Rate Bradman's technique

[Vijy]

9 hours ago, New guy said:

Meh, does it? If only vinay kumars and amres were bowling on those uncovered wickets would they make a huge difference?

 

Also i think there is evidence which shows short ball batting has declined because of protective equipment, earlier players used to play short ball better without helmets 

yes, they would make a difference since the pitches could easily become very up-and-down. there were matches that have been abandoned in recent times (I recall one match Ind vs SL). Even a Vinay Kumar bowling at 70-80 mph on a pitch with unpredictable bounce can pose real dangers in the absence of protection.

[rkt.india]

4 hours ago, Vijy said:

yes, they would make a difference since the pitches could easily become very up-and-down. there were matches that have been abandoned in recent times (I recall one match Ind vs SL). Even a Vinay Kumar bowling at 70-80 mph on a pitch with unpredictable bounce can pose real dangers in the absence of protection.

Don't think they had bowlers even like Vinay Kumar back then.

[R!TTER]

Pace makes a big big difference, imagine the untethered battery of Windies quicks on those pitches without any protective gear for the batters 

 

The one thing that Bradman or no Bradman can cover for is speed, or more accurately time. The less time you have the more prone you could be to errors. And let's not even get in to DRS 

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Don't think they had bowlers even like Vinay Kumar back then.

that's your opinion based on these grainy videos and you are entitled to it. The other extreme is old players who swear that Larwood and Bowes and Tyson and so on were bowling at 90-95 mph. My own take is that the fastest pacers of that era were probably around 85 mph. the awkward delivery style and the video quality + ediitng make them look like trundlers, but I don't think that was the case.

[New guy]

30 minutes ago, Vijy said:

that's your opinion based on these grainy videos and you are entitled to it. The other extreme is old players who swear that Larwood and Bowes and Tyson and so on were bowling at 90-95 mph. My own take is that the fastest pacers of that era were probably around 85 mph. the awkward delivery style and the video quality + ediitng make them look like trundlers, but I don't think that was the case.

Dude today with all the modern resources and money, with so many more teams playing,  with so many youngsters picking up cricket at young age, with big 3 having unlimited money, with advanced diet and strength training, how many test bowlers are there who bowl 85+ consistently?

 

As for experts opinion, there are many bowlers today who experts said were fast but when speed guns were used barely clocked 130+. Some bowlers seem faster, some faster feel slower,  if we used just eyes and human perception 

 

Common sense tells you when pools and resources were less, when less people were interested to play, with less known about diet and exercise, with less chances of round the year practice and coaching, the pool of available talent will be incredibly small and amateurish. The truly talented gems will never be discovered or be able to play unless they are born rich or in families with connections. 

 

Today with all the available pool of thousands of players in the world in all cricket playing country, we barely have handful of players we can call great. No one can convince me that when the pool was a few dozens, with only 2 countries england and Australia  playing at top level  suddenly 90% of them were all great players. Thats not how any sports or maths works. If we use the odds of today, it would mean only 1 bradman was great among many average or below average players

 

Badman didnt play more than 5 tests against any country except england and averaged 74 vs west indies in 5 matches, a drop of 25 average points from his career average. Bradman never played any team away from home except england, he never played on indian, west indian or south african pitches, all his games against them (and again it was only 5 games each) were on home pitches,  you know rohit sharmas average only at home.

 

Rohit sharma averages 79.5 at home and this is with much more variety and quality of bowlers he faced at home. If you just remove 2 matches against bangladesh his average goes to 87 despite playing england, new zeland and south africa at home on varied pitches. If you remove one more (remember bradman only played 4 opponents) his average becomes 99.84, exactly as bradman against new zealand, south africa, sri lanka and west indies, very similar to 4 teams bradman played 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by New guy

[Trichromatic]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

that's your opinion based on these grainy videos and you are entitled to it. The other extreme is old players who swear that Larwood and Bowes and Tyson and so on were bowling at 90-95 mph. My own take is that the fastest pacers of that era were probably around 85 mph. the awkward delivery style and the video quality + ediitng make them look like trundlers, but I don't think that was the case.

 

 

It's practically impossible.

 

Don't need any video for that. Just need to see over rate and match schedule. Only modern day spinners like Jadeja can match that type of overrate.

[Trichromatic]

6 hours ago, New guy said:

Dude today with all the modern resources and money, with so many more teams playing,  with so many youngsters picking up cricket at young age, with big 3 having unlimited money, with advanced diet and strength training, how many test bowlers are there who bowl 85+ consistently?

 

As for experts opinion, there are many bowlers today who experts said were fast but when speed guns were used barely clocked 130+. Some bowlers seem faster, some faster feel slower,  if we used just eyes and human perception 

 

Common sense tells you when pools and resources were less, when less people were interested to play, with less known about diet and exercise, with less chances of round the year practice and coaching, the pool of available talent will be incredibly small and amateurish. The truly talented gems will never be discovered or be able to play unless they are born rich or in families with connections. 

 

Today with all the available pool of thousands of players in the world in all cricket playing country, we barely have handful of players we can call great. No one can convince me that when the pool was a few dozens, with only 2 countries england and Australia  playing at top level  suddenly 90% of them were all great players. Thats not how any sports or maths works. If we use the odds of today, it would mean only 1 bradman was great among many average or below average players

 

Badman didnt play more than 5 tests against any country except england and averaged 74 vs west indies in 5 matches, a drop of 25 average points from his career average. Bradman never played any team away from home except england, he never played on indian, west indian or south african pitches, all his games against them (and again it was only 5 games each) were on home pitches,  you know rohit sharmas average only at home.

 

Rohit sharma averages 79.5 at home and this is with much more variety and quality of bowlers he faced at home. If you just remove 2 matches against bangladesh his average goes to 87 despite playing england, new zeland and south africa at home on varied pitches. If you remove one more (remember bradman only played 4 opponents) his average becomes 99.84, exactly as bradman against new zealand, south africa, sri lanka and west indies, very similar to 4 teams bradman played 

 

 

 

You don't need to compare resources to know that they weren't fast.

 

Over rate was 20+ in those days with FC matches being played by teams at 1-2 days gap.

 

It's practically impossible for fast bowlers to have 20+ over rate no matter how fit/superior they were.