Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[watson]

I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...

Again I would tend to disagree. I've seen some British Pathe footage of Grimmett bowling on a practice pitch with the camera man directly behind the stumps. There were enough deliveries recorded to convince me that Grimmett was an exceptional bowler. Unfortunately I can't locate it at the minute!

The only thing I didn't like about Grimmett's bowling is that he bowled with a pronounced round-arm action that was relatively low. Consequently the ball didn't appear to get much above eye level, or have much over-spin. So I'm not sure how Grimmett could have beat the batsman 'in-flight'. It seems as though he would need to rely purely on side-spin to beat the batsman.

This is why I prefer Warne and Mailey as leg-spinners. They both had a taller side-on action that enables just as much over-spin as it does side-ways spin. Therefore, judging where the ball will land is a lot tougher for the batsman, especially if the trajectory of the ball is above eye-level. From what I've seen Warne and Mailey looked very similar at the bowling crease.

 

[fredfertang]

'tis the loop!

 

[watson]

'tis the loop!

OK smarty pants - Grimmett apparently bowled without much 'loop'.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I remember seeing that footage too watson, but I can't comment becuase it was too long ago I saw it. Thinking Britishpathe might have cleaned out their online archives actually, because I can't find a few things I remember used to be on there.

 

[watson]

I don't place much on value on commentary provided by players tbh. With respect to their opinions, it's always gonna be subject to a lot of bias based on their partiality to cricket in their own time. It's got nothing to do with early era players either - we are all aware of the questionable analysis and opinions provided by many modern day players as well...it's just not a particularly useful form of evidence. I'm sure those players were the best of their time, but I've seen footage of some of them, and I can't say I think they were of modern standards at all. I can't find it, but there is some good match footage of Grimmett bowling in an Ashes series somewhere, and tbh he looked a mediocre bowler (not to take anything away from the contributions he made to the development of legspin which I'm sure were very significant). And if this is a guy who averaged <25 with the ball, and was considered a master back then, well...

Expert opinions are important when you don't have a bucket-load of footage available to analyse. As a general rule I tend to ignore one-off opinions that say "Batsman/Bowler X was superb" or "Batsman/Bowler X was mediocre". However, if the vast majority of contempory experts agree about a certain batsman/bowler then there must be some truth to be gained. Especially if those experts have played Test Cricket over 3 decades and have faced many different bowlers, as well as seen modern bowlers at close range in the nets - like Hutton.

In short: Majority of expert witnesses agreeing over an extended period of time = truth.

 

[Ruckus]

Expert opinions are important when you don't have a bucket-load of footage available to analyse. As a general rule I tend to ignore one-off opinions that say "Batsman/Bowler X was superb" or "Batsman/Bowler X was mediocre". However, if the vast majority of contempory experts agree about a certain batsman/bowler then there must be some truth to be gained. Especially if those experts have played Test Cricket over 3 decades and have faced many different bowlers, as well as seen modern bowlers at close range in the nets - like Hutton.

In short: Majority of expert witnesses agreeing over an extended period of time = truth.

Each to their own I guess, but I can't say I value you it as much as you, even when there is a decent amount of consensus. I agree there are likely to be elements of truth to something when a lot of experts have agreed on it, but I definitely wouldn't go as far as to say it's the 'truth'. It's good to have in conjunction with other more reliable evidence like footage, but I don't think it's nearly good enough by itself.

Something I have noticed when people (including experts) discuss matters related to events in the past, is there can be a lot of embellishment for the sake of a good story. It's kind of like rosy retrospection I guess. For example, an article like this Rewind to 1931: Bradman scores a hundred in three overs | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo paints a picture of Bradman being able to "open up and cut an attack to shreds" as opposed to just amassing his runs. But I know for fact that the team he faced would have been absolute garbage - like piss-poor, bottom of the barrel amateurs. The team he faced was the "Lithgow Pottery XI". Lithgow is a country town which would have had a population of <10,000 at that time, and even today would have a relatively poor cricket team representing it.

Bradman could well have had an ability to cut an attack to shreds, but that's definitely an article making no attempt to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[the big bambino]

Watson that's amazing. If you think stds that much better now then that is fine. It'd be consistent if you stopped dabbling in ATG threads and picking anyone who currently isn't playing as you've as good as admitted none are even club std now. That would be consistent but up to you.

Of course if you were to majically transport Sanga back to the 30s he wouldn't have the benefit of modern stds would he? He'd be no better equipped than any other player of the era. Therefore no reason to think he'd be any better than now.

Bowlers who played during Bradman's 1st class career 27-49: Gregory, McDonald, Mailey, Ironmonger, Fleetwood Smith, Griffith, Bowes, Farnes, Allen, Voce, Bissett, Vincent, McCormick, Miller, Nash, Wall, Verity, White, Wright, Tate, Bedser, Geary, Constantine, Larwood, Martindale, Peebles, Clark, Amar Singh, Grimmett, Lindwall, Nissar, Johnston, Francis, Bailey, Laker, Cowie, Rowan, Mankad. Rhodes. Adequately stocked with pace and spin I'd have thought.

EDIT: add O'Reilly.

As an after thought I'm always suss of anyone who reckons they don't trust the witness of fmr players or warn "that statistics aren't everything". They are always paving the way to establish the primacy of their baseless opinions over the known facts.

 

[the big bambino]

Could you just please answer the question asked and please just tell me the bowlers that Bradman faced that are better than the ones I named that Viv faced. Please. no stats required. Just tell me which ones were better.

How pointless. You know the bowlers he faced and come to your own conclusions. What can I say to change your made up mind? If you were fair minded you'd trust the impartial statistics which will show that the Aus and Eng bowling of the era to be better than any in the Viv era except the WI themselves: Then I'll make the adjustments to hold your excuse making to account - for DGB's runs and minnows. A furphy you always put up to down grade Bradman. In fact it shows he benefitted very little from playing minnows. Like I said if you were fair minded you'd accept being refereed by the impartial stats. But you wont...

 

[Ruckus]

Of course if you were to majically transport Sanga back to the 30s he wouldn't have the benefit of modern stds would he? He'd be no better equipped than any other player of the era. Therefore no reason to think he'd be any better than now.
.

Jesus Christ...

 

[watson]

Watson that's amazing. If you think stds that much better now then that is fine. It'd be consistent if you stopped dabbling in ATG threads and picking anyone who currently isn't playing as you've as good as admitted none are even club std now. That would be consistent but up to you.

Of course if you were to majically transport Sanga back to the 30s he wouldn't have the benefit of modern stds would he? He'd be no better equipped than any other player of the era. Therefore no reason to think he'd be any better than now.

Bowlers who played during Bradman's 1st class career 27-49: Gregory, McDonald, Mailey, Ironmonger, Fleetwood Smith, Griffith, Bowes, Farnes, Allen, Voce, Bissett, Vincent, McCormick, Miller, Nash, Wall, Verity, White, Wright, Tate, Bedser, Geary, Constantine, Larwood, Martindale, Peebles, Clark, Amar Singh, Grimmett, Lindwall, Nissar, Johnston, Francis, Bailey, Laker, Cowie, Rowan, Mankad. Rhodes. Adequately stocked with pace and spin I'd have thought.

As an after thought I'm always suss of anyone who reckons they don't trust the witness of fmr players or warn "that statistics aren't everything". They are always paving the way to establish the primacy of their baseless opinions over the known facts.

I've already stated that the 1930s was an era of great spin bowlers. So lack of spin is not the problem. However, I do believe that there is an obvious lack of quality fast bowlers relative to the modern era.

So you don't need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that a talented batsman from the modern era who is good at playing spin bowling would do very well in the 1930s because he wouldn't have the treadmill of Holding/Roberts/Marshall, Lillee/Thomson/Pascoe, Imran/Sarfraz, Snow/Willis to worry about. Conversely, the average of any batsman from the 1930s, including Bradman, would take a battering should they have to go through what Richards or Chappell had to go through. In other words, not even in a pink fit would Bradman average close to a 100 if he had to regularly tour the West Indies and Pakistan during the 70s/80s.

At least all that seems obvious to me - but then again we all have different perspectives on things.

 

[the big bambino]

Funny that. Perceptions I mean. I'm certain my list stacks up pretty well. To my eyes when you take out the WI the modern era looks pretty skinny. When I was watching them only Snow and Imran from outside the WI worried me from an Oz pov. I only felt bullet proof with Lillee (and Thommo in the brief period leading up to his injury).

EDIT: Hadleigh too. Btw Aussie batsmen did quite well against Pakistan in that era and none of them were anywhere near as good as DGB.

 

[Flametree]

Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's. And I think greats like Lara etc. could definitely average 90+. Progress in sport, or pretty much anything else really, is unidirectional though, so I don't think the reverse would be true - i.e. I really doubt batsmen from the 1930's would dominate if made to play in the modern era. I think they would fare a lot worse than usual.

So presumably you believe modern greats like Cook, Sangakkara, Amla, Chanderpaul etc would average 70+ if transported back to the mid 70's? If progress is unidirectional as you suggest, then surely 40 years is long enough. That is halfway between the modern era and Bradman's time after all.

If not, when exactly did this giant leap forward in cricket standards take place? Do we scorn those who played in the 50's and 60's.... Or is it just a pre-war to 1948 thing?

 

[the big bambino]

Watson that's amazing. If you think stds that much better now then that is fine. It'd be consistent if you stopped dabbling in ATG threads and picking anyone who currently isn't playing as you've as good as admitted none are even club std now. That would be consistent but up to you.

Of course if you were to majically transport Sanga back to the 30s he wouldn't have the benefit of modern stds would he? He'd be no better equipped than any other player of the era. Therefore no reason to think he'd be any better than now.

Bowlers who played during Bradman's 1st class career 27-49: Gregory, McDonald, Mailey, Ironmonger, Fleetwood Smith, Griffith, Bowes, Farnes, Allen, Voce, Bissett, Vincent, McCormick, Miller, Nash, Wall, Verity, White, Wright, Tate, Bedser, Geary, Constantine, Larwood, Martindale, Peebles, Clark, Amar Singh, Grimmett, Lindwall, Nissar, Johnston, Francis, Bailey, Laker, Cowie, Rowan, Mankad. Rhodes. Adequately stocked with pace and spin I'd have thought.

As an after thought I'm always suss of anyone who reckons they don't trust the witness of fmr players or warn "that statistics aren't everything". They are always paving the way to establish the primacy of their baseless opinions over the known facts.

I forgot to add O'Reilly.

But anyway; plenty of pace and spin in Bradman's time. Hard to credit people who think otherwise.

 

[the big bambino]

Jesus Christ...

But easy for you to accept the speculation that he could be transported back in time as if he was the terminator!

Jesus Christ indeed...

 

[watson]

Please note Bambino that I am not saying that Bradman isn't the best batsman of all time. He is the best batsman of all time.

Rather, we are merely attempting to elucidate by a how much. In actual fact this is not possible because the variables are too great when we assess batsman from non-intersecting generations.

However, this should not stop us from making some 'guesstimates'. One 'guesstimate' is that Bradman is about twice as good as all other great batsman because his average of 100 is twice that of all other great batsman. This is clearly a nonsense because it doesn't take into consideration any of the major differences in playing conditions between one generation and the next. All we can say with some confidence is that he was about twice as successfull as Stan McCabe (for example). But we cannot say that Bradman is twice as good as Viv Richards (for example) because the significant differences in the art of fast-bowling between Australia circa 1930s and Australia circa 1970s won't allow us - to cite one variable only.

 

[the big bambino]

So presumably you believe modern greats like Cook, Sangakkara, Amla, Chanderpaul etc would average 70+ if transported back to the mid 70's? If progress is unidirectional as you suggest, then surely 40 years is long enough. That is halfway between the modern era and Bradman's time after all.

If not, when exactly did this giant leap forward in cricket standards take place? Do we scorn those who played in the 50's and 60's.... Or is it just a pre-war to 1948 thing?

His argument is risible as its so contradictory. Really he accepts the argument that cricket's fundamentals have plateaued. He just reckons that happened in the - wait for it - seventies. Yet cricket's fundamentals were bedded down before that so there's no logical reason for picking the 70s as the plateau point.

However he has seen a 2 minute clip of Arthur Mold bowling to a 50 year old in a joke net...

 

[the big bambino]

Please note Bambino that I am not saying that Bradman isn't the best batsman of all time. He is the best batsman of all time.

Rather, we are merely attempting to elucidate by a how much. In actual fact this is not possible because the variables are too great when we assess batsman from non-intersecting generations.

However, this should not stop us from making some 'guesstimates'. One 'guesstimate' is that Bradman is about twice as good as all other great batsman because his average of 100 is twice that of all other great batsman. This is clearly a nonsense because it doesn't take into consideration any of the major differences in playing conditions between one generation and the next. All we can say with some confidence is that he was about twice as successfull as Stan McCabe (for example). But we cannot say that Bradman is twice as good as Viv Richards (for example) because the significant differences in the art of fast-bowling between Australia circa 1930s and Australia circa 1970s won't allow us - to cite one variable only.

That's fine Watson. I think its a hard argue otherwise. However people can think whatever of him. That doesn't concern me. What grates with me is the inconsistency of argument. If people think stds then are poor compared to now then I can't see how he can be rated as the best. I can't see the purpose of ATG threads either. Its the content of the argument against him as well as its subjectivity that pisses me off, not the opinion itself.

 

[watson]

That's fine Watson. I think its a hard argue otherwise. However people can think whatever of him. That doesn't concern me. What grates with me is the inconsistency of argument. If people think stds then are poor compared to now then I can't see how he can be rated as the best. I can't see the purpose of ATG threads either. Its the content of the argument against him as well as its subjectivity that pisses me off, not the opinion itself.

Arguments on the internet are generally inconsistent because it takes so damned long to type anything. A discussion in a coffee shop/pub is a lot easier in my experience because it's a more simple task to ask the other person - "What did you actually mean by that?"

(Note that I am assuming a rational discussion among men. Women and rude people tend to talk over the top of the other person in ever increasing decibels without waiting for their proper turn in a male like manner)

 

[NUFAN]

That's fine Watson. I think its a hard argue otherwise. However people can think whatever of him. That doesn't concern me. What grates with me is the inconsistency of argument. If people think stds then are poor compared to now then I can't see how he can be rated as the best. I can't see the purpose of ATG threads either. Its the content of the argument against him as well as its subjectivity that pisses me off, not the opinion itself.

If standards have gotten gradually better and a Cricketer was astronomically better compared to the rest as Bradman was, its previous obvious how he can be rated as the best.

 

[Ruckus]

If standards have gotten gradually better and a Cricketer was astronomically better compared to the rest as Bradman was, its previous obvious how he can be rated as the best.

yeah that's my view on it