SL_Fan
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Runs
- 22,652
- Post of the Week
- 1
See that's where you are going wrong. For you Rome was built in a day. Except it wasn't.
-
Contact the PP Team
How great was Sir Donald Bradman?
- Thread starter Moiza
- Start date
how is this relevant when talking about hand-eye co-ordination?
Harsh Thakor
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Runs
- 3,520
- Post of the Week
- 2
After doing some research I wish to reply and I apologize for the delay.On batting tracks Bradman was simply a creature from another planet and evaluating him was the equivalent of having to create a separate handicapping system for a horse in racing.Not only his record put him on another street but his rate of scoring runs.However on wet wickets or sticklers Bradman was outplayed by George Headley,Victor Trumper and Jack Hobbs.Statistically Headley averaged 13 more than Bradman on wet pitches while Hobs and Trumper championed more causes.Bradman was also not fully tested against spin nor lethal pace which is relevant.In the 1970's it is anybody's guess how he would have tacked the great Caribbean quartet without a helmet , the great indian spinners of generations and the pre-first world war pitches.Many writers like Nevile Carduswho saw Bradman felt that for sheer genius the likes of Trumper were ahead.I agree with Geoff Boycott that in all conditions Jack Hobbs was the best while on good wickets Bradman was simply in another league.
Still I feel there were batsmen who had natural ability or talent in tthe league of the Don,or even marginally more.Watch videos of the other greats and one can hardly diferentiate Brdman for a Viv Richards.Brian Lara or a Rohan Knhai in term sof talent.I would have backed Bradman to average around 70-75 in the modern era but not neccesariliy overshadow the likes of Lara or Tendulkar on turning tracks,Viv or Bary Richards against brutal pace or Sobers or Kanhai on bad wickets.I doubt Bradman would mantain that same scoring rate in the 1970'sand 80's not wearing a helmet against the likes of Marshall and Imran or against great bolwers of the 1990's like Wasim,Ambrose,Waqar ,Ambrose and Mcgrath.
Relevant that there are innings rated even better than the best of Bradman,that the Don does not have the highest individual score ever and batsmen have scored 50's and centuries faster than the Don.What is unique about Bradman is the extent to which he was superior to his contemporaries and no athelete in any field has remained so head and shoulders above other greats even 5-6 decades later.
Bradman was the complete package and the perfect machine,not the most artistic or stylish.To me it was his temperament ,concentration that made him an immortal.
Brdaman's only dent was in the bodyline series but still he averaged above 56.Overall he has to be rated the greatest for the margin he was better than his contemporaries like no sportsman ever,let alone cricketer.
Still I feel there were batsmen who had natural ability or talent in tthe league of the Don,or even marginally more.Watch videos of the other greats and one can hardly diferentiate Brdman for a Viv Richards.Brian Lara or a Rohan Knhai in term sof talent.I would have backed Bradman to average around 70-75 in the modern era but not neccesariliy overshadow the likes of Lara or Tendulkar on turning tracks,Viv or Bary Richards against brutal pace or Sobers or Kanhai on bad wickets.I doubt Bradman would mantain that same scoring rate in the 1970'sand 80's not wearing a helmet against the likes of Marshall and Imran or against great bolwers of the 1990's like Wasim,Ambrose,Waqar ,Ambrose and Mcgrath.
Relevant that there are innings rated even better than the best of Bradman,that the Don does not have the highest individual score ever and batsmen have scored 50's and centuries faster than the Don.What is unique about Bradman is the extent to which he was superior to his contemporaries and no athelete in any field has remained so head and shoulders above other greats even 5-6 decades later.
Bradman was the complete package and the perfect machine,not the most artistic or stylish.To me it was his temperament ,concentration that made him an immortal.
Brdaman's only dent was in the bodyline series but still he averaged above 56.Overall he has to be rated the greatest for the margin he was better than his contemporaries like no sportsman ever,let alone cricketer.
Last edited by a moderator:
For the nth time this is simply untrue ~ take Dhyanchand, Court, Pele, Bolt as example from pre WW2 to 2017. Yes you can say in cricket he was way ahead of his peers atm but in (other) sporting history that statement is BS !
I don't agree with this part & the 70-75 average part - rest are quite logical. For the bold part, considering the nature of sports, you have to give it to Jahangir Khan, Michel Phelps & Bolt too - in Tennis, if it's clay court only, Rafa Nadal as well.
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
Heather Mckay even pawns Jahangir Khan..
It's easier (relatively) to dominate the sport like squash/ swimming compared to Cricket because of number of talent pool available to compete for the game is much lower.
Similarly it's easier to dominate Cricket compared to Soccer.
It's easier (relatively) to dominate the sport like squash/ swimming compared to Cricket because of number of talent pool available to compete for the game is much lower.
Similarly it's easier to dominate Cricket compared to Soccer.
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
Anyways here is the post made by someone whom I have admired for a very long period of time. I don't agree 100% but it's a fascinating opinion to read. I will copy and paste the original content:
"On how good was Bradman
Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.
Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.
Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.
Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.
He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.
His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.
Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?
He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.
PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.
PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.
PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.
Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat."
"On how good was Bradman
Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.
Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.
Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.
Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.
He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.
His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.
Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?
He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.
PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.
PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.
PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.
Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat."
Last edited:
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
This song presents some footage of Bradman. There was a documentary that had few additional moments of him batting but it has been taken down on YT.
Whats the bowling speed ? Speed combined with accuracy is a game changer you have to play the same shots in 30% less time ... and you very very conveniently ignore the simple fact that bowling short was a big no-no in the ERA of gentlemen and sportsmanship. You can show me all the videos you want to but it doesn't matter as his technique was never tested against high quality fast bowling. Thats where the matter ends.
Harsh Thakor
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Runs
- 3,520
- Post of the Week
- 2
Quoting Chirag Naikavnare in Ezine articles
Don Bradman is rated by most as the greatest batsman of all time. He holds a record that can be considered as the greatest sporting achievement in any sport. No prizes for guessing it right; his test match batting average was 99.96. How he practiced with a golf ball and a single cricket stump are stories that are part of Aussie folklore. During the years of the great depression, he lit up the cricket fields with several records that stand even today. Getting him out was equivalent to getting three batsmen out. Much like Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar, he drew crowds in huge numbers. However, the man was a complex person and did not mix with team members easily. Nevertheless, his opinions were highly sought, even after his retirement. Bradman scored 29 hundreds in 52 matches. That is a hundred every other match, actually, which is unbelievable. For another unbelievable record he hit 12 double hundreds out of the 29. He even hit three double hundreds in a single test series against the archenemy England in 1930. He made centuries in six test matches on the trot. He is also the fastest ever to reach 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs in test cricket. He fell short of 7000 runs by four runs. This was, incidentally, due to that failure in his last test appearance, when he fell for a duck and came back to the pavilion half laughing due to the irony.
The only test series where he performed below par was the much maligned bodyline series. In a 1931 visit to Australia, the English captain Douglas Jardine designed a technique called bodyline, primarily for stopping the run machine called Don Bradman. Working on an observation made during a Bradman inning in England, he decided to attack Bradman with short pitch bowling. He, along with selectors, picked three fast bowlers for the tour down under led by Harold Larwood and Bill Voce. This tactic worked well against the Aussies and Bradman. Although Bradman did hit a single hundred to set up an Australian win, they won just that single test match in the series. Aussies were routed in the series. Bradman's batting style changed forever. There was a huge uproar about tactic and a lot has been written about it. However, when I try to imagine Viv Richards in the Don's shoes I feel the tactic would have failed. Viv would have probably hit half the short pitched stuff in the stands. This is conjecture of course, but food for thought nevertheless. This weakness against short pitched bowling is the only flaw one can find in Bradman's repertoire.
Don Bradman is rated by most as the greatest batsman of all time. He holds a record that can be considered as the greatest sporting achievement in any sport. No prizes for guessing it right; his test match batting average was 99.96. How he practiced with a golf ball and a single cricket stump are stories that are part of Aussie folklore. During the years of the great depression, he lit up the cricket fields with several records that stand even today. Getting him out was equivalent to getting three batsmen out. Much like Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar, he drew crowds in huge numbers. However, the man was a complex person and did not mix with team members easily. Nevertheless, his opinions were highly sought, even after his retirement. Bradman scored 29 hundreds in 52 matches. That is a hundred every other match, actually, which is unbelievable. For another unbelievable record he hit 12 double hundreds out of the 29. He even hit three double hundreds in a single test series against the archenemy England in 1930. He made centuries in six test matches on the trot. He is also the fastest ever to reach 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs in test cricket. He fell short of 7000 runs by four runs. This was, incidentally, due to that failure in his last test appearance, when he fell for a duck and came back to the pavilion half laughing due to the irony.
The only test series where he performed below par was the much maligned bodyline series. In a 1931 visit to Australia, the English captain Douglas Jardine designed a technique called bodyline, primarily for stopping the run machine called Don Bradman. Working on an observation made during a Bradman inning in England, he decided to attack Bradman with short pitch bowling. He, along with selectors, picked three fast bowlers for the tour down under led by Harold Larwood and Bill Voce. This tactic worked well against the Aussies and Bradman. Although Bradman did hit a single hundred to set up an Australian win, they won just that single test match in the series. Aussies were routed in the series. Bradman's batting style changed forever. There was a huge uproar about tactic and a lot has been written about it. However, when I try to imagine Viv Richards in the Don's shoes I feel the tactic would have failed. Viv would have probably hit half the short pitched stuff in the stands. This is conjecture of course, but food for thought nevertheless. This weakness against short pitched bowling is the only flaw one can find in Bradman's repertoire.
Harsh Thakor
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Runs
- 3,520
- Post of the Week
- 2
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
No modern bats could have succeeded against bodyline.. It wasn't a tactic to just test batsman's strength against short-pitched bowling. Evaluating it as such would be complete misrepresentation of bodyline. There is a reason why the tactic was outlawed as soon as it was introduced.
And by the even still, Bradman averaged highest from BOTH teams by the end of the series (even if English batsmen didn't face those tactics).
And by the even still, Bradman averaged highest from BOTH teams by the end of the series (even if English batsmen didn't face those tactics).
Chrish
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Runs
- 4,827
- Post of the Week
- 1
It's a pity vast majority of Bradman bashers are SRT fans.
When the fact is you would have hard time convincing people who know their Cricket that he is even 2nd best bastman of all time.
When the fact is you would have hard time convincing people who know their Cricket that he is even 2nd best bastman of all time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0lMx_ZebaBA
Look at the bat he used compared to today. The balls were the same but the bats were smaller and harder to hit power shots with and there was no protection at all apart from pads.
Look at the bat he used compared to today. The balls were the same but the bats were smaller and harder to hit power shots with and there was no protection at all apart from pads.
bat technology has changed only recently in the last 15 yrs or so. And there is big drawback to having big bats ... the leading edges will also carry to fielders. They left that bit of very inconvenient fact out of that video along with many others ... let me know if you want to discuss but I doubt you are interested.
but anyhow the bowling at 2:50 bought a chuckle : https://youtu.be/0lMx_ZebaBA?t=2m50s
Who can even dream of being a Test match bowler bowling like that today ? and then they had the cheek to include Mitch Starc ripper later in the video ... very cute
bat technology has changed only recently in the last 15 yrs or so. And there is big drawback to having big bats ... the leading edges will also carry to fielders. They left that bit of very inconvenient fact out of that video along with many others ... let me know if you want to discuss but I doubt you are interested.
but anyhow the bowling at 2:50 bought a chuckle : https://youtu.be/0lMx_ZebaBA?t=2m50s
Who can even dream of being a Test match bowler bowling like that today ? and then they had the cheek to include Mitch Starc ripper later in the video ... very cute
It was a part timer turning his arm
over after Bradman had almost reached 100.
Its already been said a lack of 90-95mph bowlers is evident in Bradmans time but otherwise every bowler was in operation.
Do you really think Tendulkar Ponting Richards are better than Bradman they averaged in the 30s in the last 25 tests they played no way the best ever can have such stats.
Bradman at 40 years of age averaged closed to 100 against bowlers that made Sobers look ordinary.
Looking at different periods Bradman played he was part of 2 eras 20s-30s then came back to play 2 years 46-48 so he's part of the 40s-50s era aswell.
His average in the 2 years at the end of his career is 105 compared to 97 before that shows his greatness he could come back after a long break and perform even better at close to 40 years old.
His average in the 2 years at the end of his career is 105 compared to 97 before that shows his greatness he could come back after a long break and perform even better at close to 40 years old.
More like lack of 85-95mph bowlers. Most of the pacers would have operated in 70-80mph range at best and 65-75mph range after first session.
It's hard to gauge speed properly bowlers with short run up can generate speeds of 75mph+ but you can tell if it's genuinely quick.
Have a look at the video above by Chrish parts show Larwood bowling looks quick even to the naked eye especially bodyline.
I don't think so but lets go with that just for sake of argument ... do you realize it is these small things that make a difference towards higher standards ?
So who bowled in the 85-89 MPH Range ? NONE !! In fact nobody bowled in the 80-84 range except for *MAYBE* Larwood in one series and that too not consistently. But thank lord for the small mercies that you don't believe.
SRT faced the likes of Steyn, Johnson, Harris, Anderson, Morkel, Boult , Swann, Broad in the last 5 yrs. Who were the bowlers of that quality that bowled to Bradman in hist last 25 tests ? Not one single ONE ! Bradman named Bedser as the best he faced (and he did that in the last 3-4 yrs of Bradmans career) ... the speed at which he bowled is nothing but friendly.
So Sobers didn't make runs against these bowlers you say ... Well if you looked closely only Laker is the well known bowler that Bowled to both Bradman and Sobers and he didn't do all that well dismissing Sobers only once. So not sure what you are on about.
here take a look : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...late=results;type=batting;view=bowler_summary
Can generate, but they didn't. Even in bodyline they rarely seemed to crossing 80mph.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6afPT1hbMLk
Shoaib Akhtar injuring Ganguly here the batsman in bodyline video has a similar reaction after being hit on an unprotected area by Larwood and is carried off maybe it is 80mph there were no speed guns then.
With Shoaib, Pakistan didn't bowl more than 15 overs in an hour. There were no speed guns, but most likely good speed was around 70 mph during those days.
Bowling speed is overrated in the modern era how many great bowlers are there bowling express.
There are less express bowlers and very few great express bowlers. Most bowlers operate in the 75-85mph range so there isn't much difference from Bowlers in Bradmans era.
There are less express bowlers and very few great express bowlers. Most bowlers operate in the 75-85mph range so there isn't much difference from Bowlers in Bradmans era.
How many great medium pacers have there been in history of cricket? Most of them are fast or fast-medium. Most bowlers operate in 82-90 mph range and not in 75-85 range.
Last edited:
That is JUST sooo not true and it is very obviously visible on footage. Methinks you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. There can be no honest discussion that can be had here if you think the likes of Bedser, Voce,Tate, Bowes bowled in the 75+ Range. Thanks for the discussion.
Mcgrath Pollock Asif Philander are all bowlers in the 75-85mph range and better than most.
The art of bowling is more than just speed swing seam line and length play a big part.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kuBC4g0kdG4
Darren Sammy can bowl 120kph+ without much effort one delivery is 128kph there were no speed guns in that era but this shows it's not too difficult is it.
Spinners with a quicker bowl can bowl close to 70mph without a run up why couldn't men who were tall with a decent build bowl 75mph+ and Larwood 80-85mph+.
Even many modern bowlers can bowl 145+ in ODIs and touch 150 in T20s, but they don't bowl at same speeds in tests because there they have bowl for long. Whether they can clock that speed is not questionable, but what they do certainly is. Fastest bowlers struggle to hit 140+ in 3rd session after bowling whole day even today.
That's why it's not hard to guess that pacers of 20s and 30s rarely bowled more than 75mph most of the time when they were tasked to bowl 40+ overs in a session. This is something even modern bowlers can't do irrespective of their build and ability to cross 140 on normal course.
All of them are 80mph+ bowlers. McGrath used to bowl 85+ during start of his career.
None of them are medium pacers. They all are fast-medium or medium-fast bowlers. Medium pacers are bowlers like Ganguly, Robin Singh, Kohli.
I've said this before I'll say it again the only way to bring the modern day greats close to Bradman is by only including matches against minnows Bangladesh pre 2010 and Zimbabwe they're still not better but the best could average close to 90 over 50 matches.
Then compare the minnows to Australia England of 30s and 40s are they on a similar level?
Then compare the minnows to Australia England of 30s and 40s are they on a similar level?
Which team has fastest bowler bowling at 100-120 kph? Bangladesh used to have those in early those. Zimbabwe was better in this regards. At least in this aspect bowlers were not ahead of Ban and Zim bowlers.
100kph is 62mph that's stretching things a bit too much spinners bowl that quick without much effort.
I'm talking about the quality is M Rafique Bangladeshs best spinner in the first 10 years a better bowler than Laker and O'reilly?
Is Nazmul Hossain better than Lindwall Bedser Larwood?
Is Habibul Bashar better than Hammond and Hutton if yes then Bradman becomes close to the modern day greats.
And yes spinners only bowl with that much longer, so it doesn't seem like stretchig bit too much. Even spinners aren't that efficient on regular basis. 65-75 is good number with fastest spells being around 75-80mph.
Spinners bowl in 48-60 range most of the time.
Last edited:
I am not questioning their ability to swing, seam or turn.Those are basic skills and pretty sure bowlers were good at it then also.
Does Darren Sammy have 200+ Test Wickets at an avg < 25 like Bedser does and is also rated as the top bowler in the world (again like Bedser was during Bradmans time ) ? Without ever having to look at his stats I can say for sure that this isn't the case. Why? Batting standards. Not only do you need to have some bare minimum pace but also accuracy, stamina ( fitness !! ) to keep up the pace and ofcourse the bowling smarts and strong fielding units to succeed as a bowler today. None of this was applicable in Bradman's time.
just to add to my previous post ... Sammy is far more quicker than Bedser.
At this point in time Ashwin has bowled about 600 balls lesser than Bedser did in his career even though Ashwin has bowled in 6 extra innings. How can this happen ?
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/26421.html Ashwin 98 inngs 15314 balls
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/9057.html Bedser 92 inngs 15918 balls
There is no way one can bowl that much in Tests as a fast bowler if he isnt slow.
and lastly ... if you think bowling 75-80 is easy ... you should try measuring your speeds while chucking ... believe me it is difficult.
Bedsers strike rate was 67 economy under 2 work it out his accuracy and being always at the batsman was the reason he took wickets.
Being accurate on flat wickets is crucial which gives you the edge when there's a helpful wicket to be succesful.
Fielding standards were better in some ways watch the action and see how many misfields you see you'll struggle to see any bad fielding.
Being accurate on flat wickets is crucial which gives you the edge when there's a helpful wicket to be succesful.
Fielding standards were better in some ways watch the action and see how many misfields you see you'll struggle to see any bad fielding.
My point was about work load for a fast bowler. Nobody can bowl that many overs per innings unless he is slow. He got wkts because batting standards were low
And not even the most fanatic Bradman supporters will defend the fielding standards of that era. It's very strange to see someone do that. How do you justify that?
Last edited:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eyhIIp_fffM
More in depth footage of Bradman his technique quick footwork can be analysed better here.
Also there's bodyline where Larwood is making batsman hop the speed must be decent to bowl bouncers like that.
More in depth footage of Bradman his technique quick footwork can be analysed better here.
Also there's bodyline where Larwood is making batsman hop the speed must be decent to bowl bouncers like that.
All at slow speed !!
Watch what happens when speed is slightly higher and Bradman now is not guaranteed that the ball will pitch in his half : https://youtu.be/9HzuvGrpCtg?t=2m2s
Camped on backfoot unsure and therefore too late to move closer and has to deal with just hands and cleaned up. This is why Larwood is my hero even though he had speed nowhere close to the express pace bowlers of today.
Now compare a similar delivery from Brett Lee at 160K's :
https://youtu.be/g_qa20KKCEg?t=48s
It is very obvious from the effort and the fact that the ball has already hit the stumps by the time BLee has gotten his left foot not even half way into the stride. Thats what real express bowling looks like and there is no way Bradman could have dealt with this by getting the bowler banned.
see above.
How do you know Larwood is bowling a lot slower than Lee?
There were no speeds guns Lee bowling close to 100mph wasn't common he was in the 90-95mph range.
Tests done to measure Larwoods speed have it at over 90mph peak not sure one could believe that totally aswell but it shows Bradman didn't face bowling that Grace or maybe Hobbs would've faced by the 40s and 50s bowling was pretty much fully developed.
If it was all about pace Lee Sami Tait would be the best ever bowlers but they are not.
There were no speeds guns Lee bowling close to 100mph wasn't common he was in the 90-95mph range.
Tests done to measure Larwoods speed have it at over 90mph peak not sure one could believe that totally aswell but it shows Bradman didn't face bowling that Grace or maybe Hobbs would've faced by the 40s and 50s bowling was pretty much fully developed.
If it was all about pace Lee Sami Tait would be the best ever bowlers but they are not.
Just look at the no.of frames it takes for the ball to hit the stumps and compare it with Brett Lee... For Brett Lee the ball has already passed the bat by the time his right foot hits the ground.
You keep saying that bowling was already developed and just as good as today .... but never answer this simple question : Who is the 110K strike bowler *TODAY* that has 200+ wkts ?
Comparing the ball to Lee is harsh the bowl is a rarity bowled at 99.4mph one of the fastest ever the frame rate of Larwood is similar to bowlers bowling 85-90mph.
Bedser was not a strike bowler a strike rate of 67 tells you he worked hard for his wickets mostly down to his economy rate of under 2.
He bowled most likely 115-125kph average and was very accurate could swing the ball in and bowl leg cutters that's why he's more succesful than others.
Because if Lee was asked to bowl to maintain over rate of 20+ whole day, even he would have been bowling at speed of 120 and not more.
Larwood was no superman, whereas Lee was certainly one of the fastest in history of game.
It is not comparable to even that range. You can check for yourselves as there is plenty of modern footage to compare with.
If you regularly bowl seam up and open the bowling you are considered a strike bowler .. atleast in the modern game
He most certainly does not bowl anywhere close to that speed range. Thats what Darren Sammy bowls and it is very obviously visible to the naked eye even the difference between Sammy and Bedser.
The thing is this kind of bowling just does not work anymore. No matter how hard anyone can try and be super accurate. But ofcourse the usual tactic of downgrading modern bowler speeds and overrating speeds of older bowlers is the standard tactic used by Bradman fans to narrow the gap.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUIvcETUwM
Here is Shoaib Akhtar bowling over 80mph with a short run up it is very much possible to bowl decent pace with a good build and action without a long run up.
Here is Shoaib Akhtar bowling over 80mph with a short run up it is very much possible to bowl decent pace with a good build and action without a long run up.
ehh? Your logic is Shoaib Akhtar can do it therefore Bedser & Co are bowling at a decent pace ? that doesnt compute because Shoaib is still bending his back and has the advantage of hyper extension. Runup alone doesnt guarantee pace. Otherwise everyone would be clocking 140Ks.
Similar threads
