Sir Donald Bradman

[honestbharani]

I warned you about Chennai food

Nah.. the food is what keeps me alive after reading your posts..

 

[AndrewB]

The ironic thing about Bodyline is that if Bradman was susceptible to short pitched bowling, the bodyline series probably meant that England were reluctant to bowl him many bouncers after that series.

I think I've posted here before that in "Cricket Crisis", Fingleton reckoned that bodyline cost England the 1934 and 1936-7 series.

 

[AndrewB]

It should be noted that the leg-side field didn't end with bodyline. Here in 1934 we can see Nobby Clark bowling to a similar field, although according to Wisden he only occasionally pitched it short. He did have some success in this match but Bradman scored 244 off 271 and 77 off 106, and wasn't dismissed by Clark either time. The difference is the concentrated attack on the body, and that's what made bodyline so dangerous. The leg side field was common as a restrictive tactic until the two behind square rule was introduced some time around the late fifties, but I don't think there was ever such a sustained, concentrated attack on the body of the batsmen until the seventies, although Lindwall and Miller and Hall and Griffith perhaps came close at points, but they didn't employ such a field.

Wasn't (non bodyline) leg theory quite a common tactic for left-arm pace bowlers and off-spinners? The "two behind square" rule was (according to Wikipedia) introduced in 1957 - it's curious how many places on the web claim that the rule was brought in as a result of bodyline.

 

[Starfighter]

Bodyline wasn't the name of any tactics. It was off theory and leg theory with 7-2, 2-7 field. "Bodyline" was a term invented by the Australian press.

Spoken like a true Englishman.

Wasn't (non bodyline) leg theory quite a common tactic for left-arm pace bowlers and off-spinners? The "two behind square" rule was (according to Wikipedia) introduced in 1957 - it's curious how many places on the web claim that the rule was brought in as a result of bodyline.

It was extremely common right up until it was disallowed. Jim Laker used a leg trap to take his nineteen wickets and it's not hard to find Wisden articles bemoaning the use of such fields, mostly from the fifties. It was a very popular attack for left armers either side of the Great War, but it was also commonly used by right armers in the fifties, especially those who did not really have the pace hurry the batsmen. Often the new LBW rule was blamed, even when it was the old one that caused people to adopt such tactics in the first place.
Frank Foster used it with great success in 1911-12 Ashes. He actually believed that there was never any reason for a left armer to go over the wicket, which seems absolutely crazy now, but he bowled from as wide around the wicket as he could. Apparently he could still swing the ball back in line with the stumps from that angle too.

Anyone saying that it was disallowed because of bodyline hasn't done their research, but that's not surprising on the internet. That video I posted was from the very next Ashes series and shows such a field being used.

 

[Victor Ian]

What is the difference between bowling short into the body with a legside field versus bowling short into the body with an offside field? Why was one practice restricted whereas the other wasn't?

I'm quite surprised that the legside field restrictions didn't get changed until the 50's. I had always thought, as the common media had trained me, that it was changed immediately after the bodyline series in Australia.

Regarding the idea of an attack like the Windies Quartet, could that ever happen again? I thought they also changed the laws to restrict short balls to some fair limit to stop this kind of attack. Or has that not been changed as well, and I have been deluded twice?

 

[Daemon]

Lol if you bowl short into the body with an offside field you'll get happily pulled and hooked all day? You'd need to be really on fire like Johnson was to see success with that.

 

[Victor Ian]

Lol if you bowl short into the body with an offside field you'll get happily pulled and hooked all day? You'd need to be really on fire like Johnson was to see success with that.

Yeah, I get that, in theory. Yet this is exactly what the Windies did, mixed in with the balls that were wider of the body to the offside and they took heaps of wickets with this pressure. So, aside from this danger bowling still providing a means of scoring (if you don't mind being hurt when you invariably miss) what is the difference?

 

[Daemon]

Imo the WI method required more skill.

Both practices were eventually restricted after they saw success anyways.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, I get that, in theory. Yet this is exactly what the Windies did, mixed in with the balls that were wider of the body to the offside and they took heaps of wickets with this pressure. So, aside from this danger bowling still providing a means of scoring (if you don't mind being hurt when you invariably miss) what is the difference?

This being the crucial point, no?

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah, good - you've all seen it before, but this is Bradman so always worth watching again. Is this really Bradman? He looks nothing like the picture of him I have become accustomed to seeing.

That stump and golf ball against the tank process really would build patience. How many times does he only get one hit in with his game and have to start again. Amazing

I like the golf ball fielding practice too - the speed with which it moves would really develop quick reflexes.

 

[Victor Ian]

Imo the WI method required more skill.

Both practices were eventually restricted after they saw success anyways.

Cheers for answers. Was just considering Watson's points. Don managed to average 56 against an attack designed to eliminate run scoring possibilities. I'm quite happy to continue to believe that the Windies really would not have curtailed him anywhere near the attack in 32.

Marshall to Bradman "Are you going to get out or am I going to have to go around the wicket and kill you".
Bradman to Marshall "lol"

 

[honestbharani]

To be honest, the quality of the Windies bowlers does mean they "may" had a better chance to restrict the Don to less than 56 or whatever his average was. Ultimately, it all boils down to this, the numbers could be 90 or 80 or 70 or whatever. He still would have been head and shoulders better than the rest of the batsmen, if he had the same opportunities the batsmen of that generation had and same facilities.

 

[TheJediBrah]

To be honest, the quality of the Windies bowlers does mean they "may" had a better chance to restrict the Don to less than 56 or whatever his average was. Ultimately, it all boils down to this, the numbers could be 90 or 80 or 70 or whatever. He still would have been head and shoulders better than the rest of the batsmen, if he had the same opportunities the batsmen of that generation had and same facilities.

Could have even been 120. Impossible to know

 

[Victor Ian]

Two key stats combine to make Bradman have the average he had.

It terms of best strike rates he is 24th, in a list with Afridi, Sehwag and Gilchrist on top.
In terms of most balls between dismissals he is 2nd, with Sutcliffe on top

These two stats seem mutually exclusive for some reason. No one that makes the first list makes the second list, except Bradman.

The Hot 50: The Fastest-scoring Batsmen of All Time

 

[TheJediBrah]

Two key stats combine to make Bradman have the average he had.

It terms of best strike rates he is 24th, in a list with Afridi, Sehwag and Gilchrist on top.
In terms of most balls between dismissals he is 2nd, with Sutcliffe on top

These two stats seem mutually exclusive for some reason. No one that makes the first list makes the second list, except Bradman.

The Hot 50: The Fastest-scoring Batsmen of All Time

Mutually exclusive because to be on both lists you'd have to have an enormous average, like Bradman

 

[Victor Ian]

Mutually exclusive because to be on both lists you'd have to have an enormous average, like Bradman

I'll have a deeper squizz later. I'm interested to find the batsmen who feature middle of the road in both lists, if they are there.

 

[Engle]

It's not easy to score fast AND stay at the crease for long. One cannot be a sprinter and a marathoner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Spoken like a true Englishman.

Yep. Dealings in facts.

 

[AndrewB]

Mutually exclusive because to be on both lists you'd have to have an enormous average, like Bradman

Yes: the qualifications for those lists are "strike rate >= 51.5 runs per 100 balls" and ">= 120 balls between dismissals" - anyone in both lists has an average of at least 0.515 x 120 = 61.8

 

[TestMatch]

Two key stats combine to make Bradman have the average he had.

It terms of best strike rates he is 24th, in a list with Afridi, Sehwag and Gilchrist on top.
In terms of most balls between dismissals he is 2nd, with Sutcliffe on top

These two stats seem mutually exclusive for some reason. No one that makes the first list makes the second list, except Bradman.

The Hot 50: The Fastest-scoring Batsmen of All Time

Another Aussie, Voges, is in both lists (albeit with 1/6th the total runs of Bradman).

Either way, it's an interesting observation.