Was the don that good ?

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I agree perfectly with you. From what I read he was not an elegant player, but the fact that no one in any continent at his time, before or after his time came anywhere close means he was something really special. In comparison there is no bowler who can be credited as being so superior to his peers. I do not know in Australia at the dons time whether anyone came anywhere close to his average in shield games. After all his local average was much worse than his test average. I believe it was only about 95. And Macca I think the spanish flu was around 1919, I am not sure he played test matches in those days.But I may be horribly wrong. At least the leggies got him out at will, after getting the odd 70, so we are happy that he was a common mortal to us!

i think his ist class average was more impressive than his test average, through weight of runs, 28000 at 95

 

[MV!]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I think you'd be surprised by how little the War and the Great Depression impacted upon playing stocks at the time. Yes, many players were lost to the War - but Test Cricket was also suspended during that period. Playing stocks Post- War would have taken a while to replenish, and many (inc. the Don) were past it when they came back. But the Don did the majority of his boot- filling prior to that period anyway, and was well past it. And few of the very good players (pro/ semi-pro/ of high class) would have been greatly effected by either the Great Depression or World War II.

Hell, all you need to hear is one of Thommos anecdotes. I think it was the late 70s, the Don - in his 60s - was facing up to some of the net bowlers at a training session without pads and smashing them around completely. Thommo decided to test him out (of course, by his claims only bowling around 60%) and the Don predictably smashed him around to the point where Thommo asked "why the f**k" he wasn't still playing for Australia.

Seriously though, he just was that much better than everyone that has ever played the game.

 

[A.B De Villiers]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I think you'd be surprised by how little the War and the Great Depression impacted upon playing stocks at the time. Yes, many players were lost to the War - but Test Cricket was also suspended during that period. Playing stocks Post- War would have taken a while to replenish, and many (inc. the Don) were past it when they came back. But the Don did the majority of his boot- filling prior to that period anyway, and was well past it. And few of the very good players (pro/ semi-pro/ of high class) would have been greatly effected by either the Great Depression or World War II.

Hell, all you need to hear is one of Thommos anecdotes. I think it was the late 70s, the Don - in his 60s - was facing up to some of the net bowlers at a training session without pads and smashing them around completely. Thommo decided to test him out (of course, by his claims only bowling around 60%) and the Don predictably smashed him around to the point where Thommo asked "why the f**k" he wasn't still playing for Australia.

Seriously though, he just was that much better than everyone that has ever played the game.

I like you're thinking there MV.
Stats dont paint the real picture. He was greatest, plain and simple, a genius perhaps, on par with the likes of Woods, Ali and Pele.
you give him what we have now, he would averaged a lot more than 99.94.

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

he didnt play against india, or in indian conditions, he only ever played against england, now days batsman have to adapt to much more variety of attacks and very different conditions, look at ricky ponting, what does he average in india, even against india in Australia, it would be much lower than his overall average.

 

[ants14]

Re: Was the don that good ?

he didnt play against india, or in indian conditions, he only ever played against england, now days batsman have to adapt to much more variety of attacks and very different conditions, look at ricky ponting, what does he average in india, even against india in Australia, it would be much lower than his overall average.

how many more people need to tell you before you get it through your head? the man was that good. he made run after run, and had some poor health throughout and yet he always cam eout and performed. I'm all for everyone having there own opinion, but there are some things you just don;t do, and one of those things is not to doubt the Don. as far as Grimmett saying the Don wasnt as good as trumper, grimmett was the star before the Don came along, and was overshadowed when he came onto the scene. what more would you expect?

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

if you read the whole thread you would know that im just highlighting the different circumstances back then, can you please get that through your head ??, probably not. you act like your an expert on the subject but you dont answer any of the questions. if you had bothered to read the whole thread you would realize that im not doubting him as the greatest, im just saying IMO i dont think he would average 99 today, and im far from being the only person who thinks that.

 

[hattrick]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I must be honest I would have never thought that this topic would become so popular.
I can add that from an equipment point of view remember that they did not have decent gloves, no helmets and very average pads. He would have batted for days and I believe lara's 400 and 501* would not be highest scores in the game..

Lets face it the game has moved to a commercial venture and I often wonder if the Don would have had Tendulkar like issues with privacy and the like..most probably yes.. He most probably would have had to have 24 hour security and a assistant to do the day to day stuff..

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I think you'd be surprised by how little the War and the Great Depression

I think we were talking about first world war, and its impact on Bradmans generation is what he was getting at. Bradman was already a full genius before the wall street crash so that doesnt come into it really.

I think our old mate distibuter isn't questioning his greatness just asking a question people have been asking since he retired. It was often asked during the West Indies domination. People asked would he have kept that average against unrelenting pace like that. Most oldtimers at the time said he would have easily got on top of the 70,s / 80,s Windies.

My old man, who would be in his 90,s if he was still alive, saw him side on at the SCG a couple of times and he said he was in another league that everyone at the time knew no-one before or since could ever approach. Everyone talks of the lightening footwork and batspeed but it was his placement that Dad said made him impossible to bowl to. I used to argue with him that modern fielding was superior and would have restricted him, but dad said that wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

as far as Grimmett saying the Don wasnt as good as trumper, grimmett was the star before the Don came along, and was overshadowed when he came onto the scene. what more would you expect?

There is a lot more to the Grimmett /Bradman clash then any jealousy on Grimmetts part ,as you are suggesting. Mainly Bradman just couldn't take Clarries' wicked sense of humour.

 

[ants14]

Re: Was the don that good ?

if you read the whole thread you would know that im just highlighting the different circumstances back then, can you please get that through your head ??, probably not. you act like your an expert on the subject but you dont answer any of the questions. if you had bothered to read the whole thread you would realize that im not doubting him as the greatest, im just saying IMO i dont think he would average 99 today, and im far from being the only person who thinks that.

i actually did read the whole thread from start to finish. I dont act like an expert all i said was that he is the best there has ever been and performed time after time even when he was fair ill. then i went on to talk about grimmet where I read in the don's biography that there seemed to be a bit of jealousy on grimmets part when he came on to the scene. all you have done in this thread is continually gone ahead and try to deny that he is the best ever. he played against the best players of that era, and made a mockery of them. you cant compare it today because there are so many variables that have been thrown around by everyone in this thread and IMO they probably cancel each other out and bring me back to saying it would surprise me if his average would remain the same.

EDIT: do you mind explaining why you think his first class average is better than his test one?

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I think I know what you mean ants. The jealousy began after the 1930 ashes tour and developed amongst a lot of the team by the time they got back. But Grimmett was not the source of it. It really was first expressed by the captain Richardson who got sick of all the attention Bradman was getting and told the press " We could have won the ashes without Bradman but we couldn't have beaten the blind school without Grimmett"

I think the clash really started on the trip to England where Grimmett recieved permission to write a book and Bradman wrote one without the say so of the cricket authorities got in trouble and was in fact jealous of Grimmett who had done the right thing at the outset by seeking permission to write his book.

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

i actually did read the whole thread from start to finish. I dont act like an expert all i said was that he is the best there has ever been and performed time after time even when he was fair ill. then i went on to talk about grimmet where I read in the don's biography that there seemed to be a bit of jealousy on grimmets part when he came on to the scene. all you have done in this thread is continually gone ahead and try to deny that he is the best ever. he played against the best players of that era, and made a mockery of them. you cant compare it today because there are so many variables that have been thrown around by everyone in this thread and IMO they probably cancel each other out and bring me back to saying it would surprise me if his average would remain the same.

EDIT: do you mind explaining why you think his first class average is better than his test one?

weight of runs, 28000 at 95, maybe not as impressive as the test ave but still very impressive. call me the fun police if you like but IMO i dont think anyone could be 35/40% better than the next best at a mainstream game, it certainly hasnt happened in any other mainstream game, i dont see the harm of putting all the cards on table and letting people decide for themselves.

 

[MV!]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I think we were talking about first world war, and its impact on Bradmans generation is what he was getting at. Bradman was already a full genius before the wall street crash so that doesnt come into it really.

Yeah, I figured as much after I clicked "post". But the Don still didn't make his debut for another 11 years, so I believe that point becomes void.

I understand that contention that his average may well be inflated because he didn't play against in a great variations of conditions. But it's also been noted by many, many sources that he was incredibly professional in his preparation, was proud and didn't like failure. I don't think that new conditions would have had to large an impact on him - professionals adapt to everything. It's as fair to assume that given his professionalism, playing against a new spread of teams (some stronger, many weaker), in conditions that may well have suited his style of batting even more, may well have resulted in an even greater average.

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

Yeah, I figured as much after I clicked "post". But the Don still didn't make his debut for another 11 years, so I believe that point becomes void.

Well the second war had a bigger direct impact on his career than the first. It was just that ww1 is sometimes been used to try and explain why Bradman was possible. But like all the other theories put forward it cant explain why if there was some weakness in bowling or the hundred other reasons given, no-one else in that era of great batsmanship could get close to that near perfect average as well.

Distributer of pain just made it clear he thinks nobody could be that good. But Bradman clearly was.

If he wasn't the greatest batsmen/ cricketer/ sportsman of all time there is only one other explanation of his prowess that ever made sense to me. And it was put forward by a US baseball stat expert who had a look at cricket and Bradman in particular and concluded that it was obvious that in the whole history of cricket Bradman was the only one who could bat properly and everyone else must be doing something seriously wrong.

This is great news for bowlers because that means no matter who you bowl to they cant really bat!

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

Well the second war had a bigger direct impact on his career than the first. It was just that ww1 is sometimes been used to try and explain why Bradman was possible. But like all the other theories put forward it cant explain why if there was some weakness in bowling or the hundred other reasons given, no-one else in that era of great batsmanship could get close to that near perfect average as well.

Distributer of pain just made it clear he thinks nobody could be that good. But Bradman clearly was.

If he wasn't the greatest batsmen/ cricketer/ sportsman of all time there is only one other explanation of his prowess that ever made sense to me. And it was put forward by a US baseball stat expert who had a look at cricket and Bradman in particular and concluded that it was obvious that in the whole history of cricket Bradman was the only one who could bat properly and everyone else must be doing something seriously wrong.

This is great news for bowlers because that means no matter who you bowl to they cant really bat!

let me ask you this, if ricky ponting were to travel back to the dons day what do you think he"d average ? i look at don bradman as a proffesional batsman (even though he wasnt) playing against amature cricketers (which is what they all were) someone mentioned his preparation was second to none, at lot like a proffesional cricketer of today, if you ask me, the best bowler he ever faced wouldnt get a game in state team now (without the right diet, training, coaching and such), and no thats not the dons fault, but it does explain how a batsman could score so heavily, if he were to play today i think he would find things a tad harder and he wouldnt average antwhere near 100, im thinking 65-80, tops. IMO of course.

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

If Ponting were playing in Bradmans era I reckon at best his average would have been 50-60 ,maybe low 60,s. It may have been just under 50 like Mc Cabe or Ponsford.

There were plenty of professionals in the England Teams he faced, men like Larwood were full time cricketers. To say the greatest bowler of his day wouldn't make a state side today is of course total bullshit.

Bradman ranked O' Rielly and Grimmett above Warne, and he did see a fair bit of Warne, albeit mainly on T.V. I rank Warne the best bowler I have seen, and I expect even as an old man , Bradman would be a better judge than any of us. After all, these days most of us know the game more through tv than actual attendance at the ground.

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

old men will tell you everything was better in their day (if they get you cornered lol), just like when we"re 70 we wont hear of there being a better bowler than warne or mcgrath, because they were our generation, and everyone thinks their generations the best, and if you think the best english bowlers of 80 odd years ago (without modern diets, training, coaching) would walk str8 into a state team then im going to have to strongly dissagree with you. (leg spinners aside) and bradman struggled against good leg spin didnt he ? bradman also claimed that he"d never seen any style close to his until he watched sachin play, bradmans teammates (after his death) couldnt have dissagreed more, just because a person is a great sportsman doesnt make him a great judge. also i believe larwood was working in a factory just prior to the bodyline series, if the movie was correct. remember that in the last 20 yrs 10 runs in a batting average has separated the men from the boys, 45 (fringe player) 55 (superstar) IMO no one will ever score 5000 runs and average 100 again, its just not possible, and we have seen some pretty good modern players i think you"d agree.

 

[ants14]

Re: Was the don that good ?

how quick was larwood? what i don;t understand in this whole thread is, you're recognising that his average was 30 or 40 more than his nearest opponent from that era. but then you;re going on to say that he wouldn;t avergae anywhere near that today more like 65-70..so if the don;s average is going to down to that level, the average of these other blokes is going down to around what 20s or 30s? sorry, its late and i was just thinking that then so i might be completely muddled...

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Was the don that good ?

how quick was larwood? what i don;t understand in this whole thread is, you're recognising that his average was 30 or 40 more than his nearest opponent from that era. but then you;re going on to say that he wouldn;t avergae anywhere near that today more like 65-70..so if the don;s average is going to down to that level, the average of these other blokes is going down to around what 20s or 30s? sorry, its late and i was just thinking that then so i might be completely muddled...

geoff marsh played a heap of tests for Australia and only averaged 30 odd. good point though.

 

[macca]

Re: Was the don that good ?

I would not use the bodyline tv show as a reference there were so many mistakes and dramatic licence taken, it is almost a comedy. Although one of my heros, Peter Philpott had a lot to do with its making and even played Grimmett in the show.

Larwood worked in the mines as a lad but turned pro in his late teens I think, and those county players were professional. That was what we Australians liked back then , that our amateurs could beat a team which contained professionals. That was seen as a mark of our success and also as an excuse when we lost.

Read "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith for the best account of what really happened, it is an amzing book and unlike a lot cricket history books he really takes you there. There is a lot of ball by ball accounts of the series in his book, probably available your local library.

If modern day diet and fitness makes todays bowlers superior how come the greatest bowler of the modern era got by on pies, coke, fags, and sexercise.