Was the don that good ?

Top Contributors
distributer of pain

distributer of pain

Member
Was the don that good ?

Ive been pondering this for a while, why was the don so good ??, was he a freak ?? or can we find a reason for his godly like greatness, now im not saying i totally agree with what im about to say here but i think it deserves a little consideration, the 1st world war would have decimated player stocks from give or take 1914-1920 (and then the mental scars from those who survived and all the sons who had to take over the bread winning duties), the depression would have done a simalar thing as in most young able bodied men wouldnt have had the luxery of playing cricket (and thats for the whole cricketing world), so numbers would have been down greatly, when you put these factors into consideration do you think it was a true average ?, imagine a world 11 batsman now batting against a 4th 11 bowling side for his whole career and thats probably being genorous, i know people will say about bat quality and pitch quailty but a bowlers fitness in those days would have been short of merv hughes fitness, so they wouldnt have bowled quick for that long, as i said im not completly doubting his greatness, i just think its a very false average, id give him 65 max by todays standards. also Australias 2 greatest sporting legends came from the same era, as in the don and pharlap, the same rules apply to both i think, and yes i do know its blasphemy.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

distributer of pain;345352 said:
Ive been pondering this for a while, why was the don so good ??, was he a freak ?? or can we find a reason for his godly like greatness, now im not saying i totally agree with what im about to say here but i think it deserves a little consideration, the 1st world war would have decimated player stocks from give or take 1914-1920 (and then the mental scars from those who survived and all the sons who had to take over the bread winning duties), the depression would have done a simalar thing as in most young able bodied men wouldnt have had the luxery of playing cricket (and thats for the whole cricketing world), so numbers would have been down greatly, when you put these factors into consideration do you think it was a true average ?, imagine a world 11 batsman now batting against a 4th 11 bowling side for his whole career and thats probably being genorous, i know people will say about bat quality and pitch quailty but a bowlers fitness in those days would have been short of merv hughes fitness, so they wouldnt have bowled quick for that long, as i said im not completly doubting his greatness, i just think its a very false average, id give him 65 max by todays standards. also Australias 2 greatest sporting legends came from the same era, as in the don and pharlap, the same rules apply to both i think, and yes i do know its blasphemy.
Click to expand...

But if you check out players averages and bowlers for that matter they are similar. I'd even say they're weighted more toward bowlers, even though the 40's was bat dominated.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

The guy was naturally talented but also blessed with a work ethic which allowed to make the most of it.

It's almost impossible to compare different era's but I think it's safe to say that he'd still average over 70. Though bowlers are fitter etc there are things that favour the batsman, such as smaller boundaries, covered pitches and heavier bats (for example).

You can go on and on in terms of the comparisons and tie yourself up in knots, but I think it's safe to say that the guy was a great, not least in the way he earned plaudits from his peers.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

99.94 on uncovered pitches, without the bat technology.
If th Don was around these days, he would also have advantages of coaching (though in his case that might be a disadvantage), fitness instructors and nutritionists, etc, the same as modern bowlers.
Its true that playing stocks were lower, both as a result of wars and simply lower populations more generally. On the other hand, he never played a Test against the eighth or ninth ranked nation in the world either.

Its impossible to tell, but the various factors probably roughly cancel each other out. A person can only dominate against the opposition of the day, and nobody has dominated like Bradman did.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

... And if he was around now he wouldn't have been nearly died because of appendicitis. He wouldn't have had to deal with constant health problems. He would have the advantage of playing against weak teams (the English team were rarely weak). He wouldn't have lost his best years to the War. Etc, etc.

99.94 on uncovered pitches says it all.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

i vaguely remember a history of cricket doco i watched years ago and im pretty sure they mentioned uncovered pitches at test level were fazed out before the dons time, as i said im not 100% sure about it, ive spent a little time googling to find out without sucsess, does anyone know for sure when they were fazed out ?
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

The term sticky wicket refers to a situation in which the pitch has become damp, typically due to rain or high humidity. This makes the path of the ball more unpredictable thus making the job of defending the stumps that much more difficult. The full phrase is thought to have originally been "to bat on a sticky wicket." Such pitches were commonplace at all levels of the game (i.e. up to Test Match level) until the late 1950s.

Wicket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the Sir Donald Bradman did for cricket is impossible to calculate.The mere fact of the legendary golf ball training against the water tank regiment ,made him the best batsmen of his era and statistically ever. There is no debate necessary in my mind .. look at the next best average

Donald Bradman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Sir Donald Bradman

Donald Bradman (AUS)
99.94
Graeme Pollock (SAF)
60.97
George Headley (WI)
60.83
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)
60.73
Eddie Paynter (ENG)
59.23
Ken Barrington (ENG)
58.67
Everton Weekes (WI)
58.61
Wally Hammond (ENG)
58.45
Garfield Sobers (WI)
57.78
Jack Hobbs (ENG)
56.94
Clyde Walcott (WI)
56.68
Len Hutton (ENG)
56.67
Ernest Tyldesley (ENG)
55.00
Charlie Davis (WI)
54.20
Vinod Kambli (IND)
54.20
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

According to those figures he was 40% better than the next best? The two bowlers that got him out the most, Verity and Grimmett, might give a clue to any weakness he had. I think he was out to a wrongun in his first, as well as last test.
Grimmett said Bradman was suspect against good length legspin, that Trumper was a better batsman, and Hammond and Hobbs were harder to bowl to than the the Don!
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

macca;346709 said:
According to those figures he was 40% better than the next best? The two bowlers that got him out the most, Verity and Grimmett, might give a clue to any weakness he had. I think he was out to a wrongun in his first, as well as last test.
Grimmett said Bradman was suspect against good length legspin, that Trumper was a better batsman, and Hammond and Hobbs were harder to bowl to than the the Don!
Click to expand...

a good leggy will trouble anyone on the right pitch, as for uncovered pitches im still very doubtfull whether the don played on many (in test matches), even if it wasnt required by law to cover the pitch i think most grounds would have, probably only lightly though, im still not 100% sure , if anyone can find out any reliable info about the matter could you post it here. i am certain he would have played a lot of 1st class cricket on uncovered decks so the points probably mute anyway. also does anyone know what his bowral club averege was ??
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

carlton09;346850 said:
The best player the game has had. Stupid question
Click to expand...
You mean the best player ANY game has had.

It can't be a stupid question because people have been asking it since he retired.

If the possible reasons given at the start of the thread for his record, such as war and depression, were true, than how come nobody else in that era came close to his average ?
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

macca;346899 said:
You mean the best player ANY game has had.

It can't be a stupid question because people have been asking it since he retired.

If the possible reasons given at the start of the thread for his record, such as war and depression, were true, than how come nobody else in that era came close to his average ?
Click to expand...

remember that the playing stocks were decimated in that time, lets say now days 2/10 blokes play cricket, i think the number back then would have been much lower, most men didnt have the luxury of playing cricket, work and feeding the family would have came first, as i said its just a theory.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

im not doubting his ranking of the best player the game has seen, i just dont think his average would have been anywhere near 100 if he played today, i originally said 65 but im thinking around 75/80 now.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

I think the point about the first world war is well made . The effect of the war and its wash-up ,including the spanish flu, may have helped allow someone of that generation to reach that average, but it doesn't explain why nobody else came close then as well.

I think generally and overall bowling and fielding was not as professional back then, but the only way they could reduce bradmans average to the levels mentioned above was bodyline

A lot of people reckon with modern bats, shorter boundaries and better protective gear he would have cracked a ton average. Husseys purple patch a while back was a taste of what bradman was doing in his time.
 
Re: Was the don that good ?

macca;347025 said:
I think the point about the first world war is well made . The effect of the war and its wash-up ,including the spanish flu, may have helped allow someone of that generation to reach that average, but it doesn't explain why nobody else came close then as well.

I think generally and overall bowling and fielding was not as professional back then, but the only way they could reduce bradmans average to the levels mentioned above was bodyline

A lot of people reckon with modern bats, shorter boundaries and better protective gear he would have cracked a ton average. Husseys purple patch a while back was a taste of what bradman was doing in his time.
Click to expand...


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