If Bradman played in today's era?

[Briony]

Another salient point is that his average dropped dramatically during Bodyline and the batsmen complained about it because batting was actually tough. How would he have fared against Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts et al?

 

[DaRick]

Another salient point is that his average dropped dramatically during Bodyline and the batsmen complained about it because batting was actually tough. How would he have fared against Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts et al?

His average dropped to 56. By any one else's standards, that's an excellent series.

BTW, Bodyline in 1932/33 would have been potentially life-threatening, not just 'tough', given the lack of protective equipment. (By today's standards, Bodyline would have been relatively benign, obviously.)

As for your final question, we'll never know the answer.

 

[DaRick]

But I dont think his average is any lower in non-timeless Tests. Plus, his scoring rate has been estimated at around 60, which is right up there with Ponting.

I cannot find a feature on StatsGuru which ignores Timeless tests, unfortunately. So I cannot confirm this, either way.

 

[GotSpin]

I think there are three things which might lower his average.

1. the much greater quality of fielding


2. bowlers who are tall and can extract bounce from the pitch. Bradman was vertically challenged.

and

3. Scientific captaincy. In those days captains tended to move the fieldsmen where the last boundary went. I've read a lot of books on that era and this is commented on ad nauseam. Today with computer analysis, there would be much greater probing of a key batsman's weaknesses.

If you ever read a description of all his innings, it's amazing how often he was dropped. Sometimes more than once. And fieldsmen in those days didn't dive for the ball so you would find he would score slower today with fielders able to cut off boundaries.

If you look at the old tapes, there seemed to be a lot of pie chuckers from that era. And they all seemed to be under six feet.

Not a fan of any of these reasons. As someone mentioned before, Bradman has been greatly recognised for hitting the ball along the carpet and finding gaps.

 

[GotSpin]

Another salient point is that his average dropped dramatically during Bodyline and the batsmen complained about it because batting was actually tough. How would he have fared against Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts et al?

Slight problem of getting your head cracked open if you made a slight mistake. Maybe you can't appreciate the difficult experience by batsmen during the bodyline series and the impending danger that they always faced.

 

[andruid]

Doesn't this board already believe that Steve Tikolo is greater than Don Bradman

 

[Richard]

I think there are three things which might lower his average.

1. the much greater quality of fielding


2. bowlers who are tall and can extract bounce from the pitch. Bradman was vertically challenged.

and

3. Scientific captaincy. In those days captains tended to move the fieldsmen where the last boundary went. I've read a lot of books on that era and this is commented on ad nauseam. Today with computer analysis, there would be much greater probing of a key batsman's weaknesses.

If you ever read a description of all his innings, it's amazing how often he was dropped. Sometimes more than once. And fieldsmen in those days didn't dive for the ball so you would find he would score slower today with fielders able to cut off boundaries.

If you look at the old tapes, there seemed to be a lot of pie chuckers from that era. And they all seemed to be under six feet.

Another salient point is that his average dropped dramatically during Bodyline and the batsmen complained about it because batting was actually tough. How would he have fared against Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts et al?

There'll seem to be a lot of pie-chuckers from any era if you look at certain tapes only. Personally I've never read of a remarkable amount of dropped catches in Bradman innings, and I do tend to undertake a fair amount of look at those sorts of things.

As I've said before about computer analysis, it can help batsmen as well as bowlers.

As regards comparing Larwood and Voce to Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft, considerable difference in that they weren't permitted a ring leg-side field. That was what made Bodyline so difficult. Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries; bowling them, with the accuracy of those two, to such fields is an entirely different kettle-of-fish.

 

[social]

There'll seem to be a lot of pie-chuckers from any era if you look at certain tapes only. Personally I've never read of a remarkable amount of dropped catches in Bradman innings, and I do tend to undertake a fair amount of look at those sorts of things.

As I've said before about computer analysis, it can help batsmen as well as bowlers.

As regards comparing Larwood and Voce to Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft, considerable difference in that they weren't permitted a ring leg-side field. That was what made Bodyline so difficult. Any fool can bowl a few short deliveries; bowling them, with the accuracy of those two, to such fields is an entirely different kettle-of-fish.

Fortunately, very few fools can bowl at 90 mph - Voce was fast medium at best

Tapes of the Bodyline series don't reflect well on either side.

English tactics stretched the letter of the law whilst the Aussies were pretty pathetic at dealing with short-pitched bowling, whatever the field.

IMO, IVA would've destroyed the strategy within 1 test

At least Bradman admitted that he never faced an attack like the Windies and his average would've dropped - for that admission you have to give him credit

 

[Richard]

Fortunately, very few fools can bowl at 90 mph - Voce was fast medium at best

Tapes of the Bodyline series don't reflect well on either side.

English tactics stretched the letter of the law whilst the Aussies were pretty pathetic at dealing with short-pitched bowling, whatever the field.

IMO, IVA would've destroyed the strategy within 1 test

Neither Vivian Richards nor anyone else would have had a prayer against bowlers of that calibre (regardless of speed - and while estimation is a fool's game Voce's pace seems likeliest to have been that of a Darren Gough or Dale Steyn, Larwood's that of a Shoaib Akhtar or Allan Donald) with those fields.

It was totally unfair (as well as dangerous in those days) and hence was stopped.

At least Bradman admitted that he never faced an attack like the Windies and his average would've dropped - for that admission you have to give him credit

Anyone's average would've dropped against that attack, it's one of if not the finest in history.

 

[social]

Neither Vivian Richards nor anyone else would have had a prayer against bowlers of that calibre (regardless of speed - and while estimation is a fool's game Voce's pace seems likeliest to have been that of a Darren Gough or Dale Steyn, Larwood's that of a Shoaib Akhtar or Allan Donald) with those fields.

It was totally unfair (as well as dangerous in those days) and hence was stopped.

Anyone's average would've dropped against that attack, it's one of if not the finest in history.

Let's get real for a moment

Anyone with half a brain would've looked at the fields and not played a shot because it was all crap not going anywhere near the stumps - isnt that you're strategy?

Imagine McGrath (Voce) bowling bouncer after bouncer at Gavaskar (Bradman) with a stacked leg side field - he'd be leaving everything and laughing at the fast bowler for wasting his effort whilst thanking McGrath (Voce) for removing the best weapons from his arsenal and totally wasting the new ball

In the meantime, Viv would've pasted those bowlers

For mine, as much as anything, bodyline is evidence of how much the game has changed

 

[Richard]

If you honestly think leaving or pasting such bowling ball after ball would be possible never mind easy there's no point discussing this matter further with you. You clearly don't have a clue what it involved, as well as an inflated idea of the capabilities of the likes of Richards and Gavaskar.

Voce was almost certainly quicker than the speed McGrath bowled most of his career, of course.

 

[archie mac]

Another salient point is that his average dropped dramatically during Bodyline and the batsmen complained about it because batting was actually tough. How would he have fared against Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts et al?

Now this is what the ban feature should be used for; voting this way on a poll


Anyway welcome to the forum

 

[SJS]

Let's get real for a moment

Anyone with half a brain would've looked at the fields and not played a shot because it was all crap not going anywhere near the stumps - isnt that you're strategy?

Imagine McGrath (Voce) bowling bouncer after bouncer at Gavaskar (Bradman) with a stacked leg side field - he'd be leaving everything and laughing at the fast bowler for wasting his effort whilst thanking McGrath (Voce) for removing the best weapons from his arsenal and totally wasting the new ball

In the meantime, Viv would've pasted those bowlers

For mine, as much as anything, bodyline is evidence of how much the game has changed

....and for me this is evidence how little many of us understand what a sustained leg stump attack by a deadly accurate fast bowler with an unlimited legside field can do to a batsman irrespective of how great the batsman at the crease was.

 

[Burgey]

....and for me this is evidence how little many of us understand what a sustained leg stump attack by a deadly accurate fast bowler with an unlimited legside field can do to a batsman irrespective of how great the batsman at the crease was.

AWTA.

Some people play fast bowling better than others, but I don;t know anyone who really, really ENJOYS (as opposed to coping well with) the short stuff when it's bowled on a consistent, accurate basis.

 

[SJS]

THIS is what sustained short pitched bowling by fast bowlers can do.

The opening batsman as the second innings score card shows below was that master at leaving the ball - The original little master.

[B]India  (2nd Innings)              	 R	 [/B]

[B]S M Gavaskar	 c Julien b Holding	 2[/B]	  	  
D B Vengsarkar	 lbw b Jumadeen        	 21	  	  
M Amarnath	 st Murray b Jumadeen	 60	  	  
S Madan Lal	 b Holding               8	  	  
S Venkat	 b Holding               0  	  	  
Kirmani (k)	 not out                 0	  	  
B S Bedi (c)	 [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]absent hurt[/B][/COLOR]	  	  	  	  
B S Chandra	 [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]absent hurt[/B][/COLOR]	  	  	  	  
B P Patel	 [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]absent hurt[/COLOR][/B]	  	  	  	  
G R Viswanath	 [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]absent hurt[/B][/COLOR]	  	  	  	  
A D Gaekwad	 [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]absent hurt[/B][/COLOR]	  	  	  	  
Extras	 (nb 6)	 6	  
[B]Total	 All Out	 97	[/B]  
 	 26.2 overs @ 3.68 rpo

and this was without the HUGE, and later deemed unfair, advantage that this field would have given.

and this is what the valiant' Indians thought of it.

A Test traumatisingly surrendered by India inside four days. With a plaster-cast from forearm to finger ended up G.R. Visvanath here. An even more frightening casualty look wore Aunshuman Gaekwad - ear-struck and thunderstruck. Brijesh Patel had three Kingston stitches in his stiff upper lip to show for his audacity in having matched super centurion Visvanath stroke for stroke while hitting India to 6-wicket win in the preceding third (Port of Spain) Test.​

"The West Indies' tactics in this (Sabina Park) Test were not part of the game. They were a deliberate effort to subdue us. When I lost the toss and we were put in on a lively wicket, I knew we had little hope. Still Sunil, Aunshuman and Mohinder displayed great courage on the first day. None of them flinched from the fast bowling. But there is a limit to courage when you are facing bowling at 90 mph. A lot of human beings would have conked out. I gave the umpires (Ralph Gosein and Douglas Sang Hue) a piece of my mind. It became so painful to watch that I had to make the disgusting gesture of declaring in a six-day Test."​

- Bishen Bedi the Indian captain who ended India's innings twice in that test when trailing far behind Windies.​

It was against such a backdrop that I asked Sunil, once he was back in India: "That head-hunting beamer we saw you barely manage to evade at Sabina Park in DD's Samachar highlights, how did it feel to measure up to it from Holding?" "Which beamer?" Sunil slyly sought to know, his tone making it obvious that beamers made no one beam. "There were so many of them bowled at us. Both Holding and Daniel bowled them regularly. Their technique was simple - mix a beamer with two-three bouncers in an over. Then, having shaken the batsman's confidence, produce a fast straight yorker to go through his defence. I did ask wicket-keeper Deryck Murray why they were still after me when they had virtually won that Sabina Park decider with three of our key men injured. Deryck said he had spoken to Clive about it, but they had simply been asked to turn their eyes away if they did not want to look!"​

- Gavaskar when interviewed on return to India​

"Holding especially was a frightening proposition, bowling at great pace and persistently threatening the batsman's life and limb with disconcerting lift. He removed Mohinder Amarnath (39) off his fifth delivery with the second new ball. It flew from no more than three yards in front of the batsman, straight at his throat. All Mohinder could do was involuntarily to put up the bat as a means of self-protection and Julien at backward short-leg held the catch. Visvanath filled the breach and was greeted with one of the wickedest bouncers of the series. It reared almost vertically at great speed and brushed his glove as he took evasive action, crashing into the boundary before wicket-keeper Murray could get close to it. Encouraged by the response he was getting, Holding repeatedly dug the ball in and it consistently rose chest high or more, three and four times an over. If the batsmen were not bobbing and weaving to avoid the ball, they were standing up on their toes to keep it down. Very rarely could they come forward. Eleven runs after Amarnath's departure, Visvanath (8) went in identical fashion. Holding hit the offending area of the (Sabina Park) pitch, the ball flew and Visvanath, scrambling to protect his rib-cage, fended it off to Julien. Gaekwad, battling through with great courage, suffered at least three blows on the fingers and, at other times, just narrowly avoided being struck. Yet he kept going until he received one from which there was no escape. It landed against his left ear. Throughout his career, Gaekwad (81 - retired hurt) will shudder every time he recalls how close he came to being hit on the temple."​

​

- Tony Cozier in his despatch of the match​

 

[Isura]

I can understand the Sachin part of the mix but McCullum?? Bradman was notorious for hitting the ball along the ground and finding the gaps, McCullum just goes out there and smashes the daylights out of it!

Well, I don't quite agree. I've heard he scored many runs on the legside, similar to McCullum. And McCullum has very attacking and quick footwork

 

[silentstriker]

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where to get Bradman film footage? I have a picture in my mind of how him batting would look. Something of a mix of Brendan McCullum and Sachin.

He really looks like neither:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK_l5PqfA

 

[SJS]

Well, I don't quite agree. I've heard he scored many runs on the legside, similar to McCullum. And McCullum has very attacking and quick footwork

Just a bit on the similarity with McCullum in general and Bradman's technique in particular

There is one big big difference, he hardly ever hit the ball in the air. The number of sixes he hit in his career for a batsman who scored so many runs at his pace, is shockingly few.

The most telling commentary on what he thought of hitting the ball in the air comes from a young Neil Harvey, on his debut tour to England in 1948, asking one of the accompanying scribes (I think Mailey), to ask Bradman for one solitary guiding piece of advise. (How much he was in awe of Bradman is clear from his hecitation to contact his skipper directly on this)

Bradman's advise is shockingly brilliant in its simplicity and the power of its eternal relevance.

"Tell the young man that if you do not hit the ball in the air, you will never get out caught." or words to that effect.

No. he wasn't a Brendon McCullum.

What Bradman was, however, is that he was the greatest and quickest judge of the length of the ball bowled. This is what gave him such a massive advantage over his peers as well as all those others in history.

I remember my coach telling me that the problem with the good length ball is not that it cant be hit for runs, the problem is it takes slightly longer to make up your mind whether to play forward or back - and that fraction of a second is vital.

Bradman was a fraction of a second faster then everyone else.

And his preferred batting style was to play back if he could. Hence, having judged the length of the good length ball, (which really is nothing but slightly shorter than the drivable length depending upon the particular batsman's reach), he moved quickly back and across and pulled ferociously in the area between mid-wicket and square leg.

It was very different from what the great batsmen had done till then and hence the 'screwing' of the nose by the 'puritans' AND the cries of , let him come to England and we will see how he does this. But he was too good.

Of course, it meant that if the bounce was not true, he was more susceptible than someone like Jack Hobbs with his equally infallible judgement but a straighter bat. Hence the outcry that Hobbs was a better batsman than Bradman on sticky (read bad) wickets. Which was true but not relevant for Bradman, who modelled his batting on the kind of surfaces he would play on, the vast majority of which were not having terribly uneven bounce or 'sticky'.

There can be absolutely no doubt that if Bradman was born in an era of poorer wicket quality, lets say like in WG's twenties, he would have adjusted his batting technique for those conditions becuase thats exactly what he had done in his own time. Yes his average, had he been born in the 3rd quarter of the 19th century not been in the 90's but then so would the average of batsmen around the world not been 31 - more like 16-18.
Bradman with an average, presumably in the high 50's or low sixties would have been as dominant a player in WG's era as he was in his own with an average almost in three figures.

 

[Burgey]

SJS, I was at a presentation on Saturday night and Young Phillip Highes, just turned 19, from the NSW side was there.

And this fellow, who scored116 in the Pura Cup final at 18 years old, is a short fellow - around 5 feet 6 or 7 inches.

Which got us to discussing how it seems that a large number of really great batsmen are on the short side. I wonder whether being shorter in stature somehow assists players in reading the length of the ball, as opposed to the taller fellas.

Of course, there have been some great tall players - G Chappell, G Pollock, I think Hammond was a big man, as was Grace (at least for his time), Clive Lloyd, Hayden, Vengsakar iirc was quite tall as well. But it seems the majority of the really fine players are shorter fellows. For example - Bradman, Vishy, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Greenidge, Haynes, Harvey, S Waugh, Border, Richards, Javed, Anwar to name but a few (and not exclusively by any means) were - if not short, then no more than average height it seems.

Do you think it's just a coincidence? I haven't heard of there being any studies done as to why that might be the case, but I'd be interested to know if there is any science on the subject.

 

[SJS]

SJS, I was at a presentation on Saturday night and Young Phillip Highes, just turned 19, from the NSW side was there.

And this fellow, who scored116 in the Pura Cup final at 18 years old, is a short fellow - around 5 feet 6 or 7 inches.

Which got us to discussing how it seems that a large number of really great batsmen are on the short side. I wonder whether being shorter in stature somehow assists players in reading the length of the ball, as opposed to the taller fellas.

Of course, there have been some great tall players - G Chappell, G Pollock, I think Hammond was a big man, as was Grace (at least for his time), Clive Lloyd, Vengsakar iirc was quite tall as well. But it seems the majority of the really fine players are shorter fellows. For example - Bradman, Vishy, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Greenidge, Haynes, Harvey, S Waugh, Border, Richards, Javed, Anwar to name but a few (and not exclusively by any means) were - if not short, then no more than average height it seems.

Do you think it's just a coincidence? I haven't heard of there being any studies done as to why that might be the case, but I'd be interested to know if there is any science on the subject.

Thats a very interesting point and discussed often amongst cricket enthusiasts.

My point of view is

Yes it is an advantage to be of medium height as a batsman.

I think it has to do with lower centre of gravity to start with which gives you more stability and better balance. If stretched this should mean that a dwarf would make a great batsman but thats not the case because there is a trade off because of the height from which the ball is delivered. The batsman has to look up at the bowler's hand and from there follow the ball over its flight path. This becomes more difficult as you get too short.

The shorter batsmen also find it easier to play of the backfoot than the taller ones. This seems to find disagreement with some who feel that a taller player can play the short rising ball like a bouncer much better. However, this view is erroneous for

• Short pitched bowling and backfoot play is not all about high bouncers, its is much more to do with dealing with a slightly short of a length delivery.
• Even bouncers need as much skills, if not more, in the ability to leave the ball alone/get out of the way, as much as in hooking it. Here being of moderate height helps.

I think a shorter batsman is even more steady of the backfoot because here a batsman is standing almost at full height. While on the front foot, while say, driving to covers, a tall batsman can get lower because of the stride of the front foot, the closeness of fet and the full standing stance of backfoot play makes a shorter batsman even better balanced when playing off the backfoot.

Yes it makes it a bit more difficult to keep the cuts and hooks down (and even in backfoot defensive play) if the ball is too high because of physical limitaions but here the batsman's skils in being able to decide which ball to leave and which to hit (field placements) comes to the fore.

The fact is that except for the yorker, which has become a bigger weapon today because of limited overs, the bowlers do prefer to keep the ball slightly short of a length. This gives the batsmen a choice of walking down the track and meeting the ball on the half-volley. or laying back and hitting it of the backfot. (WE are only talking of an aggressive response here).

The taller batsmen will "generally" prefer the first option and the shorter one the second. We are only talking of absolutely the best batsmen here. The second or backfoot play is safer (provided everywhere even if not mentioned that the batsman is a good judge of line and length) because he sees the ball till later, is more prepared for the movement of the wicket, has a much wider choice os where to hit the ball.

Hence the old truism that the greatest batsmen are those who are very good backfoot players.

Look at the taller players and you can see pictures in your mind of them driving to straight field off the front foot and to the on side and even to extra cover. The shorter batsmen bring pictures of the square of the wicket (upto 45 degrees in front of the wicket) play off the backfoot and drives to covers and square.

Finally there is the most beautiful shot in the game, the correctly played backfoot drive with a straight bat and left elbow high in the air. It is not just a most beautiful stroke to watch but also one of the safest in the game once mastered and played with ease by the great tall batsmen (Hammond and Sobers come immediately to mind) and the not so tall (Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara).

I think this is one backfoot shot where the taller batsmen are at an advantage since they can (as I have seen with Sobers and Salim Durrani) even drive near bouncers with a straight bat to covers. But then one sees a great short batsman sometimes go back to a near yorker, take it on the half volley off the backfoot and drive it gloriously. But that is rare as is great backfoot driving by taller batsmen.