How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Migara]

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

How about superior bowlers?

 

[Daemon]

Bradman would certainly have failed against the much improved test cricketers of today like Stuart Binny and Varun Aaron

 

[Camo999]

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.

I guess we'll never know but in all likelihood the Don would have absolutely flogged the modern bowlers too. Larwood and Tate were pretty handy and he took them for a triple century and then a double century in 1930 (Larwood 1/139 and 1/132). Aside from the West Indies of the late 70s until 1991, there are very few times in history that anyone has had to face an attack with three champion bowlers anyway. In 329 test innings, how many times did Tendulkar for instance face three champion bowlers? Maybe a handful. He certainly never had to face Bodyline or the West Indies at their peak.

Really, it’s not that long ago that Bradman played. His first class career ended in 1949. Ian Chappell debuted in 1961/2. Only thirteen years. To think it was by some sort of chance of era that Bradman achieved such extraordinary results is to not give him enough credit in my mind.

I like the story how Jeff Thomson rolled the arm over to Bradman in the ‘70s, by this stage in his late 60s and was shocked at the way he smashed him around the net with no protective gear on despite not having batted for over 20 years.

I know your contention that modern advances in training / technology etc would help close the gap to other players but I reckon Bradman would capitalize on these advances much better than anyone else anyway. This was a guy who was completely ruthless and competitive to a fault. He once lost a game of Billiards to Walter Lindrum, had a billiards table put in his house, practiced every day for a year and then beat him! The guy’s preparation and attention to detail was just as extraordinary as his batting.

 

[Migara]

I guess we'll never know but in all likelihood the Don would have absolutely flogged the modern bowlers too. Larwood and Tate were pretty handy and he took them for a triple century and then a double century in 1930 (Larwood 1/139 and 1/132). Aside from the West Indies of the late 70s until 1991, there are very few times in history that anyone has had to face an attack with three champion bowlers anyway. In 329 test innings, how many times did Tendulkar for instance face three champion bowlers? Maybe a handful. He certainly never had to face Bodyline or the West Indies at their peak.

Really, it’s not that long ago that Bradman played. His first class career ended in 1949. Ian Chappell debuted in 1961/2. Only thirteen years. To think it was by some sort of chance of era that Bradman achieved such extraordinary results is to not give him enough credit in my mind.

I like the story how Jeff Thomson rolled the arm over to Bradman in the ‘70s, by this stage in his late 60s and was shocked at the way he smashed him around the net with no protective gear on despite not having batted for over 20 years.

I know your contention that modern advances in training / technology etc would help close the gap to other players but I reckon Bradman would capitalize on these advances much better than anyone else anyway. This was a guy who was completely ruthless and competitive to a fault. He once lost a game of Billiards to Walter Lindrum, had a billiards table put in his house, practiced every day for a year and then beat him! The guy’s preparation and attention to detail was just as extraordinary as his batting.

The point about freaks is that they are at the top of their game, every thing is perfect and there's absolutely nothing to improve (like a cut gem stone), unlike others. With modern equipment, yes Bradman would have been a better player than 30s. But others benefit more from above because they are not perfect. Say, SRT or Lara will not lose much by playing without a helmet. But somebody like Laxman, who was a tier below would be really in tatters id played without a helmet (have seen him getting hit by McGrath and Vaas, never mind people operating at 150k). The helmet will not make much difference to a champion player. But will make a difference to others.

 

[Migara]

how many times did Tendulkar for instance face three champion bowlers? Maybe a handful. He certainly never had to face Bodyline or the West Indies at their peak.

Fair few I guess. Lot of his matches against SAF and AUS had three very good bowlers, and two ATGs. (SAF - Donald, Pollock, De villiers / Steyn, Philander, Morkel and WI Ambrose and Walsh, and Bishop in some matches. AUS had McGrath, Warne and Gillespie).

I am struggling to recall any matches Bradman played two ATGs in bowling attack.

 

[marc71178]

Depends on your definition of ATGs but looking at that list I'm confident he would've done.

 

[pardus]

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.

Nicely put. Intimidatory as well as skilful fast bowling of the Windies in the 80s (as per then laws) compared against a large variety of skilful fast bowling in the 90s. Which is tougher to bat against? It is a subjective answer. Each had it's own challenges. I was lucky to have followed both phases of Test cricket live. To me, batting against the Windies attack of the 80s was tougher without any question. Again, this is just my opinion. This doesn't mean attacks in the 90s were bad or useless. I don't intend that by any means. In fact, most of the greatest batting performances I have had the privilege of following live were in the 90s. These included Azhar Mehmood's performances against South Africa in 98, Gilchrist's 149* against W+W at Hobart, Lara's performances against Aus in 99 as well as 2003 etc.

Nevertheless to my eyes batting against the WIPQ in 80s looked way tougher and riskier. I have seen quite a few batsmen hugely successful against skilful bowling in the 90s, but I have never seen a batsman enjoy similar success against the Windies in the 80s. . For example, Carl Hooper, Dessie Haynes, Mark Taylor etc. all had consistent success against Waqar+Wasim in the early 90s. Similarly Steve Waugh had great success against Donald. Saeed Anwar & Pietersen had pretty good success against McGrath led attacks.

But in the entire decade of 80s, not one batsman had a total average higher than 50 against the West Indies (restricting to batsmen who have played at least 5 Tests against them during this time to prevent one-offs). And even if you stretch this all the way back to 1976, you would still find just 1 batsman (Wasim Raja from Pak) who averaged more than 50 against them over nearly 15 years (ignoring the Packerless teams). It is an incredible achievement. Gives some idea how tough it was to score against them.

It is also important to note that despite the large variety of fast bowlers in the 90s, very few of the great batsmen in the 90s faced all these great bowlers at their peak. Amongst the batting greats, I think only Steve Waugh and Lara faced most of these 90s great fast bowlers at their peak. Ponting for example, played only a combined total of 8 Test matches against Donald/Ambrose/W+W. Tendulkar too did not face much of W+W (because of Indo-Pak politics), and played just a single Test series against Ambrose, and relatively played very less against McGrath compared to his contemporaries (during his career McGrath missed multiple series against India due to injury).

I still maintain that there was a paradigm shift in the game from 70s and 80s to 90s (after the officials and laws became strict against intimidatory bowling since 91). You can see from the below Sydney Morning Herald article, how different the perspective of the game was even as late as 1988.

I guess for those who have never seen live cricket against the Windies in the 80s, it is probably difficult to fathom how the attitude of batsmen changes when the risk of bodily injury becomes very genuine and very high.

MOST cricket watchers can recall one day when they saw a spell of fast bowling that sent shivers down their spines. For players of the Border era and for those few thousand who were at the MCG on December 29, 1988, Patrick Patterson's 5/39 on the last day was Test cricket at its most savage. Patterson's speed and venom were probably no more fearsome than that of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Malcolm Marshall and many others, but, with the West Indies back at the MCG on Tuesday, many minds will go back to that day when ``the gentlemen's game'' resembled a blood sport.

Four years earlier, a raw and inexperienced Patterson had played for Tasmania, but on only one or two occasions bowled with real pace. One of those was an infamous incident in the nets at Newcastle University, the day before a Sheffield Shield game. Patterson had grown frustrated with his captain Roger Woolley and when he heard Woolley say he was going to have a rare full net despite a damp pitch, Patterson turned to a teammate and told him to ``hang around. This will be interesting''. After Woolley survived three bouncers in a row, taking one nasty whack on the hands, he walked out of the net waving his bat at Patterson. The next morning Patterson was made 12th man as a disciplinary measure. The Tasmanians had learnt one thing about their young import: he had a temper.

Four years later at the MCG, a bigger, faster and angrier Patterson let rip against Border's Australians. Patterson felt he had been sledged by Border the evening before when he batted. He promised revenge and even tried to push his way into the Australian dressing room after that day's play to tell Border he would be coming after him.
Word began to leak out about the simmering ill-feeling. I rang Patterson in his hotel room on the final morning. He would not comment, but when I told him the Australian players were upset, he snapped: ``Why?''
``Because of all the short stuff, Patrick.''
``Good.''
The voice was deep and the message clear. It was going to be on at the 'G that day.

The West Indies had set Australia a neat 400 to win, but Patterson and Curtly Ambrose bowled as if they wanted to give the casualty staff at Melbourne's hospitals some overtime.
The pitch was poor, with the bounce so unpredictable that the ball was regularly jumping into batsmen's gloves. Earlier in the match Gordon Greenidge had been hit in the eye trying to hook Terry Alderman and all the Australian batsman knew they were physically vulnerable.

Australia made 114 and towards the end of the innings the dressing room resembled a scene from MASH , with bodies wrapped in bandages and ice packs taped around rib cages.

Ian Healy was hit in the box twice in as many balls from Patterson, suffered nausea and had to see a doctor in the dressing room.
This was Border's 100th Test appearance. He made 0 and 20 and his equal top score in the second innings took 167 minutes of courage and skill. At the time he was a great batsman.
Dean Jones went to hospital for X-rays on suspected broken ribs. He said the next morning that his fingers felt like he had been playing piano for 24 hours.
Peter Taylor made 18 not out and took several nasty blows that jammed his fingers against his bat.

But the most vivid memory from that day was the way the top half of wicketkeeper Jeff Dujon's torso was snapped back every time one of Patterson's thunderbolts hit his gloves. If a ball missed the batsman it would fly high to Dujon, standing a long way back. Feet firmly planted for support, he would raise his gloves above his head and take the impact with his full bodyweight.

From down near the fence it was frightening to watch, express pace with intent.

After play, the captains' media conference was tense. Down in the bowels of the Ponsford Stand, Border was asked what future Test cricket would have if it was always played like that.
``If every country had an attack like the West Indies, Test cricket would die pretty quickly,'' Border said. ``If we had four fast bowlers of that ability we'd use them the same way, but there is absolutely no pleasure in it. I don't think I've ever seen blokes get hit so much in all my time.''

Then it was Viv Richards' turn. Viv was seething. Soon came conclusive proof that the reign of the West Indian pace quartets of the late '70s and '80s had been inspired by the pace onslaught from Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson in the ferocious 1975-76 series.
Richards was not about to take the blame for a style of cricket he had seen first hand 13 years earlier when as a brilliant 23-year-old he made his first visit to Australia.
Asked whether he could remember a match in which so many batsmen were hit, Viv glared, then said something he must have been waiting 13 years to say.
``Yes. I was here in 1975. The crowd was chanting then. They were chanting `kill, kill, kill' as your bowlers ran in. We hear people say we bowl too many bouncers these days, but I remember how it was then.''
End of the news conference.

The present West Indies sides do not have a pace attack as lethal as Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson and Courtney Walsh. Australia does not have Lillee and Thomson, and may be without the fastest bowler in the world, Brett Lee.

Even the pace-inspired three-day demolitions of the West Indies in the first and second Tests this summer had nothing on that match in 1988. Just as well, because no one wants to see Test cricket degenerate into that sort of violent vendetta.
Yet the fact remains that those who were at the MCG that day saw cricket at its most extreme. It might have been distasteful, but it was also unforgettable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Fair few I guess. Lot of his matches against SAF and AUS had three very good bowlers, and two ATGs. (SAF - Donald, Pollock, De villiers / Steyn, Philander, Morkel and WI Ambrose and Walsh, and Bishop in some matches. AUS had McGrath, Warne and Gillespie).

I am struggling to recall any matches Bradman played two ATGs in bowling attack.

Depends on your definition of ATGs but looking at that list I'm confident he would've done.

Virttually every match he played against England would have included runs against some combination of Larwood/Verity/Tate/Voce in the 30s and 40s and Bedser/Laker in the late 40s.

 

[Furball]

So here's the thing. You take virtually any great batsman from the 1920s onwards and there's certain stats that remain remarkably consistent. They'll average early 50s, score their tons every 7-8 innings, if they've scored 100 FC hundreds they've spent years in County Cricket.

This applies pretty much across the board with the exception of 1 man.

 

[fredfertang]

How about superior bowlers?

They all seemed to come pretty much alike to Bradman - don't suppose that would change much

 

[Red]

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?

- Run a computer simulator based on a modern NZ cricketer vs an attack that never existed and notice his average goes up over time
- Somehow assume the results of sim (I'm not sure how) means Bradman might've faced less wicket taking balls in his career than he otherwise might've
= Bradman not that good but more lucky than anything?

 

[Adders]

He once lost a game of Billiards to Walter Lindrum, had a billiards table put in his house, practiced every day for a year and then beat him! The guy’s preparation and attention to detail was just as extraordinary as his batting.

That is just beyond incredible. I've never heard this story so did a bit of googling to verify it and stumbled upon this article

After his last first-class cricket match he turned to golf at 40 and ironed the cricket technique out of his game. Bradman developed into an exceptional golfer who managed to shoot under par at every major golf course in South Australia and Victoria.
He peaked in golf in his early 50s. Even at that age there would have been days when he could have given Woods a run for his money. Given Bradman's temperament, fitness, skills when hitting any spherical object, unmatched powers of concentration, courage, will and competitive spirit, it is not a stretch to suggest that had he chosen golf over cricket, he may well have been in Woods's class. Think of the reverse. Imagine Woods playing cricket. It is unlikely he would have been anywhere near Bradman's league.
At 16, Bradman had to choose between tennis, at which he excelled as a NSW country champion, and cricket. He never ceased to test himself against the best, and beat every Australian Wimbledon player in his era in friendly matches. This gave him satisfaction, for he had minor regrets over his decision to concentrate on cricket.
Bradman was a talented billiards player, too. In 1934 he was beaten by the world's No1, Walter Lindrum. But Bradman's competitive juices flowed and he had a billiards room built in his new Adelaide home. "He practised every day for a year," his wife Jessie told me proudly, "and then challenged Lindrum to a return encounter and matched him."
Not everyone appreciated this unquenchable drive. Dashing all-round cricketer Keith Miller said it was torment to play him in even a casual game of billiards. Bradman always had to win.
At age 31, Bradman took on South Australian squash champion Don Turnbull (also a Davis Cup tennis star) for the state title. Bradman had never played in an official game before. He began tentatively and lost the first two sets. But like a raptor he learned everything about his opponent's game, wore him down, and took the last three sets and the title.
Bradman pushed himself physically to win a game played at terrific pace over an hour. Five years earlier, in a Test at Leeds, he scored 304 when suffering from peritonitis. The life-threatening illness needed surgery from which Bradman was lucky to survive.
In 1968, former English Test cricket star Colin Cowdrey asked if Bradman would like to play him in the more sedate game of royal tennis. Bradman was 60, Cowdrey was 36 and proficient at this elite ancient sport, popular at the French royal court. Bradman had never even seen the game played, let alone tried it.
"He asked me for the thick rule book, then he read it overnight, all night," Cowdrey said.
The next day Bradman played, corrected Cowdrey on some rules, and beat him.

These exploits into other sports may be well know but I hadn't heard of them before and I think go a long way to answering the question in this thread,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bradman was an uber competitive freak who just had to win......second place was simply not an option for him. He had the talent but more importantly the brains and the drive to ensure he excelled at whatever sport he turned his hand to.

No doubt in my mind now that he is the greatest sportsman that has ever lived.............but probably a real pain in the arse to have round to your place for a social game of cards or the like.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

So Bradman is Kim Jong Il then.

 

[Camo999]

No doubt in my mind now that he is the greatest sportsman that has ever lived.............but probably a real pain in the arse to have round to your place for a social game of cards or the like.

Yeah I remember reading somewhere, probably in the excellent Harold Larwood book, something about the Don, decades after Bodyline regularly showing a film with a bowler who apparently had a doubtful action. The bowler was reportedly Larwood with the film reversed to make him look like a left hander. The one time in his career he had been reduced to just a 'great' output averaging 50 odd he was still looking for an explanation all these years later. A bit disturbing really but just shows how dedicated he was to absolute excellence.

 

[Smudge]

So Bradman is Kim Jong Il then.

They both pale in insignificance to AB "Sport Billy" de Villiers.


Allegedly.

 

[stephen]

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 made mention of Johnson because I've never seen a bowler retire hurt as many batsmen. Ever. And this is with all the modern protection.

If you watched those videos of the bouncer barrages of the 70s and 80s, the bowlers were dangerous. It only stands to reason that Johnson would have been even more dangerous in this era. I wasn't glorifying it by any means.

 

[Adders]

I made mention of Johnson because I've never seen a bowler retire hurt as many batsmen. Ever. And this is with all the modern protection.

If you watched those videos of the bouncer barrages of the 70s and 80s, the bowlers were dangerous. It only stands to reason that Johnson would have been even more dangerous in this era. I wasn't glorifying it by any means.

Fair enough, I probably misinterpreted your post.

TBH I don't have the greatest cricketing memory and don't remember random stuff like a lot on here seem to. But off the top of my head I can really only recall Smith at Perth retired hurt where Johnson broke his hand, I'm sure there are quite a few more.........but 1 a series?? Like I said that would be around 25 and I just don't think it would be anything like that............maybe 4 or 5 would be closer to the mark??

And I also think Johnson has got himself this reputation of a Lillee like animal which is just not warranted. Sure he can be an aggressive bowler and gets a lot of wickets through intimidating bowling but he just doesn't have enough **** about him to be classed like Lille, Thommo or the Windies quicks. He had one series where he clearly scared the crap out of Englands batsmen (actually did he break Broads toe in 13/14??......you can add that to the list) and since then he's been made out to be this crazy brute of a fast bowler..........that doesn't ring true to me over his career.

Edit:

Brett Lee was a bowler who loved the smell of blood.

 

[dfrinku]

I hope I'm still around in 70 years to see people dismiss everything that was achieved in the era I grew up watching cricket because it wasn't professional enough.

 

[indiaholic]

That is just beyond incredible. I've never heard this story so did a bit of googling to verify it and stumbled upon this article



These exploits into other sports may be well know but I hadn't heard of them before and I think go a long way to answering the question in this thread,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bradman was an uber competitive freak who just had to win......second place was simply not an option for him. He had the talent but more importantly the brains and the drive to ensure he excelled at whatever sport he turned his hand to.

No doubt in my mind now that he is the greatest sportsman that has ever lived.............but probably a real pain in the arse to have round to your place for a social game of cards or the like.

Good God, I had never heard about these exploits either. Ftr I am abandoning my hypothesis about him having cracked the 'form' enigma. He was just not human.

 

[Pratters]

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?

Not sure why Bodyline is touted as an example. Bodyline tour was not how bowlers bowled generally. It created a furore as it was an anomaly.