AldoRaine18
State Vice-Captain
What average to do you think SRT/Lara would have had in late 1800s and early 1900s, while playing on uncovered pitches?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How did Bradman get as good as he did?
- Thread starter kiwiviktor81
- Start date
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Two three decades is not that much that a great in that era wouldn't boss the next.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
More than any from that era considering they have more shots in their armoury than those of that era. Batting today is far more advanced than it was 100 years back.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
AldoRaine18
State Vice-Captain
But they play those shots on well protected pitches where they can estimate how the ball would behave much better than you can on an uncovered pitch? Or would WG Grace and Victor Trumper not benefit by having flat roads instead of wet minefields having played their careers on those?
You can't have it both ways fella.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ok so Bradman would've bossed the Sobers era of the 60s and 70s just as much as in his era then. Thanks.
AldoRaine18
State Vice-Captain
The difference between Bradman's invincibles and Lloyd's great Windies team is 30 years. Who would boss who, and why?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The Invincibles v Australians of the 90s is a more interesting one in my mind. The Australians of the 90s would probably win a 5 test series 3-1 or 2-1. It doesn't matter though. The basic thing is standards have imrpoved over the years. I don't see why people find it revolting. It's true in every sport. That doesn't mean we are saying older players were dire. Both can exist together - that standards have improved and there have been amazing players in the sport.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Bossed but not as much as he did in the 30s and 40s.
indiaholic
International Captain
About these wet pitches.. How often were matches played on those?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Would be more even. Actually think the Windies team as they were bowling the bouncers.
Chappell's 75-76 Aussies too? They were 4 decades back. Is 4 decades much or not much? Today's guys should practically trample Thommo+Lillee
AldoRaine18
State Vice-Captain
It's because 'improved' is a wrong word to use, simple as. Things change in every sport, and you can only judge a player on what he was allowed to play around, and can never compare, in any sport. Comparisons across eras are nothing more than humour for nerds on a forum. It has no basis.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
None of Pratters' percentages and assumptions make any sense to me.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Given the standard of cricket was far lower 100 years back, pretty sure Lara and Tendulkar would have adopted.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
These words are so bad.
Why do people on CW want to downplay Bradman? So annoying. His legacy is great for the sport we love. Its awesome that our sport produced such a ridiculously crazy good sportsperson.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
How does it have no basis? Are athletes not running faster today? Are there not more players playing cricket today and is it not a more professional sport?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
None of that means Bradman would've been worse today if he was raised in these conditions. This isn't difficult to understand.
indiaholic
International Captain
About the athletes running fatser.. Most of it can be attributed to improvements in the quality of the track they are running on.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I am reminded of how people refer to as good. We can't question God. We have lived like this regarding Bradman as cricket fans. I love Bradman as well. But any one who thinks he would average lower than 99.9 80 years later has broken a sacred trust. I don't get it. It is good for the sport that standards have improved in 80 years, not bad. No one is saying Bradman wouldn't have been great or the greatest even.