Sir Donald Bradman

[TestMatch]

I'm reading articles on his Bodyline tour. It's hilarious how spooked the English were of Bradman, how determined they were to "invent" a tactic which neutralised him, and how quickly he adapted his style to their attack.

England player Percy Fender wrote before the 1933 tour, "something new will have to be introduced to curb Bradman…something along the lines of theory!". And "Plum" Warner, a supposedly influential voice within English cricket at the time: "England must evolve a new type of bowler and develop fresh ideas and strange tactics to curb his almost uncanny skill". London's News Chronicle summed up the prevailing sentiment: "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible...To keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."

And Bodyline succeeded to an extent, Bradman "only" averaging 56 during the tour. But he travels to England the following year and absolutely demolishes them. Do you think he'd have been as successful in this 1934 tour had Larwood not been hounded out of the English team?

 

[Coronis]

I'm reading articles on his Bodyline tour. It's hilarious how spooked the English were of Bradman, how determined they were to "invent" a tactic which neutralised him, and how quickly he adapted his style to their attack.

England player Percy Fender wrote before the 1933 tour, "something new will have to be introduced to curb Bradman…something along the lines of theory!". And "Plum" Warner, a supposedly influential voice within English cricket at the time: "England must evolve a new type of bowler and develop fresh ideas and strange tactics to curb his almost uncanny skill". London's News Chronicle summed up the prevailing sentiment: "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible...To keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."

And Bodyline succeeded to an extent, Bradman "only" averaging 56 during the tour. But he travels to England the following year and absolutely demolishes them. Do you think he'd have been as successful in this 1934 tour had Larwood not been hounded out of the English team?

Nah the only reason Larwood was so successful was due to the leg theory. In matches outside of that series where both played, Bradman scored 1173 @ 106.63 and Larwood took 18 @ 46.33. Both Tate and White of England took more wickets at a better average than Larwood in those matches.

 

[the big bambino]

Mind you it was ironic the restriction speculated by Warner was eventually placed on the bowlers and not the batsman. In effect a tribute to Larwood's skill.

 

[TheJediBrah]

haha yeah "Poor Bradman only averaged 56, guess the bowlers are having too much of an advantage, better put restrictions on them"

 

[Chrish]

Probably one of the friendlier eras for batting. The 30s and 40s are generally considered to have had very good batting decks on average, with the random sticky because of rain thrown in there from time to time.

Have no clue about the speeds but Larwood genuinely looks very quick in most videos so I reckon he could've been 85+mph with the occasional burst of 90, although this is just pure guesswork. Think I've read somewhere that some people had somehow used video evidence to estimate some of his quicker deliveries at 98mph, which might or not be totally accurate. The rest all look a step or two slower.

The reason why asked is I have read conflicting accounts regarding nature of wickets. Majority of the opinion is as you said they favored batsmen (other than sticky wickets under specific circumstances). But some accounts suggest they had wide variety of wickets especially in England. So I am not sure.

Also Allen and Farnes both are referred as "fast" in cricinfo profile but Larwood is the primary name that appears when pace bowling from that era is discussed

 

[Burgey]

haha yeah "Poor Bradman only averaged 56, guess the bowlers are having too much of an advantage, better put restrictions on them"

Probably had more to do with someone being likely to get killed.

Bodyline was tactically brilliant and within the rules, just like underarm. Neither was sustainable in the game though.

 

[Burgey]

The reason why asked is I have read conflicting accounts regarding nature of wickets. Majority of the opinion is as you said they favored batsmen (other than sticky wickets under specific circumstances). But some accounts suggest they had wide variety of wickets especially in England. So I am not sure.

Also Allen and Farnes both are referred as "fast" in cricinfo profile but Larwood is the primary name that appears when pace bowling from that era is discussed

Larwood was the fast bowler who had the greatest impact in that era, I suppose.

 

[mr_mister]

Were McDonald and Gregory meant to be Larwood speed? Some of Larwoods peers like Bowes are described as bowling gentle mediums

 

[Victor Ian]

Neither does "batting conditions" explain Bradman's success as decadal averages have been fairly consistent since the 1920s. If you remove Bradman's distorting influence the 30s has one of the lower averages.

Has Bradman's influence been calculated? How much is it worth. It would be a new interesting ladder by which to rank players. Perhaps Bradman increased the decade batting average by 1, whereas Ponting may only have increased his by .25, etc. Players like Ponting's impact would be diluted twice, first, for not being as good as the Don, and second, because there were more players.

Come on, one of you stat manipulators. Do it!

 

[stephen]

It's hard to imagine but the gap between Bradman and Border as batsmen is greater than the gap between Border and Chris Martin.

Of course in relative terms the fair comparison is Border to Mitchell Johnson but in absolute terms, Border is to Martin what Bradman was to Border.

I certainly hope the world one day gets to witness another Bradman in my lifetime.

 

[the big bambino]

Has Bradman's influence been calculated? How much is it worth. It would be a new interesting ladder by which to rank players. Perhaps Bradman increased the decade batting average by 1, whereas Ponting may only have increased his by .25, etc. Players like Ponting's impact would be diluted twice, first, for not being as good as the Don, and second, because there were more players.

Come on, one of you stat manipulators. Do it!

I've done a bit of this and I have it in a drawer at home. Btw I don't think I'd believe stories of Bowes being gentle. Not from the number of blokes he ko'd. I've not heard this story many times but it came from Frith so I'd believe it. (Bodyline Autopsy I think). Bowes almost killed George Headley in a tour match in 1933. Headley actually batted on and scored a ton after he was revived. When I had access to cricketarchive I tried to find a mention of it in notes to the scorecard but the incident wasn't mentioned. From memory Headley did sit out the next 3 or 4 games though suggestive of him recovering.

 

[Victor Ian]

I just did a quick look at Bradman versus Ponting - Bradman was worth 1.25 runs (3.7%) over his career and Ponting was worth .21 runs .6%. Anyways....yeah

 

[TheJediBrah]

I just did a quick look at Bradman versus Ponting - Bradman was worth 1.25 runs (3.7%) over his career and Ponting was worth .21 runs .6%. Anyways....yeah

Not surprising, as it's not the difference in their averages that makes the stats, ie. Bradman 100 v Ponting 52.

It's the difference in relation to everyone else, eg. Bradman ~60 higher than average, v Ponting ~10 higher than average.

60 v 10 is a much bigger difference than 100 v 52

I know I'm just stating the obvious but hey

 

[Victor Ian]

and even more so - the sample size - Bradman's 6996 runs were from 126621 (hey check out how Bradmans runs are both palindromes!) and Ponting was 13378 but from 778280.

I'm going to have a check of Tendulkar - He might be the only player that played while a Million runs were scored.


edit after checking: What an epic F-up. If Tendulkar had played just ONE more test match he would have been there for a million runs. He was only there for 999645

 

[fredfertang]

Bodyline didn't have any direct effect on Bradman - he could have spent the whole series swaying out of the way and not getting dismissed and ending up with a fat average - the problem was that the other Australian batsmen couldn't handle it, so Bradman had to get on with it and he took plenty of risks - that was the only reason he was reduced to that piss poor average of 56

 

[Gob]

Wish i could see how Smith and prime Ponting would have tackled the leg theory. Former for his notorious ability to adapt and the latter for his exceptional abilities against the short ball.

 

[Daemon]

I'd be more interested to watch Raina

 

[fredfertang]

Wish i could see how Smith and prime Ponting would have tackled the leg theory. Former for his notorious ability to adapt and the latter for his exceptional abilities against the short ball.

It wouldn't work these days for two reasons; firstly the protection that batsman now have would remove much of the fear and second the fact that the packed leg side field is no longer permitted. I thought for many years that the laws should be changed to allow it again at the highest level so we could thrill at skilled batsmen properly protected taking it on, but then we had the Phil Hughes tragedy, so perhaps leg theory is best left where it is, in the past

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd be more interested to watch Raina

You sadist

 

[Gob]

It wouldn't work these days for two reasons; firstly the protection that batsman now have would remove much of the fear and second the fact that the packed leg side field is no longer permitted. I thought for many years that the laws should be changed to allow it again at the highest level so we could thrill at skilled batsmen properly protected taking it on, but then we had the Phil Hughes tragedy, so perhaps leg theory is best left where it is, in the past

I was actually thinking about a hypothetical situation where we can send Smith back in time to the 30's when the packed leg side was allowed. I'd let him carry a helmet though