WHY do they say this?

[hang on]

from what i have read and heard about bedser, it seems that he was bowling reverse swing. those dream balls to bradman certainly sound like it.

regarding uncovered pitches, how often were the pitches actually affected enough by being uncovered to actually make a difference? from some stats that i remember coming across in cricinfo sometime back, it seems that the 30s (or was it the 40s?) was one of the best times for run scoring (in terms of averages as well as 100s per innings). and the 90s was one of the worst. of course, bradman's monstrous influence could have skewed those stats!

will try and dig up the articles...

 

[abmk]

batting conditions in Bradman's time were roughly like the one we've had in the 2000s, well on an average

 

[abmk]

Your speculations are pure guess work. I'd be repeating myself if I replied to them

My spectulations about average are guess work, but the factors I mentioned are NOT - like variety in bowlers, pitches .... that you refuse to acknowledge ! Not saying bradman wouldn't adapt, he would but probably not that well so as to average 100.

Besides, what do you mean less time to work on Test cricket? When he wasn't scoring centuries he was off working in his stock-broking business or earlier on as a real estate agent. Furthermore, I dare say Bradman spent just as much time playing cricket than today's players. They might tour much more frequently, and might I add more comfortably, but they didn't spend as much time playing due to the high amount of First Class and tour matches that Bradman played. I don't think he's longevity or fitness can be comprehensively questioned

yes, he played more first class cricket, which is 'preparation' for test cricket . In today's days , you'll play more MUCH more ODIs . You have MUCH less first class cricket to prepare for test cricket - which becomes even more significant in case of matches abroad

 

[abmk]

from what i have read and heard about bedser, it seems that he was bowling reverse swing. those dream balls to bradman certainly sound like it.

from what I've heard and read, they were cutters mostly. Reverse swing came into prominence with sarfaraz nawaz ( &Imran )

 

[abmk]

I'd think Bradman's freakish concentration is the lone factor that puts him a league above the other great batsmen. Does anyone else think there was/were other factors ?

 

[Spark]

That is actually usually cited as the main factor - apart from the fact that he was prodigiously talented, but Bradman himself said that McCabe was a more talented bat IIRC.

 

[hang on]

from what I've heard and read, they were cutters mostly. Reverse swing came into prominence with sarfaraz nawaz ( &Imran )

cutters perhaps. but swinging in one way and then cutting/swinging/seaming away the other.....

but my understanding of reverse swing might not be the best.

 

[centurymaker]

I'd think Bradman's freakish concentration is the lone factor that puts him a league above the other great batsmen. Does anyone else think there was/were other factors ?

Thats the main factor.

who actually thinks that bradman would've averaged 100 over 150 tests?

 

[archie mac]

Thats the main factor.

who actually thinks that bradman would've averaged 100 over 150 tests?

Depends what age he played them at tbh

After the war he said he was no where near the batsman he was before the war, still averaged close to a 100 mind you.

If he played 100 Tests before the age of 35 I think he would have averaged over 100

 

[hang on]

here are the articles about batting and bowling by decade:

batting
The decade of the batsmen | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

interesting bit about the 90s in there
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

bowling
A decade of toil for bowlers | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Furball]

How does that counteract hang on's point ?

Because while the game is more professional, great batsmen from today are achieving exactly the same as great batsmen were in the past.

No-one in the history of the game has come close to achieving what Bradman did with the bat.

 

[Migara]

Because while the game is more professional, great batsmen from today are achieving exactly the same as great batsmen were in the past.

No-one in the history of the game has come close to achieving what Bradman did with the bat.

There are batsmen who average 100 in school cricket then and now. Thatd doesn't mean school cricket equates test cricket. Same theory applies for cricket of 30s and now. Standard is so different. No point in comparing players from such distant eras.

 

[Howe_zat]

There are batsmen who average 100 in school cricket then and now. Thatd doesn't mean school cricket equates test cricket. Same theory applies for cricket of 30s and now. Standard is so different. No point in comparing players from such distant eras.

While I agree that comparing players across eras is a largely fruitless exercise, are you seriously implying that cricket of Bradman's era (leaving aside, for the moment, that this is a 20-year period) was of a similar standard to today's school cricket?

 

[Shri]

No way to conclusively decide.

 

[Borges]

While I agree that comparing players across eras is a largely fruitless exercise, are you seriously implying that cricket of Bradman's era (leaving aside, for the moment, that this is a 20-year period) was of a similar standard to today's school cricket?

I'm not one for comparing players across eras either.

That said, I believe that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs would still have been genuinely great batsmen had they played in any era. Sydney Barnes or Clarrie Grimmett would have been truly great bowlers. Aubrey Faulkner would still have been among the greatest of all-rounders.

Whilst cricket was very different from what is is today at the time these luminaries played the game, they were greats not merely because they had an outrageous amount talent, but because they were able to do justice to that talent by adapting perfectly to the conditions that prevailed. It would be extremely naive to assume that they would have floundered while trying to adapt to a somewhat different set of conditions.

 

[archie mac]

There are batsmen who average 100 in school cricket then and now. Thatd doesn't mean school cricket equates test cricket. Same theory applies for cricket of 30s and now. Standard is so different. No point in comparing players from such distant eras.

Compare them against their contemporaries, Bradman twice as good, STR not. Simple

 

[sledger]

No it's not.

Someone like you would say that.

 

[silentstriker]

In actual real terms, the modern batsmen (not singling out SRT) may in fact be equal or better. Do I think they are? Yea, but not enough to make up the vast distance between Bradman and #2 place. But that is pure conjecture...the only actual data we have to go by is performances relative to their peers and obviously there is no contest between Bradman and anybody.

It's not like sprinting where you could compare the 100m time from 1938 and 2008 and conclusively say that this guy was faster in actual objective terms.

 

[archie mac]

In actual real terms, the modern batsmen (not singling out SRT) may in fact be equal or better. Do I think they are? Yea, but not enough to make up the vast distance between Bradman and #2 place. But that is pure conjecture...the only actual data we have to go by is performances relative to their peers and obviously there is no contest between Bradman and anybody.

It's not like sprinting where you could compare the 100m time from 1938 and 2008 and conclusively say that this guy was faster in actual objective terms.

Even the 100 with better shoes better weight training and better coaching may not prove who was really the fastest. If Owens was given modern techniques he may still be the fastest man in the world

 

[Bun]

No way to conclusively decide.

Finally a sane post.