Was the don that good ?

Top Contributors
Re: Was the don that good ?

macca;347270 said:
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.
Click to expand...


lol, you got me there, i did say leggys aside though, i do think ants made an interesting point about if you take 20% off his ave then you must take 20% off the other batsmen from that era, that may be the best guide we have, fact is that we"ll never know for sure, even if test cricket of that era was only as good as the 1st class cricket of today its still a mind blowing performance, im very happy that he was an Aussie, id hate some stinkin pom to be the best.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

DoubleO7;347611 said:
Is it true that Don Bradman rarely took a risk whilst batting?
Click to expand...
he rarely lofted the ball, his motto was keep it on the ground and you wont get caught, i dont know his strike rate, but from what ive heard it was better than anyones from the era (probably around 45/50, id be surprised if it was anymore than that), he only hit the one 6 from memory, but with the fence pailing he batted with thats understandable, he must of been a superb timer and placer of the cricket ball but no secrets there.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

If the stats prove Bradman the greatest batsman of all time they also show C.V Grimmett as the best bowler of all time.

In 248 1st class matches he took 1424 wickets at an average of 22.38. He took 5 wickets or more in an innings 127 times and match hauls of 10 wickets or more 33 times. If you equate a 5 wicket bag with a ton, like they do these days, that is better than Bradmans 117 centuries in 234 matches.

If he had played as many tests as Warne , Grimmetts strike rate would have seen him get 870 wickets compared to Warnes 708. Grimmett played 37 tests and took 216 wickets, the first and still the fastest to reach that figure, after 37 tests Warne had taken 170 wickets.

If you accept Bradman as the best batsman of all time. which you must, then Grimmett is at least Australias greatest bowler ( even though he was a Kiwi), you cant argue really, especially if you accept all the evedence that prove Bradmans greatness, after all they played in the same era with and against each other and no-one dismissed Bradman more than Grimmett.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

distributer of pain;347753 said:
but he was a kiwi, how can a kiwi be that good, lol
Click to expand...
That is probably why it took him so long to get picked for Aus, just our natural doubt of NZ cricket, lets be honest they have produced some champion cricketers, but not many.

I didn't like the way people jumped on distributer for merely suggesting that the Don may not be quite as good as his legend suggests, well those same people have to accept Grimmett as the greatest bowler to have played for Australia because the exact arguements to support Bradmans claim also support Grimmetts, that is the statistics. But I doubt most people would see it that way, for some reason.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

macca;347767 said:
That is probably why it took him so long to get picked for Aus, just our natural doubt of NZ cricket, lets be honest they have produced some champion cricketers, but not many.

I didn't like the way people jumped on distributer for merely suggesting that the Don may not be quite as good as his legend suggests, well those same people have to accept Grimmett as the greatest bowler to have played for Australia because the exact arguements to support Bradmans claim also support Grimmetts, that is the statistics. But I doubt most people would see it that way, for some reason.
Click to expand...
if sir richard hadlee was an aussie he"d be a god in our eyes, in the top 3 or 4allrounders of alltime for mine, (possibly the best bowling allrounder) allthough he didnt quite average 30 with the bat (from memory), 30 seems to be minimum an allrounder can average with the bat (on this forum) but he was very close to that and his bowling was as good as anyones, yet he didnt make the poll of ten best allrounders of alltime on this forum recently, if he was Australian he would have been number 1.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

distributer of pain;347791 said:
if sir richard hadlee was an aussie he"d be a god in our eyes, in the top 3 or 4allrounders of alltime for mine, (possibly the best bowling allrounder) allthough he didnt quite average 30 with the bat (from memory), 30 seems to be minimum an allrounder can average with the bat (on this forum) but he was very close to that and his bowling was as good as anyones, yet he didnt make the poll of ten best allrounders of alltime on this forum recently, if he was Australian he would have been number 1.
Click to expand...

i must have missed that..he would be in my top couple for sure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top