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

[CC1981]

Which would still be a country mile better than anyone else.

Yep. Which is why i think Bradman is the best batsman ever. I don't contest that- i only contest people who think that Bradman would be averaging in the 90s or more in any era. That is just ludicrous to think.

[Lurker]

Wisden Almanacs plus a book called 'the social history of cricket' by Derek Birley

Any chance you can put some excerpts out here? I would like to read it but frankly never heard about Derek Birely, Widen Almanack is obviously different.

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.

Huh? Where did that come from? The "whining" did NOT come from Bradman. It came from crowds, both Aussies & England, so much do that the relationship between the two countries were at stake. And till date I have not seen too many English who support Jardine, let alone Aussies. I beleive it was English cricketer Gubby Allen who refused to bowl bouncers and another cricketer IAK Pataudi(sr) who criticized Jardine for leg-theory and that put paid to his career. By the way you are entitled to your opinion but a bowling attack of Larwood, Voce, Gubby Allen and Hedley Verity was as good, if not better than Lillee/Thommo/Walker/Gilmour etc. Also did you not mention Richards and Fredricks hooked away merrily? Hooked away to 38 runs per innings??? In general terms thats called a flop.

Two things- 1. Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, Headley ,etc. were all Bradman's contemporaries- they all averaged well over 50

Yes they did but my point was about Australian batsmen. If Bradman faced cr@ppy bowling surely batsman like Ponsford and McCabe, Morris and Harvey should atleast have scored at 75 if not 99, guess how many of them scored over 50? NONE. Secondly lets check the stats of others you mentioned: Hobbs =57 Sutcliff = 60.7 Hammond = 58.4 Hutton = 56.6 Headley = 60.8 The highest amongst these is 608.8. That would still mean Bradman scored at a solid 1.58 times more than the best batsman of his era. In other words if the best batsman of our era is Ponting(batting average of 60) Bradman's stats would remain intact at 99!

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.

That era is called the Golden Era in cricket. Like it not the Golden By the way what is wrong with playing for honour and fun..and all that namby-pamby stuff? Isn't that the purest/unadulterated format of cricket? Professionalism does NOT mean NOT playing for fun or honour. It just means cricket is recognized as a means of one's profession and one gets paid for his effort.

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 theselves.

Go ahead and tell me if Bradman who scored at 99 would end up with 65-70 how much would Hobbs/Headley/Sutclifee/Hutton etc end up with? Also how much do you beleive a Ricky Ponting who averages 60 currently would have ended up with in Bradman's era. xx

[CC1981]

By the way you are entitled to your opinion but a bowling attack of Larwood, Voce, Gubby Allen and Hedley Verity was as good, if not better than Lillee/Thommo/Walker/Gilmour etc.

Utter BS. Larwood was no better than Patrick Patterson. fast & mostly directionless. Allen ? Verity ? wouldnt go past FC level today. Voce was decent but again, nothing special.

Any chance you can put some excerpts out here?

Meh..i'll see what i can do. Don't feel like wading through the books right now.

Also did you not mention Richards and Fredricks hooked away merrily? Hooked away to 38 runs per innings??? In general terms thats called a flop.

Err...38 ave in a series against one of the best bowling attacks in an era where there were only TWO 50+ batsmen ( SunnyG & Greg Chappell) is very decent to say the least.

That era is called the Golden Era in cricket.

Just a romanticized tag that is in large part due to inter-war cricket going a long way towards entertainment in an era bereft of entertainment (due to the Great Depression).

By the way what is wrong with playing for honour and fun..and all that namby-pamby stuff? Isn't that the purest/unadulterated format of cricket? Professionalism does NOT mean NOT playing for fun or honour. It just means cricket is recognized as a means of one's profession and one gets paid for his effort.

Umm when you are unwilling to bowl a bouncer coz its unfair, unwilling to attack the stumps of tailenders because its unfair, etc etc, it is certainly a lot less challenging mentally than 'playing to win'. I am not talking professionalism to do with money- that didnt happen till the early 80s when cricketers were making a lotta money. There was little or no financial change between Ranji's time and early days of Gavaskar. But post WWII, all these picadillos such as 'wont bowl at the stumps of tailenders/wont bounce batsmen/etc' gave way to 'we play to win. anything within the rules go - this is war on the pitch' mentality, thus making cricket a much more intense a game. Bradman apart, nobody from that era can hold a candle to the post WWII era players in terms of pressure-management.

Go ahead and tell me if Bradman who scored at 99 would end up with 65-70 how much would Hobbs/Headley/Sutclifee/Hutton etc end up with?

40-45 zone.

Also how much do you beleive a Ricky Ponting who averages 60 currently would have ended up with in Bradman's era.

With his ginormous bat ? atleast 75-80.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Played on some of the flatest tracks ever in the 30s which is why that decade has the highest ratio of 100s/test scored.

Does this hold once you remove Bradman from the equation ? The reason i ask this is, the highest ratio of 100s/tests could be simply down to the 'bradman factor'. If it were the flattest tracks ever, then removal of Bradman from the scene would still mean the 100s/test record is highest/one of the highest. But if removing Bradman from the scene doesnt make the 30s any more 'batting friendly' than the 60s or 2000s, then it must be down to Bradman factor.

He never faced a bowler averaging below 28 in TEST Cricket

Again, explained by the 'bradman' factor - when one dude is around averaging 100, the bowlers obviously will have a worse-average ! PS: One can argue credibly that Bradman would not average as high in the professional era and that every amatuer era player would do worse under the hightened competition of the professional era. But Bradman being the best batsman ever is beyond dispute. People who argue that Bradman is not the best ever batsman ALWAYS put one of their own countrymen as the best. This is down to blind national pride than reason. Only caribbean people who'd put Bradman as #2 will pick Lara or Headley as #1...never a non-caribbean one. Only Indians who'd put Bradman as #2 will pick Tendy as #1- never a non-Indian. So i consider those who do not think Bradman to be #1 as jingoistic people blinded by national pride.

[Lurker]

Utter BS. Larwood was no better than Patrick Patterson. fast & mostly directionless. Allen ? Verity ? wouldnt go past FC level today. Voce was decent but again, nothing special.

Man o man..Harold Larwood clubbed with Patrick Patterson. Ignorance knows no bounds I suppose. Do you realize CC that most experts who have actually seen these players play consistently pick Harold Larwood as one of the greatest pace bowlers ever? Do you realize, for example, that Ray Lindwall(arguably greatest Australian fast bowler ever) when asked to pick his top 10 list of fast bowlers put Harold Larwood right at the top ahead of Lillee and Trueman? Hedley Verity is one of the greatest left-arm spinner ever. Show me a left-arm bowler, then and now, who has his stats in Test cricket or first class? Indeed Bradman had suggested that Verity was one bowler who he could not master. Bill Voce and Gubby Allen were both ferocious fast bowlers, one being left armer other being right armer. And specially in the Bodyline series Voce was perhaps at his peak. Of course their stats cover themselves in ample glory in you have not noticed. So there you have it - 1 fast bowler that is genuinely picked by experts as one of the greatest ever, 1 left arm spinner that is perhaps the greatest left arm spinner ever, 1 left arm quick paceman and another right arm paceman capable of swing bowling when needed. Now help me understand why is this attack not good?

Err...38 ave in a series against one of the best bowling attacks in an era where there were only TWO 50+ batsmen ( SunnyG & Greg Chappell) is very decent to say the least.

Yeah yeah it is fairly decent. I suppose you now realize your statement about "hooking away" but just do not want to admit it. By the way Saurav Ganguly averaged 36 in the last series(against Pakistan) before he was dropped. I suppose he was also hooking his problems away!!

Umm when you are unwilling to bowl a bouncer coz its unfair, unwilling to attack the stumps of tailenders because its unfair, etc etc, it is certainly a lot less challenging mentally than 'playing to win'.

Those are two different things. Unwilling to bowl bouncers is not the same as attacking stumps of tailenders. I am not even sure if I ever read any place about tailenders stumps being not attacked!! If anything tailenders were spared of bouncers and the ONLY time bouncers were not bowled was when a fellow pacemen was batting or a tailender was. You may not agree to it of course but I have absolutely no problems with it.

I am not talking professionalism to do with money- that didnt happen till the early 80s when cricketers were making a lotta money. There was little or no financial change between Ranji's time and early days of Gavaskar. But post WWII, all these picadillos such as 'wont bowl at the stumps of tailenders/wont bounce batsmen/etc' gave way to 'we play to win. anything within the rules go - this is war on the pitch' mentality, thus making cricket a much more intense a game. Bradman apart, nobody from that era can hold a candle to the post WWII era players in terms of pressure-management.

That is again ignorance and stubborness of highest order. You do realize that such criticism is not only valid for Aussies and England, basically you are chastising away your own heroes. If one goes by your logic everyone from CK Nayudu, Vijay Merchant, Vijay Hazare, Subhas Gupte, Amar Singh, Nissar etc etc are all nothing but joke in front of today's player. Be careful of who you criticize.

40-45 zone.

So let me understand it correctly. If Jack Hobbs, George Headley, Len Hutton, Herbert Sutcliffe were playing today there batting would be as good as a Saurabh Ganguly(41), Ian Bell (45) and worse than those of a Yonis Khan(48) let alone a Dravid, Sachin or Ponting. Is that what you are suggesting? It would have been funny perhaps had it not been tragic mate. xxxx

[King]

Those that think old timers were not as good as current cricketers, give me answers to these : 1. How can you guys presume the current day bowlers are quicker than the old one? Bowling fast is not one generation's property. 2. Why do you guys think cricketers these days are more competitive? Just because they mouth off better is it? Expletives were even around those days. I would rather believe the older generation ones were more of fighters than the current day ones. They had to work really hard off the field to make a living. The current day cricketers get everything easy. 3. Why do you guys think the current batters can bat but not the old ones? Logically all that the current batters and bowlers can do the old timers could do as well. It's basically a game of ball and bat. If there is talent today, there must have been talent in the old days too. Just because there was no video of cricketers taken then doesn't mean they were useless. Guys like Sammy take 7 wickets in an inning today on a covered pitch. Where is the quality of batting today? India could barely manage 200 runs against Bangladesh in World cup while Pakistan scored barely a hundred against Ireland. Is this the proof and testimony to current day's tough cricketers or their talents? Is there a reason why the Aussies have won 3 world cups in a row and barely lose a series while the rest of the teams struggle to match up with the Aussies. It is ridiculous to suggest only Tendulkars and Laras are great. Sobers is right Bradman would have had these bowlers for breakfast and lunch.

[CC1981]

Do you realize CC that most experts who have actually seen these players play consistently pick Harold Larwood as one of the greatest pace bowlers ever?

Who ? Apart from Englishmen/Aussies from that era, who else picks Larwood ? Yes, players will always say nice stuff about their predecessors, particularly when you consider the fact that Larwood and Voce were the first quality pacers in DECADES! Another thing you should consider before you get carried away by the nostalgic English authors - when Sutcliffe & Hobbs used to open in tests, the bowling was normally opened by spinners or medium pacers ! THAT is how piss-poor pace bowling was in pre-war period ( once they fixed the wicktes in 1905, pacemen went out of the window for a good 20-25 years!)

Now help me understand why is this attack not good?

Amatuers. Oh and another thing- Voce and Gubby Allen are on record, after seeing Lindwall-Miller duo in action, to've said that they were medium pacers, not fast bowlers.

I suppose you now realize your statement about "hooking away" but just do not want to admit it.

Mate, i have seen video of 3 of the six tests - the way thommo & lillee bowled, 90% of your runs came from the hook or pull shot. So yes, the comment 'thy hooked the hell out of Lillee & Thommo' is very much correct. How can it not be when you are averaging 40 for the series and practically all your runs came from the hook shot ?

I am not even sure if I ever read any place about tailenders stumps being not attacked!! If anything tailenders were spared of bouncers and the ONLY time bouncers were not bowled was when a fellow pacemen was batting or a tailender was. You may not agree to it of course but I have absolutely no problems with it.

Umm... then read more. Sid Barnes once walked off the field and didnt bowl for the rest of the match because someone bowled him with a yorker and it was 'unsporting' to attack the stumps of tailenders. What you are describing is more of a 50s/60s mentality than pre-war mentality.

That is again ignorance and stubborness of highest order. You do realize that such criticism is not only valid for Aussies and England, basically you are chastising away your own heroes.

Err...Bradman apart, i don't have any 'heroes' from that era for precisely the same reason. And the reason i quoted to you is the one given by Derek Birley after a critical analysis of cricket & its mentality through its history ( ALL the way from 1700s!). Way to go to trash the research & conclusions of a person without even KNOWING much about his background or reading his works simply because it destroys your preconceived notions written in lucid prose. This guy happened to play cricket all his life, was the chancellor of Ulster Univ, got knighted as an author. Why dont you shell out 30 bucks for the book or atleast investigate it without comming up with ridiculous notions that Larwood could shine Holding's shoes with his bowling or Hobbs could bat like Gavaskar ? A guy who opens against medium pacers & spinners is equal to an opener who opens pretty much ONLY against express pace demons ? Puh-LEASE! know thy history!

If one goes by your logic everyone from CK Nayudu, Vijay Merchant, Vijay Hazare, Subhas Gupte, Amar Singh, Nissar etc etc are all nothing but joke in front of today's player. Be careful of who you criticize.

Wouldnt include the Guptes/Merchants & Hazares- they are post WWII players. But all of the rest- yes, they wouldnt get a chance at most decent test teams. I guess your aversion to this concept is because you've already placed these pre-war namby-pambies as your heroes and nobody likes to take down the poster of their heroes.

So let me understand it correctly. If Jack Hobbs, George Headley, Len Hutton, Herbert Sutcliffe were playing today there batting would be as good as a Saurabh Ganguly(41), Ian Bell (45) and worse than those of a Yonis Khan(48) let alone a Dravid, Sachin or Ponting. Is that what you are suggesting?

If you invented a time machine, went back to the 20s, took those abovementioned names, brought them back to the 70s/80s/90s etc (but not 2000/01 to present), yes, they would be literally as good as Ian Bell or Saurav.

It would have been funny perhaps had it not been tragic mate.

Tragic, funny and also very true.

[CC1981]

1. How can you guys presume the current day bowlers are quicker than the old one? Bowling fast is not one generation's property.

Simple- its a question of culture. When the culture is to 'have a good game', not bowl yorkers to tailenders, not bounce batsmen, etc, you concentrate on seam movement & swing than pace. There were players who were kicked out from FC teams post WWI because they bowled 'too fast' !

Why do you guys think cricketers these days are more competitive? Just because they mouth off better is it? Expletives were even around those days. I would rather believe the older generation ones were more of fighters than the current day ones. They had to work really hard off the field to make a living. The current day cricketers get everything easy.

Again, social attitude towards cricket, the fact that it was literally 'just a game and nothing more', etc. Yes, older gen were better fighters if you mean 50s-80s batch as older gen. But pre-WWII era ? sorry but they'd make a deer in headlights seem tougher.

Logically all that the current batters and bowlers can do the old timers could do as well.

Err...no. It wasnt until the 1920s when someone figured out how to bowl a flipper or a googley. It wasnt until 1960s when someone figured out how to bowl the doosra. It wasnt until 1980s when someone figured out how to bowl reverse swing. It wasnt until 1930s when someone bowled a leg cutter It wasnt until 1930 when someone even TRIED bowling short on a leg-stump line ( last time someone tried it, at a charity match for MCC, the hero of English cricket, C.B.Fry, walked off in a huff & puff). So no, current batters/bowlers can do more than batters/bowlers from pre-WWII era. Keep in mind, i am not talking about the shitty quality of cricket TODAY. I've said that 2000/01 to present is the EASIEST time for a batsman ever in the professional era. I am talking purely from pre-WWII vs post WWII-pre 2000s period.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King]

Simple- its a question of culture. When the culture is to 'have a good game', not bowl yorkers to tailenders, not bounce batsmen, etc, you concentrate on seam movement & swing than pace. There were players who were kicked out from FC teams post WWI because they bowled 'too fast' !

Can you give references or place where you read this? Culture to have a good game? That's your assumption and nothing more. Why do you think bodyline came into being? To have a good game of cricket. Think a bit logically mate, people since centuries have been competitive. Even today a lot of guys are hardly competitive. I can count on fingers how many are truly competitive today and how many just play the sake of making some quick bucks. Today the knee jerk reaction to bad performances by players is because they play so much. A good example would be Pakistan openers. Give a thought about how many times they have been reselected into the squad. So much for the current day's competitive cricketers :thumbs_down:

Again, social attitude towards cricket, the fact that it was literally 'just a game and nothing more', etc. Yes, older gen were better fighters if you mean 50s-80s batch as older gen. But pre-WWII era ? sorry but they'd make a deer in headlights seem tougher.

None is referring to 1800s here. Everyone knows cricket started to get competitive by the time the Aussies and the Poms started to play regularly while the rest of the countries like WI, South Africa and the rest started to join in.

Err...no. It wasnt until the 1920s when someone figured out how to bowl a flipper or a googley. It wasnt until 1960s when someone figured out how to bowl the doosra. It wasnt until 1980s when someone figured out how to bowl reverse swing. It wasnt until 1930s when someone bowled a leg cutter So no, current batters/bowlers can do more than batters/bowlers from pre-WWII era.

You talk as if every bowler today has variations like never before. Give me a list of bowlers that can do all this then we can discuss about it. I'm glad you didn't say McGrath found out how to bowl line and length :tounge_smile: Go play a club game and you will figure out a lot of them have varieties not because it is documented in some book or someone taught them. It is because they know what they bowl. The bowlers at every level of cricket know what they are good at and have some varieties. Leg cutter is not found by someone or the googly. Some have the skills to do this naturally either due to their grip or action or both. Yes you learn few things by word of mouth or from the seniors but don't tell me every bowler is taught how to bowl. BTW Warnie was not taught how to spin, it came naturally to him. Similarly Wasim Akram was not taught to swing the ball both sides, he worked that out himself.

[The Outsider]

Alright, I think this site will need to be shut down and confined to the bin pretty soon. This is the second time in the last couple of weeks that Boss and CC are on the same side of a debate.

[King]

That is just entirely inaccurate. Have you not come across experts and viewers from that Generation on TV who frown upon such behaviour ? These people really believed in Cricket being a Gentlemans game and held themsleves to a higher standard of moral conduct. Bradman himself was one such player. The only guy who did sledging back then was Santa Clauss. And regarding Verity ... check his Strike rate .... is in the high 70s .... almost every spinner worth his salt has a far better strike rate these days. That SR jumps to 83 vs Australia and IN Aus its 113. Even Shane Warne doenst have that bad figures against India and we all know what everybody says about his "feats" against India.. heheheee.

This exactly is what I'm saying. Mouthing off is considered as being competitive these days. To answer your question is Anil Kumble competitive at all? He doesn't mouth off, he values the rich history of cricket and never really loses his cool. Isn't he competitive. Competitive is grossly misunderstood these days. Competitive means when a bowler runs in, he does that to take wickets not give away fours. A batter is competitive when he is out there to score runs and win the game for the team he represents. The root of competitive nature arises from the desire to win a game not ruffle a batter or a bowler with some expletives.

[CC1981]

Can you give references or place where you read this?

I already have.

That's your assumption and nothing more.

err..no. Assumption is on your part that i am assuming. I am not.

hink a bit logically mate, people since centuries have been competitive.

It is an indisputable fact that cricket, the gentleman's game, was NOT a sphere of competetive spirit in the pre-WWII days ( Derek Birley proves this very cogently in his book as well).

Everyone knows cricket started to get competitive by the time the Aussies and the Poms started to play regularly while the rest of the countries like WI, South Africa and the rest started to join in.

Everyone assumes so. Cricket did not become competetive till the mid 1950s rolled around and the pre-war generation gave way to the wartime/baby boomer generation who approached life totally differently.

Leg cutter is not found by someone or the googly.

Not today it isnt but someone had to invent all these deliveries! yes, i can grant that inswingers/outswingers/offspin wernt discovered per-se because its the most instinctive way to bowl but if you think that nobody invented the flipper or the googly or the wrong'un, you are categorically wrong.

BTW Warnie was not taught how to spin, it came naturally to him.

he might've been a natural spinner, a bright lad and all that but you are mistaken if you think that Warney just figured out the googley,wrong'un, flipper, etc. on his own.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King]

Not today it isnt but someone had to invent all these deliveries! yes, i can grant that inswingers/outswingers/offspin wernt discovered per-se because its the most instinctive way to bowl but if you think that nobody invented the flipper or the googly or the wrong'un, you are categorically wrong.

Tell ya what, chucking has invented fair bit of deliveries yes. Scruffing up the ball has invented few other deliveries yes. I can bowl wrong uns every time I try to bowl leg spin and that simply is because of my action. Since the day I started to play cricket I know I can bowl barrage of wrong uns but cannot bowl conventional leg spin. Just because someone documented one guy was good at bowling googlies it doesn't mean none knew how to. Anil Kumble as you would know has been bowling flippers and the wrong uns since the time he took up leg spin. He cannot leg spin the ball a mile BTW. Do you reckon Kumble read the book that documented the invention of googly or wrong un and then learnt to bowl that one? Honestly you are not thinking like a cricketer here. Only when you do will you be able to get to the bottom of this. The references in a book cannot do justice to this debate.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Just because someone documented one guy was good at bowling googlies it doesn't mean none knew how to.

What do you say then to the fact that when Grimmett first showed up with his googley, nobody could play him and nobody (These are english TEST batsmen) had seen a leggie bowl a googley ( and i mean a PROPER googley, not just a ball that holds its line) ??

Do you reckon Kumble read the book that documented the invention of googly or wrong un and then learnt to bowl that one?

No but he definitely had *someone* teach him how the flipper even works. I dont know if you have bowled spin but given the way of gripping the ball & releasing it is so complicated, googleys, flippers, wrong'uns, doosras etc. arnt just picked up naturally by a bowler but almost always taught !

[Donny]

A most enjoyable read. :D Good to see posters actually debating with minimal personal insults. An observation: Exaggerations do not accentuate or make your debate clearer. They simply make it easier to attack your basically good points. Some years back, Sir Donald Bradman was asked how he'd fare in today's cricket with all the new training methods, fitness standards, high quality bowling etc. He answered, "Well, I'd still probably average in the 50s" The young reporter pounced, saying, "So, you admit you wouldn't be as good as the modern day cricketer?" "Well, I am 92." chirped the great man. Another delightful Bradman story which beautifully illustrates the traps of comparing different eras. Bradman, Dean Jones and Merv Hughes are playing golf in Adelaide, they come to a dog leg hole, with a rather large tree covering the dog leg, preventing one from hitting straight for the green. Bradman makes the comment to his two partners, "When I was your age, I could clear that tree." His partners subsequently lose a few balls trying to clear the tree. After winning the hole, Bradman remarks.."Of course when I was your age, the tree was only 6 feet high"

[varun]

Some years back, Sir Donald Bradman was asked how he'd fare in today's cricket with all the new training methods, fitness standards, high quality bowling etc. He answered, "Well, I'd still probably average in the 50s" The young reporter pounced, saying, "So, you admit you wouldn't be as good as the modern day cricketer?" "Well, I am 92." chirped the great man.

:hysterical::hysterical: @ the reporter who might've been envisioning front page headlines.