Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[NUFAN]

I actually think that being "super fit", especially with regards to body definition, is a hinderance in cricket. Shane Watson is an example of this imo. And I also think that the majority of people in the "olden days" were a better kind of fit than the supplement taking gym junkies of nowadays. They walked a lot more, they chopped wood, did more physical labour.

Yeah this is pretty much my point too. Since you mentioned Watson, there are times out in the middle when I really have to wonder how much work Watson puts into the basic elements of Cricket like running between the wickets compared to how much time he spends unnecessarily at the gym.

I was just wondering too and it would have been better for the other thread which is now closed, but how many long standing world records are there in sport? The first one I can think of is Sergei Bubka in the pole vault who has had the record for 20 years.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah this is pretty much my point too. Since you mentioned Watson, there are times out in the middle when I really have to wonder how much work Watson puts into the basic elements of Cricket like running between the wickets compared to how much time he spends unnecessarily at the gym.

I was just wondering too and it would have been better for the other thread which is now closed, but how many long standing world records are there in sport? The first one I can think of is Sergei Bubka in the pole vault who has had the record for 20 years.

My god how could I forget Bubka.

Bubka increased the world record by 21 centimetres (8 inches) in the 4 years between 1984 and 1988, more than other pole vaulters had achieved in the previous 12 years. He cleared 6.00 meters or better on 45 occasions, more than all other athletes in history combined (as of 20 April 2009 there have been 42 clearances of 6.00 metres by other athletes).

He was absolutely ****ing ridiculous. His world record was set in 1994.Mike Powell has held the long jump world record since 1991. Lewis was a better leaper though. Jan Zelezny has held the javelin record since 96. Nobody else has thrown 94 metres and he threw 98.48. WAG. Most impressive in athletics is probably Flo Jo. Has held the women's 100m and 200m records since 1988.

 

[kyear2]

The best two bowlers from before and after the war were Aussies, O'Reilly and Grimmett, Lindwall and Miller. The bowlers of note before the war were Verity and Larwood and Larwood never played again after Bodyline, the closest thing the Don would have experienced to the bowling of the '70's though the '90's. He averaged a impressive 89 vs England and 74 vs the second best pace atack he faced the W.I's who troubled him early in the series before a dropped catch led to a run of form. Where Bradders really piled it on was vs the minnows vs whom he averaged 178 and 201, and 8 100's in 11 innings. Weekes's record vs the same Indian team is quite similar, but then Weekes had to face Lindwall and Miller, that didn't go to well. The Don scored 2 hundreds (one after being dropped in single figures) in 6 innings vs he W.I and 19 from 63 innings vs England.
To suggest that S.A were not a much weaker team and more comparable to India than England would be just wrong. Look at Grimmett he averaged 32 vs England witha a s/r of 86, vs South Africa he averaged 15 with a s/r 50. Hammond with the bat averaged 51 vs Australia, 35 vs the W.I and 62 vs S.A, though with a much larger sample size that would lead to some correction.

To look at Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Thomson, Procter, Snow, Willis, Underwood, the Indian quartet ect ect and compare them to Voce, Allen, Larwood and Verity far less the bowlers from South Africa and India are just a mismatch. Even Headley came close to Bradman, with a average in the high 60's vs England, home and away and then he had to face Grimmett and Ironmonger in Australia instead of what Bradman got to face vs India and S.A..

This is not in the least to say that Bradman isn't the best ever, he cleary was, but lets not try to rewrite history and try to paint the opposition to be better than it was.

Anyway long day, going to bed.

 

[NUFAN]

My god how could I forget Bubka.

Bubka increased the world record by 21 centimetres (8 inches) in the 4 years between 1984 and 1988, more than other pole vaulters had achieved in the previous 12 years. He cleared 6.00 meters or better on 45 occasions, more than all other athletes in history combined (as of 20 April 2009 there have been 42 clearances of 6.00 metres by other athletes).

He was absolutely ****ing ridiculous. His world record was set in 1994.Mike Powell has held the long jump world record since 1991. Lewis was a better leaper though. Jan Zelezny has held the javelin record since 96. Nobody else has thrown 94 metres and he threw 98.48. WAG. Most impressive in athletics is probably Flo Jo. Has held the women's 100m and 200m records since 1988.

Yep these sort of records makes me find it odd that anyone thinks that the Cricketers from just 20 years ago wouldn't be able to perform Test match batting or bowling at the same level (if not higher) if they were playing today. Its a shame with athletics how it has a drugs stigma attached to it - I bet a few people on here are saying yeah, but they were probably on drugs, actually even I thought that perhaps Flo Jo was..

 

[the big bambino]

The best two bowlers from before and after the war were Aussies, O'Reilly and Grimmett, Lindwall and Miller. The bowlers of note before the war were Verity and Larwood and Larwood never played again after Bodyline, the closest thing the Don would have experienced to the bowling of the '70's though the '90's. He averaged a impressive 89 vs England and 74 vs the second best pace atack he faced the W.I's who troubled him early in the series before a dropped catch led to a run of form. Where Bradders really piled it on was vs the minnows vs whom he averaged 178 and 201, and 8 100's in 11 innings. Weekes's record vs the same Indian team is quite similar, but then Weekes had to face Lindwall and Miller, that didn't go to well. The Don scored 2 hundreds (one after being dropped in single figures) in 6 innings vs he W.I and 19 from 63 innings vs England.
To suggest that S.A were not a much weaker team and more comparable to India than England would be just wrong. Look at Grimmett he averaged 32 vs England witha a s/r of 86, vs South Africa he averaged 15 with a s/r 50. Hammond with the bat averaged 51 vs Australia, 35 vs the W.I and 62 vs S.A, though with a much larger sample size that would lead to some correction.

To look at Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Thomson, Procter, Snow, Willis, Underwood, the Indian quartet ect ect and compare them to Voce, Allen, Larwood and Verity far less the bowlers from South Africa and India are just a mismatch. Even Headley came close to Bradman, with a average in the high 60's vs England, home and away and then he had to face Grimmett and Ironmonger in Australia instead of what Bradman got to face vs India and S.A..

This is not in the least to say that Bradman isn't the best ever, he cleary was, but lets not try to rewrite history and try to paint the opposition to be better than it was.

Anyway long day, going to bed.

You may think this is interesting but your constant repetition is tiresome. I've shown you that the bowlers DGB faced up to the war were the equal or better than the Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib Pakistan attacks from 88-2000, the Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers attacks from 93-2004 and the English attack that won 2 ashes from 98-2009. The comparison included Bradman's runs. However I think it fair that since you always single out Bradman's opponents to denigrate his achievements that his runs are removed so you get a real idea of just how good the bowlers he faced were.

Why is that fair? Well bcos you Bradman knockers want to have your cake and eat it. You look at the bowling averages destroyed by Bradman and chortle: "Look - they couldn't bowl" Then its fair to take out Bradman's runs to see what base of bowling std he was working against. When you do that you see that his English bowling opponents were distinctly superior to the 3 sides mentioned above. They were the equivalent to the Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bedser, Bailey sides of the 40s and 50s.

I've been kind enough to do the work to show you those stats. Do you understand how cranky I get when you respond with your repetitive bull****? All you say in reponse is that these men can't be all that good.That apparently explains DGB's success according to you In short you respond with incredulity, not a reasoned rebuttal. I can understand your incredulity but lets make it clear; it is not a point. It is not factual and it is not backed with any stats.

I also explained to you proportionality. That is Bradman and his opponents played the vast % of their matches against their strongest opponents. I did this in detail. The upshot being that, contrary to your belief, it is the modern player, not Bradman who benefits from matches against lesser sides.

Your comments about SA using the aegis of Grimmett to ratethem is just stupid. The proper way to rate them is how they went against Eng and Aus. Clearly this makes them 3rd but no minnows.

As to the bowlers Richards faced, well Snow was good by the time they met but not what he once was. And our 3rd XI beat the Indian quartet. Others like Willis averaged mid 30s against the WI. Or abt Allen's ave against Bradman and Australia. Thommo averaged 28 overall. Good but not as good as you make him out to be. And when did he face Proctor?

 

[Coronis]

Yep these sort of records makes me find it odd that anyone thinks that the Cricketers from just 20 years ago wouldn't be able to perform Test match batting or bowling at the same level (if not higher) if they were playing today. Its a shame with athletics how it has a drugs stigma attached to it - I bet a few people on here are saying yeah, but they were probably on drugs, actually even I thought that perhaps Flo Jo was..

Apparently she was actually singled out for extra, rigorous drug testing, and they still failed to find anything.

 

[Daemon]

Vijay Merchant got somewhat closer than most in terms of FC records, but yeah really not that close, and probably playing in a much weaker domestic system too (although this is a total assumption by me).

Tendulkar averages nearly a hundred in the Ranji iirc. Insane.

Not making any point ftr

 

[Coronis]

Tendulkar averages nearly a hundred in the Ranji iirc. Insane.

Not making any point ftr

Merchant averaged 98.75 in the Ranji Trophy :P Tests etc drag him down to 71.

 

[The Sean]

You may think this is interesting but your constant repetition is tiresome.

This is exactly it, and a big reason as to why these discussions become sadly unappealing.

How many times, by how many people, in how many different threads, does virtually the exact same post have to be rebutted and discredited for being so utterly biased, selective and disingenuous?

 

[harsh.ag]

This is exactly it, and a big reason as to why these discussions become sadly unappealing.

How many times, by how many people, in how many different threads, does virtually the exact same post have to be rebutted and discredited for being so utterly biased, selective and disingenuous?

CW has greatly increased my respect for global warming scientists and atheists

 

[Ruckus]

Alright first off let's keep this impassive, ok?

Technical standards of batting and bowling haven't changed much for many decades and probably leading back to the beginning of last century.

The first line of evidence I have against this (and the best) is footage. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise if you don't agree with this, but do you honestly view footage of cricket back in the early 1900's and think the standards of batting and bowling are the same as today? Footage like this:

CLARRIE GRIMMETT - British Pathé

THEY'RE WELL AFTER THOSE "ASHES" - British Pathé

Jack Hobbs in 1914 - YouTube

Cricket highlights 1899-1938(W.G.Grace, Ranjithsinghji, Jack hobbs, Don Bradman, len hutton) - YouTube

Arthur Mold Bowling to A.N. Hornby (1901) - YouTube

Secondly, on what other grounds are there to believe players from then would have had the same standards? They were playing in an era when the game was still very much finding it's feet in terms of development, they lived in an era with wars, depressions, poorer medical assistance and other turmoil, they had to work other jobs simultaneously to make a living, they didn't play nearly as much top-level cricket, proper training simply wouldn't have been as efficient, effective or as often, support staff would have been either non-existent or far diminished compared to today, infrastructure would not have been as developed, and competition all the way from grassroots level to elite would have been weaker for multiple reasons (one of the more obvious ones being there simply wouldn't have been as many serious cricketers participating).

This is borne out in the relative consistency in the decadal averages since the 1900s. There was a transitional decade or so that saw batting catching up with bowling and ending the era of bowling dominance from the 1880s to around 1900, 1905.

The relative consistency in averages can also be explained by a roughly equal development in both batting and bowling simultaneously. Once again though, if you can look at footage from that era and say the standards back then were 'completely' developed (in both batting and bowling), then that's just where we'll have to fundamentally disagree.

So if the only improvements are in fitness levels then how seriously can we take those who argue today's generation are naturally superior to those past?

Who is arguing this? I might be wrong here, but I wasn't aware anyone was approaching this debate by contesting the 'natural' ability of players from different eras. There's a very obvious distinction between arguing that players from very early eras simply weren't as good as modern players because of external differences born out of the time they lived in, as opposed to claiming they were 'naturally' inferior, which they weren't. That's just dumb. That's essentially saying human being have significantly evolved biologically over the past century.

 

[watson]

The relative consistency in averages can also be explained by a roughly equal development in both batting and bowling simultaneously.

That's actually a good point.

 

[Arachnodouche]

It's always been fairly obvious. Treasure Bradman's record because it is truly special but the guy played in all of two countries, in an era when athletic prowess wasn't anywhere as pronounced as the standards today, and the minnows hadn't achieved their true potential. Even if we consider fielding alone, chances are he wouldn't have scored as many runs in a 21st century context. The probability that a modern "great" would cope on par or actually better his records in an earlier era are higher than the other way around. Progress in all sports, not just cricket, has for the most part been linear. You just can't view statistics in isolation.

 

[the big bambino]

1) The first line of evidence I have against this (and the best) is footage

Arthur Mold Bowling to A.N. Hornby (1901) - YouTube

2) Secondly, on what other grounds are there to believe players from then would have had the same standards? They were playing in an era when the game was still very much finding it's feet in terms of development... (Professionalism)

3) The relative consistency in averages can also be explained by a roughly equal development in both batting and bowling simultaneously.


4) Who is arguing this? I might be wrong here, but I wasn't aware anyone was approaching this debate by contesting the 'natural' ability of players from different eras.

1) Footage is not evidence. Like others I've seen a lot of old footage from sports, war, cinema or people just walking in the streets. People have never moved as jerkily as old film makes them appear. Your comments could be more accurately directed to the std of cinematography. (Btw you've fallen for that old Mold clip. Its just a net mate. He's bowling to a 50 yo and is 38 himself). You have generally misunderstood my comments. They arose from a discussion I was following. They aren't necessarily what I believe. To encapsulate there isn't an objective measure of cricket stds as there are in other sports like running or swimming. You can only speculate that fitness and prep have improved performance. Or you can say that the game's technique has evolved. But how to measure the improvement? That is my question and I know you can't answer it objectively. There is no objective std.

2) Modern batting techniques were laid down by Grace along while ago. Bowling improved via the development of over arm then seam, swerve and the wrong'un. All well entrenched by WW1. Since then there may have been the flipper (credited to Grimmett), the doosra and reverse swing. Well that's not a lot over 100 yrs and old stagers might look on reverse swing as old fashioned inswing. The kids may have thought they invented it just like a boy band reprising an old Elvis song. However if someone revolutionised technique like basketball did in its shot making or high jumpers did then you could identify an improvement in stds. Cricket underwent its revolutions quite early and its fundamentals stayed much the same ever since. Hence it is hard to attribute an improved std, albeit subjectively, by revolutions in the fundamentals of batting and bowling. Also the game was pro from an early stage.

3) It can...or it can't. Even your comment is speculative which is an admission the game doesn't have an objective measure. Now think of it this way. What if the consistency in averages is a result of the settled batting/bowling fundamentals mentioned above? To my eye that is certainly possible. After all bowling did dominate originally. Then batting caught up. Improved pitches being the catalyst I believe and there is certainly evidence for that. Batting and bowling has remained in a war of attrition decade by decade ever since. The only time the averages have gone up or down has coincided with pitch preparation (low in the poor wkt era of the 50s and high in the road era on the noughties). There has not been a documented improvement in batting or bowling fundamentals to explain the outcome.

4) I'm glad you believe that talent isn't a preserve of modern players. I don't either. I believe that if there has been an improvement in stds it is down to the advantages available to a modern generation. If you could transport golden oldie to the modern world then he could also better exploit his talent. Still I don't think you understood my comment when you replied to it. Did you notice it was a question? If you don't have an objective measure, if the batting and bowling fundamentals are basically the same, if the impact of fitness can't be assessed then how srsly can we take the assertion that stds have improved on nothing more than a belief that they must have. We all might believe it but we can't actually measure it.

 

[the big bambino]

It's always been fairly obvious. Treasure Bradman's record because it is truly special but the guy played in all of two countries, in an era when athletic prowess wasn't anywhere as pronounced as the standards today, and the minnows hadn't achieved their true potential. Even if we consider fielding alone, chances are he wouldn't have scored as many runs in a 21st century context. The probability that a modern "great" would cope on par or actually better his records in an earlier era are higher than the other way around. Progress in all sports, not just cricket, has for the most part been linear. You just can't view statistics in isolation.

All well and good but how do you prove it?

 

[Furball]

Tendulkar averages nearly a hundred in the Ranji iirc. Insane.

Not making any point ftr

I don't think this is correct btw.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think this is correct btw.

yeah pretty sure it was only over a season or two.. his overall average I don't think is in the late 90s for sure even if u consider Ranji alone..

 

[Justo]

Wiki reports that he averages 89 in Ranji. Whether it's accurate or not I can't confirm.

List of Ranji Trophy records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Coronis]

Wiki reports that he averages 89 in Ranji. Whether it's accurate or not I can't confirm.

List of Ranji Trophy records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last updated in 08.

 

[Furball]

I'm sure Cricket Archive lists his average for Mumbai as being 60 something.

Of course, not all games played for Mumbai are necessarily Ranji games.