If Bradman played in today's era?

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I don't really agree with the theory but at least it is relatively a logical thought process IMO

 

[Migara]

It's funny, Jardine faired way better than Hammond and Sutcliffe against the only international pace battery they faced, that of West Indies' Constantine-Martindale-Griffith

Jardine > Hammond and Sutcliffe if they played in the modern era?

May be he was shyte against spin.

 

[Migara]

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest. Whilst they weren't Bradman's contemporaries they were still premodern. Strike bowlers and fast opening bowlers became a thing post War though.

This is a done and dusted argument. The fastest of an attck would have been always fast. But it's the support cast who has improved leaps and bounds. They don't roll their arm anymore, and is as quick as the leader of the pack. Kardik Pandya turning up as the fifth bowler and hitting 140s is a perfect example.

 

[Migara]

What about Thommo? Who was as close to Tyson's era as he was to Shoaib/Lee

Thommo was quick, top bracket. But compared with him 90 - 00s we saw four express bowlers Zahid, Akthar, Lee and Tait. And not to mention Waqar, Wasim, Bond, Malinga, Donald, Schultz, Srinath and one or two Englishmen all hitting 150, and 145 on regular basis. It's more than a single tearaway bowler, but support cast. thommo had bloodyt impressive support cast in Lillee, Hogg and few others who had pace, and then we have West Indian quartret, but that is all we find throughout the history on a mean, fast, fast bowling unit.

 

[Migara]

At the Aeronautical College in Wellington, New Zealand in 1955 metal plates were attached to a cricket ball and a sonic device was used to measure their speed, with Tyson's bowling measured at 89 mph (143 km/h), but he was wearing three sweaters on a cold, damp morning and used no run up, Brian Statham bowled at 87 mph (140 km/h). He certainly bowled faster than 89 mph in matches, and Tyson claimed that he could bowl at 119 mph (192 km/h), but this cannot be proven.

From Typhoon Tyson's wiki.

Two things: a) I wonder if they literally mean no run up or just a shortened run up and b) lol at Tyson's bold claim he could hit 120mph

There was a similar claim from Thommo, about six byes and he bowled at 110mph. But Jofra Archer in this world cup just proved you can do it at 91mph if the pitch is assisting. Most of these are hogwash.

 

[Flem274*]

If the rest of the world has caught up with Bradman, as your comment directly implies, why is no one averaging what he did and piling on the runs in the same merciless fashion?

this misses the point, which was professionalisation makes the quality of players better. we've seen this in every sport that has caught on late to the professional era (like rugby). there's no way in hell larwood and contemporaries don't become much better bowlers relative to their ability back when they actually played if they grew up as kids in the modern era.

people see this as a slight because they don't realise i subscribe to the 'who gives a ****' school of how player a would go in era b. just like it doesn't matter that sehwag and hayden didn't have to meme smash the 80s windies, it doesn't matter that bradman doesn't have to be a modern player. he's still the goat by the length of the australian outback.

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest.

were they though?

Okay, not that fast maybe but him and Adcock still look rapid from footage.

lots of people look and feel rapid, then we get a speed gun on them and we have to go to the heavy ball meme.

as usual cricket is one of the few sports that thinks it's premier code is getting actively worse.

 

[the big bambino]

I suppose you can look at flem's point another way maybe. Think how literacy levels have improved. You'd think an ordinary person in Victorian England would have been better educated and possess more skills if given the opportunities today. Similarly our fortunate lives would look less rosy if we had to live within the constraints of the past.

 

[Spikey]

I've only skimmed this but it doesn't seem like anyone has actually identified why Bradman is Bradman. And that's because Bradman's whole thing is that once he made a start he scored a million ****ing runs. That's it. He failed just as much as the other great players failed, when i looked last i think he failed even more than some great players, but once he got past 20...

they doesn't seem much reason to think he would have lost that talent.

 

[Howe_zat]

I suppose you can look at flem's point another way maybe. Think how literacy levels have improved. You'd think an ordinary person in Victorian England would have been better educated and possess more skills if given the opportunities today. Similarly our fortunate lives would look less rosy if we had to live within the constraints of the past.

It's more like how every athletics record gets broken every so often, or how they have to keep making Augusta harder to stop someone hitting a 60 at the Masters.

If you can measure it against a constant, it's getting better.

In cricket we only ever measure what is being done against other people, so it's staying the same.

 

[mr_mister]

I've only skimmed this but it doesn't seem like anyone has actually identified why Bradman is Bradman. And that's because Bradman's whole thing is that once he made a start he scored a million ****ing runs. That's it. He failed just as much as the other great players failed, when i looked last i think he failed even more than some great players, but once he got past 20...

they doesn't seem much reason to think he would have lost that talent.

Exactly. Seems like a triumph of the will more than anything.

Immense willpower, concentration, discipline not to play rash shots. Could easily have possessed that in 2019 much like Smith seems to have done recently

 

[Bolo]

Nobody is doubting that his mental resolve would take him far, but he will average more or less than he did in hos own time based on how capable he is of dealing with modern bowlers. There is no reason to think he would have averaged exactly the same.

 

[Starfighter]

It's more like how every athletics record gets broken every so often, or how they have to keep making Augusta harder to stop someone hitting a 60 at the Masters.

If you can measure it against a constant, it's getting better.

In cricket we only ever measure what is being done against other people, so it's staying the same.

When it comes to athletic improvement it's debatable it is getting better for fast bowling, at least any noticeable amount. Thomson, Roberts, Lillee etc were measured bowling at the same speeds as modern top end bowlers in 1975 and '76, and it's been sixteen years since Akhtar passed 100 mph and only one bowler who wasn't already playing in 2003 (Starc) has passed 160 km/h. In contrast quite a few athletics records have been improved on multiple times in that time, some significantly. Cricket managed an improvement of only 0.85 km/h between 1975 and 2003, why would there necessarily be an improvement of much greater than that between 1947 and 1975?

 

[Daemon]

When it comes to athletic improvement it's debatable it is getting better for fast bowling, at least any noticeable amount. Thomson, Roberts, Lillee etc were measured bowling at the same speeds as modern top end bowlers in 1975 and '76, and it's been sixteen years since Akhtar passed 100 mph and only one bowler who wasn't already playing in 2003 (Starc) has passed 160 km/h. In contrast quite a few athletics records have been improved on multiple times in that time, some significantly. Cricket managed an improvement of only 0.85 km/h between 1975 and 2003, why would there necessarily be an improvement of much greater than that between 1947 and 1975?

Citation needed

 

[Starfighter]

Citation needed

This has been discussed multiple times on here before.

 

[Daemon]

This has been discussed multiple times on here before.

Any idea where? From my limited knowledge Lillee was recorded at 139kph in that UWA study. Holding was 148kph and Roberts 150kph. Thommo sent one down at 160 though.

But when they used those cameras again in that fastest bowler competition they were all recorded at very average speeds that just didn't seem right.

So I've got no idea whether those numbers can be relied on at all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

When it comes to athletic improvement it's debatable it is getting better for fast bowling, at least any noticeable amount. Thomson, Roberts, Lillee etc were measured bowling at the same speeds as modern top end bowlers in 1975 and '76, and it's been sixteen years since Akhtar passed 100 mph and only one bowler who wasn't already playing in 2003 (Starc) has passed 160 km/h. In contrast quite a few athletics records have been improved on multiple times in that time, some significantly. Cricket managed an improvement of only 0.85 km/h between 1975 and 2003, why would there necessarily be an improvement of much greater than that between 1947 and 1975?

The increased focus on fitness and athleticism on the field wasn't there prior to the mid 70s. It's probably plateaud in the last 20 years for the most part for obvious reasons. Any improvement from hereon out will probably be incremental until we go full deus ex and invent and legalize augmentation.

 

[trundler]

Fielding and catching have improved without a doubt. I wouldn't be surprised by bowling speeds having improved a lot either but it doesn't seem like it. I'm sure power hitting has improved tenfold as well.

 

[trundler]

Any idea where? From my limited knowledge Lillee was recorded at 139kph in that UWA study. Holding was 148kph and Roberts 150kph. Thommo sent one down at 160 though.

But when they used those cameras again in that fastest bowler competition they were all recorded at very average speeds that just didn't seem right.

So I've got no idea whether those numbers can be relied on at all.

That was being measured differently I think. From the batsman's end as opposed to out of the hand if I'm not wrong. I've definitely read about 150 kph balls (from Lee) having slowed down to 120/130 by the time they reached the keeper. That was the Packer competition I believe. Roberts came out faster than Holding and close to 160 IIRC on the WA test.

 

[Migara]

I've only skimmed this but it doesn't seem like anyone has actually identified why Bradman is Bradman. And that's because Bradman's whole thing is that once he made a start he scored a million ****ing runs. That's it. He failed just as much as the other great players failed, when i looked last i think he failed even more than some great players, but once he got past 20...

they doesn't seem much reason to think he would have lost that talent.

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

 

[Migara]

In cricket we only ever measure what is being done against other people, so it's staying the same.

Bowling speeds aren't.