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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

I simply don't bother with it. Far too hypothetical.

[King]

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) ?? 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 !

I tried my hand at spin unsuccessfully after I stuffed my shoulder and couldn't bowl fast anymore. The first premier league game I played as a leggie got me 4 wickets but they were all given to me on a platter as none were able to figure out what I was bowling including myself. The story after a game or two was different of course, none again played me as a leggie. I was not taught how to bowl the wrong un, it came to be naturally. Unfortunately I still don't know how to leg spin. I didn't read nor was I taught how to bowl wrong uns. Anil Kumble was not taught how to bowl flippers, top spin and googly, no way. The way he bowls is googly is using his thumb and the index finger. This was not the Grimmett's way of bowling googly. This was something that was natural to Anil simply because of his grip and his delivery stride.

[Ram]

Don Bradman , if he plays now -- wont average 99-ish.. He would probably average in the 70's. And tht still makes him the best batman by a mile. But 99 ?... i dont think so..

[Lurker]

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!

lol...The only way it seems you can dismiss these greats is by that same yardstick used by many other modern-era "fans" - romanticized past. So the greatest living cricketer Gary Sobers was romancing about Bradman when he said he would do one better today, so Ray Lindwall, arguably the greatest Australian fast bowler ever, put Harold Larwood as the greatest fast bowler, fascinating considering how Aussies view Bodyline. Well between Sobers, Lindwall and you CC excuse me for putting the least of the credential on your thoughts.

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.

What a ridiculous comparison. Keith Miller and Ray Lindwall were opening pace bowlers. Voce and Allen never made an opening attack. It would have been much better had you compared Miller-Lindwall attack with Larwood-Voce. By the way you clearly did not understand what I was saying before. I was saying that the attack that Bradman faced Larwood/Voce/Verity/Allen was a quality attack and hence throws assertion regarding that(bad bowling) out of the window. We are NOT, repeat NOT, discussing bowling speeds here. The Miller/Lindwall attack had follow-ups of Johnston/Davidson/Benaud etc. A good comparison would be Johnston with Allen and Benaud with Verity. Do the comparison and tell me where does Jardine's bowling attack comes second best.

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 ?

Irrelevant. In my book if you score at 38 in a series you were a failure. At best you had an average series. More so if you had to go to Pscyiatrist. So all this "hooking away" is baloney. Just admit Richards/Fredricks came second best.

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!

Kind of condescending to tell others they do not know history so puh-lease refrain from that. Anyway like I said before I have not even heard of this chap - Derek Birley. You suggested his name and I did ask you to put excerpts if you can, which you did not want to. Now surely you do not expect me to walk in the door at Barnes & Nobles and pick if off the shelf?? Again if you can type down some portion or scan it that would be relevant or else I will get the book when I have a chance. By the way I can also play it by suggesting all the library of books that glorify the past greats. So what are you gonna do? Buy them? Let me know cos I can give you 200 of them right here and tell you to know history too!

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.

Okay we are NOT discussing WWII(or WWI) here, what we are discussing is Bradman, and players of his era. With that said Merchant and Hazare were both of Bradman's era. Subhas Gupte debuted about 4 years after Bradman retired. Merchant has an average of 47 and so did Hazare. At a time when Bradman averaged 99 plus. What does that tell you about these Indian "greats"?? That the two of them put together were still not as good as Bradman. Which is why I mentioned dont throw mud at greats of the era it will came back at you. And by the way when you get a chance do read up on the likes of CK Nayudu and educate yourself on why he is considered by the likes of Raju Bharathan, KN Prabhu is the greatest esteem and what even the modern era writers like Ramchandra Guha think about him. Go ahead shell out 30 bucks and buy his book!

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.

That pretty much sums it all. If you had started this discussion with "Sir Jack Hobbs was as good as Ian Bell" or "George Headley was only as good as Sauarav Ganguly" that would have saved us both a lot of time. xxx

[CC1981]

In my book if you score at 38 in a series you were a failure.

I disagree.

By the way I can also play it by suggesting all the library of books that glorify the past greats. So what are you gonna do? Buy them? Let me know cos I can give you 200 of them right here and tell you to know history too!

Do those books mention that the 'great opener Hobbs' used to open against spinners and pucca medium bowlers ? Do those books mention that Sutcliffe never opened against a genuine bona fide paceman ? Do those books mention how ridiculously ill-equipped they'd be (due to a total lacking of exprience) opening against the likes of Marshall and Lillee ?

Voce and Allen never made an opening attack.

?!? Voce was a regular new-ball bowler for England and his county.

A good comparison would be Johnston with Allen and Benaud with Verity. Do the comparison and tell me where does Jardine's bowling attack comes second best.

Now thats openly short-changing Benaud.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I tried my hand at spin unsuccessfully after I stuffed my shoulder and couldn't bowl fast anymore. The first premier league game I played as a leggie got me 4 wickets but they were all given to me on a platter as none were able to figure out what I was bowling including myself. The story after a game or two was different of course, none again played me as a leggie. I was not taught how to bowl the wrong un, it came to be naturally. Unfortunately I still don't know how to leg spin. I didn't read nor was I taught how to bowl wrong uns. Anil Kumble was not taught how to bowl flippers, top spin and googly, no way. The way he bowls is googly is using his thumb and the index finger. This was not the Grimmett's way of bowling googly. This was something that was natural to Anil simply because of his grip and his delivery stride.

When i was reading this post I said to myself author must be Ravi and I was right when I checked it. Nobody asked me how to bowl leg-spin either first time I threw the real cricket ball down the pitch it came as leg-break and batsman on the other end had puzzled look. We are talking about schoool cricket here. Point is it doesn't have to be taught all the time.

[King]

When i was reading this post I said to myself author must be Ravi and I was right when I checked it. Nobody asked me how to bowl leg-spin either first time I threw the real cricket ball down the pitch it came as leg-break and batsman on the other end had puzzled look. We are talking about schoool cricket here. Point is it doesn't have to be taught all the time.

I can relate your incident to yet another budding cricketer I coach who is about 10 years of age. The first time he joined our cricket club and bowled he had the flight and spin in place. A very good natural leggie he is but was bowling for the first time in a training session (I have discounted his backyard cricket). The batter thought it was a full toss but was beaten all ends ups. I encourage him to continue to bowl spin although he is smacked around the ground a bit and is not very accurate. Leg spin is a tough art.

[Holysmoke]

what? none of you played underarm cricket? I had googlies and flippers, along with leg spinners and leg breaks, before i even started bowling properly. All were invented by me :haha: While bowling overarm, i found it much easier to control the googly, but the legbreak was wayward.. mostly i would bowl an over of 4 googlies, 1 legbreak.. and 1 fast ball off a legbreak runup

[Cricketics]

Don Bradman ' date=' if he plays now -- wont average 99-ish.. He would probably average in the 70's. And tht still makes him the best batman by a mile. But 99 ?... i dont think so..[/quote'] hmmm, i dont know which instrument or tool u used to calculate that.. how the heck can u assume someone's average comparing his average of past?? quite strange post there mate.. Bradman played cricket which was the best, toughest and most challenging in his modern days.. tendulkar, punter, lara played cricket which was/is the best in their modern days.. u can't assume punter's average or Tendulkar's average if they would have played in 1930s or 50s..

[Ram]

I didnt use any tool to do the math. Just an intuition. I wonder how anybody can average 99 in the modern era...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Sometimes back on cricinfo there was an article some team by innovative field placing virtually clipped Bradman's wings. If I remember correctly it was wide leg-slip with round-the wicket leg-stump line attack. This little innovation virtually neutered Bradman. Make what you will of this littl;e fact. To me it says he would have been just another good batsmen like lara tendu sobers etc in this era where your weaknesses are done to death your prolific scoring areas are blocked. Most of all you don't have the luxury of playing same set of bowlers on same tracks again and again. Sehwag is no God of batting neither is Younus khan whence neither is Bradman.

[silentstriker]

First of all, I would certainly pick Larwood and Voce and I am neither English nor Australian. Secondly, the Don would average just as much as he played with worse bats, worse rules for the batsman, and bodyline. Any man that can average 55 in Bodyline with Larwood breaking skulls (as he did, and as I mentioned in another thread) has my utmost respect.

[CC1981]

Any man that can average 55 in Bodyline with Larwood breaking skulls (as he did, and as I mentioned in another thread) has my utmost respect.

Pattrick Patterson broke skulls too. I guess he(Larwood) is gonna be in an 'alltime' pair simply because of stepping out of the mould and bowling like one 85mph half-Michael Holding. Sorry but bradman averaging 90 in pro-era is utter nonsense unjustifiable by any line of logic. Bowling standards have improved VASTLY, variety of pitches has increased VASTLY and no more silly 'gentleman's code' followed by people who don't know the first thing about mental toughness or professional attitude.

[silentstriker]

Pattrick Patterson broke skulls too. I guess he(Larwood) is gonna be in an 'alltime' pair simply because of stepping out of the mould and bowling like one 85mph half-Michael Holding. Sorry but bradman averaging 90 in pro-era is utter nonsense unjustifiable by any line of logic. Bowling standards have improved VASTLY, variety of pitches has increased VASTLY and no more silly 'gentleman's code' followed by people who don't know the first thing about mental toughness or professional attitude.

Haha, what? Bodyline has nothing to do with 'gentleman's code'. It is a practice that has since been made illegal. It has nothing to do with bouncers or leg theory. Today's stars who plomp their front foot down the pitch and stroke away would have been undone before they can blink. I'd be surprised if they average 25.

[CC1981]

Bodyline has nothing to do with 'gentleman's code'.

yes..first break from 'gentleman's code' ..hence the shock factor and the fact that batsmen wernt used to that kinda stuff...bodyline would've been laughed off in the 70s and 80s.

Today's stars who plomp their front foot down the pitch and stroke away would have been undone before they can blink.

If you mean post 2001, yes true to an extent. But since batsmen KNOW of these tactics and wernt protected by the 'gentlemans code' mentality or the namby pamby amatuer mentality of 'sunday game', they'd do a lot better than the aussies in bodyline series. Pre 2001 and its utterly ridiculous to think bradman would be doing more than 65-70 at best.

[silentstriker]

yes..first break from 'gentleman's code' ..hence the shock factor and the fact that batsmen wernt used to that kinda stuff...bodyline would've been laughed off in the 70s and 80s.

Um, not it would not be. In the late seventies, when the WI pace attacked were bouncing (not bodylining) the English #11, the commentators were very angry. Thats not even mentioning bodylining, why do you think the practice is still illegal?

If you mean post 2001' date=' yes true to an extent. But since batsmen KNOW of these tactics and wernt protected by the 'gentlemans code' mentality or the namby pamby amatuer mentality of 'sunday game', they'd do a lot better than the aussies in bodyline series. Pre 2001 and its utterly ridiculous to think bradman would be doing more than 65-70 at best.[/quote'] Not only would he do better, he would do much better. The bouncer rule, shorter boundaries, better equipment, training, etc...I could see him average 90+ easily. The technological improvement in bats alone would add like 5-10 runs to his average. Just about 30 years ago, if you didn't hit the ball with the sweet spot of the bat, it would be caught well before the boundary. Now the entire bat is the sweet spot. That namby pamby amateur mentality would destroy half the modern batsman.

[CC1981]

In the late seventies, when the WI pace attacked were bouncing (not bodylining) the English #11, the commentators were very angry. Thats not even mentioning bodylining, why do you think the practice is still illegal?

The only difference with bodyline was that the field wasnt leg-theory. Which is irrelevant to the terror caused by aiming leg-stump over the wicket at the batsman's body and not the wicket..especially by bowlers 10 times better than larwood & voce.

Not only would he do better, he would do much better. The bouncer rule, shorter boundaries, better equipment, training, etc...I could see him average 90+ easily.

That is pure speculative based on the idea that if Bradman was born in this time, he'd have adapted just the same...that is far more vague and speculative than empirical comparison (ie, take Bradman's level of play and time-travel him to 30 years in the future). And in emprirical terms, Bradman wouldn't have done better, he' most definitely have done worse because of far higher standards (mentally,physically & strategically) demanded by professionalism. A sport, like any other field of human endavour, when allowed to flourish, only develops to a higher and higher level on the long term. Its silly to think that people 50 years ago had same skills on average as today and the chart-topper back then would be just as effective in the modern era in the face of much better bowling and professionalism...bear in mind, i am talking of the professional era pre 2001..when cricket actually had a balance between bat & ball.

That namby pamby amateur mentality would destroy half the modern batsman.

yes, he'd still be the best...but like any namby-pamby compare empirically, he too would see diminished returns compared to his namby-pamby days.