Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[L Trumper]

WTF? Bradman is professional among amateurs?

He averaged 52 against freaking BODYLINE attack and you guys don't believe he can average better than that against WI attacks? In fact in this FTB era he would easily average around 100. Even Kallis and ponting had peaks of 70-75 with the bat for 5 years. Considering bradman is best risk calculator and run accumulator, he would have scored a single every ball with his liking. Saying bradman wouldn't have adaptable to this era is laughable. When he injured for one season he practiced squash and actually won nationals during that year. His hand eye coordination is unreal according to almanack and his contemporaries.
If bradman average 50 in this era, hobbs , hutton , hammond et al are going to average 25 !!! It seems hayden is double the player than them

Bradman is a freak of the nature and if he was born in this era he would have dominated in the similar vein he dominated in 30's, 40's.

 

[aussie]

WTF? Bradman is professional among amateurs?

He averaged 52 against freaking BODYLINE attack and you guys don't believe he can average better than that against WI attacks? In fact in this FTB era he would easily average around 100. Even Kallis and ponting had peaks of 70-75 with the bat for 5 years. Considering bradman is best risk calculator and run accumulator, he would have scored a single every ball with his liking. Saying bradman wouldn't have adaptable to this era is laughable. When he injured for one season he practiced squash and actually won nationals during that year. His hand eye coordination is unreal according to almanack and his contemporaries.
If bradman average 50 in this era, hobbs , hutton , hammond et al are going to average 25 !!! It seems hayden is double the player than them

Bradman is a freak of the nature and if he was born in this era he would have dominated in the similar vein he dominated in 30's, 40's.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Uppercut]

WTF? Bradman is professional among amateurs?

He averaged 52 against freaking BODYLINE attack and you guys don't believe he can average better than that against WI attacks? In fact in this FTB era he would easily average around 100. Even Kallis and ponting had peaks of 70-75 with the bat for 5 years. Considering bradman is best risk calculator and run accumulator, he would have scored a single every ball with his liking. Saying bradman wouldn't have adaptable to this era is laughable. When he injured for one season he practiced squash and actually won nationals during that year. His hand eye coordination is unreal according to almanack and his contemporaries.
If bradman average 50 in this era, hobbs , hutton , hammond et al are going to average 25 !!! It seems hayden is double the player than them

Bradman is a freak of the nature and if he was born in this era he would have dominated in the similar vein he dominated in 30's, 40's.

Don't see how you can reach a conclusion either way with such decisiveness tbh.

 

[Richard]

Well we know very well what made Bradman the supernova he was, and it wasn't ability to survive extraordinary deliveries. Rather, it was the fact that he just played bad shots with way, way, way, way, way, way, way less regularity than anyone else in the history of cricket as we now know it.

The main ingredient to taking your batting from decent club level to international has always been how good your shot-selection is. If you're a good club batsman at a decent standard it's a given that you've got a good eye and good hand-eye co-ordination and can play a decent few shots - all of the rest is about how well you use and hone your shot-playing instincts.

Bradman did that better than anyone else. Way, way better. Yes, the standard of bowling in the 1930s was not high, same way it hasn't been since 2001/02, but however high the standard of bowling there are still more dismissals which are a result exclusively of batsman error rather than the bowler bowling you out. Bradman was as likely to get bowled-out by a top-class delivery as anyone else; but he was damn unlikely to give his wicket away.

And that would make him miles more effective than anyone else now, in the 1970s, in the 1930s, or anywhere else you care to name.

 

[zaremba]

Bradman played in an era of (to quote another on here somewhere) bowlers who were upper-middle class twits and journeymen.

Since you've been here I've agreed with much of what you've written. I also agree with your point that we need to be ever-vigilant to avoid the effects of the rose-tinted spectacles.

But I think you're way wide of the mark on this one, and I see no evidence to support your pretty extraordinary claim.

There may have been some pretty poor bowlers in the 1930s, but there are poor bowlers in every era. I don't have much doubt that Larwood, Voce, Tate, Bowes, Verity and Bedser - who between them formed the spine of the England attack during Bradman's career - would have been outstanding bowlers in any era, and I wouldn't regard any of them as either upper-middle class twits or journeymen.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Come on guys, you all know hyperbole is a tool of legitimate rhetoric. Okay, not all the bowlers that Bradman played against were as bad as that, but none of them would be world class by any standard acheived in the past 30 years. That's not an insult, it's just a fact.

Look at football, international teams played 2-3-5 in the 30s. It proves how sport has evolved.

I have stated that Bradman (if he adapted to the commercial climate) would have a Tendulka-esq average and figures today. I stand by that, and that is by no means an insult.

 

[Goughy]

That's not an insult, it's just a fact.

No it isnt.

 

[Richard]

Come on guys, you all know hyperbole is a tool of legitimate rhetoric. Okay, not all the bowlers that Bradman played against were as bad as that, but none of them would be world class by any standard acheived in the past 30 years. That's not an insult, it's just a fact.

Look at football, international teams played 2-3-5 in the 30s. It proves how sport has evolved.

I have stated that Bradman (if he adapted to the commercial climate) would have a Tendulka-esq average and figures today. I stand by that, and that is by no means an insult.

I see no reason to state anything other than that cricket has not changed drastically in the last 110 years. The pitch is the same length; the stumps are the same height; the ball is largely the same... etc. etc. The modern batting and bowling techniques had by 1900 largely been put in place - underarm was (almost) a thing of the past and if you look at stances, grips etc. you'll see much similarity. There are small changes in things like the lbw law, there are things which have always and will always continued to evolve like bat technology and the preparation (and maintenance) of wickets.

But if you watched a game of cricket in 1905 and one in 2006, you'd largely be able to recognise it as the same thing.

 

[zaremba]

We're starting to veer wildly off topic here, but hey.

One problem I have with the idea of transplanting a player from one era into another is that it's easy to forget that we need to make allowances for him. Yes, bowling has changed and developed in various ways. But were Bradman to be playing today, he would also have the advantages which come with being a cricketer these days: consistently good batting pitches; far better bats; smaller grounds; the ability to focus purely on cricket without having to spend time on commercial interests; more sophisticated coaching etc. Broadly speaking, batting and bowling averages have remained consistent across the years since about 1900 or so: there has been an arms race: bowlers develop an new weapon, batsmen counter it, and vice versa; and broadly stability is maintained. For this reason I don't think we can dismiss his batting average as glibly as just saying "things were different then".

This isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last time that I've posted this, but it makes its point:

 

[Goughy]

Dont forget that he could wear a helmet now. That advantage should never be underestimated.

 

[Richard]

Not to mention proper chestpads, armguards and thighpads.

 

[zaremba]

And he would today have the advantage of a rule which prevents beastly Englishmen from bowling in a manner that made him get all upset

 

[zaremba]

He did, but he was making a joke. Someone asked him what he'd average now and he replied "About 60", when the interviewer asked why he thought he'd do so much worse nowadays Bradman replied,

"Because I'm 85"

Was just returning to this thread to make this very point, and I see you've beaten me to it.

GFL rather missing the punchline on this one...

 

[Furball]

Bradman played in an era of (to quote another on here somewhere) bowlers who were upper-middle class twits and journeymen. To compare these bowlers to the West Indies team of the 80s or 90s, the Aussies of the 90s-00s or even England of 2005 is simply absurd.


Bradman was a pro in a world of amatuers.

If we're going to generalise, then most of the "upper class twits" who played cricket in England would have been batsmen, as running in and bowling was beneath them.

Why do you think most of England's great bowlers have been Northerners?

 

[Furball]

Come on guys, you all know hyperbole is a tool of legitimate rhetoric. Okay, not all the bowlers that Bradman played against were as bad as that, but none of them would be world class by any standard acheived in the past 30 years. That's not an insult, it's just a fact.

Look at football, international teams played 2-3-5 in the 30s. It proves how sport has evolved.

I have stated that Bradman (if he adapted to the commercial climate) would have a Tendulka-esq average and figures today. I stand by that, and that is by no means an insult.

You could argue that Barcelona play a variant of 2-3-5 nowadays.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I couldn't see McGrath averaging more then 10 with the ball, on rain-damaged wickets against a 2nd XI team. Not only due to the conditions, but I doubt that any of the 2nd XI batsman would be able to score more then 10 runs in an innings off McGrath in those sort've conditions.

I played in the area Richard's talking about, I don't see McGrath having any trouble averaging well under 10 against a 2nd XI. The floor to what a bowler can achieve varies dramatically depending on the opposition. To say "McGrath couldn't average 5 against a 2nd XI team because there's a floor" doesn't make sense.

Two guys in our comp averaged under 10...McGrath's biggest problem would be the keeper and slips actually catching the ball and the umpires recognising when a ball's going to knock all three stumps out of the ground and actually give an LBW. If we're talking about a situation where he's dropped into a second XI standard team as the sole good player then he'd go for a few more runs due to the incompetence of his team-mates. If he was in a decent standard team though he could easily average 5.

 

[Migara]

Not a question of "if" but "when" IMO

Lee was consistently quicker than Akhtar and Tait is much quicker again

Definition of bull****.

 

[Migara]

Have heard much about Zahid and have long since wished there were speedguns in those few games he played before his injuries. But it's news to be about Mohammad Akram - presuming this is the same Mohammad Akram who played a bit for Pakistan then basically became a county player. Amazed if he was once quick enough to split thigh-pads.

That's like Tyson bruising batsmen through pads in 1954/55. Almost without precedent.

Have seen that happen. I believe my eyes. But I am not sure about the quality of that thigh pad though.

 

[Migara]

I believe there's no reason Bradman couldn't average even more had he played post-2001/02 than he did in the 1930s, because the pitches are even easier and the standard of bowling is possibly even lower - and make no mistake, there were few good bowlers in the 1930s (the few who were were spinners). And I believe that had he played at some point between 1974 and 2001 then he could easily have averaged 70-80.

Some people may indeed look at the past through rose-tinted specs, like Neil Harvey and to some extent Fred Trueman, but I don't believe the greater majority are guilty of this.

Bradman faced only few legendary bowlers. It's legendary bowlers who nail down legendary batsmen. I can only think of Larwood in that league. There were few very good bowlers like Voce, Verity etc. But no one close to the class of Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, McGarth, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Imran and Lillee in pace department and Warne and Murali in spin department. Even second string lot like Walsh, Bishop, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Botham, Thompson, Kapil, Kumble, Harbhajan, Saqlain etc were very impressive and had lot more things to offer when the rolled their arms over.

But having said that, Bradan still will be at the top of the table. Possibly averaging around 70. But averaging 99 in an era which had seen most number of legendary bowlers is close to impossible.

 

[Migara]

Dont forget that he could wear a helmet now. That advantage should never be underestimated.

And you have conveniently forgotten that current day bowlers look at other avenues of dismissals rather than intimidation because of that same HELMET.