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

[Deja moo]

I think an interesting question would be ....How much would Sachin, Lara, Ponting etc average during the Dons playing days ?

 

[Pratters]

I dont think this thread will ever end.

 

[SJS]

An interesting study of fast bowlers and what proportion of their victims are clean bowled.

Under 20% :
Lillee(15.2),
Walsh(17.7) and
Marshall(19.4)
are the prominent names in this category.

Between 20 and 25%
Ambrose 20.2
Hadlee 21.3
Thomson 21.5
Wasim 24.6

25-30%
Imran 26.5
Garner 26.6
Waqar 27.3

30-35%
Holding 32.5
Constantine 32.8
Griffith 33
Trueman 33.6
Hall 33.9

Then there is a gap with no one, from all those that I looked up, in the 35-40% category.

40% and above
Shoaib 40.6
Allen Gubby 42
Tyson 43.4
Larwood 44.9
Gilchrist 47.4

Interesting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Very interesting.

One or two surprises there. I definitely thought Waqar's figure would be higher. I rate his as the best yorker I've seen during my watching era. Perhaps if LBWs were factored in he'd do better.

Slightly suprised to see Shoaib quite so high too; I would've imagined a figure closer to Waqar's for him.

I think it proves, contrary to popular myth, that not all Lol's wickets were taken by the hawks behind square on the leg side as another poor Aussie fends for his life!

Not that I'm condoning bodyline, BTW.

 

[Richard]

I think an interesting question would be ....How much would Sachin, Lara, Ponting etc average during the Dons playing days ?

Interesting indeed... I find it quite conceivable, personally, that they'd average something close to, if not quite in, the Ponsford-Hammond bracket - because their skills would be the same and, while if conditions back then were to be reprised this very minute I'm pretty confident they'd average in the 20s for the next 3 years or so, had they grown into it as everyone did back then, I don't think it's impossible that they'd have been as good as most of the best...
Still way, way, way behind Bradman, though.

 

[Richard]

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.

And who's to say Roy Emerson wouldn't be able to dominate today were he to have had the benefit of modern racket technology?
Why is it so clear that Bradman's era is of a lower standard?

 

[Richard]

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).

I'm amazed at the number of people who can state with such certainty that there wasn't any "serious" (ie 90mph) pace back then.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Let's be fair - there's little sustained, effective real pace around today to boot.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

You'd have to be making an argument either for or against Bradman being as good now based purely on his natural talent and ability though wouldn't you? You'd have to assume that if he was playing now he'd be brought up through the same training programs etc as other elite players, and therefore have faced all the bowlers that are operating today. Or are we talking about simply transporting the Don from the 30's and lining him up against todays bowlers?

I think the argument really hinges on a comparison of those things which can't be taught (i.e natural ability, hand-eye co-ordination etc), or at least can't be taught to the same degree as someone with natural ability might possess.

 

[KennyD]

I'm amazed at the number of people who can state with such certainty that there wasn't any "serious" (ie 90mph) pace back then.

Yes I mean, I've read about how Frank Tyson used to cause horrible bruises and other such hematomas through padding. Of course padding back there wouldnt be as good an nowadays, but some of the injuries he caused are fair indication that he must have been pushing some high bowling speeds.

 

[Mister Wright]

You'd have to be making an argument either for or against Bradman being as good now based purely on his natural talent and ability though wouldn't you? You'd have to assume that if he was playing now he'd be brought up through the same training programs etc as other elite players, and therefore have faced all the bowlers that are operating today. Or are we talking about simply transporting the Don from the 30's and lining him up against todays bowlers?

I think the argument really hinges on a comparison of those things which can't be taught (i.e natural ability, hand-eye co-ordination etc), or at least can't be taught to the same degree as someone with natural ability might possess.

Exactly. And like I said before it is highly unlikely he would have had a water tank to practice on when he was young. And therefore his inferior technique would have been shown up without his amzing hand-eye co-ordination.

 

[Pratters]

Yes I mean, I've read about how Frank Tyson used to cause horrible bruises and other such hematomas through padding.

Boycott says Tyson is the fastest he has seen as well. And he has seen the contemporary bowlers. Doesnt prove any thing apart from that the bowlers in the past did have pace.

 

[Mr. P]

Theres too many variables to be able to provide an accurate, fair conclusion or even a good guess on this topic.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly. And like I said before it is highly unlikely he would have had a water tank to practice on when he was young. And therefore his inferior technique would have been shown up without his amzing hand-eye co-ordination.

He'd be bloody good though if he practiced in the sink! He might still have a water tank if he grew up in Bowral, but there's absolutely no doubt if that was the case that he'd still be waiting for colour television.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Theres too many variables to be able to provide an accurate, fair conclusion or even a good guess on this topic.

Exactly - it could be anything. But my gut instinct says that it would probably be around the same as all the variables would even themselves out.

 

[Richard]

Yes I mean, I've read about how Frank Tyson used to cause horrible bruises and other such hematomas through padding. Of course padding back there wouldnt be as good an nowadays, but some of the injuries he caused are fair indication that he must have been pushing some high bowling speeds.

Interestingly I had that argument with a guy called Daniel Prior (Craig will remember) who said that the padding they wore in those days would have given you bruises if Mark Butcher hit you on them... yet no-one else ever got bruised through them.
Padding mightn't have been as good then as it is now, but it was still good enough for most bowlers.
Tyson was something a bit different, by the sounds of everything.

 

[Richard]

Let's be fair - there's little sustained, effective real pace around today to boot.

That's because there has never been any sustainededly successful bowler who has relied exclusively on pace.
You have to be able to move the ball to be effective, and always have been. Of course, moving the ball was a bit easier than it is now on the wickets of old...

 

[Richard]

He'd be bloody good though if he practiced in the sink! He might still have a water tank if he grew up in Bowral, but there's absolutely no doubt if that was the case that he'd still be waiting for colour television.

IMO the tank practice said far more about his powers of concentration than his concentration said about the tank practice.

 

[Deja moo]

The Don on professionalism :

""...in the times when I played cricket that we were all amateurs, the Australians were all amateurs. And we didn't earn our living playing cricket, we played cricket because we loved it, we loved the game....I didn't want to (sternly) become a professional, I played cricket because I loved it, and not for a living. I think if I'd become a professional, I'd have lost the enjoyment of playing. "

 

[Richard]

The thing is, how many people wouldn't enjoy playing because they're professionals nowadays? Given that all the top players are professionals, it's a kind of futile thing.
It's the same thing again - if he'd been born into the age of top-level=professional I'm pretty confident it'd have been the most natural thing in The World.