Sir Donald Bradman

[Lillian Thomson]

Hopefully in another 70 years we'll be seeing silly arguments to denigrate legends of this era too.

There'd have to be major breakthroughs in medical science for me to see that.

 

[the big bambino]

What was Chappell's issue with him?



And the "Bradman provides us only with a small sample" argument goes out the window when you look at his first class average. 230+ games, 95+ average.

I've only read Chappell's accounts so my understanding of their dispute is biased in his favour. If Chappell is to be believed then Bradman was insensitive to the problems faced by cricketers and the sacrifices they made to play for their country. Chappell was incensed by a number of issues not the least the tours to India then South Africa in the late 60s. Basically Chappelli fought for a greater share of the receipts the players generated and Bradman's attitude towards the players was dismissive.

I don't have Bradman's counter to Chappelli's position but its hard not to sympathise with Chappelli. His instransigence, it is speculated, gave impetus to the eventual player's rebellion that led to World Series Cricket. Since Bradman had a run in or two with the Board in his time as a player, and over fair compensation for his play, he looks hypocritical in his confrontation with Chappelli. However it could be said that as a board member he was representing their financial interests.

Btw I don't think I was the person who is responsible for the second quote in your post.

 

[fredfertang]

I've only read Chappell's accounts so my understanding of their dispute is biased in his favour. If Chappell is to be believed then Bradman was insensitive to the problems faced by cricketers and the sacrifices they made to play for their country. Chappell was incensed by a number of issues not the least the tours to India then South Africa in the late 60s. Basically Chappelli fought for a greater share of the receipts the players generated and Bradman's attitude towards the players was dismissive.

I don't have Bradman's counter to Chappelli's position but its hard not to sympathise with Chappelli. His instransigence, it is speculated, gave impetus to the eventual player's rebellion that led to World Series Cricket. Since Bradman had a run in or two with the Board in his time as a player, and over fair compensation for his play, he looks hypocritical in his confrontation with Chappelli. However it could be said that as a board member he was representing their financial interests.

Btw I don't think I was the person who is responsible for the second quote in your post.

Bradman did comment that in what he described as the 'Chappell Revolt' that Chappelli 'overplayed his hand and fell in a hole'

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Didn't Bradman once meet Chappell in a toilet and call him John Snow's bunny?

 

[fredfertang]

Didn't Bradman once meet Chappell in a toilet and call him John Snow's bunny?

Someone Bradmanesque for sure, but not the Don

 

[watson]

Bradman was a bit of a conservative in the 70s and believed that the players should mostly be amateurs. The Chappell brothers were key figures in World Series Cricket. They were on opposite sides of a pay war basically.

And yep nobody can argue that Bradman wasn't special for his time. Those who argue against him basically are arguing that the game has gotten way more professional and that the gap between him and the rest wouldn't be as high in the modern era. Some even argue that Tendulkar or Lara or whoever were as good as Bradman or better. Of course there is no way of proving either side right or wrong, but it's pretty hard to see Bradman as anything other than a legend or a myth he was that far ahead of the rest.

I'd just like to point out that you can pick a chain of players from the 40s to now and look at other players whos careers overlapped and make a case that Bradman would be just as far ahead of modern batsmen as he was ahead of the batsmen of his era.

For example:

Bradman's career overlapped with Compton's career. Compton averaged 50 in tests.
Compton's career overlapped with Sobers' career. Sobers averaged 57 in tests.
Sobers' career overlapped with Gavaskar's career. Gavaskar averaged 51 in tests.
Gavaskar's career overlapped with Border's career. Border averaged 50 in tests.
Border's career overlapped with Tendulkar's career. Tendulkar averaged 54 in tests.
Tendulkar's career overlapped with Cook's career. Cook averages 48 in tests.

By virtue of these overlapped careers, we can clearly see that there is no real escalation in averages. The guys who played in Bradman's era didn't average much differently from the guys who played the era after his. The guys who played half in his era and half in the next didn't find batting significantly more or less challenging after his retirement. The guys who had careers which half overlapped those guys didn't suddenly get better or worse in the latter half of their career. And so on and so forth we go until we get to the modern era where, if anything, batsmen are said to have things easier than they did in the 90s or 80s.

In mathematics we call this a "proof by induction". Knock one domino over and the rest follow. In this case the dominos falling tells us that Bradman would likely have averaged a very similar number, if he played today as a 20-40 year old.

Apart from the fact that Bradman's schedule would be packed with ODIs and T20s, and he would be playing 100+ Tests. Bradman would also be expected to tour India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and everywhere else.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the frenetic pace and sheer variety of modern cricket relative to the 1930s would have taken its toll on his average.

So the most likely scenario is that his career would resemble Ponting's. That is, it would contain a significant peak where his average would be 75+, but either side of the peak the bell curve would slowly descend.

However, it is also likely that the difference between the highest and lowest points of the bell-curve would be significantly less so his overall average wouldn't fall away as it did for Ponting.

 

[Burner]

Hopefully in another 70 years we'll be seeing silly arguments to denigrate legends of this era too.

This is less likely to happen now because current players have video evidence of their dominance. Probably the biggest reason why people are skeptical of Bradman is that they've never seen him play. Scoreboards don't have the impact that actual game footage does. In seventy years people can still look at footage of the Kohlis and the Smiths and say 'damn these guys were good' even though they might have never heard of them before.

 

[Chrish]

Apart from the fact that Bradman's schedule would be packed with ODIs and T20s, and he would be playing 100+ Tests. Bradman would also be expected to tour India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and everywhere else.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the frenetic pace and sheer variety of modern cricket relative to the 1930s would have taken its toll on his average.

So the most likely scenario is that his career would resemble Ponting's. That is, it would contain a significant peak where his average would be 75+, but either side of the peak the bell curve would slowly descend.

However, it is also likely that the difference between the highest and lowest points of the bell-curve would be significantly less so his overall average wouldn't fall away as it did for Ponting.

Didn't they travel by the boats those days? Sounds like that form of traveling would be more taxing despite they were playing less games tbh.

 

[watson]

Here'a another thought experiment....

Bradman played in one Bodyline series at home and averaged 56. If his career had mimicked Allan Border's then he would have played in seven of them against the West Indies both home and away.


Was Marshall that much less intimidatory than Larwood? Not really...

Malcolm Marshall to David Boon: "Now David, are you going to get out now or am I going to have to bowl around the wicket and kill you?"

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...6cac663f5?sv=7ffa5393ba577efcc043e77b17e8925c

 

[honestbharani]

Apart from the fact that Bradman's schedule would be packed with ODIs and T20s, and he would be playing 100+ Tests. Bradman would also be expected to tour India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and everywhere else.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the frenetic pace and sheer variety of modern cricket relative to the 1930s would have taken its toll on his average.

So the most likely scenario is that his career would resemble Ponting's. That is, it would contain a significant peak where his average would be 75+, but either side of the peak the bell curve would slowly descend.

However, it is also likely that the difference between the highest and lowest points of the bell-curve would be significantly less so his overall average wouldn't fall away as it did for Ponting.

All well and good but Ponting was not the best batsman of even his own generation.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont like to get caught up in all the arithmetic nonsense. To me, Bradman or someone with the exact same skill sets and mind set, if they were playing today, would be head and shoulders above the rest of the batsmen. Just like he was during his time. End of story.

 

[AndrewB]

I think what strikes me about Bradman is how rapidly innovative he was. You get the sense of a brain working at a different speed tactically than his opponents. The way he'd flip the batting order, handle wet pitches and Bodyline, even the stories of him constantly in his dressing room writing and writing or listening to his phonograph, paints a picture of someone who was different to his peers.

I'm never sure why Bradman's decision to send the tail-enders in first in that 1937 Test seems to be regarded as a brilliant tactical innovation these days. England had done much the same 2 years earlier in the West Indies (starting with Farnes, Smith and Holmes, and keeping back Leyland, Hammond and Wyatt). In the Melbourne Test in 1902, Australia's last 5 in the second innings were Hill, Trumper, Noble, Armstrong and Duff (who between them took the score from 48-5 to 353).

Not to say that Bradman wasn't tactically very astute; Compton describes him as having a "thoughtful, active, penetrating brain" as the captain in 1946-7, and also says how friendly and helpful he was in private discussions about cricket (in contrast to his "ruthless determination to win" in public).

Incidentally, he wasn't regarded as a good batsman on wet pitches in his day; Ray Robinson (generally a big fan of Bradman's batting) devotes a chapter to this topic in "Between Wickets".

 

[mr_mister]

Who were the best batsmen on stickies? Trumper? I know Herbie Taylor was great on matting

 

[Starfighter]

Apart from the fact that Bradman's schedule would be packed with ODIs and T20s, and he would be playing 100+ Tests. Bradman would also be expected to tour India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and everywhere else.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the frenetic pace and sheer variety of modern cricket relative to the 1930s would have taken its toll on his average.

So the most likely scenario is that his career would resemble Ponting's. That is, it would contain a significant peak where his average would be 75+, but either side of the peak the bell curve would slowly descend.

However, it is also likely that the difference between the highest and lowest points of the bell-curve would be significantly less so his overall average wouldn't fall away as it did for Ponting.

Bradman wouldn't necessarily have to play all formats or series you know. Also, the change in pace, at least in test cricket, is overstated. While run rates are faster and fielding is sharper there's simply far less actual cricket per day these days. Modern players might very well struggle to adjust to a game where a whole extra modern session's worth of cricket was played each day. Think about the huge struggle teams often have to complete 90 overs then think about fitting 120 in the same time. It's nearly inconceivable the way cricket is played these days.

Ponting averaged 55.9 across his twenty year, 289 match FC career, while Bradman averaged 95 across his twenty year (actually fifteen-odd due to the war), 234 match FC career. While Bradman would of course play in a larger variety of conditions and face more bowlers these days I don't see why this would suddenly alter his career trajectory into the sort you're describing.
Ponting was about 22 1/2 when he scored his first test century, and he took a while to establish himself in the side. Bradman had broken the test record score by the time he was that age.
I think he'd average less (my own guess is 80-85) in that sort of environment but I don't see how Ponting's career is a basis for deciding that he'd suddenly have a very different progression to what he did.

Here'a another thought experiment....

Bradman played in one Bodyline series at home and averaged 56. If his career had mimicked Allan Border's then he would have played in seven of them against the West Indies both home and away.

Was Marshall that much less intimidatory than Larwood? Not really...

But Bradman could have had a helmet against the WI attack, and with only two fielders allowed back of square on the leg side there would be far more scoring options.

Another thought experiment is to consider whether the WI attack would have succeeded as well with modern over-rate rules and proper enforcement of the intimidatory bowling law? What if the English county over rate rule was adopted internationally? For quite a while (starting late sixties I think) teams were fined if they completed a season with an over rate of less than 18.5 - that's 111 overs a day. Picking four fast bowlers with huge runups wasn't really a viable option.

The simple fact is that there's too many factors to consider.

For the record Peter Heine was saying that sort of thing to batsmen before Marshall was even born.

 

[mr_mister]

And Bradman seems like a typical hypocritical old bastard based on his dispute with Chappell. Did he forget his own famous issues with making a living off cricket in the early 30s

 

[Engle]

Quote Originally Posted by watson
Here'a another thought experiment....

Bradman played in one Bodyline series at home and averaged 56. If his career had mimicked Allan Border's then he would have played in seven of them against the West Indies both home and away.

Was Marshall that much less intimidatory than Larwood? Not really...




Great thought.

The way to compare cricketers across generations, is to consider how far they were above their peers. This would encompass playing conditions, rules, opposition etc
Alan Border was within a smidgen of his peers who averaged over 50 (Gavaskar, Miandad, G.Chappell, V.Richards)

Bradman was above his peers by a much wider margin. So any deterioration of his avg by playing strong opposition would be offset by playing weaker opposition

 

[morgieb]

Who were the best batsmen on stickies? Trumper? I know Herbie Taylor was great on matting

Hammond seems up there from what I understand.

 

[Chrish]

Hobbs, Headley, Sutcliff and Hutton from Bradman's contemporaries.

First two were especially considered as sticky specialists.

 

[AndrewB]

Hobbs's famous innings on sticky wickets include 57 out of 105 (Melbourne 1908), 122 out of 251 (Melbourne 1921), plus his 100 partnerships with Sutcliffe on difficult wickets at The Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1929.

Headley and Hammond both coped well with a sticky in the 1935 Barbados Test: Headley scored 44 out of 102; Hammond 43 out of 81-7 and 29* out of 75-6.

 

[Starfighter]

As far as Trumper and Hutton go,

Trumper's 74 out of 122 at the second test in Melbourne, 1904 was considered one of his most notable wet wicket innings. The next highest score was 18.

Hutton scored 62* out of 122 at Brisbane in 1950, after having been held back to eight for the idea of utilising him when the pitch improved. Freddie Brown with 17 was the only other person to reach double figures.