If Bradman played in today's era?

[Burgey]

Certainly agree on the back foot drive comments. Waugh used to play it in his younger days sqaure of the wicket, almost in lieu of an orthodox cut shot, but Tendulkar's probably the only fella I've seen stand up on the back foot and consistently punch fast bowlers down the ground off the back foot - first saw it on Australia's tour of India in 98 iirc. It's a sight to behold. Chappell used to play the shot well too, albeit again, a bit squarer than Sachin.

Edit: I just added Hayden as a very fine tall player in my post above, for Richard's benefit

 

[SJS]

I must add that all that I wrote in the previous post will and does have exceptions but they do not, in my humble opinion, deny the logic and universality of it.

 

[SJS]

Just one more comment on hooking and pulling.

Down the eras, the best pullers have been shorter men and the best hookers have been slightly taller. The shorter men will need to hit the ball in the air more often and may decide to duck unless not faced with fielders in catching position.

The best hookers in the game have been more or less of Hammond's height and the best pullers Bradman's.

THe limit on fielders behind square has made it easier for the competent batsmen (even if short) to hook in the air when height prevents them from keeping the ball down.

What Mohinder Amarnath did to the West Indian bowlers in the mid 70's with his fearless hooking would have resulted in much less spectacular scores for him if pre bodyline laws were in force and we should remember that Mohinder wasn't very short. It was much worse for players like Vishwanath or Gavaskar.

 

[Richard]

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.

On the many occasions I've heard that famous story, it's generally tended to be his room-mate Sam Loxton who was asked to go to Bradman for advice.

 

[social]

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​

With all due respect, that is an entirely different situation

Having experimented unsuccessfully with a spin attack for the previous 2 tests, the WI selected 4 pacemen and doctored the pitch for the decider

Descriptions such as:

"It flew from no more than three yards in front of the batsman, straight at his throat."

and

"It reared almost vertically at great speed and brushed his glove as he took evasive action"

are evidence of the horrible nature of the pitch

As there is no evidence that the wickets used for the bodyline series were other than flat, the bowlers would have to pitch it short to get it up to, say, chest height.

That sort of attack was absolute meat and drink to Richards

Also, have a look at the photo in this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

There are 8 fieldsman (at least) and the wk in this shot

That field would be next to useless for Richards as he rarely fended at short balls

In fact, Richards routinely destroyed bowlers every bit as quick as Larwood on quick wickets during the 70s with 3 men on the fence (2 behind, one in front). Basically, every fast bowler knew that bowling short to him would be a licence to score runs unless used as a surprise tactic.

IMO, Richards would've had far more problems with a Bedser type bowler on a green track than anything served up by bodyline

 

[Richard]

With all due respect, that is an entirely different situation

Having experimented unsuccessfully with a spin attack for the previous 2 tests, the WI selected 4 pacemen and doctored the pitch for the decider

Descriptions such as:

"It flew from no more than three yards in front of the batsman, straight at his throat."

and

"It reared almost vertically at great speed and brushed his glove as he took evasive action"

are evidence of the horrible nature of the pitch

It wasn't doctored - there was no illegal action on the pitch during the course of the match. It was merely prepared to suit the home team to the maximum extent possible. India returned the favour in Hirwani's Match 12 years later, and that was absolutely fair enough too.

As there is no evidence that the wickets used for the bodyline series were other than flat, the bowlers would have to pitch it short to get it up to, say, chest height.

You ARE kidding? Adelaide 1932/33 made Sabina 1976 look like a tea-party. The pitch was utterly horrible. Far worse than Sabina in 1976 was.

And given all of the worst of the Bodyline incidents happened in this match (had it not happened, the rest of the series would not have caused undue consternation), your knowledge of 1932/33 really must be called into question.

 

[social]

It wasn't doctored - there was no illegal action on the pitch during the course of the match. It was merely prepared to suit the home team to the maximum extent possible. India returned the favour in Hirwani's Match 12 years later, and that was absolutely fair enough too.

You ARE kidding? Adelaide 1932/33 made Sabina 1976 look like a tea-party. The pitch was utterly horrible. Far worse than Sabina in 1976 was.

And given all of the worst of the Bodyline incidents happened in this match (had it not happened, the rest of the series would not have caused undue consternation), your knowledge of 1932/33 really must be called into question.

Adelaide????????

It was the venue where bodyline came to a head but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the pitch - Eng scored 340 odd and 400 odd on that minefield

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Adelaide????????

It was the venue where bodyline came to a head but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the pitch - Eng scored 340 odd and 400 odd on that minefield

The pitch had rain fall on it the day before and for a while on the first morning the bowlers got abnormal turn and bounce on it and England struggled. The Aussie attack of one fairly average fast bowler and three spinners was probably not the wisest selection as events progressed.

 

[Briony]

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.

Though the bowlers in those days weren't as physical equipped as they are in contemporary times.

 

[Briony]

Just on the shortness factor. I've heard a scientific analysis before conclude that on average they may have quicker reflexes in terms of picking up length etc. Not sure of the veracity of this. But taller, stronger batsmen seem to be in evidence more in this era than any other and Punter has commented on occasions that he thinks they may eventually dominate due to the emphasis these days on playing big shots.With taller bowlers extracting greater bounce from pitches, they also are advantaged in terms of the hook shot.

 

[archie mac]

Though the bowlers in those days weren't as physical equipped as they are in contemporary times.

Bowes was a very tall man, and Voce was very wide across the chest, and Larwood was the fastest of them all

Your point?

 

[SJS]

On the many occasions I've heard that famous story, it's generally tended to be his room-mate Sam Loxton who was asked to go to Bradman for advice.

Yes it could be Loxton. I have heard Harvey confirm that (advise by the Don) on film.

 

[Ikki]

With regards to shortness: there is a clip on Youtube with Sachin showing how his height had played to his advantage. Shorter levers being one key factor. When your arms/fore-arms are shorter you can flash the blade faster and choose the right stroke quicker.

 

[Migara]

Bradman was known to hit the ball alomg the ground. With Superior fielding of today we can expect fieldsmen to cut off at least 10-15 runs. But even with that, Avg of 84 is truely extrodinary.

The other points that may make Bradman's life difficult in current era are;

#1 - Reverse swing - this was un known in his time, but not an art that could be mastered by batsman. But best strikers of world cricket have been very good swing bowlers. And guys like Waqar and Bond, who use reverse swing very well, have best of the SRs over long periods of time. So I expect fast bowler to bowl few more unplayable deliveries in a match with the old ball than Larwood or Voce.

#2 - Invention of doosra - this elevated finger spinners to wicket taking bowlers once more, after covered wickets offered very little to them.

#3 - Wider variety of pitches and clmatic conditions - Bradman did play in serious heat of Perth, but never played test cricket in gruelling heat of Chennai or Colombo, that saps out most touring players. And Indian dustbowls seems to behave different to their English or Aussie counterparts as well.

#4 - TV replays. We all knaow how O'Riely told Bedser to aim inswingers at Bradman's middle and leg, and the way it came off. With todays computer analysis, Bradman would have not been looked as a demi-god with his tecnique.

#5 - LBW law. The law was such that ball ahd to pitch on stumps to get an LBW in Bradman's time. This made getting LBW's difficult at that time. And as in #1, reverse swing bowlers will get most of their batsman bowled or LBW, and this change of law will become very important in deciding his performance.

This does not mean that Bradman could not master these, but in that long run mastering these type of bowling, there will be more failures too.

 

[archie mac]

Bradman was known to hit the ball alomg the ground. With Superior fielding of today we can expect fieldsmen to cut off at least 10-15 runs. But even with that, Avg of 84 is truely extrodinary.

The other points that may make Bradman's life difficult in current era are;

#1 - Reverse swing - this was un known in his time, but not an art that could be mastered by batsman. But best strikers of world cricket have been very good swing bowlers. And guys like Waqar and Bond, who use reverse swing very well, have best of the SRs over long periods of time. So I expect fast bowler to bowl few more unplayable deliveries in a match with the old ball than Larwood or Voce.

#2 - Invention of doosra - this elevated finger spinners to wicket taking bowlers once more, after covered wickets offered very little to them.

#3 - Wider variety of pitches and clmatic conditions - Bradman did play in serious heat of Perth, but never played test cricket in gruelling heat of Chennai or Colombo, that saps out most touring players. And Indian dustbowls seems to behave different to their English or Aussie counterparts as well.

#4 - TV replays. We all knaow how O'Riely told Bedser to aim inswingers at Bradman's middle and leg, and the way it came off. With todays computer analysis, Bradman would have not been looked as a demi-god with his tecnique.

#5 - LBW law. The law was such that ball ahd to pitch on stumps to get an LBW in Bradman's time. This made getting LBW's difficult at that time. And as in #1, reverse swing bowlers will get most of their batsman bowled or LBW, and this change of law will become very important in deciding his performance.

This does not mean that Bradman could not master these, but in that long run mastering these type of bowling, there will be more failures too.

1=If average Test players of today can survive against it, I have no doubt that the greatest batsman of all time would adapt to this type of bowling. The same thing was said of WG and that he would not be able to handle the wrong-un. Just silly imo

2=The umpires of Bradman's time would have called the bowler, so would not have been a worry, but again the doosra as not worked very well on Aust pitches

3=Bradman was one of the fittest cricketers of his time, with many saying that he looked frest after scoring a double ton, and some of the Aussie batsman coming in would ask him to lay off the quick singles, plus I think most of those dust bowls are often batsman friendly

4=Works both ways, Bradman could view the bowlers on replay as well

5=The law changed in 1937 (from memory), and Bradman's average did not change hardly at all, under the new law. In fact he was still averaging near 100 during the 40s. It suggests that when at his peak (before the war), his average would not have changed

On the other side, Bradman played all of his Test cricket on uncovered pitches, with no protective gear, and in 1948 a new ball was due every 60 overs. Plus with no fielding restrictions, no roped in boundaries, no bats where the ball would go for six even when you miss-timed it, and no back to back Tests which meant that bowlers were not as over bowled.

His average would still be 80+ imo but it is fun to try and surmise what would happen do the Don in the modern era

 

[morgieb]

Had he made his debut in 2001, he wouldn't have an average

 

[SJS]

The whole point of showing a players dominance factor over his contemporaries is to show that he was a superior sportsman BY FAR in those times in those conditions. There is no reason to believe that the changes that take place in the game in a different era would not be equally well adapted to by the greats of one era in the other.

Thus Bradman in today's times would have overcome the different conditions in so far as they make batting more difficult while also benefitted from the advantages that better equipment/conditione stc provide.

Similarly a Tendulkar or a Lara born in, say, WG's time would have been greats under those conditions becuse those are the conditions they would have been brought up under.

To say that Bradman would have been less successful in the 21st century is as silly as saying he would have been less successful in the 19th !

By this argument almost all greats can be shown to be great only in their own times and less successful in all others. This is argument devoid of rational thinking since it denies the basic fact that a great athlete is a great athlete and his style and adaption to the conditions of the times is purely incidental and automatic.

 

[Athlai]

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

 

[SJS]

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

Of course you cant put transport him to modern times on a time machine and not expect him to feel the difference but the same would apply to modern players taken back in time. Thats just the point we have ben trying to make from the beginning. You can only compare a player with his contemporaries who played under similar conditions, laws etc etc. Then how dominant they were in their times can be compared with how dominant players of other eras were in THEIR OWN times.

It is ridiculous to say Bradman would have been less of a player in these times for there is no way to compare him with those brought up in completely different eras. The same applies to players down the different eras. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that a Lara or a Tendulkar will not be dominant in other eras if they were BORN THEN.

 

[SJS]

Yet the Bradman of today's times would need to be better than the Bradman of those times, he simply couldn't be put into a time machine to the start of a modern Test match and asked to score a 100 from the word go. If we were to suppose that he had in fact adapted to the modern game while still performing to the same level we make a different argument as that Bradman is not the same one that played in his own time.

I am not so sure about that "better" bit. That is completely arbitrary. Better or worse, he would have to be different for he would have been brought up on a diet of different wickets, bowlers, with helmets, better gloves and leg-guards, different set of laws, etc etc.

Anyone who suggests that everything about today's cricket is tougher on the batsmen of the day needs to take some lessons on the evolution of the game.