How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Furball]

Shall I post my favourite bar chart? Unless someone objects, the bar chart is getting posted again.

do it

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, but fail to appreciate that the number of players in FCC is exponentialy large than in 1930s, hence the talent pool. Better gtraining, technique, food and etc, will not only make everyone better, but narrow down the gap between the best and the rest. Failing to understand these simple facts is, well, beyond stupid.

You've just repeated your previous nonsensical post that again in no way even remotely addresses the issue.

I have no idea why you think advances in training, technique etc would benefit everyone else more than Bradman, but at this point I think you must be trolling. I certain;y hope so.

 

[pardus]

Indeed.

None of the 90s pacers could even dream of matching Marshall's magical disappearing ball:

LOL, yeah the video quality is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am thankful to the uploader for that extremely rare video.
I guess the audio commentary conveys my point.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I have no idea why you think advances in training, technique etc would benefit everyone else more than Bradman

On this point I would say that the Law of Diminishing Returns would suggest that any advance in batting would benefit Bradman least of all, as it's more than possible he had already incorporated it into his game.

My conclusion from this thread is that Bradman can be explained as a perfect storm of a number of extremely rare qualities, any one of which by itself would be enough to make an ordinary player a great batsman. The natural talent of AB, the serenity and concentration of Amla, the cleverness of Steve Smith, the professionalism of Williamson, the joy in batting of Joe Root etc. All basically in the one guy, at the odds of ten million to one.

 

[stephen]

Watching some of those old videos, one can only imagine how lethal Mitchell Johnson would have been, had he played back then. In today's game he seems to average one "retired hurt" off his bowling per series. Imagine if he had unlimited bouncers and beamers to bowl, and was encouraged to do so.

 

[stephen]

On this point I would say that the Law of Diminishing Returns would suggest that any advance in batting would benefit Bradman least of all, as it's more than possible he had already incorporated it into his game.

My conclusion from this thread is that Bradman can be explained as a perfect storm of a number of extremely rare qualities, any one of which by itself would be enough to make an ordinary player a great batsman. The natural talent of AB, the serenity and concentration of Amla, the cleverness of Steve Smith, the professionalism of Williamson, the joy in batting of Joe Root etc. All basically in the one guy, at the odds of ten million to one.

I actually think that the biggest help to Bradman would be modern bats. The heavy clunkers they had back then had such a tiny meat and no power compared to the beasts they prepare these days. Roped in boundaries wouldn't have hurt him either.

I think the biggest hinderance to Bradman in the modern game would be fatigue from playing so much in so many different formats. There's no doubt he would have been a monster in T20 and ODI cricket as well as tests, but flying everywhere and adjusting to jetlag six times a year would be quite fatiguing and I think would affect him more than any of the modern innovations/coaching techniques/whatever.

 

[watson]

I actually think that the biggest help to Bradman would be modern bats. The heavy clunkers they had back then had such a tiny meat and no power compared to the beasts they prepare these days. Roped in boundaries wouldn't have hurt him either.

I think the biggest hinderance to Bradman in the modern game would be fatigue from playing so much in so many different formats. There's no doubt he would have been a monster in T20 and ODI cricket as well as tests, but flying everywhere and adjusting to jetlag six times a year would be quite fatiguing and I think would affect him more than any of the modern innovations/coaching techniques/whatever.

I agree with that. The biggest challenge to Bradman's technique, concentration, and temperment in modern cricket would not be Roberts, Marshall, Imran, Donald, Steyn or Murali, but rather the match Scheduling. Faced with same treadmill that got the better of Greg Chappell, Marcus Trescothick, Graham Thorpe, and Jonathan Trott, I don't think that is it humanly possible to maintain such 'superhuman' averages and standards. Even for Bradman.

Incidently, this point is not to take away Bradman's mantle as the best and greatest batsman of all time, but rather to stress his humanity. He is no mythological equivalent of Hercules.

 

[Pratters]

Bradman wasn't that good. Standard of cricket has improved and player base has improved.

I think he could be a great in today's era. There is no way he would have averaged way more than other batsmen though. For instance, have you seen many players finishing with a batting average above 65, let alone 70 or 100. Or a bowling average of 18 say. So to suggest he could average 130 over his career if he played today is kidding yourself.

To answer the thread's question, he was immensely talented more than any thing. Sure he had skills like concentration and what not but talent was such an important aspect which shouldn't be ignored while so many theories are going around.

 

[Pratters]

Also Bradman redefined batsmanship very much like Grace did. He was ahead of his time. A pathbreaker. He wrote the art of cricket and what he talks about batting is amazing. Still one of the best mannuals on batting. Obviously, he gave his batting a lot of thought and respect.

 

[Adders]

Watching some of those old videos, one can only imagine how lethal Mitchell Johnson would have been, had he played back then. In today's game he seems to average one "retired hurt" off his bowling per series. Imagine if he had unlimited bouncers and beamers to bowl, and was encouraged to do so.

Where on earth have you pulled that from?? Mitchell Johnson has featured in 25 test series...........I'd be interested in you listing the near 25 batsmen he's battered off the park.

Edit:

And for the record a bowlers job is to take wickets not retire hurt batsmen.........sometimes the later is an unavoidable part of the game, but to make it a focal point of MJ's game it like your post did is a little strange and just a bit sick IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Where on earth have you pulled that from?? Mitchell Johnson has featured in 25 test series...........I'd be interested in you listing the near 25 batsmen he's battered off the park.

Edit:

And for the record a bowlers job is to take wickets not retire hurt batsmen.........sometimes the later is an unavoidable part of the game, but to make it a focal point of MJ's game it like your post did is a little strange and just a bit sick IMO.

I don't think it'd be far off the mark tbh

I can remember a couple of series against South Africa where he forced players to retire hurt probably 6-7 times. Not always permanently mind you, a few times they came back to bat on.

 

[Migara]

Spin bowling was superior in the 90s. To me pace bowling was better during mid 70s to mid 80s. Cricketing rules were much more batsmen friendly in the 90s compared to 80s or 70s. One bouncer per over limit was enforced in 1991 (essentially to somehow stop the continuous West Indian domination of the sport). It did alter Test cricket significantly. It practically ended an almost a 2 decade total domination of fast bowlers in Test cricket (started by Lillee-Thommo in the early 70s). Navjot Sidhu toured West Indies in 1988 and 1997, and Windies bowling attack was pretty much identical in both occasions (Ambrose, Walsh & Bishop and you can replace Marshall in 88 with Franklyn Rose, the highest wicket taker in 97), but Sidhu clearly mentioned that batting was much tougher in 1988 than it was in 1997. His own batting figures in both the series clearly reveal it. Pitches in the caribbean were much faster in the 1980s (especially Jamaica). But mainly the rules in 1980s weren't strong enough to protect batsmen. It was practically impossible for a fast bowler in the 90s to do something like this or this or this or this .

Not that fast bowlers in 90s were incapable, but because rules were stricter/clearer and the umpires were stronger.

There are three kinds sets of bowlers. Holding, Thomson, Patterson, Ambrose etc - challenged the head. They were intimidating. Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib etc challenged the pads. Rarely brought intimidation in to the game.Then McGrath, Asif, Fazal etc challenged the edge. Marshall challenged all three alike and that's why he is the best. 70s and 80s were basically aiming for the head. 90s, it was aiming for the pad and the edge.

 

[Chrish]

The overlap in players says a lot. A great player in Bradman's time, was still a great player in the generation after, and so and and so on. You could go something like Harvey > Sobers > Gavaskar > Richards > Tendulkar > Sangakkara > X. The averages bowling and batting, decade to decade, only change slightly. A few runs here and there..

1. A valid point which has been made before. Also, he averaged near 100 in international Cricket and 95 in FC Cricket. His FC record is even more fascinating since it takes the longevity factor into account (338 innings). Moreover, for FC he has to compete with hundreds of different Cricketers from all different countries/ era (not just international players) yet no one comes close. The 2nd highest average is 70. Then all the consecutive players are pretty close in numbers. So, this is something truly phenomenal!

2. Without being repetitive, my original point regarding Cricket standard still stands. At the end of the day, I can't completely disregard what I see from the fair amount of footage available from that era.

When I evaluate these two scenarios, I get a very conflicting result. I rate him no.1 based on the statistical impact he had on the end result of his team. However, how much would he average today? How much better was he compared to modern day batsmen? It becomes impossible to conclude imho

 

[Migara]

You've just repeated your previous nonsensical post that again in no way even remotely addresses the issue.

I have no idea why you think advances in training, technique etc would benefit everyone else more than Bradman, but at this point I think you must be trolling. I certain;y hope so.

You re just repeating the fact either you are dumb so you could not understand what I write or, acting as you have not understood the point.

Obviously I think it's the second. You can waken up who are sleeping but not ones pretending to be sleeping.

 

[Migara]

And for the record a bowlers job is to take wickets not retire hurt batsmen.........sometimes the later is an unavoidable part of the game, but to make it a focal point of MJ's game it like your post did is a little strange and just a bit sick IMO.

Ha, tell that to Roy Gilchrist & Co.

 

[Chrish]

IMO, if anything the difference in the game was higher from early 1970s to 1990s, than from 1930s to early 1970s. .

If you are gonna tell me the standard in Chappell era was closer to Bradman era than Ponting era, then you are being intellectually dishonest.. That's certainly not true.

70s/ 80s was a pace dominated era but 90s had the variety of bowling never really seen before. You are entitled to your opinion but if you tell me batsmen in 90s had it easier than 70s/80s then I certainly can't and won't buy it. Chappel vs ponting would be fair and much more logical comparison based on average criteria than Chappel vs Bradman.

Post like this is the reason why I trust my own eyes more than the opinions which can be and often are too subjective for my liking

 

[TheJediBrah]

You re just repeating the fact either you are dumb so you could not understand what I write or, acting as you have not understood the point.

confirmed troll

get a life

 

[Victor Ian]

Sorry to differ. The total standard of cricket was much lower. It doesn't mean to score 50 for a grade 5 paper is same as achieving 50 for a grade 10 paper. The second paper has much better standard.

A student in Grade 5 scores 50, progresses and learns through 5 more years of advancement and then scores 50 in grade 10. The student who scores 100 in grade 5 progresses and advances and scores 100 in grade 10. I think you miss the key point of comparison among peers. I guess you view Bradman as a grade 10 bully among the children. One still wonders where his rival bully is.

 

[Victor Ian]

It would still be a stupid waste of time. Not getting out caught makes you a better batsman!

If you get rid of the caught dismissals of those guys to calculate new averages, it would only be logical to take away all the runs they scored from balls hit in the air as well. Otherwise you're just going full ******

I agree. It was just a hair brained idea.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I was just running a ODI simulation between SA and NZ and I noticed something interesting. After 200 innings, Williamson's average against mostly Donald and Steyn was 28. After 500 innings it was 35. After 1,000 innings it was 41, which is about what I'd expect it to be against an attack of that quality.

My question, for someone good at maths who understands variance and probability, is: what are the chances that Bradman's average was mostly a matter of luck? I.e. he faced 200 genuine wicket taking balls in his career when going by the number of balls he faced it should have been 300 sort of thing.

With identical stats, the averages of simulator batsmen can vary quite a lot over a 70-80 innings career. "It's better to be lucky than good" and all that, but how lucky was Bradman?