Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[the big bambino]

He doesn't believe in using old footage as evidence, so even if he gives an answer it can only be reliant upon raw stats and anecdotes.

Bcos as we know the impartial stats and match reports are no match for a cherry picked youtube of a net session you've used to misrepresent an entire era.

 

[Ruckus]

Na just a classic strawman that.

 

[kyear2]

Love the qualification.

And what happened to Proctor?

Now listen kyear. I could show you again the tables showing the English bowling being statistically superior to the SA, Pak and Eng bowlers ranging from 1988-2009. Trouble is you've wilfully ignored it bcos it hurts your dainty feelings or something. So why would I be any more confident you'd take it in this time?

I am asking again, which individual bowlers are better than the ones listed that Viv faced, and not your charts that say to subtract Bradman from their stats, we don't even have to use stats. just tell me which ones are better. And you know what, if they were better probably they would have performed better. No one deducts what Lara and Sachin (and the rest of the Indian team) did to Muarali and Warne, their stats may have been better of not for those encounters, but it's part and parcel of what you produced. No one says Mike Arthurton would have been better if he didn't have to face Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Donald and Pollock with the new ball every innings, and you know what, that may have been the tougher challenge.

 

[Red]

Na just a classic strawman that.

No, it isn't. You cannot use that footage as an example of the quality of cricket in the era. It is staged footage.

 

[watson]

Just for interests sake - here are the bowlers who dismissed Bradman, Chappell, Richards, and Tendulkar the most (in order of frequency).

You can draw your own conclusions;

Don Bradman
01. Verity
02. Bedser
03. Bowes
04. Tate
05. Larwood
06. Hammond
07. Geary
08. White
09. Wright
10. Hazare
HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

Greg Chappell
01. Underwood
02. Willis
03. Hadlee
04. Old
05. Roberts
06. Imran
07. Snow
08. Sarfraz
09. Gibbs
10. Holding
HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

Viv Richards
01. Lillee
02. Botham
03. Kapil Dev
04. Imran
05. Thomson
06. Chandra
07. Dilley
08. Alderman
09. Lawson
10. Shastri
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerDismissBat.asp?PlayerID=1470

Sachin Tendulkar
01. Anderson
02. Murali
03. McGrath
04. Gillespie
05. Vettori
06. Cronje
07. Donald
08. Lee
09. Panesar
10. Siddle
HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

 

[Coronis]

I find it interesting that Anderson has dismissed Tendulkar the most...

 

[watson]

I find it interesting that Anderson has dismissed Tendulkar the most...

And that Vettori and Cronje are on a par with Donald.

Incidently, all of those bowlers in Bradman's list, with the exception of Larwood, relied on spin or swing (or "verve" in the case of Bowes) to claim their wickets.

If you consider the successes of Underwood, Botham/Kapil, and Anderson with those other great batsman then it seems apparent to me that a bowling attack needs at least one bowler who moves the ball side-ways off the pitch or side-ways through the air in order to unsettle great batsman.

 

[the big bambino]

. No one deducts what Lara and Sachin (and the rest of the Indian team) did to Muarali and Warne, their stats may have been better of not for those encounters,

Once again the raising of this disingenuous point that has been dealt with time and again. As a general comment hypocrites need to show just a little more artifice. Lara and SRT did not ave 100. They averaged 50-55. Therefore a true comparison with your so called point would be the removal of Hammond's stats. Or Hutton's. Or Headley's. Or Hobbs...

I haven't done that. I've only removed Bradman's stats because his average is unique as you bloody well know. I remove them to counter deceitful arguments that is proposed by some on here that his competition was weak or he benefitted from minnows. In short no one questions Lara's or SRT's record. Ironically enough they don't question Hammond's or Headley's even though they played in the same era as Bradman! So I remove his stats to give you an idea of the bowling std of the day as if it it only had to deal with mere mortals like SRT, Lara, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Headley etc etc etc....

Now I'm just running a comparative of the bowling sides in IVA's and DGB's eras. Up to the war in DGB's case as its a given Aus were clearly the best side just after the war. You'll be surprised how highly the Eng and Aus teams of the 27-39 era rate. Even with DGB's runs included against Eng. Get ready for some serious butthurt when I equalise both eras by removing DGB's stats. Get ready for some more when I equalise for games against so called minnows.

 

[Ruckus]

No, it isn't. You cannot use that footage as an example of the quality of cricket in the era. It is staged footage.

1: There's match footage there. 2: I could post 50 other links of match footage where my opinions on the standards won't be any different. 3: Just because there's footage of net sessions etc. there doesn't mean players lose their minds and bat/bowl with radically altered techniques (the Mold clip is inconsequential, don't even include it in the analysis for all I care). It was a strawman, and a lazy one at that.

 

[the big bambino]

1: There's match footage there. 2: I could post 50 other links of match footage where my opinions on the standards won't be any different. 3: Just because there's footage of net sessions etc. there doesn't mean players lose their minds and bat/bowl with radically altered techniques (the Mold clip is inconsequential, don't even include it in the analysis for all I care). It was a strawman, and a lazy one at that.

*Disclaimer* Subjective opinion though valid is not to be passed off as objective fact

 

[watson]

What sets Bradman apart from your average batsman is his ability to regularly convert 100s into 'mega-centuries'. While the ability to do this would be highly desirable to every cricketer only a handful of batsman are able to score 'mega-centuries' because the strain on the necessary levels of concentration is enormous. Importantly, I don't think that raw batting talent alone (ie. 'hand-to-eye coordination) has much to do with achieving a very high batting average. A moderate average yes, a very high batting average no. One only has to consider Mark Waugh or David Gower to grasp that fact.

Therefore, the question is - what would stop Lara or Sangakkara (for example) averaging 90+ during the 1930s should a miracle happen and they be transported back in time to Bradman's era at peak form? I can't think of any impediment because they have abundant raw batting talent, the proven ability to concentrate for long periods of time, and the relatively unique experience of playing cricket during the 90s-00s which would be invaluable. You would merely give them their brief and tell them to get on with it - 50 odd Test matches spread over a dozen playing years, no ODIs, flat tracks, and minimal numbers of express pace bowlers. The conditions couldn't be better for batting apart from the want of a helmet.

 

[kyear2]

Once again the raising of this disingenuous point that has been dealt with time and again. As a general comment hypocrites need to show just a little more artifice. Lara and SRT did not ave 100. They averaged 50-55. Therefore a true comparison with your so called point would be the removal of Hammond's stats. Or Hutton's. Or Headley's. Or Hobbs...

I haven't done that. I've only removed Bradman's stats because his average is unique as you bloody well know. I remove them to counter deceitful arguments that is proposed by some on here that his competition was weak or he benefitted from minnows. In short no one questions Lara's or SRT's record. Ironically enough they don't question Hammond's or Headley's even though they played in the same era as Bradman! So I remove his stats to give you an idea of the bowling std of the day as if it it only had to deal with mere mortals like SRT, Lara, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Headley etc etc etc....

Now I'm just running a comparative of the bowling sides in IVA's and DGB's eras. Up to the war in DGB's case as its a given Aus were clearly the best side just after the war. You'll be surprised how highly the Eng and Aus teams of the 27-39 era rate. Even with DGB's runs included against Eng. Get ready for some serious butthurt when I equalise both eras by removing DGB's stats. Get ready for some more when I equalise for games against so called minnows.

Could you just please answer the question asked and please just tell me the bowlers that Bradman faced that are better than the ones I named that Viv faced. Please. no stats required. Just tell me which ones were better.

 

[centurymaker]

I find it interesting that Anderson has dismissed Tendulkar the most...

In all probability that tally of 8 dismissals will only go up since Anderson will clean him next yr in England, just like he's done in the later stages of Tendulkar's career.

Very few of the West Indian greats feature on Chappell's list..

 

[Ruckus]

]
Therefore, the question is - what would stop Lara or Sangakkara (for example) averaging 90+ during the 1930s should a miracle happen and they be transported back in time to Bradman's era at peak form?

Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's. And I think greats like Lara etc. could definitely average 90+. Progress in sport, or pretty much anything else really, is unidirectional though, so I don't think the reverse would be true - i.e. I really doubt batsmen from the 1930's would dominate if made to play in the modern era. I think they would fare a lot worse than usual.

 

[watson]

Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's. And I think greats like Lara etc. could definitely average 90+. Progress in sport, or pretty much anything else really, is unidirectional though, so I don't think the reverse would be true - i.e. I really doubt batsmen from the 1930's would dominate if made to play in the modern era. I think they would fare a lot worse than usual.

I would have to disagree somewhat. As I said in my post the requirement to achieving a 90+ average are 'mega-centuries' scored on a regular basis. Not all batsman are suited to scoring 'mega-centuries' even though they might be able to score a brilliant 100.

The reason for this is that the ability to concentrate for many long hours is an inate gift, and so you either have it, or you don't. Lara and Sangkkara are proven to have the gift which is why I cited them as examples. Mark Waugh and Gower don't have the gift although they played many fine innings.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.

 

[watson]

Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.

That's a very good point.

What sets Harold Larwood apart from all the other fast-bowlers of his era is that he could sustain his pace and accuracy for long periods of time. The sustained pressure and stress of accurate fast bowling would eventually wear the batsman down and he would be dismissed.

In the modern era these things are taken for granted in every fast-bowler of Test match standard. It is nothing unique or out of the ordinary, although Holding and Roberts, Lillee and Thomson, Imran and Wasim, Donald and Pollock are significantly better than many other new ball partnerships.

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.

It'd be sort of like facing current minnows over and over again...

 

[watson]

Yeah that's a fair point, and I pretty much agree with it. When I say any decent batsmen could dominate, I don't mean like 90+ dominate, just relative to what their standards were. To average say, 50, which I would still consider dominating (given that's what it is by modern standards), you don't have to score mega-centuries. Also, if standards were lower, as I think they were, the mental energy required to concentrate for long periods obviously is less than if the competition is at a more intense level.

I would also have to question that assumption as well. While it is obvious to me that there was a shortage of quality fast bowlers (no offence intended to Bowes, Farnes, or Wall), the same cannot be said of spin bowlers. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, and Wright were each brilliant exponents of their trade. We know that because batsman like Hutton raved about O'Reilly and co. well into the 70s.

Therefore, any modern batsman with 'lead feet' wouldn't succeed too well in Bradman's era. They would have to be able to play spin well.

 

[Ruckus]

I would also have to question that assumption as well. While it is obvious to me that there was a shortage of quality fast bowlers (no offence intended to Bowes, Farnes, or Wall), the same cannot be said of spin bowlers. O'Reilly, Grimmett, Verity, and Wright were each brilliant exponents of their trade. We know that because batsman like Hutton raved about O'Reilly and co. well into the 70s.

Therefore, any modern batsman with 'lead feet' wouldn't succeed too well in Bradman's era. They would have to be able to play spin well.

I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...