-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
- Status
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Thought this thread would have descended into a slanging match by now. Still reckon it will.
uvelocity
International Coach
your mum does!
BeeGee
International Captain
Yep, our raging seamers would have taken him down a peg or two. Daryl Tuffy would have torn him a new one.
I can send you the document if you've lost it.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
This is one of the numerous misconceptions about Bradman and his era. The Australian wickets, pre war atleast, were fast. Modern WI pitches have been slow though that has been offset by some truly awful pitches in some cases.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
Four things that Bradman fans do
People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).
Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned
Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.
And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.
People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).
Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned
Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.
And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Playing on flat decks doesn't explain Bradman's average, as the greatest batsman of the era returned numbers consistent with great batsmen of every other era.Four things that Bradman fans do
People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).
Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned
Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.
And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.
I don't see how you can be so flippant in dismissing statistics either given that Bradman dominates every statistical category you can think of.
Flem274*
123/5
Funny you should mention it considering how Tendulkar and friends went in 2002 down here.
Instead of crying about the pitches they would have done well to look in the mirror.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
Hey, you are missing out something, you forgot to call me a Sachin fan
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Sorry, I assumed you were doing something other than trolling, won't happen again.Hey, you are missing out something, you forgot to call me a Sachin fan
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry to have to say this but the above is just an ignorant diatribe. Why do people think being a troll is so clever?Four things that Bradman fans do
People say stats alone cannot decide the greatness of a player, but the only thing which they use to prove Bradman's greatness is his stats(and a few stories of course, but the only valid point they have is his stats).
Performance of a player against the minnows is never taken seriously, but in Bradman's case, they do take it very very seriously, his performance against the three hopeless minnows(out of the 4 inferior teams he played against) should never ever be questioned
Never agree that Bradman played on the flattest decks ever and the only difficulty in his time were the sticky wickets where he failed.
And if someone questions Bradman's greatness, you label him a Tendulkar fan even if his not and start taking the discussion off topic.
Coronis
International Coach
Should never assume that here.
karan316
State Vice-Captain
I guess trolling started right after that post by me
kyear2
International Coach
The pre war pitches in Australia were down right flat, hence why Australia developed exactly zero quality fast bowlers during the era and relied on O'Reilly, Grimmett and Ironmonger. And true, even in the '70's and '80's in the W.I, not all of the pitches were fast, Trinidad and Guyana were either flat or spinner friendly even back then.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They weren't always flat, hence Larwood and Voce causing such consternation in 32/33 - they had expected flat pitches, but what they found was that generally the bounce was pretty uneven
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
That contradicts everything I've read about our pitches back then from individuals like O'Reilly and Bradman to authourities from Wisden. Our pitches were true but they were quick. O'Reilly said they were the only thing about them that gave bowlers the slightest hope. Overall you'll find foreign fast bowlers did much better in Oz than their home wickets in this era. England's pitches, in particular appeared to be quite slow.
As an aside the nature of pitches has nothing to do with the production of pace men otherwise Pakistan wouldn't have produced any. We did produce men who were very fast however like McCormick and Nash. Others who were sharp like Wall. Wall's record in Oz being quite good. He struggled on the slow pitches of England. The fact we didn't produce fast men the quality of Gregory, McDonald, Lindwall, Miller or Johnston is just down to circumstance. In fact the post war trio mentioned flourished in a decade (the 40s) when our pitches were documented to have slowed right down.
Last edited:
- Status