Sir Donald Bradman

[TheJediBrah]

The assertion made in this thread (a few pages back), and just about every other Bradman thread, is that his success during the 1930s can be readily translated (duplicated) to other decades. Rightly or wrongly, I just don't see it. But then again, I don't see a lot of things that other people find obvious.

But just using common sense, it's just as likely to be readily translated as not. Likewise it's just as likely, hypothetically, that he would average more than 99.94 in a different era than that he would average less. It seems you're trying a bit hard to find reasons that you think he would average less in more recent eras in lieu of just accepting that he was a freak.

In this case the reason you're giving is a video of 1 dismissal, in a time with completely different rules for bodyline bowling, field placings and no protective gear. And you're somehow extrapolating that he would struggle against the 80s WI team. It's frankly absurdly when you think about it.

 

[Victor Ian]

If I had a time machine and could abduct a 1930s Bradman and a 1980s West Indies attack and get them to play in a ten test series I totally would.

That would be.....I don't know because my mind would explode.... though, somewhere up there, we have Marshall bowling to Bradman in the nets, while they wait for the other Windies bowlers to die.

 

[stephen]

That would be.....I don't know because my mind would explode.... though, somewhere up there, we have Marshall bowling to Bradman in the nets, while they wait for the other Windies bowlers to die.

What's the surface like in heaven. I imagine there's a bit of moisture in it.

 

[vcs]

What's the surface like in heaven. I imagine there's a bit of moisture in it.

Tailor made conditions for Clouderson, you'd think

 

[vcs]

Tailor made conditions for Clouderson, you'd think

This should also mean that we should never run out of disk storage space in Heaven. No need to save anything on your local disk, ever.

 

[Coronis]

But just using common sense, it's just as likely to be readily translated as not. Likewise it's just as likely, hypothetically, that he would average more than 99.94 in a different era than that he would average less. It seems you're trying a bit hard to find reasons that you think he would average less in more recent eras in lieu of just accepting that he was a freak.

In this case the reason you're giving is a video of 1 dismissal, in a time with completely different rules for bodyline bowling, field placings and no protective gear. And you're somehow extrapolating that he would struggle against the 80s WI team. It's frankly absurdly when you think about it.

Never saw any great modern batsmen ever play bowling poorly or get out cheaply.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Since when did Border play in seven bodyline series? This thread is like one of those Dr Who style internet fan fiction stories.

 

[watson]

Since when did Border play in seven bodyline series? This thread is like one of those Dr Who style internet fan fiction stories.

.

Bodyline

by David Frith

......It took a long time to heal the injured feelings, which had even concerned the governments of both countries. Subtle unwritten pledges were extracted that the Australians would not be subjected to Bodyline during the 1934 tour, and in due course the Laws were tightened in an effort to prevent any repetition - though not soon enough to spare India from assault by other England fast bowlers under Jardine's control in 1933-34.

Thereafter, bouncers were widely regarded as unsporting and unwanted - until, that is, the Second World War changed everything. In the late 1940s Bradman had Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller at his disposal, and the bouncers flew again.

Yet even those blistering sessions were but an attenuated preamble to what happened in the late 1970s and the 1980s. Then, with four hefty fast bowlers at his disposal, one West Indies captain after another let them loose all day. The survivors of the original Bodyline series marvelled that there was no public riot, for it had come close to that in Adelaide in 1933, when two of Australia's batsmen were felled. Yet now, in a period of 20 years, West Indies fast men sent 40 opposing batsmen to hospital.

To repeat: our fathers and grandfathers were shocked more easily.

Cricket's Turning Points: Bodyline | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

For all practical purposes Allan Border endured seven Bodyline series between 1979 and 1993.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You realise that's garbage though right? The West Indian bowlers bowling occasional balls at the body is hardly the same as 1930s bodyline, or "leg theory".

It's been said before but clearly needs repeating: Leg theory involved constant bowling at the body & down leg side, with fielding positions to match, which have since been outlawed. And with much less physical protection for batsmen. What the WI did is not even in the same ballpark. The change in rules regarding fielding positions alone would have allowed Bradman far more scoring options & a greater chance of survival.

You have no argument

 

[Lillian Thomson]

.



For all practical purposes Allan Border endured seven Bodyline series between 1979 and 1993.

No he didn't. However well or not Border did against the Windies pace attack on some uneven wickets in the West Indies, it has zero connection to the bodyline attack.

 

[OverratedSanity]

People too often just assume bodyline = just bouncers, but there was so much more that made it unique and difficult to deal with, mainly the field placings. That hasn't been replicated since then to any meaningful degree.

 

[Starfighter]

It shouldn't really be too much to see that facing this field:

would be quite different to facing this one:

and a lot more difficult too.

 

[honestbharani]

You realise that's garbage though right? The West Indian bowlers bowling occasional balls at the body is hardly the same as 1930s bodyline, or "leg theory".

It's been said before but clearly needs repeating: Leg theory involved constant bowling at the body & down leg side, with fielding positions to match, which have since been outlawed. And with much less physical protection for batsmen. What the WI did is not even in the same ballpark. The change in rules regarding fielding positions alone would have allowed Bradman far more scoring options & a greater chance of survival.

You have no argument

Also, 30s protective equipment vs 70s, 80s and 90s?


EDIT: And carrying on from TJB and OS's posts, its just so difficult to play balls at your legs, even if they are not short, with a whole semi circle of catching fielders next to you. Its harder to keep down the flick with fielders within 15 yards from the stumps.

 

[Daemon]

You know you're definitely wrong when both TJB and HB team up against you

 

[TheJediBrah]

You know you're definitely wrong when both TJB and HB team up against you

It makes me sick

 

[honestbharani]

makes you sick? I am on sick leave already..

 

[TheJediBrah]

makes you sick? I am on sick leave already..

I warned you about Chennai food

 

[stephen]

The West Indies of the 70s, 80s and 90s were physically threatening and did injure a lot of batsmen. But it wasn't bodyline. Bodyline was about using leg side bowling lines and short pitched bowling to restrict runs and force batsmen to play more risky shots. The West Indies were out there to take wickets and prove to the world that they were the top dogs. I'm genuinely surprised (and thankful) that nobody was killed by the West Indies quicks during that era, but more because there were so many good bowlers and they were so relentless and the protection wasn't up to modern standards.

I've only seen one series since then that has left the batsmen physically scared by genuinely hostile bowling and that was the 2013/14 Ashes where Mitchell Johnson destroyed the English. Even Ambrose (who I rate as one of the very best ever) didn't physically scare batsmen like Johnson did in that series.

The ironic thing about Bodyline is that if Bradman was susceptible to short pitched bowling, the bodyline series probably meant that England were reluctant to bowl him many bouncers after that series.

 

[Starfighter]

It should be noted that the leg-side field didn't end with bodyline. Here in 1934 we can see Nobby Clark bowling to a similar field, although according to Wisden he only occasionally pitched it short. He did have some success in this match but Bradman scored 244 off 271 and 77 off 106, and wasn't dismissed by Clark either time. The difference is the concentrated attack on the body, and that's what made bodyline so dangerous. The leg side field was common as a restrictive tactic until the two behind square rule was introduced some time around the late fifties, but I don't think there was ever such a sustained, concentrated attack on the body of the batsmen until the seventies, although Lindwall and Miller and Hall and Griffith perhaps came close at points, but they didn't employ such a field.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bodyline wasn't the name of any tactics. It was off theory and leg theory with 7-2, 2-7 field. "Bodyline" was a term invented by the Australian press.