Malcolm Merlyn Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Let's bust this one as well. In the 30s and 40s, out of 3931 dismissals, 495 were LBWs which is 12.6%. In the 90s and 00s out of 24905 dismissals, 4203 were LBWs which is 16.8%. Bradman was dismissed LBW 6 times out of 70 which is 8.6%, so he was already well below the average of his times. Now, today a batsman will get out LBW 4 more times than in the 30s out of 100 dismissals. Considering Bradman was dismissed 70 times and his lower than average LBW rate, he would have been out 2 more times LBW if he had batted today. Even allowing for those 2 dismissals to be for 0, his average would be 97.16 instead of 99.94. Prof can you do a similar thing for the run outs and the stumped please. i guess due to more usage of technology lots of run outs and stumped are given.
vvvslaxman Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Well then explain the 23 times he got out bowled ? Tamim Iqbal never got leg before. But bowled 7 times :cantstop:
Tapioca Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Bradman himself considered Ken Farnes a better bowler than him. Citation, please
f.b.m Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 The pointlessness of this discussion is what I wanted to express in this thread and I'd like to thank various different posters for taking so much of their time to prove my point.
thevortex Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 My own experience I have used various bats. But the one i bought 2 years back is the best i have owned. Kukaboora beast. Heavy. But as he says amazingly light when you pick. Even mistimed balls were just flowing across the turf. 15 years back the bat i used was flat on the surface. You had to throw kitchen sink at it just to clear mid on. Bradman practiced with a stick and ball which many later said was hard to practice. Are you talking about the Kookaburra Binga Beast? I did not really like that piece of wood. The Kahunas though are in a different class. The Beast is a misfit in the Kookaburra line of light, easy to pick up bats. Not saying it is immensely heavy. But it is easily heavier than the rest of the models of Kookaburra. Some of the best value for money bats used to be BDM/SS/SG. But GM has taken the cake right now. I am using a GM Catalyst right now and it is, simply put, a dream come true.
teacup Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Correction, you did NOT show anything, it was Cricinfo or Statsguru :giggle: You know that whole adage of monkey typing forever and getting something worthwhile written at the end? Holds true for "fans" like you who have access to a computer, internet and Cricinfo and consider them as experts. There you go! Another gem from a I-can-find-stats-guy. The answer to a stats quandry is another stats quandry. Yes do keep on embarassing yourself with your knowledge, or lack there of cricket, and your search skills. By the by the reasons behind Larwood exploits, and his subsequent performance(or lack thereof) is well explained and buried in cricket books. Read up when you are mature enough to let go of Statsguru. xxx Do you realize the hypocrisy in your argument? On one-hand you guys throw Bradman's statistics to show that he is the greatest but on the other hand you refuse to accept statistics that show Larwood as an average bowler. Two words. Grow up.
vvvslaxman Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Are you talking about the Kookaburra Binga Beast? I did not really like that piece of wood. The Kahunas though are in a different class. The Beast is a misfit in the Kookaburra line of light, easy to pick up bats. Not saying it is immensely heavy. But it is easily heavier than the rest of the models of Kookaburra. Some of the best value for money bats used to be BDM/SS/SG. But GM has taken the cake right now. I am using a GM Catalyst right now and it is, simply put, a dream come true. Kahuna is ofcourse the best. That is more expensive. For my cricket that is totally unnecessary. Big beast was one of the lightest bat i ever used. Mine was 2'10". Pick up was very very light.
rkt.india Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Man it has ceased to amaze me how silly/fickle today's cricket fans are??? You have no idea about Larwood, heck by all means if I shut down Cricinfo today you will potentially have no idea about most cricket players as your brain shall stop functioning, and still claim with absolute certainty about Larwood and his position in all time greats! Do you realize that Harold Larwood was picked by almost all the greats of yesteryears as the best fast bowler? This included Ray Lindwall, an Aussie at that, who(Lindwall) many Aussie experts still beleive was the best ever. How good was Lindwall?? Quick reach for Cricinfo, search for Ray Lindwall, look at his stats, strike rate, performance at 3 pm on 4th day of 5th test in 7th series. Morons! xxx Absolutely. Here is some footage of bodyline series: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwL1VOBG6Vo]YouTube- Harold Larwood[/ame] [ame= Bodyline!!![/ame]
thevortex Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Bossbhai - now I am beginning to doubt. Is this you talking? There is a reason that was called Bodyline. That was the first time ever such a concerted tactic was used at the highest level. Next, that deserved to be called bodyline not what Shoaib Akhtar bowled (ahem chucked). What Shoaib Akhtar bowled can at best be called 'Thigh pad line' or 'Chest guard line' or 'Helmet line'. Not Bodyline at all. Why do you seem to be missing the point? And Larwood rightly considered it ungentlemanly to bowl Bodyline in those times because batsmen did not have protection. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentiment.
thevortex Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Bossbhai - I dont see these video clips refuting anything that I mentioned in my last post. What would you prefer? A 92 mph ball pinging onto your helmet or an 85 mph ball on your bare head?
Lurker Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 vortex, I will let the clips do the talking. I will also try to dig up some press statements reg chin music and hurting... ofcourse there is no shortage of clips from padosees who love such things as things :-D :P just watch how far the ball bounced after hitting the helmet. That was bowled at 92MPH ... You are making a mockery of yourself now. Are you in your frame of mind suggesting Shoaib Akhtar is the ONLY bowler to have bowled at 92 mph?? You do realize, I hope, that 92 mph is not too fast a delivery and has been bowled by many a fast bowlers in the history of cricket. Also SRT is covered head-to-toe with body armor. Are you in right frame of mind suggesting taking on a 92 mph bowler with a helmet, thigh guard, elbow guard, chest guard etc etc is lot more "courageous" than taking on a bowler with speed in that range without any of those?? Have to say it is for folks like you they invented Internet, so you can keep uttering gibberish and it gets stored in bits and bites in some "virtual" box. xxx
Lurker Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I also recall reading that Larwood was reluctant to bowl bodyline because it was un-gentlemanly in those times. And you call that a test match? ! Yes I do. For starters there is difference between a fast bowler banging it short and concentrating on leg-theory which means bowling 6 deliveries on leg side with leg slips and keep it banging it on batsmen's rib cage. Seriously which proud fast bowler would do that?? I can only assume they would like to be master of their trade and in the very least mix it up with inswingers, outswingers, yorkers and maybe slip in a bouncer or two ever so often. If an entire Test series is based on that most fast bowlers would stand appalled. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? xxx
Lurker Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Well then explain the 23 times he got out bowled ? You are fast reaching ridiculous preposition. First you suggest DG was "helped" by lack of front foot rule and when pushed into a corner you pulled out a gem - Why was he bowled out? Arre bhai saab front foot rule and bowled are two different things completely. In the former a batsman tries to "fox" umpires by using his pad to defend, in case of clean bowled his reason for dismissal has nothing to do with pads. Heck if he was hit on pads he would stand being dismissed anyway if the ball was straight enough to clean bowl him. I mean seriously why are you making these ridiculous assertions? Surely you know better than this mate. xxx
Lurker Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Lurker' date=' you need to stop getting bent out of shape whenever you dont agree with something that doesnt go line with your opinion. Otherwise I have plenty of patience to explain away. Keep it non-personal.[/quote'] Thats a lame attempt there. Why dont you give a proper rebuttal, and throw in personal comments if thats what you want. We've both been there and done that.
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