Sir Donald Bradman

[a massive zebra]

Didn't Larwood claim to have hit him once, on the arse, in the final Test?

Actually yes, you are right (as usual). I wonder who was telling porkies here?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

When the BBC Bodyline documentary was first shown in the early 80's it was discussed at great length on TV and TMS. There was, allegedly, a lot of junk bowling like this that was harmless but not easy to score off. This is photo bucket so it might not load quickly.

Larwood Video by goonyboxes | Photobucket

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm not liking that site - It made me unblock my add blocker - put adds all over the screen including one of a couple in a passionate embrace (lucky the wife was not looking over my shoulder) and then proceeded to show me a white screen.

DAMMIT! I want to see it

 

[the big bambino]

They were bowling short and at the body. No surprise they cleared the stumps really.

 

[Jarquis]

At the risk of drawing ire - if you were to just watch the exertion of the bowler and the movements of the keeper you wouldn't think that was especially quick...

 

[the big bambino]

Then again if you were hit in the head and knocked out by him you might think again.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He was obviously a fast, dangerous and accurate bowler. But my point earlier was that there was also a lot of this. It's inevitable if you're bowling leg stump short pitched deliveries that will be plenty of dross - and more than the misty eyed writers and historians would have you believe.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah look I suppose. If that was a consequence of the tactic then its success justifies the dross. In that respect historians will concentrate on its success and how it was achieved. They wont much care for the deliveries that drifted wide. In fact alot of people, including Larwood, said they mixed bodyline with normal bowling and I guess if we include that the % of wide leg side balls becomes negligible.

 

[TestMatch]

How many overs did Larwood and company bowl in a hour and a day? I've heard reports that they'd get through about 22-25 overs an hour and 130-140 overs per day. Doesn't this make it likely that they were bowling 100-120 kph at best? Modern fast bowlers couldn't sustain that pace (they typically get through 15 or less overs an hour).

 

[Smudge]

im so bad at picking length haha

As the actress said to the bishop.

 

[a massive zebra]

How many overs did Larwood and company bowl in a hour and a day? I've heard reports that they'd get through about 22-25 overs an hour and 130-140 overs per day. Doesn't this make it likely that they were bowling 100-120 kph at best? Modern fast bowlers couldn't sustain that pace (they typically get through 15 or less overs an hour).

Over the course of the Bodyline series, England bowled 834.1 overs in 2,838 minutes, which works out at 17.63 overs per hour. However, Hedley Verity, a spinner, bowled 135. overs and Walter Hammond, a medium pacer, bowled 120.5 overs. These two almost certainly bowled their overs more quickly than the bodylline bowlers, so the overs per hour among the Bodyline bowlers was probably about 15-16.

 

[stephen]

How many overs did Larwood and company bowl in a hour and a day? I've heard reports that they'd get through about 22-25 overs an hour and 130-140 overs per day. Doesn't this make it likely that they were bowling 100-120 kph at best? Modern fast bowlers couldn't sustain that pace (they typically get through 15 or less overs an hour).

I find the "bowlers were really slow back then" argument amusing. Grade bowlers can generally crank it up to 130 kph with no special training so what makes people think the top line bowlers from the past couldn't hit 145?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The Bodyline series would presumably have been 8 ball overs. You get more deliveries in due to fewer changes of ends, but numerically less overs.

 

[Starfighter]

Nope, it was six ball overs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I remember an interview with Eddie Paynter during the tea interval of a Test in 1978 (wish we'd had video recorders then) and he was very keen to point out that 16 of Larwood's 33 wickets were bowled or LBW. It's a slightly disingenuous stat, but still a little surprising.

 

[the big bambino]

I find the "bowlers were really slow back then" argument amusing. Grade bowlers can generally crank it up to 130 kph with no special training so what makes people think the top line bowlers from the past couldn't hit 145?

I think I can guess at the reason why test match wants to talk down Bradman. You have to come up with a lot of so called reasons to justify why you think a man who averages 50 is better than someone who averages 100. Besides it isn't a bowlers speed that determines over rate but a number of factors including length of run up. After all Gilbert achieved his speed off four steps while I've seen many bowlers who are fast medium come in off long runs. It's naive to equate length of run up with a bowlers speed.

 

[Chrish]

I think I can guess at the reason why test match wants to talk down Bradman. You have to come up with a lot of so called reasons to justify why you think a man who averages 50 is better than someone who averages 100.

Or he might be just clearing up doubts he has regarding the way game was played back then.

You are convinced about player's greatness but others may be skeptical and I don't see why one can't debate their opinions.

 

[the big bambino]

Or he might be just clearing up doubts he has regarding the way game was played back then.

You are convinced about player's greatness but others may be skeptical and I don't see why one can't debate their opinions.

I doubt it. The only thing I'm skeptical about is people dispassionately raising this as a discussion. Why? Because it's been had and settled a long time ago, as you well know ... I suspect it is more about Sachin jingoism. And if you were as impartial to me as him you'd allow me to also clear up a few doubts as to why people keep bringing this so called skepticism up.

 

[Chrish]

I doubt it. The only thing I'm skeptical about is people dispassionately raising this as a discussion. Why? Because it's been had and settled a long time ago, as you well know ... I suspect it is more about Sachin jingoism. And if you were as impartial to me as him you'd allow me to also clear up a few doubts as to why people keep bringing this so called skepticism up.

It's not just non-Aussies who have this skepticism. The issue of footage of 30s-40s not being appealing has been raised even by Aussies so your claim is total rubbish. Example can be found here:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...tus-greatest-batsman-ever-under-threat-4.html


And he is a WI fan; so I doubt he is Sachin jingoist.

 

[the big bambino]

It's not just non-Aussies who have this skepticism. The issue of footage of 30s-40s not being appealing has been raised even by Aussies so your claim is total rubbish. Example can be found here:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...tus-greatest-batsman-ever-under-threat-4.html


And he is a WI fan; so I doubt he is Sachin jingoist.

Haha. That thread started from a cricinfo profile dinit? Isn't there a strong subcon influence on that site?

Look you may be right about others motivation. But I'm focusing on yours ...