Bradman - Hype or Real

[Bongosamaj]

Or you could lend him your Headley tapes? :D

I doubt such tapes exist and even if they did, i see no relevance to how watching headley bat would compare to watching the Don bat. Gambo- a quick question : Do you think Bheemie would've started this thread if Bradman was not white and not Aussie ? :haha:

[Lurker]

The wicketkeeper, a mischief-maker like the rest of his tribe, replied: "Don't you remember this bloke? He bowled you out a few weeks ago and has been boasting about it ever since." "Is that so?" said Bradman. Two overs later Black pleaded with his skipper to be taken off. Bradman had hit him for 62 runs in two eight-ball overs. He made 100 in three overs and finished with 256, including 14 sixes and 29 fours.

Yes I have. That reminds me of an article that was written just before 20/20. Of an all-time list and players who could have made it. Bradman was selected simply because of the pace at which he scored(did he not score 300 runs in a day all by himself once?). The above innings very well explains why. xxx

[Gambit]

I doubt such tapes exist and even if they did' date=' i see no relevance to how watching headley bat would compare to watching the Don bat.[/quote'] Wow, if only people at CC saw this! :D

Gambo- a quick question : Do you think Bheemie would've started this thread if Bradman was not white and not Aussie ? :haha:

Dunno about that but I know that his opinion of Bradman is an unpopular one and held by very very very few people in the world. Contesting against the behemoth that is the DON is always a losing proposition.

[coffee_rules]

Bradman's greatness lies in the difference between him and his peers. Things obviously will be different from one era to another. You will not find the same exact "sub-xyz" bowlers or the exact number of countries or surfaces played in. What we have to accept is that the gap between him and his peers was so vast that he has to be considered infinitely superior unless someone from the current era can also distinguish himself from peers with such a distance. If we had a bunch of 80' date=' 90 and 95 averagers from that era, then one can say that bowling was utter cr@p in that era. Not otherwise. It is not possible for one man alone to find that bowling easy to play against unless he was superior in talent and batsmanship as well.[/quote'] Nobody is denying his greatness. stats do it without any other reasoning. But nobody can guess how he would have fared on the modern day game. With the gap he had with his peers, we can safely say that he would have averaged in 70s/80s now. But I don't think he would still have averaged 100 (99.96).

[Lurker]

Found it. Only 4 bowlers that the Don extensively played against had sub 26 averages: Verity (24) Bedser (25) Bowes (22) Tate (26)

I did some extra research :D, this time on the Australian bowlers to see how they fared against Don. 1) Clarrie Grimmett International record 216@24.2 First class stats aginst NSW(Bradman's team) @27.4 2) Bert Ironmonger 74@17.97 First class stats against NSW@36.30 http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/0/493/f_Bowling_by_Opponent.html ** In other words stats against Bradman's team is worse than career average. *** It is interesting to note that during Bradman era Aussie bowling attack was limited to 3 greats - Grimmett, Ironmonger and O'Reilley(I did not consider OReilley since he played for same side NSW as Bradman), the opening bowlers were not particularly strong and still Bradman's era Aussie teams are called Invincibles...that itself tells you a story. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Here is a very interesting incident from Bradman's last tour of England in 1948, at the age of 40. This shows what a remarkable player he was even at that age with amazing raw physical skills and reflexes. ( Lurker, would this be one for the anecdotes ? ) ************************************************************************************************ It was a warm summer day in Canterbury in 1948 and there was a ripple of excitement around the ground. The touring Australians were playing Kent and at the fall of a wicket, the legendary Don was on his way to the middle. Fred Ridgway the young Kent fast bowler who went on to play for England was bowling. Ridgway had never seen the Don play. Godfrey Evans, the Kent and England wicket keeper, and known for his pranks, told Ridgway “just have two shortlegs for him, and give him a couple of good length deliveries , followed by a bouncer, you can get him caught at legâ€. Ridgway was doubtful and asked “ but doesn’t he have some kind of reputation as a great hooker of the bouncer ?â€. Evans replied “ sure , he used to eat bouncers, but that was years back, when you get to 40, its different. Just do it and see what happensâ€. Ridgway agreed and the two fielders for the shortleg positions were sought. A couple of senior pros in the side who knew Evans very well did not volunteer, and two of the younger fielders were placed at shortlegs. The good length deliveries came and the Don played both back down the pitch. Then came the bouncer. There was an explosion of movement at the batsman’s crease with a blur of white. The shortlegs threw themselves down for their lives, and the ball pitched among the hydrangea plants in the pavilion, scattering the Mayor’s official party, skimmed past a waiter carrying a tray of drinks and crashed into the dressing room windows shattering the glass. An absolutely stunned Ridgway was livid with Evans and went down to ask him “ what the bloody hell…?†and Evans, shaking with laughter , told him “ I had heard so much about his hook, but hadn’t seen it. When would ever get a chance again, lad†**********************************************************

[Lurker]

Hahaha...Excellent stuff Hari. Yes please paste it in the anecdote section, would be a shame if it got lost in all the discussion here.

[kumble_rocks]

I think we all can agree that Bradman was the best batsmen of the first half of the century. But to extend to the second half would be stretching it too far in my humble opinion. I have followed to many sports like baseball , basketball wherein better stats , videos. playing arena have been maintained. This kind of hype is not limited to just cricket. We have Babe Ruth in baseball, Jim Thorpe in men's sports , Babe Didrikson in women's sport to name a few who all have been hyped beyond measure . The question begs , can they achieve what they achieved in bygone era , I am afraid not. Modern day sports has become far to professional and specialized for that too happen.

[Bongosamaj]

With the gap he had with his peers, we can safely say that he would have averaged in 70s/80s now. But I don't think he would still have averaged 100 (99.96).

I quite agree. I do think Bradman's performance would've come down a bit in the modern era of 1975-2001 primarily because of how much cricket is played and greater fitness demands are placed on the body. Remember, Tendu slowed down a lot due to his injuries, not just got 'figured out' or 'fell away'. I don't think Bradman would've maintained as fit a career as he did in the 30s with him required to dive around or run around the field twice as much per year. But the fact that he dominated his era to a level no one has before or after ( Tendu only holds a clear edge in terms of tons & runs scored than most , Bradman held it in every aspect- average, tons, fifties, etc etc) and i would not expect him to average lower than 75 in test cricket and 60-65 in ODI cricket. And those figures would still mean that Bradman is the greatest batsman seen by mankind. Though i must say, i think if Bradman had played in the last 5-6 years,he probably would've been averaging more than 100. Bowling attacks the world over are simply not good enough to bother Bradman.' Bradman wouldn't have much problem facing Murali or Vaas ( Vaas is a good bowler but nowhere good enough to trouble the Don and if anything he was a total legend in playing spin bowling) and only a rampant once-in-a-blue-moon Akhtar and Bond could've caused him the occasional bad series. Asif is very good too but his type is the kind Bradman had for lunch - sprightly pace and good healthy movements. But he'd have a huge advantage, having honed his skill on the far harder uncovered wickets of the 1930s to bat on. To him, Mumbai pitch from that Australia test (where Clarke took 6 wickets) would be 'normal business' and an Antigua or Multan a 'gift from God'. I cannot see how bowlers TODAY would deal with Bradman on massively batting-friendly surface.

[Bongosamaj]

Modern day sports has become far to professional and specialized for that too happen.

I agree that Modern game is harder to play- but there are always aspects of the older game that was harder too - less protection, sometimes less favourable conditions (such as uncovered wickets in cricket, wet grass with no soccer cleats in football, etc). But overall, you are right- professionalism would bring down the performance of the less professional ones or the ones accustomed t less professional atmosphere. This is why i do not rate Jack Hobbs as highly as Gavaskar or Bil O'Reiley as highly as Chandra. Their performance is more or less close enough overall ( 50s averaging batsmen, mid 20s averaging bowlers etc) but the older ones have the handicap of 'professionalism' when looked at for this era. Yet, there must be concessions made for the likes of Don Bradman, Bill Tillden, Babe Ruth, Pele, Wilt Chamberlain etc. They were simply too far ahead of the field, essentially they dominated their eras like Roger federer does today in Tennis. So even with the 'performance hit' for playing in the modern times, i can easily see the abovementioned names handily being the #1 today ( maybe except for Tillden, since his field has the 'dominator of modern sport', aka Federer). So yes, Bradman doesn't average 99 if he and SunnyG or he and sachin debuted at the same time and started their careers. But i can easily see him average 75+ and that'd still make him easily better than the Tendulkars, Laras, etc. of the world. And if not, i'd like some cogent response devoid of the usual suspects crunching numbers without context and spitting out jingoism as a form of answer to a cricketing query.

[Guest HariSampath]

Once when I asked a former International cricketer from India " do you think Sir Donald , if he had played his cricket in the 70's and 80s, would have averaged 99" I was told.. "I don't think so, he would have averaged about 50" "only 50 ? !!" I asked . " Yeah, and that is a pretty good average for a man more than 60 years old , isn't it" was the response witha big grin. I think this also tells us what many players thought of his playing skills :-)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

I want to just give an important perspective to the question... What if he had played in the modern era ? I look at it this way, please follow my thread of thought, and lets discuss his averages later. Don Bradman is born in, say, Sydney, Australia in 1974, same year as Sachin. Assume, ( obviously) that Don Bradman is born just as Don Bradman, that is with exactly same physical skills and mental abilities for cricket. What are the things that would possibly happen. It is very clear that in this era of under-15, u-17 etc, he would have been very prominently noticed and would have been scoring enormous scores frm say the age of 12 -13 itself , maybe at school level. Australia with their current system would have simply been extremely quick to realise they are seeing some exceptionally brilliant skills would have sent him to Cricket Australia academy, and Don would have been playing against and along with , say 19/20 year olds from Australia even when he was less than 15. The facts are that the Don would have played against the types of Brett Lee, and Co when they were 20, and got totally used to facing very high quaality Australian attacks on Aussie wickets at a very early age. Chances are his unusually high physical ability which would have been among the top 0.001% of even those 20 year olds would have made him standout and he would have simply blasted everything and everyone out of sight. He would have played for NSW, and Australia A , definitely by the age of 16, and when such a person with his phenomenal natural gifts is growing up as a teenager in the 1980s, the international fame, the stardom, the challenges etc would have instantly driven him to perform even beyond his expected levels.Maybe he would have got a few hundreds and double hundreds in first 2 seasons of Sheffield shield. He would have played with the most modern of today's bats, equipment, been given top physiotherapy treatments top physical trainers from Australia academy, and by the age of 17, he would have gatecrashed into the Australia test/ODI team, perhaps he would have played the 1992 world cup too. ( because if Sachin, with his physical and mental cricket skills made debut in 1989 under the Indian system, why wouldn't the Don have made his debut before 1990 in the Aussie system? ) And then.... playing against the international teams of the 1990s, The Don , as we know him, with his experiences, upbringing , training, etc all his life as a modern young Aussie teenager, what would he have done ? This is the point from where we have to take the question. I think that he would have made mockery of the almost all attacks in all grounds everywhere, at all times, and with all of the above, he might have averaged over 100 too in his tests, and as far as ODIs are concerned, he would have certainly opened, and I can't even imagine the absolute slaughter that would have happened. Any more opinions on this view ? ( both serious and humorous ones like how maybe Agarkar would have fared against him....lol ) :haha:

[kumble_rocks]

I agree that Modern game is harder to play- but there are always aspects of the older game that was harder too - less protection, sometimes less favourable conditions (such as uncovered wickets in cricket, wet grass with no soccer cleats in football, etc). But overall, you are right- professionalism would bring down the performance of the less professional ones or the ones accustomed t less professional atmosphere. This is why i do not rate Jack Hobbs as highly as Gavaskar or Bil O'Reiley as highly as Chandra. Their performance is more or less close enough overall ( 50s averaging batsmen, mid 20s averaging bowlers etc) but the older ones have the handicap of 'professionalism' when looked at for this era. Yet, there must be concessions made for the likes of Don Bradman, Bill Tillden, Babe Ruth, Pele, Wilt Chamberlain etc. They were simply too far ahead of the field, essentially they dominated their eras like Roger federer does today in Tennis. So even with the 'performance hit' for playing in the modern times, i can easily see the abovementioned names handily being the #1 today ( maybe except for Tillden, since his field has the 'dominator of modern sport', aka Federer). So yes, Bradman doesn't average 99 if he and SunnyG or he and sachin debuted at the same time and started their careers. But i can easily see him average 75+ and that'd still make him easily better than the Tendulkars, Laras, etc. of the world. And if not, i'd like some cogent response devoid of the usual suspects crunching numbers without context and spitting out jingoism as a form of answer to a cricketing query.

I see your point , but we all can agree that it is very difficult compare two different eras. Plus factor in the hype by the predominately white media of that era, it is easy to see why Bradman was hyped so much beyond measure. That's why I said, he is the best batsmen of the first half of the century. Too many X factors come into play , in determining whether he was better than his hype or for that matter the best ever. I actually happen to agree with some of your points as well as that of BB's. Some of the pros in his favor include playing with less protective gear , playing on uncovered pitch , more than one bouncer per over rule , no helmet etc to name a few. On the flip side , the cons include 70 % runs against England, 4 teams played against , no world class leggie played against , no reverse swing from W's played against , no doosra from offie , no chinaman bowlers , less emphasis on training etc to name a few. Take the example of Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant pitcher in addition to being the most dominant slugger of his time. That is humanely impossible in this modern era of baseball . Baseball was a white man sport during his time and more amateurish . He was physically out of shape and who I don't think would have been eligible to field in any position in the modern baseball game. He would have been the designated hitter who does not field at best if he played today. Same with Jim thope who was considered one of the most versatile athletes in modern sports and who won Olympics gold medals , also played football , professional baseball and basketball. Hate to racially pigeon hole , but Whites and Asians struggle to get into basketball even if they pursue it with all earnest. And to think that this particular athlete played all the sports in the first half of century indicates lack of competition and also the fact that it was predominately white. Same is true with babe didrikson. I don't see how she would have won multiple olympic gold medals and won numerous LPGA golf titles if she was playing in the modern era.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari ... are u interested in a serious debate or just want to exchange rhetorics ?

I am waiting for your part of the debate , which hasn't come at all. I had answered Issue A with my projection ( playing in India), and all you did was to say " no he wouldn't have got 300 because no one has got 300 in India for 75 years. I refuted this point saying applying the probablity theory to Bradman ( and that too probablity of success and to what extent cannot be dependent on Indian cricket history, because it doesn't in any way affect the Don who had defied every type of history). So take it from there, and back up why he wouldn't have got 300s and 200s. the game is on and I am waiting. NOTE ( my projection was based on known Bradman vs India record. Your projection is based on Non Bradman history of India

[Guest HariSampath]

When VVS Laxman can get 281 against Aussie attack in India, when Faoud Bacchus can get 250 against India, and Sunil Gavaskar et al, so many double hundreds, why is it a batsman of Don Bradman 's extraordinarily higher ability and record could have never got 300 as you say. I need cricketing logic and justifiable fact. You cannot say quote similar scores under same conditions.... the question is when such a player plays first in subcontinental conditions anywhere, what is it that makes you assert categorically he would never have got 300. I have given plenty of reasons to say why he would have.

[Bongosamaj]

I trust you have gotten the answer for the need of an exclusionist debate .

Yes, we all have. It is a very hard thing to argue against facts and logic when 3-4 people are continuously bombarding your nonsense. You want to minimize the field so that there are less logical thinkers to take your incorrect analysis on.

[Guest HariSampath]

Bheem, Let me simplify the question to you. In another context, if there is someone who cracks the JEE exam for IIT entrance in say half the time as everyone else and gets National topper score, is there anything wrong at all if I project, " this fellow will certainly crack the GRE with a full score with plenty time to spare" ? And then if you come up with an argument " no one had ever cracked GRE with full score in half the time in this whole century" or " has this person cracked any US administered test like SAT in half the time" , this is ridicuous. Follow my track ?

[Bongosamaj]

I am waiting for your part of the debate , which hasn't come at all.

Dude, he wants to do it in private. This is too much for him to deal with, too much logic and too much fact. Bechaare ko 1v1 chahiye.