Bradman vs The others

[a massive zebra]

Anyway, if he had been given a modern cricket bat, and put up in front of todays Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis, he would be averaging about 145....

Well he averaged 201 against South Africa and 178 against India. They were probably no worse than the current Zimbabweans or Bangladeshis, so it would probably exceed 145.

 

[Langeveldt]

Why couldn't you just add five more?

I could probably add about 30 more

 

[a massive zebra]

Im not sure of the standard of quick bowling in the 1930's... When watching old footage it looks distinctly poor... Maybe thats a product of the old footage or me being cynical...

Yeah Bill Bowes looks very unthreatening but had a very good Test record.

On the other hand Larwood looks seriously FAST and not as wayward as the likes of Harmison, yet Harmison has a better record.

It goes both ways really.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So O'Reilly, Grimmett and Verity were poor were they?

My mistake. I forgot about the great Indian bowlers - Akash O'Reilly, Avinash Grimmett and Narsingh Verity.

They didn't exactly bowl to him on the subcontinent, did they?

 

[chicane]

The Indian spin quartet of Bedi, Prasanna, Chandrasekhar and Venkat might've tested him.

 

[a massive zebra]

The Indian spin quartet of Bedi, Prasanna, Chandrasekhar and Venkat might've tested him.

Verity was more of a handful in England than those were in the subcontinent.

 

[badgerhair]

Yeah Bill Bowes looks very unthreatening but had a very good Test record.

On the other hand Larwood looks seriously FAST and not as wayward as the likes of Harmison, yet Harmison has a better record.

It goes both ways really.

You're going to show us all this evidence you have of Harmison being wayward in 2004, aren't you? And you're also going to show that Larwood was *consistently* the bowler he was on the 32-33 tour as well, I hope, which will explain why in 1930 he took 1-139 in 33 overs while helping Bradman to his 334 and the 1-132 he managed at The Oval in the same series.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

You're going to show us all this evidence you have of Harmison being wayward in 2004, aren't you? And you're also going to show that Larwood was *consistently* the bowler he was on the 32-33 tour as well, I hope, which will explain why in 1930 he took 1-139 in 33 overs while helping Bradman to his 334 and the 1-132 he managed at The Oval in the same series.

Harmison is still pretty wayward. He has been taking wickets but even in the last match he was bowling plenty of balls down the legside. Anyway 2004 is only one year and you have to be consistent for longer than that to be thought of as outstanding.

Larwood failed dismally in the 1930 ashes series, as did most of the other England bowlers, as Bradman when he got in was invincible on that tour. Larwood took around 100 wickets at an average of 12 in the 1930 county championship, so his failure was clearly more to do with Bradman's brilliance than Larwoods lack of penetration. If you have actually seen film of Larwood you would know that he was faster than Harmison (timed at 96 mph on the 1928-29 ashes tour) and had a far more consistent line and length.

Anyone who thinks Harmison should be compared to Larwood is either ignorant or needs to see a psychiatrist.

 

[badgerhair]

If you have actually seen film of Larwood you would know that he was faster than Harmison (timed at 96 mph on the 1928-29 ashes tour) and had a far more consistent line and length.

Anyone who thinks Harmison should be compared to Larwood is either ignorant or needs to see a psychiatrist.

It's interesting that he was so much faster in Australia than he was at home. Here in England, he was about Malcolm Marshall's pace - my source for the comparison being a contemporary of Larwood's who reckoned himself to be about the same pace as Gus Fraser (and that that was considered to be quite nippy in his day). People on the 32-33 tour reckoned Larwood bowled considerably faster on that tour than he did at home as well, by the way.

I notice that you assert that today's conditions are very similar to those of the 1930s, an era in which Larwood did not manage to take 40 wickets in six Tests, nor take seven wickets for 12 runs in an innings. To suggest, though, that we shouldn't compare Larwood with Harmison seems a little harsh on Larwood, who did have a pretty reasonable record after all.

Oh, all right, I won't compare Harmison with Larwood. I'll just carry on with the comparison with Glenn McGrath.

For those who weren't paying attention before the WI series, I pointed out that the comparison stood at
M W Ave SR
GM 12 40 30.50 67.13
SH 12 41 29.63 63.87

Now let's see what happens five matches later:

GM 17 64 28.68 60.97
SH 17 72 24.43 51.36

Of course, you wouldn't want to compare Larwood woth McGrath, would you, becaus obviously Larwood is so much better that anyone making such a comparison would either be ignorant or need to see a psychiatrist.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

It's interesting that he was so much faster in Australia than he was at home. Here in England, he was about Malcolm Marshall's pace - my source for the comparison being a contemporary of Larwood's who reckoned himself to be about the same pace as Gus Fraser (and that that was considered to be quite nippy in his day). People on the 32-33 tour reckoned Larwood bowled considerably faster on that tour than he did at home as well, by the way.

I notice that you assert that today's conditions are very similar to those of the 1930s, an era in which Larwood did not manage to take 40 wickets in six Tests, nor take seven wickets for 12 runs in an innings. To suggest, though, that we shouldn't compare Larwood with Harmison seems a little harsh on Larwood, who did have a pretty reasonable record after all.

Oh, all right, I won't compare Harmison with Larwood. I'll just carry on with the comparison with Glenn McGrath.

For those who weren't paying attention before the WI series, I pointed out that the comparison stood at
M W Ave SR
GM 12 40 30.50 67.13
SH 12 41 29.63 63.87

Now let's see what happens five matches later:

GM 17 64 28.68 60.97
SH 17 72 24.43 51.36

Of course, you wouldn't want to compare Larwood woth McGrath, would you, becaus obviously Larwood is so much better that anyone making such a comparison would either be ignorant or need to see a psychiatrist.

Cheers,

Mike

Look, I cannot believe we are even having this discussion to be honest with you, anyone with even a basic knowledge of cricket knows perfectly well that a comparison between Larwood and Harmison is ludicrous. Larwood did not manage to take 40 wickets in six Tests, nor take seven wickets for 12 runs in an innings because he did not have the opportunity to play a team as weak as the current West Indies side. Harmison has had 3 good matches against a very brittle batting lineup, accompanied with 14 Tests of relative mediocrity; while Larwood was one of the finest bowlers in the world for 6 years.

You should know perfectly well that McGrath and Larwood are in a different class to Harmison. That comparison between McGrath and Harmison is meaningless as McGrath is past his best and has not had the benefit of playing against such a vulnerable West Indies team. At his best and in terms of consistency there is no comparison and to even consider McGrath vs Harmison is an insult to the Australian.

P.S. I have seen some of the 1930 Ashes series and Larwood certainly looked a lot faster than Angus Fraser. You might argue that someone who watched them live has a better basis for an opinion, but the passing of 60 years can easily cloud someones view.

 

[badgerhair]

You should know perfectly well that McGrath and Larwood are in a different class to Harmison. That comparison between McGrath and Harmison is meaningless as McGrath is past his best and has not had the benefit of playing against such a vulnerable West Indies team. At his best and in terms of consistency there is no comparison and to even consider McGrath vs Harmison is an insult to the Australian.

Why should I know that Harmison after 17 Tests is not in the same class as McGrath, who had a considerably worse record after 17 Tests (you can't mean that McGrath was past his best after 17 Tests, surely)?

Why is it an insult to the Australian to point out that his early record in Test cricket was worse than Harmison's?

Will it still be an insult to the Australian if Harmison's record after 40 Tests is still better than McGrath's was after 40? At what point will it stop being an insult to the Australian to point out that Harmison's record is superior and start becoming an insult to Harmison?

This dreadful West Indies side is the one which did not fall over in a heap against Pollock and Ntini and Kallis and their friends. On the contrary, most of them filled their boots against the top-quality South African attack, and then proved they were terrible by collapsing to the awful English bowlers.

But then, you are obviously much more knowledgeable about these matters than Michael Holding, whose opinion of Harmison seems to differ very greatly from yours.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[roseboy64]

Weren't the South African wickets less helpful to bowlers than the wickets of the WI?I saw more bounce and pace out of some of the bowlers in the West Indies.Even Corey Collymore looked kinda fast on occasions.

 

[a massive zebra]

Why should I know that Harmison after 17 Tests is not in the same class as McGrath, who had a considerably worse record after 17 Tests (you can't mean that McGrath was past his best after 17 Tests, surely)?

Of course not, but that is neither here nor there.

Will it still be an insult to the Australian if Harmison's record after 40 Tests is still better than McGrath's was after 40? At what point will it stop being an insult to the Australian to point out that Harmison's record is superior and start becoming an insult to Harmison?

That so obviously will not happen that it is pointless to even consider.

This dreadful West Indies side is the one which did not fall over in a heap against Pollock and Ntini and Kallis and their friends. On the contrary, most of them filled their boots against the top-quality South African attack, and then proved they were terrible by collapsing to the awful English bowlers.

Im not saying that Harmison is awful, im saying that you must be mad to compare two all-time greats (McGrath and Larwood) with a decent but erratic bowler who took advantage of a dreadful team. The pitches in South Africa were completely completely different and lacked the bounce and pace of the West Indian pitches. Had the pitches been similar, Pollock and Ntini (who did well even in the South Africa vs West Indies series) would have had the West Indies for breakfast.

But then, you are obviously much more knowledgeable about these matters than Michael Holding, whose opinion of Harmison seems to differ very greatly from yours.

Holding has probably only seen Harmison in the West Indies, and not at his normal wayward self. Even so, im sure he has the sense to place him several leagues below the likes of McGrath and Larwood.

In the next post you will probably we proclaiming Harmison 'the best bowler ever' on the basis that no one has even taken a 7-for so cheaply in Tests.

 

[PY]

That comparison between McGrath and Harmison is meaningless as McGrath is past his best and has not had the benefit of playing against such a vulnerable West Indies team.

I'm not sure of the context of this game but McGrath sure profited from some rather fragile West Indian batting in this game.

West Indies v Australia, Trinidad, 1998/99

 

[Neil Pickup]

That so obviously will not happen that it is pointless to even consider

Why not?

 

[roseboy64]

Bradman's average is not a true reflection of his skills.Had the conditions then in terms of the standard of cricket and the length of the Test matches been similar to now he probably would have averaged in the 70s not 99.Also, he had some good batsmen around him and retired before his form diminished.Other batsmen who would have been close to him(Headley,Pollock) had their careers cut short in their prime and some didn't have his kind of batting support so their teams would have been beaten by an innings and some runs before they had a chance to bat again to improve their averages.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm not sure of the context of this game but McGrath sure profited from some rather fragile West Indian batting in this game.

West Indies v Australia, Trinidad, 1998/99

No, no, no, that's all down to McGrath's class..

 

[PY]

And this one?

Australia v West Indies, Brisbane, 2000

I know that McGrath is class but West Indies, even with all their talent, have known to be fragile for a number of years. He's profited just as much as Harmo if not more.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bradman's average is not a true reflection of his skills.Had the conditions then in terms of the standard of cricket and the length of the Test matches been similar to now he probably would have averaged in the 70s not 99.Also, he had some good batsmen around him and retired before his form diminished..

He retired at the age of 40 so you can hardly accuse him of retiring early to safeguard his average.

Other batsmen who would have been close to him(Headley,Pollock) had their careers cut short in their prime and some didn't have his kind of batting support so their teams would have been beaten by an innings and some runs before they had a chance to bat again to improve their averages.

Because Bradman consistently outscored them for 20 years and the fact that the South African team that Pollock played in was at least as strong if not stronger than the Australian team that Bradman played in?

I think the comment you made about Bradman retiring before his form diminished is far more relevant to Pollock, who only played Test cricket at his peak. His first-class average of 54 is only just over half that of Bradman.

 

[roseboy64]

I'm not sure of the context of this game but McGrath sure profited from some rather fragile West Indian batting in this game.

West Indies v Australia, Trinidad, 1998/99

That West Indian batting lineup was shorter than the one Harmison faced in relation to the number of "recognised batmen".You can't have much of a lower order with Dillon and Walsh in there can you?