If Bradman played in today's era?

[Red]

if anyone tells you that tyson was as fast as akhtar or lee then your best response should be to laugh at them and tell them to lay off the kool-aid . There's enough footage of him to pretty comprehensively disprove the idea that he was express by modern standards.

hahahahahahhahaha

 

[OverratedSanity]

What exactly was hilarious? I havent seen one video of Tyson in which he looks as quick as any of the claims are.

 

[the big bambino]

None of these factors have reduced scoring generally, why would they reduce a specific batsman's average? I think bats with a sweet spot five times larger are just as important, not to mention shorter boundaries. Take five metres off a 70 metre boundary. That's 7% less distance to hit the ball (easier boundaries) and 13% less area of the field, which is 13% less area to be caught in. That'll make a difference.

This right. This monotonous argument always conveniently overlooks the remarkable consistency in batting averages over the decades. As bowling improves so does batting. Bradman being adaptable and intelligent would have benefited from exposure to modern methods. There’s no reason to think he couldn’t have dominated like Smith at least.

Can I also say the support bowlers are faster now argument is junk. This can be explained by cricketing cycles, selection policies or a woeful ignorance of cricket history and its players

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Bradman would be probably averaging 99.95

He'd probably be averaging 0.00 since we can't bring him back from the grave.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This right. This monotonous argument always conveniently overlooks the remarkable consistency in batting averages over the decades. As bowling improves so does batting. Bradman being adaptable and intelligent would have benefited from exposure to modern methods. There’s no reason to think he couldn’t have dominated like Smith at least.

Can I also say the support bowlers are faster now argument is junk. This can be explained by cricketing cycles, selection policies or a woeful ignorance of cricket history and its players

It's insulting to suggest that he would only be as good as Smith tbh


(yes I know that isn't what you said)

 

[mr_mister]

What exactly was hilarious? I havent seen one video of Tyson in which he looks as quick as any of the claims are.

He looks super fast in the footage I've seen. Has batsmen ducking and weaving all over the place like Thommo and Lee

And other than the speed guns and batman's reactions what is there really to go by when judging if a cricket ball is travelling at 140kmph or 160kmph. Surely you can't judge it too accurately through the air from the naked eye?

 

[Jack1]

This right. This monotonous argument always conveniently overlooks the remarkable consistency in batting averages over the decades. As bowling improves so does batting. Bradman being adaptable and intelligent would have benefited from exposure to modern methods. There’s no reason to think he couldn’t have dominated like Smith at least.

Can I also say the support bowlers are faster now argument is junk. This can be explained by cricketing cycles, selection policies or a woeful ignorance of cricket history and its players

Bradman would batter all the bowlers now. He is the greatest player ever therefore he would adapt better than anyone and do it with better equipment of all types and a faster and small outfield. I think many people just can't accept Bradman was one of a kind, better than them, me or anyone else. Just get over it and admire him for what he is. I don't care for him much as a person, but as a player he can't be matched and it's really that simple. He would have averaged 500 (or N/A in not outs) against England in this years Ashes most likely and that's not a joke.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He looks super fast in the footage I've seen. Has batsmen ducking and weaving all over the place like Thommo and Lee

And other than the speed guns and batman's reactions what is there really to go by when judging if a cricket ball is travelling at 140kmph or 160kmph. Surely you can't judge it too accurately through the air from the naked eye?

I agree that we can't judge actual bowling speeds by the naked eye, but it's reasonable to firm an opinion on relative speeds at least compared to other bowlers from the same or similar era. I've seen footage of Tyson and the likes of Trueman and Larwood seem clearly quicker to me.

I'd like to see the super fast footage you mentioned, not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Starfighter]

Trueman hasn't looked close to being quicker in any of the footage I've seen, and while Larwood is smoother I don't think he is either. Heck, Trueman is actually known for generally being a little bit slower than his reputation might let on.

 

[mr_mister]

I agree that we can't judge actual bowling speeds by the naked eye, but it's reasonable to firm an opinion on relative speeds at least compared to other bowlers from the same or similar era. I've seen footage of Tyson and the likes of Trueman and Larwood seem clearly quicker to me.

I'd like to see the super fast footage you mentioned, not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested.

https://youtu.be/gN1UAhYPByQ

His delivery at 0:27 has a batsman ducking his bouncer

https://youtu.be/IWnwkGqiiW0

His delivery at 0:09 strikes a batsmen in the body

 

[Daemon]

Man everything old timey looks so comical when played at the wrong fps. Impossible to judge from that.

 

[mr_mister]

Well if we disqualify footage as evidence and rely purely on witness testimony that benefits Typhoon Tyson's case a lot. His nickname tells you what people thought of his bowling speed right

 

[Coronis]

https://youtu.be/gN1UAhYPByQ

His delivery at 0:27 has a batsman ducking his bouncer

https://youtu.be/IWnwkGqiiW0

His delivery at 0:09 strikes a batsmen in the body

Players had slower reactions back then, they were clearly not that fast.

 

[mr_mister]

I think the first one looks rapid but whatever

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I've had a simple idea:

Buy a film movie camera (i.e. the proper sort), go film some modern bowlers at newsreel angles and newsreel style (i.e. mostly stationary), and we'll compare.



Similarly, I think that using high-speed photographic methods to measure bowlers now could prove more comaprable to such tests done years ago, and I suspect would be more accurate than the speedguns [and not open to being 'turned up'].

 

[NotMcKenzie]

https://youtu.be/gN1UAhYPByQ

His delivery at 0:27 has a batsman ducking his bouncer

Players had slower reactions back then, they were clearly not that fast.

I think the first one looks rapid but whatever

What's funny is that I'm pretty sure all the footage in that first newsreel is from the first test, not the third.

 

[Coronis]

I think the first one looks rapid but whatever

/s fyi

 

[mr_mister]

Pardon?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well if we disqualify footage as evidence and rely purely on witness testimony that benefits Typhoon Tyson's case a lot. His nickname tells you what people thought of his bowling speed right

Do you honestly think it looks anywhere near as quick as Lee/Akhtar/Thompson. Never said he was a trundler.

I think it might be the lack of bounce in the pitch that's making it look slow for me. The ball's already on its way down when the keeper takes it in a few of the deliveries. Or maybe he was a little slower than is made out, who knows.

 

[a massive zebra]

I agree that we can't judge actual bowling speeds by the naked eye, but it's reasonable to firm an opinion on relative speeds at least compared to other bowlers from the same or similar era. I've seen footage of Tyson and the likes of Trueman and Larwood seem clearly quicker to me.

I'd like to see the super fast footage you mentioned, not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested.

Trueman and Tyson were contemporaries and the universal consensus among the cricket world at the time was that Tyson was the quicker bowler by a distance. I would trust the views of people who actually played against and watched these guys extensively in the fresh ahead of the views of someone forming an opinion three generations later based on a few newsreel clips. Also Larwood and Tyson played only 20-30 years apart so many people saw both these bowlers. The general consensus among the cricket world of the 1950s was that Tyson was marginally the quicker bowler.