If Bradman played in today's era?

[Richard]

Awesome post, naturally, just one little thing...

Hence we have some laughable comments. One such, if I may please be excused dear Weldon, is A bit like Viv Richards and Sachin I would say

TBF, I think that comment meant "Richards and Tendulkar's careers crossed over as Hobbs and Bradman's did".

 

[SJS]

Awesome post, naturally, just one little thing...

TBF, I think that comment meant "Richards and Tendulkar's careers crossed over as Hobbs and Bradman's did".

Oh I am so sorry. I must rectify that bit.

 

[weldone]

Oh I am so sorry. I must rectify that bit.

You changed it before I saw it... Otherwise I would've been very angry with you indeed ... By the way, quality post...

 

[SJS]

You changed it before I saw it... Otherwise I would've been very angry with you indeed ... By the way, quality post...

I am really sorry mate. This comes from just running through threads without reading all the posts.

 

[Jnr.]

[]

Bradman would be dire in today's era. He'd have to face the might of Irfan Pathan and the vicious spin of Virender Sehwag.

[/]

 

[weldone]

I am really sorry mate. This comes from just running through threads without reading all the posts.

Essentially what your post says I tried to convey (though not so elaborately and concludingly) in one of my posts on page 1 of this thread ... That the batting statistics of his contemporaries were similar to those of today's batsmen ...

 

[SJS]

[]

Bradman would be dire in today's era. He'd have to face the might of Irfan Pathan and the vicious spin of Virender Sehwag.

[/]

Not to forget the mental disintegration caused by S 'Rottweiler' Sreesanth

 

[Craig]

[]

Bradman would be dire in today's era. He'd have to face the might of Irfan Pathan and the vicious spin of Virender Sehwag.

[/]

Or Ishant Sharma

 

[neville cardus]

Exactly half of Bradman's 52 Tests were timeless games, apparently. UIMM, all pre-WWII international games in Australia were timeless

It is worth noting that the first Twentieth-Century draw in Australia came during Hammond's ill-fated swansong. That was 1946/47.

 

[Migara]

Would have masterd every bowler. Murali and Warne would have troubled him to a noticable degree, probably Kumble and Saqlain here and there. But could not tink what would a bowler like McGrath would have done by boring him down. And Malcolm Marshall would definietly have had his days against him.

 

[neville cardus]

Two questions, SJS:

1. Did you get the books I sent you?
2. Could you do a similar analysis of W.G.'s first-class career from its beginning to the end of the 1870s?

 

[Richard]

Would have masterd every bowler. Murali and Warne would have troubled him to a noticable degree, probably Kumble and Saqlain here and there. But could not tink what would a bowler like McGrath would have done by boring him down. And Malcolm Marshall would definietly have had his days against him.

Indeed, even the greatest batsmen will be brought down by the best bowlers from time to time. I think Marshall's bowling-average would be likely to go up a bit more than Bradman's batting-average would go down, however.

Worth remembering, though, that Bradman fairly destroyed Larwood in 1930, and had Larwood had a fair crack of the whip he could very possibly have been one of England's greatest Test bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Could you do a similar analysis of W.G.'s first-class career from its beginning to the end of the 1870s?

Something I have long wanted to see. How easy it would be I don't know, but I assure you, such an analysis would be something indeed.

 

[Migara]

Indeed, even the greatest batsmen will be brought down by the best bowlers from time to time. I think Marshall's bowling-average would be likely to go up a bit more than Bradman's batting-average would go down, however.

Worth remembering, though, that Bradman fairly destroyed Larwood in 1930, and had Larwood had a fair crack of the whip he could very possibly have been one of England's greatest Test bowlers.

We all know that Marshall was a complete bowler. Marshall was the quickest among WI pacies (exception being Patrick Patterson, who had a liking to the opposition batsmen's skulls), possibly quicker than Larwood, and much more crafty operator than Larwood as seen by his performance on Indian wickets. I would thing even for Bradman it would be hard to destroy him time and time out.

As for the Murali / Warne situation, Bradman would have never played two spinners of this quality in his opposition. The nearest would be Headly Verity (who did reasonably well against him), but Verity cannot be classed with Murali and Warne as a spin legend. So I would expect him to be troubled by these two often than from pace bowlers,.

 

[SJS]

Two questions, SJS:

1. Did you get the books I sent you?
2. Could you do a similar analysis of W.G.'s first-class career from its beginning to the end of the 1870s?

- Yes I got your mails Thanks
- and yes I can do it for WG's career but it will take a bit of time since first class figures are not available is this format as easily as for tests

 

[SJS]

Indeed, even the greatest batsmen will be brought down by the best bowlers from time to time. I think Marshall's bowling-average would be likely to go up a bit more than Bradman's batting-average would go down, however.

Worth remembering, though, that Bradman fairly destroyed Larwood in 1930, and had Larwood had a fair crack of the whip he could very possibly have been one of England's greatest Test bowlers.

Larwood probably WAS England's greatest fast bowler.

 

[Ikki]

Larwood probably WAS England's greatest fast bowler.

According to Richard, he is not even in contention. Richard has already made his feelings clear on that:

Harold Larwood has only taken 78 wickets in his whole career. To suggest he'd need 20 just against S.Africa just to qualify to compare is ********. Next you will tell me he wasn't one of England's all-time best.

Not in Tests, no, he wasn't. Only in domestic cricket is Larwood one of England's best.

 

[SJS]

According to Richard, he is not even in contention. Richard has already made his feelings clear on that:

Why is what Richard's think so important ??

 

[andruid]

Why is what Richard's think so important ??

Cos Richard runs this little cake stand and if has an opinion on eveything


On a more serious note Richard pinion now matter how agreeable or unagreeable tends to come with a reasonably based argument based on facts. Hence his high gredibility. Back on topic please...

 

[Ikki]

Why is what Richard's think so important ??

No, it's really not important to me what Richard thinks, as it's usually so off-base that it makes little sense. In essence, I am agreeing with you and disagreeing with him.

You're making a statement to Richard, when if you were reading the other thread, that by your own reckoning was a waste of time, you'd know what Richard thought.