Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
I'm not certain about that. I think you cheapen the past players landon. I think you instantly denigrate anyone pre 70's without factoring in certain variables. I think you do this as a wind-up.
_____________________________________________ Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
So who are all the other batsmen from his era with inflated averages?
It's not like he'll put a decent reply forward. I remember the 1st time he did it, under the guise of 'Harriet Potter' and he got a grilling in which he replied poorly. I'm surprised as many have replied this time.
Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
I'm not certain about that. I think you cheapen the past players landon. I think you instantly denigrate anyone pre 70's without factoring in certain variables. I think you do this as a wind-up.
I'm not trying to cheapen players but my point is that when you play against variety of different players you tend to struggle than only against a small number of same players. I have great respect to Sir Don but I genuinely believe that had he played against varies types of different bowlers with diffrent abilities he would've struggled. I stand by my point.
Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
I'm not certain about that. I think you cheapen the past players landon. I think you instantly denigrate anyone pre 70's without factoring in certain variables. I think you do this as a wind-up.
I'm not trying to cheapen players but my point is that when you play against variety of different players you tend to struggle than only against a small number of same players. I have great respect to Sir Don but I genuinely believe that had he played against varies types of different bowlers with diffrent abilities he would've struggled. I stand by my point.
Yes, because he played against the exact same bowlers for his entire 20 year Test career
More like 70% of his games against the same opposition. And as they were the strongest opponents he could face at that time it is more of strength than a weakness on Bradman's part.
But I don't think Bradman would have averaged as much if he'd played in a different era. The 30's were the best time to be a batsman in cricket history. Also the mentality was different then, if a batsman hit a string of boundaries the reaction was more, well played lets see if you can do it again rather than the captain setting a load of sweepers back on the boundary and telling the bowler to bowl a negative line.
Originally posted by landon: I'm not trying to cheapen players but my point is that when you play against variety of different players you tend to struggle than only against a small number of same players. I have great respect to Sir Don but I genuinely believe that had he played against varies types of different bowlers with diffrent abilities he would've struggled. I stand by my point.
He played against many bowlers of all different styles. I think you're doing the old players a disservice. The only different types now are an offie who chucks and reverse swingers. As there were natural inswing bowlers at the time, the only thing that would've tricked him would be the shiny side of the ball and had he this modern analysis I'm sure he'd have worked it out....
Originally posted by landon: I'm not trying to cheapen players but my point is that when you play against variety of different players you tend to struggle than only against a small number of same players. I have great respect to Sir Don but I genuinely believe that had he played against varies types of different bowlers with diffrent abilities he would've struggled. I stand by my point.
He played against many bowlers of all different styles. I think you're doing the old players a disservice. The only different types now are an offie who chucks and reverse swingers. As there were natural inswing bowlers at the time, the only thing that would've tricked him would be the shiny side of the ball and had he this modern analysis I'm sure he'd have worked it out....
Do you really think he would've fared well against a battery of 4 fast bowlers in tandom with a tactic similar to the bodyline series, in Windies?
Originally posted by landon: I think Bradman would've averaged far lower, had he played against the likes of Ambrose, Wasim, Waquar, Walsh, Marshall & Murali!
So who are all the other batsmen from his era with inflated averages?
1920's / 30's Batting Averages:
97.94 Don Bradman 67.25 Len Hutton 66.71 George Headley 61.45 Wally Hammond 60.73 Herbert Sutcliffe 59.23 Eddie Paynter 58.50 Phil Mead 56.63 Jack Hobbs 55.00 Ernest Tyldesley
When you consider that no batsman has managed to average over 61 (bar Bradman) and only very few over 55, then the batting averages from this era was very high.
The point i'm trying to make is Bradman was quite clearly the best, and by some margin. Though his average would be mabe a little inflated, in other eras with more conservative field placings and helpful wickets his average might have been nearer 75 than 100. Still undisbutably the best bat of all time.
Originally posted by landon: Do you really think he would've fared well against a battery of 4 fast bowlers in tandom with a tactic similar to the bodyline series, in Windies?
Maybe, maybe not. It's nigh on impossible to say. If he'd have played in the modern era, he'd have been more used to playing short-pitched bowling. He picked the ball out of the hand well and picked the length straight away so he'd have had the best chance. Seeming as he was so far above his comtemporaries he must've been something special that'd span any era.
Originally posted by landon: Do you really think he would've fared well against a battery of 4 fast bowlers in tandom with a tactic similar to the bodyline series, in Windies?
Maybe, maybe not. It's nigh on impossible to say. If he'd have played in the modern era, he'd have been more used to playing short-pitched bowling. He picked the ball out of the hand well and picked the length straight away so he'd have had the best chance. Seeming as he was so far above his comtemporaries he must've been something special that'd span any era.
He was famed for his pull shot, so I guess it would have got him a lot of runs.
Bodyline had about 7 fielders set either catching or back on the boundary on the legside, so there was no value in the pull shot. But when those WI bowlers played you were only allowed 2 fielders behind square on the legside.
Originally posted by The One: bradman is over-rated. i bet he cant score a run against the present bangladesh u-19s
That's it TO ... you've just lit the touch paper for the Aussies to climb into the debate which dares to belittle their hero !! I mean really ... the Bangladesh U-19's ...
I still maintain that Dougie Jardine had Bradman sussed - pity was that all the Oz sooking at the time got the Scot hounded out of cricket by those so called "gentlemen of Lord's" specifically the goon, GO Allen. I agree in principle with landon however - Bradman may well have struggled with the constant 90mph barrage from the likes of Holding, Marshall et al bowling all day long in tandem during those torrid 70's! But take nothing away from the man, The Don must have been something special as practically all accounts from that era testify to that fact.
Overated man in history, just like everything else that was those days. This man played the same opposition for almost 70% of his test career. Never toured India, played in an era for "gents". There was no sledging apart from Santa, no bouncers, and when a bowler bowled, it had to almost come to the bat. There was no trickery like the dreaded 14.99 degree Doosra, the inswinging yorkers, reverse swing and etc. A batsman's average doesn't merely state his greatness.
I remember wating the "great Don" bat on some archive footage.....it was strange. Fielders claaping in unison, crowd cheering, women serving their cream cakes and etc. It was a very soft era ..............There was hardly any hardcore in your face cricket. That kind of aggressiveness was frowned upon by the stiff upper lipped crowds. He played in an era where the white man dominated the sporting organisations and hence he very cleverly opted out of the subbieland.
I suppose he was the greatest Ashes batsman of his era. Nothing more and nothing else!
