Instagram

An evening with Shahid Afridi and Younis Khan

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 241 to 320 of 342
  1. #241
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Well its obvious,if batting on the whole was easier then it should have been easier for everybody not just bradman..
    No it is not obvious. You are assuming that competition was just as high as it is today which is why you see large no.of batsman avg in a similar range. That was not the case before WWII. Main Reason - Amateur ERA and Cricket being virtually a 2 Nation Sport.

    You need evidence for the amateur level ? Look at Hobbs batting technique exhibition on youtube. The damning thing there is that it was scripted and then further signed and certified to be authentic by Hobbs. That technique just categorically wont work at even club levels today. Therefore rendering his avg of 56 virtually meaningless.

    You cant possibly claim that he was on the same level as modern day greats like Tendulkar, Kohli, Root etc based on avg. If you do there can be no honest discussion we can have.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  2. #242
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,268
    Mentioned
    738 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    If you argue batting was easier then,then all batsmen from that era should average pretty high.Yet only 5 other batsmen from the whole era between 1920-1960 average above 50.

    Hammond 58
    Hobbs 57
    Sutcliffe 60
    George Headley 60
    Hutton 58

    None of them are anywhere close to bradman with 99.9.Which tells you the guy was a freak.
    A modern batsman to me would have to average a minimum 70 over 10 years to be his equal.Remember bradman played only 52 tests but lost several years to war and those tests were spread over 20 years.Even at the age of 40 in 1948 in his last tour of england he was scoring centuries for fun.
    One can only guess at how many centuries he would have scored had he played those eight or nine peak years. Perhaps sixty in a hundred tests.

  3. #243
    Debut
    May 2017
    Venue
    Chennai
    Runs
    771
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ken Rosewall had 23 GS titles, Margaret Court 24 GS titles. Now does anyone seriously rate those amateur era champs above Federer/Serena? Bradman was truly extraordinary and deserves respect but I don't think anyone needs to average 100+ to surpass him. Someone like Kohli, if he can average 55+ in all 3 formats, he will be above Bradman in my opinion.

  4. #244
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    New Delhi
    Runs
    4,905
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    If you argue batting was easier then,then all batsmen from that era should average pretty high.Yet only 5 other batsmen from the whole era between 1920-1960 average above 50.

    Hammond 58
    Hobbs 57
    Sutcliffe 60
    George Headley 60
    Hutton 58

    None of them are anywhere close to bradman with 99.9.Which tells you the guy was a freak.
    A modern batsman to me would have to average a minimum 70 over 10 years to be his equal.Remember bradman played only 52 tests but lost several years to war and those tests were spread over 20 years.Even at the age of 40 in 1948 in his last tour of england he was scoring centuries for fun.
    We agree he was ahead of his time no one denies that.. But point is his time was so far behind the modern age that even being ahead of his time he still won't make any C team today..

    Like I said before he is arguably one of the greatest cricketers ever and laid foundation for the game.. However batting ability has grown so much that it can't be compared.

    It's like comparing Pentium 1 or celeron with P5 quad core.

    Tomorrow if genetic mutation happens and bowling and batting standards improve at same rate I will remember kohli and Sachin with fond nostalgia but won't say they are better batsman than 2050 mutated humans..

    However problem with some people here is they don't accept this fact and keep belittling modern players while trying to prove old players are some sort of superman.

  5. #245
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big_gamer007 View Post
    We agree he was ahead of his time no one denies that.. But point is his time was so far behind the modern age that even being ahead of his time he still won't make any C team today..

    Like I said before he is arguably one of the greatest cricketers ever and laid foundation for the game.. However batting ability has grown so much that it can't be compared.

    It's like comparing Pentium 1 or celeron with P5 quad core.

    Tomorrow if genetic mutation happens and bowling and batting standards improve at same rate I will remember kohli and Sachin with fond nostalgia but won't say they are better batsman than 2050 mutated humans..

    However problem with some people here is they don't accept this fact and keep belittling modern players while trying to prove old players are some sort of superman.
    Still doesnt explain why the best players of the old era had more or less same average as best players from our era,but only 1 guy had freaky double that.

  6. #246
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Still doesnt explain why the best players of the old era had more or less same average as best players from our era,but only 1 guy had freaky double that.
    Because Kohli's competition is with Professionals that happens in 10 countries whereas Bradmans competition is with amateurs from 2 countries.

    Going by your logic will you accept someone from school cricket level as being better than Kohli if he avgs twice as everyone else at that level?

  7. #247
    Debut
    Mar 2010
    Runs
    25,653
    Mentioned
    4517 Post(s)
    Tagged
    23 Thread(s)
    Bradmans average negates every argument levelled against him and he passes the eye test as well being the most technically sound batsman of his era and ahead of his time before the game had evolved which suggests he'd be doing very well even moreso with the knowledge and resources available today. A modern batsman would have to dominate his opponents in a similar fashion and be compatibly ahead of competitors.

  8. #248
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shaz619 View Post
    Bradmans average negates every argument levelled against him and he passes the eye test as well being the most technically sound batsman of his era and ahead of his time before the game had evolved which suggests he'd be doing very well even moreso with the knowledge and resources available today. A modern batsman would have to dominate his opponents in a similar fashion and be compatibly ahead of competitors.
    Ergo there is really no difference between amateurs and pros. We learn new things on PP on a regular basis

  9. #249
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    4,294
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    One can only guess at how many centuries he would have scored had he played those eight or nine peak years. Perhaps sixty in a hundred tests.
    Not many. He was mostly a cripple during that time period.

  10. #250
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Because Kohli's competition is with Professionals that happens in 10 countries whereas Bradmans competition is with amateurs from 2 countries.

    Going by your logic will you accept someone from school cricket level as being better than Kohli if he avgs twice as everyone else at that level?
    Very simple,then why all the other amateurs of the time average similar to modern day greats?They were playing against amateur bowling should average in 70s and 80s at least?Doesnt add up.If its much easier,its easier for everybody.Not for just one man.
    And the reason i ask an avg of 70 and not 100 to be considered bradmans equal is because of the changes in the game.But i cant accept a 55 avg batsman as better,sry.Bradman himself reckoned if he batted in the 80s he would average 70.

  11. #251
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Very simple,then why all the other amateurs of the time average similar to modern day greats?They were playing against amateur bowling should average in 70s and 80s at least?Doesnt add up.If its much easier,its easier for everybody.Not for just one man.
    And the reason i ask an avg of 70 and not 100 to be considered bradmans equal is because of the changes in the game.But i cant accept a 55 avg batsman as better,sry.Bradman himself reckoned if he batted in the 80s he would average 70.
    Actually some have better records than SRT , Lara etc

    You cannot compare amateur sport to pro sports. Never. If you think it's a valid comparison then you should also be willing to accept current day amateur records as being equal to Testmatch records. Will you do that?

  12. #252
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    New Delhi
    Runs
    4,905
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Still doesnt explain why the best players of the old era had more or less same average as best players from our era,but only 1 guy had freaky double that.
    Because the other batsmen from his era were not as good as him. BRADMAN was ahead of his time and superior to his peers no doubt about that but the competition was at such a low level at that time compared to today that even hafeez and Umar akmal will be scoring hundreds for fun..

    In my school cricket League we had one guy averaging triple than anyone else that doesn't mean he will be great in international level..

  13. #253
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Actually some have better records than SRT , Lara etc

    You cannot compare amateur sport to pro sports. Never. If you think it's a valid comparison then you should also be willing to accept current day amateur records as being equal to Testmatch records. Will you do that?
    No they don't.They have just a few more average points,but far less matches overall.Not like bradman who has double.I don't claim at all that amateur batting of the era is equal to todays test batting.I only claim that the difference was lesser than what you are trying to portray.And more importantly if the difference was what you say everybody should be averaging in 70s and 80s at least in that era..why only 5 guys over 50?Only one guy stands out head and shoulders and stairs,thats not a pattern thats an anomaly born of genius.

  14. #254
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big_gamer007 View Post
    Because the other batsmen from his era were not as good as him. BRADMAN was ahead of his time and superior to his peers no doubt about that but the competition was at such a low level at that time compared to today that even hafeez and Umar akmal will be scoring hundreds for fun..

    In my school cricket League we had one guy averaging triple than anyone else that doesn't mean he will be great in international level..
    No way can a guy sustain that for 20 years.My question is still same why only 1 guy with that freak avergae.In 40 years there could be no other?And i'm not saying amodern player has to average 100 to be his equal.I would say avg 70 would make him his equal.But sry i cant accept a batsman averaging in 50s as better than bradman.And i've seen bradman's technique.His footwork was incredible and when batting he always kept the ball on the ground.

  15. #255
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.ldcc.org.uk/The_Bradman_P...ng_Process.htm

    Analysts studying bradman's batting technique believe he used an unique rotary method which was the secret.It gives some advantages.The only modern batsman who partially uses the rotary method is surprise - steve smith.

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...01-gzwllc.html

    I suggest you read these articles carefully before assuming ,just because something is old its worthless.Basically bardman's technique turns the idea of the orthodox classical technique as the ideal one on its head.
    Last edited by Zeeraq; 1st November 2018 at 15:35.

  16. #256
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  17. #257
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Karachi/NYC
    Runs
    22,430
    Mentioned
    1246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    It’s simple.

    Average 25+ runs higher than the top peer batsmen of his era over the course of the career

    That’s what Bradman did.

  18. #258
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    New Delhi
    Runs
    4,905
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    No way can a guy sustain that for 20 years.My question is still same why only 1 guy with that freak avergae.In 40 years there could be no other?And i'm not saying amodern player has to average 100 to be his equal.I would say avg 70 would make him his equal.But sry i cant accept a batsman averaging in 50s as better than bradman.And i've seen bradman's technique.His footwork was incredible and when batting he always kept the ball on the ground.
    The videos on youtube have to be fast forwarded to make it look semi decent that is how slow the cricket was in amateur era. You are failing to understand a simple point that one guy (Bradman) was ahead of all his contemporaries and ahead of his time no one denies that. But his time was so far behind the modern time that today's average batsman are far ahead of him.

    Its simple Bradman was an iPhone 3 in an era of iPhone 1. But today we are in the environment where iPhone X is available. People with nostalgia will believe the first iPhone was something revolutionary, so was Bradman but both of them are inferior to today's products because the world has advanced.

    There are plenty of videos of Bradman on youtube even after seeing them you think he is better batsman (not cricketer) than any modern batsman then nothing anyone says will ever change your mind.

  19. #259
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big_gamer007 View Post
    The videos on youtube have to be fast forwarded to make it look semi decent that is how slow the cricket was in amateur era. You are failing to understand a simple point that one guy (Bradman) was ahead of all his contemporaries and ahead of his time no one denies that. But his time was so far behind the modern time that today's average batsman are far ahead of him.

    Its simple Bradman was an iPhone 3 in an era of iPhone 1. But today we are in the environment where iPhone X is available. People with nostalgia will believe the first iPhone was something revolutionary, so was Bradman but both of them are inferior to today's products because the world has advanced.

    There are plenty of videos of Bradman on youtube even after seeing them you think he is better batsman (not cricketer) than any modern batsman then nothing anyone says will ever change your mind.
    Bradman's technique is fundamentally different in its stance as his bat points towards gully rather than towards wktkeeper.Steve smith does resemble bardman partially in his stance.You are so obsessed with 'newness' you believe everything new is better.Not always.Batsmen today have pathetic footwork and their techniques are geared towards easy strokeplay with often excessive high backlifts.Overall cricket batting ahs improved vastly but bradman's technique was unique and has not been replicated,except by smith to a degree.
    Last edited by Zeeraq; 1st November 2018 at 15:33.

  20. #260
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    No they don't.They have just a few more average points,but far less matches overall.Not like bradman who has double.
    They absolutely do ... Sutclife avgs 60.73 thats almost 9 points higher than Lara. Thats a big difference especially since he is an opener. If you look at the list sorted by batting avgs it is heavily dominated by old ERA players. And Hammond actually played 85 Test Matches and avges 58.45

    LinK: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=batting



    I don't claim at all that amateur batting of the era is equal to todays test batting.I only claim that the difference was lesser than what you are trying to portray.And more importantly if the difference was what you say everybody should be averaging in 70s and 80s at least in that era..why only 5 guys over 50?Only one guy stands out head and shoulders and stairs,thats not a pattern thats an anomaly born of genius.

    Well then you need to tell us at which level in todays cricket a Technique like Hobbs will work according to you. So at what level do you think players play with sort of technique ? Keep in mind that he played Test Cricket with that Technique till he was 48 years old and First Class Cricket till he was 52 !!

    Here is a whole bunch of Videos to give you an idea of his batting technique: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+hobbs+batting

    To me it is very obvious that technique wont work even at Mumbai/B'luru School grade level.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  21. #261
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    They absolutely do ... Sutclife avgs 60.73 thats almost 9 points higher than Lara. Thats a big difference especially since he is an opener. If you look at the list sorted by batting avgs it is heavily dominated by old ERA players. And Hammond actually played 85 Test Matches and avges 58.45

    LinK: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=batting






    Well then you need to tell us at which level in todays cricket a Technique like Hobbs will work according to you. So at what level do you think players play with sort of technique ? Keep in mind that he played Test Cricket with that Technique till he was 48 years old and First Class Cricket till he was 52 !!

    Here is a whole bunch of Videos to give you an idea of his batting technique: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+hobbs+batting

    To me it is very obvious that technique wont work even at Mumbai/B'luru School grade level.
    Even with hammond thats just 5 average point difference.For bradman thats almost 50 point difference.
    Hobbs technique is actually correct but very poor for strokemaking.Its not bad at all if your primary priority is defense and not strokemaking,which suited the rate at which runs were scored at the time.
    Bradman's technique is totally unique which is the main reason of his astronomical average.Not standrad of cricket where the difference is marginal (not more than 10 average points).The only one partially replicating bradman's technique is smith in modern era,and he is already avergaing above 60 and the best test batsman now and if he keeps going 2nd best ever after bradman.
    Last edited by austerlitz; 1st November 2018 at 11:49.

  22. #262
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Even with hammond thats just 5 average point difference.For bradman thats almost 50 point difference.
    The 9 point avg difference between Lara and Sutclife is huge even in modern terms. Even the 5 point avg difference of hammond.

    Hobbs technique is actually correct but very poor for strokemaking.Its not bad at all if your primary priority is defense and not strokemaking,which suited the rate at which runs were scored at the time.
    Bradman's technique is totally unique which is the main reason of his astronomical average.Not standrad of cricket where the difference is marginal (not more than 10 average points).The only one partially replicating bradman's technique is smith in modern era,and he is already avergaing above 60 and the best test batsman now and if he keeps going 2nd best ever after bradman.
    So once again I ask - at which level in todays cricket does Hobbs technique work ? Can you give a direct straightforward answer to that ?


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  23. #263
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    The 9 point avg difference between Lara and Sutclife is huge even in modern terms. Even the 5 point avg difference of hammond.



    So once again I ask - at which level in todays cricket does Hobbs technique work ? Can you give a direct straightforward answer to that ?
    9 point average difference is nothing compared to 50 point average difference with bradman.A 9 point avergae difference only points to batting being slightly easier,which is why i said a modern batsman would have to avg 70 and not 100 to be bradman's equal.

    Hobbs technique would work at any level provided the objective was primarily to stay at the wicket and defend and play a long innings,rather than score .That was the ethos of batting back then,bat long and dont give your wicket away.SR were quite low.Miandad,Chanderpaul and Waugh had horrible looking techniques but were extremely effective.Hobbs's technique is geared for playing straight and keeping it along the ground..Ofcourse his shot range is limited,but many shots had not been invented back then.Playing today those shots would be incorporated with corresponding adjustments to technique.

  24. #264
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    9 point average difference is nothing compared to 50 point average difference with bradman.A 9 point avergae difference only points to batting being slightly easier,which is why i said a modern batsman would have to avg 70 and not 100 to be bradman's equal.
    Why are you using Bradman's avg here ? The point is about comparing Bradman's competitors to todays top batsmen based purely on avgs to conclude bradman = 2x any modern batsmen.

    So no I dont agree that a 9 point avg difference is a small one. Its a pretty big difference considering that Sutcliffe was a opener therefore we arrive at the conclusion that Sutcliffe > Lara.



    Hobbs technique would work at any level provided the objective was primarily to stay at the wicket and defend and play a long innings,rather than score .That was the ethos of batting back then,bat long and dont give your wicket away.SR were quite low.
    Don't add additional caveats and conditions .... Todays batting is what it is. If you think todays batting standards are not that far higher then Hobbs technique should work as-is in professional cricket. Question is at which level. So at which level does it work ( without any caveats and conditions ) ?


    Miandad,Chanderpaul and Waugh had horrible looking techniques but were extremely effective.Hobbs's technique is geared for playing straight and keeping it along the ground..Ofcourse his shot range is limited,but many shots had not been invented back then.Playing today those shots would be incorporated with corresponding adjustments to technique.
    All shots except possible for the reverse sweep and scoop were known back then. Chanderpauls Technique is different only in his initial stance after that he gets into a normal position by the time the ball has pitched and he is ready to play a shot. Per his own explanation that stance helps him get a better sight of the ball. Not sure whats wrong with Miandad and Waugh's technique.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYqur8FdSzE


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  25. #265
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Why are you using Bradman's avg here ? The point is about comparing Bradman's competitors to todays top batsmen based purely on avgs to conclude bradman = 2x any modern batsmen.

    So no I dont agree that a 9 point avg difference is a small one. Its a pretty big difference considering that Sutcliffe was a opener therefore we arrive at the conclusion that Sutcliffe > Lara.




    Don't add additional caveats and conditions .... Todays batting is what it is. If you think todays batting standards are not that far higher then Hobbs technique should work as-is in professional cricket. Question is at which level. So at which level does it work ( without any caveats and conditions ) ?




    All shots except possible for the reverse sweep and scoop were known back then. Chanderpauls Technique is different only in his initial stance after that he gets into a normal position by the time the ball has pitched and he is ready to play a shot. Per his own explanation that stance helps him get a better sight of the ball. Not sure whats wrong with Miandad and Waugh's technique.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYqur8FdSzE
    What are you trying to say?My points -
    Yes there is a 9 point average difference between sutcliffe and take another opener gavaskar.Doesnt mean sutcliffe was better.Because he faced easier bowling.Simple.But average difference is only 9 points.Bradman's average difference is 50!You cant wriggle your way out of that.No matter how marginally easier it was.It is BECAUSE batting has developed that i said a modern batsman would ahve to average 70 to equal bradman.I didn't say he has to average same as bradman today.Do you understand what i'm trying to say ?

    2.Yes.Hobbs's technique would work even today because defensive basics are alright.Would work only in tests with atrocious strike rate and very boring to watch.Average would be bit lower but still a first rate batsman.Not fit for ODI cricket.

    3.Bradman is the greatest because of his unique technique,not just easier bowling.

  26. #266
    Debut
    Nov 2017
    Venue
    Jhansi(uttar pradesh),India
    Runs
    1,003
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So jack hobbs played cricket till the age of 48.Anyone not having a pea sized brain can understand how he was able to play till 48.Simple, low quality of bowling. Zero genuine fast bowlers.
    Amateur era players are legends in their own right but saying that they are better than lara, tendulkar or even Michael clarke is completely wrong.
    Jack hobbs technique isn't good enough for even under 19 cricket let alone international stuff.

  27. #267
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    What are you trying to say?My points -
    Yes there is a 9 point average difference between sutcliffe and take another opener gavaskar.Doesnt mean sutcliffe was better.Because he faced easier bowling.Simple.But average difference is only 9 points.
    There is a 10 point Avg difference between Hayden and Sutcliffe ... that is by no means a small difference. If you accept that bowling was easier then on what basis are you claiming that Hobbs and Sutclife would be able to play in Test Cricket with that technique ?

    Bradman's average difference is 50!You cant wriggle your way out of that.No matter how marginally easier it was.It is BECAUSE batting has developed that i said a modern batsman would ahve to average 70 to equal bradman.I didn't say he has to average same as bradman today.Do you understand what i'm trying to say ?
    The disconnect comes from the fact that you think these guys other than Bradman can avg the same even now. Thats simply not possible.

    2.Yes.Hobbs's technique would work even today because defensive basics are alright.Would work only in tests with atrocious strike rate and very boring to watch.Average would be bit lower but still a first rate batsman.Not fit for ODI cricket.

    So who were the 140K+ bowlers in test Cricket that tested Hobbs technique in his time that makes you feel that he could play and avg 50 in Test Cricket today ?


    3.Bradman is the greatest because of his unique technique,not just easier bowling.
    Bradmans technique is irrelevant here. The single biggest argument that Bradman fans use is thru his peers. So lets concentrate on his peers and their capabilities.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  28. #268
    Debut
    Sep 2018
    Runs
    344
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Virat Kohli has already left behind Bradman and his peers in the ODI format.

    Bradman is largely over rated. No pressure or competitiveness back then.

  29. #269
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    What are you trying to say?My points -
    Yes there is a 9 point average difference between sutcliffe and take another opener gavaskar.Doesnt mean sutcliffe was better.Because he faced easier bowling.Simple.But average difference is only 9 .
    There is a 10 point Avg difference between Hayden and Sutcliffe ... that is by no means a small difference. If you accept that bowling was easier then on what basis are you claiming that Hobbs and Sutclife would be able to play in Test Cricket with that technique ?
    Here are few other Modern Day Players ( Openers and Middle order) who have a far lesser Avg than Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Are you saying these guys are all worse than Sutcliffe and Hobbs ?


    1. KP - 47
    2. Sehwag -49
    3. Cook - 45
    4. Mark Taylor - 43
    5. Hayden - 50
    6. VVS - 45
    7. Langer - 45
    8. Vaughan - 41
    9. Slater - 41
    10. Ganguly - 42
    11. Mark Waugh - 41
    12. Fleming - 40
    13. Vijay 39
    14. Dhawan - 40
    15 Athers - 37


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  30. #270
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,268
    Mentioned
    738 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketDon View Post
    .

    Bradman is largely over rated. No pressure or competitiveness back then.
    You know that Bodyline caused a diplomatic crisis between the Aussie PM and the Dominions Secretary?

    Larwood hit Woodfull around the heart and incapacitated him for minutes, then when the skipper got up and resumed, Jardine switched the field to leg-theory to howls of anger from the crowd. Then Larwood knocked Woodful’s bat from his hands and hit Oldfield on the head, forcing his retirement. Larwood feared a pitch invasion and getting beaten up by the mob.

    There was a song in the music halls:

    With a prayer and a curse they prepare for the hearse,
    Undertakers look on with broad grins.
    Oh, they'd be a lot calmer in Ned Kelly's armour
    When Larwood the wrecker begins.


    To try to calm the diplomatic row down, the MCC instructed Larwood to write to apologise to the ACB. Larwood refused to be the scapegoat, and retired.

    In 1993 he was awarded the MBE for services to sport. One paper commented that “at last the ruling class had honoured the man who carried the can for their savage arrogance”.

  31. #271
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketDon View Post
    Virat Kohli has already left behind Bradman and his peers in the ODI format.

    Bradman is largely over rated. No pressure or competitiveness back then.


    No competitiveness.
    Last edited by austerlitz; 2nd November 2018 at 07:55.

  32. #272
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Here are few other Modern Day Players ( Openers and Middle order) who have a far lesser Avg than Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Are you saying these guys are all worse than Sutcliffe and Hobbs ?


    1. KP - 47
    2. Sehwag -49
    3. Cook - 45
    4. Mark Taylor - 43
    5. Hayden - 50
    6. VVS - 45
    7. Langer - 45
    8. Vaughan - 41
    9. Slater - 41
    10. Ganguly - 42
    11. Mark Waugh - 41
    12. Fleming - 40
    13. Vijay 39
    14. Dhawan - 40
    15 Athers - 37
    Certainly better than tests hacks like dhawan.Better than ganguly,vijay etc too.Not sure abt how good he would be compared to ATGs/borderline like hayden,langer,cook etc.But there is no doubt abt bradman who didn't average 58,he averaged 100.Because of his unique technique.

  33. #273
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Certainly better than tests hacks like dhawan.Better than ganguly,vijay etc too.Not sure abt how good he would be compared to ATGs/borderline like hayden,langer,cook etc.But there is no doubt abt bradman who didn't average 58,he averaged 100.Because of his unique technique.
    So who were the 140k+ bowlers that tested Hobbs and Sutcliffe batting technique that makes you confident that their batting technique would work today?

  34. #274
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    You know that Bodyline caused a diplomatic crisis between the Aussie PM and the Dominions Secretary?

    Larwood hit Woodfull around the heart and incapacitated him for minutes,

    ;.
    And you do know that Phil Hughes actually died even with a helmet on and that the woodfull incident can still happen today as some batsmen dont wear any chest guard?

    But I can guarantee you that there will be no diplomatic crisis.

  35. #275
    Debut
    Sep 2016
    Runs
    594
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You simply dont argue with an average of 99 over about 50 games.

  36. #276
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    42
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    forget bradman. start with richards (Barry+ Viv)
    try and bat without a helmet. lets see how todays ATGs try and face a fast bowler for 1 over without a helmet.

  37. #277
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by warcry View Post
    forget bradman. start with richards (Barry+ Viv)
    try and bat without a helmet. lets see how todays ATGs try and face a fast bowler for 1 over without a helmet.
    how did the wearing "helmet = cant get hurt or killed" theory work out for Phil Hughes , Gary Kirsten, Lara etc. ?


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  38. #278
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,304
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For modern batsmen IVA Richards has to be the benchmark. No player has come close to Viv for me. Dominant, clutch, prolific and 20 years ahead of his time. He had the presence and domination SRT lacked and the consistency Lara sometimes lacked. Tests or ODIs - he is the best ever. His peer review is PEERLESS.

    DGB is too far in the past to serve as a realistic mark for todays guys, IVA Richards is the modern barometer.

  39. #279
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,304
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    So who were the 140k+ bowlers that tested Hobbs and Sutcliffe batting technique that makes you confident that their batting technique would work today?
    Fair perhaps for Hobbs et al but Viv faced such guys without helmets etc. Hence Viv has no flaw to highlight and deny him the status of the benchmark.

  40. #280
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    42
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    how did the wearing "helmet = cant get hurt or killed" theory work out for Phil Hughes , Gary Kirsten, Lara etc. ?
    wearing a helmet has a psychological impact on the batsman. batsman is more prepared to come on the front foot, wearing a helmet. today you see batsman standing outside his crease even.

    if wearing a helmet had no impact, no one would wear a helmet. awfully hot and itchy, especially in hot and humid conditions, but every body wears one for a reason.

  41. #281
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by warcry View Post
    wearing a helmet has a psychological impact on the batsman. batsman is more prepared to come on the front foot, wearing a helmet. today you see batsman standing outside his crease even.

    if wearing a helmet had no impact, no one would wear a helmet. awfully hot and itchy, especially in hot and humid conditions, but every body wears one for a reason.
    So how did that work out for those batsmen ? Answer that question without dancing around it. And there are plenty of other batsmen who got hurt badly.

  42. #282
    Debut
    Sep 2018
    Runs
    344
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    You know that Bodyline caused a diplomatic crisis between the Aussie PM and the Dominions Secretary?

    Larwood hit Woodfull around the heart and incapacitated him for minutes, then when the skipper got up and resumed, Jardine switched the field to leg-theory to howls of anger from the crowd. Then Larwood knocked Woodful’s bat from his hands and hit Oldfield on the head, forcing his retirement. Larwood feared a pitch invasion and getting beaten up by the mob.

    There was a song in the music halls:

    With a prayer and a curse they prepare for the hearse,
    Undertakers look on with broad grins.
    Oh, they'd be a lot calmer in Ned Kelly's armour
    When Larwood the wrecker begins.


    To try to calm the diplomatic row down, the MCC instructed Larwood to write to apologise to the ACB. Larwood refused to be the scapegoat, and retired.

    In 1993 he was awarded the MBE for services to sport. One paper commented that “at last the ruling class had honoured the man who carried the can for their savage arrogance”.
    Cool story bro. Not relevant but cool story.

  43. #283
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    3,103
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pakhs View Post
    You simply dont argue with an average of 99 over about 50 games.
    I think that is the impossibility that is at the heart of this curiously obsessive, even manic thread. Bradman was close to incomparable, dominating his sport in the way that has few parallels. Jahangir Khan came close in squash, one may argue, but that is also a very different kind of sport, one in which much less is left to chance, one would think.

    In so far as Bradman is incomparable, any comparison with him must be structured around the argument that comparison itself is impossible. Because we have evolved to such a degree as a species in three generations that contemporary batsmen and bowlers, should they go back in time 60 some years, would be like Kryptonites coming to Earth.

    Incidentally, the man who invented Superman had in mind first not that he would come from another planet, but from a far distant future of mankind on Earth, in which mankind had evolved into Gods. Much as this comic book fantasy, what seems to be at stake in this debate about Bradman is nothing less than a kind of theological conviction in the powers of progress, mediated in very weird ways by technology metaphors. Because the processing speed of computer chips are growing exponentially, so should the powers of human hand eye coordination and concentration.

    So we end up with two species of answer to the question of how can can a batsman be considered better than Bradman. The first is quite simple really, and is to my mind the only internally coherent one: Said batsman could be considered if not better, than at least comparable to Bradman, if here were being similarly incomparable to their peers. The second, and more intriguing answer is the claim that every contemporary batsman is in fact better than Bradman. That Bradman is simply unworthy to shine the shoes of a run of the mill batsman Umar Akmal. Because training, apparently. And lots of corporate sponsorships. Which is pretty much what "professionalism" amounts to. Apparently, with a Coca Cola logo on one's shirt, one should be able to leap tall buildings.

  44. #284
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post
    So we end up with two species of answer to the question of how can can a batsman be considered better than Bradman. The first is quite simple really, and is to my mind the only internally coherent one: Said batsman could be considered if not better, than at least comparable to Bradman, if here were being similarly incomparable to their peers.
    And who is going to ensure that the playing field is even ? For instance modern players having to play in a grand sum of two countries therefore competing with a very small set of players ? There are other points but lets start with that. This is were the "debate" will go south.


    The second, and more intriguing answer is the claim that every contemporary batsman is in fact better than Bradman. That Bradman is simply unworthy to shine the shoes of a run of the mill batsman Umar Akmal. Because training, apparently. And lots of corporate sponsorships. Which is pretty much what "professionalism" amounts to. Apparently, with a Coca Cola logo on one's shirt, one should be able to leap tall buildings.
    The problem here is your over simplification of what a Pro means borne out of outrage and indignation at anyone even daring to question Bradman. If you think big corporations just simply dispense their sponsorship monies to nearest sportsmen they can find ... then there is a much bigger problem that you need to address. Yes there are some stupid pro's but you cannot possibly still be in doubt over the long forgotten pros vs amateur debate.

    This preposterous debate was decisively settled in the 1968 Wimbledon when for the first time Pros were allowed to play ( lol ) . Most amateurs were beaten by pro's. In fact I dont think there has ever been a amateur winner of any major Grand slam event in the last 50 yrs even though both amateurs and pros are allowed to compete. If any it would be rare occurrence .... certainly not in the last 25-30 yrs.

    If you are still not convinced about the overall improvements in sport then its best visible in individual sports. Have a look at the 1934 Wimbledon final here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMcV9EoHeqU

    Going by some of the preposterous suggestions that sportsmen from that ERA could compete with todays lot they think that Fred Perry can compete with a 37 year old Federer. No offense but Fred Perry would get bagled by even the 100th ranked player today forget Federer,

    PS: Pay close attention to the serve here https://youtu.be/lMcV9EoHeqU?t=47

    It looked familiar but I couldnt tell what it reminded me of ... then it occurred to me that it resembles how todays players warm-up!! Here is Federer warming up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6dNCMhhhDU

    This doesnt mean that we stop recognizing past champions. Every generation tries to push the bar higher and higher thats why we are where we are today. But to pretend that past era champions were just as skilled as todays players is just plain horribly wrong.

    What really don't get is how tech savvy people in this day and age still believe in the OLD > New nonsense. Seriously?


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  45. #285
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bujhee kom View Post
    Fair perhaps for Hobbs et al but Viv faced such guys without helmets etc. Hence Viv has no flaw to highlight and deny him the status of the benchmark.
    Yes he is good benchmark but we no longer measure greatness by how one plays 140K fast bowlers. There are many other factors. Opposition quality is a important yardstick. As is playing ATG spinners in their backyard. There are far better players than Viv who achieved everything that he did and then some.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  46. #286
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    3,103
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    And who is going to ensure that the playing field is even ? For instance modern players having to play in a grand sum of two countries therefore competing with a very small set of players ? There are other points but lets start with that. This is were the "debate" will go south.

    What really don't get is how tech savvy people in this day and age still believe in the OLD > New nonsense. Seriously?

    The final throwaway is very helpful I think for helping us understand what a theological faith in progress looks like, and just how cartoonish is the kind of thinking that it enables. So let's parse what this jumbled line tries to argue. Technology advances, computers become faster, airplanes faster. Ergo, the human body and what it is capable of has advanced at comparable speed.

    Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. The fastest recorded 100 meters in 1891, also an amateur era for running, was 10.8 seconds, 120 years later, amidst relentless improvement in shoes manufacture, training regiments, and a world inclusive competitive field, that record has come down 1 second, ie by about 8 %. That would correspond to an increase in average batting averages from 50 to 53 over the same period of time.

    And it does not tell much about whether the overall distribution has also shifted, as you implicitly contend has been the case in cricket, ie whether human beings on average are all running 8% faster, or, to translate this into what you claim has happened in cricket, 100 % faster, ie about 5 seconds.

    It would not be surprising, of course, if we observe changes in how sports are played, where actual technology plays an important role, such as motor racing, or tennis, in which carbon fiber construction have produced rackets with bigger sweet spots capable of imparting more velocity. In cricket, however, bowling still involves only a human body and a ball, batting a human body and a bat, and while it may be argued that bats have gotten better, that would be to the advantage of batsmen, not their disadvantage.

    Indeed, the general consensus seems to be that there is little evidence for standard of cricket in general having advanced over the past 40 years. Bowlers in the 70s and 80s such as Marshall and Hadlee and Imran are still considered the gold standard and some of the all time batting greats also hail from that time.

    The residual claim then is that over a very short period of time, between 1950 and the mid 1970s, spanning not more than two-three generations of players, many of whom recall playing with someone who played with Bradman, etc, greater competition and professionalization has somehow produced not only improvement in the general standard of cricket, but an improvement so dramatic so as to 1) render a 99 batting average in 1948 equivalent to a 50 something average in 1970-80 2) scoring a century in every other Tests, as Bradman did across his career, equivalent to scoring a century in every 4 Tests, as has been the standard of the best batsmen of ensuing decades.

    The implications of this argument should be made explicit, because they are to say the least implausible. What you contend is not only that Bradman could by today's standards only aspire to be a barely average batsman. You are also contending that in the entire of history of cricket, up and until Bradman's time, among all of the batsmen who tried their hand at the game, not one single player ever played the game who could compete with a middling 30's averaging batsman playing cricket today. Statistically speaking, that argument is dead in the water.

    Now, you might very well seek to claim that the era in which Bradman played is simply incomparable to the present. But that does not solve your problem. Because Bradman was himself incomparable to that era, he literally played the game as if he was on another planet, what the standard was on that planet cannot conclusively answer the question of how good was Bradman. To even begin a proper kind of comparison, one would have to have a modern day example of a batsman who stood apart as much as Bradman did. But there is no such player in the present era, not even close. Nor is that surprising.

    What you have, and have had for the entire history of the game, barring Bradman's time, is a very normal kind of cluster distribution of players, none of whom were the undisputed best for their entire career, all of whom were for long parts of their careers worse than 5-10 other players. Tendulkar included. In Bradman's time there was simply no argument about whom was better, ever, and he played over 20 years, as long as anyone else, including Tendulkar. To put it differently, you don't have the basis for beginning an argument, let alone taking it anywhere, south or north

  47. #287
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post
    The final throwaway is very helpful I think for helping us understand what a theological faith in progress looks like, and just how cartoonish is the kind of thinking that it enables. So let's parse what this jumbled line tries to argue. Technology advances, computers become faster, airplanes faster. Ergo, the human body and what it is capable of has advanced at comparable speed.
    Except I never said anything remotely close or compared technological advancement to human body advancements. Iam very well aware that human physical capabilities have remained the same over the last few hundred years and that process of biological improvement takes millions of years. Iam speaking of the human evolution process. And where did theology come into this ?

    What I say is that due to the amateur status of the game and that it predominantly being restricted to 2 countries (There are many others btw but in the interest of time lets restrict to just these ) the chances that the world of cricket circa 1920s ,1930s and 1940s in the midst of a economic depression and suffering from 2 World Wars was able to unearth cricketers of the same skills and capabilities as they do in todays faaar more politically stable, prosperous and lucrative times with participation levels at grass roots the highest it ever has been. Just makes no sense whatsoever.

    And the evidence is in the footage. It is sooo bleedingly obvious and visible in any of the footage (thank God that they survived!!) that I find it really mind boggling that someone would still argue otherwise. Why is this soo hard to acknowledge for Bradman fanatics ? Iam hoping that you will stay on and tell me and not run away mid-way like 99.94% of all Bradman fans do.

    The rest of your post doesn't need a response since you misunderstood my main point but I will still give you a response albeit brief ones.


    Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. The fastest recorded 100 meters in 1891, also an amateur era for running, was 10.8 seconds, 120 years later, amidst relentless improvement in shoes manufacture, training regiments, and a world inclusive competitive field, that record has come down 1 second, ie by about 8 %. That would correspond to an increase in average batting averages from 50 to 53 over the same period of time.

    And it does not tell much about whether the overall distribution has also shifted, as you implicitly contend has been the case in cricket, ie whether human beings on average are all running 8% faster, or, to translate this into what you claim has happened in cricket, 100 % faster, ie about 5 seconds.
    Cricket is a far more complex game than running. Worse it has changed beyond recognition ( lbw laws, no-ball rules, pitch conditions, playing conditions etc) . Cant compare like that.

    However look at the example of Tennis that I explained in my previous post. Going from a Serving style that we see in that 1934 Wimbledon final to todays style is a result of a centuries worth of sporting excellence trying to push the boundaries. There is a day and night difference between the two serving styles. You just cannot argue against that and try to quantify it with percentages.

    Look at it this way: If you were to be asked to try and match the two Serving styles (Fred Perry and Federer) which one is the easiest for you to accomplish ?



    It would not be surprising, of course, if we observe changes in how sports are played, where actual technology plays an important role, such as motor racing, or tennis, in which carbon fiber construction have produced rackets with bigger sweet spots capable of imparting more velocity. In cricket, however, bowling still involves only a human body and a ball, batting a human body and a bat, and while it may be argued that bats have gotten better, that would be to the advantage of batsmen, not their disadvantage.
    I never said anything about sports technology in my previous post. As I said lets restrict to Pro vs Amateur and 2 countries vs 10.

    Indeed, the general consensus seems to be that there is little evidence for standard of cricket in general having advanced over the past 40 years. Bowlers in the 70s and 80s such as Marshall and Hadlee and Imran are still considered the gold standard and some of the all time batting greats also hail from that time.

    The residual claim then is that over a very short period of time, between 1950 and the mid 1970s, spanning not more than two-three generations of players, many of whom recall playing with someone who played with Bradman, etc, greater competition and professionalization has somehow produced not only improvement in the general standard of cricket, but an improvement so dramatic so as to 1) render a 99 batting average in 1948 equivalent to a 50 something average in 1970-80 2) scoring a century in every other Tests, as Bradman did across his career, equivalent to scoring a century in every 4 Tests, as has been the standard of the best batsmen of ensuing decades.
    With due respect there is no such thing as "Gold standard" in cricket as it is in other more stricter fields like science and technology. Here the "standards" are set by those in power and in control of the narrative which is predominantly the older generation. In 30 years time it will be the current generation that will then be ruling and the "Gold standard" will shift. This is a big disease in Cricket. Sorry don't buy that.

    Dale Steyn for example is a far superior bowler than any of the said bowlers.


    The implications of this argument should be made explicit, because they are to say the least implausible. What you contend is not only that Bradman could by today's standards only aspire to be a barely average batsman. You are also contending that in the entire of history of cricket, up and until Bradman's time, among all of the batsmen who tried their hand at the game, not one single player ever played the game who could compete with a middling 30's averaging batsman playing cricket today. Statistically speaking, that argument is dead in the water.
    you are deriving implications based on flawed theory that x,y,z are gold standard today which isnt true.


    Now, you might very well seek to claim that the era in which Bradman played is simply incomparable to the present. But that does not solve your problem. Because Bradman was himself incomparable to that era, he literally played the game as if he was on another planet, what the standard was on that planet cannot conclusively answer the question of how good was Bradman. To even begin a proper kind of comparison, one would have to have a modern day example of a batsman who stood apart as much as Bradman did. But there is no such player in the present era, not even close. Nor is that surprising.

    What you have, and have had for the entire history of the game, barring Bradman's time, is a very normal kind of cluster distribution of players, none of whom were the undisputed best for their entire career, all of whom were for long parts of their careers worse than 5-10 other players. Tendulkar included. In Bradman's time there was simply no argument about whom was better, ever, and he played over 20 years, as long as anyone else, including Tendulkar. To put it differently, you don't have the basis for beginning an argument, let alone taking it anywhere, south or north
    So why do his peers look so comical in comparison to todays players ? Going by your theory the value of runs scored has been a constant for about 100 years therefore any batsman today in the 40-55 batting avg range should be comparable and look like Hobbs, Hammond etc. That simply isnt true. Let me know if you want evidence in the form of footage.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  48. #288
    Debut
    Nov 2018
    Runs
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    By averaging 100

  49. #289
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post

    Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. The fastest recorded 100 meters in 1891, also an amateur era for running, was 10.8 seconds, 120 years later, amidst relentless improvement in shoes manufacture, training regiments, and a world inclusive competitive field, that record has come down 1 second, ie by about 8 %. That would correspond to an increase in average batting averages from 50 to 53 over the same period of time.

    And it does not tell much about whether the overall distribution has also shifted, as you implicitly contend has been the case in cricket, ie whether human beings on average are all running 8% faster, or, to translate this into what you claim has happened in cricket, 100 % faster, ie about 5 seconds.

    Cricket is a far more complex game than running. Worse it has changed beyond recognition ( lbw laws, no-ball rules, pitch conditions, playing conditions etc) . Cant compare like that.

    However look at the example of Tennis that I explained in my previous post. Going from a Serving style that we see in that 1934 Wimbledon final to todays style is a result of a centuries worth of sporting excellence trying to push the boundaries. There is a day and night difference between the two serving styles. You just cannot argue against that and try to quantify it with percentages.

    Look at it this way: If you were to be asked to try and match the two Serving styles (Fred Perry and Federer) which one is the easiest for you to accomplish ?
    Just to add to that ... the 100 mtrs world record is actually 9.58 not 9.8 as your post suggests. Thats about 11.2% increase since 10.8 in 1891. But the key thing to consider is that according to your logic in order to get 100% increase from the 1891 record we will have to run at speed of light which is obviously not possible. Therefore its quite possible that Ussain Bolts achievements are much higher than the 10-12% increase that the mathematical calculation represents. It comes down to what we think is a realistic human speed limit. In my opinion there isn't much more room to go and hence why it is a lot bigger improvement than what the 10% math calc suggests.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  50. #290
    Debut
    Jan 2018
    Runs
    1,528
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cricketers are difficult enough to rank due to varying specialties and formats, let alone across eras. Bradman played across ten venues in his entire career, in one format, mostly against the same opposition.

    Yes his numbers are leagues above his contemporaries and is rightly considered superior but how can that be compared to modern players, playing multiple formats, in 20+ venues across the globe against a number of different opponents?

    This isn't football where the basics have stayed the same, generations so far apart just can't be compared.

  51. #291
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    New Delhi
    Runs
    4,905
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Bradman's technique is fundamentally different in its stance as his bat points towards gully rather than towards wktkeeper.Steve smith does resemble bardman partially in his stance.You are so obsessed with 'newness' you believe everything new is better.Not always.Batsmen today have pathetic footwork and their techniques are geared towards easy strokeplay with often excessive high backlifts.Overall cricket batting ahs improved vastly but bradman's technique was unique and has not been replicated,except by smith to a degree.
    The only one who seem obsessed is you, I have no qualms in admitting Viv is one of the best batsman ever or IK is one of the best ARs or Wasim as one of the best bowlers. There is plenty of footage available online for any reasonably sane person to come to that conclusion.

    Bradman's videos are available online, all the videos are sped up 10x times to make it look decent. Even after seeing the videos if you believe Bradman had better technique and was a better "Batsman" than modern players then you have already made up your mind.

  52. #292
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big_gamer007 View Post
    The only one who seem obsessed is you, I have no qualms in admitting Viv is one of the best batsman ever or IK is one of the best ARs or Wasim as one of the best bowlers. There is plenty of footage available online for any reasonably sane person to come to that conclusion.

    Bradman's videos are available online, all the videos are sped up 10x times to make it look decent. Even after seeing the videos if you believe Bradman had better technique and was a better "Batsman" than modern players then you have already made up your mind.
    Right, you saw a couple of videos and made up your mind,how come the most successful batsman in tests right now is the one who comes partially close to bradman's technique.He was like bradman uncoached and thus his bat goes towards gully .Bradman's technique has not been replicated as yet,only smith has partially done it.

  53. #293
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Certainly better than tests hacks like dhawan.Better than ganguly,vijay etc too.Not sure abt how good he would be compared to ATGs/borderline like hayden,langer,cook etc.But there is no doubt abt bradman who didn't average 58,he averaged 100.Because of his unique technique.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    So who were the 140k+ bowlers that tested Hobbs and Sutcliffe batting technique that makes you confident that their batting technique would work today?
    No response to this post @austerlitz ?


    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Right, you saw a couple of videos and made up your mind,
    As opposed to what ? What are the other alternatives ?



    how come the most successful batsman in tests right now is the one who comes partially close to bradman's technique.He was like bradman uncoached and thus his bat goes towards gully .Bradman's technique has not been replicated as yet,only smith has partially done it.

    Since you keep insisting that Bradmans technique was different to all others - per Bradman himself it was Tendulkar who batted like him. And if you watch footage of Bradmans batting .. there is no comparison to Steve Smith at all.

    You can see him play all shots here in this Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYltnwbM30


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  54. #294
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    No response to this post @austerlitz ?




    As opposed to what ? What are the other alternatives ?






    Since you keep insisting that Bradmans technique was different to all others - per Bradman himself it was Tendulkar who batted like him. And if you watch footage of Bradmans batting .. there is no comparison to Steve Smith at all.

    You can see him play all shots here in this Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYltnwbM30
    Did you even read the articles before talking of bradman's technique?Read about the rotary batting technique.

  55. #295
    Debut
    Aug 2017
    Runs
    751
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bradmans technique isn't similar to Tendulkar the height and build are similar but Tendulkar has a conventional high elbow technique where as Bradman is self taught rotary motion he drives and finishes like a golfer would bat over the left shoulder Tendulkar has a high elbow finish that's what is taught by coaches around the world.
    Also Bradman plays less with a straight bat turning balls into leg side where as Tendulkar would play them with a straight bat.

  56. #296
    Debut
    Aug 2017
    Runs
    751
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The rotary motion is also ideal for Bradmans favourite shot the pull shot allowing him to play it safely into the ground instead of aerial cutting the risk of getting out caught.

  57. #297
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    india
    Runs
    179
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    By averaging 100 against 99% sub 130kmph pacers and fielders who are reluctant to bend or chase the ball. Two mode of dissmissal in cricket taken out LBW (at least on front foot) and run out.
    And last but not the least, playing in only 2 countries against only 1 decent opposition.

  58. #298
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Did you even read the articles before talking of bradman's technique?Read about the rotary batting technique.
    yes I did, but it is not correct. Because for one thing Bradman himself said that Tendulkar's batting style is the one that resembles closest to his. You can see his batting technique here in the link below and see for yourself that there is very little in common between him and Steve Smith's batting starting from the batting stance.

    Link --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGgIWp1FN-U


    Secondly your main argument is that his avg was twice that of his peers who in turn avg much more than some of the current great players. Therefore I restricted the discussion to Hobbs. So now please respond to post#273


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  59. #299
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    yes I did, but it is not correct. Because for one thing Bradman himself said that Tendulkar's batting style is the one that resembles closest to his. You can see his batting technique here in the link below and see for yourself that there is very little in common between him and Steve Smith's batting starting from the batting stance.

    Link --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGgIWp1FN-U


    Secondly your main argument is that his avg was twice that of his peers who in turn avg much more than some of the current great players. Therefore I restricted the discussion to Hobbs. So now please respond to post#273
    You don't even understand the rotary batting technique .The similarity between smith and bardman was in the arc of the batswing before playing the ball,not any other similarities.Tendulkar is similar to bradman in compactness but is a high elbow straightbat technique orthodox batsman,bradman is as cric1234 noted a golf style batsman .You cant seem to be understand this basic difference which is at the root of bradman's success.
    Bardman's peers don't average 'much more' than the greats of modern .The difference is between 5-10 avergae points.5-10 average points is NOTHING compared to a 50 point difference which is unthinkable.As to 273 post,there were none so we will never know.But larwood was 90mph or more and bradman still averaged 58 in bodyline series with no thigh pads or gear and above all 8 man legside field.

  60. #300
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    You don't even understand the rotary batting technique .The similarity between smith and bardman was in the arc of the batswing before playing the ball,not any other similarities.Tendulkar is similar to bradman in compactness but is a high elbow straightbat technique orthodox batsman,bradman is as cric1234 noted a golf style batsman .You cant seem to be understand this basic difference which is at the root of bradman's success.
    So according to you and cric1234 .... Bradman himself didnt understand his own technique ?


    Bardman's peers don't average 'much more' than the greats of modern .The difference is between 5-10 avergae points.5-10 average points is NOTHING compared to a 50 point difference which is unthinkable.
    I gave you a big list of modern day good players ( Cook, Mark Taylor, Mark Waugh etc ) who were avging significantly lower than Hobbs and Sutcliffe so no there is a big difference (15+ ) between the avgs of Hobbs, Sutclife and these modern day greats. Especially Sutcliffe and Say Mike Atherton or Fleming there is 20+ point avg difference there.


    As to 273 post,there were none so we will never know.
    So therefore their Technique will just not work at Test level today unless you think facing max 120K bowlers is the same as facing 140KPH bowlers. The jump in skill levels reqd to deal with that kind of bowling is pretty high never mind 150Ks


    But larwood was 90mph or more and bradman still averaged 58 in bodyline series with no thigh pads or gear and above all 8 man legside field.
    Just simply not true at all that Larwood could bowl at 90MPH. And if we put 8 men on legside that leaves offside with 1 one fielder. If they do that today the modern player will just feast on that by essentially moving to the legside and flaying the ball to the offiside no matter how fast the bowler is and what lines he is bowling. BTW plenty of batsmen today don't wear chest guards and even today you can bowl chest high bouncers all day long which is what Morne Morkels natural length is. It aint going to matter.

    So the problem here is you JUST do not seem to realize how highly skilled the modern player is. Part of the reason is perhaps how the modern players make batting look soo easy that everyone starts to think that it is actually so.

    Is suggest go to a practice facility and face a 140KPH bowling machine that is chucking Tennis balls and see how many you can manage to defend let alone play cover drives and such.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  61. #301
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    So according to you and cric1234 .... Bradman himself didnt understand his own technique ?




    I gave you a big list of modern day good players ( Cook, Mark Taylor, Mark Waugh etc ) who were avging significantly lower than Hobbs and Sutcliffe so no there is a big difference (15+ ) between the avgs of Hobbs, Sutclife and these modern day greats. Especially Sutcliffe and Say Mike Atherton or Fleming there is 20+ point avg difference there.




    So therefore their Technique will just not work at Test level today unless you think facing max 120K bowlers is the same as facing 140KPH bowlers. The jump in skill levels reqd to deal with that kind of bowling is pretty high never mind 150Ks




    Just simply not true at all that Larwood could bowl at 90MPH. And if we put 8 men on legside that leaves offside with 1 one fielder. If they do that today the modern player will just feast on that by essentially moving to the legside and flaying the ball to the offiside no matter how fast the bowler is and what lines he is bowling. BTW plenty of batsmen today don't wear chest guards and even today you can bowl chest high bouncers all day long which is what Morne Morkels natural length is. It aint going to matter.

    So the problem here is you JUST do not seem to realize how highly skilled the modern player is. Part of the reason is perhaps how the modern players make batting look soo easy that everyone starts to think that it is actually so.

    Is suggest go to a practice facility and face a 140KPH bowling machine that is chucking Tennis balls and see how many you can manage to defend let alone play cover drives and such.
    Yes.He didn't fully understand his own technique.It was a natural development.He was never coached,same as smith.But one thing he understood about his technique was that he didn't use the high elbow and pointed that out in his book art of batting.He felt that gave him more space and strokemaking range.Bradman never really had many close clips to examine his technique closely.

    Sutcliffe and hobbs were certainly better than fleming or atherton.Their 5-10 point average difference is miniscule compared to 50 point difference.Bradman himself believed he would average 70 if he played in the 80s when he was asked the question.

    You are speaking complete hyperbole.With 7-8 fielders on the leg side and the ball being bowled at chest height on your ribcage and wider at 90mph maybe you can get a couple of boundaries playing awkwardly forcing it to offside but eventually you either miss and get sent to the hospital or you pop it up in the air and sent back to pavilion.

    Modern players are more skilled ,no doubt about it.But bradman's average is not because of the skill.It was because of his exceptional hand eye co-ordination due to the stump exercises he did as a boy and more importantly his unique unconventional technique which emerged uncoached.A modern day player would have it coached out of him.

  62. #302
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Yes.He didn't fully understand his own technique.It was a natural development.He was never coached,same as smith.But one thing he understood about his technique was that he didn't use the high elbow and pointed that out in his book art of batting.He felt that gave him more space and strokemaking range.Bradman never really had many close clips to examine his technique closely.
    If he didnt understand and recognize his own technique ... how did he pick Tendulkar as the one that closely resembles him ?

    Sutcliffe and hobbs were certainly better than fleming or atherton.Their 5-10 point average difference is miniscule compared to 50 point difference.Bradman himself believed he would average 70 if he played in the 80s when he was asked the question.
    Do you realize that Sutclife Avgs 60.73 as an opener ?? The avg diff between Athers and Sutcliffe is about 23 points and 20.6 points with Fleming. So no it is not a "minisclue" difference. It is actually double that. That is a huge difference. I will give you another example Michael Vaughan - Avg 41.44 - diff=19 points ( 0r about 47% in % terms ) Again huge difference.

    Again why do you keep Bringing Bradmans avg here when we are discussing whether his Peers avg compares with current day batsmen ? I already know that his avg is nearly 2x.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  63. #303
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    If he didnt understand and recognize his own technique ... how did he pick Tendulkar as the one that closely resembles him ?



    Do you realize that Sutclife Avgs 60.73 as an opener ?? The avg diff between Athers and Sutcliffe is about 23 points and 20.6 points with Fleming. So no it is not a "minisclue" difference. It is actually double that. That is a huge difference. I will give you another example Michael Vaughan - Avg 41.44 - diff=19 points ( 0r about 47% in % terms ) Again huge difference.

    Again why do you keep Bringing Bradmans avg here when we are discussing whether his Peers avg compares with current day batsmen ? I already know that his avg is nearly 2x.
    He said tendulkar resembled him in general compactness and strokemaking.He also admitted he never saw himself bat.Bradman's stance,grip and batswing are all different to tendulkar.Smith resembles bradman in batswing but not stance .

    So what?Sutcliffe was one of the 2 best batsman of his era.Like Kallis of his era.Why are you comparing him with mediocrities like vaughan.Compare him with modern greats there is only a 5-10 point diff which is understandable because the game has become more professional.But 5-10 point difference is a miniscule thing compared to bradman's unthinkable 50 point average.And that is explained by bradman's unique technique which no one has replicated.I bring up bradman because the thread is ABOUT bradman.Without him there is no point to our argument at all.
    Last edited by austerlitz; 7th November 2018 at 19:29.

  64. #304
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    He said tendulkar resembled him in general compactness and strokemaking.He also admitted he never saw himself bat.Bradman's stance,grip and batswing are all different to tendulkar.Smith resembles bradman in batswing but not stance ..
    But he asked his wife to confirm ... besides that I hardly see any resemblance between the techniques of Bradman and Smith... it is very obvious. Show me which shot from the Bradman footage looks like what Steve Smith would play.


    So what?Sutcliffe was one of the 2 best batsman of his era.Like Kallis of his era.Why are you comparing him with mediocrities like vaughan.Compare him with modern greats there is only a 5-10 point diff which is understandable because the game has become more professional.But 5-10 point difference is a miniscule thing compared to bradman's unthinkable 50 point average.And that is explained by bradman's unique technique which no one has replicated.
    Vaughan is by no means a mediocre player neither are Athers , Taylor, Fleming, Waugh etc ... each one of them has played 100+ Tests. And the reason I'am using these players is because they are to Tendulkar, Lara what Hobbs and Sutcliffe were to Bradman.

    But you cant really say that their techniques are deficient. They also dont look like amateur cricketers. Hobbs however does. This is why the levels of competition that the modern day greats have to deal with is infinitely different from Bradmans.

    unless you think the techniques of Vaughan, Athers, Fleming, Taylor, Waugh are just as ordinary as Hobbs


    Here have a look at these clips below ... that kind of cricket was frowned upon in Hobbs time simply no comparison at all :

    Athers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_4CBQk8Ibo

    Waugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBS-HwG55s


    I bring up bradman because the thread is ABOUT bradman.Without him there is no point to our argument at all.
    Then restrict yourself to other points and stop using this logic: bradman = 2x his peers ; his peers > current day greats therefore Bradman = 2x any great player based on avg comparison.

    Because you have acknowledged that the techniques of Hobbs and Sutclife were never tested by truly great 140KPH bowlers therefore making their avgs completely meaningless and thereby proving my point about the vast difference in standards between the two ERAs and most importantly the value of runs from that ERA being very very different from the current ERA.

    How can anyone even claim that Hobbs technique is suitable to modern day Test Cricket?. This is why these debates tend to get very tedious with Bradman era fans just plain refusing to accept plain straightforward evidence.

    Lets look at it another way ... which modern era player has a Technique closest to Jack Hobbs according to you ?


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  65. #305
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    But he asked his wife to confirm ... besides that I hardly see any resemblance between the techniques of Bradman and Smith... it is very obvious. Show me which shot from the Bradman footage looks like what Steve Smith would play.




    Vaughan is by no means a mediocre player neither are Athers , Taylor, Fleming, Waugh etc ... each one of them has played 100+ Tests. And the reason I'am using these players is because they are to Tendulkar, Lara what Hobbs and Sutcliffe were to Bradman.

    But you cant really say that their techniques are deficient. They also dont look like amateur cricketers. Hobbs however does. This is why the levels of competition that the modern day greats have to deal with is infinitely different from Bradmans.

    unless you think the techniques of Vaughan, Athers, Fleming, Taylor, Waugh are just as ordinary as Hobbs


    Here have a look at these clips below ... that kind of cricket was frowned upon in Hobbs time simply no comparison at all :

    Athers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_4CBQk8Ibo

    Waugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBS-HwG55s




    Then restrict yourself to other points and stop using this logic: bradman = 2x his peers ; his peers > current day greats therefore Bradman = 2x any great player based on avg comparison.

    Because you have acknowledged that the techniques of Hobbs and Sutclife were never tested by truly great 140KPH bowlers therefore making their avgs completely meaningless and thereby proving my point about the vast difference in standards between the two ERAs and most importantly the value of runs from that ERA being very very different from the current ERA.

    How can anyone even claim that Hobbs technique is suitable to modern day Test Cricket?. This is why these debates tend to get very tedious with Bradman era fans just plain refusing to accept plain straightforward evidence.

    Lets look at it another way ... which modern era player has a Technique closest to Jack Hobbs according to you ?
    His wife is hardly a cricket expert.Tendulkar apart from same height(body structure),compact stance and strokemaking has little resemblance to bradman's technique.


    Name:  22164-main.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  49.0 KB

    Name:  4684718.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  51.3 KB

    Name:  sachin.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  33.7 KB

    Name:  3fc9b4613d100b41b2090359659e7d4a0f13dea2.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  30.6 KB

    Name:  main-qimg-09f5ebf42be62763a25d82502001081e.jpg
Views: 99
Size:  88.5 KB

    Name:  25Bradman.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  303.3 KB

    Name:  sfd.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  44.7 KB

    See tendulkar's stance is classical.Elbow straight,stance straight facing the bowler .Bat start from behind back leg and goes up to directly behind front elbow towards the wicketkeeper.
    Bradman bat starts from between both legs as in a golfer's stance and goes up in a circular arc motion similar to golf.Bat is pointed towards gully/third slip.
    Smith's bat lifting arc is similar to bradman in that it points towards 3rdslip/gully .But his grip is more closed and thus less flexible.Also he is less compact than bradman in his stance.So you see smith has only partially copied bradman and in a crude manner.His bat also starts from behind his back leg and not between like bradman.
    Tendulkar has a high batting grip due to being used to playing with his elder brother's bat from childhood,to compensate for the heavier bat his body compensated with a higher grip.This allows more power on the ball and makes those punch shots more effective but also can tend to lift the ball in the air when driving,a problem tendulkar had especially early in his career,when most teams had a short cover for his drive.
    Bradman has a general middle grip.
    Bradman's technique allows him to play shots that with the shot being played in a circular motion of the bat,and the bat ends up in a flourish behind his back.In contrast tendulkar using the classical drive,you will see the bat face opened when driving and in front of his body.Bradman's rotary technique also allows him to better keep the ball on the ground as the bat naturally turns downward in his hand when pulling ,which was bradman's favourite shot and he used to pull good length balls from outside offstump.

    Hobbs technique is suited for a defensive game with everything played straight.Its not suited for modern game at all as it lacks strokemaking ability.But if you want to dig in and defend,that technique would still work well..It doesn't matter how it 'looks'.It matters if the fundmaentals are right and if batsman has good hand eye co-ordination and footwork to back it up.But bradman was the greatest because his technique was utterly different.The only ones who have partially copied it were george headley(who averaged 60.5 but never got to play many,and was the first great west indian batsman,and now smith who also averages above 60.
    Last edited by austerlitz; 8th November 2018 at 00:41.

  66. #306
    Debut
    Aug 2017
    Runs
    751
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is uncommon for an Australian batsman to play spin well Bradman did it well excellent footwork and subcontinental style wristy flicks and cuts everything combined made him the remarkable batsman he was he would be ahead of any era I have little doubt about it.
    There are other shots like the scoop invented by T20 cricket players might have played it before but there's clips of Bradman playing it a long time ago his capability and potential in limited overs cricket was big aswell.

  67. #307
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @austerlitz

    Not still pictures. Point me to footage of Smith where he looks like Bradman who can be seen executing all major strokes here --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGgIWp1FN-U

    Hobbs technique is suited for a defensive game with everything played straight.Its not suited for modern game at all as it lacks strokemaking ability.But if you want to dig in and defend,that technique would still work well..It doesn't matter how it 'looks'.
    You can clearly see that the technique is at best suited for slow bowling. This is based on the lethargic movements of Hobbs. If he were to face a bowler like for example a hostile Alan Donald in those 2 clips in my previous post ... he would not even be able to put bat on ball.

    But if there is one shot that has the absolute stamp of pure amateur on it then it is this --> https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=323

    He has jumped out of his crease with the front leg going up almost 45 degrees well above the ground and then the back leg jumps out slightly and by the time his feet have landed his backfoot has moved all of 6 inches after all that effort !

    The amateur footwork doesnt end there ... look at his hips ,body and legs they are all so far away towards the legside of the line of the ball that it is clear that he has no intentions of getting in line of the ball - possibly to avoid being hit. Then look at his front toe ... it is pointing towards silly point and not midoff almost parallel to the crease ... So as a result of all that ungainly maneuvering his head is nowhere near the line of the ball never mind on top of it when he makes contact. Also he has no balance which is evident from how his back leg has to move outside offstump to stabilize himself after he has hit the ball so far away from his body. In short the word that can be used to succinctly describe this technique is : Amateur !

    no top class cricketer today bats like this and it is not just this one shot. There are plenty of others in that link and other links on YT. In the next shot at 6:31 he demonstrates the defensive stroke where he makes contact while standing on one leg !! Link: https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=391

    This technique doesnt work today and if you think it does then we are watching different sports.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  68. #308
    Debut
    Aug 2013
    Runs
    518
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One simple question, why no one else able to do same as Don?
    Pitches conditions bowlers were same for others same during that period of time
    Just like SRT in current era why no one else have similar records

  69. #309
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by loves_cricket View Post
    One simple question, why no one else able to do same as Don?
    Pitches conditions bowlers were same for others same during that period of time
    Just like SRT in current era why no one else have similar records
    Start reading my posts and @big_gamer007 posts here on this page from post#246 onwards ... especially post#287

    Short Answer - Bradmans competition was with amateurs from 2 countries. The modern players compete with professionals from 10 countries and vastly higher skilled bowlers than those that existed in the 1930s.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  70. #310
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cric1234 View Post
    It is uncommon for an Australian batsman to play spin well Bradman did it well excellent footwork and subcontinental style wristy flicks and cuts everything combined made him the remarkable batsman he was he would be ahead of any era I have little doubt about it.
    There are other shots like the scoop invented by T20 cricket players might have played it before but there's clips of Bradman playing it a long time ago his capability and potential in limited overs cricket was big aswell.

    Just like that eh ?

    So who were the Shane Warne's ,Muraliharan's ,Saqlains , Qadirs , Ashwins ,Swann of that ERA ? ZIPPO - None - Nobody. Now let the hype machine begin to randomly start rating any spinner from the 1930s to being better than the above modern greats.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  71. #311
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    @austerlitz

    Not still pictures. Point me to footage of Smith where he looks like Bradman who can be seen executing all major strokes here --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGgIWp1FN-U



    You can clearly see that the technique is at best suited for slow bowling. This is based on the lethargic movements of Hobbs. If he were to face a bowler like for example a hostile Alan Donald in those 2 clips in my previous post ... he would not even be able to put bat on ball.

    But if there is one shot that has the absolute stamp of pure amateur on it then it is this --> https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=323

    He has jumped out of his crease with the front leg going up almost 45 degrees well above the ground and then the back leg jumps out slightly and by the time his feet have landed his backfoot has moved all of 6 inches after all that effort !

    The amateur footwork doesnt end there ... look at his hips ,body and legs they are all so far away towards the legside of the line of the ball that it is clear that he has no intentions of getting in line of the ball - possibly to avoid being hit. Then look at his front toe ... it is pointing towards silly point and not midoff almost parallel to the crease ... So as a result of all that ungainly maneuvering his head is nowhere near the line of the ball never mind on top of it when he makes contact. Also he has no balance which is evident from how his back leg has to move outside offstump to stabilize himself after he has hit the ball so far away from his body. In short the word that can be used to succinctly describe this technique is : Amateur !

    no top class cricketer today bats like this and it is not just this one shot. There are plenty of others in that link and other links on YT. In the next shot at 6:31 he demonstrates the defensive stroke where he makes contact while standing on one leg !! Link: https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=391

    This technique doesnt work today and if you think it does then we are watching different sports.
    Look if you want to be convinced you would have been already,as the pictures clearly show the differences between tendu and bradman.And no except for the pull smith's shots are not similar to bradman because his grip his different,stance is more open and bat starts from behind back leg.But the rotary motion of the batswing gives smith some of the same advantages.Its also not my responsibility scour the internet of videos and waste hours to satisfy your curiosity,i already put enough effort collecting all the pictures from the net and trying to explain them.If you want to delve further you have to do it yourself.Its not my headache.

    Hobbs technique is not bad defensively at all.It looks pathetic to you because he doesnt use the bottom hand at all,something almost no batsman does in the modern age.But back then power and scoring rate were not an issue.It looks slow because hes also playing slow balling.Ofcourse reflexes are better now due to greater competitiveness.

  72. #312
    Debut
    Aug 2017
    Runs
    751
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Just like that eh ?

    So who were the Shane Warne's ,Muraliharan's ,Saqlains , Qadirs , Ashwins ,Swann of that ERA ? ZIPPO - None - Nobody. Now let the hype machine begin to randomly start rating any spinner from the 1930s to being better than the above modern greats.
    Laker Verity O'reilly Grimmett and others were decent spin bowlers with good stats now either the batsmen were all bad or the bowlers were bad or was it just Bradman that was good in an era of all bad players?
    Make your mind up because thats pretty much what your saying the evidence suggests otherwise.

  73. #313
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cric1234 View Post
    Laker Verity O'reilly Grimmett and others were decent spin bowlers with good stats now either the batsmen were all bad or the bowlers were bad or was it just Bradman that was good in an era of all bad players?
    Make your mind up because thats pretty much what your saying the evidence suggests otherwise.
    Bowling quality determines batting quality .... same reason why the term minnow bashing is used here on PP. Once you get rid of the massive bias and assess the bowlers PURELY based on impartial evidence from footage you will see that they are nowhere near modern day Test standards.

    And even then once you get into the nitty-gritty of batting techniques ( see my Previous Post where I analyzed Jack Hobbs technique ) it further confirms that the bowling standards must have been very low for such amateur technique to produce soo many runs at FC level. Just no way you can say that Hobbs technique is near to modern day Test standards.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  74. #314
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    New Delhi
    Runs
    4,905
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Start reading my posts and @big_gamer007 posts here on this page from post#246 onwards ... especially post#287

    Short Answer - Bradmans competition was with amateurs from 2 countries. The modern players compete with professionals from 10 countries and vastly higher skilled bowlers than those that existed in the 1930s.
    It's pretty simple mate people have been brainwashed by TV pundits and Commentators and historians who write and talk in legends about Bradman.. They have to do it to sell the beautiful game which is cricket.

    However if someone can't be convinced even after watching the many videos posted here then there is no point arguing with then. They have been totally brainwashed by the above mentioned people.

  75. #315
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    Look if you want to be convinced you would have been already,as the pictures clearly show the differences between tendu and bradman.And no except for the pull smith's shots are not similar to bradman because his grip his different,stance is more open and bat starts from behind back leg.But the rotary motion of the batswing gives smith some of the same advantages.Its also not my responsibility scour the internet of videos and waste hours to satisfy your curiosity,i already put enough effort collecting all the pictures from the net and trying to explain them.If you want to delve further you have to do it yourself.Its not my headache.
    This is not how a proper facts based serious debate works .... I can quite easily say the same about your take on Jack Hobbs but I wont.

    Hobbs technique is not bad defensively at all.It looks pathetic to you because he doesnt use the bottom hand at all,something almost no batsman does in the modern age.But back then power and scoring rate were not an issue.It looks slow because hes also playing slow balling.Ofcourse reflexes are better now due to greater competitiveness.
    Forget bottom hand ... there are still a few English and Aussie players who are not predominantly bottom handed even today. But look at his footwork which is one of the most important aspects of batting. And I did include a Defensive Shot as well as an attacking shot in my analysis. Nobody plays a defensive shot like that standing on one leg. And also keep in mind that he played Test Cricket with that technique till he was 48 ( and FC cricket till 52 !! )

    I will analyze more shots later.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  76. #316
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by big_gamer007 View Post
    It's pretty simple mate people have been brainwashed by TV pundits and Commentators and historians who write and talk in legends about Bradman.. They have to do it to sell the beautiful game which is cricket.

    However if someone can't be convinced even after watching the many videos posted here then there is no point arguing with then. They have been totally brainwashed by the above mentioned people.
    quite right sadly that is the case with most cricket fans.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  77. #317
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    648
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    This is not how a proper facts based serious debate works .... I can quite easily say the same about your take on Jack Hobbs but I wont.



    Forget bottom hand ... there are still a few English and Aussie players who are not predominantly bottom handed even today. But look at his footwork which is one of the most important aspects of batting. And I did include a Defensive Shot as well as an attacking shot in my analysis. Nobody plays a defensive shot like that standing on one leg. And also keep in mind that he played Test Cricket with that technique till he was 48 ( and FC cricket till 52 !! )

    I will analyze more shots later.
    I showed you with pictures how bradman is different from tendulkar and how smith is partially similar.You simply ignored it all.And now saying thats not how it works.In this case we will just have to agree to disagree then.

    I don't see much problem.He doesnt use his bottom hand at all ,so the foot being in air doesnt make the ball go in air because he can still get on top of it.Its a shot for slow bowling.How he would do against todays fast bowling is anybodys guess.Obviously he wont play till 48 today.And hobbs is nowhere near bradman.Bradman doesnt average 58,he averages 100.Incomparable difference.The increase in professionalism is why i said to be bradmans equal/better a modern batsman needed to average 70 for 10 yrs.I didnt say he had to average 100.So your point about modern players being better is not a point at all since i already accept it.But bradmans average was not due to lower quality,if it was so he would have at best averaged 65-70.He averaged 100 because of that technique which nobody has replicated fully.That needs to be studied by modern coaches and used.

  78. #318
    Debut
    Aug 2017
    Runs
    751
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    I showed you with pictures how bradman is different from tendulkar and how smith is partially similar.You simply ignored it all.And now saying thats not how it works.In this case we will just have to agree to disagree then.

    I don't see much problem.He doesnt use his bottom hand at all ,so the foot being in air doesnt make the ball go in air because he can still get on top of it.Its a shot for slow bowling.How he would do against todays fast bowling is anybodys guess.Obviously he wont play till 48 today.And hobbs is nowhere near bradman.Bradman doesnt average 58,he averages 100.Incomparable difference.The increase in professionalism is why i said to be bradmans equal/better a modern batsman needed to average 70 for 10 yrs.I didnt say he had to average 100.So your point about modern players being better is not a point at all since i already accept it.But bradmans average was not due to lower quality,if it was so he would have at best averaged 65-70.He averaged 100 because of that technique which nobody has replicated fully.That needs to be studied by modern coaches and used.
    One can say Tendulkar played more great bowlers in the 90s but how many great bowlers has S Smith played in the last 5 years at home he's been feasting on average bowling and flat wickets in general how much better is the standard really from Bradmans era in recent times?

  79. #319
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    4,281
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cric1234 View Post
    One can say Tendulkar played more great bowlers in the 90s but how many great bowlers has S Smith played in the last 5 years at home he's been feasting on average bowling and flat wickets in general how much better is the standard really from Bradmans era in recent times?
    The real question is what will you accept as evidence? Appears that no amount of bleedingly obvious evidence in the form of footage will suffice and when in a tough spot you'll simply exit the thread and pop up again weeks later and start rehashing the same stuff again. See the previous page of this very thread for instance.
    Last edited by gazza619; 8th November 2018 at 23:46.

  80. #320
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    Australia
    Runs
    1,055
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You can't compare people generation to generation because skill and knowledge is passed down over time and overall increases over time.

    The only way too compare players is to their contemporaries. Then you look at how much of a gap there was between them.

    Then you compare current players and the gap in skill and talent between them and their contemporaries.

    For example what is the closest average to Bradman's in his era and what is the closest average to Tendulkar or Vivs in his era.

    Then you get a clear understanding of what it means to be great.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •