Bradmanesque

[jonbrooks]

Ugh, Jesus. I guess all pre-1950s cricketers were "average" were they?

The majority would not be fit to play club level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bradman deniers really remind me of those guys that think the moon-landing was fake, or that the holocaust never happened

The majority would not be fit to play club level.

that's true, you see club batsmen averaging 50+ against 145kph bowlers all the time

 

[jonbrooks]

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

Nice try but NO. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Cricket was best described as a chummy game where the opposition fielders would clap the batsmen's shot to the boundary vs actually fielding the darn ball. It was a completely different game to what it is now and I will stand by it.

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

Larwood wouldn't make a club team in the modern game.

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

You're the one talking rubbish and it only further's my point primitive cricketers didn't know jack crap about the game. You don't need that many fielders to effect a leg side bouncer tactic. I cite Wagner as he has been highly effective of picking up wickets by bowling leg side bouncers against free scoring batsmen. Are you going to deny that?!

I know Bradman is some type of God to you guys and he really was the best batsman of his time but that's as far as I'd go. The game has COMPLETELY changed from those gin swilling, cigar smoking times.

 

[Spark]

I too can completely make stuff up and make it sound very authoritative with bold font.

 

[jonbrooks]

Bradman deniers really remind me of those guys that think the moon-landing was fake, or that the holocaust never happened that's true, you see club batsmen averaging 50+ against 145kph bowlers all the time

Oh **** off mate. Just cos I'm giving you a proper learning in how the game is played you resort to BS talk? Who was bowling 145 back in the 1930s? I'll tell you nobody.

Have you ever ****ing watched Bradman bat?! He's technique was ordinary at best. It as effective for his time and he played well off the front foot but down the leg side he would agriculturally swipe at just about everything. Take off your rose tinted glasses, watch some YouTube clips of him batting, even the highlights, and then come back and post that you think Bradman was a fine exponent of batting.

 

[jonbrooks]

I too can completely make stuff up and make it sound very authoritative with bold font.

I'm sure you could. Please do and we'll discuss. Please refrain from Godwining yourself like others have.

 

[Spark]

Larwood has been consistently estimated to be bowling around the 150km/h mark ftr.

There's really no reason to assume that bowlers have gotten quicker with modern fitness and conditioning, bowling is just such an absolutely unnatural thing to do.

 

[Spark]

Honestly, the best comparison there is Shoaib Akhtar, not some military medium bowler.

 

[jonbrooks]

Larwood has been consistently estimated to be bowling around the 150km/h mark ftr.

There's really no reason to assume that bowlers have gotten quicker with modern fitness and conditioning, bowling is just such an absolutely unnatural thing to do.

OMG! Are you serious?! Larwood would have struggled to crack 130. The amount of effort, fitness, strength training, agility etc, required to bowl at 150kph and continue to do so without breaking down is phenomenal. Do you remember how they used to speak about Jeff Thompson bowling continuously over 160 and reaching speeds of 170? Well when they finally scientifically tested the guy, along with other fast bowlers of his time, he averaged in the low 140s.

You guys all suffer from the "fish that got away" and "it was harder back in the old days" syndrome. With time the fish that got away just grows and grows and grows. But in reality it wasn't that big to start off with.

 

[jonbrooks]

Honestly, the best comparison there is Shoaib Akhtar, not some military medium bowler.

Sigh, I don't even know what to say here. You are really trolling me, aren't you?

 

[Spark]

OMG! Are you serious?! Larwood would have struggled to crack 130. The amount of effort, fitness, strength training, agility etc, required to bowl at 150kph and continue to do so without breaking down is phenomenal. Do you remember how they used to speak about Jeff Thompson bowling continuously over 160 and reaching speeds of 170? Well when they finally scientifically tested the guy, along with other fast bowlers of his time, he averaged in the low 140s.

You guys all suffer from the "fish that got away" and "it was harder back in the old days" syndrome. With time the fish that got away just grows and grows and grows. But in reality it wasn't that big to start off with.

So you basically are making **** up, great.

By "estimated" I mean "someone has actually looked at his footage, and visually estimated his speed". You know, evidence.

Also, no, "strength training and agility" is not needed to bowl 150. Having a really really ****ing fast action is, the rest is about keeping you on the park.

 

[Adders]

Oh **** off mate. Just cos I'm giving you a proper learning in how the game is played you resort to BS talk? Who was bowling 145 back in the 1930s? I'll tell you nobody.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/jul/05/harold-larwood-ashes-england-australia
[FONT=&quot]
"You cannot imagine how fast," the famous writer and commentator John Arlott once said of Larwood's speed of delivery. "Sometimes you couldn't pick up the ball with the naked eye at all."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A few overs of Larwood at his fastest were like a public stoning. He frightened batsmen out. Of his 1,427 first-class wickets, in an era when pitches were generally friendly for batsmen, 743 were bowled. He took 100 wickets in a season eight times, and headed the first-class averages in five summers – 1927, 28, 31, 32 and, post-Bodyline, 1936. No other bowler of the twentieth century equalled that feat. Larwood would drink beer during lunch, and even during drinks breaks in matches, believing it helped him to bowl better, a view also held by his Notts captain, Arthur Carr. Larwood was the fastest bowler of his generation – some say the fastest ever.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was taken for granted by those facing him that the ball would fly at them between 95mph and 100mph, and no one disputed that Larwood was capable of maintaining that pace while bowling with extraordinary accuracy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among the men who kept wicket to him, George Duckworth, on Larwood's first tour to Australia in 1928-29, laid strips of raw beef inside his gloves to protect his palms. The stench from the meat in the dry heat made his slip fielders bilious.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His approach was almost soundless, as light as a ballet dancer. Frank Lee, an umpire who batted against Larwood, said, "To watch him approach gave me the kind of feeling I imagine a rabbit must get on seeing a stoat coming towards him."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Australian Bill O'Reilly explained most eloquently what it was like to face Larwood. "He came steaming in and I moved right across behind my bat, held perfectly straight in defence of my centre stump. Just before he delivered the ball something hit the middle of my bat with such force that it was almost dashed from my hands. It was the ball."[/FONT]

 

[jonbrooks]

So you basically are making **** up, great.

By "estimated" I mean "someone has actually looked at his footage, and visually estimated his speed". You know, evidence.

Also, no, "strength training and agility" is not needed to bowl 150. Having a really really ****ing fast action is, the rest is about keeping you on the park.

Kindly provide evidence otherwise you are making **** up yourself.

 

[Spark]

In his obit: Larwood was a Pom but also pure Aussie

Larwood's speed was measured manually at between 150 and 160 km/h.

Did he bowl every ball at this speed? Probably not. No one does.

And again,

Larwood has been widely acknowledged as the greatest fast bowler of his generation and, according to his Wisden obituary, was "one of the rare fast bowlers in the game's long history to spread terror in opposition ranks by the mere mention of his name".[1][13] Timing technology was primitive in his day, but various tests indicated speeds of between 90 and 100 mph (140 to 160 km/h).

So, once again, you're just making random assertions completely unsupported by any contemporary or modern sources.

 

[jonbrooks]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/jul/05/harold-larwood-ashes-england-australia
[FONT="][I]
[B]"You cannot imagine how fast," the famous writer and commentator John Arlott once said of Larwood's speed of delivery. "Sometimes you couldn't pick up the ball with the naked eye at [/B][/I][B][I]all."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]A few overs of Larwood at his fastest were like a public stoning. He frightened batsmen out. Of his 1,427 first-class wickets, in an era when pitches were generally friendly for batsmen, 743 were bowled. He took 100 wickets in a season eight times, and headed the first-class averages in five summers – 1927, 28, 31, 32 and, post-Bodyline, 1936. No other bowler of the twentieth century equalled that feat. Larwood would drink beer during lunch, and even during drinks breaks in matches, believing it helped him to bowl better, a view also held by his Notts captain, Arthur Carr. Larwood was the fastest bowler of his generation – some say the fastest ever.[/FONT]
[FONT="][B][I]It was taken for granted by those facing him that the ball would fly at them between 95mph and 100mph, and no one disputed that Larwood was capable of maintaining that pace while bowling with extraordinary accuracy.[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]Among the men who kept wicket to him, George Duckworth, on Larwood's first tour to Australia in 1928-29, laid strips of raw beef inside his gloves to protect his palms. The stench from the meat in the dry heat made his slip fielders bilious.[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]His approach was almost soundless, as light as a ballet dancer. Frank Lee, an umpire who batted against Larwood, said, "To watch him approach gave me the kind of feeling I imagine a rabbit must get on seeing a stoat coming towards him."[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]The Australian Bill O'Reilly explained most eloquently what it was like to face Larwood. "He came steaming in and I moved right across behind my bat, held perfectly straight in defence of my centre stump. Just before he delivered the ball something hit the middle of my bat with such force that it was almost dashed from my hands. It was the ball."[/FONT]

If you can provide scientific evidence that Larwood was bowling at 150kph then do so. Otherwise this is just folklore nonsense like the guy who could lift a grown bull over his head. Yeah, nah.

Otherwise a nice article. I particularly liked this part:

Larwood would drink beer during lunch, and even during drinks breaks in matches, believing it helped him to bowl better, a view also held by his Notts captain, Arthur Carr.

It only further strengthens my point of how different the modern game is

 

[Victor Ian]

Larwood used to carry logs or rocks around, or something hard labour - he was tough! I'd pick him in a heartbeat for the current teams.

 

[Spark]

If you can provide scientific evidence that Larwood was bowling at 150kph then do so. Otherwise this is just folklore nonsense like the guy who could lift a grown bull over his head. Yeah, nah.

Otherwise a nice article. I particularly liked this part:

Larwood would drink beer during lunch, and even during drinks breaks in matches, believing it helped him to bowl better, a view also held by his Notts captain, Arthur Carr.

It only further strengthens my point of how different the modern game is

Odd that we have to justify something agreed on basically universally with "scientific evidence" while you don't.

 

[Victor Ian]

Whats the difference with chuggin a beer versus a sportsdrink? all those carbs for energy! If he regularly drank x amount of pots - then he wouldn't be drunk when playing - he'd just have his buzz on - just like getting into the zone in modern parlance.

 

[Spark]

I don't know why we keep talking about the 20s and 30s btw when Bradman scored 4 hundreds and a double in 1948 alone.

If anything he got better as time went on, the bloke was averaging well over a hundred for that period and he was basically 40.

 

[Adders]

If you can provide scientific evidence that Larwood was bowling at 150kph then do so.

Can you provide scientific evidence that he didn't??

But I can supply (and have) first hand reports from those that faced him and Spark has just supplied a link saying he was manually clocked between 150 - 160km/h. All you've supplied as "evidence" is "No he didn't"