Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[watson]

The only bowlers who dismissed Bradman 10 times were Verity and Grimmett, the latter only bowled against him 27 times

The rest of the list is

Bedser 8
Larwood and Tate, 7
O'Reilly 6
Bowes and Wall, 5

There is an argument that says: "Morris is Bedser's bunny". The reason for this is that he dismissed him a whopping 18 times.

But as everyone knows Morris did OK against Bedser on the whole and made plenty of runs. The reason for this anomaly? - Bedser was the only English bowler at the time with real class. Who else was going to get Morris out on a regular basis?

The point being - it depends on the make up of the attack. If the attack features Procter and Grimmett at Newlands (for example) then my money is on Procter to dismiss said batsman on the first day

 

[morgieb]

I'm keen to hear Boobidy's comments here.

 

[watson]

No, it isn't.

That's the entire point. If we take your version of events and say standards have changed, comparing Player A from standard 1 to Player B from standard 2 is pointless and stupid. Hence you rate them compared to their peers - how they did in that standard. I don't care if in 2340 every side turns out an XI who make Phil Tufnell look like Viv Richards, if a bowler gets them out twice as cheap as anyone else, he deserves to be lauded as an ATG because he dominated the game when he played it. Then, if you feel like it, you compare their relative merits to their respective eras to give you a very subjective comparison between the two. If you can't compare that way, these entire threads are meaningless and we should consider the last XI a team has put out as the best. Plus we then have to write off anyone who played before an arbitrary development marker as being **** and not worthy of consideration in ATG discussion. Which is very unfair on their achievements. As a side note, if standards have improved I think the development looks like this, given how rubbish the Australian batting is at the moment:

That's an incredibly false analogy, which, ironically, is a fallacy in itself. We're talking across time, not across level. My junior club may well dominate U/12E park cricket by a huge margin; that definitely does not mean they are 'better' than Bangladesh in the way you are suggesting they are.

Which is the crux of my argument as to why your approach doesn't work. Your analysis brushes them aside completely under the guise of 'development'. You know what else brushed aside sociocultural factors to claim superiority? Colonialism. And colonialism sucked for anyone not in that elite few. There's a logical fallacy for you, by the way.


I think ultimately you misunderstand the entire point of this discussion. It is not to find out who has the most skillz and is the best evar at hitting a five-and-a-half ounce chunk of red leather. That is not what greatest means, and that is not how you define greatest. Greatest refers to the impact you had on the game through that action. This notion that Imrul Kayes is technically and skillfully better at hitting a ball than Bradman has nothing whatsoever to do with Bradman's greatness. His greatness was defined by the way he dominated everything put in front of him by a margin we have never seen before or since.

I'm glad that you've highlighted the gulf of difference between BEST/BETTER and GREAT. People get the two terms confused all the time and I find it mildly irritating.

So for example, the statement; 'WG Grace is greater than Garry Sobers, but Garry Sobers is better than WG Grace' is perfectly true IMO.

And just for the sake of completeness, IMO; 'Don Bradman is much greater than Viv Richards, but only moderately better than Viv Richards'

*Lights touch paper, stands back*

 

[watson]

The list is qualified not definitive as Hammond as good as admits in his other book "cricket my destiny" mentioning men not listed in your quote as bowling with tremendous pace. I think the book was published in 48 after Hammond's last test and I can't explain the absence of Lindwall and Miller from it and on reflection I wonder how he could too. .

Hammond qualification was 'In my time'. It appears that he doesn't see the post-war period as 'his time'. And I kind of agree as he was well past it.

 

[fredfertang]

There is an argument that says: "Morris is Bedser's bunny". The reason for this is that he dismissed him a whopping 18 times.

But as everyone knows Morris did OK against Bedser on the whole and made plenty of runs. The reason for this anomaly? - Bedser was the only English bowler at the time with real class. Who else was going to get Morris out on a regular basis?

The point being - it depends on the make up of the attack. If the attack features Procter and Grimmett at Newlands (for example) then my money is on Procter to dismiss said batsman on the first day

I wasn't trying to make a point - I was just posting some facts that some might think are interesting

The Bowes one is the oddity for me - he bowled at him in just five Tests and got him five times - bowled at him in six other matches but didn't get his wicket once

 

[watson]

I wasn't trying to make a point - I was just posting some facts that some might think are interesting

The Bowes one is the oddity for me - he bowled at him in just five Tests and got him five times - bowled at him in six other matches but didn't get his wicket once

Well on at least one of those occasions the Don appears to have gone a bit mental;

I believe all this back-stage bother upset him. He looked ill at ease when he came to the wicket in the first innings; and when Bowes bowled him a fizzer of perfect length dead on leg stump, he did a thing I never remember to have seen in any Test before or since - he wildly slashed at that first ball of his innings as if to hook it clean out of the ground! Of course he mis-sighted it; it flicked the edge of his bat and cut his leg stump out of the ground. The ear-slitting yell of disappointment and anger from the stands, and Bradman's face turning dark red with mortification, are all things I shall never forget.

Walter Hammond

 

[fredfertang]

Is that about the second Test in 32/33?

 

[watson]

Is that about the second Test in 32/33?

Yes that's right;

Don was too unwell to play in the first Test of that series, and we had won it by 10 wickets. Then there was a violent argument on the Australian side whether he could turn out at Melbourne, because of some newspaper work he was doing, and we did not know whether he would play or not until the morning of the match.

Walter Hammond

 

[Dan]

I'm glad that you've highlighted the gulf of difference between BEST/BETTER and GREAT. People get the two terms confused all the time and I find it mildly irritating.

So for example, the statement; 'WG Grace is greater than Garry Sobers, but Garry Sobers is better than WG Grace' is perfectly true IMO.

And just for the sake of completeness, IMO; 'Don Bradman is much greater than Viv Richards, but only moderately better than Viv Richards'

*Lights touch paper, stands back*

Yeah, I think part of the issue is that people are using the same terminology with completely different meanings, which is what I was getting at a couple of posts back when I said that our position on the absolute/relative debate codes the language we use - when I say better or greater it may mean something very different to when Ruckus or you use the same terms.

It is extremely pedantic, and I feel terrible for doing this because I hate debates that run solely on semantics - it's my pet hate at Uni when people intentionally ignore the intended meaning of the question to debate whether the answer is correct because it read 'should' not 'does' - but here it is somewhat important because it is changing the meaning that dramatically

 

[Migara]

Which, in the context of the post, was definitely implying the West Indies - at least by my interpretation. If he meant Australia, well, that analysis is slightly problematic - its hardly Bradman's fault he didn't do well at Test level against Australia. If he meant England, an average of 90 is clearly 'doing well', which led me to suggest he meant the West Indies.

Sorry, my bad English. Would edit as "It's blatant hogwash to say, since Bradman did average 90+ against best team of the era, will necessarily do so against every team."

Everybody knows England was the best team Bradman played against and was much superior than WI. But somehow WI bowlers kept dismissing him, even ordinary spinners who average 40 as well. Now any one who suggests that an attack of Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft isn't way superior than that of Hall, Constantine and Francis needs a reality check. The biggest hole in Bradmans repatoire is that he only played in two countries, and regularly against the same opposition.

If Indian and Pakistan were there with BAN and ZIM, Sehwag would be the Bradman of that world. Played ridiculously well against Pakistan home or away, till he went out of the region.

 

[Migara]

At the risk of upsetting Dan I have a hard and fast rule that whenever Migara enters a discussion it has reached its putrid nadir. Its time to emerge from the bile and sludge and take your points somewhere else, which I'll get to in a mo'.

Possibly the most putrid comment on this whole thread.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes that's right;

That's weird - when I did my feature about Bowes I based that bit on his version of events

For Bowes there was just one appearance in the Bodyline series, in the second Test, the one that England lost, when he replaced Verity in an unsuccessful gamble on a four pronged pace attack. He only took one wicket in the match, although it was an important one, and a story that he never tired of telling. Bradman had missed the first Test, won comfortably by England, and all Australia expected him to win the second Test for them. He did in the end, but not in the first innings when he came to the wicket at 67-2. He received a momentous ovation from the crowd at the MCG so much so that the cacophony prevented an immediate resumption of play. Bowes, just for something to do, started making minute adjustments to his leg side field. Bradman, doubtless for the same reason, watched intently. Bowes, reasoning that Bradman now expected a bouncer duly decided to bowl short of a length on a leg stump line, but not to dig the ball in. His plan worked to perfection as Bradman played for lift that wasn't there and dragged the ball on to his stumps. Bowes would always add at the end of the story a vivid description of the delight that his captain showed at the dismissal.

But added to that that dismissal is probably the most widely shown non-Larwood clip from the whole series, and I'd be surprised if someone like robelinda couldn't track it down quite easily, but I've seen it several times, and it was indeed a rank long hop!

 

[fredfertang]

Sorry, my bad English. Would edit as "It's blatant hogwash to say, since Bradman did average 90+ against best team of the era, will necessarily do so against every team."

Everybody knows England was the best team Bradman played against and was much superior than WI. But somehow WI bowlers kept dismissing him, even ordinary spinners who average 40 as well. Now any one who suggests that an attack of Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft isn't way superior than that of Hall, Constantine and Francis needs a reality check. The biggest hole in Bradmans repatoire is that he only played in two countries, and regularly against the same opposition.

If Indian and Pakistan were there with BAN and ZIM, Sehwag would be the Bradman of that world. Played ridiculously well against Pakistan home or away, till he went out of the region.

I see what you meant now

In that series against WI his highest score was 223 - by all accounts second slip put down a sitter when he was on 4, so if that had been held his average might have been just 38.

The Australian press at the time made much of his being stale after 18 months continuous cricket, and having "business worries", though when Irving Rosenwater wrote his bio of Bradman he thought that was bollocks

 

[the big bambino]

That's weird - when I did my feature about Bowes I based that bit on his version of events



But added to that that dismissal is probably the most widely shown non-Larwood clip from the whole series, and I'd be surprised if someone like robelinda couldn't track it down quite easily, but I've seen it several times, and it was indeed a rank long hop!

True but he fooled Bradman though. One of the rare occasions a bowler did so. Btw I see the old 2 countries furphy abt Bradman again. If Bradman played Eng and the other sides in reverse proportion he would have averaged 140. Whereas Sehwag's best opponents were Aus, SA and Pak. Throw in BD as a 4th and his ave is around 54 or only 5 above his present ave. Curiously enough Viru's ave in Eng is 27. Good job he didn't play half his innings there eh?

Not only that but Viru's ave against Pak was over 9 games. Lets see if he can hold it over 37.

 

[fredfertang]

True but he fooled Bradman though. One of the rare occasions a bowler did so.

Have you seen that 50th anniversary documentary when Bowes told the story?

Whole programme was brilliant, and I believe you can buy it on DVD - I had it on an old VCR that I lost before LT kindly provided me with a DVD

 

[watson]

That's weird - when I did my feature about Bowes I based that bit on his version of events



But added to that that dismissal is probably the most widely shown non-Larwood clip from the whole series, and I'd be surprised if someone like robelinda couldn't track it down quite easily, but I've seen it several times, and it was indeed a rank long hop!

Bowes version seems rather sterile to me under the circumstances, while Hammond's version better explains such an uncharacteristic first-ball shot - 'I believe all this back-stage bother upset him'.

 

[the big bambino]

Have you seen that 50th anniversary documentary when Bowes told the story?

Whole programme was brilliant, and I believe you can buy it on DVD - I had it on an old VCR that I lost before LT kindly provided me with a DVD

I do recall a doco. I have one memory from a doco where I sensed a fair bit of antagonism btwn Bowes and Allen.

 

[watson]

That's weird - when I did my feature about Bowes I based that bit on his version of events



But added to that that dismissal is probably the most widely shown non-Larwood clip from the whole series, and I'd be surprised if someone like robelinda couldn't track it down quite easily, but I've seen it several times, and it was indeed a rank long hop!

Here are a couple of different camera angles of the same Bowes delivery. David Frith tells the story (see 7 min 55 sec mark);

ABC Bodyline Its Just Not Cricket (Part 3/6) - YouTube

To me the Bowes delivery looks like a short-fast-ball that pitched in line of the off-stump and moved away a little. Its seems as though Bradman not only mis-read the line, but was beaten for pace because his feet were no where near the correct position. And in such a tangle a bottom edge back onto the stumps seems like a reasonable result.

 

[Migara]

True but he fooled Bradman though. One of the rare occasions a bowler did so. Btw I see the old 2 countries furphy abt Bradman again. If Bradman played Eng and the other sides in reverse proportion he would have averaged 140. Whereas Sehwag's best opponents were Aus, SA and Pak. Throw in BD as a 4th and his ave is around 54 or only 5 above his present ave. Curiously enough Viru's ave in Eng is 27. Good job he didn't play half his innings there eh?

Not only that but Viru's ave against Pak was over 9 games. Lets see if he can hold it over 37.

As usual fails to understand the point. If in a world where only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbos played test cricket, India would have been the best team, Pakistan the second, the rest, trash. (Similar to Australia, England and then trash). Sehwag averages ridiculous amount against them. Since there was other teams we know he was ordinary against them. For Bradman, there was no other team available. And, he was less succesful against a team which was trash, and not his peranniel whipping boys. There is no guarantee that he will average 90 against every opposition if there were 8-9 of them. There is very much likelihood that he's fail against one or two or at least score less heavily.

 

[Red]

As usual fails to understand the point. If in a world where only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbos played test cricket, India would have been the best team, Pakistan the second, the rest, trash. (Similar to Australia, England and then trash). Sehwag averages ridiculous amount against them. Since there was other teams we know he was ordinary against them. For Bradman, there was no other team available. And, he was less succesful against a team which was trash, and not his peranniel whipping boys. There is no guarantee that he will average 90 against every opposition if there were 8-9 of them. There is very much likelihood that he's fail against one or two or at least score less heavily.

Yet (ad nauseum) every player in his team faced basically the same circumstances, and Bradman averaged twice as much as them over 52 tests.