If Bradman played in today's era?

[a massive zebra]

Don Bradman played against Larwood at his peak and also saw Thomson, yet he rated Tyson as the fastest bowler he ever saw. See 32:18 here:

 

[Jack1]

massive zebra, suppose the most sure comment Bradman makes is regarding Sobers which is fair enough.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

I know the consensus. That's why I'm confused as to why he doesn't look as fast.

 

[Jack1]

I know the consensus. That's why I'm confused as to why he doesn't look as fast.

I think you are underestimating the ability of the batsmen if you're thinking he isn't quick. The fact the batsmen played without helmets kids people into thinking it's village cricket, it's not. He was sharp.

 

[Daemon]

125kph tops

 

[Jack1]

125kph tops

There are kids that bowl 125kph. You are deluded if you think the fastest bowler in any era since 1900 was that slow. Last thing I say on the matter.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You guys are forgetting about inflation. 125kph back then is worth about 160kph now

 

[Jack1]

You guys are forgetting about inflation. 125kph back then is worth about 160kph now

170-180kph I think.

 

[Daemon]

There are kids that bowl 125kph. You are deluded if you think the fastest bowler in any era since 1900 was that slow. Last thing I say on the matter.

Yet another emphatic victory for Daemon

 

[Jack1]

Yet another emphatic victory for Daemon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JObQSYj4Qi8

 

[Migara]

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.

Issue is none of them played Akthar / Lee / Thompson for comparison.

 

[Migara]

Don Bradman played against Larwood at his peak and also saw Thomson, yet he rated Tyson as the fastest bowler he ever saw. See 32:18 here:

It's not the same Bradman who rates Thomson and Larwood, a Bradman few decades older. So no, subjective opinions are almost always crap, even it comes from greats.

 

[the big bambino]

Id take them over those of posters every time.

 

[Migara]

Id take them over those of posters every time.

Agreed on that,but it is ALWAYS inferior to objective evidence we have in hand.

 

[Starfighter]

Agreed on that,but it is ALWAYS inferior to objective evidence we have in hand.

What objective evidence are you referring to? Your previous subjective statements don't count.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What objective evidence are you referring to? Your previous subjective statements don't count.

Video footage of bowlers who played 70 years apart I suppose. A large number of players who saw Tyson bowl live and called him the fastest ever did so without actually seeing Shoaib Akhtar bowl. We've got access to footage of both. While it's not perfect, it's more objective than an anecdote.

 

[Red]

Tyson, Thommo, Tait - all had that slinging action that generates serious heat. Shoaib sort of had it.

I honestly think that if they fairly accurately measured Tait at 161km, then Thommo might've sometimes bowled at around the 170-180 mark, and I'm not even being ridiculous. They shared a similar action but Thommo was more athletic and fitter.

These guys can't/don't wind it up like this all the time. But I remember the game where Tait hit 160, he was hovering high 150s thru the over. And the game went to another level at that time. Almost impossible to play bowling that quick.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Thommo might've sometimes bowled at around the 170-180 mark, and I'm not even being ridiculous.

I think we're going to have to disagree on that.

 

[Starfighter]

Video footage of bowlers who played 70 years apart I suppose. A large number of players who saw Tyson bowl live and called him the fastest ever did so without actually seeing Shoaib Akhtar bowl. We've got access to footage of both. While it's not perfect, it's more objective than an anecdote.

Considering your subjective impression from said footage is quite different to mine, I don't think that's any progress on that front. The fact that Thomson was measured in one match at 160 km/h, a speed which Shoaib recorded once or twice being measured the big majority of deliveries he bowled in his competitive career (and certainly after he re-jigged his action) doesn't do that argument any favours.

 

[the big bambino]

Video footage of bowlers who played 70 years apart I suppose. A large number of players who saw Tyson bowl live and called him the fastest ever did so without actually seeing Shoaib Akhtar bowl. We've got access to footage of both. While it's not perfect, it's more objective than an anecdote.

Plenty did. Including Benaud. He went with Tyson