If Bradman played in today's era?

[the big bambino]

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest. Whilst they weren't Bradman's contemporaries they were still premodern. Strike bowlers and fast opening bowlers became a thing post War though.

Armstrong pioneered the tactic after the first war.

 

[the big bambino]

I was talking about Sutcliffe..

Yea, sorry about that. I didn't read the responses properly. Sutcliffe, I believe, would have taken every advantage of the old lbw law and would have been a padder.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can someone bring in the way back machine for informational-observational purposes?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest. Whilst they weren't Bradman's contemporaries they were still premodern. Strike bowlers and fast opening bowlers became a thing post War though.

If anyone tells you that Tyson was as fast as Akhtar or Lee then your best response should be to laugh at them and tell them to lay off the kool-aid . There's enough footage of him to pretty comprehensively disprove the idea that he was express by modern standards.

 

[mr_mister]

If anyone tells you that Tyson was as fast as Akhtar or Lee then your best response should be to laugh at them and tell them to lay off the kool-aid . There's enough footage of him to pretty comprehensively disprove the idea that he was express by modern standards.

What about Thommo? Who was as close to Tyson's era as he was to Shoaib/Lee

 

[trundler]

Armstrong pioneered the tactic after the first war.

You're right but I'd say it took its 'final form' and really caught on post War.

 

[trundler]

If anyone tells you that Tyson was as fast as Akhtar or Lee then your best response should be to laugh at them and tell them to lay off the kool-aid . There's enough footage of him to pretty comprehensively disprove the idea that he was express by modern standards.

Okay, not that fast maybe but him and Adcock still look rapid from footage.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What about Thommo? Who was as close to Tyson's era as he was to Shoaib/Lee

Him I can sort of buy reaching those speeds. But not Tyson, no. The huge upward trend in athleticism and fitness since the 60s and 70s can't be questioned.

 

[mr_mister]

You're right but I'd say it took its 'final form' and really caught on post War.

Does Bodyline not have some crossover with this?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are bowlers necessarily fitter if over rates are so much slower? Plus, Tyson and Thomson didn't have modern tech and coaching but they were still as fast as today's fastest. Whilst they weren't Bradman's contemporaries they were still premodern. Strike bowlers and fast opening bowlers became a thing post War though.

So we really think bowlers are fitter now? They seemed to bowl a lot more back in the day than they do now, and they're still injured/rested all the time in the modern era

 

[Daemon]

For 1990-2019 I'm getting 38.12. top six

Hey not bad. Will take a variance of 1.32 for something I made up.

 

[trundler]

Does Bodyline not have some crossover with this?

Sure. Started with Armstrong and McDonald and then Bodyline and its West Indian impression. The latter 2 were still novel tactics though and didn't immediately become the norm. That happened in the 50s with Lindwall-Miller, Trueman-Statham, Adcock-Heine etc.

 

[mr_mister]

Sure. Started with Armstrong and McDonald and then Bodyline and its West Indian impression. The latter 2 were still novel tactics though and didn't immediately become the norm. That happened in the 50s with Lindwall-Miller, Trueman-Statham, Adcock-Heine etc.

For the final few years before the war(37-39) using two pace bowlers up front was standard practice.

Cowie and whoever for NZ
Singh and Nissar for India
England and West Indies obviously

And even Australia was opening with McCormick and Mccabe over Oreilly despite obviously being the better bowler. The difference being McCabe bowled seam up and could maybe get more out of a new ball

So I think it came into vogue in the 30s

 

[the big bambino]

It did. It started as a tactic with Armstrong and took on from there. Still amused about the fitness of fast bowlers now. Benaud saw thommo and Tyson and thought the latter faster.

 

[mr_mister]

At the Aeronautical College in Wellington, New Zealand in 1955 metal plates were attached to a cricket ball and a sonic device was used to measure their speed, with Tyson's bowling measured at 89 mph (143 km/h), but he was wearing three sweaters on a cold, damp morning and used no run up, Brian Statham bowled at 87 mph (140 km/h). He certainly bowled faster than 89 mph in matches, and Tyson claimed that he could bowl at 119 mph (192 km/h), but this cannot be proven.

From Typhoon Tyson's wiki.

Two things: a) I wonder if they literally mean no run up or just a shortened run up and b) lol at Tyson's bold claim he could hit 120mph

 

[trundler]

For the final few years before the war(37-39) using two pace bowlers up front was standard practice.

Cowie and whoever for NZ
Singh and Nissar for India
England and West Indies obviously

And even Australia was opening with McCormick and Mccabe over Oreilly despite obviously being the better bowler. The difference being McCabe bowled seam up and could maybe get more out of a new ball

So I think it came into vogue in the 30s

NZ and India didn't play much. Australia gave the new ball to whichever fast bowler was around and then the spinners took over I think. Notice how I said strike bowlers, not opening fast bowlers. And Larwood never played after Bodyline. I still stand by the trend taking its final form in the 50s.

 

[mr_mister]

NZ and India didn't play much. Australia gave the new ball to whichever fast bowler was around and then the spinners took over I think. Notice how I said strike bowlers, not opening fast bowlers. And Larwood never played after Bodyline. I still stand by the trend taking its final form in the 50s.

Larwood didn't, but Bowes, Voce and later Farnes did

And South Africa also used pacemen with the new ball in the late 30s. India and NZ didn't play much sure, but the fact they decided to use quicks with the new ball tells me it was an established norm by that time

 

[the big bambino]

Funny thing is your opening bowlers are your strike bowlers. Australia of the time would have pursued the tactic but didn’t have the strength in that department at the time. I mean as soon as we had lindwall and Miller ... Strength was in spin and batting not pace. The opposite of today’s team.

 

[MrPrez]

So you've decided that Bradman playing in the modern age would be playing against the more professional players but not benefit from improved coaching and professionalism himself?

That's fine if that's your point but it's making a pretty big assumption about the nature of this thread

This was not what I meant, ftr.

I'm saying that I believe it to be much more difficult to be a statistical anomaly in the 21st century of cricket than it would have been in his time.

This is given the relatively limited pool of players in his day (meaning higher variability in quality), and the fact that raw talent would have had a much higher advantage in an era where players didn't have access to endless analytics, infrastructure and training to level the playing field.

It's purely a hypothesis (as is the entire thread, of course), but I think his dominance would not be quite as pronounced, albeit still positioning him as miles ahead of his nearest competition. Hence the 70+ average.

 

[stephen]

I do find it a funny argument to say that statistical anomalies are harder to come across today than in the past. Larger sample sizes means more anomalies.

And we have Smith today who is batting in a fashion as close to Bradman as we're likely to see.