How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[fredfertang]

The biggest problem that Bradman would find today would be the improved fielding standards and not being able to pierce the field so easily - he was incredibly adaptable though - completely changed the way he batted against Bodyline yet still averaged 56 - and that was supposedly his 'failure'

 

[Prince EWS]

Given he was similarly dominant at First Class level where he played no small matter of 338 innings and again no-one else got close to him, I think we can more or less rule out the chance of it being mostly a matter of lack. Even if we very generously say that he had a strike rate of 70 in First Class cricket, that'd be over 40,000 deliveries faced for his average of 95.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Given he was similarly dominant at First Class level where he played no small matter off 338 innings and again no-one else got close to him, I think we can more or less rule out the chance of it being mostly a matter of lack. Even if we very generously say that he had a strike rate of 70 in First Class cricket, that'd be over 40,000 deliveries faced for his average of 95.

It's definitely not entirely a matter of luck, no doubt about that. But could a player identical to Bradman have played that number of innings and averaged a mere 85, say?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'm generally curious about how chance affects outcome in cricket. For example, the fact that Nathan Astle has 16 ODI centuries is often touted as a reason for him being a better ATG opener choice than Guptill. But Guptill destroys Astle on 50s per innings (Astle 41 from 217 for an 18.8% chance; Guptill 25 from 116 for a 21.6% chance).

 

[pardus]

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

Chappell retired in early 1980s, and wore helmets and played plenty of ODI cricket, and you are including him in the early 1970s era? Don't know what to say. Each era had it's challenges. If you think it would have been a walk in the park for Ponting and batsmen of the 90s to face bouncers from Holding or the WIPQ without any head protection, then feel free to do it. If you look at the batting records against the West Indies from mid-1976 till 1991 (a period of around 15 years), hardly any batsman averaged above 50 against them (I am talking when playing against the main West Indian team here, not the Packerless hack team). None of the batting greats of the time including Chappell, Gavaskar, Border etc managed it. Chappell himself had a pretty torrid time against them once the Windies pace quartet got their act together, like here or here. He averaged less than 30 in his last 6 matches against them.

Coming back to the topic of the thread, here is a brief video of the bodyline series. Since you claim, quality of play back then was abysmal compared to today's quality. Looking at the brief video, I am just curious, where would you place quality of Larwood's bowling in today's standard? In your opinion, would it be equivalent to Under-19 in today's standard? Under-15? or Under-12 maybe?

 

[Migara]

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.

Yes that's the point. There are plenty of bullies who could be a threat to him in last 40 years. 5 year period would have presented him with uber talented players in the opposition, than he has seen during his whole career. On the other hand a 10 grade bully can do a lot amongst fifth grades, but much less among 8th grades.

 

[Migara]

Chappell retired in early 1980s, and wore helmets and played plenty of ODI cricket, and you are including him in the early 1970s era? Don't know what to say. Each era had it's challenges. If you think it would have been a walk in the park for Ponting and batsmen of the 90s to face bouncers from Holding or the WIPQ without any head protection, then feel free to do it. If you look at the batting records against the West Indies from mid-1976 till 1991 (a period of around 15 years), hardly any batsman averaged above 50 against them (I am talking when playing against the main West Indian team here, not the Packerless hack team). None of the batting greats of the time including Chappell, Gavaskar, Border etc managed it. Chappell himself had a pretty torrid time against them once the Windies pace quartet got their act together, like here or here. He averaged less than 30 in his last 6 matches against them.

Coming back to the topic of the thread, here is a brief video of the bodyline series. Since you claim, quality of play back then was abysmal compared to today's quality. Looking at the brief video, I am just curious, where would you place quality of Larwood's bowling in today's standard? In your opinion, would it be equivalent to Under-19 in today's standard? Under-15? or Under-12 maybe?

Larwood was good, there's no question about it. But Larwood cannot bowl from both ends and whole day. Support bowlers in what ever the clips I have seen looks pretty unfit. I have seen photos of fields when Bradman was on 200+. Three slips and a gully, and rarely a deep fielder. Now a days people would have given a single to him and would have attacked the other end. Bradman's invincibility was built on making his centuries real big. Timeless tests, crappy fielding standards, and poor tactics would ahve given him loads of runs. It's interesting to see how much of Bradman's runs came in timeless tests and how much in 5 day tests.

 

[watson]

The biggest problem that Bradman would find today would be the improved fielding standards and not being able to pierce the field so easily - he was incredibly adaptable though - completely changed the way he batted against Bodyline yet still averaged 56 - and that was supposedly his 'failure'

I enjoy speculating how much that average of 56 would have increased if Bradman had worn the lightweight 'body armour' and helmets that modern batsman now wear. Not to mention the more dynmamic bats that hit the ball for 4 and 6 rather than allow the batsman to get caught near the boundary.

I think that the net effect would have been considerable, maybe an extra 15-20 or so his average. Hard to say.

 

[Migara]

I enjoy speculating how much that average of 56 would have increased if Bradman had worn the lightweight 'body armour' and helmets that modern batsman now wear. Not to mention the more dynmamic bats that hit the ball for 4 and 6 rather than allow the batsman to get caught near the boundary.

I think that the net effect would have been considerable, maybe an extra 15-20 or so his average. Hard to say.

How about two Larwood equivalents (Holding / Garner) and one Larwood+ (Marshall) bowling at him?.

The attacks collectively has improved dramatically over the years. The freak spearheads of the teams may not have changed much, but the weakest bowler of a team has improved leaps and bounds.

 

[fredfertang]

I enjoy speculating how much that average of 56 would have increased if Bradman had worn the lightweight 'body armour' and helmets that modern batsman now wear. Not to mention the more dynmamic bats that hit the ball for 4 and 6 rather than allow the batsman to get caught near the boundary.

I think that the net effect would have been considerable, maybe an extra 15-20 or so his average. Hard to say.

If he didn't have the concern about possible injury I'm pretty sure he'd have just batted normally and taken the bowling on in conventional fashion - so somewhere a tad above the 99.94 mark

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe if Bradman had played on modern pitches with modern bats his entire career he'd average 150?

 

[TheJediBrah]

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?

Infinitesimally small. Zero.

 

[fredfertang]

How about two Larwood equivalents (Holding / Garner) and one Larwood+ (Marshall) bowling at him?.

The attacks collectively has improved dramatically over the years. The freak spearheads of the teams may not have changed much, but the weakest bowler of a team has improved leaps and bounds.

It wasn't the pace that was Bradman's problem though - his reactions were so quick that he would never have had any fear of being hit if he didn't want to be, but then he wouldn't have scored any runs - his problem was he had to find a way of scoring before he ran out of partners - I don't recall ever reading about him getting hurt - there's the famous story of Eddie Gilbert getting him to snap his head back so quickly his cap fell off, and then knocking his bat from his hands, but I think I'm right in saying that the only time Larwood hit him was in the 5th Bodyline Test when he got him once on the backside, so nothing dramatic nor, presumably, from a bumper

 

[fredfertang]

Maybe if Bradman had played on modern pitches with modern bats his entire career he'd average 150?

He certainly wouldn't encounter any of those sticky wickets he hated so much

I suspect all that would prevent a 150 average would be the remarkable catches and run outs that he'd inevitably fall victim to from time to time

 

[indiaholic]

Unrelated but thought this might be a good place to ask. What was the state of swing bowling like during Bradman's era? How adept were the bowlers at exploiting it? Question relates to movement in the air, not off the seam.

 

[Flem274*]

hurricane and i often have philosophical differences in what makes people so good at things. i think Bradman is one of the very very very rare occurrences in life where someone was born with great potential beyond the norm for something, decided they wanted to be good at what they had great potential for and worked desperately to be the best at their thing.

the thing that gets me most is Bradman was mortal. he failed plenty of times in test and first class cricket but when he won, he really really won. people will argue forever about who the most talented batsman to play the game is but Bradman was without doubt the most ruthless.

 

[Howe_zat]

Typing out an email to the ECB to explain that they need to get players working on facing future standards of equipment and opposition to be considered good, rather than trying something pointless like winning matches

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Drugs and/or a hyperbolic time chamber.

 

[marc71178]

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.

You do realise that by saying that you are effectively writing every other batsman from his era as rubbish as they were so far behind him. That's what makes this line of thinking a load of codswallop.

 

[Migara]

It wasn't the pace that was Bradman's problem though - his reactions were so quick that he would never have had any fear of being hit if he didn't want to be, but then he wouldn't have scored any runs - his problem was he had to find a way of scoring before he ran out of partners - I don't recall ever reading about him getting hurt - there's the famous story of Eddie Gilbert getting him to snap his head back so quickly his cap fell off, and then knocking his bat from his hands, but I think I'm right in saying that the only time Larwood hit him was in the 5th Bodyline Test when he got him once on the backside, so nothing dramatic nor, presumably, from a bumper

Exactly the point. The modern bowlers not only quick, they can maintain their pace and has lot more tricks upon their sleeve than bowlers of old. Reverse swing is entirely new, and you can't do much against a inswinging yorker which has your name on it. It may not be bodily threatening but the wicket taking repertoire of faster bowlers improved dramatically. WI bowlers were daunting to face not because they were quick, but they combined it with unbelievable set of skills. For ATG batsmen, facing one ATG bowler is managable, if others are trash. Doing it against two ATGs is pretty hard, and against three of them is daunting.