Bradmanesque

[Adders]

I'd like to know 2 things........

- Why do you refute that Harold Larwood was bowling 150 clicks when all the first hand reports and an (admittedly not scientific) test suggests that he did.

- How do you explain that Bradman was twice as good as his peers. No player (in any sport that I'm aware of) was statistically that far ahead of the rest of the field.

 

[Adders]

Oh, and a third request........

Can you show me a clip of Wagner bowling bodyline.....cos I'd love to see it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

First and foremost I did not say Bradman's technique was terrible. I said he played well on the offside but was poor on the leg side.

This is how it goes.
1) People say Bradman would be just as good, if not better, playing in the modern era as he was back in the 30s
2) I say for a Bradman born in the modern era it is impossible to say how he would have gone
3) However given most plebs on this site keep trying to shove (1) down our throats I counter with the information I have available to me now e.g. analysis of Bradman's batting technique, of which if he played like that now he would not get very far
4) If bowlers bowled like they did in the 30s now, they would not be able to make club teams. Have you ever watched Clarrie Grimmett bowl?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAqe_oDtd6c

I rest my case!

Do you now get what I am saying?

See you guys keep missing the point. Playing like they did back in the 30s they would not be able to. Who knows how'd they go if they were born in the modern era.

lol that's the whole point. Of course if you invented a time machine, went back and kidnapped Bradman and made him bat in a modern game no one knows what would happen. You said yourself that you can't compare between eras.

No one is saying he would be just as good. When people say he would be just as good they mean assuming that he was born in the modern era and had all the same advantages modern players have.

How one earth is this not obvious?

What have you even been arguing this whole time?

 

[jonbrooks]

I'd like to know 2 things........

- Why do you refute that Harold Larwood was bowling 150 clicks when all the first hand reports and an (admittedly not scientific) test suggests that he did.

- How do you explain that Bradman was twice as good as his peers. No player (in any sport that I'm aware of) was statistically that far ahead of the rest of the field.

I have already explained both of these. But I will do so for your sake again.

1) Highlighted for you above. It is hearsay stuff and not based on facts and solid evidence. The man did not have a physique to bowl fast. He did not have the training to bowl fast. Hence he did not bowl fast by current standards. He may have been lightening quick for his time but 130kph is still 130kph.

2) I have explained this in enormous detail. Bradman played in an era which was not professional, suffered from lack of tactics, proper coaching, poor bowling ... I could carry on for a while but you get the picture. Bradman was just damn good for his time and others were simply not good enough. That however does not by default make him the greatest batsman ever as it is impossible to compare eras. And again when proper tactics (right or wrong) were used against him he had an average of 55. Also he played 15 innings on so called sticky wickets and only had an average of 20 odd.

 

[Burgey]

well it was a more reserved time back then

Played

 

[Victor Ian]

I think some people here just do not appreciate how exceedingly hard it was to bat and bowl at 16 frames per second in low res. Batsmen have no choice other than to swipe at balls wildly and bowlers to fling balls wildly, without hitting proper line and length due to side on camera angles. It was just so hard.
If they played today it would be so much easier having 25+ frames per second to make fine adjustments. Heck they would probably even manage to maintain their averages and look graceful doing it.

 

[jonbrooks]

Oh, and a third request........

Can you show me a clip of Wagner bowling bodyline.....cos I'd love to see it.

I can't find anything on YouTube. Have a look around yourself. It is no secret he bowls a lot of short pitched stuff at batsman's bodies and gets them out hooking and pulling.

 

[jonbrooks]

lNo one is saying he would be just as good. When people say he would be just as good they mean assuming that he was born in the modern era and had all the same advantages modern players have.

How one earth is this not obvious?

What have you even been arguing this whole time?

No, that's what I am saying. You can't say he would be just as good if he was born in the modern era. Hell he could go through one of those training regimes they have these days, pull a muscle and never play cricket again.

 

[Victor Ian]

Tactics!

How the heck do young players manage to combat modern bowling tactics to average what the players of yore averaged? They probably google the solution - or ask their coach. It might take Bradman a week to learn how to google and probably a session before his coach fills him in. After that he would start averaging 200.

 

[jonbrooks]

Tactics!

How the heck do young players manage to combat modern bowling tactics to average what the players of yore averaged? They probably google the solution - or ask their coach. It might take Bradman a week to learn how to google and probably a session before his coach fills him in. After that he would start averaging 200.

But you don't know that, do you? It's not a given ...

 

[TheJediBrah]

No, that's what I am saying. You can't say he would be just as good if he was born in the modern era. Hell he could go through one of those training regimes they have these days, pull a muscle and never play cricket again.

lol yes and by the same token you can't say that he wouldn't be just as good. Obviously there's no evidence either way.

You can't compare between eras, but you can compare between players in the same era. Bradman is the only example of someone being anywhere near that much better than everyone else. Unless you think for some remarkable reason that everyone else in his era just happened to be terrible (which would be absurdly stupid), then you have to assume that he is simply the best that there ever was. With absolutely no doubt.

 

[Victor Ian]

For you bubs to understand the effect of low frame rates - go and play your first person shooter at 10fps. You will notice your enemies look terrible but they will one shot you every time.

 

[Shri]

By the way, I want to make a point. It is a very important point and this is:

I LOVE YOU ALL! ESPECIALLY YOU SPARKY!

Infracted?

 

[Spark]

For you bubs to understand the effect of low frame rates - go and play your first person shooter at 10fps. You will notice your enemies look terrible but they will one shot you every time.

Can confirm this ftr, when I first got COD4 it was on a computer which was technically too ****** to run it and man alive did I suck until I upgraded.

 

[Spark]

Infracted?

No. Just weirdness.

 

[Coronis]

Again you're not understanding. People always exaggerate about how things were tougher back in the day when they were playing. This is outright GARBAGE. Things are way tougher today then they were back in whatever ****ing time. Technology has seen to that and you can say whatever the **** you want but you can't argue with technology.

I have busted every point you guys have made. If I have not then it is only because I've missed it with a lot of the garbage that's surrounding some of the good posts. Kindly provide the points you've made that I have not countered and I'll damn bust it down good for you. Nice and good. So nice and good.

This is finally a good point. We can all agree that technology has only made our lives tougher.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Apologies if this has been posted previously, but Larwood looks pretty quick to me. Sharp slips catch in there too - any slipper these days would be proud of that.

 

[JBMAC]

Ihave followed these posts with some amusement, some disgust, some dissalusionment but mostly some contempt. I refer back to my post #1, where I calmly mentioned a comparison ; the "esque" is what that means; between Warner and Bradman. I must admit to a "boost' after Warner's effort on the first day of this current Test. I am so surprised at the juvenile diatribe coming from karan316 and jonbrooks in particular. If you read post #1 correctly you would note I have seen Bradman play and the rubbish you have posted is just that. Obviously both of you have NOT ever played serious cricket as you have absolutely NO idea.You obviously have NO knowledge of the history of the game either, hence your inane comment on it's History. I have played the game at First Class,State and represented my country. Among my mentors were Wally Grout, Ken Mackay and Wesley Hall and am good friends with Jeff Thompson who I also played with and against. Should you not know of these gentlemen,learn to read and find out. I'd suggest you both go home to your Mummys and play with your blocks/dolls and leave the serious discussion of this wonderful game to the grownups.

 

[Burgey]

Always love a JBMAC intervention. Wish you posted more.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ihave followed these posts with some amusement, some disgust, some dissalusionment but mostly some contempt. I refer back to my post #1, where I calmly mentioned a comparison ; the "esque" is what that means; between Warner and Bradman. I must admit to a "boost' after Warner's effort on the first day of this current Test. I am so surprised at the juvenile diatribe coming from karan316 and jonbrooks in particular. If you read post #1 correctly you would note I have seen Bradman play and the rubbish you have posted is just that. Obviously both of you have NOT ever played serious cricket as you have absolutely NO idea.You obviously have NO knowledge of the history of the game either, hence your inane comment on it's History. I have played the game at First Class,State and represented my country. Among my mentors were Wally Grout, Ken Mackay and Wesley Hall and am good friends with Jeff Thompson who I also played with and against. Should you not know of these gentlemen,learn to read and find out. I'd suggest you both go home to your Mummys and play with your blocks/dolls and leave the serious discussion of this wonderful game to the grownups.

ouch