How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Chrish]

Are you serious? How the hell did he even score that 187*in the first place, that too against bodyline bowling (considering your claim that he was an amateur batsman facing a fast bowler bowling at a pace way beyond his league)? And how did amatuer batsmen like Woodfull, Ponsford etc. manage such good performances even with Test-level Larwood playing in the earlier series?

You have answered your own question here, " Doing it once in a while is fine, but doing it consistently is something else"

Lara was pretty much owned by Donald: played zillions of innings yet failed to score a single 100. It's only after retirement of Donald, Lara's average against SA went sky high.. On the other hand, someone like Azhar Mahmood scored 3 hundreds against Donald. So, by your logic, should we consider Azhar Mahmood >>> Lara??

Mcabe tried to pull/ hook to the best of his ability which worked in two innings but pretty much failed in other 8. Him along with Woodfull, Ponsford etc were decent batsmen in their time.

All I have maintained is Cricket standards are vastly superior in modern age. Were all the players complete amateurs back then? No. But at the same time, I don't expect the players back then to do as well as today as they did back then. Today's game is vastly different.

To answer your question, I wouldn't include any player other than Bradman is my top 10 list of batsmen from that era.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You have answered your own question here, " Doing it once in a while is fine, but doing it consistently is something else"

Lara was pretty much owned by Donald: played zillions of innings yet failed to score a single 100. It's only after retirement of Donald, Lara's average against SA went sky high.. On the other hand, someone like Azhar Mahmood scored 3 hundreds against Donald. So, by your logic, should we consider Azhar Mahmood >>> Lara??

Mcabe tried to pull/ hook to the best of his ability which worked in two innings but pretty much failed in other 8. Him along with Woodfull, Ponsford etc were decent batsmen in their time.

All I have maintained is Cricket standards are vastly superior in modern age. Were all the players complete amateurs back then? No. But at the same time, I don't expect the players back then to do as well as today as they did back then. Today's game is vastly different.

To answer your question, I wouldn't include any player other than Bradman is my top 10 list of batsmen from that era.

What do you have to say to this:

Ponting transported back to the 30's would probably average about 50odd less. Remember, the player base has increased exponentially, and so has their professionalism. So Ponting probably didn't play and if he did he was probably an amateur hack.

 

[pardus]

You have answered your own question here, " Doing it once in a while is fine, but doing it consistently is something else"

Lara was pretty much owned by Donald: played zillions of innings yet failed to score a single 100. It's only after retirement of Donald, Lara's average against SA went sky high.. On the other hand, someone like Azhar Mahmood scored 3 hundreds against Donald. So, by your logic, should we consider Azhar Mahmood >>> Lara??

Mcabe tried to pull/ hook to the best of his ability which worked in two innings but pretty much failed in other 8. Him along with Woodfull, Ponsford etc were decent batsmen in their time.

All I have maintained is Cricket standards are vastly superior in modern age. Were all the players complete amateurs back then? No. But at the same time, I don't expect the players back then to do as well as today as they did back then. Today's game is vastly different.

To answer your question, I wouldn't include any player other than Bradman is my top 10 list of batsmen from that era.

No comparison. Kim Hughes and Gavaskar were professional batsmen! And Gavaskar is considered one of the best batsman of his era. They were NOT amateurs by any means. The batsmen who dominated the Windies bowlers "once in a while" were professional batsmen. But you told that Stan McCabe and everyone other cricketer from Bradman's era (other than Bradman & Larwood) were amateurs. An amateur batsman would have no chance to dominate a Windies attack of the 80s.

To answer your question, I wouldn't include any player other than Bradman is my top 10 list of batsmen from that era.

Up to you. I have come across several people who even today include Hobbs & Hammond in their top 10 list as well.

 

[Victor Ian]

Just a quicky on the Windies bowlers since they have entered a discussion on Bradman. Did they really bowl head high that often? Sure, it was there as an intimidation ball, but I seem to remember them bowling consistently at the rib area forcing the batsman to either fend off or play high risk shots.

 

[the big bambino]

The boy's own fantasy of Aravinda's clashes with fast bowlers described above could be offset with a review of a portion of Ponting's career. In preparation can I say that every era has had bowlers just as fast including the fast but ordinary ones like Schultz and Zahid (about the same pace as Sami - hot; but not fastest ever) and those a little better like Lee and Patterson (who was a rough track bully).

Ponting had a good record against the WI but there came a time when his success against them diminished. This seemed incongruous bcos the WI then weren't the team they once were. Then Michael Holding explained in commentary that the WI bowlers were tipped to keep it full and on off to Ponting to get him coming hard at the ball to effect a slip catch. Probably the observation that eventually led to his decline as a test player. Thing to note is that it was Holding who noticed. It is a misunderstanding to think the WI of the 70s and 80s would not or could not have adjusted to batsmen strong on the pull but weak in other areas of their play. Holding himself effectively swung the ball at good speed off a short run and as Victor Ian mentions above their best short balls attacked the throat and ribs not the head. There is no comparison with dealing with the likes of Schultz or Zahid that can be extrapolated into a theory for success against the WI quartet.

 

[Migara]

The boy's own fantasy of Aravinda's clashes with fast bowlers described above could be offset with a review of a portion of Ponting's career. In preparation can I say that every era has had bowlers just as fast including the fast but ordinary ones like Schultz and Zahid (about the same pace as Sami - hot; but not fastest ever) and those a little better like Lee and Patterson (who was a rough track bully).

It's a massive Lol tbh. Scultz in 1993 SL tour was yard quicker than Donald, and every SL batsman will give that impression to you. Later he broke down and Schultz who was seen bowling in Australia was a much slower version.

Mohammed Zahid is regarded as the quickest bowler in cricket history by Pakistanis. Shoaib Akthar confesses Zahid was couple of yards quicker than him. Unless Pakistani and SL players views are not given the same value as that of Aussie or Pom, I cannot see why these two bowlers are regarded as express bowlers.

Ponting had a good record against the WI but there came a time when his success against them diminished. This seemed incongruous bcos the WI then weren't the team they once were. Then Michael Holding explained in commentary that the WI bowlers were tipped to keep it full and on off to Ponting to get him coming hard at the ball to effect a slip catch. Probably the observation that eventually led to his decline as a test player. Thing to note is that it was Holding who noticed. It is a misunderstanding to think the WI of the 70s and 80s would not or could not have adjusted to batsmen strong on the pull but weak in other areas of their play. Holding himself effectively swung the ball at good speed off a short run and as Victor Ian mentions above their best short balls attacked the throat and ribs not the head. There is no comparison with dealing with the likes of Schultz or Zahid that can be extrapolated into a theory for success against the WI quartet.

This is very well accepted fact. WI pacemen were dangerous not because of pace but because of their skill. Pace wise, 90s has seen more express bowlers than WI quartret, including quickest in test history. But apart from Shoaib, others were not skillful enough. Now this is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. Good players of hook and pull take the intimidation out of the game, and fast bowlers have to use their other skills (like McGrath / Asif or Imran / Wasim / Waqar) to get the wickets. Hence headgear will not amke much of a difference to a ATG player while it will be a massive disadvantage for a lesser player. And WI bowlers were ****ing good at challenging the pads and the edge as well. That's why they were ATG pacers!

 

[the big bambino]

Shaoib cracked the ton so I find it hard to believe Schultz and Zahid were quicker, let alone by yards. Maybe Donald had a sore back at the time. 70s and 80s had Thommo and Lillee as well as Imran on top of the WI quicks (whose unique presence in cricket history admittedly made the era special regards pace bowling)

 

[Migara]

Shaoib cracked the ton so I find it hard to believe Schultz and Zahid were quicker, let alone by yards. Maybe Donald had a sore back at the time. 70s and 80s had Thommo and Lillee as well as Imran on top of the WI quicks (whose unique presence in cricket history admittedly made the era special regards pace bowling)

Donald was in full cry in 1993. Aravinda played Donald and Schultz with ease. He was taunting both of them to bowl short at him (others were ****ting in the pants because these two were bouncing them out).

Akthar himself confesses on this as well as Rashid Latif. I think pakpassion.net has the interviews with them. Mohammed Akram when first came in was equally quick if not more than Akthar. Wasim was asked by English media to describe Mohamemd Akram in their 1994 series. He said "Extremely fast".

 

[OverratedSanity]

Schultz was ridiculously quick and he was anything but 'ordinary'

 

[the big bambino]

I've seen M Akram out here and cant say he seemed specially quick. His bounce off a length was concerning though. I saw Zahid at Brisbane against the WI and he looked slippery and whippy. Unless I've mixed up my Pak pace bowlers I've seen the incident where he hit Lara and I think that was clocked at 148ks.

 

[Migara]

I've seen M Akram out here and cant say he seemed specially quick. His bounce off a length was concerning though. I saw Zahid at Brisbane against the WI and he looked slippery and whippy. Unless I've mixed up my Pak pace bowlers I've seen the incident where he hit Lara and I think that was clocked at 148ks.

Lara was hit by Shoaib Akthar. Lara played Zahid in WSC matches in 1993, and has said he was the quickest he encountered in the series (mind you, WI had Bishop in full cry).
Lara failed to lay a bat on Zahid in the only match he played.

M. Akram first bowled against SL in Faisalabad or Sialkot in 1994. On a sluggish pitch he looked devilishly quick. And he has split the thigh pad of Hathurusinghe in that match. Then he came to England, played one match, got injured, and never was the same bowler again.

 

[the big bambino]

I've got Zahid playing here in 97. I'm at work now. When I get home I'll try and find a youtube of the Lara incident.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah that Zahid over to Lara is pretty famous.

 

[cnerd123]

Pardus the best thing to come out of this thread IMO.

 

[Hurricane]

The West Indies quartet would all have averaged 30 if they'd played in this era. The game's better and players are better protected. James Anderson and Stuart Broad only average 29 so there's just no way Malcolm Marshall could have averaged 20.

Why can't we like things when surfing on the phone

 

[the big bambino]

Just did.

 

[cnerd123]

Why can't we like things when surfing on the phone

Switch from mobile site to regular

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah the mobile site sucks. Can't like, can't edit posts, can't report. It's pretty useless. I always use the regular version.