If Bradman played in today's era?

[Son Of Coco]

Pitches are flat, bowling mostly poor, just like the 1930s, at the current time. There are also other things which help batsmen more, though.

Therefore it really makes sense to suggest he'd have done better in very recent times, though probably a little (and not much more than that) well in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc.

More cricket - favours batsmen
Better bowlers - not a chance IMO
Better ways of finding weaknesses and exploiting them - works both ways
Different conditions - probably less variation in conditions at the current time than there has ever been in cricket history
Different styles of different teams - so?
Greater media and public criticism - those sound of mind are not overtly bothered by this. Look at Sachin Tendulkar.

Were the pitches flat in the 30's? I thought they were uncovered.

 

[Richard]

They were. And so if it rained, they were quite a bit worse than those these days.

But if it didn't, they were pretty similar.

 

[Son Of Coco]

They were. And so if it rained, they were quite a bit worse than those these days.

But if it didn't, they were pretty similar.

Flat, dry and well kept? I can't find anything that suggest otherwise so far so I guess I'll have to believe you. Engish wickets would have been tough wouldn't they?

 

[Richard]

By-and-large English wickets in the 1930s were very flat - when it didn't rain. But when it rained, they were as bad as in any other (uncovered) decade in this country when it rained. When it rained in this country, at any time when the pitches were uncovered, there was always a chance it'd start to turn, plenty.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In England "sticky-dog" wickets could still be combated by skilled batsman, in Australia they were as near to unplayable as it's possible to get and the batsman had to rely too much on luck to make them a worthwhile contest.

 

[neville cardus]

Larwood probably WAS England's greatest fast bowler.

Alack, I have to disagree with you there. It can only be George Freeman. No speed vendor ere or since has invoked such high reckoning in the most important judges of all, his colleagues. I am assuming, of course, that you have read Old Ebor's Talks, which goes some way towards putting the matter beyond question. If you have not, however, I should strongly recommend that you (and anyone else deigning to pass comment) do. Aside from conferring on this unsung leviathan the laurels that he so richly deserves, it is (as Archie's review affirms) a massively entertaining read.

 

[neville cardus]

if Murali is bowling in a side with two big left arm seamers (like Mitchell Jhonson and Brett Schultz), like Warne bowling in a team with two big right arm seamers making foot marks on his length (McGrath and Gillespie), he'll be deadlier than what he's even now.

No he would not, because he would not have the chance to be. The main reason for Murali's baronial stats is the relative insipidity of his fellows. Were he supported by worthies like Johnson, Schultz and Warne, he would bowl far less, as a consequence of which his quantitative figures would be far worse.

 

[neville cardus]

A quick look at Grace's stats.....continued
So how did WG Grace fare against his contemporaries in the English first class seasons over the 20 year period of 1868-1887

• WG averaged 45.17 during this period.
• The average of all others who played in the first class game in those years put together is 16.00.
• This gives WG a multiplier of 2.82 over his contemporaries in these two decades.
• The average in the English season in the 21st centuries (2000-2007) has been 31.55
• Thus if there was someone who dominated English first class cricket today as WG did for those 20, he would have had to average 89.06 !!

An average of 89.06 for a period of 20 years !!
Not too different from Bradman's career first class average of 95.14 .

Now consider that W.G. was arguably the greatest fielder of his time -- Felix rated his display in the 1882 Test Match, when The Old Man was all of thirty-four, the best he ever saw -- and, according to Allan Steel in 1887, England's best change bowler "bar none"; indeed, when Grace was forty-seven years of age, he clean-bowled Ranjitsinhji, and the Oriental genius promptly repeated Steel's judgment.

 

[roseboy64]

Pitches are flat, bowling mostly poor, just like the 1930s, at the current time. There are also other things which help batsmen more, though.

Therefore it really makes sense to suggest he'd have done better in very recent times, though probably a little (and not much more than that) well in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc.

More cricket - favours batsmen
Better bowlers - not a chance IMO
Better ways of finding weaknesses and exploiting them - works both ways
Different conditions - probably less variation in conditions at the current time than there has ever been in cricket history
Different styles of different teams - so?
Greater media and public criticism - those sound of mind are not overtly bothered by this. Look at Sachin Tendulkar.

All pitches are flat now compared to then? Also, bowling is mostly poor....How do you get that? For most Test teams, a good portion of their bowling attack is good and overall their attacks are at least decent. Up to a few years ago the West Indies and Zimbabwe had decent bowling attacks as well.

More cricket favours batsmen over bowlers true, but more cricket isn't a blessing for batsmen. They experience fatigue as well and more so with playing more games. They'll only be slightly better off than bowlers. Someone like Bradman would be batting a long time, thus more stress and fatigue.

Better bowlers is linked to the exploiting weaknesses. There are differences in laws and bowling styles and techniques now to then. As was mentioned before the inswinger and doosra weren't around then. Also, bowlers these days are fitter and thus bowl longer feeling less ill effects. They're more attacking too which leads to more runs but a better chance of getting wickets. Ignoring all that why are bowlers then better?

Less variation now than before.....How do you know that? You were there in the 1930s to experience them? Ignoring that climatic conditions are changing it still doesn't make sense. India, Australia, England, the Caribbean, Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa are all similar according to your logic. Considering he only played in England and Australia I don't see how that wouldn't be a factor.

Can't remember what I was getting at there.

Bradman and Tendulkar are not the same people. Unless you put him in the situation you can't judge objectively.

 

[Richard]

All pitches are flat now compared to then? Also, bowling is mostly poor....How do you get that? For most Test teams, a good portion of their bowling attack is good and overall their attacks are at least decent. Up to a few years ago the West Indies and Zimbabwe had decent bowling attacks as well.

Yes, up to a few years ago. But not since 2001/02. And this is the time that the likes of Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Hussey are averaging 70+. There have been plenty of attacks in the last 7 years which have been composed of bowlers of whom none could be said to be Test-class. What a batsman of the calibre of Bradman, on flat pitches, would have done to these attacks does not bear thinking about.

I'd be very surprised if his performances wouldn't have been reduced a bit in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s etc. when there was generally more in wickets for bowlers and better bowlers in general. But even so I can still see him averaging 80-90.

More cricket favours batsmen over bowlers true, but more cricket isn't a blessing for batsmen. They experience fatigue as well and more so with playing more games. They'll only be slightly better off than bowlers. Someone like Bradman would be batting a long time, thus more stress and fatigue.

One thing for sure - bowling at Bradman would make bowlers more fatigued than they normally are.

Thing to remember is that while far more international cricket is has been played in the last 10-20 years than ever before, cricket as a whole has not increased in volume. Bradman still batted about as regularly as does a batsman today, just at different levels.

Better bowlers is linked to the exploiting weaknesses. There are differences in laws and bowling styles and techniques now to then. As was mentioned before the inswinger and doosra weren't around then. Also, bowlers these days are fitter and thus bowl longer feeling less ill effects. They're more attacking too which leads to more runs but a better chance of getting wickets. Ignoring all that why are bowlers then better?

The inswinger most certainly was around in the 1930s and 1940s, as was the outswinger. And while the Doosra wasn't that was mainly because it didn't need to be. Mostly wickets allowed fingerspinners to turn the ball more in Bradman's day, so a good arm-ball sufficed. And on wickets where the standard fingerspinner's ball doesn't turn (which did still exist of course), nor does the Doosra, so neither are a great threat.

And what on Earth gives you the idea that bowlers bowl more these days? There may have been more unfit bowlers, but the best bowlers were every bit as fit then as now. They use more sophisticated methods these days, but that just means getting fit is easier.

There's no way to my mind that bowlers of the 1930s and 2001/02-current-day are significantly different. In both cases quality was fairly minimal.

Less variation now than before.....How do you know that? You were there in the 1930s to experience them? Ignoring that climatic conditions are changing it still doesn't make sense. India, Australia, England, the Caribbean, Pakistan, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa are all similar according to your logic. Considering he only played in England and Australia I don't see how that wouldn't be a factor.

It's very well known that before covered wickets the amount of variety in a single country was massively greater than it is nowadays. And just because one wasn't around doesn't mean one can't compare - you can look at how a wicket played, read of what people talked about how a wicket played.

It's very likely there was more, not less, variance in wicket types in the 1930s than currently. As I say - there has never been a time when wickets have been more conformative to stereotype than the 2001/02-onwards period. Yes, sometimes you can indeed rock-up in South Africa and find a wicket near enough identical to one in England; likewise in New Zealand and Pakistan. Other things vary, but a flat pitch is a flat pitch, and there were a hell of a lot of them around 2001/02-2005/06 (been a few more spicy ones in the last couple of years but still far too many flatties).

 

[roseboy64]

I see your points but I was really arguing that there's not much that indicates he'd be averaging 99. I can see in the 70s and maybe 80s but not the 90s. I'm fairly convinced the only good attacks he faced were from England. Pretty sure the West Indies attacks he faced weren't up to much. Not sure about the South Africans but he did magnificently against them. India don't seem too hot either. South Africa, India, England and Sri Lanka all have good to decent attacks.

Oh and I also meant climatic conditions. Not the conditions of the wickets alone which is why I mentioned the him only playing in England and Australia.

Also, that bowlers bowling longer with less ill effects means they don't tire as quickly as a result.

 

[chasingthedon]

Interesting comparative article

Puts Bradman in context of all-time world sport.

(Apologies if someone else posted it, 11 pages is a lot to look at when it's gone midnight).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#World_sport_context

 

[SJS]

Someone mentioned earlier about Bradman never having had to face swing and then talked of the Bond ball and Wasim's hving perfected it (swing) to a fine art.

I honestly cant say if this is funny or ridiculous. But I suppose it is just sad. So sad that there is so much feeling for the game and yet so little knowledge of its history and its finer points which are really what make it the great game that it truly is.

Who is responsible for such terrible cricket illiteracy ?

 

[Burgey]

Puts Bradman in context of all-time world sport.

(Apologies if someone else posted it, 11 pages is a lot to look at when it's gone midnight).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#World_sport_context

I'd read about that analysis before - makes his achievements all the more remarkable really.

 

[slugger]

Someone mentioned earlier about Bradman never having had to face swing and then talked of the Bond ball and Wasim's hving perfected it (swing) to a fine art.

I honestly cant say if this is funny or ridiculous. But I suppose it is just sad. So sad that there is so much feeling for the game and yet so little knowledge of its history and its finer points which are really what make it the great game that it truly is.

Who is responsible for such terrible cricket illiteracy ?

the reason the swing bowlers was raised.. because initially someone wrote if the average player can handle swing bowling then Bradman would have no trouble at all.. the you tubes i grabbed is only a small selection of these "average batsmen" handling swing bowling.. therefore if bradman was to face swing bowling of the quality that can be employed to day it could be considered debateable of how good he really couldve been .. for example ponting has played aginst bond in 9 matches in ODI bond has claimed his wicket 6 times. he avg 17.49 (and i would consider ponting an above average player)

 

[SJS]

the reason the swing bowlers was raised.. because initially someone wrote if the average player can handle swing bowling then Bradman would have no trouble at all.. the you tubes i grabbed is only a small selection of these "average batsmen" handling swing bowling.. therefore if bradman was to face swing bowling of the quality that can be employed to day it could be considered debateable of how good he really couldve been .. for example ponting has played aginst bond in 9 matches in ODI bond has claimed his wicket 6 times. he avg 17.49 (and i would consider ponting an above average player)

Your problem is that you are brought up in an age where swing bowling has become "rare" and not something that has been discovered now. Swing bowling wasn't prevalent in the earlier years of cricket but from the early 20th century bowlers who swerved the ball in the air became more and more common till most new ball bowlers would move it one way or the other. By the time Bradman played (1930's) it had been fully developed and been in existence for long (barring reverse seing which came in more recent times).

Bradman not just played it but wrote one of the finrst technical pieces on why the cricket ball swings. After sixty years, it still remains the best piece one has read on this complex subjest. Read Bradman's Art of Cricket.

This art is almost defunct today and THAT is a tragedy. Today when a left arm bowler (new ball) brings the ball in to the right hander it takes a great player like Sachin Tendulkar to comment "he has a God given gift of being able to bring the ball naturally in to right handers". In the 60's and 70's every single left arm bowler I saw could do it.

Even a left arm spinner (as long as he had a good action) could make the ball swerve in the air by just coming in and bowling without applying spin on the delivery.

I have seen Bishen Bedi do it in the nets and it was absolutely fascinating to see how he could make decent batsmen look like idiots with the big swing on what looked like mouth watering half-volleys.

Its not your fault that you think Bond is performing a miracle for he is in a world where not many of the top new ball bowlers are doing it but he is by no means the only one and as anyone who knows his cricket he is no where close to being one of the pioneers. For that he should have been born a century ago.

I can start listing the

 

[slugger]

I didnt really want to be part of this debate.. I was only clearing up why i posted the swing bowlers taking care of these average players.. these "average players" were ment to be able to handle swing bowling.. with that small snippet it demonstrated when swing bowling used right it is effective wheather youre an avg or better than avg player..

I dont doubt bradman played well.. his stats prove that.. lol.. and i dont doubt it played against swing bowling.. i just think he was by far ahead of his contemparies at every level.. and it got to point that teams just gave up.. bodyline was like the last straw .. they just seemed to have nowhere to turn..

if he played today.. i still think he would've been great.. i just dont believe the coach, the capt. the team the key players.. would shrug their shoulders and focus on getting everyone else out besides bradman..

look out how nz got out martyn (martyns not bradman) but they had a plan a trap you can call out .. and he played into time and time agian ..his great scoring shot was reduced to a do or die shot..

 

[SJS]

if he played today.. i still think he would've been great.. i just dont believe the coach, the capt. the team the key players.. would shrug their shoulders and focus on getting everyone else out besides bradman..

look out how nz got out martyn (martyns not bradman) but they had a plan a trap you can call out .. and he played into time and time agian ..his great scoring shot was reduced to a do or die shot..

No one did that, But it wasnt that his problem was one shot, he played all of them and with ruthless efficiency. Again strongly recommend you read up on Bradman.

Coming back to coaches/captains etc just concentrating on getting others out. Far from it. There was an England captain called Jardine who went ahead and thought of one of tyhe most devastating plans to 'counter' Bradman. It not just countered Bradman (bringing his average down to 56 !!) but created a furore large enough to come close to causing a permanent rift in relations between the two countries !!

Enough to stretch the laws of the game to as far as they could be stretched without being outlawed. The laws were amended subsequently to the relief of batsmen till today.

No Sir, the captains did not sit back and enjoy the Bradman show as you sem to suggest. Just that they had a big problem tackling it and everything they tried failed.

Just as the captains around the world had a big problem tackling the endless hordes of fast bowlers that came out of the West Indies for almost two decades. They did not sit back or try to concentrate on other West Indian weaknesses. They just tried to counter and failed till the threat became less of a decisive factor as the stream of fast bowlers finally dried up.

 

[Richard]

Because purely and simply, sometimes in cricket some players are just too good.

The players should and will never give-up. But the fans must accept this from time to time.

 

[Richard]

I see your points but I was really arguing that there's not much that indicates he'd be averaging 99. I can see in the 70s and maybe 80s but not the 90s. I'm fairly convinced the only good attacks he faced were from England. Pretty sure the West Indies attacks he faced weren't up to much. Not sure about the South Africans but he did magnificently against them. India don't seem too hot either. South Africa, India, England and Sri Lanka all have good to decent attacks.

Really not sure about that. The only team who've consistently had an excellent attack for the last 7 years has been Australia. Sri Lanka probably had the 2nd-best over that entire time, but even their spearhead (Vaas) can be either brilliant or awful. India's attack has often been threadbare (though of course Kumble in Bradman's time would have been deadly on uncovered wickets - but in his own he was mostly a home-track bully). Pakistan have had many useless bowlers and the one decent one they've had has not played anywhere near as much as he should have. England and South Africa have had the odd superlative attack and much rubbish.

These attacks were little if at all better than the South African and West Indian attacks of the 1930s.

Oh and I also meant climatic conditions. Not the conditions of the wickets alone which is why I mentioned the him only playing in England and Australia.

Also, that bowlers bowling longer with less ill effects means they don't tire as quickly as a result.

Climatic conditions don't really have all that much effect on batsmen, though. The most difficult climatic conditions to counter as a batsman have always generally been in England, and he played here much.