The stats do not do him justice!

[Migara]

Secondly, I think you're under rating Verity - while I'm with you that he'd be a notch below Warne and Murali, I'd personally disagree with the idea that Kumble, Qadir, Saqlain and Harby are as good as him. I'd have Verity above all four of those bowlers.

I learnt that he did not spin the ball much like Vettori. We know that Vettori is a tough proposition to score against, but not that threatening because of lack of spin. My picture about him is a bowler who sent down left arm finger spin around 60mph, who relied on flight and changes of pace rather than spin. He might have been very good on uncovered wickets, but he too, I'm afraid will suffer from "Underwood syndrome" (Tiger on wet pitches, kitten on covered wickets). He was well and truely limited to finger spun ball and the arm ball. On the other hand Kumble on a wet pitch would make batsmen s**t in their pants, because what ever varaiable bounce is right over the middle stump.

Now, Bradman did not play a spinner who rips it (as Murali, Warne, Qadir, Mushtaq) or who has numerous variations (Kumble, Harbhajan, Saqlain). I would be tempted to rank Kumble and Qadir over or on par with Verity for above reasons.

 

[fredfertang]

Great admirer of Harold Larwood that I am I don’t really think he or bodyline has much relevance to Bradman. Whatever some may believe Jardinian leg theory was designed solely to curb Bradman’s scoring, not by hurting him, but by making him play on one side of the wicket only – Bradman’s freakish reflexes and hand/eye coordination meant he was never going to be in any physical danger.

Jardine and Larwood, who had toured together in 28/29 both saw the writing on the wall in 1930 – the ball moved in the air for just a handful of overs in Australia and on the shirtfronts they had seen before it was obvious Bradman couldn’t be checked by conventional bowling and leg theory was conceived as a way of dictating to Bradman where he played his shots.

In the event, and quite unexpectedly, the wickets in 32/33 had uneven bounce and that’s what made bodyline dangerous – the batsmen couldn’t rely on how high the ball would get up and for those who were slow footed (more or less all of them save Bradman and McCabe) they were in trouble and that’s what got them out.

Left to his own devices Bradman could have gone through that series with 8 not outs – he wouldn’t have scored very fast, because generally Bradman eschewed risk, but if preserving his wicket was all that mattered to him he’d have done it with ease.

Bradman was a team man though and he set out to score quickly even if that meant stepping back towards square leg and trying to cut the leg theory into the wide open spaces on the off side. He had to take risks because his colleagues were going to get nailed by the bodyline attack anyway and it’s only because of the risks he took, some quite outrageous by all accounts, that his average was as low as it was.

If he played today I think Bradman would have an even higher average – speed never really fazed him (and certainly wouldn’t with today’s protective equipment) and nor could spin on decent wickets – he was never troubled unduly by O’Reilly or Grimmett who were , probably, as good as Warne or Murali, possibly a bit better possibly a tad inferior but at the end of the day great bowlers too – what did, by all accounts, render Bradman almost human at times, were old fashioned rain affected pitches – but legislation means that, like bodyline, we don’t have them any more - so there’d be nothing at all today to stop him

 

[Briony]

Yeah, I'd dispute that Junior deserved an average of 50. He looked to have the talent to do so, but obviously either lacked the application (the common theory) or else that appearance that he found it easy was misleading (which is his explanation). I think it's more the latter than the former, although obviously he didn't have the ruthless hunger of his brother. Either way, taking into account the era in which he played, I think his average fairly reflects how he was.


.

I think a lot of discussion about M.Waugh gets lost in style and we forget about substance. Waugh constantly said that it was aim of his to average 50 yet for the bulk of his career averaged around 44 and it dropped just below 42. This was an accurate reflection of his career. Too often he didn't come through under pressure regardless of how 'pretty' or aesthetically pleasing he looked. What's the point of a pretty ten or twenty when the team needs runs under duress? Too often he played away from his body or backed away from the short ball. He certainly looked inelegant doing that. Too often he also jagged rising balls away to the gully area.

You hear a lot about players' talent but ultimately it's what they do, and especially in situations where the team relies on you. Also Waugh came into cricket when the great West Indian bowlers were in decline so he didn't face the great attacks of the 80s Ambrose exposed him on a number of occasions, even in ODIs. He made a good debut test ton but it was on a flat track and against a benign attack. He was lucky that in his time the bulk of the English teams he played against carried relatively poor bowlers. SA had Donald but he often prospered when he was out of the attack. Case in point was his ton in Sydney when Hansie shielded him from Donald and allowed him to monster Symcox. Yet when AD returned with Waugh in the 90s, it was one of the most brutal spells he ever bowled and he was dismissed for 100 exactly. He made a ton in Adelaide when Donald was out injured.

It's interesting when people try to recall Waugh's innings under pressure and they routinely come up with the one in PE. Even then he didn't stay in until the job was done.


He only has one score over 150 and I don't buy the nonsense that he got bored and went out. He also seemed to tire hence fitness was a problem.

 

[The Sean]

Bradman was a team man though and he set out to score quickly even if that meant stepping back towards square leg and trying to cut the leg theory into the wide open spaces on the off side. He had to take risks because his colleagues were going to get nailed by the bodyline attack anyway and it’s only because of the risks he took, some quite outrageous by all accounts, that his average was as low as it was.

If he played today I think Bradman would have an even higher average – speed never really fazed him (and certainly wouldn’t with today’s protective equipment) and nor could spin on decent wickets – he was never troubled unduly by O’Reilly or Grimmett who were , probably, as good as Warne or Murali, possibly a bit better possibly a tad inferior but at the end of the day great bowlers too – what did, by all accounts, render Bradman almost human at times, were old fashioned rain affected pitches – but legislation means that, like bodyline, we don’t have them any more - so there’d be nothing at all today to stop him

Two excellent points there - Bradman's shotmaking in that Bodyline series was extraordinary when you look at the footage and read the accounts, the kind of which most other batsmen could never even attempt, let alone pull off to the tune of averaging all-but 60. You're right in that he could have just ducked, left everything alone and ended up with a whole lot of red ink as he got left stranded while Australia collapsed. It's to his credit that he didn't.

I read a great quote about Bradman on rain-affected pitches - I think it was by Robertson-Glasgow - that Bradman seemed sometimes to fail on a sticky almost on principle, as though he was showing up what an unequal contest it was. No doubt more than a hint of romanticism to that opinion, but I enjoy buying into it regardless.

 

[Ikki]

Calling Tendulkar is better than Bradman is pure BS in my opinion. But playing against same oppositions, the difference in average could not be 40 realistically.

If there was any critisicm about Bradman, that would depend on two factors.

1. He played against very limited number of players / oppositions / conditions than current players. There is always possibility that one bowlers will have better of him frequently. Ex. If WIndies of 1975-90 played against Bradman, I would not expect him to average anywhere close to 90. Against rampaging Larwood it was 56. And all the bowlers like Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts and perhaps Garner are bit better than Larwood (Marshall and Ambrose quite an amount better than Larwood). Realistically I would think it will be 45-55, which is one heck of a performance against them IMO.

Erm, no. Larwood et al only kept him to 56 because of disgraceful tactics which were later shunned and made illegal. Such was his dominance over England that they went to such dark-magic.

2. Bradman never played spinners of quality as current players. Murali and Warne are some way better than Verity the best he played. (Note that O'Riely and Grimmet were in his side, not in opposition, who were the premier spinners by then and are comparable to Murali and Warne in all accounts. And Jim Laker was learning his craft when he first bowled to Bradman). Kumble, Qadir, Saqlain and Harbhajan are as good as Verity. If there was a bowler who had lot of victories against Bradman it was Verity. It's probable that against a barrage of better spinners in modern day cricket he won't be having the same freedom.

I would think Bradman would average around 65-70, which still would make him the king of all.

I don't know the exact figures, but Bradman would have faced O'Reilly and Grimmett in domestic cricket and his FC average is 95.14. He didn't have problems with anyone and I doubt he would have any with Warne or Murali; or both in the same attack. Especially not to the extent to drop him to 65 (35 points!).

 

[Briony]

Although it's funny about Bodyline, some people say the bowling in the 80's with the Windies four quicks was more fearsome. After all Larwood was only five foot seven and a half. Most batsmen say that it's bounce that frightens them. One thing Bradman didn't do, great as he was, was face bowlers of the height you see quite regularly today.

 

[The Sean]

Although it's funny about Bodyline, some people say the bowling in the 80's with the Windies four quicks was more fearsome. After all Larwood was only five foot seven and a half. Most batsmen say that it's bounce that frightens them. One thing Bradman didn't do, great as he was, was face bowlers of the height you see quite regularly today.

He did actually, they just weren't as good as Larwood - Bill Bowes, who famously dismissed him first ball in Sydney in 32/33, was 6'3 while the tragic Ken Farnes was 6'5.

And lest we forget, for all the giants in those Windies attacks of the 70s and 80s, the greatest of them all - Malcolm Marshall - was 5'9.

 

[Migara]

Erm, no. Larwood et al only kept him to 56 because of disgraceful tactics which were later shunned and made illegal. Such was his dominance over England that they went to such dark-magic.

Agreed that, because England never had an attack close to what they had 15 years later or what windies and Aussies had subsequently, so they had to use tactics which are termed "dark". But I am talking about four bowlers out of them two better than Larwood and other two on par. That's the time when anyones batting is tested.

I don't know the exact figures, but Bradman would have faced O'Reilly and Grimmett in domestic cricket and his FC average is 95.14.

Ithink this involves FC matches he played in ENG as well. Any link to the numbers?

He didn't have problems with anyone and I doubt he would have any with Warne or Murali; or both in the same attack. Especially not to the extent to drop him to 65 (35 points!).

Well, the technology is there to find out flaws in technique. You must have heard about O'Riely tellin Bedser to ball inswingers on the middle stump of Bradman and to employ a short fine leg to catch him there. (Bedser got him few times IIRC). What I feel is he'll also be found out by the cameras, since no one is perfect.

 

[The Sean]

I learnt that he did not spin the ball much like Vettori. We know that Vettori is a tough proposition to score against, but not that threatening because of lack of spin. My picture about him is a bowler who sent down left arm finger spin around 60mph, who relied on flight and changes of pace rather than spin. He might have been very good on uncovered wickets, but he too, I'm afraid will suffer from "Underwood syndrome" (Tiger on wet pitches, kitten on covered wickets). He was well and truely limited to finger spun ball and the arm ball. On the other hand Kumble on a wet pitch would make batsmen s**t in their pants, because what ever varaiable bounce is right over the middle stump.

Now, Bradman did not play a spinner who rips it (as Murali, Warne, Qadir, Mushtaq) or who has numerous variations (Kumble, Harbhajan, Saqlain). I would be tempted to rank Kumble and Qadir over or on par with Verity for above reasons.

Fair points mate, and I reckon you've probably got a decent shout for Kumble though I'm less sure about Qadir. In terms of bowlers who ripped it in those days, Bradman faced Grimmett a lot in domestic cricket and to be fair Clarrie had his fair share of success against The Don, though Bradman also naturally scored plenty of runs.

At Test level I'm thinking Doug Wright was probably the trickiest English spinner Bradman would have faced in terms of spin and bounce. Again Wright had some success, though again - as always - Bradman scored heavily against him.

 

[The Sean]

Ithink this involves FC matches he played in ENG as well. Any link to the numbers?

Not sure what his FC average in England was (would be easy enough to look up though), but I know he averaged 110 in Sheffield Shield cricket so he obviously did all right against pretty much everyone he came up against.

 

[Richard]

I learnt that he did not spin the ball much like Vettori. We know that Vettori is a tough proposition to score against, but not that threatening because of lack of spin. My picture about him is a bowler who sent down left arm finger spin around 60mph, who relied on flight and changes of pace rather than spin. He might have been very good on uncovered wickets, but he too, I'm afraid will suffer from "Underwood syndrome" (Tiger on wet pitches, kitten on covered wickets). He was well and truely limited to finger spun ball and the arm ball. On the other hand Kumble on a wet pitch would make batsmen s**t in their pants, because what ever varaiable bounce is right over the middle stump.

I agree entirely with all of this - I've long thought it'd be quite fascinating to see how good Kumble could've been on an uncovered wickets, and thought the answer might well have been as effective as any bowler to have played the game. He was everything that you want in a bowler to bowl on a rain-affected deck.

However, the fact that Verity might well have been the Underwood of his day - I've thought so myself plenty of times - isn't strictly important. In Verity's day, unlike Underwood's (who straddled the uncovered\covered era), wickets were uncovered - no exception. So thus, the only times he bowled at Bradman were all on uncovered wickets. While Verity's skill is undoubtedly plenty behind Warne and Murali's (probably fairly similar to Kumble's), conditions of his day meant he was able to match their feats. Make no mistake, facing Verity in the 1930s was little different to facing Warne or Murali in 2003 or 2004, in terms of how difficult it was to bat against.

 

[Richard]

Great admirer of Harold Larwood that I am I don’t really think he or bodyline has much relevance to Bradman. Whatever some may believe Jardinian leg theory was designed solely to curb Bradman’s scoring, not by hurting him, but by making him play on one side of the wicket only – Bradman’s freakish reflexes and hand/eye coordination meant he was never going to be in any physical danger.

Jardine and Larwood, who had toured together in 28/29 both saw the writing on the wall in 1930 – the ball moved in the air for just a handful of overs in Australia and on the shirtfronts they had seen before it was obvious Bradman couldn’t be checked by conventional bowling and leg theory was conceived as a way of dictating to Bradman where he played his shots.

In the event, and quite unexpectedly, the wickets in 32/33 had uneven bounce and that’s what made bodyline dangerous – the batsmen couldn’t rely on how high the ball would get up and for those who were slow footed (more or less all of them save Bradman and McCabe) they were in trouble and that’s what got them out.

Left to his own devices Bradman could have gone through that series with 8 not outs – he wouldn’t have scored very fast, because generally Bradman eschewed risk, but if preserving his wicket was all that mattered to him he’d have done it with ease.

Bradman was a team man though and he set out to score quickly even if that meant stepping back towards square leg and trying to cut the leg theory into the wide open spaces on the off side. He had to take risks because his colleagues were going to get nailed by the bodyline attack anyway and it’s only because of the risks he took, some quite outrageous by all accounts, that his average was as low as it was.

Yeah, a pretty apt summing-up of Bradman and Bodyline's significance. So many are prone to attach a few significant *s to it, without actually realising fully what it entailed.

Bodyline was not simply a case of fast, short and leg-side - it was something that limited the scoring potential completely on one side of the wicket. Your only chance was to play either superlatively (which McCabe managed, once) or totally unconventionally. In playing unconventionally Bradman was limited to an average of 56 but if you could bowl fast, short and leg-side without such fields and on wickets of normal bounce you'd not by any stretch be able to limit him to such an average.

 

[Briony]

I'm not convinced that if Bradman played today he would have a better average for various reasons. I still think that facing fearsome, tall bowlers who can extract bounce from the pitch is something most batsmen fear, protection or not. But moreover, if you contextualize it, he would have been unlikely given the prevailing society to have developed his excellent reflexes by the golf ball stump routine, It it this which gave him an edge over those contemporarenous to him and every batsman since. Put him in another era and he still would have the same personal drive and single-mindedness but outside of the more 'innocent' age would have been unlikely to have had the grounding which was so unique. Of course all assumptions are predictive, speculative and hypothetical.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Give Bradman a helmet and he would've averaged 200...

 

[Briony]

Give Bradman a helmet and he would've averaged 200...

Especially if they played on the super flat tracks of the 30s (not that many were rain-affected, especially in oz) and against short bowlers and fieldsmen who habitually dropped him and his peers if you believe the contemporaneous reports of matches. He was pretty good, but a bit of hyperbole surrounds him when people try to extrapolate. They seem to look at disadvantages he encountered without acknowledging that some things about the modern game might have made things more difficult for him.

 

[The Sean]

Give Bradman a helmet and he would've averaged 200...

I just couldn't imagine The Don in a helmet. Seems wrong.

Especially if they played on the super flat tracks of the 30s (not that many were rain-affected, especially in oz) and against short bowlers and fieldsmen who habitually dropped him and his peers if you believe the contemporaneous reports of matches. He was pretty good, but a bit of hyperbole surrounds him when people try to extrapolate. They seem to look at disadvantages he encountered without acknowledging that some things about the modern game might have made things more difficult for him.

Really liking the way you post, despite disagreeing with a deal of it. Do you not think that Bradman would have been able to adapt his game depending on his era, rather than just batting exactly as you have seen him bat in the 1930s? And you do seem to have a bit of a thing for tall bowlers!

I'd also say that to call Bradman merely "pretty good" would be one of the truly great understatements.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Funny how everyone singles out dismisses the modern era and the 1930s as the flattracks and poor bowlers and how all of the success from batsman should immediately be overlooked. Simply just can't acknowledge the fact that they were the two eras that featured and produced the greatest variety of batsman.

 

[Migara]

Give Bradman a helmet and he would've averaged 200...

And give Boycs grandma at bowling crease.

 

[Migara]

Especially if they played on the super flat tracks of the 30s (not that many were rain-affected, especially in oz) and against short bowlers and fieldsmen who habitually dropped him and his peers if you believe the contemporaneous reports of matches. He was pretty good, but a bit of hyperbole surrounds him when people try to extrapolate. They seem to look at disadvantages he encountered without acknowledging that some things about the modern game might have made things more difficult for him.

Spot on. I have mentioned how greater spinners of modern era might have had a better chance on him as well as Windies and Aussie type attacks as well. The technology is another facet that we overlooked. If Bradman played today, his relative weakness on the flick would have been noticed much earlier. And when bowlers are picked who can consistently keep that line, it would have been interesting. Now I could not imagine the problems he would have faced facing a bowler like Harbhajan, who produce lot of bounce and turn off the off break, bowling in to the middle stump (remeber he kept hitting Bedser to short fine leg few times, and Bedser bowled in swing primarily), if the problem picked up by O'Riely has been as real as it is described (can be OT reaction from English press even).

Anyone can argue that Bradman will have the same help from technology, and it is partially true, especially deciphering spinners. But intimidating pace cannot be countered what ever thing you do. And modern day bowlers are bit faster than Larwood, and he would face atleast five pacemen of great quality who were significantly quicket than Larwood (i.e. Marshall, Holding, Shoaib, Lee, Waqar). Roberts, Garner, Croft, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim, Imran and Hadlee are not slow by any stretch of imagination and IMO all are quicker in their peaks than Larwood at his peak. Latter three may be subjected to debate about their bowling speeds, but overall, they are much better than Larwood as bowlers, and were even better than their quicker counterparts than Shoaib, Lee, Garner or Croft.

 

[The Sean]

Back on topic for a moment, but a bowler who I think was better than his final career average and S/R would suggest was Kapil Dev. While he was a notch or two below the very top echelon of all time great fast bowlers, there's no doubt in my mind that his numbers suffered somewhat from a) spending so much time sending them down on dustbowls, b) lack of top-class fast-bowling support for almost all of his career, and c) going on a couple of years too long.

As I say, I wouldn't have him in the Marshall/Lillee/Hadlee class, but I think he was better than his average of nearly 30 and S/R of nudging 64 would indicate.