dial_100 Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5pfFAqrsI&feature=related]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5pfFAqrsI&feature=related[/ame] This is the last innings of Don. Please take a look at the bowler...
yoda Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Good anlogy. Sachin is like an AK 47 while Bradman is like a bow and arrow. Sums it up really:two_thumbs_up: Sri Ram used Bow and Arrow. :winky:
fineleg Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Do any of you have the "Bodyline" TV series that was telecast on Doordarshan? Any upload?
Sachinism Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Do any of you have the "Bodyline" TV series that was telecast on Doordarshan? Any upload? Don't know if its this what you're talking about [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ulLj2seaPc]YouTube - ABC Bodyline Its Just Not Cricket (Part 1/6)[/ame]
fineleg Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Bodyline is an Australian 1984 television miniseries which dramatised the events of the 1932–1933 English Ashes cricket tour of Australia. The producers were George Miller and Terry Hayes. The directors were Denny Lawrence, Lex Marinos, George Ogilvie and Carl Schultz. The scriptwriters for the mini-series were Robert Caswell, Lex Marinos, Denny Lawrence and Terry Hayes. The music for the mini-series was written by Chris Neal and Phillip Scott. Photography was by Dean Semler and Andrew Lesnie. The 10-part miniseries was a ratings success, and was shown over a four-week period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline_%28miniseries%29 Cast * Gary Sweet as Donald Bradman * Hugo Weaving as Douglas Jardine * Jim Holt as Harold Larwood
zen Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 can find only one snippet! WGfuv9yfRQ0 Awesome clip that probably sums up the stature of Bradman. People are surprised at Bradman getting out on the first ball. For modern day greats, we have to pray that they do well and don't get out in do or die games :--D
fineleg Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Awesome clip that probably sums up the stature of Bradman. :hatsoff: Boffins confirm Bradman's genius David Sygall August 15, 2010 HERE'S a newsflash: Don Bradman was the greatest-ever batsmen. And by a handsome margin, if you go by the standard statistical measure of average runs per innings. But what about the many variables that batting averages alone don't account for? Different pitches, conditions, situations, technology. Different eras. Were Bradman's contributions as valuable as his average suggests? What about other batsmen? How does Douglas Jardine, who averaged 48, compare to Adam Gilchrist, who averaged 47? Can you put a value on Steve Waugh's or Allan Border's performances, given their respective reputations for performing well at crucial times? After 133 years of Test cricket, we might finally have new (if slightly complicated) tables ranking cricket's top batsmen. The academic study utilised formulas economists use to measure inequality. ''It's a bit sophisticated but most economics students could do it,'' says one of the paper's authors, John Mangan of the University of Queensland. ''It's just never been applied to cricket.'' The study was conducted several years ago but has just been published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports. Mangan says he and Vani Borooah, of the University of Ulster, wanted to demonstrate new ways of assessing batsmen. They primarily sought to compare batsmen from different eras, with an emphasis on rating Bradman against the rest. They concluded that Bradman was, in every category they tested, the greatest of all. Meantime, others, including some of the game's biggest names, didn't fare so well. ''We started with the standard batting averages up to 2006 and introduced a whole list of different variants, including who they were playing against, what the conditions were and what the game situation was,'' Mangan says. They also looked at contributions to the overall score, performances at home and away and performances in first and second innings. ''For example, in the paper we talk about Gilchrist, who was a great batsman but often came in at No.7, either having to get quick runs or survive,'' Mangan says. ''You'd expect that his average suffered in some way. We believe our method corrects for some of those problems.'' There are two tables by Mangan and Borooah that stand out. The first uses the ''Gini Coefficient'' to combine batting average with scoring consistency. The results alter the list of highest averaging batsmen, with the likes of Graeme Pollock, George Headley, Everton Weekes, Walter Hammond and Garfield Sobers all moving down. Among those who moved up were Denis Compton, Steve Waugh, Andy Flower and Gilchrist. Another interesting table compares the percentage of runs each batsman contributed to team totals. The researchers found that the three highest contributors to their teams' scores were Bradman, with 25 per cent, Headley (22 per cent), and Brian Lara (19 per cent). Other big movers up the list in this category were Sunil Gavaskar, Compton, Neil Harvey, Doug Walters and Viv Richards. Those moving down included Jardine, Eddie Paynter, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis. Of course, Mangan's tables cannot provide a definitive ranking of cricket's finest batsmen. Some performances can never be quantified. Cricket, after all, is an art. Certainly, many batsmen do not regard their biggest innings to be their finest. However, Mangan makes some conclusions from his investigation. ''What we found overall was that the backs-to-the-wall batsmen fared well,'' he says. Measurements shifted around the rankings of the world's elite batsmen. Except for one. ''It's remarkable, but Bradman was the only batsman who was virtually unchanged in every category,'' Mangan says. ''We tried to bring Bradman down a bit - he is a New South Welshman after all. But we couldn't do it, no matter what we brought in - first innings, second innings, wet, dry, in India, in England. Whatever we did, Bradman seemed to be the default best performer.''
pensionplan Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 The biggest disservice one can do to Sachin Tendulkar is to make a case for him being better than Bradman. As great as Sachin is he is not that much better than a Lara for example but with this latest spurt over the last 20 months or so has perhaps edged him and others out beyond debate unless Ponting goes no a tear for the next 18 months. Even then Tendulkar will be hard to dislodge. But what is futile is to project him better than Donald Bradman. Tendulkar is special and it is better to enjoy him for what he is than getting caught up on showing him as the undisputable No.1 of all time while demeaning others. It will be a great disservice to this unique cricketer.
bhanu Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 :hatsoff: ''We tried to bring Bradman down a bit - he is a New South Welshman after all. But we couldn't do it, no matter what we brought in - first innings, second innings, wet, dry, in India, in England. Whatever we did, Bradman seemed to be the default best performer.'' :omg: Wow man jus wow bradman jus pure geniune 100 percent real cricketer hats off :hatsoff:
fineleg Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 The doffing was for rett's reply - I guess bhanu quoted that. You are right, he did not play in India, but that was posted as part of posting the article content. That error noted. The lecture on honesty is a bit over. But anyway, I'll let it go as a misunderstanding where you thought I wrote that India bit or the misunderstanding that I was doffing the hat for that.
dial_100 Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 In my opinion. Modern test cricket is full of bodyline. Especially on tough pitches it is hard to even stay there..It is ridiculous to talk that modern days batsman have all the protection. But the protection does not help batsman in saving his wicket. It is a natural instinct of a man if the ball is travelling more than 140KPH at your body, you dont tell yourself that you have protection and no need to worry, you try to save your face, body, arm. When all of this is not possible, batsman ends up bringing in his bat which cost him his wkt. Where in the world can you dream for average of 100??? CHeck out kind of turn that Murli is getting in this video. Do you want to claim that Bradman can have average of 100 with these bowlers...whatever protection you could think of....It was different era. he was best then. But that doesn't in any way tell you that he was better than moder cricketers....let alone SRT. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87KSduAzyFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87KSduAzyFM[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESyrvLpa2o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESyrvLpa2o[/ame] [ame= [/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPebFWXcfio&feature=related]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPebFWXcfio&feature=related[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1gEcZkdAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1gEcZkdAY[/ame] Please dont kid yourself after watching these videos.... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5pfFAqrsI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5pfFAqrsI[/ame]
dial_100 Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Spot on dial ... that Amby Walsh clip just made my day ... I could watch that all day ... Bossyy.... I aint saying that GOD was better than DON...but to me cricket in 30s appear very clumsy...Don scored all his runs against bumbling, clumsy, inept, limited, unfit, sometimes ageing upper class guys with speed on par with today's Ranji players. I have seen some folks with beer bellys in few videos... Please compare apple with apple... I wont even compare Steve waugh against Don.....to me Steve was better than everybody in 30s...because I can relate to what steve as achieved.....how in the world can we compare someone based on his average...80 years ago... Can you imagin Don hitting ball flat with full speed even 3 feet away from a fielder and the guy would even bother to look at it...he will go and collect the ball. Well Jonty would go on to catch the ball as much as 9 feet from where he is fielding and freaking successfully catch it 5-6 times...You know why because it is GODs wicket.... he would mostly catch anything thats hit towards him...I hope I dont make some posters angry here... people use abusive language very quickly here...
fineleg Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Please compare apple with apple... Coaching for batting is also a lot improved now compared to 1930s. There were so many disadvantages overcome by batsmen like DGB in 1930s. Given such things, having a phenomenal "near perfect" average and dominating everyone else so clearly is a super thing by DGB. But I do agree - this across era comparison is fraught with too many variables. Cannot be done.
dial_100 Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Coaching for batting is also a lot improved now compared to 1930s. There were so many disadvantages overcome by batsmen like DGB in 1930s. Given such things, having a phenomenal "near perfect" average and dominating everyone else so clearly is a super thing by DGB. But I do agree - this across era comparison is fraught with too many variables. Cannot be done. Finey, I cant argue...if you think it was perfect average that makes Don better than modern cricketers so be it... And as for coaching....please find me a coach who will teach me to surve those Ambrose, Walsh and Akhtar kind of bowling. If coaching could teach you all that then why the hell our batsman still suffer on bouncers...??? If coaching had improved then we should have batsman average 110s not 50s. The averages have gone down because the standard of cricket has gone high up, very high.
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 The averages have gone down because the standard of cricket has gone high up, very high. That is simply not true. The batting/bowling average has remained at around the 30 mark for the last 90 years. During these 90 years the best batsmen of a particular era have averaged around the 50-60 mark and the best bowlers around the 20-25 mark. The only exception to this rule, in batting or bowling, with an average of 100 was Bradman. Prior to 1920, the batting/bowling average was much lower around the 20 mark, and the hallmark of a great batsman was 40-50 and great bowlers around 10-15.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now