How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Daemon]

nah come on darts isn't really a sport

 

[Chrish]

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?

Chappell started playing in the year 1970 and played for entire decade.. Why should he be not included in early 70 era?? And what difference does it make which year he retired??

And did I say ponting will have a walk in the park facing 70s WI bowlers?? As mentioned earlier 70 and 80 was a pace dominated but the standard of spin was no where near as good. I have no reason to believe Viv would just walk in and start hitting boundaries from 1st ball against McGrath, warne, Wasim, waqar, Murali or Donald.. It's ludicrous to assume that

The game was evolved by the 70s and it's much easier to compare players based on stats from 70s era to 90s era than 30s/ 40s era to 70s era.

Larwood looks quick but as someone else has already pointed out, I have no reason to believe he bowled whole day with each bowl at the speed of 150 kmh. Almost every other blower I have seen looks worse than Indian trundler from 90s. So yes, the standard of body line bowling was no where near as good as bowling of WI team of 70s and 80s even after accounting for field restrictions.

 

[Chrish]

I'm not buying your standards were lower and higher nonsense, unless you can provide a half decent argument for it.

There's fair amount of footage available from 30s/40s/50s era to give you basic idea about that era's standard

 

[AldoRaine18]

There's fair amount of footage available from 30s/40s/50s era to give you basic idea about that era's standard

I've seen whatever I could, what about it?

 

[Chrish]

I've seen whatever I could, what about it?

Nothing else you could do. Form your opinion based on whatever is out there

 

[Gob]

Time for Pratters to take a hike imo.

 

[Ikki]

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.

This is actually nuts. Wow.

 

[Chrish]

I love the audacity to go ahead and randomly predict specific averages players would have in different eras

That's why it's nothing more than a p!ss contest trying to guess what any player would average in a different era..

 

[AldoRaine18]

That's why it's nothing more than a p!ss contest trying to guess what any player would average in a different era..

Yep.

 

[pardus]

Chappell started playing in the year 1970 and played for entire decade.. Why should he be not included in early 70 era?? And what difference does it make which year he retired??

And did I say ponting will have a walk in the park facing 70s WI bowlers?? As mentioned earlier 70 and 80 was a pace dominated but the standard of spin was no where near as good. I have no reason to believe Viv would just walk in and start hitting boundaries from 1st ball against McGrath, warne, Wasim, waqar, Murali or Donald.. It's ludicrous to assume that

The game was evolved by the 70s and it's much easier to compare players based on stats from 70s era to 90s era than 30s/ 40s era to 70s era.

Larwood looks quick but as someone else has already pointed out, I have no reason to believe he bowled whole day with each bowl at the speed of 150 kmh. Almost every other blower I have seen looks worse than Indian trundler from 90s. So yes, the standard of body line bowling was no where near as good as bowling of WI team of 70s and 80s even after accounting for field restrictions.

You sidestepped my questions. Let me ask again.

Firstly regarding comparison of Windies attack of 80s (and late 70s) against various attacks of 90s & 2000s. I claim the laws introduced in 1991 to curb intimidatory bowling did benefit 90s batsmen significantly, and therefore it is difficult to compare batsmen of late 70s and 80s with batsmen of 90s. There was a paradigm shift in the game from 80s to 90s. I am NOT claiming that batsmen of 80s were superior or that batsmen of 90s were worse. Batsmen in late 70s and 80s had to deal with things that batsmen in 90s did not have to worry about, and vice-versa.

Questions again:
1. Can you tell me why only a single batsman (neither Chappell nor Gavaskar or Border) in the entire decade of 80s, who batted against Windies pace quartet, averaged more than 50? Even extending the time period further from 76-77 season to 91-92 season, a period of 15 years, why is it that only 2 batsmen averaged more than 50 against the main West Indies team? 15 years is a long, long time.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet in the entire decade of 1980s.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet from 1976-77 season till 1991-92 season.

2. For a comparison, when I apply the same 15 year period from say 92-93 to 2007-2008 seasons, and apply the same conditions (minimum innings batted = 6), I have several, several batsmen averaging over 50 against Australia, against South Africa, and against Pakistan, and against the West Indies. Why? In fact, there is simply no comparison between the batting stats below with the batting stats above. Why is it that at least 10 batsmen average more than 50 against Aus, RSA and Pak during this time (90s and early 2000s)? How is it that so many batsmen suddenly became so dominant against the best sides of 90s and early 2000s, while it was not so from 1976-1991?

Batting averages against Australia for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against Pakistan for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against South Africa for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season

 

[the big bambino]

Larwood looks quick but as someone else has already pointed out, I have no reason to believe he bowled whole day with each bowl at the speed of 150 kmh. Almost every other blower I have seen looks worse than Indian trundler from 90s. So yes, the standard of body line bowling was no where near as good as bowling of WI team of 70s and 80s even after accounting for field restrictions.

Just a correction for the ignorance of history displayed above. Many of those "trundlers" actually had better bowling averages than Larwood under the same conditions against the same competition and achieved those averages without being as reliant on bodyline as was Larwood.

 

[Pratters]

That's a very good post Pardus. West Indies quartet was so tough to face. We can't even begin to fathom it who have not seen them during their prime.

 

[Ikki]

Bradman would have really struggled against the WIndies if he played them regularly...probably would have averaged 95 or something.

 

[Coronis]

Oh no, nobody averaged 50 against one of the greatest attacks of all time. Therefore Bradman sucks.

 

[pardus]

Bradman would have really struggled against the WIndies if he played them regularly...probably would have averaged 95 or something.

Oh no, nobody averaged 50 against one of the greatest attacks of all time. Therefore Bradman sucks.

My last post was not about Bradman at all. It was more about attacks of 90s of 2000s. Having watched cricket throughout 80s, 90s and 2000s, to my eyes the Windies attacks in the 80s (along with the cricket laws at the time), were far tougher for batsmen than any other attack in 90s or 2000s. This is clearly evidenced by the batting average stats given in my previous post.

My main point was - if one wants to judge how Bradman would have fared against the main Windies attacks of late 70s and 80s, then one has to apply the same logic with the batsmen of 90s and 2000s (Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting) who also in my opinion, benefited greatly by not having to play the Windies of late 70s and 80s.

 

[Chrish]

You sidestepped my questions. Let me ask again.

Firstly regarding comparison of Windies attack of 80s (and late 70s) against various attacks of 90s & 2000s. I claim the laws introduced in 1991 to curb intimidatory bowling did benefit 90s batsmen significantly, and therefore it is difficult to compare batsmen of late 70s and 80s with batsmen of 90s. There was a paradigm shift in the game from 80s to 90s. I am NOT claiming that batsmen of 80s were superior or that batsmen of 90s were worse. Batsmen in late 70s and 80s had to deal with things that batsmen in 90s did not have to worry about, and vice-versa.

Questions again:
1. Can you tell me why only a single batsman (neither Chappell nor Gavaskar or Border) in the entire decade of 80s, who batted against Windies pace quartet, averaged more than 50? Even extending the time period further from 76-77 season to 91-92 season, a period of 15 years, why is it that only 2 batsmen averaged more than 50 against the main West Indies team? 15 years is a long, long time.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet in the entire decade of 1980s.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet from 1976-77 season till 1991-92 season.

2. For a comparison, when I apply the same 15 year period from say 92-93 to 2007-2008 seasons, and apply the same conditions (minimum innings batted = 6), I have several, several batsmen averaging over 50 against Australia, against South Africa, and against Pakistan, and against the West Indies. Why? In fact, there is simply no comparison between the batting stats below with the batting stats above. Why is it that at least 10 batsmen average more than 50 against Aus, RSA and Pak during this time (90s and early 2000s)? How is it that so many batsmen suddenly became so dominant against the best sides of 90s and early 2000s, while it was not so from 1976-1991?

Batting averages against Australia for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against Pakistan for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against South Africa for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season

Not really sure what point you are trying to make here.. Are you telling me Bradman would succeed against WI quartet because he averaged 56.14 in 8 innings in bodyline series while other batsmen failed to average 50+ against WI quartet?

If the answer is yes, then I have already expressed my view on this. The standard of WI quartet was far far superior than the quality of bodyline pace bowling. It's absolute drivel to compare any bodyline bowler other than Larwood to Marshall, Garner, Holding, Wash, Patterson, Marshall etc. (based on pace which was the most important criteria for the effectiveness of short-pitch stuff). Honestly, it's not even a comparison..

 

[Chrish]

You sidestepped my questions. Let me ask again.

Firstly regarding comparison of Windies attack of 80s (and late 70s) against various attacks of 90s & 2000s. I claim the laws introduced in 1991 to curb intimidatory bowling did benefit 90s batsmen significantly, and therefore it is difficult to compare batsmen of late 70s and 80s with batsmen of 90s. There was a paradigm shift in the game from 80s to 90s. I am NOT claiming that batsmen of 80s were superior or that batsmen of 90s were worse. Batsmen in late 70s and 80s had to deal with things that batsmen in 90s did not have to worry about, and vice-versa.

Questions again:
1. Can you tell me why only a single batsman (neither Chappell nor Gavaskar or Border) in the entire decade of 80s, who batted against Windies pace quartet, averaged more than 50? Even extending the time period further from 76-77 season to 91-92 season, a period of 15 years, why is it that only 2 batsmen averaged more than 50 against the main West Indies team? 15 years is a long, long time.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet in the entire decade of 1980s.
Averages against the West Indian pace quartet from 1976-77 season till 1991-92 season.

2. For a comparison, when I apply the same 15 year period from say 92-93 to 2007-2008 seasons, and apply the same conditions (minimum innings batted = 6), I have several, several batsmen averaging over 50 against Australia, against South Africa, and against Pakistan, and against the West Indies. Why? In fact, there is simply no comparison between the batting stats below with the batting stats above. Why is it that at least 10 batsmen average more than 50 against Aus, RSA and Pak during this time (90s and early 2000s)? How is it that so many batsmen suddenly became so dominant against the best sides of 90s and early 2000s, while it was not so from 1976-1991?

Batting averages against Australia for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against Pakistan for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season
Batting averages against South Africa for a period of 15 years from 92-93 season to 2007-08 season

- - -

 

[Chrish]

My last post was not about Bradman at all. It was more about attacks of 90s of 2000s. Having watched cricket throughout 80s, 90s and 2000s, to my eyes the Windies attacks in the 80s (along with the cricket laws at the time), were far tougher for batsmen than any other attack in 90s or 2000s. This is clearly evidenced by the batting average stats given in my previous post.

My main point was - if one wants to judge how Bradman would have fared against the main Windies attacks of late 70s and 80s, then one has to apply the same logic with the batsmen of 90s and 2000s (Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting) who also in my opinion, benefited greatly by not having to play the Windies of late 70s and 80s.

No that's not the criteria to judge Bradman.. Hypothetically speaking, I would be perfectly satisfied if Bradman comes from a time machine and smash one of those hundred against Wasim, Waqar & Imran or Mcgrtah & Warne or Donald & Pollock or facing Murali on dustbowls etc (once again hypothetically).. I just threw in Windies attack as an example..

Anyways I have always maintained that Windies quartet is the strongest bowling attack that has ever existed. So, it's natural for batsmen to struggle against them. But they weren't the only one playing Cricket.. So, bringing them in every argument to prove the bowling of 70s/ 80s was superior than 90s is bit silly. As mentioned earlier, 90s had much more variety of bowling. We saw the greatest leg and off spinners, unique bowlers like Mcgrath, Wasim & Waqar, intimidating pacers like Ambrose & Donald and express pacer like Shoaib to name a few. So, again I don't believe in "easiness" for batsmen argument that you seem very convinced about. If anything bowling average of 90s was lower than average of 70s and 80s.

 

[pardus]

Chappell started playing in the year 1970 and played for entire decade.. Why should he be not included in early 70 era?? And what difference does it make which year he retired??

And did I say ponting will have a walk in the park facing 70s WI bowlers?? As mentioned earlier 70 and 80 was a pace dominated but the standard of spin was no where near as good. I have no reason to believe Viv would just walk in and start hitting boundaries from 1st ball against McGrath, warne, Wasim, waqar, Murali or Donald.. It's ludicrous to assume that

The game was evolved by the 70s and it's much easier to compare players based on stats from 70s era to 90s era than 30s/ 40s era to 70s era.

Larwood looks quick but as someone else has already pointed out, I have no reason to believe he bowled whole day with each bowl at the speed of 150 kmh. Almost every other blower I have seen looks worse than Indian trundler from 90s. So yes, the standard of body line bowling was no where near as good as bowling of WI team of 70s and 80s even after accounting for field restrictions.

I am confused here. Are you suggesting that only Larwood & Bradman were Test class (as per today's standards), while rest of the players (both batsmen & bowlers) were amateurs?? If that were the case, there is no way that rest of the batsmen (other than Bradman) could have survived Larwood's pace, let alone scored centuries against him. Bodyline tactics wouldn't have become necessary. Larwood should have simply wiped out rest of the batting line up easily, with Bradman remaining not out at the other end. Amateur batsmen wouldn't stand much of a chance against a Test level fast bowler going full throttle.

How did an amateur Stan McCabe score 187* against Test-level Larwood in the first Test of the bodyline series? How did Test-level Larwood concede 96 runs in the first Test of bodyline series (without Bradman in the batting lineup) against amatuer batsmen?

 

[Burgey]

Not really sure what point you are trying to make here.. Are you telling me Bradman would succeed against WI quartet because he averaged 56.14 in 8 innings in bodyline series while other batsmen failed to average 50+ against WI quartet?

If the answer is yes, then I have already expressed my view on this. The standard of WI quartet was far far superior than the quality of bodyline pace bowling. It's absolute drivel to compare any bodyline bowler other than Larwood to Marshall, Garner, Holding, Wash, Patterson, Marshall etc. (based on pace which was the most important criteria for the effectiveness of short-pitch stuff). Honestly, it's not even a comparison..

I think you're not quite factoring in the importance of the fields which were set for Bodyline. It wasn't that you'd cop a whole series of short pitched balls, it's that if you defended you'd eventually pop one up to the leg cordon, and if you attacked you'd eventually hole out to one of the three or four outfielders. It wasn't just that it was physically intimidating, it was that it so limited your ability to score runs, even if you were a good player of the short ball. That was its genius.