How did Bradman get as good as he did?

We all know that The Don is the greatest cricketer of all time, by some margin. By a freakishly large margin, in fact. What I wonder about is how, physically, mentally or technically, he got that good.

I heard a story about him as a child spending entire days learning to bat by throwing a golfball at a water tank and hitting the rebound with a stump. No doubt he learned some amazing hand-eye co-ordination from this, but I don't know if it explains 99.94.

There must have been something else. Was it mental, i.e. a superb ability to remain calm and focused no matter the length of the innings or the match state? Was it physical, i.e. tremendous natural talent, hawkish eyesight, or freakish hand-eye co-ordination? Was it technical, i.e. a perfect defence and range of shots with an unparalled ability to read the body language of the bowler and predict the line and length before the ball was released?

Or were the bowlers just worse in those days?

Oh boy here we go.

Not to take anything away from the great man, he was clearly the greatest batsman who lived, but the batting averages in 1940s are the highest of all the decades. So perhaps there's some truth in pitches being flat and batting friendly back then, but again, no matter how flat it was there's way more than went into achieving what he achieved.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Sachin Tendulkar was sent into the past by Bradman to protect Bradmans mother from an evil robot sent back in time to kill her. While there, Tendulkar fathered Bradman and taught him everything he knew. The Tendulkar we have had since the early 2000s has actually been a robot in disguise.

patience, concentration and willpower. its one thing to say youre good at keeping the ball on the ground at all times, but its another thing to do it. Bradman saw hitting the ball in the air generally as an unneccesary risk and simply eliminated it from his game iirc

i used to do the stump golfball stuff as a kid as well, its not that amazing. IMO batting is so much more a mental thing when you reach a certain skill level. Im sure plenty of players had close to the natural ability as the don but lacked the temperament, and in the case of sachin, had to face better bowlers

and yet the decadal bowling ave of the 30s is comparable with the 90s and less than the 00s

Obviously there was a significant talent difference between Bradman and most other Test batsman, but I've definitely come around to the idea that what really separated him from other all-time greats was much more mental than it was technical or natural.

It plays into something I once had a long conversation with Spark about off the forum. There seems to be a bit of a 'cap' on how many balls on average an excellent batsman will face over any large period, regardless of the quality of the bowling, before mental fatigue kicks in and he essentially gets himself out. When excellent batsmen play significantly below their level they tend to average more than they do at higher levels largely by scoring at a faster rate and not by facing a lot more deliveries before being dismissed. This, to me anyway, shows that Bradman was too good for Test cricket in a very different way to how Ponting would've been too good for Sydney grade cricket through his Test career peak, for example.

Bradman was a quick scorer, but not other-worldly quick. What really set him apart from players like Trumper and Hammond of his day was his ability to concentrate for long periods and not fall victim to mental fatigue anywhere near as regularly.

Some claimed that others, like Hobbs, could've been just as good but refrained for chivalrous reasons. That Hobbs was satisfied with a mere century rather than overstay his welcome with double and triple hundreds. The excuse was really just a snide at Bradman's character. Bradman had the perfect answer for it though. He said that he still passed 100 one in three times compared to Hobbs' one in six

I think the answer to this lies in another question: What makes people lose "form"? Many of the modern day greats and newer guys like Smith tend to average close to 70 for decent periods of time but what leads to the eventual slump? Answering that may lead us to understanding Bradman's numbers.

Always been of the feeling that Bradman (and Murali) could easily be cyborgs from Terminator / aliens from Men In Black.

it was bribery.

Jono said:

Always been of the feeling that Bradman (and Murali) could easily be cyborgs from Terminator / aliens from Men In Black.

Click to expand...

At least like my post then ****.

indiaholic said:

I think the answer to this lies in another question: What makes people lose "form"? Many of the modern day greats and newer guys like Smith tend to average close to 70 for decent periods of time but what leads to the eventual slump? Answering that may lead us to understanding Bradman's numbers.

Click to expand...

Good post.

I'm not convinced it is down to unparralled powers of concentration or a freakish ability to play long innings........we've seen this from other great bats like Lara.

What sets the Don apart from all others is that 99.94...........and that is all about consistency and never having a significant form slump.

Something I've often wondered......it is pretty much accepted that Bradman is the greatest cricketer ever, is there an argument for him being the greatest sportsman ever? I can't think of anyone so far ahead of their field.

I think it's his mental strength that sets him apart from all except Geoff Boycott - there's plenty of batsmen been as talented as Bradman, sadly though Sir Geoffrey wasn't one of them

Lol.

By not getting dismissed as swiftly (or possibly often) as his colleagues and contemporaries.

Adders said:

Good post.

I'm not convinced it is down to unparralled powers of concentration or a freakish ability to play long innings........we've seen this from other great bats like Lara.

What sets the Don apart from all others is that 99.94...........and that is all about consistency and never having a significant form slump.

Something I've often wondered......it is pretty much accepted that Bradman is the greatest cricketer ever, is there an argument for him being the greatest sportsman ever? I can't think of anyone so far ahead of their field.

Click to expand...

Oh he is without any doubt the greatest sportsman of all time. Who comes close? Isinbayeva?

indiaholic said:

Oh he is without any doubt the greatest sportsman of all time. Who comes close? Isinbayeva?

Click to expand...

That begs the question that the greatest sportsperson is so far ahead in a single sport of their contemporaries, or whether multi-discipline skill is also relevant. Is being extremely good at 2 or more sports the same as being a statistical outlier in one single sport (in a single discipline of that particular sport in Bradman only batted - don't get me wrong, I still think that Bradman is the best cricketer ever, ahead of Miller, Khan and Sobers - but what is the criteria)?

Furthermore, does the sport itself, matter, I mean has anyone ever dominated elite and professional sport in the manner that Phil Taylor has in darts?

Carl Lewis?

Overrated, you have many a good post on CW. You can do a better effort at replying to both my post and the current theme of the thread than "Carl Lewis?".

Click to expand...

Overated, you have over 12,000 posts on CW. I hope that you can do a better effort at replying to both my post and the current theme of the thread than "Carl Lewis?".