How can a modern batsman be considered better than Don Bradman?

[Tusker]

You can't compare people generation to generation because skill and knowledge is passed down over time and overall increases over time.

The only way too compare players is to their contemporaries. Then you look at how much of a gap there was between them.

Then you compare current players and the gap in skill and talent between them and their contemporaries.

For example what is the closest average to Bradman's in his era and what is the closest average to Tendulkar or Vivs in his era.

Then you get a clear understanding of what it means to be great.

And who is going to ensure that the modern day greats are competing with the same Amateur level batsmen as Bradman did and only from 2 countries ? This is nothing new you are saying and has been thoroughly dissected and answered right here on this page.

So now one of 2 things will happen:

1. You will pretend that Bradmans peers were outstanding cricketers just like any modern day cricketer
2. Or you will run away from this thread.

Otherwise every single aspect of Bradman and his dominance has been meticulously dissected and addressed.

 

[Cric1234]

And who is going to ensure that the modern day greats are competing with the same Amateur level batsmen as Bradman did and only from 2 countries ? This is nothing new you are saying and has been thoroughly dissected and answered right here on this page.

So now one of 2 things will happen:

1. You will pretend that Bradmans peers were outstanding cricketers just like any modern day cricketer
2. Or you will run away from this thread.

Otherwise every single aspect of Bradman and his dominance has been meticulously dissected and addressed.

There were actually 5 countries playing during Bradmans era nothing like re writing facts is there Australia England West Indies South Africa and India in this period India were genuine minnows while SA and West Indies won some matches but weren't as strong as England and Australia.
Bradmans average was a long way ahead but otherwise a handful averaged over 50 despite hundreds and thousands of batsmen playing test and FC only a tiny percentage could make a mark at test level it tells you it wasn't club cricket was it the difficulty level was high enough for batsmen to struggle to average over 50.

 

[Hawkeye]

Going by your logic will you accept someone from school cricket level as being better than Kohli if he avgs twice as everyone else at that level?

After reading a ton of arguments here, this makes the most sense.

Bradman's era was of amateurs. If someone's doing really well among them, far ahead of the rest, that does not mean he can be compared to the pros where the game is highly developed and competitive.


Someone doing mighty good at school level cricket (far ahead of peers), even in the 80s, cannot be compared to the pros playing at the international level.


Bradman's era can probably be compared to today's school or college level cricket, maybe not even that. The game has evolved SO SO SO much.

His record would've had some value if the game at that time was similar to today's, similar competitiveness, skills etc.

 

[Tusker]

There were actually 5 countries playing during Bradmans era nothing like re writing facts is there Australia England West Indies South Africa and India in this period India were genuine minnows while SA and West Indies won some matches but weren't as strong as England and Australia.

which is why it is a two horse race for all practical purposes. and most importantly bradman never played in any of these countries barring England. That tells you their place.

Bradmans average was a long way ahead but otherwise a handful averaged over 50 despite hundreds and thousands of batsmen playing test and FC only a tiny percentage could make a mark at test level it tells you it wasn't club cricket was it the difficulty level was high enough for batsmen to struggle to average over 50.

Yeah why dont you actually prove how the standard was indeed comparable to modern day Test level using technical analysis Sorry your words dont mean anything. See if you can refute my Technical analysis of Jack Hobbs that made earlier.

 

[Sachin136]

There were actually 5 countries playing during Bradmans era nothing like re writing facts is there Australia England West Indies South Africa and India in this period India were genuine minnows while SA and West Indies won some matches but weren't as strong as England and Australia.
Bradmans average was a long way ahead but otherwise a handful averaged over 50 despite hundreds and thousands of batsmen playing test and FC only a tiny percentage could make a mark at test level it tells you it wasn't club cricket was it the difficulty level was high enough for batsmen to struggle to average over 50.

Over 70% of Bradman's matches were against England. The remaining 15 were against extremely substandard teams and Australia typically won by an innings and 100+ runs.

 

[Tusker]

After reading a ton of arguments here, this makes the most sense.

Bradman's era was of amateurs. If someone's doing really well among them, far ahead of the rest, that does not mean he can be compared to the pros where the game is highly developed and competitive.


Someone doing mighty good at school level cricket (far ahead of peers), even in the 80s, cannot be compared to the pros playing at the international level.


Bradman's era can probably be compared to today's school or college level cricket, maybe not even that. The game has evolved SO SO SO much.

His record would've had some value if the game at that time was similar to today's, similar competitiveness, skills etc.

Exactly ! However I have no idea how people can keep pretending that Cricket was played at the same level as today especially after seeing those crystal clear video clips. Imagine if there was no footage !! I would be laughed at ridiculed and perhaps kicked outta here as a troll ! It tells us the power and absolute stranglehold the old boys club has - and still does - in the world of cricket.

 

[Titan24]

After reading a ton of arguments here, this makes the most sense.

Bradman's era was of amateurs. If someone's doing really well among them, far ahead of the rest, that does not mean he can be compared to the pros where the game is highly developed and competitive.


Someone doing mighty good at school level cricket (far ahead of peers), even in the 80s, cannot be compared to the pros playing at the international level.


Bradman's era can probably be compared to today's school or college level cricket, maybe not even that. The game has evolved SO SO SO much.

His record would've had some value if the game at that time was similar to today's, similar competitiveness, skills etc.

So every school kid averages 100 when playing school cricket?

What are you even saying?

Bradman was playing against whatever the best standard there was at that time. Otherwise why werent there many other batsmen with same average or even 70 or 80? Playing with almost half size bat in comparison to now a days and playing against the best players available and beating everyone by almost having double the average is not an easy task.

No single era can have same skilset as era before, skillset was different even a decade ago let alone decades ago. Wickets were totally different 7-8 years ago, as they were more bowling friendly so we cant even compare current batsmen of that time.

So comparing era is always gonna be difficult and subjective to a certain extent.

 

[Tusker]

I showed you with pictures how bradman is different from tendulkar and how smith is partially similar.You simply ignored it all.And now saying thats not how it works.In this case we will just have to agree to disagree then.

Can't use still pictures to analyze techniques. Just doesn't cut it.

I don't see much problem.He doesnt use his bottom hand at all ,so the foot being in air doesnt make the ball go in air because he can still get on top of it.Its a shot for slow bowling.

What!!! I just pointed out a whole list of problems with his footwork and no I dont agree with what you are saying ... because the single biggest requirement for playing any defensive shot is that both feet should be grounded otherwise you have no balance.

If you dont agree with that then there's no point continuing this technical discussion as it is such a basic thing. But feel free to demonstrate that technique to any serious batting coach and see if they can keep a straight face. Just dont tell you copied it from Jack Hobbs.

Another thing - try the shot he demonstrates at 5:23 ( there is a slow mo of that same shot at 5:29 ). See for yourselves how wrong it is.

How he would do against todays fast bowling is anybodys guess.Obviously he wont play till 48 today.And hobbs is nowhere near bradman.Bradman doesnt average 58,he averages 100.Incomparable difference..

And we can easily see why there is a huge difference which is my entire point. You just dont want to accept that there is a day and night difference between Hobbs and even the avg modern day batsman let alone the greats. Therefore That difference is meaningless. If a modern day greats competition was with similarly very amateur players then what you say has some merit to it. You just simply can't compare Hobbs to SRT, Lara, Kohli etc. No way.

Just can't believe someone would even entertain the thought that Hobbs technique will even work today. Anyone with that technique won't last 10 mins today against top class fast bowlers.

Sorry but there is a massive massive difference in our understanding of the game and its minute very very technical aspects. Iam all for learning new things and having an open mind but it ***HAS*** to be based on some really rock solid technical basis and sound logic ... otherwise this will be the usual deadbeat thread like all Bradman threads.

 

[Titan24]

Bradman was at disadvantage in terms of the current training facilities, bats and equipements etc.
He didnt have any of these things so undermining his average just bcz of standard of cricket which was same for everyone at that time is a weak argument.

 

[Tusker]

Bradman was playing against whatever the best standard there was at that time. Otherwise why werent there many other batsmen with same average or even 70 or 80?

Because the competition level of cricket in those days was not even a fraction of what it is today. This is because Cricket wasnt as popular and lucrative as it is today therefore his competition was not really just as same as current day greats.

It was mostly amateur cricket back then which is not at all conducive to attracting talent. So imagine the likes of Kohli , Root, Smith etc competing with school and club level cricketers. Might only get out due to boredom. Just because it says Test match on scorecards then and now doesnt mean the two matches are played at the same standard and skill level.

What amazes me is how people just simply dont get this at all. Quite mind boggling

 

[Cric1234]

Jack Hobbs era is before Bradman he had retired by the 30s and 40s him and Sutcliffe were the first great batsmen to average over 50 opening was easier in this era with it gradually becoming more difficult.
His style is suited to the bowling he's facing and pitches he's batting on more faster bowlers would emerge during 30s and 40s and beyond.
Larwood Lindwall Tyson Trueman and others came after Hobbs retired it can only be guess work how well he would've done but an average of 56 isn't above modern day greats and nowhere near Bradman however he did well in his era.

 

[Hawkeye]

So every school kid averages 100 when playing school cricket?

What are you even saying?

Bradman was playing against whatever the best standard there was at that time.

No, not every school kid averages 100. What I'm saying is, if one of the school level kids averages 100 but the rest 40-50, that does not make the 100 averaging school level kid the same level as top professionals of that game.

Bradman's era was very far away and different in skills, competitiveness to today's game. A person averaging 100 at that time cannot be compared to today's pros.

Because it will be like comparing a school kid averaging 100 to a professional.

Watch the videos man.. you'll know.

 

[Tusker]

Jack Hobbs era is before Bradman he had retired by the 30s and 40s him and Sutcliffe were the first great batsmen to average over 50 opening was easier in this era with it gradually becoming more difficult.

Actually its quite the opposite ( i.e if you go by the so called experts who rate him a better player on wet tracks than Bradman ) . In any case Hobbs played against Bradman in 2 series. Considering how littlle cricket was played in those days thats a significant overlap. And FC cricket for more than 6 years. So no thats not true. Nothing changes dramatically in a few yrs time.

His style is suited to the bowling he's facing and pitches he's batting on more faster bowlers would emerge during 30s and 40s and beyond.
Larwood Lindwall Tyson Trueman and others came after Hobbs retired it can only be guess work how well he would've done but an average of 56 isn't above modern day greats and nowhere near Bradman however he did well in his era.

Bradman never played against Lindwall , Tyson and Trueman.

 

[Tusker]

Just to illustrate how almost everything about cricket was Amateurish ... have a read of Hobbs obituary published by Wisden

"Jack Hobbs was cricket's most prolific batsman. He finished with 61,237 first-class runs and 197 centuries*, most of them stylishly made from the top of the Surrey or England batting orders. And he might have scored many more had the Great War not intervened, or if he hadn't been inclined to get out shortly after reaching 100 to let someone else have a go. Hobbs was known as "The Master", and scored consistently throughout a long career that didn't end till he was past 50. Half his hundreds came when he was over 40, and he remains, at 46 in 1928-29, the oldest man to score a Test century. His opening partnerships with Yorkshire's Herbert Sutcliffe are part of the game's rich folklore. Hobbs was also a charming man, and the world of cricket rejoiced in 1953 when he became the first professional cricketer to be knighted"

the FC Century count is wrong because they didnt know if 2 hundreds made in Ceylon were in a FC match or not. Imagine such a thing happening today. Next it claims they were all stylishly made ( again a good example of why one should not take dated reviews as-is ... it might have been a stylish way to play in circa 1925 but not now) and most importantly that he got out to give others a chance ( you do this today and you are done as a cricketer ) and that half his FC Centuries came after age 40 ( I dont know what to say but lets say words fail me and leave it at that )

If that does not portray the absolute total amateur scene then nothing else will.

 

[Cric1234]

No, not every school kid averages 100. What I'm saying is, if one of the school level kids averages 100 but the rest 40-50, that does not make the 100 averaging school level kid the same level as top professionals of that game.

Bradman's era was very far away and different in skills, competitiveness to today's game. A person averaging 100 at that time cannot be compared to today's pros.

Because it will be like comparing a school kid averaging 100 to a professional.

Watch the videos man.. you'll know.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

This is proper footage of a test match in 1946 full overs being shown there are hardly any bad bowls bowled like half trackers short and wide balls full tosses etc is this really worse than test or FC cricket today?

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

This is proper footage of a test match in 1946 full overs being shown there are hardly any bad bowls bowled like half trackers short and wide balls full tosses etc is this really worse than test or FC cricket today?

Do you the name of the left arm bowler bowling here at 3:36 : https://youtu.be/jLLapepap48?t=216

What style of bowling according to you is he doing ? Spin/Medium Fast/Fast-Medium etc ... ?

 

[humzy]

And who is going to ensure that the modern day greats are competing with the same Amateur level batsmen as Bradman did and only from 2 countries ? This is nothing new you are saying and has been thoroughly dissected and answered right here on this page.

So now one of 2 things will happen:

1. You will pretend that Bradmans peers were outstanding cricketers just like any modern day cricketer
2. Or you will run away from this thread.

Otherwise every single aspect of Bradman and his dominance has been meticulously dissected and addressed.

If this was true then name another person in Bradmans era with a similar average.

If everyone is amateur except for one person then why is he not average?

Is Tesla not a genius because he didn't understand quantum physics like todays scientists?

Tesla is a genius because he was well ahead of his contemporaries.

If you put Tesla in todays society he would still succeed as an inventor because he would have the access we have now onto of his natural intellect.

Similarly if you put Bradman in todays era with our training and knowledge then he would more than likely still be one of the most successful batsmen.

 

[Tusker]

If this was true then name another person in Bradmans era with a similar average.

Thats not the point. The point is you cannot compare amateur stats to Professional era stats. The two just arent comparable at all. Bradman could have averaged 4 times as the next best guy - it just does not matter. Reason - Standard of cricket.

If everyone is amateur except for one person then why is he not average?

He is an amateur too !!

Is Tesla not a genius because he didn't understand quantum physics like todays scientists?

Tesla is a genius because he was well ahead of his contemporaries.

If you put Tesla in todays society he would still succeed as an inventor because he would have the access we have now onto of his natural intellect.

Cant compare science and sports. For one thing you cannot learn how to bowl fast in Cricket and play a fast bowler. You either have that skill or you dont. In science I can learn from others and then add my own two cents.

Similarly if you put Bradman in todays era with our training and knowledge then he would more than likely still be one of the most successful batsmen.

And if Virat kohli were to face bowlers like in this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48 he would never get out.

 

[austerlitz]

Can't use still pictures to analyze techniques. Just doesn't cut it.



What!!! I just pointed out a whole list of problems with his footwork and no I dont agree with what you are saying ... because the single biggest requirement for playing any defensive shot is that both feet should be grounded otherwise you have no balance.

If you dont agree with that then there's no point continuing this technical discussion as it is such a basic thing. But feel free to demonstrate that technique to any serious batting coach and see if they can keep a straight face. Just dont tell you copied it from Jack Hobbs.

Another thing - try the shot he demonstrates at 5:23 ( there is a slow mo of that same shot at 5:29 ). See for yourselves how wrong it is.





And we can easily see why there is a huge difference which is my entire point. You just dont want to accept that there is a day and night difference between Hobbs and even the avg modern day batsman let alone the greats. Therefore That difference is meaningless. If a modern day greats competition was with similarly very amateur players then what you say has some merit to it. You just simply can't compare Hobbs to SRT, Lara, Kohli etc. No way.

Just can't believe someone would even entertain the thought that Hobbs technique will even work today. Anyone with that technique won't last 10 mins today against top class fast bowlers.

Sorry but there is a massive massive difference in our understanding of the game and its minute very very technical aspects. Iam all for learning new things and having an open mind but it ***HAS*** to be based on some really rock solid technical basis and sound logic ... otherwise this will be the usual deadbeat thread like all Bradman threads.

All of what you are saying about hobbs is assumptions.That technique is suited for defense and slower bowling of the era.How he would cope in this era is difficult to say.In any case no one has argued hobbs would be better than modern day greats,though i have argued he would be better than hacks like dhawan and mediocrities like atherton .It is bradman that is being argued as the greatest even over modern day greats.
There is no such 'issue' with fast bowling or footwork on bradman's case.And that avg is because of his unique technique which you are trying to sidestep by citing 'lack of enough videos' .
What you cant argue against is bradman's technique is fundamentally different from classical orthodox technique in stance and bat arc.So the question is what is 'solid technical basis'?Is the orthodox classical technique really the best way.How do we know when others haven't even tried bradman's method.2 guys that have partially tried it -headley and smith have both been successful.

 

[Tusker]

All of what you are saying about hobbs is assumptions.

Absolutely not. Did you try to play the shots yourself ? What part of it is an assumption ? I described the technique using basic fundamentals of batting. And I did not invent those strokes out of thin air. Iam accurately describing what I see. If there is any assumptions being made they are by you. Because on the one hand you accept that he never faced any fast bowler but have no qualms in issuing blanket statements that his technique will work today at Test cricket.

I have never seen any coach ask someone to play a backfoot defensive shot with one leg. Or skip down the pitch in that manner as I described in my earlier post ( front foot at 45 degrees and in the air and the toe pointing to Silly point when he has made contact ). If you think otherwise please point me in the direction of these coaches. Keep in mind that it is this exact technique that fetched him more than half his career Test hundreds after age 40 including a double hundred. If this does not ring all sorts of alarm bells then nothing else will.

Dont take my word for it ... go ask some serious impartial reputed posters over here to analyze that technique to get a 2nd opinion.

That technique is suited for defense and slower bowling of the era.How he would cope in this era is difficult to say.In any case no one has argued hobbs would be better than modern day greats,though i have argued he would be better than hacks like dhawan and mediocrities like atherton .It is bradman that is being argued as the greatest even over modern day greats.
There is no such 'issue' with fast bowling or footwork on bradman's case.And that avg is because of his unique technique which you are trying to sidestep by citing 'lack of enough videos' .
What you cant argue against is bradman's technique is fundamentally different from classical orthodox technique in stance and bat arc.So the question is what is 'solid technical basis'?Is the orthodox classical technique really the best way.How do we know when others haven't even tried bradman's method.2 guys that have partially tried it -headley and smith have both been successful.

The reason Iam concentrating on Hobbs is because of the 2x theory. That is the main argument of every Bradman fan including you. Also you may not know this but Jack Hobbs is regarded as a better player than Bradman on bad pitches by experts of that time.

 

[humzy]

Cant compare science and sports. For one thing you cannot learn how to bowl fast in Cricket and play a fast bowler. You either have that skill or you dont. In science I can learn from others and then add my own two cents.

Imran Khan would beg to differ. Read his autobiography.

 

[Tusker]

Imran Khan would beg to differ. Read his autobiography.

Beg to differ on what ?

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

This is proper footage of a test match in 1946 full overs being shown there are hardly any bad bowls bowled like half trackers short and wide balls full tosses etc is this really worse than test or FC cricket today?

Do you the name of the left arm bowler bowling here at 3:36 : https://youtu.be/jLLapepap48?t=216

What style of bowling according to you is he doing ? Spin/Medium Fast/Fast-Medium etc ... ?

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION] ... can you respond ?

 

[Cric1234]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION] ... can you respond ?

He looks to be bowling slow medium/medium pace not sure who that is the first bowler is Lindwall second one is a legspinner but not O'reilly by looks of it.

 

[Tusker]

He looks to be bowling slow medium/medium pace not sure who that is the first bowler is Lindwall second one is a legspinner but not O'reilly by looks of it.

You are right and his name is Ernie Toshack bowling slow medium pace with the keeper standing up ... But here is the interesting part ... his bowling avg is just 21 !! That is just impossible in todays cricket for such slow bowler to avg like that. Just wont happen. The only logical reason for that is - low standards as compared to today.

 

[big_gamer007]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

This is proper footage of a test match in 1946 full overs being shown there are hardly any bad bowls bowled like half trackers short and wide balls full tosses etc is this really worse than test or FC cricket today?

Lol talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

See the video yourself its sped up watch it as 0.75x which is near about the normal speed the game was played at. I had better bowlers than the guys bowling in that match in my school. The standard of bowling is abysmal.

 

[Junaids]

Ken Rosewall had 23 GS titles, Margaret Court 24 GS titles. Now does anyone seriously rate those amateur era champs above Federer/Serena? Bradman was truly extraordinary and deserves respect but I don't think anyone needs to average 100+ to surpass him. Someone like Kohli, if he can average 55+ in all 3 formats, he will be above Bradman in my opinion.

Absolutely, yes.

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Modern batsmen are just the same. Give Dave Warner or Chris Lynn or Chris Gayle a proper bat and their straight driven sixes would be caught at mid-off 20 metres inside the rope.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Any decent modern batsman would be better than bradman, if they get a time machine to go back and play in the amateur era.

 

[Tusker]

Absolutely, yes.

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Modern batsmen are just the same. Give Dave Warner or Chris Lynn or Chris Gayle a proper bat and their straight driven sixes would be caught at mid-off 20 metres inside the rope.

here we go again shall I introduce some facts and evidence or will that cause you to bolt from this thread as always ?

 

[Junaids]

here we go again shall I introduce some facts and evidence or will that cause you to bolt from this thread as always ?

Absolutely, yes.

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Modern batsmen are just the same. Give Dave Warner or Chris Lynn or Chris Gayle a proper bat and their straight driven sixes would be caught at mid-off 20 metres inside the rope.

Techniques have evolved in both Cricket and Tennis to adapt to bats/rackets/balls/boundary locations/plying surfaces which favour players who play big shots.

A Chris Lynn or a Novak Djokovic has a technique adapted to modern power-based play but they have completely under-developed skills in other facets of the game.

The MCG and Adelaide Oval have enormous straight boundaries. Try hitting a straight six with an old bat!

All you can do is compare players with their peers.

 

[Tusker]

Techniques have evolved in both Cricket and Tennis to adapt to bats/rackets/balls/boundary locations/plying surfaces which favour players who play big shots.

A Chris Lynn or a Novak Djokovic has a technique adapted to modern power-based play but they have completely under-developed skills in other facets of the game.

The MCG and Adelaide Oval have enormous straight boundaries. Try hitting a straight six with an old bat!

All you can do is compare players with their peers.

the bigger challenge is to put bat on ball to a 150KPH thunderbolt. Keep in mind that the bat width hasnt changed at all. I suggest you go try a bowling machine at various speeds to find out for yourself.

Meanwhile watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQPLAlU0Sw

 

[Swashbuckler]

Absolutely, yes.

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Modern batsmen are just the same. Give Dave Warner or Chris Lynn or Chris Gayle a proper bat and their straight driven sixes would be caught at mid-off 20 metres inside the rope.

Modern players have bigger serves with their rackets, agree. Someone like Nadal wouldn't be able to extract huge FH topsin and that nasty bounce with the old time wooden rackets agree, hence reducing the gap on clay between him and Borg (undisputed clay champ of 30 years back). But what about other factors? Service motion, racket swing, footwork, final flourish etc all have been optimized in the present era, techniques are perfected. Now won't even talk about fitness standards, physiques, explosiveness, anticipation, reflexes, all honed by modern day training tools? You can't possibly compare return of serve of that era with today's tennis, heaven and hell difference. In fact you can't even compare 2010s standards with 2000s, the art has been perfected by Djokovic and all tennis academies teach youngsters based on his module. If you believe serves have benefited with modern technology (partly true) surely you can't diminish the return of serve aspect against bigger serves? Watch any youtube clip and you will be surprised, serves which would produce aces/service winners a few decades back are met with return winners or astonishing depth and placement.

The only area where there has been a decline in quality is volleying skills, maybe not so much in doubles. The reason net game has declined is only because courts are slowed down these days (surface homogenization), grass is a very short season, carpet is out and most importantly baseline dominated game has made volleying skills a minor factor unless someone enjoys getting passed like no tomorrow. Every other component of the game today is much ahead of 70s/80s/90s standards. Won't even bring amateur era tennis because it is frankly insulting to today's players.

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] Besides the obvious difference in playing standards there is another factor to count when you talk about amateur era, it is the depth of the field. These days the majors have such a strong depth that quite often the top seeds fall in the initial rounds, the 128th seeded player has enough quality to challenge the champion on a particular day. Those days the champs would get a smooth passage to the business end.

You may like to believe that Margaret Court with 24 majors is superior to Serena with 23. But what if I break down the numbers? Court between 1960 to '66 won 7 straight Australian Opens. Number of participants in them reads 32, 32, 32, 39, 27, 52, 48 respectively. Almost all of the players were British or Aussies with 1-2 from USA/Europe thrown in between. Court played only the Aussie journey women/hobbyists, rarely on a couple of occasions she had to face non Aussies, on some occasions she had to play less than 5 rounds because of scheduling reasons, even final had a walkover in 1966. There was no money and it made no sense for athletes to travel halfway across the world with their own expense, nor to put their bodies on the line to win against the odds. Similarly I can break down her triumphs in other majors, her numbers are vastly inflated. Leave aside the technique, changing environment, technology, playing conditions, fitness etc. How can you take her 24 majors at face value? To win her 23, Serena had to play 7 rounds each against an international field of participants in a professional era when money dictates that the players are conditioned to fight from a tender age under strenuous training environment.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Absolutely, yes.

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Modern batsmen are just the same. Give Dave Warner or Chris Lynn or Chris Gayle a proper bat and their straight driven sixes would be caught at mid-off 20 metres inside the rope.

here we go again shall I introduce some facts and evidence or will that cause you to bolt from this thread as always ?

Let your eyes be the judge.

They just have huge serves? It is obvious? I don't see what is obvious except that tennis is a different sport now, much higher level in all but one or two aspects.

These are random searches on Youtube involving the players in bolded. I am willing to discuss in detail if you wish.

 

[Swashbuckler]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

Women's tennis added to complement. [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] can I expect a logical facts based discussion with the old era worshipers or am I wasting my time here, you must have had enough experience arguing with these old timers on PP.

 

[Tusker]

Women's tennis added to complement. [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] can I expect a logical facts based discussion with the old era worshipers or am I wasting my time here, you must have had enough experience arguing with these old timers on PP.

Absolute waste of time if you ask me. You can post bleedingly obvious and literally poking-them-in-the-eye type of footage as evidence but they aint going to budge. Reason: they will have to undo literally decades worth of their sporting know-how that is a result of deep and thorough brainwashing. There is even a term for it ... Lookup Cognitive Dissonance. This is a classic classic case of CD.

PS: I have posted the 1934 Wimbledon Final earlier in this thread... have a look

 

[Swashbuckler]

Absolute waste of time if you ask me. You can post bleedingly obvious and literally poking-them-in-the-eye type of footage as evidence but they aint going to budge. Reason: they will have to undo literally decades worth of their sporting know-how that is a result of deep and thorough brainwashing. There is even a term for it ... Lookup Cognitive Dissonance. This is a classic classic case of CD.

PS: I have posted the 1934 Wimbledon Final earlier in this thread... have a look

Saw your posts, you nailed it man. But I think you were too kind, Perry would be bageled by the 1000th ranked WTA lady, forget 100th ranked man. I mean I respect the old era champs but some of the delusional posters here need to get some perspective, the hyperbole here is astonishing, sample what Junaids posted:

Federer and the Williams sisters are at nothing like the standard of Rosewall and Court. They just have huge serves in an era of enormously powerful rackets.

Give them a normal racket and they wouldn't be able to beat Laver or Rosewall or Borg or McEnroe or Navratilova or King.

It's obvious.

Techniques have evolved in both Cricket and Tennis to adapt to bats/rackets/balls/boundary locations/plying surfaces which favour players who play big shots.

A Chris Lynn or a Novak Djokovic has a technique adapted to modern power-based play but they have completely under-developed skills in other facets of the game.

This sort of delusion is beyond repair.

 

[Tusker]

Saw your posts, you nailed it man. But I think you were too kind, Perry would be bageled by the 1000th ranked WTA lady, forget 100th ranked man. I mean I respect the old era champs but some of the delusional posters here need to get some perspective, the hyperbole here is astonishing, sample what Junaids posted:



This sort of delusion is beyond repair.

Yup it is indeed beyond repair ... the situation is similar to someone who finds out that the holy-man/woman that they listened to is a fraud. Most people will try their very best to find reasons/excuses to keep their initial beliefs intact. Only a small % have the ability to come to terms with reality. It is especially hard when it comes to Bradman because since nobody is close to his avg they will keep telling you that you are the one that is a fool lol

 

[Swashbuckler]

Yup it is indeed beyond repair ... the situation is similar to someone who finds out that the holy-man/woman that they listened to is a fraud. Most people will try their very best to find reasons/excuses to keep their initial beliefs intact. Only a small % have the ability to come to terms with reality. It is especially hard when it comes to Bradman because since nobody is close to his avg they will keep telling you that you are the one that is a fool lol

His words of wisdom: "Djokovic has a power based game and is underdeveloped in all other facets of the game". I know he doesn't follow the sport at all if this is his level of insight. Talking about the most complete player in tennis history like that would make me angry but he is in need of help. And putting a non Aussie regular like Lynn in the same sentence as King Djokovic rather than say Kohli tells me how serious he is with regards to taking this discussion forward. Complete mockery of common sense and logic. I thought he hated Sachin for being an Indian but if in his eyes Djokovic too is only worth this little, I think the main issue here is that he is getting insecure because these modern day stalwarts have left his ancient idols in the dust. The insecurity is making him froth at the mere mention of some of the modern day greats. Nostalgiatards would rather stay in denial than let go off their preconceived bias.

 

[Tusker]

His words of wisdom: "Djokovic has a power based game and is underdeveloped in all other facets of the game". I know he doesn't follow the sport at all if this is his level of insight. Talking about the most complete player in tennis history like that would make me angry but he is in need of help. And putting a non Aussie regular like Lynn in the same sentence as King Djokovic rather than say Kohli tells me how serious he is with regards to taking this discussion forward. Complete mockery of common sense and logic. I thought he hated Sachin for being an Indian but if in his eyes Djokovic too is only worth this little, I think the main issue here is that he is getting insecure because these modern day stalwarts have left his ancient idols in the dust. The insecurity is making him froth at the mere mention of some of the modern day greats. Nostalgiatards would rather stay in denial than let go off their preconceived bias.

I wouldn't take his comments that seriously at all ... he is known to troll and exaggerate old ERA players.

 

[Cric1234]

In tennis there's never been a Bradman type player who's far ahead of anyone else in history we can see from the clips it was less power based game the rackets are like badminton type rackets the modern players are definitely better.
In cricket from Larwood in the 30s onwards bowlers have been almost as quick as anyone today batsman have been hitting sixes with small bats there hasn't been much difference.

 

[Madplayer]

No one will ever be considered greater than Bradman because of the mythical status attached to him. Its an unwritten rule that everbody is second to Bradman so when somebody inquires about the best batsman ever in cricket, we automatically think in our mind that he means the best after Bradman. So media hype, Australia being a cricket powerhouse with a rich history and cricketing ability of Bradman have all combined to make sure that Bradman remains the best batsman till eternity by blinding us from his criticism.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION] - No response to my previous post#345 ?

In tennis there's never been a Bradman type player who's far ahead of anyone else in history we can see from the clips it was less power based game the rackets are like badminton type rackets the modern players are definitely better.

Not just Tennis but few other sports as well ... so how come only Cricket and one or two others escaped

In cricket from Larwood in the 30s onwards bowlers have been almost as quick as anyone today batsman have been hitting sixes with small bats there hasn't been much difference.

This is just simply categorically not true at all. Just because they were labelled fast doesnt mean they were actually that fast.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Will, there a be a time when a batsman will surpass Sir Don Bradman's average?

 

[Ab Fan]

Is 65 good enough?