How much do you think Don Bradman would average if he played in the 21st century?

[IndianWillow]

Considering that cricket was only available to privileged people in a couple of countries, it's laughable to think that talent pool pre-war was even remotely comparable to current time.

When Pataudi was Indian captain during the 60s, his team mates were mostly from poor/middle class families who played cricket and had regular jobs, as earnings from cricket were too meagre to support their livelihood. Pataudi used to give away his earnings from cricket to his team mates as he was a rich prince. Even in England complete professionalism in FC happened only during the early 60s. Bradman belonged to the true era of professionalism indeed!

 

[Cric1234]

When Pataudi was Indian captain during the 60s, his team mates were mostly from poor/middle class families who played cricket and had regular jobs, as earnings from cricket were too meagre to support their livelihood. Pataudi used to give away his earnings from cricket to his team mates as he was a rich prince. Even in England complete professionalism in FC happened only during the early 60s. Bradman belonged to the true era of professionalism indeed!

Thats why Sobers has a worse record in the 50s than the 60s and 70s another theory that takes a hit.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Thats why Sobers has a worse record in the 50s than the 60s and 70s another theory that takes a hit.

Or maybe Sober became a better player later in his career? Like so many others?

 

[IndianWillow]

Sobers made 365* and a mountain of runs during the 50s. The first two or three years of his career weren't very good though, but he was raw and very young. His maiden hundred was a triple ton and there was no looking back.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Thats why Sobers has a worse record in the 50s than the 60s and 70s another theory that takes a hit.

Smith started as bowler and is now best batsman in world because standard of international bowling is far below Aus domestic bowling.

 

[Cric1234]

Or maybe Sober became a better player later in his career? Like so many others?

But the 40s and 50s were amateur era village cricket he shouldn't have struggled at all and even if he improved the 60s and 70s were truly professional there should've been a decline in his performance.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

But the 40s and 50s were amateur era village cricket he shouldn't have struggled at all and even if he improved the 60s and 70s were truly professional there should've been a decline in his performance.

Read below

Smith started as bowler and is now best batsman in world because standard of international bowling is far below Aus domestic bowling.

 

[Cric1234]

Smith started as bowler and is now best batsman in world because standard of international bowling is far below Aus domestic bowling.

You forgot his average was over 50 in FC before he became a great batsman the potential was already there playing him as a batsman made him fulfil it.

 

[Cric1234]

Sobers made 365* and a mountain of runs during the 50s. The first two or three years of his career weren't very good though, but he was raw and very young. His maiden hundred was a triple ton and there was no looking back.

That too against Pakistan but he struggled against Australia and England with some of the players from Bradmans era still playing.

 

[AlizeeFan]

You forgot his average was over 50 in FC before he became a great batsman the potential was already there playing him as a batsman made him fulfil it.

Yes, he was averaging great 20 and 30s in FC cricket before 2012. He had scored 2016 runs in his 31 FC matches at avg of 41 till 2011.

So, how did world's best batsman was struggling to average 40 in FC cricket. Probably international cricket is no match for FC level bowlng.

 

[IndianWillow]

That too against Pakistan but he struggled against Australia and England with some of the players from Bradmans era still playing.

It isn"t as if one day it was the era of amateurs and the next day it was professional. Cricket has history going back to the 17th century or so. Test cricket arrived in 1877 and then slowly evolved, picking up more teams, more professionalism and quality as years rolled by. World war II was a bridge zone in the recent history of the world for a variety of things. Because the war efforts ushered in a new age of technological innovations that reshaped the world - sports professionalism also assumed new dimension and so on.

 

[Cric1234]

Yes, he was averaging great 20 and 30s in FC cricket before 2012. He had scored 2016 runs in his 31 FC matches at avg of 41 till 2011.

So, how did world's best batsman was struggling to average 40 in FC cricket. Probably international cricket is no match for FC level bowlng.

First FC season for Steve Smith 13 matches average over 50 after that he started playing international
Cricket.

 

[Tusker]

Bradman's era was not the era of true professionals. All the FC cricketers (except the aristocrats and the Lords) played during the summer season(3-4 months a year) and returned to their jobs during off season. To assume that these players can give rise to a rich talent pool or anything more than club standard players of today is wishful thinking. Post world war II only players somewhat resembling modern cricketers emerged and cricket became truly modern and fully professional sport at the FC level only in the late 60s and 70s.

Bradman Worked as a Stock broker. Hobbs supposedly a pro had a business. Few players used to refuse to go on tours because it was not financially viable. At a time when the Great Depression followed by War completely ruined the world economy it is laughable to even suggest that some of these players were Professionals in the same sense as modern players.

The irony here is Professionals were actually considered inferior to Amateurs. Which is why it was necessary to be a amateur in order to captain the English team. Wally Hammond had to switch back to being a Amateur in order to captain England.

 

[Tusker]

Thats why Sobers has a worse record in the 50s than the 60s and 70s another theory that takes a hit.

Except that the first semblance of any sort of professional Cricket began to emerge only after Sobers retired. The first real step was WSC cricket.

And just because some cricketers started getting paid decent sums doesnt mean that it automatically changed the standards overnight. It doesn't work that way. It takes years for that to take hold and get down to lower levels of cricket. For example in India leagues like KPL are just about beginning to get serious. There is still work to be done. Cricket in my opinion has taken a very slow and arduous route to qet to complete professionalism.

 

[Chrish]

Just don't bother. For some people Cricket started in early 90s and ended in 2010s.

It's not worth wasting your breath if you know what I mean?

 

[Cric1234]

Except that the first semblance of any sort of professional Cricket began to emerge only after Sobers retired. The first real step was WSC cricket.

And just because some cricketers started getting paid decent sums doesnt mean that it automatically changed the standards overnight. It doesn't work that way. It takes years for that to take hold and get down to lower levels of cricket. For example in India leagues like KPL are just about beginning to get serious. There is still work to be done. Cricket in my opinion has taken a very slow and arduous route to qet to complete professionalism.

The first paragraph sums up the mindset of trying to prove a sudden evolution in cricketing prowess.
Sobers struggled against England and Australia in the 50s but was able to score a double century against Australia with Lillee present who only became professional after 1974 because that's when Sobers retired.
Pre 1974 are all amateurs because we have Sobers and others who overlapped with Bradmans era so there has to be a way to eliminate them aswell before professionalism took over.
Now we know the years when cricket became a different game and records beforehand became extinct.

 

[Chrish]

And now if any player not from their country pile up lot of runs, it will be only because bowling standards have suddenly declined and that they don't have to face 90s/00s bowlers.

 

[Robert]

But the 40s and 50s were amateur era village cricket he shouldn't have struggled at all and even if he improved the 60s and 70s were truly professional there should've been a decline in his performance.

There were professional cricketers in the 1920s.

 

[Cric1234]

There were professional cricketers in the 1920s.

It was more of a response to the posts about cricket being Amateur pre 70s or 60s there have been some professionals for a long time but another source of income was necessary as cricket careers were short and not lucrative another way to make money was compulsory.

 

[Chrish]

Bowling/ fielding standards have undoubtedly improved; especially pace bowling. Honestly it can't be denied.

How Bradman would have gone against Holding/ Garner or Wasim/ Waqar, we will never find out. Our guesses will remain conjecture.

One thing to consider is guy like Gavaskar never faced pace bowling in domestic but still adopted just fine.

 

[Cric1234]

Bowling/ fielding standards have undoubtedly improved; especially pace bowling. Honestly it can't be denied.

How Bradman would have gone against Holding/ Garner or Wasim/ Waqar, we will never find out. Our guesses will remain conjecture.

One thing to consider is guy like Gavaskar never faced pace bowling in domestic but still adopted just fine.

Watching the clip of Hobbs he looks a better fielder in the 1920s than most modern day fielders so in some cases yes not everyone is a Jonty Rhodes in modern day cricket.
Are bowlers better? The all time great bowlers would be but otherwise not so much there are more express bowlers now but they aren't generally succesful.
Apart from Warne and Murali O'reilly and Laker might well be 2 of the best spin bowlers of all time.

 

[Tusker]

The first paragraph sums up the mindset of trying to prove a sudden evolution in cricketing prowess.

And the 2nd paragraph of that post was intended to address exactly this sort of response that I was sure to come about. It still did not make any difference ..... just like how Pace did not make any difference nor did the fact about workload nor do fielding nor do video footage which tell a story that is vastly different from the written accounts and so on and so forth.

Sounds like you are very determined to not let the facts disturb your state of blissful ignorance about anything to do with Bradman. More than anything else this stubborn refusal to accept facts is the problem in these discussions.

Sobers struggled against England and Australia in the 50s but was able to score a double century against Australia with Lillee present who only became professional after 1974 because that's when Sobers retired.
Pre 1974 are all amateurs because we have Sobers and others who overlapped with Bradmans era so there has to be a way to eliminate them aswell before professionalism took over.
Now we know the years when cricket became a different game and records beforehand became extinct.

I have already addressed this before to which your response seems to be lets ignore the facts as they don't suit me ( see above ) .... Sobers never faced any fast bowler who bowled to Bradman(you will ignore this again). And the match you talk about happened in Jan-1972 when Lillee was a rookie bowler with about 1 yrs of Test experience and 2 yrs of FC experience prior to that.


And on Profesional ERA: Do you think that Professionalism is some magic switch that everything changes overnight once switched ? It takes decades for it produce results. What world do you live in where every major progress happens overnight ?

 

[IndianWillow]

There were professional cricketers in the 1920s.

But professionals of the 1920s and 2000s are very different. Cricket was not played all year round back then. People earned a bit from cricket and worked in other jobs during offseason. This was going on in FC cricket all over the world until the 60s.

In third world countries like India this was going on until the late 80s. Only in late 1980s did FC cricketers in India earn enough money from cricket to maintain very decent standards of life and gave up other part time jobs.

Simply using the word professional does not cut it. Professionalism is not just black or white - it exists in shades of grey. 1920s was not at all a professional era if you compare the way modern cricketers are professionals.

 

[Chrish]

But professionals of the 1920s and 2000s are very different. Cricket was not played all year round back then. People earned a bit from cricket and worked in other jobs during offseason. This was going on in FC cricket all over the world until the 60s.

In third world countries like India this was going on until the late 80s. Only in late 1980s did FC cricketers in India earn enough money from cricket to maintain very decent standards of life and gave up other part time jobs.

Simply using the word professional does not cut it. Professionalism is not just black or white - it exists in shades of grey. 1920s was not at all a professional era if you compare the way modern cricketers are professionals.

No you are describing amature. Professional was someone employed by the county in those days and their job was to keep playing Cricket full time.

Of course they didn't make the fortune but it was enough to make the ends meet.

 

[GrandMaster]

between 45 and 50.

 

[IndianWillow]

No you are describing amature. Professional was someone employed by the county in those days and their job was to keep playing Cricket full time.

Of course they didn't make the fortune but it was enough to make the ends meet.

No! Professionals played full time cricket only during the playing season, 3-4 months in summer. No cricket in winter anyway, the professionals had to find work elsewhere and returned to cricket next summer. Amateurs were not full time players, were not paid fixed salaries and only paid for expenses.

 

[Tusker]

No! Professionals played full time cricket only during the playing season, 3-4 months in summer. No cricket in winter anyway, the professionals had to find work elsewhere and returned to cricket next summer. Amateurs were not full time players, were not paid fixed salaries and only paid for expenses.

you have to understand the definition of a "Pro" according to Bradman fanatics .... get paid a few dollars for playing cricket = Pro.

In all the time I have discussed this topic with die-hard Bradman fan club members here are the things I have found out:

1. Batting was better
2. Bowling was better
3. Fielding was just as good as modern day. Some fielders were actually better in the 1920s and 30s.
4. Pitches were minefield
5. Larwood bowled 150K+
6. Nothing remotely comparable to Bodyline
7. Smoking doesnt really affect your fitness
8. Pace doesnt make any difference.
9. Last but not least Professionalism doesnt make any difference. (Actually according to some really die-hard fanatics Amateurs > Pros )


That in a nutshell is "World According to Bradman Fans"

 

[Chrish]

No! Professionals played full time cricket only during the playing season, 3-4 months in summer. No cricket in winter anyway, the professionals had to find work elsewhere and returned to cricket next summer. Amateurs were not full time players, were not paid fixed salaries and only paid for expenses.

Fair enough. Here is the interesting section about this on Wiki:

"The outlook of the two classes contrasted in that most of the amateurs played primarily for enjoyment, while most of the professionals took the game, as their living, very seriously indeed. In both cases, there was the possibility of bonuses being earned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_status_in_first-class_cricket

 

[IndianWillow]

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION] - No questions regarding whether cricket was serious business back then. Cricket was played seriously since early 19th century, which is why it got global and test cricket appeared.

But like all sports, cricket is an evolving sport. Generation after generation, quality of the game improved as every successive generation learned from their predecessors. Some posts made on this thread make you think that cricket had reached its zenith by early 20th century even though it is a fact that FC cricketers back then played 3-4 months of cricket an year.

Pace bowling of 1920s and 30s has little resemblence to the 70s and afterwards.
Spin bowling too was of an inferior quality. Fielding was vastly inferior. This does not take away the greatness of those former legends who competed fiercely on the field with all the available resources, technologies and knowledge of the game they had back then.

 

[Robert]

But professionals of the 1920s and 2000s are very different. Cricket was not played all year round back then. People earned a bit from cricket and worked in other jobs during offseason. This was going on in FC cricket all over the world until the 60s.

In third world countries like India this was going on until the late 80s. Only in late 1980s did FC cricketers in India earn enough money from cricket to maintain very decent standards of life and gave up other part time jobs.

Simply using the word professional does not cut it. Professionalism is not just black or white - it exists in shades of grey. 1920s was not at all a professional era if you compare the way modern cricketers are professionals.

County pros had winter jobs even in the nineties. Andy Caddick used to paint the fences at Somerset if he didn't go on an England tour. Did this mean he was not a professional cricketer? Of course not. There are hundreds of salaried cricketers in the English system and only about thirty play cricket all year round.

You get paid an agreed contracted salary to do something? You are a professional. Miner, plumber, nurse, cricketer.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION] - No questions regarding whether cricket was serious business back then. Cricket was played seriously since early 19th century, which is why it got global and test cricket appeared.

But like all sports, cricket is an evolving sport. Generation after generation, quality of the game improved as every successive generation learned from their predecessors. Some posts made on this thread make you think that cricket had reached its zenith by early 20th century even though it is a fact that FC cricketers back then played 3-4 months of cricket an year.

Pace bowling of 1920s and 30s has little resemblence to the 70s and afterwards.
Spin bowling too was of an inferior quality. Fielding was vastly inferior. This does not take away the greatness of those former legends who competed fiercely on the field with all the available resources, technologies and knowledge of the game they had back then.

This is a sensible post, though I'm not sure that spinners have got significantly better in the last hundred years. Bosanquet invented the googly. Clarrie Grimmett made the ball hum in flight.

But I like your final sentence. A champion in one era would be a champion in any era. If Jesse Owens was born in the nineties I am not sure he would be quicker than Bolt, but he would be on his heels. Put Fangio in a modern F1 car and he would win Grand Prix. The will to be the best is what counts no matter what era.

 

[IndianWillow]

County pros had winter jobs even in the nineties. Andy Caddick used to paint the fences at Somerset if he didn't go on an England tour. Did this mean he was not a professional cricketer? Of course not. There are hundreds of salaried cricketers in the English system and only about thirty play cricket all year round.

You get paid an agreed contracted salary to do something? You are a professional. Miner, plumber, nurse, cricketer.

The issue is this. Was Andy Caddick doing his cricket drills and training during the offseason? How long were these offseasons? Early day pros simply went off to other jobs or games like football to earn their living. Most of them. And they played little or no serious cricket for months at a time, and this was repeated year after year. They may be pros on paper, but how do they compare with modern pros?

Take India for example and the barriers you need to cross to get into test team India. (The numbers are just for illustration, may not be correct)

1. School/local club team level, some 100,000 strong pool
2. District level, some 25,000 strong pool
3. Inter-district level, some 5,000 strong pool
4. Inter-divisional level, some 1000 strong
5. Zonal, some 200 strong
6. National team, some 30 strong

If you make it to 4,5,6 (maybe 3 also) you can be called pro in theory, who will get a meaningful salary, match fees etc. But if u need to remain a pro you need to train several hours a day all year to stay competitive (even during offseasons), even if you have a job outside cricket. Else you may go down the scale and disappear from the pro circuit in no time. Hanging onto 5,6 categories these days requires elite level training which cannot be sustained if you have other job obligations and are a part time cricketer.

Was it like this in 1920? I doubt it. The talent pools were much smaller back then.

 

[Aman]

Tests - 25
ODIs - 20 SR of 40

 

[Aman]

Just don't bother. For some people Cricket started in early 90s and ended in 2010s.

It's not worth wasting your breath if you know what I mean?

No guessing needed, he would have been slaughtered. He didn't have the reflexes to keep up players of that quality or level.

 

[Robert]

The issue is this. Was Andy Caddick doing his cricket drills and training during the offseason? How long were these offseasons? Early day pros simply went off to other jobs or games like football to earn their living. Most of them. And they played little or no serious cricket for months at a time, and this was repeated year after year. They may be pros on paper, but how do they compare with modern pros?

Take India for example and the barriers you need to cross to get into test team India. (The numbers are just for illustration, may not be correct)

1. School/local club team level, some 100,000 strong pool
2. District level, some 25,000 strong pool
3. Inter-district level, some 5,000 strong pool
4. Inter-divisional level, some 1000 strong
5. Zonal, some 200 strong
6. National team, some 30 strong

If you make it to 4,5,6 (maybe 3 also) you can be called pro in theory, who will get a meaningful salary, match fees etc. But if u need to remain a pro you need to train several hours a day all year to stay competitive (even during offseasons), even if you have a job outside cricket. Else you may go down the scale and disappear from the pro circuit in no time. Hanging onto 5,6 categories these days requires elite level training which cannot be sustained if you have other job obligations and are a part time cricketer.

Was it like this in 1920? I doubt it. The talent pools were much smaller back then.

Let's talk about England as India was not established as a cricket power back then.

The English and Welsh leagues were stronger in those days than today. There were more teams and level of competition was much higher. The pool of talent among the professional cricketers came from down the mines and the fields. These were physically hard men used to backbreaking labour of a type hardly seen in modern Britain. They were all desperate to rise above, because the alternative was to carry on with work that would put them in an early grave, either quickly from a mine collapse or slowly from lung disease. Go swimming and risk polio. Antibiotics hardly available until the NHS was born. Thousands competed for a County place. Getting one meant being a hardman. Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Trueman and Statham were all from that world.

These days the pool of talent is soft-bodied and soft-minded by comparison. The drive, the competition to get a County contract is less, because there is always cushy work in a bank or a call centre to fall back on. So we are not producing world-class players any more. Life is too easy now. The bowlers are mostly trundlers and slows that can't spin the ball. Put someone with that mind-set in 1920 and they will be shoved out of the way, scrambled over by someone who is desperate for a better life.

 

[Tusker]

Let's talk about England as India was not established as a cricket power back then.

The English and Welsh leagues were stronger in those days than today. There were more teams and level of competition was much higher. The pool of talent among the professional cricketers came from down the mines and the fields. These were physically hard men used to backbreaking labour of a type hardly seen in modern Britain. They were all desperate to rise above, because the alternative was to carry on with work that would put them in an early grave, either quickly from a mine collapse or slowly from lung disease. Go swimming and risk polio. Antibiotics hardly available until the NHS was born. Thousands competed for a County place. Getting one meant being a hardman. Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Trueman and Statham were all from that world.

not sure about that ... since Cricketers back then were paid a pittance and there was "work" only when you played and in the summer. You got dropped you lost wages. Its not like they were on a retainer contract like today.

These days the pool of talent is soft-bodied and soft-minded by comparison. The drive, the competition to get a County contract is less, because there is always cushy work in a bank or a call centre to fall back on. So we are not producing world-class players any more. Life is too easy now. The bowlers are mostly trundlers and slows that can't spin the ball. Put someone with that mind-set in 1920 and they will be shoved out of the way, scrambled over by someone who is desperate for a better life.

Mark Wood, Broad, Anderson, Stokes, Plunkett, Flintoff, Harmison, Simon Jones etc etc are all trundlers ?

 

[IndianWillow]

Let's talk about England as India was not established as a cricket power back then.

The English and Welsh leagues were stronger in those days than today. There were more teams and level of competition was much higher. The pool of talent among the professional cricketers came from down the mines and the fields. These were physically hard men used to backbreaking labour of a type hardly seen in modern Britain. They were all desperate to rise above, because the alternative was to carry on with work that would put them in an early grave, either quickly from a mine collapse or slowly from lung disease. Go swimming and risk polio. Antibiotics hardly available until the NHS was born. Thousands competed for a County place. Getting one meant being a hardman. Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Trueman and Statham were all from that world.

These days the pool of talent is soft-bodied and soft-minded by comparison. The drive, the competition to get a County contract is less, because there is always cushy work in a bank or a call centre to fall back on. So we are not producing world-class players any more. Life is too easy now. The bowlers are mostly trundlers and slows that can't spin the ball. Put someone with that mind-set in 1920 and they will be shoved out of the way, scrambled over by someone who is desperate for a better life.

That did not sound convincing.

Why are most olympic medals going to richer nations and not the populous poorer nations, if only the poor coal workers have the incentive to succeed?

When was the last time England produced a truly ATG bowler - for a long time now, we all think WI, Pakistan, Australia, SA or even NZ when we talk of great bowlers. Even batting -
India, Australia, SA, WI etc have produced more batting legends compared to the English for a long time now. So it is as if somehow that once rest of the world learnt the game well the English invented, the English themselves could not match up with the rest of the world and sought refuge in their old legends who faced less external competition.

But this logic does not hold because the English sportsmen are improving upon their predecessors over the decades and doing pretty well at the global level for its population size, somehow only cricket seems to run into this soft bodied soft minded men inspite of having good patronage. Are the softbodied modern English sprinters able to outrun their hardy 1930s counterparts? Why or why not? Or does the modern English physique that prefers bank jobs applies selectively to cricketers only?

 

[DRsohail]

60//...

 

[Chrish]

No guessing needed, he would have been slaughtered. He didn't have the reflexes to keep up players of that quality or level.

Can you explain the overlap of the careers of different players?

Sachin with Viv; Viv with Lloyd; Lloyd with sobers; sobers with Hutton; Hutton with Bradman ?

 

[Cric1234]

Can you explain the overlap of the careers of different players?

Sachin with Viv; Viv with Lloyd; Lloyd with sobers; sobers with Hutton; Hutton with Bradman ?

Like you said don't bother people have their own opinions the facts speak for themselves.
Sobers one of the best of all time is still 43 points behind Bradman but the explanation for this he didn't face the same fast bowlers in the 50s everything is said (trolling generally) to bring down a batsman who averaged 100 and somehow bring him to Sachin levels and below.

 

[Robert]

That did not sound convincing.

Why are most olympic medals going to richer nations and not the populous poorer nations, if only the poor coal workers have the incentive to succeed?

When was the last time England produced a truly ATG bowler - for a long time now, we all think WI, Pakistan, Australia, SA or even NZ when we talk of great bowlers. Even batting -
India, Australia, SA, WI etc have produced more batting legends compared to the English for a long time now. So it is as if somehow that once rest of the world learnt the game well the English invented, the English themselves could not match up with the rest of the world and sought refuge in their old legends who faced less external competition.

But this logic does not hold because the English sportsmen are improving upon their predecessors over the decades and doing pretty well at the global level for its population size, somehow only cricket seems to run into this soft bodied soft minded men inspite of having good patronage. Are the softbodied modern English sprinters able to outrun their hardy 1930s counterparts? Why or why not? Or does the modern English physique that prefers bank jobs applies selectively to cricketers only?

I was talking about professionals in the 1920s, not the modern era.

England have not produced a great bowler, arguably since John Snow or perhaps Bob Willis, because the County Championship has become a breeding ground for mediocrity and not excellence. There are far too many players who just jog along for five or ten years with no chance of ever being good enough to play for England. Radical change is necessary to increase competition. Halve the number of Counties, so there are half as many professional jobs. Fast-track the good League players into the Counties like the Aussies do. Then we might produce a world-class quick again.

 

[Tusker]

Like you said don't bother people have their own opinions the facts speak for themselves.
Sobers one of the best of all time is still 43 points behind Bradman but the explanation for this he didn't face the same fast bowlers in the 50s everything is said (trolling generally) to bring down a batsman who averaged 100 and somehow bring him to Sachin levels and below.

Your inability to logically explain the vast difference in standards while refusing to budge from your position that is based only on 99.94 is the reason for such responses.

 

[Cric1234]

Your inability to logically explain the vast difference in standards while refusing to budge from your position that is based only on 99.94 is the reason for such responses.

I understand your reasoning of facing a handful of great bowlers does have some affect on a Batsmens average.
What I don't get is saying standards are astronomically higher which they have to be to make modern day greats better than Bradman.
I'd like to know the FC bowlers Sachin faced that were better than the ones Bradman faced which explains Sachins average of 62 compared to 100.

 

[Chrish]

Tendulkar actually averaged 87 in Ranji iirc..

Not making any point btw.

 

[Chrish]

2010s has been one of the easiest period of batting; other than rank turners in India and occasional sporting tracks in England/ SA, majority of wickets have been very good to bat on.

I expect overall batting average of this decade to be just as high as 40s by the time we are done.

 

[Cric1234]

Tendulkar actually averaged 87 in Ranji iirc..

Not making any point btw.

He did average 87 in 38 matches in Ranji which helps his overall FC average of 62 in 110 matches.

 

[Cric1234]

The bowlers that did well against Tendulkar in the Ranji trophy 2 of them averaged 42 and 50 in tests one was better averaging 30.

 

[Chrish]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION]

Mate you seem to be knowledgeable about that era. Do you have any interesting Bradman anecdotes to post? Like did Bradman face short pitched stuff in any other the post-bodyline series?

Also do you know of any opinions of the Cricket writers/ former players who saw Bradman and then some of the 'modern" generation players like Sobers, Richards play and made the comparisons?

It would be interesting to learn about it rather than usual statistical analysis which has been done to death.

 

[Tusker]

I understand your reasoning of facing a handful of great bowlers does have some affect on a Batsmens average.
What I don't get is saying standards are astronomically higher which they have to be to make modern day greats better than Bradman.
I'd like to know the FC bowlers Sachin faced that were better than the ones Bradman faced which explains Sachins average of 62 compared to 100.

Not handful. But nearly 2 dozen in SRT case.

In FC cricket he faced the likes of Kumble, Srinath, Kapil, occasionally Warne, Polly most English cricketers in early 90s when they still played a FC game on tours.

 

[Cric1234]

[MENTION=145645]Cric1234[/MENTION]

Mate you seem to be knowledgeable about that era. Do you have any interesting Bradman anecdotes to post? Like did Bradman face short pitched stuff in any other the post-bodyline series?

Also do you know of any opinions of the Cricket writers/ former players who saw Bradman and then some of the 'modern" generation players like Sobers, Richards play and made the comparisons?

It would be interesting to learn about it rather than usual statistical analysis which has been done to death.

Bodyline was probably the most short bowling he would've faced a tactic deliberately employed to keep bowling at the body without any protection to disrupt his rhythm with a leg side field.
Otherwise there wouldn't have been too much other than the odd bouncer here and there.
I have been trying to find some opinions on Bradman Sobers and Richards but haven't found much.
Opinions can be biased you have to look at bowling averages aswell during any era and there isn't much difference or enough for someone to almost double the next best in performance.

 

[Cric1234]

2010s has been one of the easiest period of batting; other than rank turners in India and occasional sporting tracks in England/ SA, majority of wickets have been very good to bat on.

I expect overall batting average of this decade to be just as high as 40s by the time we are done.

Despite flatter wickets in some countries and a lack of great bowlers the 60 average mark hasn't been bettered and theres another 40 points before we get to Bradman.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Despite flatter wickets in some countries and a lack of great bowlers the 60 average mark hasn't been bettered and theres another 40 points before we get to Bradman.

Of course it hasn't been bettered, look at previous pages to see why it hasn't. Bradman's stats have been debunked thoroughly

 

[IndianWillow]

Like you said don't bother people have their own opinions the facts speak for themselves.
Sobers one of the best of all time is still 43 points behind Bradman but the explanation for this he didn't face the same fast bowlers in the 50s everything is said (trolling generally) to bring down a batsman who averaged 100 and somehow bring him to Sachin levels and below.

Bradman never faced any kind of bowling the bears a resemblence to modern bowling. This is undeniable. 150kph or even 130kph bowlers in Bradman era is pure myth. Sobers played in a mixed era - he faced a hybrid or mix of bowling, he belonged to a era where the transition between pre-war and modern cricket happened. Cricket evolved more rapidly during Sobers era compared to Bradman. Global interaction due to commercial flights, rapid exchange of ideas, media coverage and closer scrutiny of player techniques, weaknesses etc were happening in the 50s and 60s - 70s were the beginnings of a purely modern era. 70s-80s saw relatively similar cricket. 90s saw a lot of commercialization of the game and big money poured into the game as the SC wrested more control of the game. 2000s and 2010s have somewhat moved on from the 70s-80s era, we are probably witnessing the transformation of cricket from a more passive leisurely artistic skill driven game to rapidfire, active, power driven game. Without taking into account all these Bradman's magic 100 number cannot be appreciated for what it truly means in cricket. Was Bradman 200% superior to every batsman who has ever played merely based on that number? I guess the answer is an emphatic no.

 

[Robert]

Bradman never faced any kind of bowling the bears a resemblence to modern bowling. This is undeniable. 150kph or even 130kph bowlers in Bradman era is pure myth.

I deny it.

I think it reasonable to state that that Larwood was at 85-90 mph. Lindwall too, whom Bradman would have faced in Shield cricket where he averaged 94. Miller a bit less, perhaps Anderson/Broad speed.

As for scrutiny of technique, they did that by watching the player play. Hence fast leg-theory was deployed against Bradman.

 

[IndianWillow]

I deny it.

I think it reasonable to state that that Larwood was at 85-90 mph. Lindwall too, whom Bradman would have faced in Shield cricket where he averaged 94. Miller a bit less, perhaps Anderson/Broad speed.

As for scrutiny of technique, they did that by watching the player play. Hence fast leg-theory was deployed against Bradman.

Did Larwood bowl at that speed even in FC to relatively unskilled and unprotected batsmen? That sounds very scary - how many FC batsmen did Larwood eventually kill on the field? How did Larwood play so many FC matches every season(lasted 3-4 months an year in summer) bowling at such speeds? What was Larwood average speed if we still assume he did occasionally do 140k?

There is truly no comparison between scrutiny with TV zoomed slow replays and computer analysis, and manual scrutiny.

 

[Robert]

Mark Wood, Broad, Anderson, Stokes, Plunkett, Flintoff, Harmison, Simon Jones etc etc are all trundlers ?

That eight guys good enough to play for England in 17 years, none of whom I would deem world class, from a pool of 200 professionals supports my point.

Mostly means the six seamers on every County staff who will never get a look at an England place. Know the number of Counties down to six or eight, push the competition level up.

 

[Tusker]

I deny it.

I think it reasonable to state that that Larwood was at 85-90 mph. Lindwall too, whom Bradman would have faced in Shield cricket where he averaged 94. Miller a bit less, perhaps Anderson/Broad speed.

As for scrutiny of technique, they did that by watching the player play. Hence fast leg-theory was deployed against Bradman.

1. Larwood never really bowled at those speeds even in that bodyline series. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the video evidence and circumstantial evidence.
2. Lindwall never really bowled to Bradman in a FC match as they faced each other in only one or two matches and Bradman didnt last long enough to play any meaningful amount of his bowling to make any comparison.
3. Miller could never have been anywhere close to Broad and Anderson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0zdfYSU8Bk&feature=youtu.be&t=5m30s

from a 10 pace run up ambling in is unlikely to have ever bowled anything above the 75-80mph mark.

But then again you guys consider Frank Tyson as the fastest ever English bowler.

The problem here is that the reputation built up over many decades through notoriously biased and hyped up written accounts that paint these players as nothing short of Gladiators that no matter what evidence is produced it is never enough. I could do a frame by frame comparison of Miller and any modern bowler and you will still find ways to deny that.

 

[Tusker]

That eight guys good enough to play for England in 17 years, none of whom I would deem world class, from a pool of 200 professionals supports my point.

exactly what I thought you would say .... (see my previous post).

Lets do this differently .... what would be the reasons why you do not consider those bowlers to be word class? Is it Pace or is it something else ?

 

[Cric1234]

Did Larwood bowl at that speed even in FC to relatively unskilled and unprotected batsmen? That sounds very scary - how many FC batsmen did Larwood eventually kill on the field? How did Larwood play so many FC matches every season(lasted 3-4 months an year in summer) bowling at such speeds? What was Larwood average speed if we still assume he did occasionally do 140k?

There is truly no comparison between scrutiny with TV zoomed slow replays and computer analysis, and manual scrutiny.

Yes Larwood inflicted injuries on different batsmen 3 were carried off unconscious in FC he must have been bowling over 80mph his action is one the smoothest of all time no reason why with his build he couldn't generate speeds over 80 85mph consistently.

 

[Cric1234]

That eight guys good enough to play for England in 17 years, none of whom I would deem world class, from a pool of 200 professionals supports my point.

Mostly means the six seamers on every County staff who will never get a look at an England place. Know the number of Counties down to six or eight, push the competition level up.

It doesn't matter about how accurate they are as long they bowl over 80mph they automatically become good if you see the pattern of the idea of pace being everything.

 

[jeetu]

We can only speculate regarding Bradman.
If he player like him was born at the time of Border. My best guess 150 test 5 (300+ scores) , 15 (200+) scores , 40 ( 100's) with overall average of 60. Peaks and lows would be quite similar to someone like Lara.

 

[IndianWillow]

Yes Larwood inflicted injuries on different batsmen 3 were carried off unconscious in FC he must have been bowling over 80mph his action is one the smoothest of all time no reason why with his build he couldn't generate speeds over 80 85mph consistently.

You dont need 80mph+ to knock out batsmen depending on where they get hit, their predispositions, overall health etc. Phil Hughes armed with a modern helmet was killed by a delivery which was only 80-85mph, because he was hit awkwardly. But 90mph could be ugly regardless of where or who gets hit. If these were common in FC before the era of post 60s helmets deaths or terminated careers could have been a regular affair in cricket. We know that this is not true. WSC prompted the era of modern helmets because bowling speeds by this time were considered too dangerous even for international batsmen with the skill to face good pace and bounce.

 

[Cric1234]

Of course it hasn't been bettered, look at previous pages to see why it hasn't. Bradman's stats have been debunked thoroughly

I've had a look it's basically highlighting a small purple patch which is unsustainable long term looking at the stats available apart from Sangakarra against Bangladesh as they were genuine minnows.

 

[Tusker]

It doesn't matter about how accurate they are as long they bowl over 80mph they automatically become good if you see the pattern of the idea of pace being everything.

Is that what you understood from what me and others have been saying so far in this discussion ? If so then you got it totally wrong. I know you are now trolling but just in case you are not ... bowlers can be as accurate as they can but bowling at below 130Ks will rarely trouble most Test batsmen these days ... and think twice before you feel the need to type in "McGrath, Philander" etc ... they all bowl around 130Ks. I can actually show you McGrath bowling 140Ks in the Indian heat. And conversely having express speed alone also doesnt cut it. Sami is a great example of the other extreme. This is called standards progression. The system now regularly produces batsman of higher caliber routinely so therefore nobody sees anything magical about their performance. Therefore it takes extraordinary performances to get some bones thrown at you. Nobody gives a tiny ants behind if a fast bowler ended his career at 21 tests. He would be forgotten no matter what he achieved in those 21 Tests.

But as I have said many times .... this discussion on Bradman comes down to dealing with posters so deeply brainwashed by Cricketing history to such an extent that all the great old era players are cnsidered nothing short of possessing magical prowess. And no matter what evidence is produced people will bluntly refuse to believe. They will rather not believe their own eyes and trust notoriously unreliable written accounts ( e.g Larwood Bowled 96MPH )

 

[IndianWillow]

We can only speculate regarding Bradman.
If he player like him was born at the time of Border. My best guess 150 test 5 (300+ scores) , 15 (200+) scores , 40 ( 100's) with overall average of 60. Peaks and lows would be quite similar to someone like Lara.

Bradman may have very well be a Viv/Lara level player if upscaled to the modern era. Bradman was naturally aggressive unlike his peers who were mostly accumulators, his S/R I remember is some mid 60-70 range. This was the secret of Bradman's vast superiority over his peers - he scored fast, did not give his wicket away easily. Viv did the same, but bowling and fielding standards during Viv's era were miles ahead of Bradman's so Viv ended up with a 50avg rather than 100. Bradman was the Viv of his era.

 

[Robert]

exactly what I thought you would say .... (see my previous post).

Lets do this differently .... what would be the reasons why you do not consider those bowlers to be word class? Is it Pace or is it something else ?

No, some of those were very quick. World class bowlers such as Steyn perform consistently in all or nearly all conditions. I think you'd have to go back to Bob Willis to find that in an England bowler.

 

[Robert]

Bradman may have very well be a Viv/Lara level player if upscaled to the modern era. Bradman was naturally aggressive unlike his peers who were mostly accumulators, his S/R I remember is some mid 60-70 range. This was the secret of Bradman's vast superiority over his peers - he scored fast, did not give his wicket away easily. Viv did the same, but bowling and fielding standards during Viv's era were miles ahead of Bradman's so Viv ended up with a 50avg rather than 100. Bradman was the Viv of his era.

If so, how did Miandad, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border and so on average as much as or more than Sir Viv? Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, at least three of which are considered English ATGs. He scored quicker, but he didn't get out as often. His uncanny ability to hit the ball to the boundary at a point where there was no fielder, more often than his contemporaries, was the key. And he never hit it in the air.

 

[Tusker]

No, some of those were very quick. World class bowlers such as Steyn perform consistently in all or nearly all conditions. I think you'd have to go back to Bob Willis to find that in an England bowler.

Willis has a poor record against WI (Avg 36) - the best team of his times and avgs 29 in Aus ... certainly not an all conditions bowler.

BTW Larwood's home avg is not even under 30(despite playing 5 matches vs Minnows SA and WI) . Infact his avg against Aus at home is 41 !! Why is he rated so highly then ?

If so, how did Miandad, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border and so on average as much as or more than Sir Viv? Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, at least three of which are considered English ATGs. He scored quicker, but he didn't get out as often. His uncanny ability to hit the ball to the boundary at a point where there was no fielder, more often than his contemporaries, was the key. And he never hit it in the air.

Did he ever face a single fast bowler of the Caliber as Ambrose, Imran, Bishop, Walsh, Wasim etc ?
Did he ever play a single Testmatch in Asia ?

The answer to both is a emphatic NO. These things (and there is few more if you care) matter quite a lot when we are talking averages and complete batsmanship. This is why comparing across ERA's is sooo disadvantageous to modern players. Even more so for those who played after South Africa's re-admission and SL's rise.

 

[Tusker]

Bradman may have very well be a Viv/Lara level player if upscaled to the modern era. Bradman was naturally aggressive unlike his peers who were mostly accumulators, his S/R I remember is some mid 60-70 range. This was the secret of Bradman's vast superiority over his peers - he scored fast, did not give his wicket away easily. Viv did the same, but bowling and fielding standards during Viv's era were miles ahead of Bradman's so Viv ended up with a 50avg rather than 100. Bradman was the Viv of his era.

Although Bradman's overall strike rate is not know his strike rate for about 82% of his runs ( 5743 out of 6996 runs) is known and it is 58.61 ( = 5743/9798) . The main thing is his strike rate vs Eng is 58.07

But for his overall SR to be even in the mid 60's he would have had to scored his remaining 1253 (6996-5743) runs at well over more than run a ball which is highly unlikely. If we assume that he scored 1253 in 1000 balls then his overall strike rate comes to 6996/10798 = 64.78

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ing_strike_rate;template=results;type=batting


The point Iam trying to make here is that none of this was known at the time. Because scoring rates were calculated on a per hour basis like vehicle speeds lol. It was only after they realized that balls faced are more important in this calculation that they re-engineered from old scorecards the balls faced. Sadly it could not be done for all tests he played because the scorecards did not have the ball-by-ball details.

 

[IndianWillow]

If so, how did Miandad, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border and so on average as much as or more than Sir Viv? Bradman was twice as good as his contemporaries, at least three of which are considered English ATGs. He scored quicker, but he didn't get out as often. His uncanny ability to hit the ball to the boundary at a point where there was no fielder, more often than his contemporaries, was the key. And he never hit it in the air.

The problem was with Bradman's peers who batted slowly, often with disdain. Slow batting = Quality was then an assumption - making 200 runs in a test day wasnt a bad thing for them. There were also six day, even timeless matches to feed their masterly patient defence. Bradman showed why slow wasnt necessarily a successful batting strategy. Many of his peers probably underachieved, offering a defence stroke to deliveries many modern top batsmen wouldnt hesitate to score off.

 

[Robert]

The problem was with Bradman's peers who batted slowly, often with disdain. Slow batting = Quality was then an assumption - making 200 runs in a test day wasnt a bad thing for them. There were also six day, even timeless matches to feed their masterly patient defence. Bradman showed why slow wasnt necessarily a successful batting strategy. Many of his peers probably underachieved, offering a defence stroke to deliveries many modern top batsmen wouldnt hesitate to score off.

Oh, I don't know, Hammond made 210 in a day once (exactly 70 per session) on his way to 240. It would be interesting to see his career batting rate, and Headley's.

 

[Chrish]

Did they have green tops in those days?

 

[Chrish]

Hammonds SR is estimated in 30s/40s

Bradman was unique not just in terms of runs he scored but also how quickly he scored. He was way ahead of his time

 

[Robert]

Willis has a poor record against WI (Avg 36) - the best team of his times and avgs 29 in Aus ... certainly not an all conditions bowler.

Well, he ran into that early-seventies Windies murder row on their flat decks as a kid, which messed up his average, though he took some fivefers against them too later on. He isn't ATG in the Lillee or Marshall sense but is still the best England have had since Trueman and Staham finished.

BTW Larwood's home avg is not even under 30(despite playing 5 matches vs Minnows SA and WI) . Infact his avg against Aus at home is 41 !! Why is he rated so highly then ?

Quickest of his era by a long margin, plus the legendary Bodyline series I guess. Plus his career was truncated by politics.

Did he ever face a single fast bowler of the Caliber as Ambrose, Imran, Bishop, Walsh, Wasim etc ?
Did he ever play a single Testmatch in Asia ?

The answer to both is a emphatic NO. These things (and there is few more if you care) matter quite a lot when we are talking averages and complete batsmanship. This is why comparing across ERA's is sooo disadvantageous to modern players. Even more so for those who played after South Africa's re-admission and SL's rise.

Well, he averaged 60 against Larwood who was at that pace or thereabouts, against a system specifically deployed to nullify him which has since been banned.

The Asia thing is a red herring - you can only beat what is put in front of you. In an hundred years time some kid with a spreadsheet will say Tendulkar is rubbish because he never played Iceland and Indonesia.

 

[Chrish]

Just ordered David Frith's highly acclaimed book Bodyline Autopsy online.. Will share any anecdotes when I get my hands on.

 

[Robert]

Did they have green tops in those days?

They had everything they have now, plus tracks you don't see any more like sticky dogs where they sent the batting line in upside down!

 

[IndianWillow]

Oh, I don't know, Hammond made 210 in a day once (exactly 70 per session) on his way to 240. It would be interesting to see his career batting rate, and Headley's.

Every batsman has done it once in a while. The s/r of test batsmen before the 90s was typically 35-45. Boycott wss 37 if I remember right. Gavaskar 43. Sobers was ahead of his time. Bradman was leagues above in s/r for his era. Viv was way ahead.

Sehwag changed the template of a modern opener. Averaging some 70+ over 60 tests at s/r 85. Even bettering the likes of Dravid and Sachin in these conditions. Bradman batted like Sehwag for his era, you can be ahead of your equal or even superior peers if you bat positively. Bradman who had a superior technique, aggression, coupled with little variations(few pitches/teams to master) could dominate his peers just like Sehwag did in Asia. Not trying to compare Sehwag and Bradman, but showing how positive attitude can push u above ur peers though u may not be way ahead actually .

 

[The_Odd_One]

I deny it.

I think it reasonable to state that that Larwood was at 85-90 mph. Lindwall too, whom Bradman would have faced in Shield cricket where he averaged 94. Miller a bit less, perhaps Anderson/Broad speed.

As for scrutiny of technique, they did that by watching the player play. Hence fast leg-theory was deployed against Bradman.

Miller with his short run up and almost no jump would have been slightly faster than Afridi.

 

[Cric1234]

Every batsman has done it once in a while. The s/r of test batsmen before the 90s was typically 35-45. Boycott wss 37 if I remember right. Gavaskar 43. Sobers was ahead of his time. Bradman was leagues above in s/r for his era. Viv was way ahead.

Sehwag changed the template of a modern opener. Averaging some 70+ over 60 tests at s/r 85. Even bettering the likes of Dravid and Sachin in these conditions. Bradman batted like Sehwag for his era, you can be ahead of your equal or even superior peers if you bat positively. Bradman who had a superior technique, aggression, coupled with little variations(few pitches/teams to master) could dominate his peers just like Sehwag did in Asia. Not trying to compare Sehwag and Bradman, but showing how positive attitude can push u above ur peers though u may not be way ahead actually .

If there was little variation in pitches why do the spinners in Bradmans time have good averages uncovered wickets probably had more challenges for the batsmen at times than covered wickets.
Sehwags technique would be exposed on stickies and rain affected wickets as would Steve Smiths the evolution of cricket is backward in some ways.

 

[IndianWillow]

If there was little variation in pitches why do the spinners in Bradmans time have good averages uncovered wickets probably had more challenges for the batsmen at times than covered wickets.
Sehwags technique would be exposed on stickies and rain affected wickets as would Steve Smiths the evolution of cricket is backward in some ways.

Check out Sehwag's knock at Galle, where he got a double ton when lot of batsmen struggled to get into the double figures. You underestimated him. Bradman was not considered the king of sticky wickets, some of his peers excelled him here.