Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[Tom Halsey]

You are assuming that Bradman would've adjusted no problems...just as much of an assumption that Newton would've understood Quantum physics.

I don't see why the bowlers would have adjusted and Bradman wouldn't...

 

[C_C]

I don't see why the bowlers would have adjusted and Bradman wouldn't...

I dont assume that the bowlers would've adjusted either.
i think the standard of the game was lower back then and EVERY player would've taken a hit to their averages..... including Bradman...he would still be the best ever bat but i dont think he would've averaged over 65-70 in 70s/80s/90s/today.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I dont assume that the bowlers would've adjusted either.
i think the standard of the game was lower back then and EVERY player would've taken a hit to their averages..... including Bradman...he would still be the best ever bat but i dont think he would've averaged over 65-70 in 70s/80s/90s/today.

I think you missed my point a bit.

I don't see why the bowlers were better in the 60s and 70s (due to professionalism) and hence were better in the 60s and 70s than they would have been had they played in the 30s - but Bradman wouldn't have improved in the 60s and 70s, he'd have been the same as if he'd played in the 30s.

I know I really haven't worded that well, but I can't think of a better way.

 

[Francis]

I might do an actual argument in a second. The guy above me is right about bowling...

Anyway...

-Bradman averaged over 50 in the bodyline series. Not only does that mean that if that series had have been played fairly, his average (since he only played 52 tests) would have gone up considerably). You can talk about pitches, you can talk about standards of the time, but when all you can do is hit the ball one side where there's 9 fielders and you average over 50 you have placement and ability. It doesn't matter about the quality of bowler when you use bodyline, you just need to aim at the body. I can't see any of todays bowlers averaging over 50 in that situation. We're not talking about trying to make room because your not aiming at the stumps, your aiming at the body... there's only one way to go.

-Bradman played with a major health problem, forget what, in the last 30s I think. He struggled of course. My point is that had he kept good health, a health he regained as the tour went on, he would've had an even higher average. I mean he averaged around 95 against England... but that average would have been much higher most likely if not for certain things.

-It doesn't matter what pitch you play on, batting takes great mental dicipline. Batsmen get 100s all the time and then decide to hit out, or they'll just plain get out. It's incredibly hard to continue to concentrate hour after hour. Sometimes your worst enemy is yourself.
To have the desire to get so many double-hundreds as Bradman did was amazing.

-You can take some of the greatest ever and put them in domestic comps and they wont do any better despite better competition. Standards are overrated because batsmen who make 100s in domestic competitions often make 100s in internationals. Guys who makes doubles get doubles. Look at many of your greats, and they're figures from beneath competitions is no better. Again, it often comes down to yourself. Viv Richards often got bored when he made centuries and would just go crazy. I like what Mark Nichols said, you can't talk about standards, but getting 100 for your school side everytime takes effort. I mean even when things are going right for you, complacentcy can ruin you. Boredom can too. Bradman had a veracious appitite for runs.

-Yes some pitches were good. But pitches weren't covered back in those days so if there was bad weather, you were in trouble. Jack Hobbs especially was renound for making runs on wickets that did crazy things. You underrate the pitches back then, they could do many things.

-Bowlers were'nt slow back then either. Guys like Larwood weren't bad bowlers. O'Rielly was seen by Bradman as the greatest ever. Grimmitt did well too. Miller and Lindwall are others. In fact Australia had plenty of great bowlers. Maybe bowling standards are seen as bad back then because England's bowlers couldn't get past Bradman. If Tendulkar was all Warne played most of the time, he'd be in trouble. Players in the 50s and 60s who we rate will often say they weren't as good as say, O'Rielly. Benaud loved O'Rielly and Benaud may have had it harder than he.

 

[C_C]

I think you missed my point a bit.

I don't see why the bowlers were better in the 60s and 70s (due to professionalism) and hence were better in the 60s and 70s than they would have been had they played in the 30s - but Bradman wouldn't have improved in the 60s and 70s, he'd have been the same as if he'd played in the 30s.

I know I really haven't worded that well, but I can't think of a better way.

No i understood it the first time around.
However, a batsman plays off the bowling. The quality of the contest matters, which is why FC average isnt valued as highly as Test average.
In Bradman's days, many of the bowlers he beat up upon wouldnt have made decent FC sides today...ofcourse there were some marvellous bowlers around as well. But the mere fact that the field quality was much more diluted ( owing to amatuer era having very little professionalism) makes all the players take a hit in performance when playing in the subsequent eras of much higher quality cricket.
As such, like in other sports, the amatuers would be 'brought down a notch or two' from whatver their performance was by the professionals.

 

[C_C]

-Bradman averaged over 50 in the bodyline series. Not only does that mean that if that series had have been played fairly, his average (since he only played 52 tests) would have gone up considerably). You can talk about pitches, you can talk about standards of the time, but when all you can do is hit the ball one side where there's 9 fielders and you average over 50 you have placement and ability. It doesn't matter about the quality of bowler when you use bodyline, you just need to aim at the body. I can't see any of todays bowlers averaging over 50 in that situation. We're not talking about trying to make room because your not aiming at the stumps, your aiming at the body... there's only one way to go.

Ummm.. you EVER seen 'pace like fire' ? or Lillee-Thommo bowling round the wicket to yer body ? I would face down bodyline series any day of the week over the WI four prong bowling round the wicket aimed for yer head or Lillee-thommo barrage or a few times in the late 80s when Imran-Wasim or Wasim-Waqar 'turned it on'.
The effects of bodyline are massively exgaggerated compared to similar tactics often used much later by far more competent bowling units, simply because the 'first incident always sticks to the mind'.

 

[Francis]

Pfft, there were still more oppotunities to score against the West Indies and Lillee/Thomo. I don't think you get the point. Bodyline wasn't just about express pace bowled at the body, it was about what the batsman could do. Batsmen need to score runs and there's only one place to hit the ball. If they moved to the side to try and make room, the bowler would follow the body and not the wicket. Intimidating bowling can be great and effective, but there are always oppotunities to score. That's my point, bodyline gave you no where to score and yet Bradman averaged over 50.

The effects of bodyline are massively exgaggerated compared to similar tactics often used much later by far more competent bowling units, simply because the 'first incident always sticks to the mind'.

Not even close. Not even remotely close. Dennis Lillee was the godfather of intimidating bowling and if he hurt somebody he felt they'd be scared to use their feet since they're thinking about that last delivery. Batsman still had chances to score. Bradman had no where to go.

 

[C_C]

I will make this simple.

I would rather have Larwood bowling for my head with fielders all huddled around than Michael Holding bowling for my head with fielders all around.

I've read extensively about Bodyline and i've seen the WI bowling from the 80s. I would face bodyline any day of the week.
bodyline's notoreity is because of the ruthlessness displayed in times when cricket was played at a much lower intensity and it being the first instance of such intimidatory bowling.

But the effect of 4 great fast bowlers bowling for your head over in and over out of the callibre of Holding,Garner, Marshall,Roberts, Croft, Ambrose,etc. are far far more lethal than bodyline IMO.

 

[Tom Halsey]

In Bradman's days, many of the bowlers he beat up upon wouldnt have made decent FC sides today...

Yes they would, because they'd have benefitted from greater professionalism, etc, just like Bradman would've.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I will make this simple.

I would rather have Larwood bowling for my head with fielders all huddled around than Michael Holding bowling for my head with fielders all around.

I've read extensively about Bodyline and i've seen the WI bowling from the 80s. I would face bodyline any day of the week.
bodyline's notoreity is because of the ruthlessness displayed in times when cricket was played at a much lower intensity and it being the first instance of such intimidatory bowling.

But the effect of 4 great fast bowlers bowling for your head over in and over out of the callibre of Holding,Garner, Marshall,Roberts, Croft, Ambrose,etc. are far far more lethal than bodyline IMO.

I agree with this.

But just because bowling wasn't as intimidatory doesn't mean it wasn't as good.

 

[C_C]

Yes they would, because they'd have benefitted from greater professionalism, etc, just like Bradman would've.

No. Higher the quality of the game, fewer are the ones who 'make the cut'.
That is the automatic conclusion about higher quality...

 

[Tom Halsey]

No. Higher the quality of the game, fewer are the ones who 'make the cut'.
That is the automatic conclusion about higher quality...

You don't get it.

They may not have been great by 60s standards, but they didn't have the professionalism of 60s standards. If they had have, they'd have been as good.

 

[Francis]

I would rather have Larwood bowling for my head with fielders all huddled around than Michael Holding bowling for my head with fielders all around.

I would too. But bodyline wasn't about injuring batsmen, it was about a leg-side field. Injuring batsman still happens today. The ball isn't going to be hit and more on the leg side if the bowler is faster. There's no great skill... you don't need faster guys... just somebody who's fast enough to prevent the batter from getting room... in fast not even that. Just somebody fast enough so all the batsman can instinctually do is hit leg-side.

bodyline's notoreity is because of the ruthlessness displayed in times when cricket was played at a much lower intensity and it being the first instance of such intimidatory bowling.

Ian Chappell's team were more intimidatory and people will never forget Lillee/Thompson. Bradman himself said the problem wasn't intimidation... I'm repeating myself, it had little to do with intimidation... it was about only having one place to hit the ball. It's an impossible situation. There's only one option.

But the effect of 4 great fast bowlers bowling for your head over in and over out of the callibre of Holding,Garner, Marshall,Roberts, Croft, Ambrose,etc. are far far more lethal than bodyline IMO.

How? You still have options. Batsmen are happy to duck and weave because they know there's other options to score off. It's not even a debate in my mind. One method was used to intimidate but have you options to score, you could even hit leg side if you were given a bouncer and not fear getting caught. The other one is about a dumbing down strategy that took away the purity of cricket and made it a 1-D game. No options to score.

 

[C_C]

You don't get it.

They may not have been great by 60s standards, but they didn't have the professionalism of 60s standards. If they had have, they'd have been as good.

Okay lets put it this way.
Think of it like an exam. Before the passng grade to graduation was 40%. Now its raised to 50%. Less people will pass now than before.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Okay lets put it this way.
Think of it like an exam. Before the passng grade to graduation was 40%. Now its raised to 50%. Less people will pass now than before.

You still don't get my point.

My comeback to that was that as it moves up to 50% over time, so over time would quality of education, so roughly the same number of people would still pass.

 

[C_C]

Ian Chappell's team were more intimidatory and people will never forget Lillee/Thompson. Bradman himself said the problem wasn't intimidation... I'm repeating myself, it had little to do with intimidation... it was about only having one place to hit the ball. It's an impossible situation. There's only one option.

Umm dude. You can pack the legside with all 9 fielders and get a patsy bowler to bowl for yer head and most players will hook ya into oblivion.

Fielding positions are a matter of secondary importance to quality bowling.
You bowl a half volley and a quality batsman will hammer it 9 times outta 10 despite how much ya pack the offside.

 

[Francis]

Umm dude. You can pack the legside with all 9 fielders and get a patsy bowler to bowl for yer head and most players will hook ya into oblivion.

All you need is somebody fast enough for you to act instinctually. Larwood was that. Even if you wanted to hook for six, I don't care who's batting, if a captain puts three fielders on the boundary that becomes hard to split. Six in the in-field is bad enough... let alone 7-8.

Fielding positions are a matter of secondary importance to quality bowling.

Not when there's only one place one can hit the ball. This, my friend, is the real reason why bodyline didn't continue. It put less of an emphisase on skill and bowling and strategy. It took away the grace and art of batting. Made it boring and simple.

You bowl a half volley and a quality batsman will hammer it 9 times outta 10 despite how much ya pack the offside.

Who said anything about a half volley? Certainly not Douglas Jardine. Did the English bowlers even bowl a half volley in bodyline aside from the occasional slip? You bowl short and into the body at a fast pace and all you can do is hook or pull. Half volleys had no place in bodyline.

 

[luckyeddie]

I will make this simple.

I would rather have Larwood bowling for my head with fielders all huddled around than Michael Holding bowling for my head with fielders all around.

I've read extensively about Bodyline and i've seen the WI bowling from the 80s. I would face bodyline any day of the week.
bodyline's notoreity is because of the ruthlessness displayed in times when cricket was played at a much lower intensity and it being the first instance of such intimidatory bowling.

But the effect of 4 great fast bowlers bowling for your head over in and over out of the callibre of Holding,Garner, Marshall,Roberts, Croft, Ambrose,etc. are far far more lethal than bodyline IMO.

I'd like to see you face Larwood with 7 short legs, no helmet and a rolled-up newspaper for a thigh pad.

You really haven't got a clue what you are rabbiting on about.

 

[marc71178]

Okay lets put it this way.
Think of it like an exam. Before the passng grade to graduation was 40%. Now its raised to 50%. Less people will pass now than before.

So there's less FC teams around now then there was 50 years ago then is there?

Don't think so.

 

[C_C]

Umm dude. You can pack the legside with all 9 fielders and get a patsy bowler to bowl for yer head and most players will hook ya into oblivion.

All you need is somebody fast enough for you to act instinctually. Larwood was that. Even if you wanted to hook for six, I don't care who's batting, if a captain puts three fielders on the boundary that becomes hard to split. Six in the in-field is bad enough... let alone 7-8.

Umm...you ever seen/heard of Sobers hooking ? All along the turf.
Tendy mostly hooks it along the turf too.
Like i said, i would rather face Lee bowling bouncers at my head with the legside packed than Holding bowling bouncers at my head with no legside fielding.
And every single ball bowled was not a bouncer either - most of the wickets fell to offside play, signifying that the leg theory tactic was nothing more than trying to intimidate batsmen through the notion of bodily harm and then mixing it around a bit to outfox him. Some fell to the legside, most to the offside.
And that kind of tactics has been done many times since by bowlers far superior in quality to Larwood.