Bradmanesque

[jonbrooks]

The videos are clear evidence of the standard of coverage at the time. There's precious little love footage, unfortunately.

Much of the stuff done up close for news footage back then was staged for the cameras. By that I mean the close in camera stuff.

I think you're tasting hard here today because St Sachin just wasn't as good.

There is more than sufficient coverage that shows you Bradman's technique and it was pretty ordinary. If he played like that now he wouldn't last long.

 

[jonbrooks]

Joe Mennie has played a Test match for Australia. jonbrooks believes Mennie was a significantly better cricketer than Larwood.

Larwood probably wouldn't make the Sri Lankan pace attack as well. Those guys have been through state of the art training that has allowed them to reach speeds of 135kph which was unattainable back in the day.

Stop twisting words mate. You're sounding foolish. Par for the course for many here though so you're in good company.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you know how to multi-quote?

 

[jonbrooks]

Premeditation much? I thought the greatest batsman ever in the history of the game would at least play each ball on its merit!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_1932–33#Second_Test

And that's like the first ball. It's not like he was set up or something.

 

[Burner]

Bradman also couldn't play under any pressure, could he? We all know how it turned up when he was under a little pressure to score 7 runs.

 

[jonbrooks]

Here is a very good article on Bradman era myths. I don't with agree everything that written here but it does back a lot of what I've said:

Busting myths about the Bradman Era: The Don?s average on sticky wickets was 20.29! - Cricket Country

 

[OverratedSanity]

Little known fact : Bradman only averaged 10 in Sri Lanka.

 

[Adders]

OMG! Another piece of mythology that has grown and grown and grown. Just like one that got away.

Come back with some points buddy otherwise you're just another bandwagoner.

What exactly have you brought to the table except your own opinion? You want scientific proof............yet what scientific proof can you provide to support your view?

Myself, Spark, Red HIll and I'm sure others have at least provided something, you call it mythology but these are accounts from people who played with and against Larwood and Bradman........Don't mind me if I take those accounts over your opinion, which is basically set in stone and you don't appear in the slightest bit interested in a discussion. You've repeatedly ignored every point that you can't counter and bang on with gusto over every point that you think you can.........yet I've seen nothing from either you or your sidekick Karan of substance......it's all been "You can't bowl fast if you drink beer", "Bradmans technique was ****"........and my personal fav "Wagner takes wickets with bodyline bowling today"

Seriously, pull your head in.

 

[Red]

The Larwood bowling in the 1930s would not be able to make club sides. If a Larwood born in this day and age learnt to play cricket as it is played now, who knows. Likewise for Bradman. The point is that we cannot compare eras. Stop twisting what I am writing with selective quoting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The absurd posts being made here are by people like you who know very little about cricket and just take some some moral high-ground when your people question your beliefs.

Don't be so ****ing ridiculous. If you honestly don't think test players of the 30s and 40s wouldn't make club sides, seriously, don't suggest others no very little about cricket. Seriously. Lol

As for selective posting, get real. You literally said Larwood wouldn't make a club side. Either admit you were being hyperbolic (or talking **** if you'd prefer) or acknowledge that you know nothing about cricket history.

Let's put it this way. Do you honestly think that the following XI...

Sutcliffe
Jardine
Hammond
Leyland
Ames
Paynter
Wyatt
Allen
Larwood
Voce
Bowes

... would not beat a modern club side?

 

[Shri]

What exactly have you brought to the table except your own opinion? You want scientific proof............yet what scientific proof can you provide to support your view?

Myself, Spark, Red HIll and I'm sure others have at least provided something, you call it mythology but these are accounts from people who played with and against Larwood and Bradman

Its only a CW joke buddy. Burgey isn't actually that old.

 

[Red]

There is more than sufficient coverage that shows you Bradman's technique and it was pretty ordinary. If he played like that now he wouldn't last long.

What are you even trying to argue here? No one is saying Bradman had a beautiful, orthodox technique. Quite himself acknowledged that and made mention of what a stylist Archie Jackson was, and how good Stan McCabe was to watch batting.

His technique wasn't "ordinary". It was the most effective technique ever seen in the game.

 

[vcs]

Don't be so ****ing ridiculous. If you honestly don't think test players of the 30s and 40s wouldn't make club sides, seriously, don't suggest others no very little about cricket. Seriously. Lol

As for selective posting, get real. You literally said Larwood wouldn't make a club side. Either admit you were being hyperbolic (or talking **** if you'd prefer) or acknowledge that you know nothing about cricket history.

Let's put it this way. Do you honestly think that the following XI...

Sutcliffe
Jardine
Hammond
Leyland
Ames
Paynter
Wyatt
Allen
Larwood
Voce
Bowes

... would not beat a modern club side?

Well, they'd be a bit hampered by the fact that they're dead.

sorry

 

[Red]

ha, I always work in ATG mode here when players are at or near their prime!

 

[jonbrooks]

Don't be so ****ing ridiculous. If you honestly don't think test players of the 30s and 40s wouldn't make club sides, seriously, don't suggest others no very little about cricket. Seriously. Lol

As for selective posting, get real. You literally said Larwood wouldn't make a club side. Either admit you were being hyperbolic (or talking **** if you'd prefer) or acknowledge that you know nothing about cricket history.

Let's put it this way. Do you honestly think that the following XI...

Sutcliffe
Jardine
Hammond
Leyland
Ames
Paynter
Wyatt
Allen
Larwood
Voce
Bowes

... would not beat a modern club side?

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.

 

[jonbrooks]

What are you even trying to argue here? No one is saying Bradman had a beautiful, orthodox technique. Quite himself acknowledged that and made mention of what a stylist Archie Jackson was, and how good Stan McCabe was to watch batting.

His technique wasn't "ordinary". It was the most effective technique ever seen in the game.

It was ordinary but it was effective for his time. Do note that his most effective technique only got him an average of 20 odd on sticky wickets :-)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well this escalated quickly.

 

[jonbrooks]

What exactly have you brought to the table except your own opinion? You want scientific proof............yet what scientific proof can you provide to support your view?

Myself, Spark, Red HIll and I'm sure others have at least provided something, you call it mythology but these are accounts from people who played with and against Larwood and Bradman........Don't mind me if I take those accounts over your opinion, which is basically set in stone and you don't appear in the slightest bit interested in a discussion. You've repeatedly ignored every point that you can't counter and bang on with gusto over every point that you think you can.........yet I've seen nothing from either you or your sidekick Karan of substance......it's all been "You can't bowl fast if you drink beer", "Bradmans technique was ****"........and my personal fav "Wagner takes wickets with bodyline bowling today"

Seriously, pull your head in.

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.

 

[jonbrooks]

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!

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

This is the biggest problem with both you and karan. You constantly keep repeating that Bradman "shouldn't be compared to modern players" . Yet you judge his technique to be "terrible" by modern standards and say that bowlers of that era would be club standard today.

Either willingly compare or don't do it at all. Pick one or the other. Instead you pick and choose what to compare across eras to justify what you've already made up in your mind. It's baffling and stupid.

 

[jonbrooks]

This is the biggest problem with both you and karan. You constantly keep repeating that Bradman "shouldn't be compared to modern players" . Yet you judge his technique to be "terrible" by modern standards and say that bowlers of that era would be club standard today.

Either willingly compare or don't do it at all. Pick one or the other. Instead you pick and choose what to compare across eras to justify what you've already made up in your mind. It's baffling and stupid.

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?