Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[Richard]

Bowling standards might've declined but any fool can bowl a few short-balls. If it really was a problem for Ganguly he'd not have the record he has. Nor would Stephen Waugh have the record he has if the short-ball really was a problem for him.

 

[Dasa]

I don't understand why people get so worked up when Bradman is criticised. Sure, he was the best ever but that doesn't make him beyond criticism. He had weaknesses just like everyone else....

 

[Slifer]

Amen to that. If u ask me as cricketers he and Sobers are of equal status but that doesnt make them beyond criticism even if he (bradman) was the best at what he did.

 

[vic_orthdox]

'Fast bowler's union' ring any bells? And I've seen footage of Keith Miller being boo'ed by a Victorian crowd for bowling short!

And not just for playing AGAINST Victoria in the first place?

Traitor.

 

[Richard]

I don't understand why people get so worked up when Bradman is criticised. Sure, he was the best ever but that doesn't make him beyond criticism. He had weaknesses just like everyone else....

He did indeed, but to suggest that he'd be a mere mortal in today's World is IMO extremely naive, and I tend to respond scathingly if it's suggested he might be, because IMO he'd be better today than he was in his time. Cricket in general is of a higher standard, so equal talent is likely to equal an even better average - not to mention that batting conditions these days are easier even than they were in the 1930s.

 

[Richard]

Amen to that. If u ask me as cricketers he and Sobers are of equal status but that doesnt make them beyond criticism even if he (bradman) was the best at what he did.

IMO Sobers was a better cricketer than Bradman, but Bradman is so far out ahead in terms of batting it's crazy.

 

[Top_Cat]

And not just for playing AGAINST Victoria in the first place?

Traitor.

It was a Test, dude. Making the boo'ing all the more poignant!

 

[Top_Cat]

Cricket in general is of a higher standard, so equal talent is likely to equal an even better average - not to mention that batting conditions these days are easier even than they were in the 1930s.

Bradman himself said he wouldn't have been as successful and additionally said a big part of it would have been that pitches were far better for batting in his day. His words, not mine.

 

[Slifer]

True!!! Sometimes I believe Bradman is more of a myth than anything else. Also seems as if he was quite a gentleman as well.

 

[Richard]

Bradman himself said he wouldn't have been as successful and additionally said a big part of it would have been that pitches were far better for batting in his day. His words, not mine.

When did he say that?
Given that he died in early 2001 (just before the boom in flat-tracks of the last 5 years) it's doesn't really prove anything. Yes, 1930s tracks probably were better for batting than those in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. But to suggest that they're better than those in the 2000s takes some believing on my part. And of course, Bradman isn't around to comment either way.
I thought Bradman said "mate, I am 70" after that comment, or was it genuinely serious?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Bradman himself said he wouldn't have been as successful and additionally said a big part of it would have been that pitches were far better for batting in his day. His words, not mine.

I think he said that he'd only have done worse because he was now an old man. Could be wrong.

 

[C_C]

I find it ludicrous that people still think that 99 average for a batsman is even a remote possibility outside the amatuer era where the field is a lot closer than it were in the past. WHether he would've adapted or not is pure speculation. But the level of cricket played back then was siginficantly lower than the level of cricket played in the 70s,80s,90s and even today.

 

[Richard]

How many times - it wasn't an "amateur" era.
Most of the best English players were professionals, and the fact that amateurs were sometimes able to hold their own amongst professionals says that they took the thing with sufficient seriousness.

 

[C_C]

How many times - it wasn't an "amateur" era.
Most of the best English players were professionals, and the fact that amateurs were sometimes able to hold their own amongst professionals says that they took the thing with sufficient seriousness.

It WAS an amatuer era. It fits the definition of the word 'amatuer' for the overwhelming BULK of the players in pre 1960s world.
Some amatuers were able to hold their own while some wernt.
The essential thing to realise is that the nature of amatuer era is to have a very widely spread level of competitiveness.
In essence, its Tendulkar, Lara, my granny, your granny, Stuart Williams, etc. kinda distribution in a team (or teams).
As such, the good players massively inflate their figures against pathetic quality players the times they encounter them.
It wouldnt be that challenging for players like Tendulkar or Lara to average 70-80 if the bowling they faced were 'Gillespie, your mom, my mom and Hoggard'.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It WAS an amatuer era. It fits the definition of the word 'amatuer' for the overwhelming BULK of the players in pre 1960s world.
Some amatuers were able to hold their own while some wernt.
The essential thing to realise is that the nature of amatuer era is to have a very widely spread level of competitiveness.
In essence, its Tendulkar, Lara, my granny, your granny, Stuart Williams, etc. kinda distribution in a team (or teams).
As such, the good players massively inflate their figures against pathetic quality players the times they encounter them.
It wouldnt be that challenging for players like Tendulkar or Lara to average 70-80 if the bowling they faced were 'Gillespie, your mom, my mom and Hoggard'.

Well if Bradman had played in a professional era (personally I think he did anyway, but if you insist he didn't), then he would have gained from that, not only his opposition.

So while he'd have faced better opposition, he'd have been even better himself.

I personally think that if he'd played today, he'd have averaged around what he did anyway.

 

[C_C]

Well if Bradman had played in a professional era (personally I think he did anyway, but if you insist he didn't), then he would have gained from that, not only his opposition.

So while he'd have faced better opposition, he'd have been even better himself.

I personally think that if he'd played today, he'd have averaged around what he did anyway.

It is plainly obvious that the bowling attacks of 60s,70s,80s and 90s were distinctly superior to that of the 30s and 40s.
As such, whether Bradman would've made the necessary adjustments to keep a 99 average is highly speculative and in my opinion, extremely unlikely. He still would've finished with a 65-70 average IMO but 99 is laughable - just as laughable as suggesting that Babe Ruth would've been Babe Ruth today or Kareem Abdul Jabbar would be Kareem Abdul Jabbar today.
Simply speaking, professionalism and technology has bunched the field a lot together(and as a result, has also made it a lot more blander) and as such, extremes are FAR less likely today than in the amatuer era. In all sports, the general theme is ' exceptional today is above average tomorrow'.
We can only compare the actual level of games played rather than assume that he/she would've adjusted proportionately. For that often doesnt happen in practicality.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It is plainly obvious that the bowling attacks of 60s,70s,80s and 90s were distinctly superior to that of the 30s and 40s.

That's IMO debatable, but assuming they are, it is due to increased professionalism.

Well, Bradman would have benefitted from increased professionalism too - so if he'd have played today he'd have been a better players than what he was in the 30s and 40s.

 

[GotSpin]

Weren't pitches not covered in those days? So wouldnt pitches be harder to bat on.

 

[C_C]

That's IMO debatable, but assuming they are, it is due to increased professionalism.

Well, Bradman would have benefitted from increased professionalism too - so if he'd have played today he'd have been a better players than what he was in the 30s and 40s.

No it is not debatable IMO.
Larwood was nowhere near the bowler Lillee/Marshall/Holding/Imran etc. were.
You are assuming that Bradman would've adjusted no problems...just as much of an assumption that Newton would've understood Quantum physics.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Weren't pitches not covered in those days? So wouldnt pitches be harder to bat on.

They weren't, no.