How successful would 'The Don' be if he was playing in the current era?

[Pratters]

if he couldnt dominate fastish bowling back then, he definately wouldnt be able to dominate the super-quick stuff today.
It is actually the opinion of MANY coaches that having protective gear and the bouncer limitation, whilst saved some broken bones and serious concussions, actually eroded the batsmen's technique against short pitched bowling.
Simply put, the players today dont NEED to play at a bouncer and they can duck underneath it. They have protective gear which doesnt make them too concerned about copping one in the chest or the abdomen.
Back then, you HAD to play at a bouncer else you would be birdwatching the whole day as 200 consecutive bouncers go past your head.
So suffice to say that Bradman did develop his skills to play short pitched bowling but was found wanting by his strtospheric standards.

Gamesmanships didnt exist back in those days but neither did the intensity.
Fielders didnt throw themselves around to deny a four... they didnt slide around to stop a certain boundary and restrict the batsmen to two or three..
once you pierced the infield, it was easy pickings back then.
The opposition didnt spend so much time trying to analyse the players like they did in the 70s onwards... Bradman did thats why he dominated so much.
But if he had the same level of intensity from the opposition, the gap would obviously be less.

The reason i think Bradman would've averaged significantly lower ( 65-70) is not because he was an overhyped batsman-i still consider him to be the best of the best...but because his opposition was nowhere as professional and competitive as eh was.
In the modern era they are.
Its like Tendy batting for his school team today or batting in test cricket.
Tendy is still tendy and his abilities stay the same, but in the former case, his opposition is very poor and he will score tons at will...while in the latter case, his opposition is far superior thus closing the gap for him and making it much harder to dominate on the same level.


The men i mentioned dominated their sport because of lack of proper competition.
Its called professionalism.
Whenever some field is in a non-professional and embryonic stage, you have the bulk of the practitioners operating at a far lower level than when the field is in a cut-throat professional and advanced stage.
As a result, the ones who achieve maximum professional orientation enjoy a far bigger advantage in the embryonic stage than in an advanced stage.

A similar argument would be that if people of Pascal/Ampere/Boyle etc. were scientists today, their names wouldnt be known even remotely as widely.
Why ? because while they were good scientists, they were not THAT good but the field was pretty uneven and weak, so they got prominence.
Contrast that to today where there are millions of scientists making discoveries of equal or bigger importance..how many names do you know today ? Do you know the name of the inventor of the microchip off the top of your head ? do you know the name of the inventor of the first 'sensetive artificial hand ( ie, can feel sensation like human hands) off the top of your head' ?
No...why ? because today the field is very much even and there isnt much that seperate the top scientist from the 1000th ranked one(if there was a ranking)....
back in those days, you have 4-5 in stratospheric levels, 4-5 who are excellent and the rest were still scatching their head over grade 10-12 problems.
A far more competitive and developed field means that the competition is far closer. Thus its harder for you to 'stand out'.

Bradman would play some professional opposition if he was playing today. WHICH TEAMS?

Australia ? he wouldnt play against them
England ? Average till 1 and half years ago with little quality bowling apart from Gough and Caddick
India and Sri Lanka ? maybe he wouldnt average 100 in the subcontinent but he would murder the medium bowlers in his own back yard
Pakistan ? ok he maynot have averaged against the likes of Akram and Younis but how series would he have played against those quality bowlers?
Zimbabwe, Bangladesh? Would average much more for toffees.
New zealand and South Africa ? He did show he could play in the bowling wickets of NZL and SAF and I he would average 60-70 atleast if not more.

Bradman was a genius like all the scientists you mentioned. The likes of Pascal could find newer inventions in today's world and could still be great. You say they didnt have as much competition back then. But isnt it much tougher to prove basic inventions and discoveries like relativity and gravity than today's so called inventions of new cell phone technology?

Einstein is a freak in the scientific world. Bradman is a freak in the cricketing world.

Cricket was more relaxed back then. But on the field it was intense. With the modern technology the bowlers could know Bradman and analyse him more. But couldnt Bradman analyse the bowlers also?

Bradman had faced the fast bowlers without helmet. Now if he had a helmet his technique would weaken according to you? So that is saying you are just looking at one aspect. The aspects which would make his average go down.

His average could go up as well cos of many reasons.

* better analytical skills for Bradman
* fast bowling standard declining rather than improving
* better pitches
* some easy runs against some opposition

This can go on till Bradman is reborn and resloves it himself.

 

[C_C]

If Bradman played in the last two years, then yea, during this phase he could be averaging 90+ assuming he still plays for OZ and doesnt face them
However, this low level of bowling quality for the last 2-3 years is an anomaly in the cricketing history....
I am assuming that he had a 15-20 year career starting latest by the mid 80s...
I am not assuming that he starts now, for that is illogical and irrelevant,as we dont know how the cricketing standards would be 10-20 years from now.

and starting in the mid 80s ( career span: 84-04 or any 20 year period beginning 1972/73 or so) would mean he faces FAR tougher opposition than he did and FAR more varied conditions alongside a FAR more professional field.

the availability of technology to analyse bowlers will not lead to an increase in his average- for that aspect is nullified by bowlers having access to technology to scrutinise batsmen more finely.

Many factors balance out over the ages- the availability of technology vs no technology, uncovered wickets by much more varied wickets and modified lbw law, etc etc.
but the factor that doesnt balance out is professionalism.
A Formula1 driver will go 5 minutes faster than your local hotshot over a 10 mile course (same equipment) but will go a few seconds faster than his F1 compatriots in a F1 race.
why ? because the level ofthe field is much higher and thus the gap is much lower.
Bradman was the greatest, i dont contest that.
What i claim is that his 99+ average is accentuated by the relatively poor and limited field he gotto play against.
Its like you are very good but you are made to look even better by your competitiors, who are mediocre.

 

[Pratters]

Many factors balance out over the ages- the availability of technology vs no technology, uncovered wickets by much more varied wickets and modified lbw law, etc etc.
but the factor that doesnt balance out is professionalism.

Professionalism doesnt mean a player can dominate his sport today as he could earlier? i wont mention the names of the sportsmen I mentioned who dominated their sports in the last 10 years again.

The ONLY way to judge Bradman is how good was he compared to his peers. He was bloody good. I made the technology point cos you made it earlier.

Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeps.

 

[C_C]

Professionalism doesnt mean a player can dominate his sport today as he could earlier? i wont mention the names of the sportsmen I mentioned who dominated their sports in the last 10 years again.

The ONLY way to judge Bradman is how good was he compared to his peers. He was bloody good. I made the technology point cos you made it earlier.

Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeps.

Apart from Schumacher, no one has dominated the field like old timers during the embryonic stages of the sport ( Laver dominated FAR more than Sampras did, Nicklaus did far more than woods, etc etc).

 

[Pratters]

Apart from Schumacher, no one has dominated the field like old timers during the embryonic stages of the sport ( Laver dominated FAR more than Sampras did, Nicklaus did far more than woods, etc etc).

When Nicklaus and Woods were compared at a similar age by TIME magazine two eyars ago, Woods was far ahead. Woods has had an average year but can easily finish with more majors than Nicklaus. Nicklaus did do far more than Woods but Nicklaus's career is not over.

I agree Laver was more dominant than Sampras. Federer has shown though that even in professional tennis you can dominate every thing. Ask Hewitt and he will tell you how ood Federer is.

Similarly ask the peers of Bradman and they will tell you how good he was.

So there are two people Schumacher and woods who show professional sport can be dominated. Bradman could have and averaged more than 100 as well. He was far above his peers. He could be far above the current crop as well. As far as averaging 100. There is no reason to thiknt hat would be impossible.

 

[SJS]

Those who claim that Larwod was not FAST ,let alone being a contender for being amongst one of the fastest of all time display the lack of knowledge and perspective that seems , increasingly to be the bane of the statistics/gadgets obsessed modern follower of the game.

There is no way to say he was the fastest of all time. Sure. How can you say that? After all there is no way to compare his speed to say Thomson or Shoaib or Lee. BUT to dismiss him, outright, as being less than FAST begets the same question..how can you say that?

The only thing one can go by is the records and writings of the times. If we are to disregard these as mere fiction or hype, we might as well disregard most of our history. Its amazing that we do it although the times are so recent and players who had played alongside Larwood were alive till a decade or so ago and had seen the modern purveyors of pace as well which neither of the current generation can claim to say about their 'first-hand' experience of larwood and his peers.

I do not know the veracity of sources quopted on this thread but I can quote as many as you like from those who have seen Larwood bowl and saw many others over a fairly long period. here are a few.

THOMSON AA (One of crickets finest writers having watched the game from the middle of the first decade fo the 20th century to the end of the sixties when he wrote the book I quote from) He discusses various fast bowlers starting with Tom richardsn and going upto Tyson, Trueman and statham and then asks
“Which name has been omitted and then probably the most illustrious? Harold Larwood. He was supreme not only in speed, but in control of length and dissection and in beauty of action. There have been methods since his day of measuring bowling sped scientifically and some have claimed that Tyson, who shattered Australia in 1954-55, bowled even faster, but nobody who batted against Lol in his heyday would have agreed that any human hand could have imparted higher velocity…….there was no luck, no mere chance, in the elemental drama of such speed as Larwood’s”

BOWES Bill : Larwood's bowling partner writing towards the end of the sixties.
To my mind he was the worlds best and fastest bowler of all time.

In 35 years since bodyline, I have seen every fast bowler of reputation in the world. I have not seen one with the speed or the perfection of action of larwood. I have never seen another bowler skim from Australian pitches like larwood. He could not get it in England and I often wonder if the legislatures did not rule against all fast bowlers because of a merit possessed by one bowler only. To have seen Larwood in Australia is to have witnessed one of the greatest of all sporting occasions.

BAILEY Trevor : England Allrounder who saw Larwood towards the fag end of his career and who has seen all the modern top fast bowlers.

It is not feasible to compare the speed of Larwood with , say, Holding’s, Trueman’s or Lillee’s, but there is no doubt that he was very , very quick. The most impressive description I have heard is from George duckworth, who was never one to exaggerate. In a state match after rain…George found it necessary to stand over twenty five yards back to Harold and the slips were stationed considerably deeper. George reckoned that it was the quickest bowling he had kept against because of the number of balls he had to take above his head (still) on the rise. It even frightened that perpetually jolly, down to earth Lancastrian.

Take out any book which lists the top bowlers or top fast bowlers of all time and it is highly unlikely that you wont find Larwood's name on that. Everyone of them talks of not just his beautiful bowling action, his tremendous acuracy but always , also of his extreme pace.

Finally on this futile argument on Bradman, Larwood etc I again quote Thomson , " ....in any two generations, the older one is not necessarily absurd all the time. The irrefutable truth is that nothing is either good or bad merely because it is old or new. It is easy to exchange some verbal grimaces as "Fuddy-duddy" or "Whipper snapper" like shuttle ****s over a net, but its more sensible to agree that excellence may occur in any age. And excellence is an individual thing."

 

[SJS]

Just one more thing. I have had the pleasure and the extreme great fortune to have talked to three cricketers who played against and saw the Don play. Vijay Hazare (on two ocasions when I lived in Baroda), Ramesh Divecha (with whom I spent many evenings talking of his cricketing days since he was a neighbour and the father of my closest friend in Bombay) and Donald Carr (who I met at Mr Divecha's residence one evening).

I have always asked them how good was Bradman and how would he compare with today's cricketers and in today's conditions. Let me tell you that while not all of them were great fans of Bradman, they were unanimous in their opinion that he would have murdered todays bowling, on todays wickets, with todays laws and todays equipment. Not one of them doubted that his average would have been much higher than the 99.94 he ended with. I have absolutely no reason to doubt their words. They seemed to run out of superlatives when describing the Don's immense concentration, speed of movement, very early judgement of length, tremendous power of strokes, presicion placement of shots and almost no hitting in the air whatsoever.

 

[a massive zebra]

Those who claim that Larwod was not FAST ,let alone being a contender for being amongst one of the fastest of all time display the lack of knowledge and perspective that seems , increasingly to be the bane of the statistics/gadgets obsessed modern follower of the game.

There is no way to say he was the fastest of all time. Sure. How can you say that? After all there is no way to compare his speed to say Thomson or Shoaib or Lee. BUT to dismiss him, outright, as being less than FAST begets the same question..how can you say that?

That is very true.

THOMSON AA (One of crickets finest writers having watched the game from the middle of the first decade fo the 20th century to the end of the sixties when he wrote the book I quote from) He discusses various fast bowlers starting with Tom richardsn and going upto Tyson, Trueman and statham and then asks
“Which name has been omitted and then probably the most illustrious? Harold Larwood. He was supreme not only in speed, but in control of length and dissection and in beauty of action. There have been methods since his day of measuring bowling sped scientifically and some have claimed that Tyson, who shattered Australia in 1954-55, bowled even faster, but nobody who batted against Lol in his heyday would have agreed that any human hand could have imparted higher velocity…….there was no luck, no mere chance, in the elemental drama of such speed as Larwood’s”]

Bradman himself said Tyson was faster. When interviewed by Ray Martin and asked if Larwood was the fastest bowler he had ever seen, Bradman replied ''No, he was not. At his best Larwood was very good and very fast but the fastest bowler I have ever seen was Frank Tyson.''

 

[C_C]

BUT to dismiss him, outright, as being less than FAST begets the same question..how can you say that?

based on neutral observations ?

CLR James said he wasnt that fast..... some observers who were alive back then said he wasnt that fast...
If i saw Andy Roberts bowling in 1975 and i see Gillespie bowling today, i think i can say who is faster....
And if Thompson wrote that, he definately forgot to talk to Vijay Merchant who faced Larwood and said he was slower than Mohammed Nissar....

Not one of them doubted that his average would have been much higher than the 99.94 he ended with. I have absolutely no reason to doubt their words. They seemed to run out of superlatives when describing the Don's immense concentration, speed of movement, very early judgement of length, tremendous power of strokes, presicion placement of shots and almost no hitting in the air whatsoever.

I spoke to Vijay Hazare in Kolkata once and he agreed with me that had Bradman played in the 70s,80s and 90s ( i talked to him in 1997) he would've averaged a good 25-30 run below what he did.

Like i said, if Bradman played today as an aussie, he could've averaged 100+ over the next 2 years..... but i am talking about a career that spans 15-20 years like Sir Don's did and that means you cannot pick TODAY as the starting point...for you dont now what the next 17-18 years hold.
Logically, the earliest you can say is mid/late 80s....and mid/late 80s till late 90s/early 2000 bowling standard was MUCH higher than what Bradman faced during his days.

As per Voce... lets just say people who've been teammates and particularly bowling partners together tend to be a bit one eyed... Larwood was the best ?
LOL.
He was not even the best English bowler ( Trueman deserves that accolade), let alone world's.

And apparently i am accused of being from the newer generation who thinks 'newer the stuff, better it is'...well what about people from the OLDER generation, who hold the viewpoint that 'older the stuff' better it is ?

if some folks are to be believed, each decade back in history = better and better bowlers.
In that case, screw all the players today, lets just pick bowlers from 1770s!

 

[SJS]

Bradman himself said Tyson was faster. When interviewed by Ray Martin and asked if Larwood was the fastest bowler he had ever seen, Bradman replied ''No, he was not. At his best Larwood was very good and very fast but the fastest bowler I have ever seen was Frank Tyson.''

I am well aware of that. Bradman refused to accept Larwood as a great fast bowler all his life but he was the only one of his time's cricketers who said so. Everyone is aware of how much Bradman resented the insinuation that his batting was 'blemished' on account of his handling of Larwood during bodyline and he always downplayed the greatness of the bowlers who participated in this series, particularly Larwood the spearhead. Not surprisingly, Bradman showers more praise on Gubby Allen then I have seen any one else do and everyone knows that Gubby Allen refused Jardine's instructions and did not bowl bodylie !

So I think one needs to look beyond Bradman for deciding how good was Larwood.

Whole of Australia not only forgot and forgave but embraced Larwood as one of their own as he settled down in Australia but Bradman refused to talk to Larwood all these years and it was very difficult for the organisers of the Centenary test in 1977 to get Bradman to pose for an exclusive photo and film shoot with Larwood. So strong and deep rooted were Bradman's feelings towards Larwood.

 

[SJS]

And apparently i am accused of being from the newer generation who thinks 'newer the stuff, better it is'...well what about people from the OLDER generation, who hold the viewpoint that 'older the stuff' better it is ?

if some folks are to be believed, each decade back in history = better and better bowlers.
In that case, screw all the players today, lets just pick bowlers from 1770s!

If this is how you conduct, and extrapolate and twist the context of others' quotes to justify your arguments, you win.

I rest my case.

 

[Deja moo]

I suppose Tiger Woods, Schumacher, Sampras and now Roger Federer dont exist.

Schumacher = Ferrari, Sampras= cant play on clay and Federer = jumping the gun ( give him more time).

Woods plays a sport which is basically a battle vs onesself , whereas sports like cricket , tennis etc. is a competition between two or more individuals. The two cannot be compared.

 

[a massive zebra]

And apparently i am accused of being from the newer generation who thinks 'newer the stuff, better it is'...well what about people from the OLDER generation, who hold the viewpoint that 'older the stuff' better it is ?

if some folks are to be believed, each decade back in history = better and better bowlers.
In that case, screw all the players today, lets just pick bowlers from 1770s!

Yeah the under-arm lobs of Lumpy Stevens and twists of David Harris would create utter carnaige against your messiah Bradman.

In reality, though, Mr C_C, Bradman is God...therefore he would be classified as a Deity...and you are one of his humble subjects. And if you stray from the word of his gospel, he will reign down his rock heavy bat on your head.

 

[SJS]

That is very true.




Bradman himself said Tyson was faster. When interviewed by Ray Martin and asked if Larwood was the fastest bowler he had ever seen, Bradman replied ''No, he was not. At his best Larwood was very good and very fast but the fastest bowler I have ever seen was Frank Tyson.''

That's quite possible.

I dont think, the players who played Larwood and thought this was the limit of fast bowling can be faulted for thinking that. This does not mean that a later day bowler like Tyson could not have been faster. But surely it does tell that Larwood must have been fast. Thats all I was saying.

It cant be anyone's case that Larwood or any one else can be assumed to have been the fastest of all time. As I said, this is virtually impossible to assert , but surely, its possible to say which were amongst the fastest bowlers of all time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It all depends on what his average would be now, seeing as it's half his career average.

So if he were to average, eg, 60 - that would be averaging in the 30s

Yes, ignoring the fact that he averaged 50 with 7 on the legside. If that series were played with the current rules, he would have averaged way higher.

 

[marc71178]

Apart from Schumacher, no one has dominated the field like old timers during the embryonic stages of the sport ( Laver dominated FAR more than Sampras did, Nicklaus did far more than woods, etc etc).

And some would suggest Schumacher's dominance is somewhat helped by his car (although he is the best driver)

 

[Richard]

If i saw Andy Roberts bowling in 1975 and i see Gillespie bowling today, i think i can say who is faster....
And if Thompson wrote that, he definately forgot to talk to Vijay Merchant who faced Larwood and said he was slower than Mohammed Nissar....

That's just the thing - you can't say who is faster by looking at them.
You can only make rough guesses - until timing was developed, no-one really knew for certain. It surprised many people how fast some were and how slow others were.
No-one can say for certain how fast bowlers really were (especially when they played 50 years apart).
We can, however, say without too much doubt that Tyson was faster than anything seen - the way he bruised batsmen through pads - something no-one else has ever done before - kinda gives that away.

 

[SJS]

An excellent site for bodyline series pictures and write up.

http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/history/bodyline.html

 

[Arrow]

Bradman is overrated.He was ahead of his time but not our time.For him to be averaging even in 70s in the modern era would mean he is another level above the likes of lara and tendulkar and that is something i cannot beleive simply because its far fetched fantasy and also because watching bradman play its clear hes of a lower standard as was his whole era.

This is the same for roy emerson, arguably the greatest tennis player of all time and until recently holder of the record number of grand slams.
He was the best of his era but the guy was a little man, well under 6 foot which was fine back then , but he would of been unable to compete in the modern era of power tennis with the top players.Back then they prodded the ball back and forth while today they blast it.

Its call evolution and bradman would of been a victim of it.He was only human after all.

You would have to be extremely naive to beleive bradman would average over 60 in the modern era.

 

[sir middle stump]

Bradman is overrated.He was ahead of his time but not our time.For him to be averaging even in 70s in the modern era would mean he is another level above the likes of lara and tendulkar and that is something i cannot beleive simply because its far fetched fantasy and also because watching bradman play its clear hes of a lower standard as was his whole era.

This is the same for roy emerson, arguably the greatest tennis player of all time and until recently holder of the record number of grand slams.
He was the best of his era but the guy was a little man, well under 6 foot which was fine back then , but he would of been unable to compete in the modern era of power tennis with the top players.Back then they prodded the ball back and forth while today they blast it.

Its call evolution and bradman would of been a victim of it.He was only human after all.

You would have to be extremely naive to beleive bradman would average over 60 in the modern era.

I think he would average around 65-70 today. The reason I say so is that modern technology has helped batsmen and bowlers analyse each other ...any advantages that Bradman may have had would be negated nowadays. Also, the absence of serious pace in his time which would have exposed him ( by that i mean reduced his average significantly from 100 to around maybe 70).