110 years ago today...

[AndrewB]

Considering he was striking twice as fast as Hammond (if I'm not wrong).. he would be absolutely gun in LOIs. He'd just bat the entire 20 overs most of the time.

Charles Davis (who's probably as reliable as anyone for this) has Bradman's run rate at 61-62, and Hammond's as 45-46. (The other notable #3 of the era, Headley, was about on a par with Hammond at 44.1)

The fastest batsman of that era was Maurice Tate (75-76), who was of course a bowling all-rounder. McCabe and Gregory scored at about Bradman's pace, with Woolley (who was an earlier era but overlapped with them) just behind them. Of pre WW1 batsmen, Trumper and Sinclair were faster.

 

[a massive zebra]

Charles Davis (who's probably as reliable as anyone for this) has Bradman's run rate at 61-62, and Hammond's as 45-46. (The other notable #3 of the era, Headley, was about on a par with Hammond at 44.1)

The fastest batsman of that era was Maurice Tate (75-76), who was of course a bowling all-rounder. McCabe and Gregory scored at about Bradman's pace, with Woolley (who was an earlier era but overlapped with them) just behind them. Of pre WW1 batsmen, Trumper and Sinclair were faster.

Bradman's strike rate in his early years was as high as any top batsman up to that point, but it seemed to decline with age; even if his average didn't. For instance, his strike rate in the 1930 Ashes was just under 80. This included a world record 309 runs on the first day of the third test at Headingley. Also, his world record first class score of 452 was made in just 418 minutes in a Sheffield Shield match in 1929.

Of pre WWI batsmen, Gilbert Jessop (110+) and Clem Hill (late 60s) also scored faster IIRC.

Note: All figures from memory but I'm pretty sure they are materially accurate.

 

[the big bambino]

In 1930 he scored at a rate of 61 runs per 100 balls.

 

[trundler]

Bradman's strike rate in his early years was as high as any top batsman up to that point, but it seemed to decline with age; even if his average didn't. For instance, his strike rate in the 1930 Ashes was just under 80. This included a world record 309 runs on the first day of the third test at Headingley. Also, his world record first class score of 452 was made in just 418 minutes in a Sheffield Shield match in 1929.

Of pre WWI batsmen, Gilbert Jessop (110+) and Clem Hill (late 60s) also scored faster IIRC.

Note: All figures from memory but I'm pretty sure they are materially accurate.

Clem Hill's exceptionally quick scoring doesn't get talked about enough. Bradman had a high strike rate in the Bodyline Series too.

 

[the big bambino]

I have Rosenwater's book at my elbow and can tell you he increased his run rate from 61 in 1930 to 75 in bodyline.

 

[Starfighter]

Bradman strike rates by series (Davis)

28/29 v Eng: 43
30 v Eng: 62
30/31 v WI: N/A
31/32 v SA: N/A, 112 off 165 in 2nd test.
32/33 v Eng: 75
34 v Eng: 74
36/37 v Eng: 65
38 v Eng: 50
46/47 v Eng: 56
47/48 v Ind: 62
48 v Eng: 46

Anyone else find it kind of a shame he didn't visit SA in 35/36 and didn't play against India until after the war, when their good pace attack was gone? Would've made his record about as round as possible and he might have taken the runs scoring record too, it being always held by Hammond at the time.

 

[the big bambino]

Would loved it had their been an Amar Nissar v Bradman battle. Cowie and Pritchard v Bradman too. The latter very nearly happened in early 1940

 

[SeamUp]

The Don would have been a genius with today's edges on cricket bats let alone the actual face & meat of it with this up-bringing.

 

[stephen]

Reading over Wikipedia it strikes me that Bradman was often injured or playing with pain during his career. Which makes his accomplishments even more incredible.

 

[trundler]

Could Bradman have scored 10,000 if not for the War?

 

[stephen]

Could Bradman have scored 10,000 if not for the War?

The cricket tragic in me says yes but he was unfit for duty during the war due to some chronic health issues he faced so the reality is he might not have played much cricket during that time anyway.

 

[trundler]

The cricket tragic in me says yes but he was unfit for duty during the war due to some chronic health issues he faced so the reality is he might not have played much cricket during that time anyway.

Let's assume that never happened either.

 

[Starfighter]

Let's assume that never happened either.

Can I do a thread on Geoff Lawson what ifs?

 

[trundler]

Can I do a thread on Geoff Lawson what ifs?

A general what ifs thread is overdue.

Go for that too.

 

[Coronis]

Tbh, I doubt some pre-war players who extended their careers post war would still have being playing then, if the war never happened.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The greatest batsman.

We all know who the greatest player is.

 

[CasMcG24]

Here we go again...

Being fair you really haven't read what I have written at all... 'Just to make a point, was he that good?... I personally feel he is a great player and would thrive in the modern game but I always like to talk about how certain players from one era would fair in another. Always hated comparing modern players as the new Don Bradman I feel players are unique.'

 

[Shadowplayer]

The greatest batsman.

We all know who the greatest player is.

Gary Sobers obviously, but yeah I agree Bradman was the greatest batsmen ever no one will come close to his average in tests, heck the next best is about 35 less, the best batsmen I have ever seen though is Viv Richards.

 

[fredfertang]

Gary Sobers obviously, but yeah I agree Bradman was the greatest batsmen ever no one will come close to his average in tests, heck the next best is about 35 less, the best batsmen I have ever seen though is Viv Richards.

Preferred his brother Barry myself

 

[Shadowplayer]

Preferred his brother Barry myself

He wasn't his brother!, that's a load of Pollocks!!