Jump to content

If Bradman played today he'd be far better - Gary Sobers


Recommended Posts

A fascinating interview of Gary Sobers in The Independent. The all-time great, easily the greatest living cricketer, pulls no punches and tells it as he sees it. Some salient utterances. -- In 1957 I went to Lord's and sat up on the balcony for 15 minutes, staring. Everton Weekes came to me. He said, 'Son, what are you looking for?' I said, 'Sir, I'm looking for the wicket'. He said, 'You won't see it until they put the stumps down' -- I would not enjoy playing in England now; it's like everywhere else. And they don't have wet wickets any more. Or a back-foot rule. Now they have a front-foot rule. You can only bowl so many bouncers an over, only have two men behind square. The bowlers are the ones who've suffered. I don't like making comparisons between players of different eras, but if Bradman played today he'd be far better. Today, people are bowling from 22 yards. In those days they bowled from 20 yards with four leg slips, six bouncers an over, beamers were not called no-balls, on wet wickets. -- Kids do not organise games of cricket by themselves, playing outside morning, noon and night. Today, if it is not organised, nobody leaves home. They wait for you to pick them up, take them to the ground, give them the best cricket attire. The natural flow of the game has gone." -- I recall the days when Tom, myself, Sir Everton, played for nothing. The pride and honour of playing for your country was more important than what you put in your pocket. Today, that has gone. We have talent in the West Indies, but no pride. A team that has done nothing for the last 15 years, every time they sit down at the table, their representatives ask for more money. If you had executives working in your company who weren't producing, you'd fire them. But these fellows don't get fired; they ask for more money. And if they don't get it, they strike. -- We played each county twice, the Scarborough festival, the Hastings festival, the MCC game, and it was like heaven. I got £5 a week. Today they play three one-day games in eight days and say they're tired. They're tired of making money, that's what they're tired of. I used to believe that practice makes perfect. If you don't practise, you can't achieve perfection, and then people wonder why the first ball goes to third slip. http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article2631124.ece Quite a fascinating read overall. The last point is very well taken. Even in 80's when a team went to England they would play every single county and then few other games. Today all they play is a few tests, LOI and a couple of touring games and still complain about "a lot of cricket". Read it in spare time. xxxx

Link to comment
Today, people are bowling from 22 yards. In those days they bowled from 20 yards with four leg slips, six bouncers an over, beamers were not called no-balls, on wet wickets.
Someone should remind Sobers that in Braddle's time, there were no bouncers & beamers. When that happened, everyone got upset at the whole bouncer-beamer thingy, named it evil bodyline and did away with it. Someone should also remind Sobers that in Bradman's days bowling quality wasnt even a tenth of what it was upto 4-5 years ago. Plus someone should also remind Sobers the lbw laws in Bradman's time- forget pitching outside leg, if the ball pitched outside offstump, it wasnt out, period.
Today all they play is a few tests, LOI and a couple of touring games and still complain about "a lot of cricket".
I made a similar point many weeks ago on how players whining about # of matches played dont consider that even a fast bowler like Marshall played more cricket every year for 20 years than most batsmen do today. IMO, the reason for the jaded & injury phenomenon is not the amount of cricket played but the amount of travel involved. In Sober's days, you got off the boat in England and you stayed there for five months. Period. Yes, you played a dozen first class, half a dozen tests etc but it involved no harrowing jet-setting travel. None of this 'match finish --> catch plane--> rest for a day-->attend camp--> catch plane--> go to other side of the world for 2 weeks--> continue' routine. Its this continuous travel, the continuous jet-setting that saps your energy, immune system and all.
Link to comment
Someone should remind Sobers that in Braddle's time, there were no bouncers & beamers. When that happened, everyone got upset at the whole bouncer-beamer thingy, named it evil bodyline and did away with it.
And pray do tell what makes you think there were no bouncers back in the days of Bradman? Bodyline was infamous NOT because of bouncers but because of its continuous use, often as much as 6 in an over. Not only that but the fielding strategy was put on leg-side with 4-5 leg slips so that there was no ambiguity about the line of bowling. To confuse leg-theory with "invention" of bouncers is ridiculous.
Someone should also remind Sobers that in Bradman's days bowling quality wasnt even a tenth of what it was upto 4-5 years ago. Plus someone should also remind Sobers the lbw laws in Bradman's time- forget pitching outside leg, if the ball pitched outside offstump, it wasnt out, period.
Yes I have heard that before. Bowlers were not good. Guess what I have also heard - Batsman were not good! Why don't people just suggest to dump the records of these "oldies" then? I mean what kind of cr@p line of thought is this ? Batsmen scored because bowlers were not good. By the way if indeed the bowlers of the time were not good have you ever checked the record of George Lohmann, Syd Barnes, Clarrie Grimett, Bill O Reilley, Hugh Tayfield, Spofforth etc etc? How do these gents still have better stats than most of modern-era greats?
I made a similar point many weeks ago on how players whining about # of matches played dont consider that even a fast bowler like Marshall played more cricket every year for 20 years than most batsmen do today. IMO, the reason for the jaded & injury phenomenon is not the amount of cricket played but the amount of travel involved. In Sober's days, you got off the boat in England and you stayed there for five months. Period. Yes, you played a dozen first class, half a dozen tests etc but it involved no harrowing jet-setting travel. None of this 'match finish --> catch plane--> rest for a day-->attend camp--> catch plane--> go to other side of the world for 2 weeks--> continue' routine. Its this continuous travel, the continuous jet-setting that saps your energy, immune system and all.
Yes and No. Yes there is lot more travel. No because the mode of travel is more comfortable. As an example when Australia toured England they would travel by ship which would often take a month or two. Travelling in trains was considered to be a luxury back then. So yes travels have been more but also lot more comfortable. xxxx
Link to comment
But when you try to compare performances during such different times....one tends to question.Besides he has too many problems with the present greats...specially the west Indian ones.....
It is not that he has problems with present greats, he is clearly suggesting how things have changed and how it has benefitted the batsmen. If you read his entire interview he has criticized how the rules change have benefitted the batsmen and quite a few of them are valid. If you were facing Shoaib Akhtar would you much rather face him from 22 yards or 20 yards?? He doesnt criticize bowlers though and quite frankly most of us can agree that cricket today has become quite a one-sided game in favour of batsmen. xxx
Link to comment

Agree about the bowler bit......but that has been in the recent past mostly...... We are talking about a difference of decades..... >>>>-- We played each county twice, the Scarborough festival, the Hastings festival, the MCC game, and it was like heaven. I got £5 a week. Today they play three one-day games in eight days and say they're tired. Now i refuse to believe they played more cricket than the present cricketers. >>>> They're tired of making money, that's what they're tired of. I used to believe that practice makes perfect. If you don't practise, you can't achieve perfection, and then people wonder why the first ball goes to third slip. When past criceters start talking about money...they just seem bitter.Those times were different.Cricket didn't earn as much money as today and hence they were paid less.It was not like they refused the money that was offered. .Why does he make it seem like players play just for money and not for pride?They play and get paid for it...... His opinion that players of past practiced more is too much of a generalisation..... I bet dravid abd tendulkar have spent more time practising and perfecting there game than most players of that time. My objection to his opinion is that it he seems to be bitter......

Link to comment

In Sober's days, you got off the boat in England and you stayed there for five months. Period. Yes, you played a dozen first class, half a dozen tests etc but it involved no harrowing jet-setting travel. None of this 'match finish --> catch plane--> rest for a day-->attend camp--> catch plane--> go to other side of the world for 2 weeks--> continue' routine. Its this continuous travel, the continuous jet-setting that saps your energy, immune system and all.

Link to comment

"We drank until about 9 o'clock, then I got a cold shower, walked up to Lord's, got my pads on and walked out as the umpires called play. I took guard, but all I could see as Bob Willis ran up was arms and legs. The first five balls I missed, and I could hear Rohan Kanhai and everyone else up in the pavilion laughing. Anyhow, the sixth ball hit the bat, and I got to about 70, but then my stomach started giving me problems. I got my hundred, then walked over to [umpire] Charlie Elliott. I said, 'Charlie, I have to go'. He said, 'Go, what for? I haven't seen you get any injury.' I said, 'Charlie, I've held this in for 50 minutes, I can't hold it any longer. Put down whatever you like. I gone...'" Then he expects us to believe they were more dedicated. Besides he held it for his century.......not for the team.....wow!:rolleyes::tounge_smile:

Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks

just one word amaetur game that's what it was.. a batsman could keep flaying balls all over the park but still five slips wud be placed.. noone bothered actually diving to stop the ball then..... and biggest of them al u keep playign same opposition again and again.. we have many bradmans these days like younus khan and sehwag who against a particualr country average around 100... bradmn in my view today wud have been another 50 something average player nothing more nothing less.

Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks
Typical "Hamaare Zamaane Mein Aisa Hota Tha Bakwaas"
so freaking true.. I knw tomorrow I am going to give the same lecture "hamare zamaane mein aisa tha":haha:
Link to comment
And pray do tell what makes you think there were no bouncers back in the days of Bradman?
The whole idea of a ball going for the head ( bouncer) was considered unsporting and very bad till 1931...when bouncers started in the county level ( genesis of bodyline). The English categorically rejected it as unsporting till the Bodyline series - only because they experienced Learie Constantine ( arguably the greatest inter-war period pacer) bowl bodyline and figured Bradman can't handle it. That was the first and last time Bradman played with balls targetting his head. Before and after bodyline, you'd struggle to find more than one bouncer per pacer per innings !
Not only that but the fielding strategy was put on leg-side with 4-5 leg slips so that there was no ambiguity about the line of bowling.
NOTHING different than what Lillee & Thommo did to the West Indians in 1975. Pure boyline. Was dealt with by Freddo & Viv by hooking the hell out of Lillee & Thommo.
By the way if indeed the bowlers of the time were not good have you ever checked the record of George Lohmann, Syd Barnes, Clarrie Grimett, Bill O Reilley, Hugh Tayfield, Spofforth etc etc? How do these gents still have better stats than most of modern-era greats?
Lohmann & Spofforth played in a time when pitches literally looked like the front end of your goalpost in local soccer fields in India. If Tendulkar played on the 1800s pitches, he wouldnt be averaging more than 45 even if he faced bowlers only of Vaas's callibre. However, it is worth noting that Bradman didnt play against a single name mentioned by you in tests.
Yes there is lot more travel. No because the mode of travel is more comfortable. As an example when Australia toured England they would travel by ship which would often take a month or two. Travelling in trains was considered to be a luxury back then. So yes travels have been more but also lot more comfortable.
Sorry but i dont think you know what you are talking about then. Try taking a seven hour flight, then crashing at a hotel, one day rest, play next day, fly 3 hrs somewhere else, rest one day, play next day etc. for a whole month or two. I don't care if you are travelling first class on Lufthansa and staying at Hyatt penthouses- you are still gonna be tired, drained and fatigued. Its the continuous jet-setting, losing a few hrs, gaining a few hrs etc. that really really weakens your immune system. This is the reason its not uncommon for desi travellers to land in Vancouver after 16 hrs on plane in the middle of the summer and promptly get sick for the next week with a flu.
Link to comment
The whole idea of a ball going for the head ( bouncer) was considered unsporting and very bad till 1931...when bouncers started in the county level ( genesis of bodyline).
Can you show me where did you derive that gem from CC?
NOTHING different than what Lillee & Thommo did to the West Indians in 1975. Pure boyline. Was dealt with by Freddo & Viv by hooking the hell out of Lillee & Thommo.
Two points: 1) Viv Richards was so much tormented by Lillee and Thomson that he had to take the help of Pschyiatrist(yeah arguably the greatest batsman of the era had to take expert opinion to combat it). Do you know that? 2) Viv Richards and Fredrick hooked the daylights out of Lilee and Thommo??? Richards scored at a measly 38 and Fredricks at 37! A good solid 40 years after Bodyline even though there had been much advancement in safety gear. By the way Bradman had scored at 56 in Bodyline.. A good solid 20 runs plus in an era of uncovered wicket with no front foot restrcitions. Still doubt his greatness?
Lohmann & Spofforth played in a time when pitches literally looked like the front end of your goalpost in local soccer fields in India. If Tendulkar played on the 1800s pitches, he wouldnt be averaging more than 45 even if he faced bowlers only of Vaas's callibre. However, it is worth noting that Bradman didnt play against a single name mentioned by you in tests.
Players like Bill O Reilley, Clarrie Grimett, Hugh Tayfield are all Bradman's contemprories, Tayfield played a year after Don Bradman retired while the other two played with Don. Here are their stats: Grimett - 216 wicket in 37 Tests@24 O Reilley- 144 wickets in 27 tests@22 Tayfield - 170 wickets in 37@26 Their stats, anyway you look at it, are better than modern cricketers. Both Grimett and O Reilley average around 6 wickets and under 24. Now there are either of the two possibilities: 1) In that era the conditions were great for batting and so Bradman scored at 99. 2) In the era the conditions were great for bowling and hence the bowlers(O Reilley and Grimett) have stats better than today. You CAN NOT have it neither way. That is, batsman was cr@p and bowlers were cr@p. Never mind that NO other batsman of the era averaged even around 50 as compared to Bradman's 99. xxxx
Link to comment
Can you show me where did you derive that gem from CC?
Wisden Almanacs plus a book called 'the social history of cricket' by Derek Birley
1) Viv Richards was so much tormented by Lillee and Thomson that he had to take the help of Pschyiatrist(yeah arguably the greatest batsman of the era had to take expert opinion to combat it). Do you know that?
True but atleast he didnt whine like the Aussies did of Bradman's era. Plus facing Lillee & Thommo is infinitely more challengign than facing Larwood and Voce.
A good solid 40 years after Bodyline even though there had been much advancement in safety gear.
Err like what ? Only thing Richards had better than Bradman (equipmet-wise) is better gloves. Whopee ding.
By the way Bradman had scored at 56 in Bodyline.. A good solid 20 runs plus in an era of uncovered wicket with no front foot restrcitions. Still doubt his greatness?
Bradman played bowlers far inferior to Lillee & Thommo. Viv's era wicket (70s) were uncovered wickets too- that was the era of 'deadly Derek' Underwood who used to nuke opposition on sticky wickets! I don't consider the bodyline to be less challenging than facing most bowling attacks of the 70s,80s & 90s. It was just the novelty factor along with cut-throat professionalism that got everyone upset.
You CAN NOT have it neither way. That is, batsman was cr@p and bowlers were cr@p. Never mind that NO other batsman of the era averaged even around 50 as compared to Bradman's 99.
Two things- 1. Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, Headley ,etc. were all Bradman's contemporaries- they all averaged well over 50 2. Yes you can have it both ways- if the overall quality is crap, it means BOTH batting & bowling were at a crappier standards. You may ask why there were some amazing stats in those days ? Well, the answer is provided by a critical analysis by Derek Birley very cogently : Back then cricket was unprofessional in attitude. You didnt play to win, you played with honour and for fun and all that namby-pamby stuff. As a result, the overall quality of cricketers were very varied. You'd have FC teams with a few players per team who wouldnt make it to most club level today. Ie, due to the unprofessional/amatuer factor, you'd have a team with McGrath opening the bowling with me, tendulkar is followed by Agarkar etc etc. As a result, the few who were professional/'stats-oriented', they could cash in very big by targetting these 'weak links' with impunity. What professionalism did is bring the standards a lot closer together and the 'weak links' of today/post-amatuer period are way way better than the sifaarishi weak-links of the amatuer era. Make no mistake- i consider Bradman to be the greatest bat because of the way he dominated the opposition. But if anyone thinks that Bradman would average more than 65-70 in the 1960-2000/01 period, they gotto be kidding themselves. When it comes to amatuer era players, i deduct 25% of their record to 'equalize' them with pros.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...