Cricketweb's most overhyped players.

[Son Of Coco]

The bowlers of Bradman's era bar very few, looks pedestrian as well. And pitches were probably better than today. Otherwise they'll be not able to play timeless tests. Even without Bradman the average of his era is about 31, which is close to "flat track" era of today. So he might have encountered sticky dogs, but would have encountered super flat tracks to cover up for it as well.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

So better tactics means Bradman would be found out today. But better technology and know-how re: how to prepare wickets means the wickets would be worse today?

Don't buy it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Fast and mean back then too, had a real skiddy bouncer. Smacked a long 6 too when he batted. I recall a blitzing one day innings somewhere, 70 odd in no time.

Bloke we played a game with said Nash was the fastest he'd faced when he was younger. Was saying in the first game he played against Nash he didn't even see the first ball he faced and started laughing...next minute Nash is standing next to him asking him what the **** he's laughing about.

 

[GotSpin]

lol at the anti-bradman posts. so bad. Just a bunch of sweeping ill-informed generalisations because Bradman happened to play in an area that didn't have much TV coverage. Usual suspects at play too. no surprises there

 

[andyc]

Bradman's sub 30 scores have very similar average to that of other greats. His distinction comes when set he scores real big.

Did you know, that in all the innings where they got out for 0, Bradman's average is the same as Chris Martin's!??

Yeah, I'd agree with that. He's not quality in either discipline, but the fact he's just about good enough in both means they make up for one another.

Does always seem to like to play his ****s though, what's then longest innings he's actually played in terms of balls faced/time? To me he doesn't seem to be a player who likes batting while not scoring runs.

Heh.

 

[Ikki]

As much as I dislike Ponting, I have to strongly disagree with this. Ponting changed the momentum of a lot of matches - I know this from experience. So many times, we managed to get either one or both of the openers out, and all of our bowlers had their tails up. Everything was going our way. But then Ponting ripped the match out of our hands.

There was a recent cricinfo article re stats of Ponting lately (how he has been in poor form) and whether his openers put 50 on the board or not he still makes essentially the same amount of runs - meaning, he isn't really reliant on great starts by his openers.

 

[Migara]

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

So better tactics means Bradman would be found out today. But better technology and know-how re: how to prepare wickets means the wickets would be worse today?

Don't buy it.

Nah, you didn't get the message. He wouldn't have got out to lesser scores, but his mammoth scores would have been lower due to better defensive tactics. Irrespective of the era of the batsman, a jaffa is a jaffa, and I don't think that has changed much. But definietly the run saving tactics have imroved.

 

[Migara]

Did you know, that in all the innings where they got out for 0, Bradman's average is the same as Chris Martin's!?? Heh.

Once again go through the argument and get it up to the frontal lobe of yours. That reply was a spinal one.

 

[Flem274*]

Once again go through the argument and get it up to the frontal lobe of yours. That reply was a spinal one.

Chill out.

 

[benchmark00]

Nah he's got a point, that was clear baiting tbf.

 

[Migara]

No, the thing that distinguishes Bradman is how often he scored big runs. No-one has come close to his 29 centuries in 80 innings.

Bowlers and pitches doesn't explain anything either. No-one else in his era comes close to matching him.

He made 29 100s in 80 innings because he was great, agreed. But he got his bigger hundreds so easily (ex doubles and triples) on back of poor planning. You can go through old clips of him batting, and that shows two slips and a gully with no deep fielders against him when he's on 150+. On current day there would be a spread out field, or leggies or lefties bowling to the rough etc, but that sort of planning was not there during his time. It's not telling that he would have found out, but when set would have been difficult to make bigger hundreds.

 

[GotSpin]

Bet if they had defensive fields you would have criticised them for not being attacking enough - Bradman can't win!

 

[tooextracool]

He made 29 100s in 80 innings because he was great, agreed. But he got his bigger hundreds so easily (ex doubles and triples) on back of poor planning. You can go through old clips of him batting, and that shows two slips and a gully with no deep fielders against him when he's on 150+. On current day there would be a spread out field, or leggies or lefties bowling to the rough etc, but that sort of planning was not there during his time. It's not telling that he would have found out, but when set would have been difficult to make bigger hundreds.

Think you are over-analyzing this. Odds are most current players would have been in the hospital had they played without helmets and had to deal with bodyline. Lets face it, it can be argued either way, each player is a product of their own era. If batsmen today face greater planning from bowlers and increased scrutiny of their technique, it comes with the added benefits of better quality bats and of not having to worry about your head being knocked off.

The fact of the matter is that if it was that easy in Bradman's era then the rest of his peers would have at least been close to him statistically, but that is far from the case.

 

[GotSpin]

Think you are over-analyzing this. Odds are most current players would have been in the hospital had they played without helmets and had to deal with bodyline. Lets face it, it can be argued either way, each player is a product of their own era. If batsmen today face greater planning from bowlers and increased scrutiny of their technique, it comes with the added benefits of better quality bats and of not having to worry about your head being knocked off.

The fact of the matter is that if it was that easy in Bradman's era then the rest of his peers would have at least been close to him statistically, but that is far from the case.

Not to mention being able to use video replays as a way to fix technique issues

 

[Shri]

Bradman. WAC.

The post which started it all.

 

[NasserFan207]

Nah, you didn't get the message. He wouldn't have got out to lesser scores, but his mammoth scores would have been lower due to better defensive tactics. Irrespective of the era of the batsman, a jaffa is a jaffa, and I don't think that has changed much. But definietly the run saving tactics have imroved.

Lol, why? He'd likely just adapt to the modern fielding settings. Defensive fields make it more likely for a patient, determined batsman to make a big score anyway.

When you compare batsman from different eras, you don't take the tactics and conditions from that era and apply it to the other.

This is basic.

 

[Ruckus]

I think the bottom line with these Bradman analyses is you either have to accept he was a freak of nature, or that every single other player in his day were inept at cricket, hence exaggerating his achievements.

To accept the latter requires some enormous explanations, but to except the former, whilst it is still difficult to comprehend, seems FAR more plausible.

 

[ankitj]

IIRC there has been some statistical analysis of Barnes on CC with a focus on the gap between his record against Australia and SA and the inevitable debate about how good SA actually was during his career. You could actually argue that statistical analysis is more useful for the older players because there is so little video footage to make a judgment. Obviously the analysis has to take into account the different standards of the time but statistics can help there as well. For example I disagree with the idea that stats can't help us evaluate someone like Trumper. While you can't directly compare his stats to modern players, you can compare it to his contemporaries to get a sense of how good he was.

Think this analysis I posted few days back puts Barnes into perspective:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

He is still at the top, although by lesser than what one may imagine only looking at his average and a barely believable 24 five-fors in 27 matches. Quite a freak nonetheless!

 

[Themer]

Ricky Ponting.. he has to be one of the most overrated batsman in this forum

all his career, he was carried around by batsman like hayden, gilly and Aus strong top order.. he rarely faced any crisis situation.. now that some of the aus top batsman have retired, you see a decline in his career..

I would laugh if someone claims that he is better than Sachin, Lara and even Inzamam..

He was really "carried" during the 3rd test in the Ashes 05 and thats coming from a "Pom"...

 

[AaronK]

You don't know all that much about this cricket business do you?

oh are we talking about cricket.. umm I thought we are talking about vollayball..Ricky Ponting What a Vollayball player..

As much as I dislike Ponting, I have to strongly disagree with this. Ponting changed the momentum of a lot of matches - I know this from experience. So many times, we managed to get either one or both of the openers out, and all of our bowlers had their tails up. Everything was going our way. But then Ponting ripped the match out of our hands.

Care to share some of those scorecards with me..becuase i just have one of those short memories that i forget those type of matches if they don't happen often..

for me a batsman is good if he single handedly takes control.. bat with talenders and when matches in a crisis situation.. apparently that didn't happen that often during his career.. Aus mostly dominated the teams because they had strong batting line up consisting of Hayden, Langer, Slater, Waugh Brothers, Martins and Gily.. Now that these guys are retired, a decline in Ponting's career is seen..and I proved that with a little analysis that i just run in cricinfo.

Ponting debuted in December 11, 1995
batted mostly down the order till 2001.. he was promoted up the order right for 2001 ashes.

from 95 to 2007 when Aus was playing those big names like Waugh brothers, hayden, Langer, Slater, Martin, Gilly.. he averages over 59

filtered 1995-2007 110 9368 257 59.29 33 5 1/0 46.20 0 124 0

from Nov 2007 when the big names were gone.. he has averaged only 43.

filtered 2007-2010 38 2882 209 43.66 6 0 - - 0 50 0

in the past couple of years or so that Gilly and Hayden has retired, He has been even worse..averaging 42.

 

[AaronK]

He was really "carried" during the 3rd test in the Ashes 05 and thats coming from a "Pom"...

was that one in a blue moon type of innings? and even then when he was needed he got out..