Bradman - Hype or Real

[Lurker]

Arre koi SriGanesh bhi karo bhai!!! Nariyal phodo and get started...

[Guest HariSampath]

Like A. Playing IN India B. Playing in Pak,SL,WI ? C Playing against a quartet ala Holding,MM,Big Bird,Andy Fiery Roberts ? D Playing against qualities Leggies ? E Playing against super fast bowlers (Shoaib,Donald,Blee etc) F Playing at a Wankhedesque dust bowls where the first innings Batting Avg is lesser than a Perths 4th inngs avg ? G. Playing reverse swing ? H Playing against really mean bowlers with sub 23 avg ?[/quote] Ok, these are the 8 points that are the Issues ( Aussie 8 ball over of that era). If there are any points that I feel I have established beyond doubt by available fact, direct cricketing logic inference, and sound common sense to project certain situations, I will consider that point settled and move on, although you don't have to agree, but if you cannot refute the point, then obviously I would have won the point. Let others be umpires. Issue A playing IN India: It is a well known fact that Bradman never toured India and the question here is how we would have fared. The reasons why Bradman did not tour India was that Australia never played any test series between 1938 and 1947 due to the war. The first tour of any Aussie side to India was the Aussie services XI led by the victorian midget Lindsay Hasset in 1945/46 and Bradman could not come because he was not on the Australian services team, having been discharged from the war duty ( the Aus won its "test" in Chennai alone a game my dad used to speak about and Hasset got 100 I believe) So we are left with just seeing how Bradman fared in a later season against India in Australia, and project how he might have fared here. The stats for that test series in Aus are 5 tests 715 runs 201 highest Avg 178.75 Centuries 4 Fifties 1 The attack included the best Indian bowling of that era like Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad What I mean is Bradman would have fared equally well in India, if not far better. I can also go on to say, he probably missed out on scoring another 4-5 hundreds, had he come on a test series here. Any arguments ? In fact if he had played in those missing 10 years, say some 20 tests against India, he would certainly have got a minimum of 10 centuries including maybe 2-3 double, triple tons.

[zubinpepsi]

How about this..? or the thread mite b open for only bheem and hari and for the rest its locked.. the others shud b able to read the posts but cant post any... if others want to gvie some helping points to either of the two contestants, they can do so by PM...

[Guest HariSampath]

Lets just leave it as an open post, bcos everyone has a right to this fantastic debate and I do believe that there will be several members smart enough to point out matters which escape both bheem and myself, and the main reason being Bradman as a subject itself needs to be discussed by one and all, and what is a debate without everyone's agreement or disagreement ? at least all can vote short one line votes on points too. All said and done this is a cricket discussion board and there cant and should not be any question of exclusivity. I am sure that no one will hijack this subject, and we can simply ignore anything totally irrelevant.

[sachin_fan]

Guys, i wrote something long long ago...here are excerpts from it....something to think about All references to the man => Boss Though the essay talks about sachin vs don, some points make a lot of sense in general. I feel, if bradman had been in our era, he would have been just a sachin or a ponting with a 50 avg. "The man is good, there is no doubt about it, but if some one was to say he is the best in cricketing history, the furor that would be raised by most cricket followers and almost all professionals would be mind boggling. Yet let us look at some facts. Donald George Bradman : Accepted universally to be the best in the sport; an unattainable average of 99.94, a remarkable player with an array of strokes that baffled many in cricketing history. Is he truly the best? Most say yes but I beg to differ. I would like to rewind the clock and go back 50 years in time to the Bradman era, when cricket was just a gentleman sport, people sitting in chairs enjoying a cup of tea and clapping away to balls timed gloriously to the fence. The great Don was on song as always. Making runs at will, with a few friendly banters exchanged with the bowlers, the sky as always clear, and bowlers as always clueless. An illustrious career that spanned 20 years (though most of it was spent fighting rather than playing cricket , remember the first world war took place ). Yet in all his 20 years how many oppositions did he face, what variety did he face in the form of bowlers. I would like to tell the readers that the great Don played predominantly against one team, England (against whom he scored 72% of his runs) and would on rare occasions play against India or West Indies. In reality he faced only 4 teams in all his life. The analysis : He saw the same faces run in and bowl over and over again. And he made mince meat of them Sachin on the other hand has faced 12 nations with a new bowler literally every tour trying to outwit him and get his coveted wicket. Yet he handled all that was thrown at him. Jumping back to the Bradman era , the Don played , in his lifetime, only on 9 different grounds, with 30% of the time being spent at MCG. Pitches don’t change much, conditions don’t change much and hence his scores didn’t change much. Analysis : He was quite used to the conditions , the pitches , and the suave crowds. Sachin on the other hand has played at more than 12 grounds in his country itself apart from the 16 grounds all over the world. Imagine what his figures would have been if he had played 30% of the time in Chennai. Let us forget figures for a moment. Consider the quality of bowling offered.The Don , no offense to larwood and the other pacers, ultimately faced balls that came at him at a mediocre pace. Not because the bowlers couldn’t bowl faster, but just because the balls made then were not that aerodynamically designed to produce maximum speed. Analysis. Bradman had more time to pick his shots. Sachin however had to face balls hurled at him consistently above 140kmph and sometimes close to 160kmph. The reaction time available is almost negligible. Yet he is able to cart the balls as if he was viewing the entire process in slow motion. Another fact that is unknown and yet interesting is that in Bradman’s era swing was almost unknown. All he had to face was a bowling attack that comprised of bromidic spin and a modest pace. Never did he contend with a lethal reverse swinger or a vicious zooter. To the Don cricket was a game of calm calculations. Here again the master scores over. Certain other important factors to be mentioned about the Bradman era. The era was one of horse driven carriages and moderate cars. It was an era of simplex telephones and steam engines. And most importantly it was an era sans televisions. Hence bradman never had to watch the square leg umpire signal to the box and cricket, being as unsportly as a sport can be always slanted to the batsmen. So many close calls, so many direct hits with the umpire giving the “benefit of the doubt to the batsmen “,so many catches that were considered grounded, so many edges that went unseen, wouldn’t a 3rd umpire have made a difference. Another factor I would like to bring to the notice of readers is the quality of fielding bradman had to contend with. White clothes were an imperative at the end of the day and a diving fielder was considered to be queer. Hence balls that beat the close in ring often raced to the fence escorted along. No sliding saves , no diving catches , energetic throws from the fence, wasn’t cricket an easy sport then. Bradman thrived in such conditions and scored at a rate no one had done before." If you guys wanna read more..... i have here a link from the main hindu article which i used as reference. I will pos the link for you guys http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003032300190500.htm&date=2003/03/23/&prd=mag&

[coffee_rules]

Playing against India away in those days was like playing against BD/Zim now.

[Guest HariSampath]

Guys, i wrote something long long ago...here are excerpts from it....something to think about All references to the man => Boss Though the essay talks about sachin vs don, some points make a lot of sense in general. I feel, if bradman had been in our era, he would have been just a sachin or a ponting with a 50 avg. "The man is good, there is no doubt about it, but if some one was to say he is the best in cricketing history, the furor that would be raised by most cricket followers and almost all professionals would be mind boggling. Yet let us look at some facts. Donald George Bradman : Accepted universally to be the best in the sport; an unattainable average of 99.94, a remarkable player with an array of strokes that baffled many in cricketing history. Is he truly the best? Most say yes but I beg to differ. I would like to rewind the clock and go back 50 years in time to the Bradman era, when cricket was just a gentleman sport, people sitting in chairs enjoying a cup of tea and clapping away to balls timed gloriously to the fence. The great Don was on song as always. Making runs at will, with a few friendly banters exchanged with the bowlers, the sky as always clear, and bowlers as always clueless. An illustrious career that spanned 20 years (though most of it was spent fighting rather than playing cricket , remember the first world war took place ). Yet in all his 20 years how many oppositions did he face, what variety did he face in the form of bowlers. I would like to tell the readers that the great Don played predominantly against one team, England (against whom he scored 72% of his runs) and would on rare occasions play against India or West Indies. In reality he faced only 4 teams in all his life. The analysis : He saw the same faces run in and bowl over and over again. And he made mince meat of them Sachin on the other hand has faced 12 nations with a new bowler literally every tour trying to outwit him and get his coveted wicket. Yet he handled all that was thrown at him. Jumping back to the Bradman era , the Don played , in his lifetime, only on 9 different grounds, with 30% of the time being spent at MCG. Pitches don’t change much, conditions don’t change much and hence his scores didn’t change much. Analysis : He was quite used to the conditions , the pitches , and the suave crowds. Sachin on the other hand has played at more than 12 grounds in his country itself apart from the 16 grounds all over the world. Imagine what his figures would have been if he had played 30% of the time in Chennai. Let us forget figures for a moment. Consider the quality of bowling offered.The Don , no offense to larwood and the other pacers, ultimately faced balls that came at him at a mediocre pace. Not because the bowlers couldn’t bowl faster, but just because the balls made then were not that aerodynamically designed to produce maximum speed. Analysis. Bradman had more time to pick his shots. Sachin however had to face balls hurled at him consistently above 140kmph and sometimes close to 160kmph. The reaction time available is almost negligible. Yet he is able to cart the balls as if he was viewing the entire process in slow motion. Another fact that is unknown and yet interesting is that in Bradman’s era swing was almost unknown. All he had to face was a bowling attack that comprised of bromidic spin and a modest pace. Never did he contend with a lethal reverse swinger or a vicious zooter. To the Don cricket was a game of calm calculations. Here again the master scores over. Certain other important factors to be mentioned about the Bradman era. The era was one of horse driven carriages and moderate cars. It was an era of simplex telephones and steam engines. And most importantly it was an era sans televisions. Hence bradman never had to watch the square leg umpire signal to the box and cricket, being as unsportly as a sport can be always slanted to the batsmen. So many close calls, so many direct hits with the umpire giving the “benefit of the doubt to the batsmen “,so many catches that were considered grounded, so many edges that went unseen, wouldn’t a 3rd umpire have made a difference. Another factor I would like to bring to the notice of readers is the quality of fielding bradman had to contend with. White clothes were an imperative at the end of the day and a diving fielder was considered to be queer. Hence balls that beat the close in ring often raced to the fence escorted along. No sliding saves , no diving catches , energetic throws from the fence, wasn’t cricket an easy sport then. Bradman thrived in such conditions and scored at a rate no one had done before." If you guys wanna read more..... i have here a link from the main hindu article which i used as reference. I will post both the link and the article for you guys

sachin_fan, this is not a Bradman vs Sachin debate , but just to address some points: friendly bowling with a cup of coffee ? LOL..... have you heard of the term "bodyline bowling" ? It was a strategy intended and invented by Douglas Jardine, mainly intended to kill or permanently disblae/injure Donald Bradman. 4-5 shortleg fielders were employed right through the day's play and every ball was directed , bounced constantly at the head, not to get wickets, but to almost murder Bradman. This was when pitches were uncovered, no field restrictions close in on the leg side, short leg etc, and the bowlers were Larwood ,Voce and others, WITHOUT any protective head gear or even other protection, just pads and gloves. Bradman "failed " LOL, meaning he averaged 55 or something, and even got a 100

[Lurker]

So we are left with just seeing how Bradman fared in a later season against India in Australia, and project how he might have fared here. The stats for that test series in Aus are 5 tests 715 runs 201 highest Avg 178.75 Centuries 4 Fifties 1 The attack included the best Indian bowling of that era like Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad What I mean is Bradman would have fared equally well in India, if not far better. I can also go on to say, he probably missed out on scoring another 4-5 hundreds, had he come on a test series here. Any arguments ? In fact if he had played in those missing 10 years, say some 20 tests against India, he would certainly have got a minimum of 10 centuries including maybe 2-3 double, triple tons.

Okay you guys can continue your discussion. I just wanted to chip in my 2cents here. Bradman did not play in India(more due to WW than any other reason). So it is all hypothetical how he would have fared. One possible way to look at it is how those players he played with performed in India. Admittedly it wont be exactly the same but atleast would give us a pointer. From Aussie team of its time I picked two players who actually did tour India - Neil Harvey and Ray Lindwall. Turns out their batting average in India is more than their overall batting average. I picked two more, this time from West Indies - Wolcott and Weekes. Turns out their batting average is higher in India too. Considering all these great bats(Harvey, Weekes, Walcott) scored about 10 plus runs on an average in India it is fair to say Bradman's average would have atleast been the same if not better than his career average. Just a speculation, take it for whatever its worth. xxx

[sachin_fan]

sachin_fan, this is not a Bradman vs Sachin debate , but just to address some points: friendly bowling with a cup of coffee ? LOL..... have you heard of the term "bodyline bowling" ? It was a strategy intended and invented by Douglas Jardine, mainly intended to kill or permanently disblae/injure Donald Bradman

How dramatic can you get....kill bradman. Bodyline lasted one season or two, and with such wide spread dissent, it was removed immediately. Bradman defended body line like any batsmen of the current era defends the left arm over the wicket into the pads bowling..ie..he stepped away and lifted it over off. I would like you to rate larwood etc in the same lines of a lee or an akthar.

. 4-5 shortleg fielders were employed right through the day's play and every ball was directed , bounced constantly at the head, not to get wickets, but to almost murder Bradman. This was when pitches were uncovered, no field restrictions close in on the leg side, short leg etc, and the bowlers were Larwood ,Voce and others, WITHOUT any protective head gear or even other protection, just pads and gloves.

head gear , pads , protection i agree....but so many greats have done the same....right upto the sobers era. One case to point is graham pollock, had he been allowed to play, he might have given bradman a run for his money....at the international arena. But that doesnt mean a batsmen playing with gear is any less at risk. Raman lamba died on the field, though not while batting . Broken noses and thumbs are common even today.

Bradman "failed " LOL, meaning he averaged 55 or something, and even got a 100

the Don played 52 tests with most against england. Look at the frequency of the tests, what , 10 matches a year. We are playing 10 test matches in 2 series. and we have about 5-6 series a year these days. If the don had played in the current era, the law of averages would have caught up with him and u would see a 55, not a 99 as his avg. Don is one of the best, but its diffcult to accept that he is THE BEST... ps : i knew that this was not don sachin, i mentioned that it was part of an article i wrote about SRT.

[Guest HariSampath]

Here is the Wiki link for bodyline, just read it, and expand your horizon of knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline Larwood, Voce and Bowes were very quick, the strategy itself was solely meant to injure the head/face/upper body of Donald Bradman, to preventt him from scoring runs, and had been planned and practised for 2 seasons, and everyone at that era/seson opposed it as the most unfair cricket tactic aiming to inpacitate or hurt so that batsmen will get out if trying to defend themselves physically.

[Lurker]

How dramatic can you get....kill bradman. Bodyline lasted one season or two, and with such wide spread dissent, it was removed immediately. Bradman defended body line like any batsmen of the current era defends the left arm over the wicket into the pads bowling..ie..he stepped away and lifted it over off. I would like you to rate larwood etc in the same lines of a lee or an akthar. Fast bowling , i mean real fast, came to the fore only during the lilee lawson era....till then it was good bowling not rip roaring fast

Hain? :hmpf: If fast bowling came to fore only during Lilee Thomson era I suppose you consider Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith(not to mention Roy Gilchrist) as a Madan Lal wannabe? And what bout Fred Trueman? Surely he would disagree(and he once had India 4 down for 1 runs). Where does that leave Frank Tyson, still argued by many to be the fastest ever. So no you have not done your homework when it comes to fast bowling SF.

head gear , pads , protection i agree....but so many greats have done the same....right upto the sobers era. One case to point is graham pollock, had he been allowed to play, he might have given bradman a run for his money....at the international arena.

Pollock was a great bat and his not playing enough cricket was a loss to world cricket, still he never managed to come within 20 runs of Bradman's average. That is quite a gap there SF.

the Don played 52 tests with most against england. Look at the frequency of the tests, what , 10 matches a year. We are playing 10 test matches in 2 series. and we have about 5-6 series a year these days. If the don had played in the current era, the law of averages would have caught up with him and u would see a 55, not a 99 as his avg.

So you are telling me that it is more difficult to keep your average playing 6 series in 1 year than to maintain the same average in 6 years!!! If that was the case Harbhajan Singh should be right on top of spin bowlers list, since he has obviously played less cricket in past 6 years(thanks to one Kumble). xxx

[sachin_fan]

Hain? :hmpf: If fast bowling came to fore only during Lilee Thomson era I suppose you consider Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith(not to mention Roy Gilchrist) as a Madan Lal wannabe? And what bout Fred Trueman? Surely he would disagree(and he once had India 4 down for 1 runs). Where does that leave Frank Tyson, still argued by many to be the fastest ever. So no you have not done your homework when it comes to fast bowling SF.

agreed...am not a gr8 fast bowling follower and some of the ppl u talk about "roy gilchrist"...i dont even know their names. I retract the stmt about coming to the fore...but, i still dont know(i may be wrong here as well) about incidents, statments comments about actual terrorizing of an opposition ( 1 for 4 is good but you dont need to be an express bowler to achieve that..no offense to truman)...I am talking about a bloke like thompson who goes of "I enjoy hitting a batsman more than getting him out. I like to see blood on the pitch"...and then starts bowling bouncers every which way. He did rattle the opposition Lloyd about thompson "When I batted at Perth I didn't even wear a cap," said Lloyd. "All I had was an apology for a thigh pad." It was in that Test that Thomson struck Lloyd so hard in the groin that his protective box was turned inside out. "You didn't feel fear," he added, "but you did feel a hopelessness at times, a feeling that you couldn't cope." Denness noted Lloyd's reaction when he returned to the dressing room after one innings. "Within seconds his body was quivering. His neck and the top half of his body in particular were shaking. He was shell-shocked.""

Pollock was a great bat and his not playing enough cricket was a loss to world cricket, still he never managed to come within 20 runs of Bradman's average. That is quite a gap there SF.

Was just giving pollock as an example lurker.....

So you are telling me that it is more difficult to keep your average playing 6 series in 1 year than to maintain the same average in 6 years!!! If that was the case Harbhajan Singh should be right on top of spin bowlers list, since he has obviously played less cricket in past 6 years(thanks to one Kumble).

talking about good good batsmen, in the so called bradmansique class....all i am saying is, if ponting (for example, dont wanna bring sachin again ) plays half as much as he is doing now, he would surely have a better average just from the lack of stress batting. Imagine playing the number of ODI's and tests you play....it will affect ur game certainly

[Lurker]

agreed...am not a gr8 fast bowling follower and some of the ppl u talk about "roy gilchrist"...i dont even know their names. I retract the stmt about coming to the fore...but, i still dont know(i may be wrong here as well) about incidents, statments comments about actual terrorizing of an opposition ( 1 for 4 is good but you dont need to be an express bowler to achieve that..no offense to truman)...I am talking about a bloke like thompson who goes of "I enjoy hitting a batsman more than getting him out. I like to see blood on the pitch"...and then starts bowling bouncers every which way. He did rattle the opposition Lloyd about thompson "When I batted at Perth I didn't even wear a cap," said Lloyd. "All I had was an apology for a thigh pad." It was in that Test that Thomson struck Lloyd so hard in the groin that his protective box was turned inside out. "You didn't feel fear," he added, "but you did feel a hopelessness at times, a feeling that you couldn't cope." Denness noted Lloyd's reaction when he returned to the dressing room after one innings. "Within seconds his body was quivering. His neck and the top half of his body in particular were shaking. He was shell-shocked.""

Well see there you are wrong my friend. For example you admit you did not know much of Gilchrist, which only explains why I did not even bother mentioning Fred 'Demon' Spofforth(no offense). Let me just leave you with whom Richie Benaud considers the fastest bowler he ever saw - Frank Tyson. That shall tell you if there were fast bowlers before Lilee or not(surely you would agree Benaud would have seen them all). Incidentally Tyson is also nominated by Bradman as the fastest bowler he ever saw.

Was just giving pollock as an example lurker.....

Fair enough SF. I do agree that Pollock was a great batsman. I have had many debates here with people who think he is hyped but I rank Pollock one of the greatest bats ever.

talking about good good batsmen, in the so called bradmansique class....all i am saying is, if ponting (for example, dont wanna bring sachin again ) plays half as much as he is doing now, he would surely have a better average just from the lack of stress batting. Imagine playing the number of ODI's and tests you play....it will affect ur game certainly

Yes it does. I agree with you that playing different games does affect a batsman. So lets limit this discussion to Test cricket only. In which case Bradman's stats are essentially peerless. xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[sachin_fan]

Yes it does. I agree with you that playing different games does affect a batsman. So lets limit this discussion to Test cricket only. In which case Bradman's stats are essentially peerless. xxx

The stats are peerless, no denying that. All i am saying is, its not possible to declare someone best in business based on numbers alone. I point to H.M Lamberts comparison of sachin vs bradman as a case to point...there are so many unstated issues. Grounds, opposition, overall standards in fielding etc...television replays etc.. etc...after 50 years of cricket from bradman's era...its just plain wrong to say there is no one even equalling him... for every sampras , borg - there is a federer for every senna - there is a Schumacher for every pele, there is a zidane... its just plain wrong to make a universal statement based on the fact of avgs...tht is my case

[sachin_fan]

Ok this will get really hairy & excruciatingly painfull to read (if it isnt already) and keep track as it will go down south in no time at all ..... Iam willing to bet a fair chunk of change that this will get morphed into a thread discussing chai coffee paan .... Be warned. :haha: Will respond a bit later ....I gotta go & get some work done right now. Stay tuned. But heres a quick fact on your first point - Batting in India ... NO ONE in the 75 yrs of Test cricket has made a Triple hundered IN INDIA .... and its common knowledge that we never possesed Best of the Best Strike bowlers as in a Marshall , Donald , Bishop , Amby class over those 75 yrs. Infact there have been a grand total of Just 4 scores above 250 IN India. Its very hard to rack up big scores in India .... even against just decent bowlers and by decent I mean bowlers around the 27-32 bowl avg . Its highly unlikely that Bradman would score a big double never mind a triple IN India. The same holds true for South Africa too.

sorry bheem, too many quotations :D:D:D:D:D

[Guest HariSampath]

Let me add my bit about Indian fast bowling SF...mst people think it started with Kapil Dev, but Mohammed Nissar and Amarsingh were seriously quick, and perhaps Nissar was perhaps Iindias fastest ever bowler till today. and when he played one of the fastest in the world

[sachin_fan]

Let me add my bit about Indian fast bowling SF...mst people think it started with Kapil Dev' date=' but Mohammed Nissar and Amarsingh were seriously quick, and perhaps Nissar was perhaps Iindias fastest ever bowler till today. and when he played one of the fastest in the world[/quote'] agreed, that was a wrong statement to make, let me edit that post

[sachin_fan]

Here is the Wiki link for bodyline, just read it, and expand your horizon of knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline Larwood, Voce and Bowes were very quick, the strategy itself was solely meant to injure the head/face/upper body of Donald Bradman, to preventt him from scoring runs, and had been planned and practised for 2 seasons, and everyone at that era/seson opposed it as the most unfair cricket tactic aiming to inpacitate or hurt so that batsmen will get out if trying to defend themselves physically.

sorry didnt see this before...i read the wiki...and it didnt mention injure...scare is a better word than injure in this case "A Bodyline bowler deliberately aimed the cricket ball at the body of the opposing batsman, in the hope of creating legside deflections that could be caught by one of several fielders in the quadrant of the field behind square leg." no batsmen is gonna take it in his face...the aim is to get him to create deflections...nothin different from the short ball into ganguly's ribs bowled by akthar...the field setting was a little different though

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --