Not working with BD, although we did manage a few beers together at the very end of Tasmania's last Pura season, and he showed me around the Bellerive Oval and its cricket museum. Statues of Boonie, etc, you know, they only carved one head.
We've not seen much of one another - opposite ends of the island. Have run into ccc, though, and enjoyed nets, beers, meals.
you teaching/working in Japan again, or just holidaying?
Originally posted by Josh Carney: With the passage of time athletes are getting stronger and better. One only needs to see how the times have been coming down with athletics, swimming etc. Same can be said with Tennis. For example a player with a top game in the eighties would struggle with the same game if he competed against today's best. It is hard go compare sportsmen from any era to another. Bradman with his numbers was clearly the best in his era but whether his 99 is equivalent to 90 or 80 0r 70 in today's context is debatable.
And in 100 years won't people be even fitter stronger and taller?
Does that mean tendulkar and lara will be called crap because they played now and not then?
If bradman was born today he would have the natural talent and the modern know how wouldn't he?
Back working. One of our company's offshoots has merged with another entity and I am the new director. Lots of Japanese and foreign staff who are still wondering what this bl00dy Aussie is doing in charge.
(BTW, how many heads did Big Dog have . . . I'm thinking Cerberus?)
Trumper practised on wet wickets - he asked for a net pitch to be watered specially.
Bradman was fairly notoriously indifferent on stickies,and this alone prompted some old judges, not all English, to prefer Hobbs or Trumper as the best ever.
Trumper did have two other magnificent series - agaist England in 2003-04, and again against South Africa in 1911-12. In between he was often in poor health, and his game perhaps depended more than most on physical fitness.
So, does anyone reckon anyone will ever come close to Bradman's average in the future? Or will this record stand forever?[quote]Bradman wasn't the greatest batsman
Like Jim Lakers 19 for 90 at OT in '56, DGB's average will never be topped.
quote:
Neil Armstrong was not the first man to land on the moon The sun rises in the west
Originally posted by the tactician: Sorry guys, this thread was meant as a p1ss take at all the previous threads trying to run down Bradman's achievement.
BTW, hello to Lardy, Tailender and a few others from the old ABC forum. I'm back in Japan now.
Bajaysus taccy, you had a few of us thinking you were Lord Lagaan there old bean. Hope you are in fine form.
Originally posted by Josh Carney: With the passage of time athletes are getting stronger and better. One only needs to see how the times have been coming down with athletics, swimming etc. Same can be said with Tennis. For example a player with a top game in the eighties would struggle with the same game if he competed against today's best. It is hard go compare sportsmen from any era to another. Bradman with his numbers was clearly the best in his era but whether his 99 is equivalent to 90 or 80 0r 70 in today's context is debatable.
And in 100 years won't people be even fitter stronger and taller?
Does that mean tendulkar and lara will be called crap because they played now and not then?
If bradman was born today he would have the natural talent and the modern know how wouldn't he?
All Iam saying is the it is hard to compare one set of numbers from one era to another. Take tennis for example in the 50s 60s it was virtual duopoly between USA and Australia. Since then many more strong contenders have comeon and hence now a different field of play. Also the game has become more power based. With Cricket as well though not in the same terms there are more strong contenders now like Pakistan, India, SL who were either not at all in the game or just also rans in the earlier eras. WI's glory days and the fearsome pacers were all in the later eras. Also these days players play much more cricket, around 100 days of international cricket on an average. Sometimes visiting teams get 2 days lead up before a test match. Test matches have limited time meaning that time consiousness may lead to different tactics. And lastly there is a big difference between the amatuer era and these days in term so how much money is at stake and how that could get more people to play the game differently.
So to me Bradman was clearly head and shoulders above in his era but hard to make any definitive conclusions and comparisons with players from another. To me it it is even hard to compare a Border with a Ponting.
Originally posted by Josh Carney: With the passage of time athletes are getting stronger and better. One only needs to see how the times have been coming down with athletics, swimming etc. Same can be said with Tennis. For example a player with a top game in the eighties would struggle with the same game if he competed against today's best. It is hard go compare sportsmen from any era to another. Bradman with his numbers was clearly the best in his era but whether his 99 is equivalent to 90 or 80 0r 70 in today's context is debatable.
And in 100 years won't people be even fitter stronger and taller?
Does that mean tendulkar and lara will be called crap because they played now and not then?
If bradman was born today he would have the natural talent and the modern know how wouldn't he?
All Iam saying is the it is hard to compare one set of numbers from one era to another. Take tennis for example in the 50s 60s it was virtual duopoly between USA and Australia. Since then many more strong contenders have comeon and hence now a different field of play. Also the game has become more power based. With Cricket as well though not in the same terms there are more strong contenders now like Pakistan, India, SL who were either not at all in the game or just also rans in the earlier eras. WI's glory days and the fearsome pacers were all in the later eras. Also these days players play much more cricket, around 100 days of international cricket on an average. Sometimes visiting teams get 2 days lead up before a test match. Test matches have limited time meaning that time consiousness may lead to different tactics. And lastly there is a big difference between the amatuer era and these days in term so how much money is at stake and how that could get more people to play the game differently.
So to me Bradman was clearly head and shoulders above in his era but hard to make any definitive conclusions and comparisons with players from another. To me it it is even hard to compare a Border with a Ponting.
Totally agree with Josh .... heck even the Rules and playing conditions are not the same to be able to make a comparison.
But it's very hard to argue with the fact that Bradman dominated the game in his day, over a sustained period, in a manner that nobody has been able to do before or since.
Originally posted by Zat: But it's very hard to argue with the fact that Bradman dominated the game in his day, over a sustained period, in a manner that nobody has been able to do before or since.
So, given that, it's highly likely that given access to similar preparation, training and conditions to today's players, he probably would have been better than today's lot.
Originally posted by Zat: So, given that, it's highly likely that given access to similar preparation, training and conditions to today's players, he probably would have been better than today's lot.
That is speculation he may he may not hard to say. To me the the amateur and pro eras make a big difference. How well one does in his discipline also depends on how well the opponents let him do it. For eg. Could you have ever imagined an underarm incident in the amateur era ? The so called Gentleman's game is really not that anymore. It requires a different set of skills to counter some of the stuff going around these days.
Originally posted by Gary_86: 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.
This whole thread is so stupid it barely warrants a reply, but the idea that it was easier in test cricket in the thirties is laughable. How many runs do you think he'd score against the Zimboks or Banglas in today's era. Or what about the 50's, when India, NZ and Pak were all minnows. I'll concede that playing against the best Windies sides of the 80's his average may have dropped a little, but whatever era he played in his average wouldn't have been far away from 99.94.
