Add to that any footage I've seen of Bradman and the like playing cricket, the field placings (in today's terms) were ridiculous. There were like 7 players surrounding the batsman, short cover and short mid wicket were almost constantly there, so no wonder there was plenty of room around the field for batsman to score runs.
But also far more pressure.
And it was Hayden also at one point, at least according to SRW. There's few more tired phrases than 'best since Bradman'
I guess I didn't explain my point that well. It didn't matter what the score was those fielders were still close in. I doubt you'd be feeling much pressure at 180* and continually seeing the same field.
And the fact that the slips cordon was generally about 10 yards back to so-called fast bowlers doesnt exactly give off the impression that most bowlers were anything other than dibbly dobblers - as I've said before, game was so different that it might as well have been a different sport
He's dead, last I heard
I doubt it, his ODI form was still pretty damn good afterwards and would've taken Clarke's spot IMO.
There have been a few discussions on CW around that issue and Ponting certainly has his advocates, as do Border, Waugh and Harvey. The most popular choice for that mantle at this point in time though seems to be Greg Chappell. I reckon you'll find very, very few Australian cricket fans prepared yet to call Hussey anywhere near the best since The Don.
In Australia, in Australia, in Australia. Australia is not everywhere. In the UK, cricketers have been full-time professionals since the 19th-century. And even when cricketers are not full-time pros, the fact that they can and did still compete with said full-time pros shows quite clearly that it was not an essential trait.
There are countless records that said players also have to their names, just not records which involve "most X". The reason for this is nothing other than more cricket being played.
And the bias towards it of many people borders on the laughable. To even speak of it in the same breath as the 1990s and much of the 1980s and 1970s is nonsensical; to suggest it's unequivocally better than other decades is, possibly, even worse.
Don't see why you took it that way tbh. I thought he made a good point
He said this, remember, in the 1990s (or it may even have been earlier) - something that is perfectly conceivable.
If it wasn't then fair enough - I thought it was a big, smug and unnecessary generalisation and didn't actually make a good point relative to what most knowledgable Australian cricket fans think. If he tells me it wasn't meant that way then I'll cop that.
You Aussies are a sensitive lot
