How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Chrish]

The less overs thing is huge. How would Don have scored against the Windies 1980's? Less.

I have seen clips available from that era (link provided below). The overall Cricket standard to me looks semi-professional, bit like hybrid of street and club Cricket. . No one has to take my word on this. Those interested can visit the link and form their own opinion. What I say is based on what I see here.

It’s not logical to directly apply the batting/ bowling average criteria from that era to modern day Cricket (since 70s). The game has evolved to a great degree.

How much Bradman would have averaged had he played against Windies quartet? How great was he compared to modern day players? There is no way to tell..

Search Results: 'bradman' - British Pathé

 

[mr_mister]

I am interested in Mr Misters story. Did you master hitting a golf ball with a wicket? I tried it as a child and I couldn't come close to doing it. There are training bats you can buy which have a square face the width of one cricket ball. The better players in my team used to train with them to give them better hand eye. Kim Hughes apparently scored a 50 with one in an FC match.

I think the wicket with the golf ball as a youth was a factor.

I think also he was just born for cricket. His genes played a part.

Finally - I think he was in the zone and in form for his whole career.

In some seasons when I have been in outstanding form, this applies to 2 seasons out of 34 years where I scored 50s at least every second time I batted, my thinking was different.

I got in a zone where I would recognise the strengths of the bowler and immediately launch a counter offensive unique to that bowler and I wouldn't hesitate or second guess myself. My batting intelligence was ten times better those seasons. I imagine he was simply in the zone and thinking all the right thoughts throughout his whole career.

So yeah that is my submission
a) the golf ball
b) his unique genes
c) the fact he was in the zone for an entire career.

yeah i did get okay at it, I dunno what qualifies as mastering, i could keep it hitting it back against the brick wall around the side of my house. I didn't have a male sibling so to practice batting there was a lot of that plus the ol six stitcher in the hanging stocking. also sometimes just having imaginary matches in my yard keeping team totals in my head, basically just hitting the ball and fetching it for myself. lol that would have looked weird to an outsider. anyway i was an absolute cricket nut when I was 8, i've never been that into a hobby ever again in ife

I remember one of the prodigy kids in my club team who ended up making it to sydney first grade(one level below shield cricket) had one of those mini/skinny bats you were talking about. I've read some of your posts here and it seems that you got to a pretty decent level of cricket in NZ, did you get close to first class? I got to u/21 reps for the city of Newcastle against reasonably big country towns such as Singleton and Cessnock, but did pretty poorly there with the bat, so I would have never made it in Sydney first Grade cricket. My strongest area was my driving, I hit many sixes over cover in a team that favoured leg side. can put that down to the stump/golfball/sixsticher/stocking method of training

 

[Burner]

I've always been cynical of Bradman. It's kind of incomprehensible for me how someone could be so far ahead of competition. It's very simple if you really think about it, but the fact that he's the only one that's done it is confusing. He might have been gifted with immense concentration, this mental gift is what might have differentiated him from his peers. Most batsmen take more chances after completing their ton, bradman might have continued to play his innings the same way throughout. I don't know man. Sure would have loved some videos.

 

[mr_mister]

i went thru a phase where i didnt care about runs, i just enjoyed for batting as long as i could. i actually took pride in blocking. this was when I was around 15 and tried to emulate test cricketers i guess. maybe bradman enjoyed batting time over runs like this

when i was 17 i became a greedy stats chaser and wanted to get runs as quickly as possible for fear if i hung out around leaving balls id waste precious scoring opportunties

i went from expecting to making runs to hoping. bradman probably generally batted expecting to make tons not hoping

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Smoked heaps of weed, bro.

Hmmmm - when I've played stoned I've found it good for bowling and very, very bad for batting.

 

[Red]

Errr? Is this for batsmen in Cricket, or for global sports phenomenon? I mean batsmen don't phyically have much demands placed on their body in cricket. They stand there and hit a ball (bowled, not thrown, from 22 yards away). They can do it all day if good enough. More even, without raising an eyebrow.

Have you ever batted for a day, or more?

 

[pardus]

I have seen clips available from that era (link provided below). The overall Cricket standard to me looks semi-professional, bit like hybrid of street and club Cricket. . No one has to take my word on this. Those interested can visit the link and form their own opinion. What I say is based on what I see here.

It’s not logical to directly apply the batting/ bowling average criteria from that era to modern day Cricket (since 70s). The game has evolved to a great degree.

How much Bradman would have averaged had he played against Windies quartet? How great was he compared to modern day players? There is no way to tell..

Search Results: 'bradman' - British Pathé

If you think you can properly rate Bradman only after watching him against West Indian pace quartet at it's peak, then you must apply similar barometer to every batsman.

As a rabid fan of great fast bowlers & great fast bowling, I can honestly tell that if you strip apart the stats of practically every great batsman, you could find even worse holes in their achievements than Bradman's.
Back in late 90s, I remember thinking about Tendulkar - how can this guy be called the best ever in the modern era when his averages in practically every series against the toughest fast bowling attacks his side faced back then (Donald/McGrath/Akram led attacks) are so modest? IIRC, he never had a single stellar series against attacks led by any of these great fast bowlers (when I say stellar I mean the kind of series he had against Warne in 98).

Not just Tendulkar, same thing could be shown about Lara or any other great batsman too.

From watching the few highlight videos of the Bodyline series, to me facing Larwood looked every bit as tough as facing any great fast bowler in his prime (bodyline field placement and unlimited bumpers further exacerbate it) . It certainly didn't look "semi-professional". I think it was a phenomenal achievement on Bradman's part to average 50+ in that series.

It doesn't make sense to show that bowling averages of 30s/40s were worse than 90s, therefore Bradman had an easier time, since Bradman himself would have been partly responsible for making those bowling averages worse.

 

[watson]

Here is Bradman practicing with a golf ball and cricket stump as he would a child. Bradman thought that such practice was "significant" in his cricketing development. I would tend to agree as it would 'hard-wire' his reflexes and coordination.

 

[Burner]

since Bradman himself would have been partly responsible for making those bowling averages worse.

This is flawed logic. The game would have had to be played by very few numbers for Bradman to have had any considerable impact on the bowlers' average..

 

[watson]

Here is Bradman practicing in the nets. What struck me straight away was that Bradman's early preparation with his feet and bat. This enabled him to move back and across even to good length balls so that everything on the stumps was played between the arc of long-on and mid-wicket. There is none of that cumbersome pushing of the bat toward the off-side. When the ball was eventually bowled wide of the off stump Bradman was in a great position to thrash it through the covers - which he did. It seems to me that quick and instinctive footwork was a hallmark of his batting.

Also note the 'twirl' of the bat during Bradman's back-lift to get maximum power from the wrists. The complete opposite to Graham Gooch's pendulum like swing that pushes down from the angle of first slip.

 

[Furball]

The thing that's incomprehensible for me is that if you take Steven Smith's form since Jan 1st 2014 (2,125 runs @ 78, 9 tons in 17 Tests), Bradman is basically that but 20% better in output, for a 20 year career (bearing in mind his First Class figures as well) instead of an 18 month purple patch.

 

[the big bambino]

This is flawed logic. The game would have had to be played by very few numbers for Bradman to have had any considerable impact on the bowlers' average..

No no. Pardus is quite right and you are quite wrong to call his logic flawed. If you compare the averages from the 10 decades since the 20s then the bowling average of the 30s falls from 5th place to 9th place if you remove Bradman's contribution. His impact was that profound. It is even more profound on individual bowling stats. He alone brought Australia to parity with England in tests before the war otherwise Eng would have dominated. While there is no doubt standards have improved (as they have in all sports and as they have in all sports since the fabled WI quartet) the idea that pitches were any more perfect for batting in the 30s or that the bowling was weak is without foundation, and fallacies when advanced as possibilities for Bradman's success.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I don't think it's fair to say Bradman was less impressive because he didn't face the great WI quartet. That makes as much sense as saying the great WI quartet was overrated because they never bowled to Bradman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The wickets were flat and the bowlers were crap

That's why everyone in that era averaged 80+









oh wait

 

[watson]

I don't think it's fair to say Bradman was less impressive because he didn't face the great WI quartet. That makes as much sense as saying the great WI quartet was overrated because they never bowled to Bradman.

I don't think that the Don would have been overly phased by the quartet;

On his visits to the Adelaide Oval Bradman occasionally frequented the Australian dressing room. On one such visit in the late '80s Australia were being beaten up rather badly by the West Indies. Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Patrick Patterson were running riot and at the end of day's play Bradman sat down in the dressing to have a cold beer with the team. Dean Jones, the Australian middle-order batsman, asked Bradman how he would have fared against this great West Indies attack. Bradman indicated that he would probably have averaged 60 or 70 against them. The admission took Jones and his Australian team-mates by surprise. Sixty or seventy, that wasn't a lot for The Don? But before anybody had the chance to speak Bradman said: "But I am 80 years old now."

Don Bradman the world beater - Cricket - Sport - The Independent

 

[watson]

And along similar lines;

This source of this incredible anecdote is Dean Jones and verified by Merv Hughes. The name-dropping is important because it may not be easily digestible.

The story is from the Adelaide Oval when Australia played the West Indies in the Frank Worrell Trophy in February 1989. Australia won the toss and batted first. Australia were 383 for eight and West Indies were looking good to wrap up the innings around the 400-run mark. However, Merv Hughes put up provided unexpected defiance against the likes of Malcolm Marshall, Patrick Patterson, Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose. Coming in at No 10, he scored and unbeaten 72 and added 114 runs for the ninth wicket with Dean Jones (216). Australia went on to score 151, but the Test ended in a draw.

As tradition goes, the batting side (Australia) went into the West Indies dressing room with cartons of beer. Hughes went in first and was followed later by Jones. Suddenly there was silence in the dressing room as the venerable Sir Don Bradman was being ushered into the room by cricket officials from South Australia. Each West Indian player stood up before the great man came near him as a mark of respectfully. Bradman shook hands with each and every West Indian player and spoke warmly a few words with them.

Bradman finally got to the last man on the bench, the dreaded pacer Patrick Patterson. Apparently, Patterson remained seated when the great man came to have a word with him. He looked up at the 80-year-old and after a protracted, Patterson stood up, towering over the short-statured Bradman, and said: “You Don Bradman? You Don Bradman? I kill you, maan! I bowl at you, I kill you! I split you in two!”

As people around heard in stunned silence the words coming out of Patterson’s mouth, Bradman looked Patterson in the eye and cooly replied: “You couldn’t even get Merv Hughes out. You’d have no chance against me, mate!”

How the great Don Bradman responded to Patrick Patterson?s sledging! | News and Gossip on Cricket Players at Criclife.com

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman was no dummy. I even suspect he'd have waited for someone to score some runs against the WI so he had some ammo in case he copped a sledge.

 

[Burgey]

I've heard those stories before about Bradman at Adelaide speaking to both the Australian team and Paterson. They may well be true, but they don't have the ring of truth to them AFAIC. I just don't see Bradman making comments like those, especially the one to Paterson. They seem very much out of character to me.

 

[Migara]

This is flawed logic. The game would have had to be played by very few numbers for Bradman to have had any considerable impact on the bowlers' average..

Not that flawd IMO. There is definite Bradman effect on the numbers. Whether to exclude a player from global stats or not in comparing him across era is the real debatable issue.

 

[Migara]

Only thing is I don;t believe he will average 100 if he played under today's conditions, even if grew in the system. The talent pool is much larger, because the number of players taking up cricket has exponentially increased when it comes to test cricket. I believe standard of cricket now is higher than that of 40s.

Average of 75 today, that would be my guess.