Sir Donald Bradman

[smash84]

Huh. Interesting way too look at it I suppose.

But fast medium > medium fast is always how it's been. Cricket is just really dumb sometimes.

I think I asked this question a while back and I recall either Watson or Red Hill answering me that medium fast is faster than fast medium. Otherwise I used to think the same as you do that fast medium is quicker than medium fast. Need someone like a Vic orthodox to confirm.

 

[smash84]

Perfectly straight forward. Slightly slower than fast is obviously quicker than slighter faster than medium.

 

[a massive zebra]

Smalishah, you're wrong. In cricket terminology, fast medium has always traditionally been considered as quicker than medium fast.

Fast medium – Sometimes used interchangeably with medium fast, this refers to bowlers between 80 and 87 miles per hour on average.
Medium fast – Slower still, this is for bowlers who check in at between 70 and 79 miles per hour on average.

Commonly the terminology is related to bowling speeds. Right arm Fast medium falls under 130-141 Km/hr whereas right arm medium fast falls under 120-129 Km/hr.

 

[GotSpin]

Here'a another thought experiment....

Bradman played in one Bodyline series at home and averaged 56. If his career had mimicked Allan Border's then he would have played in seven of them against the West Indies both home and away.


Was Marshall that much less intimidatory than Larwood? Not really...



https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...6cac663f5?sv=7ffa5393ba577efcc043e77b17e8925c

I like how you basically haven't read anything else in this thread regarding bodyline discussion

 

[Burgey]

145 isn't particularly fast. 150+ is. Even Siddle used to hit 150+ on occasion but settled down to 130-135 later in his career.

Even if most bowlers were only bowling 130-135 on average, that's still enough to trouble top batsmen when the ball is in the right areas. In fact I've heard that 130-135 is the optimal speed for conventional swing - any faster and the ball doesn't tend to swing as much and any slower and it becomes too easy to pick up. The other thing to consider is that batsmen in Bradman's day were using bats that were awful and protective gear that might as well have been paper. If bowlers were on average 5kph slower, that was offset by the terrible bat technology.

145 not fast? Theee aren't that many blokes bowling that fast on a consistent basis today. It's rapid

 

[smash84]

Smalishah, you're wrong. In cricket terminology, fast medium has always traditionally been considered as quicker than medium fast.

Fast medium – Sometimes used interchangeably with medium fast, this refers to bowlers between 80 and 87 miles per hour on average.
Medium fast – Slower still, this is for bowlers who check in at between 70 and 79 miles per hour on average.

Commonly the terminology is related to bowling speeds. Right arm Fast medium falls under 130-141 Km/hr whereas right arm medium fast falls under 120-129 Km/hr.

Fair enough, i was mislead by someone on here. I should dig up that post. Cbf looking it up.

 

[watson]

I like how you basically haven't read anything else in this thread regarding bodyline discussion

Tell me honestly whether you think Bradman played the following short ball from Larwood very well. Sure he had a go at the English attack, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a weakness for the likes of Larwood, Marshall, Holding, Imran, Donald, or even John Snow to exploit.

I tend to believe Herbert Sutcliffe on this one.

 

[watson]

And here is Allan Border getting out out exactly the same way as Bradman except that Logie had to dive a bit to take the catch and Gubby Allan just had to stand there.

Border had seven series of this stuff with Holding, Garner, Croft, Roberts or Ambrose down the other end - no offence to Voce or Bowes intended.

Like a said before, Bradman was a product of Bradman's time not Border's

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but does that ball mean Border couldn't play the short ball? Neither does the ball from Larwood to Bradman.

 

[watson]

Yeah but does that ball mean Border couldn't play the short ball? Neither does the ball from Larwood to Bradman.

Yes and no.

That's why his average was 39 against the Windies - a significant reduction on his overall average of 50 something.

I see no compelling reason why Bradman's average wouldn't suffer a similar reduction if his career mimicked Border's. Take a look at that 'soft' dismissal off Larwood again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Here'a another thought experiment....

Bradman played in one Bodyline series at home and averaged 56. If his career had mimicked Allan Border's then he would have played in seven of them against the West Indies both home and away.


Was Marshall that much less intimidatory than Larwood? Not really...



https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...43e77b17e8925c

No he wouldn't . . . he would have played 0 of them because the tactics were already outlawed and the rules changed so that they couldn't have a whole bunch of fielders behind square. Also protective gear was invented.

really not sure where you're going with this

 

[Red]

Nobody has said otherwise, stop stroking yourself off.

This thread started life as a discussion about Bradman and once again it's gone from anything that might have been interesting about him to a bunch of people agreeing with each other over and over again to defeat posters who aren't here.

No idea why you are so aggressive toward me, but meh. Whatever.

TestMatch and Chrish were alleging things that suggested that Bradman wasn't so good and the bowlers back then weren't quick etc.

Sorry that my response provoked such a big response from you.

 

[stephen]

Interestingly in that video, Larwood had a beautiful action but another bowler (Voce I think) had a very slingy Thompsonesque action. I've always associated that kind of action with faster bowling.

Geez Larwood had a beautiful action.

 

[watson]

No he wouldn't . . . he would have played 0 of them because the tactics were already outlawed and the rules changed so that they couldn't have a whole bunch of fielders behind square. Also protective gear was invented.

really not sure where you're going with this

Just pointing out that extrapolation is very difficult when dealing with fast bowling attacks that are unprecedented.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just pointing out that extrapolation is very difficult when dealing with fast bowling attacks that are unprecedented.

That's fair, don't see the relevance to the thread at all, but fair

 

[watson]

That's fair, don't see the relevance to the thread at all, but fair

The assertion made in this thread (a few pages back), and just about every other Bradman thread, is that his success during the 1930s can be readily translated (duplicated) to other decades. Rightly or wrongly, I just don't see it. But then again, I don't see a lot of things that other people find obvious.

 

[Burgey]

I think it's the stuff you see which no one else does that concerns a lot of people tbh

 

[Burgey]

Yes and no.

That's why his average was 39 against the Windies - a significant reduction on his overall average of 50 something.

I see no compelling reason why Bradman's average wouldn't suffer a similar reduction if his career mimicked Border's. Take a look at that 'soft' dismissal off Larwood again.

He averaged 39 against them because they always had at least two, and often more, great bowlers. He probably also had one series too many against them tbh,

 

[Victor Ian]

Yes and no.

That's why his average was 39 against the Windies - a significant reduction on his overall average of 50 something.

I see no compelling reason why Bradman's average wouldn't suffer a similar reduction if his career mimicked Border's. Take a look at that 'soft' dismissal off Larwood again.

But Bradman DID suffer a significant average reduction playing against the English attack, in comparison to the others, and that was the result of them using a far more dangerous method of attack than the Windies ever did.

Extrapolate this. Bradman, modern pads, modern helmet, modern bat, reads line and length quicker than contemporaries and never plays on a sticky, and is in great health with modern medicine. Windies 4 fast bowlers can't hurry Bradman into error like the rest. If Bradman were to have faced a 4 man pace barrage it's very likely that the first ball he blocked in his last test would have raced to the boundary for 4.

 

[stephen]

But Bradman DID suffer a significant average reduction playing against the English attack, in comparison to the others, and that was the result of them using a far more dangerous method of attack than the Windies ever did.

Extrapolate this. Bradman, modern pads, modern helmet, modern bat, reads line and length quicker than contemporaries and never plays on a sticky, and is in great health with modern medicine. Windies 4 fast bowlers can't hurry Bradman into error like the rest. If Bradman were to have faced a 4 man pace barrage it's very likely that the first ball he blocked in his last test would have raced to the boundary for 4.

If I had a time machine and could abduct a 1930s Bradman and a 1980s West Indies attack and get them to play in a ten test series I totally would.