How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Coronis]

It was not only his amazing natural talent, honed with that golf ball and stump, but also his amazing mental ability and concentration.

 

[Hurricane]

I am interested in Mr Misters story. Did you master hitting a golf ball with a wicket? I tried it as a child and I couldn't come close to doing it. There are training bats you can buy which have a square face the width of one cricket ball. The better players in my team used to train with them to give them better hand eye. Kim Hughes apparently scored a 50 with one in an FC match.

I think the wicket with the golf ball as a youth was a factor.

I think also he was just born for cricket. His genes played a part.

Finally - I think he was in the zone and in form for his whole career.

In some seasons when I have been in outstanding form, this applies to 2 seasons out of 34 years where I scored 50s at least every second time I batted, my thinking was different.

I got in a zone where I would recognise the strengths of the bowler and immediately launch a counter offensive unique to that bowler and I wouldn't hesitate or second guess myself. My batting intelligence was ten times better those seasons. I imagine he was simply in the zone and thinking all the right thoughts throughout his whole career.

So yeah that is my submission
a) the golf ball
b) his unique genes
c) the fact he was in the zone for an entire career.

 

[Red]

Amazing skills etc. Hand eye and all that. Perfect height and body shape for a batsman. Acutely observant of situations. Not a complicated mind, focussed and mindful on the task.

Amazing mental and physical abilities, concentrates for ages and physically very fit for batting.

Bradman got to 100 a lot. And when he got to 100, he often went big. Not heaps of scores out between 100-150. Often was not out or went over 150.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Amazing skills etc. Hand eye and all that. Perfect height and body shape for a batsman. Acutely observant of situations. Not a complicated mind, focussed and mindful on the task.

Amazing mental and physical abilities, concentrates for ages and physically very fit for batting.

Bradman got to 100 a lot. And when he got to 100, he often went big. Not heaps of scores out between 100-150. Often was not out or went over 150.

Errr? Is this for batsmen in Cricket, or for global sports phenomenon? I mean batsmen don't phyically have much demands placed on their body in cricket. They stand there and hit a ball (bowled, not thrown, from 22 yards away). They can do it all day if good enough. More even, without raising an eyebrow.

 

[the big bambino]

One writer, I forget whom, said all his strokes were swung , not pressed. I don't know about anyone else but the only time I swung at a ball was when I saw it early. I reckon there's some truth to the observation he saw the ball earlier than other players.

 

[Hurricane]

One writer, I forget whom, said all his strokes were swung , not pressed. I don't know about anyone else but the only time I swung at a ball was when I saw it early. I reckon there's some truth to the observation he saw the ball earlier than other players.

Yeah and that is what seperates the good from the very good.

My high school captain went on to play FC cricket. I remember batting with him and his only words to me as a 15 year old were "You are picking it up late Hurricane".

Right ho I will get right on that skipper starting next over I will pick it up earlier.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not to take anything away from the great man, he was clearly the greatest batsman who lived, but the batting averages in 1940s are the highest of all the decades. So perhaps there's some truth in pitches being flat and batting friendly back then, but again, no matter how flat it was there's way more than went into achieving what he achieved.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

It's not taking it away from him when Bradman is on the record as saying exactly that. See Ash Mallett's book "One of a Kind: The Doug Walters Story", the following passage explains why he wouldn't have scored as much but also why he was better than everyone else.

‘Look, a lot of things have changed in cricket since I played. We have restrictions on the leg-side. Captains do their homework. The wickets are nowhere as good as they were when I was playing and there is a good deal less overs bowled in a day’s play today than there was in my time...’

I’m looking at these Pommie fast bowlers and you could sense that they were rubbing their hands in glee. They’ve got the great man in a corner in his own house seemingly admitting that he wouldn’t be as good a player in their era.

Bradman continued: ‘No, I wouldn’t have scored anywhere near the amount of runs I scored those days...’ There was a long pause and the Poms were looking smug. ‘. . . But I would have scored a lot more runs than the bloke who came second!’

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He was a freak. Nothing more in it than that. Can't see why people have to analyse everything about the Don all the time. Bloke was a monster with a bat in his hand. The best ever and the best there will ever be.

 

[Hurricane]

He was a freak. Nothing more in it than that. Can't see why people have to analyse everything about the Don all the time. Bloke was a monster with a bat in his hand. The best ever and the best there will ever be.

Because its fun to try.

Also gives up the chance to heap compliments on him.

 

[ankitj]

Bowling was poor. No one can average 99.94 against good bowling.


I did it

 

[Gnske]

He consumed only Weet-bix and V8 juice for every meal of the day.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Bowling was poor. No one can average 99.94 against good bowling.


I did it

The less overs thing is huge. How would Don have scored against the Windies 1980's? Less.

 

[Hurricane]

He consumed only Weet-bix and V8 juice for every meal of the day.

Perhaps he was a christian and prayed for divine intervention before each inning.

 

[Migara]

A mixture of uber talent, concentration, out of ordinary physical fitness, lack of quality bowlers (due to age and number in the game), limited number of oppositions and flat pitches.

 

[the big bambino]

Batting averages in the 40s were high though Bradman was still clearly better than his rivals (if you exclude the 1 and 3 matches played by Ganteaume and Worrell). Harvey averaged 89 in the decade compared to Bradman's 105. We know what a great player Harvey was. The comparison is made when Harvey was at his best and Bradman toward the end of his career and even then Ninna couldn't catch him.

While the pitches of the 40s seemed good for batting I think its a bit of a myth those of the 30s were much different than those in the decades from 60s-90s. I think they got that reputation bcos run scoring became easier after the great war than any time before it. Therefore those writing about the game btwn wars would compare the scoring then with what was common in the late 1800s and early 1900s and conclude pitches had become too perfect for batting. That perspective has not been adjusted by the passing of subsequent generations.

The difference in bowling averages from the selected decades of 30s and then the 60s-90s is only 0.64 of a run. So I can't see the standard of pitches being much different in those 5 decades. While its true the 30s bowling ave is higher that is a distortion caused by Bradman's contribution. Remove it and the ave in the 30s is the lowest of the 5 decades.

I think those 5 decades represent a good ave btwn bat and ball. Anything above those averages kind of show pitches favourable to batting (40s, 00s and 10s). While pitches favoured bowlers in the 50s and anytime before the great war.

 

[weldone]

I think it's his mental strength that sets him apart from all except Geoff Boycott - there's plenty of batsmen been as talented as Bradman, sadly though Sir Geoffrey wasn't one of them

What about Gavaskar in that regard? He had Boycott's concentration and technique, and more talent than Boycott.

 

[fredfertang]

What about Gavaskar in that regard? He had Boycott's concentration and technique, and more talent than Boycott.

I agree Sunny had a fair bit more talent than Boycott which suggests to me, given the similarity of their Test averages but stark contrast with Bradman's, that Boycott is out on his own in the mental strength stakes

 

[stephen]

I actually wonder if Bradman had undiagnosed Aspergers. From the way people described him he was at the very least a heavily introverted player. He also seemed very set in his ways later in life (his administration in the Packer wars era for example).

Whatever happened, his combination of talents were perfect for cricket (and likely other hand-eye sports such as squash were he could have gone pro if he wanted to). He was the complete package - had timing, power and mental strength. I kind of imagine it like if we had 20 years of Clarke at his peak. The kind of player where you expect him to ton up every time he walks out.

 

[fredfertang]

I've come to the conclusion over the years that we're all 'on the spectrum' somewhere - I had a report from a Consultant Psychologist recently on a bloke I was acting for who had Aspergers - made quite disturbing reading actually - seemed to me I was at least as 'bad' as and arguably worse than the bloke I was representing - we made a right pair!

 

[Riggins]

How did Bradman get as good as he did?

Smoked heaps of weed, bro.