Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[Migara]

And he would today have the advantage of a rule which prevents beastly Englishmen from bowling in a manner that made him get all upset

But the lbw law which allows balls pitched outside the line of off claim victims.

 

[archie mac]

I think advantages work both way

Bradman now for: helmet, better pads, chest guards, coaching, bigger better bats, shorter boundaries,

Bradman now against: better ground fielding (not so sure about catching), more quality bowlers especially fast bowling, video evidence, more series (fatigue).

Modern Player for in Bradman's day: less quality fast bowling, LBW law that allowed balls only pitching stump to stump to be out LBW (changed 1936), far more rest time. No LBW for not offering a shot.

Modern Player against in Bradman's day: uncovered pitches, much more quality spin bowlers, poorer bats, no helmets, less medical help.

I will have missed a few

 

[Burgey]

Bradman faced only few legendary bowlers. It's legendary bowlers who nail down legendary batsmen. I can only think of Larwood in that league. There were few very good bowlers like Voce, Verity etc. But no one close to the class of Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, McGarth, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Imran and Lillee in pace department and Warne and Murali in spin department. Even second string lot like Walsh, Bishop, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Botham, Thompson, Kapil, Kumble, Harbhajan, Saqlain etc were very impressive and had lot more things to offer when the rolled their arms over.

But having said that, Bradan still will be at the top of the table. Possibly averaging around 70. But averaging 99 in an era which had seen most number of legendary bowlers is close to impossible.

Small point.

Garner was by no means second string (and I know you weren't being derogatory at all). His record is incredible tbh.

 

[Migara]

Modern Player against in Bradman's day: uncovered pitches, much more quality spin bowlers, poorer bats, no helmets, less medical help.

Can you name a few that were better than Warne and Murali that he played against?

 

[Manee]

Well there's 'quick', then there's Tait against South Africa in the T20 last year, where a batsman of AB De Villiers' class is knocked clean over onto his stumps before he has a chance to move.

To me, it looked far more dramatic than that. It looked like he was struck on the hip and thought "I can't go on!" and knocked the bails over. At least, that is how I like to think of it.

 

[silentstriker]

If you grew up in the helmet era, facing quicks on uncovered pitches without a helmet would be absolutely brutal.

 

[aussie]

I think advantages work both way

Bradman now for: helmet, better pads, chest guards, coaching, bigger better bats, shorter boundaries,

Bradman now against: better ground fielding (not so sure about catching), more quality bowlers especially fast bowling, video evidence, more series (fatigue).

Modern Player for in Bradman's day: less quality fast bowling, LBW law that allowed balls only pitching stump to stump to be out LBW (changed 1936), far more rest time. No LBW for not offering a shot.

Modern Player against in Bradman's day: uncovered pitches, much more quality spin bowlers, poorer bats, no helmets, less medical help.

I will have missed a few

I was always under the impreesion this rule didn't change unitl the late 50s or early 60s TBH. Since for example in that famous partnership between May & Cowdrey vs WI in 1957, i have read that May was padding up to deliveries to Ramadin & Valentine in the old LBW where under the current LBW law he would/could have been out alot earlier in his 285 not out.

 

[NUFAN]

Can you name a few that were better than Warne and Murali that he played against?

I wonder what sorts of figures bowlers would have from the 30s if they didn't have to bowl to the king, Don Bradman? Surely he wrecked a few talented bowlers careers..

 

[zaremba]

Can you name a few that were better than Warne and Murali that he played against?

Verity on uncovered wickets may well have been as much of a handful as them. Or not far off.

 

[The_roc]

I think advantages work both way

Bradman now for: helmet, better pads, chest guards, coaching, bigger better bats, shorter boundaries,

Bradman now against: better ground fielding (not so sure about catching), more quality bowlers especially fast bowling, video evidence, more series (fatigue).

Modern Player for in Bradman's day: less quality fast bowling, LBW law that allowed balls only pitching stump to stump to be out LBW (changed 1936), far more rest time. No LBW for not offering a shot.

Modern Player against in Bradman's day: uncovered pitches, much more quality spin bowlers, poorer bats, no helmets, less medical help.

I will have missed a few

Can I add a couple more;

1) Tactics - you hear people talking about a Bradman innings and when he was 250 not out they still had 3 slips and a gulley. These days they would put the field back and give him a single and bowl to the other guy.

2) Technology - Every innings a batsman plays these days is analysed by the opposition using video replay. All weaknesses are found out and bowling / field placing adjusted to suit.


Regarding the original thread; 100mph most likely down the side? give me Glenn McGrath any time.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I wonder what sorts of figures bowlers would have from the 30s if they didn't have to bowl to the king, Don Bradman? Surely he wrecked a few talented bowlers careers..

Would surely even out given that the average batting and bowling averages from then aren't too different to nowadays.

 

[archie mac]

Can you name a few that were better than Warne and Murali that he played against?

Sorry I was not trying to say that spinners were better just that there were more quality spin bowlers. The same as the great fast bowlers of Bradman's time were imo as good as the best today, but there were not as many.

So although they were not better then Warne or Murali or a few others there were more quality spinners around, and most sides had at least 2-3.

One thing is that Warne and Murali do not know how to bowl on uncovered pitches

I was always under the impreesion this rule didn't change unitl the late 50s or early 60s TBH. Since for example in that famous partnership between May & Cowdrey vs WI in 1957, i have read that May was padding up to deliveries to Ramadin & Valentine in the old LBW where under the current LBW law he would/could have been out alot earlier in his 285 not out.

The rule you refer to is the not playing a shot rule. so that May and MCC could just pad up to balls that hit them out side the line. Interesting that for the series in Aust 1970-71 they went back to the old law, not sure why though

 

[archie mac]

Can I add a couple more;

1) Tactics - you hear people talking about a Bradman innings and when he was 250 not out they still had 3 slips and a gulley. These days they would put the field back and give him a single and bowl to the other guy.

2) Technology - Every innings a batsman plays these days is analysed by the opposition using video replay. All weaknesses are found out and bowling / field placing adjusted to suit.


Regarding the original thread; 100mph most likely down the side? give me Glenn McGrath any time.

Yes good points. Just on McGrath (I have made the point before) I wonder how the old pros would have played him? By leaving everything outside the off stump, and padding away anything that looked like swinging back in, would have been interesting. Although I am sure GMc would have found another way

 

[Richard]

Can I add a couple more;

1) Tactics - you hear people talking about a Bradman innings and when he was 250 not out they still had 3 slips and a gulley. These days they would put the field back and give him a single and bowl to the other guy.

2) Technology - Every innings a batsman plays these days is analysed by the opposition using video replay. All weaknesses are found out and bowling / field placing adjusted to suit.

I love the way people think technological advances benefit only bowlers. Batsmen can use it to every bit as much effect.

Anyway the intimate study of technique via video is only a very, very recent thing - last ~decade or so. Bob Woolmer and John Buchanan were the instigators of that. They are no use, either, without the skill to put into practice what you can learn by use of video footage.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes good points. Just on McGrath (I have made the point before) I wonder how the old pros would have played him? By leaving everything outside the off stump, and padding away anything that looked like swinging back in, would have been interesting. Although I am sure GMc would have found another way

Would've been interesting, but I don't think it's that easy. Even if you tell yourself to leave everything outside off-stump it's very hard to do when it's coming back in. They probably could've batted on middle though anyway with the old law. They'd be leaving a hell of a lot of balls though.

 

[Streetwise]

Yes good points. Just on McGrath (I have made the point before) I wonder how the old pros would have played him? By leaving everything outside the off stump, and padding away anything that looked like swinging back in, would have been interesting. Although I am sure GMc would have found another way

Mcgrath had a wonderful knack of probing a batsman with a good length ball. Once he had the length and with his experience would only take a couple of balls he would then find the exact spot that particular batsman would be in two minds about leaving or playing the ball. The most precise player I have ever watched.

 

[Debris]

Definition of bull****.

If you look at any game in which both Lee and Aktar played, Lee was always quicker. Maybe Aktar was put off by the opposition. Not sure about Tait being faster again though.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well there's 'quick', then there's Tait against South Africa in the T20 last year, where a batsman of AB De Villiers' class is knocked clean over onto his stumps before he has a chance to move.

Don't think that's much of an indication, tbh. Tait would be hard to pick up and the other night, in the midst of a lightning spell, Imran Farhat and Kamran Akmal swiped a couple of mid 150's balls down the ground (although, obv, they missed a few!). Have seen Tait scare several lives out of batters with balls in the mid 140's and look rank in the mid 150's. Similarly, I've seen McGrath hurry guys with 'lightning' quick balls in the mid 130's.

From my perspective, so many things go into a truly quick spell than pace out of the hand. Agree with BoyBrumby on this one.

As for the thread question, yeah reckon he'll go past Akhtar by 0.2 Km/h or something stupidly small (probably well within the error bounds of both measurements ) thereby solving absolutely nothing in terms of who's quicker.

Personally reckon the speed thing proves even less than that. I mean, ****, there are a few bowlers I can think of I'd back to stop the speedgun at some scary speeds if they had carte blanche to do so and 2-over spells. Good on Tait for maximising his cricket as a T20 specialist but I reckon there'd be bugger-all average speed-wise between he and, say, Akhtar at his peak if he had to bowl 20 overs in a day again.

 

[Uppercut]

McGrath didn't often beat a batsman with raw pace though. There was a bit of bounce, a bit of seam movement. Tait beats batsmen purely by bowling really, really fast.

I think there's a visible difference between Tait, Lee, Akhtar and pretty much any other bowler. You don't really see top-class batsmen regularly beaten for pure pace by anyone else. Picking the speedgun differences between them is pretty pointless, but there's definitely a difference between 90~mph bowlers (reached by players like Stuart Broad and Ben Hilfenhaus in certain spells) and the true express bowlers.

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath didn't often beat a batsman with raw pace though. There was a bit of bounce, a bit of seam movement. Tait beats batsmen purely by bowling really, really fast.

I think there's a visible difference between Tait, Lee, Akhtar and pretty much any other bowler. You don't really see top-class batsmen regularly beaten for pure pace by anyone else. Picking the speedgun differences between them is pretty pointless, but there's definitely a difference between 90~mph bowlers (reached by players like Stuart Broad and Ben Hilfenhaus in certain spells) and the true express bowlers.

TBH, I don't agree. I have seen batters very late on the ball or miss by miles to guys the speedgun says they shouldn't. Reckon Curtly's seam movement gave him an extra 10Km/h visually, for example.

Plus, the way you approach playing someone bowling 145Km/h and another 10Km/h quicker should technically be pretty much be the same. They might get the occasional through one with your name on it but the balls in between, I'd doubt a batsman's approach would change.

Again, for me, the speed from the hand isn't the only factor here. Akhtar's quick ball to Knight he played with relatively little fuss and he went for 8 an over that day. What 'beats' the batsman, for mine, is the combo of speed out of the hand + seam + the right pitch, etc.