How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[Chrish]

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?

You are bringing his 187* into argument while conveniently neglecting his failure in 8 innings?? Nice shift there buddy..

 

[Migara]

Body line stunk because of field settings. Not because of short bowling. Set that field and even if you ball full on pads, there's svery chance you might hit one in the air to a close catcher.

 

[Chrish]

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.

Bro I have already said I consider him as no. 1 due to his statistical achievements. I am just not convinced about the Cricket standard of that era and so refuse to apply those stats directly in modern day Cricket.. As far as no. 1 bat argument goes, his record is too good to ignore.

 

[Migara]

@pardus: about intimidatory bowling. I have vitually followed the whole career of Aravinda de Silva, He only wore a grill-less head gear. He faced WI quicks, Donald, Schultz, W & W, Shoaib, Lee, Md. Zahid, etc, probably the fastest bowlers in the test history. I have never seen him getting hit on the helmet or in the arm pit, or fend it off to be caught in slips / gully. Aravinda averaged 40 in the 90s and was merely a "good" batsman. Now whay do you think SRT / Lara / Ponting should struggle against intimidatory bowling when a lesser batsman like Aravinda managed never to get hit in a 19 year career>

 

[the big bambino]

Who knows. Probably the same reason W Raja was good against the WI while better men struggled. Btw bodyline was qualitatively different to leg theory bcos of the intimidation. It was born of leg theory which didn't have the same impact and was used as much for keeping down run rates as anything.

 

[pardus]

You are bringing his 187* into argument while conveniently neglecting his failure in 8 innings?? Nice shift there buddy..

Are you serious? How the hell did he even score that 187*in the first place, that too against bodyline bowling (considering your claim that he was an amateur batsman facing a fast bowler bowling at a pace way beyond his league)? And how did amatuer batsmen like Woodfull, Ponsford etc. manage such good performances even with Test-level Larwood playing in the earlier series?

 

[pardus]

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.

Easiness is a relative word, and I never used the word easy. I said, having watched live cricket in 80s, 90s and 2000s, to my eyes Windies attack of late 70s and 80s (with the help of cricketing laws of that time) were much tougher for batsmen to score than any attack in 90s or 2000s, and I proved that by posting batting averages against the best bowling sides in both eras. If those stats cause some insecurity within you regarding the calibre of batsmen from 90s and 2000s, I can't help it.

I also said I enjoyed watching Azhar Mehmood's series performance against Donald in 97-98, Lara's against McGrath/Aus in both 99 as well as 2003, Gilchrist's 149* at Hobart in 99. I thought (and still think) there were ATG batting performances.

It is not as if batting performances in 90s and 2000s were useless. Nothing of the sort. My point is: Forget about comparing Bradman with today's batsmen. It is difficult for me to even compare batsmen of late 70s & 80s (like Greg Chappell) with batsmen of 90s (Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara etc.), because of a significant change in the game in the 2 eras (even though they played more or less in successive eras).

 

[Coronis]

I hate this thread.

 

[Daemon]

As long as everyone concedes that Bradman was the best ever it doesn't really matter

 

[pardus]

@pardus: about intimidatory bowling. I have vitually followed the whole career of Aravinda de Silva, He only wore a grill-less head gear. He faced WI quicks, Donald, Schultz, W & W, Shoaib, Lee, Md. Zahid, etc, probably the fastest bowlers in the test history. I have never seen him getting hit on the helmet or in the arm pit, or fend it off to be caught in slips / gully. Aravinda averaged 40 in the 90s and was merely a "good" batsman. Now why do you think SRT / Lara / Ponting should struggle against intimidatory bowling when a lesser batsman like Aravinda managed never to get hit in a 19 year career>

I honestly have no clue how Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting would have fared against the Windies of 80s. It is very difficult to predict how these batsman-bowling attack match-ups pan out. Based on the probability that no great batsman of the previous eras scored consistently against that Windies attack under those laws for around 15-20 years, I would put my money on the Windies bowlers. But again, I wouldn't be that surprised if one or more of these guys hammered that Windies attack scoring 2000+ runs @ average of 45 over those 15 years. Fact is, these guys never faced an attack like that (cricket laws themselves were changed by the time these guys came).
Nothing to do with getting hit on the helmet, it is more about scoring good number of runs at a healthy average.

 

[Victor Ian]

That's interesting. Modern players would average more than they do today as long as they didn't have issues playing without helmets. They are professionals today while they were amateurs in the 30s and 40s. Tendulkar 10-20% more.

Ponting transported back to the 30's would probably average about 50odd less. Remember, the player base has increased exponentially, and so has their professionalism. So Ponting probably didn't play and if he did he was probably an amateur hack.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ponting transported back to the 30's would probably average about 50odd less. Remember, the player base has increased exponentially, and so has their professionalism. So Ponting probably didn't play and if he did he was probably an amateur hack.

Outstanding.

 

[Red]

Ponting would've been Stan McCabe esque

 

[Furball]

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.

The West Indies quartet would all have averaged 30 if they'd played in this era. The game's better and players are better protected. James Anderson and Stuart Broad only average 29 so there's just no way Malcolm Marshall could have averaged 20.

 

[stephen]

I would love to have seen Bradman in his pomp vs the WIndies attacks of the 80s. Would have been thrilling television.

 

[Migara]

Nothing to do with getting hit on the helmet, it is more about scoring good number of runs at a healthy average.

Nah, it has a lot of merit. A player like Aravinda, with decent front foot play (Aravinda was susceptible against moving ball), would have taken the intimidation factor out of the bowlers. In Aravinda's playing days, no fast bowler managed to intimidate him, and bouncers always went over the head level. Anything at head level was hooked with disdain. Even the fastest bowlers of cricket history was intimidated not drop short. I have heard that Viv did the same as well. Inzamam was brutal against short bowling as well. Now such players will take wild fast bowlers (like Patterson) out of the equation. They will take intimidation spells out of the equation as well. If a batsman can counter-intimidate a fast bowler not to drop short, the fast bowler has lost 50% of the battle, and damage the ego of the bowler badly. Then once again challenging the pads and the edges becomes the mode of dismissal. If there was a Aravinda, Inzy or a Viv playing against WI in that era, they would have damaged few egos pretty badly of that WI quartet.

 

[Jono]

Inzy would have got absolutely **** on by the WI quartet.

 

[Migara]

Inzy would have got absolutely **** on by the WI quartet.

Yes, but not by bowling bouncers. If Patterson tried his heroics against him would have disappeared run a ball or more against him.

I took him as an example to show that once intimidation factor is taken out of the game by taking on short bowling, what was left for fast bowlers as good as WI quartret is not much different from what is on offer for fast bowlers today. Now Aravinda and Inzy are not ATG. If these players can do it , ATG's would surely be able to do it.

 

[pardus]

Nah, it has a lot of merit. A player like Aravinda, with decent front foot play (Aravinda was susceptible against moving ball), would have taken the intimidation factor out of the bowlers. In Aravinda's playing days, no fast bowler managed to intimidate him, and bouncers always went over the head level. Anything at head level was hooked with disdain. Even the fastest bowlers of cricket history was intimidated not drop short. I have heard that Viv did the same as well. Inzamam was brutal against short bowling as well. Now such players will take wild fast bowlers (like Patterson) out of the equation. They will take intimidation spells out of the equation as well. If a batsman can counter-intimidate a fast bowler not to drop short, the fast bowler has lost 50% of the battle, and damage the ego of the bowler badly. Then once again challenging the pads and the edges becomes the mode of dismissal. If there was a Aravinda, Inzy or a Viv playing against WI in that era, they would have damaged few egos pretty badly of that WI quartet.

I didn't mean it in that sense. Ravi Shastri played the WIPQ at it's peak, and it's most aggressive. While batting at no:3, he even scored a brave 100 against them on a fast pitch at Barbados when most of his teammates could not cross double figures. As far as I can recall, Shastri was never hit on the helmet, even though he faced plenty of bouncers from them. On the other hand, I have seen Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting get hit on the helmet multiple times. But nobody in their right mind would rate Shastri as better batsman than Lara or Tendulkar. As long as batsmen do not have a genuine weakness against the short-pitched delivery, it is just about the runs they score, and the manner in which they score. Anybody can get hit. Nothing shameful about that.

And another thing, it is not that a batsman has never hit the Windies quicks in the 80s. Kim Hughes did that in his famous knock at the MCG. Gavaskar hammered the living daylights out of the Windies quicks in Ferozshah Kotla Test in 83 (I think he reached his 100 off 94 balls or something). Doing it once in a while is fine, but doing it consistently is something else, which is probably why nobody did it consistently over 15 years. Windies quicks of the time really mastered the art of short pitched bowling. They bowled at a fearsome pace and at an uncomfortable height where either evading or hooking/pulling required significant body movement. It wasn't just blind pace bowling. It was very accurate as well. And by it's very nature hook is a risky shot. Again, it doesn't mean no batsman can score off them. Maybe the players you mentioned could.

Viv was the best player of the hook/pull shot I have seen. He had tremendous control on that shot. He could also duck/evade beautifully. De Silva was a great player of the pull/hook too but was a compulsive hooker. But all this is for another thread I guess.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We all know that The Don is the greatest cricketer of all time, by some margin. By a freakishly large margin, in fact. What I wonder about is how, physically, mentally or technically, he got that good.

I heard a story about him as a child spending entire days learning to bat by throwing a golfball at a water tank and hitting the rebound with a stump. No doubt he learned some amazing hand-eye co-ordination from this, but I don't know if it explains 99.94.

There must have been something else. Was it mental, i.e. a superb ability to remain calm and focused no matter the length of the innings or the match state? Was it physical, i.e. tremendous natural talent, hawkish eyesight, or freakish hand-eye co-ordination? Was it technical, i.e. a perfect defence and range of shots with an unparalled ability to read the body language of the bowler and predict the line and length before the ball was released?

Or were the bowlers just worse in those days?

It's a shame the sentence "Or were the bowlers just worse in those days?" was added. Up to then it was a good question, but that is irrelevant.