Interesting take on Bradman's concentration levels.

[centurymaker]

I just happened to stumble on this very interesting article on Bradman which looks into how successful he could have been in different eras based on the average time he spent on the crease during his career.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/09/05/bradman-era-to-era/amp/

 

[centurymaker]

Based on these things, if Bradman scored at 50 runs per hour in all first-class cricket, and averaged 95.14, then this means that the average length of a Bradman first-class innings was about 115 minutes.

With over rates remaining the same, then this means that Bradman on average spent 2.29 hours at the crease per Test innings, which amounts to 137 minutes and 30 seconds. Now, I am going to assume that this level of concentration would remain the same no matter what era he would have played in, in anyone’s alternative fantasy. I am basing this assumption on two things.

1. The ferocious West Indian pace attacks from the late 1970s until the early to mid-1990s were not only grounded in unrelenting pace, but also in slowing the game down by bowling considerably fewer overs per hour. This method had particular benefits on the rare days when conditions for batting were so good that even these ferocious attacks found wickets hard to come by.

For example, on a flat pitch, if the opposition managed to score three runs per over – a very good rate in the 1980s – and pass 200 with only three wickets down by bowling only 12 overs an hour rather than the expected 15, then come stumps on Day 1, their opposition would only have reached 3-216, rather than 3-270.

This tactic put an opposition batting line-up behind the clock and made a day of potential rare domination against these attacks a grind. Then, the bowlers could come out fresh the next day and bundle them out for under 300, rather than see them push on beyond 400, and this was a form of mental disintegration.

@kyear2 @subshakerz @Johan @capt_Luffy @sayon basak @DrWolverine

 

[Qlder]

Where's the 100+ poll option?

 

[centurymaker]

Where's the 100+ poll option?

80+ is sufficient.

It encompasses 100+ as well

 

[Qlder]

80+ is sufficient.

It encompasses 100+ as well

Not really, poll is rigged towards you thinking he'll average between 50-80

 

[ashley bach]

Where's the 20-30 poll option?

 

[Qlder]

With current bats and equipment plus ropes shortening the boundary by 10-15 metres he'd average 100+ easy

 

[Coronis]

What a stupid premise for an article

 

[Qlder]

I can just imagine Bradman playing with a modern bat with his timing and ability to 'pick the gap'. The demoralised look on all the fielders faces when his first forward defence goes for 3

 

[Athlai]

I'd have gone less as I don't think deadman bat very well

 

[centurymaker]

With current bats and equipment plus ropes shortening the boundary by 10-15 metres he'd average 100+ easy

LBW laws changed twice - 1937 and 1972.

Pre 1937, you could not be out LBW if the ball pitched outside off-stump. Basically almost impossible to get LBWs bowling over the wicket.

Then between 1937 & 1972, you could simply pad the ball away outside the line and be safe from lbws. So instead of playing with a bat, if you are unsure of ball movement, you could simple pad the ball with no repercussions. The current LBW rules only came into effect in 1972.

And over rates do matter.
20 overs per hour vs 12-14 overs per hour. Bound to lose concentration eventually in both situations.

 

[Ali TT]

I'd probably challenge the whole premise of concentration only relating to time and not also frequency ie 120 minutes and having to concentrate on 100 balls is going to be a different experience to facing only 60.

 

[Coronis]

LBW laws changed twice - 1937 and 1972.

Pre 1937, you could not be out LBW if the ball pitched outside off-stump. Basically almost impossible to get LBWs bowling over the wicket.

Then between 1937 & 1972, you could simply pad the ball away outside the line and be safe from lbws. So instead of playing with a bat, if you are unsure of ball movement, you could simple pad the ball with no repercussions. The current LBW rules only came into effect in 1972.

And over rates do matter.
20 overs per hour vs 12-14 overs per hour. Bound to lose concentration eventually in both situations.

Less likely to get out when he’s not facing ball after ball and has enough time for a cuppa between overs.

 

[GotSpin]

LBW laws changed twice - 1937 and 1972.

Pre 1937, you could not be out LBW if the ball pitched outside off-stump. Basically almost impossible to get LBWs bowling over the wicket.

Then between 1937 & 1972, you could simply pad the ball away outside the line and be safe from lbws. So instead of playing with a bat, if you are unsure of ball movement, you could simple pad the ball with no repercussions. The current LBW rules only came into effect in 1972.

And over rates do matter.
20 overs per hour vs 12-14 overs per hour. Bound to lose concentration eventually in both situations.

When have you ever seen 20 overs per hour?

 

[ataraxia]

When have you ever seen 20 overs per hour?

It's my impression that 20 overs per hour was the norm in county cricket through to the '50s.

 

[the big bambino]

LBW laws changed twice - 1937 and 1972.

Pre 1937, you could not be out LBW if the ball pitched outside off-stump. Basically almost impossible to get LBWs bowling over the wicket.

Then between 1937 & 1972, you could simply pad the ball away outside the line and be safe from lbws. So instead of playing with a bat, if you are unsure of ball movement, you could simple pad the ball with no repercussions. The current LBW rules only came into effect in 1972.

And over rates do matter.
20 overs per hour vs 12-14 overs per hour. Bound to lose concentration eventually in both situations.

Bradman was not renowned for his pad play. There was hardly any difference in the percentage of lbws between 37-72. They began to rise from the 80s - I suspect as an eventual consequence neutral umps and then technology.

As far as concentration is concerned, Greg Chappell found a way to switch off between deliveries. This method allowed him to play his big innings. Bradman was adaptable but lets put the onus on bowlers instead: Lets force the 80s teams (not just the WI) to bowl a higher quota every day. Lets see how they'd adapt.

 

[Coronis]

Looking at the 1930 Ashes….

Trent Bridge
1 - 81.5
2 - 75.5
3 - 119
4 - 120

Lord’s
1 - 123
2 - 134
3 - 141
4 - 107

Leeds
1 - 134
2 - 127
3 - 19
4 - 115

Old Trafford
1 - 131
2 - 131
3 - 13
4 - 0

The Oval (Timeless)
1 - 131
2 - 120
3 - 69
4 - 115
5 - 0
6 - 91

 

[Burgey]

Everyone knows great players adapt across long careers as the game changes. It’s what makes them great.

But apparently the bloke who’s 1/3 better than the next best player in history wouldn’t have. Ok.

Stupid article. Analogous to what Bambino posted earlier, why don’t these hypothetical comparisons consider how busted the WI attack of the 80s would have been if they had to punch out 80-90 overs per day as is required now? Or factor in how fresh Bradman would have been if he wa allowed a drink and a fresh pair of gloves run out to him every 5 overs like they do now.

Bradman would have averaged between 95-105 had he played now. he was that much better than everyone before or since. I know it’s hard for lovers of lesser nations and inferior players to admit it, but it’s true.

also, The Roar is a terrible website.

 

[ankitj]

cbf with fictional cricketers.

 

[Qlder]

Looking at the 1930 Ashes….

Trent Bridge
1 - 81.5
2 - 75.5
3 - 119
4 - 120

Lord’s
1 - 123
2 - 134
3 - 141
4 - 107

Leeds
1 - 134
2 - 127
3 - 19
4 - 115

Old Trafford
1 - 131
2 - 131
3 - 13
4 - 0

The Oval (Timeless)
1 - 131
2 - 120
3 - 69
4 - 115
5 - 0
6 - 91

What are you referring to here as it's definitely not overs per day.