chest-high short deliveries in Test cricket even today.

Most cricket pundits are right to say that bowling standards have deteriorated - but worldwide, they are talking about the standards we became accustomed to in the 1980s and 1990s, although the prime period for English bowling was the 50s and 60s. Nobody would point to the 1930s as anything but a dismal age for bowling.

I'm not disputing the contention that if Bradman were around today, he would be number one in the world. But there is no way he would be able to achieve the kind of monstrous figures he did in the golden age of batting pitches.

Cheers,

Mike

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by badgerhair

Again, you appear to be confusing the 1930s with the 1890s. Pitches in the 1930s were flatter, had more even bounce, and had faster outfields (except when it rained) than we do today,

Average scores this century have been just as high as they were in the 30s. Conditions are about as favourable now as they were then.

Originally Posted by badgerhair

Most cricket pundits are right to say that bowling standards have deteriorated - but worldwide, they are talking about the standards we became accustomed to in the 1980s and 1990s, although the prime period for English bowling was the 50s and 60s. Nobody would point to the 1930s as anything but a dismal age for bowling.,

Thats correct. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, Larwood, Martindale. Thats about it.
But today we only have Murali, Warne, McGrath, Pollock, Akhtar. Not a lot better.

Originally Posted by badgerhair

I'm not disputing the contention that if Bradman were around today, he would be number one in the world. But there is no way he would be able to achieve the kind of monstrous figures he did in the golden age of batting pitches.

True, Bradman would have a Test average of roughly 84.32 if he played today.

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

Average scores this century have been just as high as they were in the 30s. Conditions are about as favourable now as they were then.

Nearly. But there are more countries playing, which has brought somewhat wider variation - remmeber that there was very little Test cricket outside England, Australia and South Africa, and Bradman didn't play any.

Thats correct. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, Larwood, Martindale. Thats about it.
But today we only have Murali, Warne, McGrath, Pollock, Akhtar. Not a lot better.

You've left out Kumble. But you can hardly call the retirements of Tate, Gregory and Macdonald comparable with the disappearance of Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar, not to mention the likes of Gough, Caddick and the old Chris Cairns, nor can you point at Ken Farnes and say he was comparable to the new generation of Edwards, Harmison, Irfan, Best, Jones, Sami and Anderson, plus any stragglers the Aussies care to dig up.

We're in short period of generational change right now, whereas in the 30s, the pitches were so unforgiving that nobody useful ever emerged.

True, Bradman would have a Test average of roughly 84.32 if he played today.

My estimate is a rather more parsimonious 72.63, but there you go.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

Definitely not. Bradman was never seriously troubled by any fast bowler, even on the bodyline tour he averaged over 50.

...which is considerably less than 99.