If Bradman played in today's era?

[social]

Not enormously. If it makes it harder for batsmen, it makes it even harder for fielders.

Doesnt this completely contradict your argument of less than a week ago?

Ah well, new thread = new claim

 

[Richard]

Err - to what exactly do you prefer?

 

[Ikki]

Doesnt this completely contradict your argument of less than a week ago?

Ah well, new thread = new claim

Good catch.

 

[roseboy64]

Err - to what exactly do you prefer?

That bastmen prefer less time to bat or somethng about preference of being in the field.

 

[Richard]

Hahahahaha, how stupid (or looking-for-any-tenuous-link-you-can-find desperate) would you have to be to link those two?

 

[Swervy]

To those that are saying Bradman would have been "Very very good" and not "Still would the best batsman ever", if Bradman still wasn't the best ever, then who would be?

I actually accidentally chose that option, it was meant to be 'still be the best ever'

 

[Migara]

What I wrote about reverse swing: is that if the average Test batsman can handle it then I have no doubt (not even a little) that Bradman (the greatest Test batsman in the history of the game) would master it

Agreed about mastering it. And in the hind sight, the change of law benefited most for the reverse swing bowlers and spinners that turn the ball in to the batsman.

 

[Swervy]

Hahahahaha, how stupid (or looking-for-any-tenuous-link-you-can-find desperate) would you have to be to link those two?

I don't think its tenuous, as soon as I read what you typed, I immediately thought about what you said in the other thread.

Oh well, I must be stupid!!!

 

[Migara]

No he would not, because he would not have the chance to be. The main reason for Murali's baronial stats is the relative insipidity of his fellows. Were he supported by worthies like Johnson, Schultz and Warne, he would bowl far less, as a consequence of which his quantitative figures would be far worse.

Edited: Misread it.

 

[Richard]

I don't think its tenuous, as soon as I read what you typed, I immediately thought about what you said in the other thread.

Oh well, I must be stupid!!!

Gotta say, I'm hardly surprised. There's one or two I'd expect to do exactly that.

Let's go through it nice and slowly now...

In the other thread, I was talking about a batsman, and how it's less tiring for a batsman to field than bat. Now I am talking about a bowler and a batsman, and saying that extreme heat and humidity makes life far more difficult for bowlers than batsmen.

See the difference?

 

[roseboy64]

Same I was thinking. ^^^

 

[Richard]

My, My, Schultz was crap? What have you been watching? Obviously you haven't seen him in SL in 1993-4 series. He was even quicker than Donald before he broke down later. If he continued in the same vein as he had in SL, SAF would have been at the top of the test table for some time with a trio of Donal, Schultz, De Villiers and Pollock (3 at a time). Johnson may be worthless at the moment, but ahve to give some time for him to develop. Then how about Bruce Reid and WasimAkram in the side, or may be Alan Davidon, all are clear of 6' 2" IIRC.

Think you might have misread fella. Rodders (nev) was saying Schultz and Johnson were good, not poor.

 

[Ikki]

Gotta say, I'm hardly surprised. There's one or two I'd expect to do exactly that.

Let's go through it nice and slowly now...

In the other thread, I was talking about a batsman, and how it's less tiring for a batsman to field than bat. Now I am talking about a bowler and a batsman, and saying that extreme heat and humidity makes life far more difficult for fielders than batsmen.

See the difference?

Correction.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not a correction, it's a de-correction. It's changing it to the way you'd like it to be, because there's no contradiction in what I actually said and you want there to be one.

However, most people realise that there's quite a considerable difference between fielding for 20 overs and bowling 10 overs out of 20. Or something similar to that.

 

[Ikki]

No, it's not a correction, it's a de-correction. It's changing it to the way you'd like it to be, because there's no contradiction in what I actually said and you want there to be one.

However, most people realise that there's quite a considerable difference between fielding for 20 overs and bowling 10 overs out of 20. Or something similar to that.

Really?

First you said:

"Not enormously. If it makes it harder for batsmen, it makes it even harder for fielders."

And then you tried to imply you were talking about bowlers to which I corrected and put in "fielders".

 

[Richard]

I see. Well, I assure you, it was bowlers (who are "in the field") who I was referring to. That should be fairly obvious, I'd have thought, given a fielder cannot get a batsman out, and it is not the field a batsman has to repel.

Nonetheless, I can now expect the haha-you-contradicted-yourself crap. Good effort, lads.

 

[Ikki]

I see. Well, I assure you, it was bowlers (who are "in the field") who I was referring to. That should be fairly obvious, I'd have thought, given a fielder cannot get a batsman out, and it is not the field a batsman has to repel.

Nonetheless, I can now expect the haha-you-contradicted-yourself crap. Good effort, lads.

The sad thing is it's not the first nor do I think it'll be the last time. This time it was just a bit more clear-cut and obvious.

Bowlers who are "in the field" my hairy ass.

 

[Richard]

So, um... where else are bowlers, then?

 

[a massive zebra]

People just don't seem to be able to appreciate the time span of these cricketers' careers. We just devalue their performances by looking at their averages, where as what we could do if we were willing to look more objectively is consider what would have happened had they NOT played that long.

WG was at his best in the years 1866 to 1876. A 12 year period and not short by any standards. I have absolutely no doubt that his fast increasing girth had an increasingly detrimental effect on his performance even in his early thirties. Its only because he was so FAR above his contemporaries that he could continue to play.

• During this period he averaged an astonishing 56.67 per innings !!
• The rest of the players averaged just 14.91 during this period.
• That makes WG's figures 3.8 times those of his contemporaries.
• Extrapolating over 2000-2007 it would need a batting average of 119.9 for someone to dominate in the current decade as WG did in those 12 years in the 3rd quarter of the 19th century !!

During this period WG scored a third of all centuries scored in England (56 out of 123) !!

Given your earlier post arguing that it is futile to compare players from different eras, I assume this is merely an attempt to illustrate Grace's dominance over his peers, rather than a genuine attempt to realistically estimate the great man's output should we find a time machine and transport him into the 2000s. Indeed, the game has changed to such an extent over the intervening 130 year period as to render any extrapolation meaningless.

Between 1866 and 1876, roundarm bowling still played a crucial role, swing bowling was non existent, googlies and doosras were yet to be discovered, lob bowling was a respected art form, and most fast bowlers span the ball. Furthermore, I have my doubts as to the general standard of batting in first class cricket prior to the golden age. In 1878, AG Steel took 164 first class wickets at 9 runs apeice, a feat not approached by any 20th or 21st century bowler, yet his Wisden obituary states "Steel's bowling perhaps, owed its success to a certain trickiness, with the usual result that as a batsman found his tricks out, so he became rather less effective" - hardly a glowing tribute. In 1903, Lord Hawke wrote "County matches have grown in importance until they practically monopolise all the attention and interest of the cricket loving community, absolutely eclipsing the games to which our fathers looked forward with most eager anticipation. Gone are the good old North and South, those pleasant exhibition matches, gone too are the Over Thirty and Under Thirty... County fixtures have materially raised the standard of the game: they have made cricket very superior in quality to what it used to be."

Notwithstanding the improvements in pitch preparation, the fact that batting averages almost doubled between the 1870s and the first decade of the 20th century suggests strongly that the vast majority of this improvement was on the batting front (indeed, between 1866 and 1876, footwork was looked down upon, there were no leg glances and very few hook shots, and it was considered bad manners to hit good balls for runs or off side balls to leg etc), in which case, had Grace been born a generation later, he would not have towered over his colleagues to the extent suggested in your crazy extrapolation (although one could argue that these improvements would not have occured so early without the influence of Grace himself).

 

[Richard]

^^For those reasons, I've always been happy to say only that Grace was a master of cricket as it was played at his time. It's fairly safe to say he'd be damn good, very possibly one of England's better batsmen in history, had he played in the 20th-century. But would he have been a Bradmanesque player? Really impossible to say.

Grace was merely a master of his time. To suggest anything more as a matter of course would be foolish.