If Bradman played in today's era?

[mr_mister]

Maybe Ricky Ponting would be unable to score many runs against Verity?

It's hard to say so I think it's silly to speculate on

 

[NUFAN]

Maybe Ricky Ponting would be unable to score many runs against Verity?

It's hard to say so I think it's silly to speculate on

Heh. Isnt it the purpose of this thread? I dunno it just seems lazy to accept everything would occur the same irrespective of the era.

 

[mr_mister]

And for people like Sutcliffe for example where it's often said he might have struggled against true pace(like the WI quartet), we forget how well he fared against high quality leg spin. Could Grimmett and OReilly have simply ran through Cook, KP and Root?

 

[mr_mister]

Heh. Isnt it the purpose of this thread? I dunno it just seems lazy to accept everything would occur the same irrespective of the era.

I just mean it works both ways but we only ever seem to end up downgrading the past players under the assumption batsmen have only improved. Due to pace bowlers becoming fitter and quicker usually

 

[the big bambino]

You'd be hard pressed to say batting has improved. Look at the last Ashes as a representative of the last 2 years. take out Smith and two best batsmen in the series are an all rounder and a former wicket keeper. I think that as much as the good bowling around now as well as the conditions of pitches and type of ball used explains the lower averages over the last 2 years say.

 

[NUFAN]

I just mean it works both ways but we only ever seem to end up downgrading the past players under the assumption batsmen have only improved. Due to pace bowlers becoming fitter and quicker usually

Oh is that what people were doing? That wasnt what I was suggesting.

 

[Chrish]

Although their career did overlap little bit, Hutton can't be considered Bradman's direct contemporary. Sort of like Hobbs and Bradman.

 

[mr_mister]

I dunno if it happened a lot throughout this thread but I've seen it in many threads.

Sutcliffe is one common example. People say he's not considered in the 3 H's class because he was apparently far weaker against express pace. So he would have struggled in the modern game.

But he averaged 66 against Australia when they had 2 of the top 5 spinners ever playing for a decent chunk of his career. And Mailey was no mug either

 

[Chrish]

Wasn't he notorious for padding the ball under old LBW rule?

 

[mr_mister]

Taking advantage of the rules in place. More power to him. Unless he noticeably declined once the law was changed I can't see why that's a solid argument either. Have no idea when the law changed btw

 

[mr_mister]

My point re Sutcliffe is he might have made up for lost runs against 80s WI pacers by pumping them out in Asia where some pace happy batsmen struggled

And the same could apply to Bradman. He'd do wonders against the swinging duke ball in England where Kohli had his famous flop series.

 

[the big bambino]

Top 6 1920-1949: 43.1
Top 6 1990-2019: 36.8

Bradman has been excluded.

For 1990-2019 I'm getting 38.12. top six

I don't think the 20s is really relevant to Bradman so I've split up btwn pre and post war. 28-39 top six 37.44. 1945-1949 top six 41.64. Excluding Bradman

 

[Chrish]

Not sure about timeline either but I have always assumed he wasn't rated highly because of excessive pad-play which wouldn't work in modern day game from reading numerous discussions. Have never heard about his struggle against express pace though. If anything I have read anecdotes where it's stated that Sutcliffe enjoyed taking on pace bowlers. He faced Larwood in county circuit few times and did well iirc.

Have read about Hammond's dislike for facing pace bowlers..

 

[Migara]

And there were plenty of variations in pitch conditions in Bradman's day. Far more than there are now.

I am still to hear Bradman playing on a dust bowl at 34C and 90% humidity 5 days at a stretch.

Subcontinent is HUGE. It is deluded to think that Australia and England can reproduce subcontinental conditions, for a stretch of a series.

 

[mr_mister]

Not sure about timeline either but I have always assumed he wasn't rated highly because of excessive pad-play which wouldn't work in modern day game from reading numerous discussions. Have never heard about his struggle against express pace though. If anything I have read anecdotes where it's stated that Sutcliffe enjoyed taking on pace bowlers. He faced Larwood in county circuit few times and did well iirc.

Have read about Hammond's dislike for facing pace bowlers..

It's funny, Jardine faired way better than Hammond and Sutcliffe against the only international pace battery they faced, that of West Indies' Constantine-Martindale-Griffith

Jardine > Hammond and Sutcliffe if they played in the modern era?

 

[trundler]

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest. Whilst they weren't Bradman's contemporaries they were still premodern. Strike bowlers and fast opening bowlers became a thing post War though.

 

[Chrish]

It's funny, Jardine faired way better than Hammond and Sutcliffe against the only international pace battery they faced, that of West Indies' Constantine-Martindale-Griffith

Jardine > Hammond and Sutcliffe if they played in the modern era?

I was just responding to your post on why Sutcliffe is not rated highly.

The answer to bolded part is no.

 

[NZTailender]

He'd get out in the early 30s to a Neil Wagner short ball, like most people.

 

[the big bambino]

Wasn't he notorious for padding the ball under old LBW rule?

No. The opposite.

 

[Chrish]

No. The opposite.

I was talking about Sutcliffe..