Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[Hurricane]

Cricket During 1950's_clip0 - Video Dailymotion

Here's some 1950s action. Benaud looks like he has an awesome action and the shots against him look quality. I will let you judge the medium pacer's actions.

 

[NUFAN]

The whole last few pages has been frustrating and confusing as it seems as though everyone disagreeing with each other actually rates Bradman the best but they just have different reasons for rating him that highly.

 

[Hurricane]

That's fine Watson. I think its a hard argue otherwise. However people can think whatever of him. That doesn't concern me. What grates with me is the inconsistency of argument. If people think stds then are poor compared to now then I can't see how he can be rated as the best. I can't see the purpose of ATG threads either. Its the content of the argument against him as well as its subjectivity that pisses me off, not the opinion itself.

Good point

 

[Hurricane]

If standards have gotten gradually better and a Cricketer was astronomically better compared to the rest as Bradman was, its previous obvious how he can be rated as the best.

You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.

 

[NUFAN]

You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.

Well, that's absolutely crazy that you would get all of that out of my comment. I haven't mentioned Sanga at all.

Sanga would average 0.00 if he was playing in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

 

[Ruckus]

So presumably you believe modern greats like Cook, Sangakkara, Amla, Chanderpaul etc would average 70+ if transported back to the mid 70's? If progress is unidirectional as you suggest, then surely 40 years is long enough. That is halfway between the modern era and Bradman's time after all.

If not, when exactly did this giant leap forward in cricket standards take place? Do we scorn those who played in the 50's and 60's.... Or is it just a pre-war to 1948 thing?

No. I don't think progress has been linear. I think by the 70's*** standards of cricket were similar to now. There has been some change since then, but not the more bulk changes that occurred between the early 1900's and post war. The difference I am talking about is a transition from semi-professional to professional standards. To put it another way, I think most cricketers from the 70's could be transported to the present and achieve roughly similar results with minimal adaptation. And vice versa as well. I don't think the greats you mentioned would necessarily average any better at all if playing in the 70's.

*** This is a rough estimate, because by the nature of gradual progress you can't easily pinpoint a specific time.

 

[Hurricane]

Well, that's absolutely crazy that you would get all of that out of my comment. I haven't mentioned Sanga at all.

Sanga would average 0.00 if he was playing in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

I don't think its crazy I got that out of your statement.

a) Others are saying that in this thread so that is the context of the discussion.

Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's

b) you said "If standards have gotten gradually better" this infers that if a modern day cricketer could go back in time (if that was possible) he would be more successful than he was today.

Anyways that is why I took that out of your post. I apologize if you personally don't like to contemplate batsman going forwards or backwards in time which is indeed impossible.

 

[Ruckus]

Robelinda has some excellent footage of late 50's Ashes. Personally still don't think the standards were as good, but definitely well on the way. Some stuff of Benaud bowling in the first one.

Peter May 113 vs Australia- 2nd Test 1958/59 ASHES Melbourne - YouTube

Neil Harvey 167 vs England - 2nd test MCG 1958/59 ASHES - YouTube

 

[NUFAN]

I don't think its crazy I got that out of your statement.

a) Others are saying that in this thread so that is the context of the discussion.


b) you said "If standards have gotten gradually better" this infers that if a modern day cricketer could go back in time (if that was possible) he would be more successful than he was today.

Anyways that is why I took that out of your post. I apologize if you personally don't like to contemplate batsman going forwards or backwards in time which is indeed impossible.

So how did you arrive at the figure of 70 when I said if standards have gotten gradually better? There are so many factors out there that would make it impossible for me to give an average that I would be confident about a player if he could somehow be transported back in time. For starters, what country would he play for? Would he be the countries wicket keeper?

 

[Ruckus]

You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.

The problem with this is that even if greats of the modern game could average 100 back when Bradman played, they are being transported back there with the benefit of 80 years progress in the sport - i.e. if you believe the standards have improved, then they possess better techniques, have faced tougher competition to hone their skills etc. Bradman averaged 100 without those benefits. Who knows what he could have averaged with the knowledge and resources available to modern players. But, this is all getting a bit silly, as it's very speculative/hypothetical stuff.

 

[CricAddict]

The whole last few pages has been frustrating and confusing as it seems as though everyone disagreeing with each other actually rates Bradman the best but they just have different reasons for rating him that highly.

Yes I agree.. Also, in the last few posts, I only see that people agree that it is impossible to compare conditions then and now and hence the greats then and now.. Hence, there is no point having this debate and no point having this thread..

 

[Ruckus]

That's a very nihilistic stand on it though. Just because you can't compare something doesn't mean you can't have interesting discussions on why that is the case. In any event, it seems a lot of people on here do believe you can make comparisons. If you believe there has been no significant progress in cricket over the past century, then naturally you should be able to believe comparisons can be made.

 

[Migara]

He doesn't believe in using old footage as evidence, so even if he gives an answer it can only be reliant upon raw stats and anecdotes.

He only uses accounts from so called "expert cricket writers" who were never biased and were omnipotent in cricket knowledge.

 

[Migara]

The only thing I didn't like about Grimmett's bowling is that he bowled with a pronounced round-arm action that was relatively low. Consequently the ball didn't appear to get much above eye level, or have much over-spin. So I'm not sure how Grimmett could have beat the batsman 'in-flight'. It seems as though he would need to rely purely on side-spin to beat the batsman

No dear, lower arm action is much difficult if the bowler flights it. Even the flatter ones tend to go up and then come down. Bowlers with very high arm actions like Chandra and Kumble were not good in deceiving batsmen in flight. ie. their deliveries did not dip alarmingly. So were Qadir and Mushtaq who beat batsmen off the spin off the pitch basically. Round arm spinners, especially finger spinners are notorious for producing dip. That is why many spinners from sub continent develop a round arm variation for their deliveries.

 

[Dan]

Okay, the standard of the last thread went down the toilet very quickly, and for the most part the debate in here has been a lot better.
Keep it that way.

But if we start descending into that **** posting, personal attacks and blatant trolling of other posters again, I'm going to be infracting like mad. Everyone's sick of it.

 

[ankitj]

Why do people even debate this topic. Ignore the baits thrown by trolls.

 

[kyear2]

How pointless. You know the bowlers he faced and come to your own conclusions. What can I say to change your made up mind? If you were fair minded you'd trust the impartial statistics which will show that the Aus and Eng bowling of the era to be better than any in the Viv era except the WI themselves: Then I'll make the adjustments to hold your excuse making to account - for DGB's runs and minnows. A furphy you always put up to down grade Bradman. In fact it shows he benefitted very little from playing minnows. Like I said if you were fair minded you'd accept being refereed by the impartial stats. But you wont...

There is not a bowler that Bradman faced that can compare to Dennis Lillee, Imran Khan, John Snow, Richard Hadlee, The Indian Quartet in India, Dereck Underwood besides with the possible exception of Larwood and Verity (and how Larwood is rated depends on who one speaks to. I believe he deserves to be rated higher because of the flat pitches he faced and the old LBW rule that restricted one large way he could get wickets.) and this still doesn't factor in Dev, Wasim, Thompson, Willis ect and any attempt to manipulate statistics to do is disengenuous and is attempting to suggest that Bradman would have averaged a hundred if he played in the '80's which is outside the relm of possibility.
Additionally to keep repeating that he didn't benefit from playing againts Minnows as sub standard opposition should stop being repeated when you doulble your average vs them againts as compared to the other teams and score 8 hundreds and 1 fifty in 11 innings while averaging 178 and 201. Thats more than Murali benefitted from playing vs the minnows of his era and that is constanly brough up with comparrisons with Warne.
Additionally JB seems to like your reasoning. His list of the best bowlers he has seen.

Fast Bowlers
1. Dennis Lillee
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Keith Miller
4. Imran Khan
5. Fred Trueman

Fastest Bowlers
1. Jeff Thompson
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Michael Holding
4. Bob Willis
5. Shoab Ahktar

Additionally you are rated as a player based on what you do. If the bowlers of his era averaged what they did againts Bradman after the LBW law change, they don't warrent having their stats adjusted, because as I mentioned earlier no one adjusts Michael Atherton's numbers despite having to face Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar and McGrath and Gillespie with the new ball and in my humble estimation that was a more difficult task. Bradman is the best no doubt, but the bolwers he faced, especially vs S.A and India and England after Larwood was retired, was not that great.

 

[kyear2]

I've already stated that the 1930s was an era of great spin bowlers. So lack of spin is not the problem. However, I do believe that there is an obvious lack of quality fast bowlers relative to the modern era.

So you don't need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that a talented batsman from the modern era who is good at playing spin bowling would do very well in the 1930s because he wouldn't have the treadmill of Holding/Roberts/Marshall, Lillee/Thomson/Pascoe, Imran/Sarfraz, Snow/Willis to worry about. Conversely, the average of any batsman from the 1930s, including Bradman, would take a battering should they have to go through what Richards or Chappell had to go through. In other words, not even in a pink fit would Bradman average close to a 100 if he had to regularly tour the West Indies and Pakistan during the 70s/80s.

At least all that seems obvious to me - but then again we all have different perspectives on things.

To me as well, don't understand why this would be difficult to grasp.

Please note Bambino that I am not saying that Bradman isn't the best batsman of all time. He is the best batsman of all time.

Rather, we are merely attempting to elucidate by a how much. In actual fact this is not possible because the variables are too great when we assess batsman from non-intersecting generations.

However, this should not stop us from making some 'guesstimates'. One 'guesstimate' is that Bradman is about twice as good as all other great batsman because his average of 100 is twice that of all other great batsman. This is clearly a nonsense because it doesn't take into consideration any of the major differences in playing conditions between one generation and the next. All we can say with some confidence is that he was about twice as successfull as Stan McCabe (for example). But we cannot say that Bradman is twice as good as Viv Richards (for example) because the significant differences in the art of fast-bowling between Australia circa 1930s and Australia circa 1970s won't allow us - to cite one variable only.

Exactly.

 

[Migara]

Additionally, Bradman averaged 74 against WI whom he played scantily against. And the traits Francis, Griffith and Constantine and few others had over most English bowlers was fearsome pace and use of intimidatory short bowling. Had Bradman played equal % of matches against WI, he would have had his average dropped to low 80s. Then he never played WI in WI. And the "natural" pattern is to home bowlers to get better of the touring. It's blatant hogwash to say that Bradman did well against best team of the era. Best team against him was WI and he was lucky not to play them on their turfs. And we know WI were pretty poor compared to a modern day bottom of the table test nation (except BAN and ZIM). The misconception of doing well against the #1 team is massively overrated. Best opposition of an individual is not necessarily the #1 team of the era.

Edit: It's blatant hogwash to say, since Bradman did average 90+ against best team of the era, will necessarily do so against every team.

 

[fredfertang]

Additionally, Bradman averaged 74 against WI whom he played scantily against. And the traits Martindale and Constantine and few others had over most English bowlers was fearsome pace and use of intimidatory short bowling. Had Bradman played equal % of matches against WI, he would have had his average dropped to low 80s. Then he never played WI in WI. And the "natural" pattern is to home bowlers to get better of the touring. It's blatant hogwash to say that Bradman did well against best team of the era. Best team against him was WI and he was lucky not to play them on their turfs. And we know WI were pretty poor compared to a modern day bottom of the table test nation (except BAN and ZIM). The misconception of doing well against the #1 team is massively overrated. Best opposition of an individual is not necessarily the #1 team of the era.

They did have a few good players but come on - you don't really believe that do you?