If Bradman played in today's era?

[Ikki]

To those that are saying Bradman would have been "Very very good" and not "Still would the best batsman ever", if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

 

[Ikki]

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

Please stop typing. You have absolutely no clue. Stop misguiding those that may not know better.

Even England in the 90s had a better bowling attack than both S.Africa and West Indies in the 30s.

You are an absolute shocker.

 

[Richard]

Yes, of course, having studied extensive pitchmaps of the bowlers in question you know who was better, don't you(!)

 

[social]

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.

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.

1. Always thought Murali was SL's spearhead personally

2. Since their return, SA have had 1 or more of Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Steyn forming the basis of their attacks. Those guys are in a different league to anything from that country in the 30s and have almost always been backed by perfectly serviceable operators i.e. they were never rubbish

3. English climatic conditions are often replicated in NZ and SA for starters (I assume you're talking about cloud, etc rather than heat) whilst most will tell you that the heat and humiditity of the subcontinent is every bit as difficult to counter

 

[Ikki]

Yes, of course, having studied extensive pitchmaps of the bowlers in question you know who was better, don't you(!)

Because pitch maps show more than the average bowler's average in an era. Dire.

 

[Richard]

1. Always thought Murali was SL's spearhead personally

Nope, never bowled the first over and only in exceptional circumstances opened the attack. Vaas always did that.

2. Since their return, SA have had 1 or more of Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Steyn forming the basis of their attacks. Those guys are in a different league to anything from that country in the 30s and have almost always been backed by perfectly serviceable operators i.e. they were never rubbish

Between 2001/02 and 2005/06 SA have had a Pollock who could only be effective on seaming pitches, a Ntini who was sometimes that and never effective on non-seamers, a Steyn who was rubbish in the few Tests he played, a Nel who bowled well occasionally, and nothing else.

3. English climatic conditions are often replicated in NZ and SA for starters (I assume you're talking about cloud, etc rather than heat) whilst most will tell you that the heat and humiditity of the subcontinent is every bit as difficult to counter

England and SA have very little similarity.

 

[Richard]

Because pitch maps show more than the average bowler's average in an era. Dire.

As was pointed-out in recent times, looking at bowling averages doesn't say how relatively well a bowler bowled. Of course a pitchmap does that infinitely better. You have to watch the bowling to realise how relatively poor or good it was compared to others.

I love the way you supported the notion that bowling averages weren't the be all and end all for the post-2001 period and now reject it, according to your purposes at the time.

 

[Ikki]

As was pointed-out in recent times, looking at bowling averages doesn't say how relatively well a bowler bowled. Of course a pitchmap does that infinitely better. You have to watch the bowling to realise how relatively poor or good it was compared to others.

I love the way you supported the notion that bowling averages weren't the be all and end all for the post-2001 period and now reject it, according to your purposes at the time.

Bowling averages and batting averages are not the be-all and end-all. I despise the kind of debate where one member picks a player over another player based on 1-2 runs on average or that in 2-3 tests a player didn't perform.

The stat that I gave you is of a 10 year block. The scenario you describe above is not relevant and is a poor reply to the logic presented forward. Whether you think that 1-2 runs on average should be discarded because of some perceived standard is your choice. The fact that they're largely the same presents a correlation. Ignoring this...is just stupid.

You could not address the little difference of batting averages between decades and this facet of the debate is similar. Generalisations are always somewhat dangerous but your generalisations are poorly thought out. For god's sake, you just said every country bar Australia of the past few years is on par with S.Africa and W.Indies of the 30s. You should be kicked out of the forum for this statement alone.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Raymond Price. His success came at the spinner's haven of The SCG. And he's a very fine left-arm fingerspinner, up with the best.

He was a bloody good rugby league player too!

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Everytime I read one of your posts I feel like I'm eavesdropping on correspondence from the royal letter writer.

 

[Manee]

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 ?

I just noted that any batsmen may have struggled against some of Wasim's finer balls, but that is a widely accepted fact. For example, his infamous ball against Croft may well have flummoxed Bradman as it did Croft.

 

[social]

Nope, never bowled the first over and only in exceptional circumstances opened the attack. Vaas always did that.

Between 2001/02 and 2005/06 SA have had a Pollock who could only be effective on seaming pitches, a Ntini who was sometimes that and never effective on non-seamers, a Steyn who was rubbish in the few Tests he played, a Nel who bowled well occasionally, and nothing else.

England and SA have very little similarity.

I think I should just take the SJS route and leave this alone

 

[SJS]

, if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

...and why ?

 

[Richard]

For god's sake, you just said every country bar Australia of the past few years is on par with S.Africa and W.Indies of the 30s.

No, I didn't. I said bowling-attacks of both were poor.

You should be kicked out of the forum for this statement alone.

 

[Ikki]

...and why ?

Yes, that too.

 

[roseboy64]

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.

I struggle to believe that. I'm fairly convinced the only good attack he could have faced was the English. Unless my memory of WI cricket fails me, they only had one good player in Headley. I'm fairly sure the bowling wasn't up to much either. In those easrly years, the WI could not be classed as a good team.

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.

Temperature has no effect?

 

[roseboy64]

To those that are saying Bradman would have been "Very very good" and not "Still would the best batsman ever", if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

...and why ?

I maintain he'd be the best ever. Just rubbishing those saying he'd average in the 150s and would have no average since he wouldn't be out.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To those that are saying Bradman would have been "Very very good" and not "Still would the best batsman ever", if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

I don't know. As much as a number of people are trying, it's impossible to say how well someone from another era would go now. I said Bradman would be very very good because I don't doubt that mentally he'd be the same as he was in the 30's. That doesn't change. I have doubts about the comparison of levels. I know there were some very good bowlers back in the 30's, but players are generally more professional now and are able to devote all of their time to cricket. I can't say for sure there'd be no difference in performance/fitness between now and then. There are a lot of other variables to take into consideration too, some of which would make batting easier now (such as covered wickets and better groundsmen perhaps).

None of us can say for certain that he'd be the best batsman ever still if he was playing in these times, he may be in amongst a bunch of exceptional players averaging 50+. To ask 'well, who would be then' is requesting more speculation on something unquantifiable. Who knows!? Maybe we'd find out a Bradman in the 30's is a Tendulkar in the 00's. Maybe he'd continue to outscore anyone and everyone.

 

[Richard]

I struggle to believe that. I'm fairly convinced the only good attack he could have faced was the English. Unless my memory of WI cricket fails me, they only had one good player in Headley. I'm fairly sure the bowling wasn't up to much either. In those easrly years, the WI could not be classed as a good team.

West Indies had Constantine, Martindale, Francis and Griffith, all very decent seam-bowlers, in their early days. Headley was their one decent batsman, but he was so good he was easily worth two normal batsmen.

Yes, SA and WI did struggle of times, but there's millions of times attacks from most countries struggled from 2001/02 onwards. I don't see anything suggesting these attacks were significantly better than those of the South African, and certainly not the English and West Indian, ones from the 1930s.

Temperature has no effect?

Not enormously. If it makes it harder for batsmen, it makes it even harder for fielders.

 

[Richard]

I maintain he'd be the best ever. Just rubbishing those saying he'd average in the 150s and would have no average since he wouldn't be out.

Those are exaggerations, but you get the point - wicket-taking balls at the current time are even rarer than they were in Bradman's day. Generally, it would take a wicket-taking ball to get Bradman out - this is what made him so extraordinarily special. Whereas most batsmen play bad shots pretty regularly, he just hardly ever did. Greater "professionalism" won't change that.

If Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis, etc. can average 70, which they have, then I see no reason Bradman could not have doubled that.