WHY do they say this?

[Spark]

Word was IIRC that Bradman could have got a much higher average in Bodyline had he decided to be more circumspect but instead thought the best way to help his team was to be aggressive.

 

[Borges]

Here's another fun statistical meandering.

About half the tests that Tendulkar has played was in this august batting company:

Sehwag: average 53, Dravid: average 52, VVS: average 49
Over 27,500 runs with 69 centuries and 135 half-centuries between the three of them.

Challenge for the day: Name three top order test batsman (from any era) who have played over half their cricket under less pressure than Tendulkar?

 

[Spark]

Haha hardly fair.

 

[cnerd123]

I've just read through this whole thread.

God bless the trolls. Discussions like these would be so much less fun without them.


Bradman > Sachin

 

[fredfertang]

Word was IIRC that Bradman could have got a much higher average in Bodyline had he decided to be more circumspect but instead thought the best way to help his team was to be aggressive.

This is what I admire so much about Bradman - 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. 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 he eschewed risk, but if preserving his wicket was all that mattered to him he’d have done it with ease. He proved he 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

 

[cnerd123]

Only arguments that support the theory that Bradman won't score as much in this day and age are:
a) Better fielding
b) More grounds and countries to play in; more different bowlers to face
c) Technology to allow bowlers to examine him beforehand

a) may be valid but not to the extent that it'll cut Bradman's average down by 40 points. c) can be used to counter itself, in that Bradman can now visualise and study bowlers before he faces them, whereas b) is very subjective - pitches nowdays are more standardised and easier to bat on, so even if they were of a greater variety, they are fairly similar with minor differences, and in general easier to bat on then the pitches Bradman batted on. This too can be countered on itself - bowlers in Bradman's day bowled to fewer batsmen and on fewer pitches so knew how to bowl on them better and to greater effect than modern bowlers, who are constantly adapting to different pitches and conditions and thus not consistently at their best at all times.

 

[Furball]

Only arguments that support the theory that Bradman won't score as much in this day and age are:
a) Better fielding
b) More grounds and countries to play in; more different bowlers to face
c) Technology to allow bowlers to examine him beforehand

a) may be valid but not to the extent that it'll cut Bradman's average down by 40 points. c) can be used to counter itself, in that Bradman can now visualise and study bowlers before he faces them, whereas b) is very subjective - pitches nowdays are more standardised and easier to bat on, so even if they were of a greater variety, they are fairly similar with minor differences, and in general easier to bat on then the pitches Bradman batted on. This too can be countered on itself - bowlers in Bradman's day bowled to fewer batsmen and on fewer pitches so knew how to bowl on them better and to greater effect than modern bowlers, who are constantly adapting to different pitches and conditions and thus not consistently at their best at all times.

If anything, the pitches in the 1930s were flatter than today.

However, pitches today are always covered.

 

[GIMH]

This is what I admire so much about Bradman - 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. 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 he eschewed risk, but if preserving his wicket was all that mattered to him he’d have done it with ease. He proved he 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

We have a winner.

What a fantastic post.

 

[dhillon28]

tbh, dont have time (because of exams) to go tit for tat once again with all these fanatical Bradmanites...but let me just quickly get to the root of the matter. I've said all along that the players in Bradman's days were nothing but a bunch of trundling amateurs and hence I find his cricket record redundant by today's standards of bowling. If you dont believe me, lets see first hand video footage of Gubby Allen in action, the second highest english wicket taker in the famous 'Bodyline series', the so called dangerous attack Donald Bradman had to contend with.

CRICKET AT LORD'S - EXCLUSIVE - British Pathe

Now compare that bowling to this:

YouTube - Waqar Younis fools Lara.

YouTube - Kallis undone by a deadly delivery from Sreesanth

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar Vs Gilchrist [ The Perfect yorker ]

YouTube - The Ball Of the millenium

YouTube - Mohammad Aamir against Australia - Hatrick BALL

All I can say is that by comparing the footage of one of the premier english bodyline bowlers to the above which is just a sample of the type of stuff Sachin has had to face; can you guys sit there and honestly tell me that the standard of bowling in those days was even comparable to todays? Can you? Really? Well if you can that all I can say is that ophthalmologist, neurologist and psychiatric referrals are definitely in order!

Gubby Allen is described as a "genuine fast bowler by cricinfo"-The videos tell a different story from peer accounts at the time. All I can say is that if Gubby Allen was a genuine fast bowler, I'd hate to see what the trundlers of that time were like. This was from his best opposition as well. So much for peer reviewed accounts.

Guys just accept the truth and stop living in denial; its not healthy for the brain. Ps- you can look at as many videos of that era as you like and you'll never find comparable bowling to the modern era.

 

[marc71178]

How exactly does a film recorded on a camera which is far inferior to the current cameras you can get on a mobile phone these days prove anything?

And yet again I ask if the standard was so low, how come nobody else was averaging even two thirds of what Bradman was averaging?

By the logic you are trying to use, there is precisely 1 batsman from that era who would get a game for any current Test side since the rest were absolutely terrible.

 

[dhillon28]

How exactly does a film recorded on a camera which is far inferior to the current cameras you can get on a mobile phone these days prove anything?

And yet again I ask if the standard was so low, how come nobody else was averaging even two thirds of what Bradman was averaging?

By the logic you are trying to use, there is precisely 1 batsman from that era who would get a game for any current Test side since the rest were absolutely terrible.

ok my bad.....the jury is still out......its blatantly possible that he was as fast as the Rawalpindi express! lol- when are you guys gonna get serious/realistic?

 

[Top_Cat]

haha, I'm not even a Bradman disciple but using Allen as an example is ridiculous. He was in his 40's in that clip and his country had just fought a war. Bit disingenuous.

 

[dhillon28]

haha, I'm not even a Bradman disciple but using Allen as an example is ridiculous. He was in his 40's in that clip and his country had just fought a war. Bit disingenuous.

take any of the trundlers from that era you want- theyll all be of similar speed- unless of course its one of those speeded up films you see taken the mick out of on harry enfield.

 

[marc71178]

ok my bad.....the jury is still out......its blatantly possible that he was as fast as the Rawalpindi express! lol- when are you guys gonna get serious/realistic?

No, nothing can be proved either way by something recorded on such inferior equipment.

As for serious / realistic, are you going to answer my questions or will you just continue to ignore them in the knowledge that you can't actually answer them without exposing your theories as being a load of tripe?

 

[dhillon28]

No, nothing can be proved either way by something recorded on such inferior equipment.

As for serious / realistic, are you going to answer my questions or will you just continue to ignore them in the knowledge that you can't actually answer them without exposing your theories as being a load of tripe?

seriously I cant be bothered....but if you think im ignoring them just because I cant prove them wrong then ill do a deal for you......list ur questions out to me, and once ive dealt with them, dont contribute to this thread again. otherwise its just a waste of my time. i cant perpetually go round in circles- just doenst achieve anything.

 

[GotSpin]

seriously I cant be bothered....but if you think im ignoring them just because I cant prove them wrong then ill do a deal for you......list ur questions out to me, and once ive dealt with them, dont contribute to this thread again. otherwise its just a waste of my time. i cant perpetually go round in circles- just doenst achieve anything.

We have a winner guys.

Yet to reply to a single argument against his woeful theories

 

[dhillon28]

We have a winner guys.

Yet to reply to a single argument against his woeful theories

just keep repeating that to urself, eventually you might believe it.

 

[GotSpin]

This is what I admire so much about Bradman - 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. 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 he eschewed risk, but if preserving his wicket was all that mattered to him he’d have done it with ease. He proved he 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

Brilliant Post

 

[Top_Cat]

Mate, it's a bit rich demand others get serious when the footage you show to illustrate your point is of a bloke who was in his 40's and was basically a part-timer cricketer (really, a batsman who bowled a bit and was captain) by that point in his life, let alone having fought on the front lines in Germany with all it's attendant stresses, poor nutrition, injuries, etc.

 

[GotSpin]

just keep repeating that to urself, eventually you might believe it.

What are you talking about? How about you actually reply to what Marc said?