Ya I’ve heard the stories like Botham running him out and stuff
Yeah I’ve seen that video a few times, he’s all at sea playing like a panicked 15 year old making their first team debut. He must have been about 40 then? Losing the eye and touch a bit.
I do rate old Geoffrey though. The staying power and self confidence, prizing his wicket above anything. Heard the stories he’d have guys banging it in from 20 yards in preparation for these WI tours and stuff. You need that about your game to succeed. Think outside the box and not just toss it off in the nets.
Him facing those WI bowlers or Lillee and Thompson is more comparable to today than old Bradders facing 1930s trundlers. Guys aren’t massively quicker than that now. He wouldn’t be striking at 120 but I’d back him to do alright, he’s got that stubborn competitiveness to his character.
Not really sure what you are trying to achieve Googly.
Bradman was the best of his time. His stats back that up. He could only face what was in front of him and he dominated all of that. Give him the training, nutrition, coaches and equipment of today and I'm sure he would be just as a good.
So many modern players have all these advancements and they can barely play with a straight bat or bowl a consistently good length.
It's always going to be hard to compare eras, but trying to diminish Bradman in the way you are doing is a genuine disservice to him and is disparaging his name for no good reason.
Well here's the question-
Are you saying he'd average 99 in modern cricket?
I'm saying he was a fantastic player for his time, but he wouldn't come close to that in the modern era.
The main debate would be whether he was similar to the modern greats averaging in the 50's or not.
Most people get uptight about this alone, with the majority saying he'd be way beyond that. You'd be lynched in Australia for suggesting he might be a 50 avg player.
It's just pure fantasy to suggest that in a professional sport that has improved beyond imagination and dotted with maestro batsmen that one guy could be twice as good.
If we can't agree on that then you definitely wont like what I have to say next-
I don't think he'd even be in the 50 bracket. He may not even have been on the radar at all. I just watch the clips and it was essentially a different game back then with a lot fewer people playing it. You just can't reliably assume that a guy from a different era where maybe 100 000 people played amateur cricket would still be at the top of the tree nearly a hundred years later when a few million people play the sport. It's impossible unless he was an alien.
I'm not trying to denigrate history or the man at all. I love everything about cricket, especially the history and the stats and I don't like the direction it's going, but there's nobody in any modern sport that's twice as good as the next best person. It's human nature to create mythical beings.
It's probably better left unsaid but the other poor habit folk have about sportspeople is to not only pump up their sporting exploits, but to also canonise them in their personal capacities.
Ali is a good example. I'm a big fan, especially his stance against the establishment, but a whoremonger and womaniser of the highest order , a great guy, but very far from perfect.
He also wouldn't have lasted two rounds against a young Tyson. Anyone who thinks he'd have avoided Iron Mike and cut him down from long range is hallucinating. He'd have been pulverised.
It's probably better left unsaid but the other poor habit folk have about sportspeople is to not only pump up their sporting exploits, but to also canonise them in their personal capacities.
Ali is a good example. I'm a big fan, especially his stance against the establishment, but a whoremonger and womaniser of the highest order , a great guy, but very far from perfect.
He also wouldn't have lasted two rounds against a young Tyson. Anyone who thinks he'd have avoided Iron Mike and cut him down from long range is hallucinating. He'd have been pulverised.
Lennox Lewis would have kept both Tyson and Ali at arms length.
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes
Well here's the question-
Are you saying he'd average 99 in modern cricket?
I'm saying he was a fantastic player for his time, but he wouldn't come close to that in the modern era.
The main debate would be whether he was similar to the modern greats averaging in the 50's or not.
Most people get uptight about this alone, with the majority saying he'd be way beyond that. You'd be lynched in Australia for suggesting he might be a 50 avg player.
It's just pure fantasy to suggest that in a professional sport that has improved beyond imagination and dotted with maestro batsmen that one guy could be twice as good.
If we can't agree on that then you definitely wont like what I have to say next-
I don't think he'd even be in the 50 bracket. He may not even have been on the radar at all. I just watch the clips and it was essentially a different game back then with a lot fewer people playing it. You just can't reliably assume that a guy from a different era where maybe 100 000 people played amateur cricket would still be at the top of the tree nearly a hundred years later when a few million people play the sport. It's impossible unless he was an alien.
I'm not trying to denigrate history or the man at all. I love everything about cricket, especially the history and the stats and I don't like the direction it's going, but there's nobody in any modern sport that's twice as good as the next best person. It's human nature to create mythical beings.
I don't think he would average 99 in modern cricket because it's impossible in the modern game. The number of matches, the number of opponents, its virtually impossible for anyone.
What I am saying though is that -given the equipment, training, nutrition, coaching, infrastructure, of the modern game- he would definitely match it with the best of this era. I know this because Bradman was not just some random down the street. He was, for his time, a professional. He was someone who trained and perfected his art in the way that was thought best for the time. He also didn't face dibby dobblers, but some seriously good bowlers.
You say you are not trying to denigrate him, yet you've gone to great lengths to find videos and articles and try and disprove how good a player he was.
I posted a clip of him trying to hit a golf ball, which if he'd practiced more he'd have been a lot better at, and a 1 min clip of him giving some batting instruction that doesn't stand up to modern scrutiny. Oh and one article. Took 2 minutes.
That's hardly great lengths, bud.
It's all a bit moot, but one thing for certain is that he didn't consistently face bowlers that are anything like "modern" bowlers. Plus if you take short bowling out of the equation that's half the game at that level, more if you show you're susceptible to it.
The only thing I can't argue about are the pitches. Without a good camera behind the wicket you can't see how they actually played. If a guy is bowling 125 kph seamers in the modern game and it's nipping around on a shit deck it's almost unplayable, so the same would hold true for 1930 and before. If someone's going to argue that he'd mastered that....
That to me shows that either the pitches were not that bad or the bowlers didn't land it consistently enough, take your pick.
There has been some analysis I read on Bradman years ago and it concluded in the modern day he would average about 65.
I actually tend to agree.
Remember in the entire cricket world he basically doubled the next guy.
Those next guys for the most part would make the bulk of internationals today. He did everything and achieved everything to perfection.
He almost certainly would have adapted as he had taht X factor and ability no one else had.
There’s alot of batsman who average 40 plus in tests.
Australia would have three or four teams worth quite easily of that.
I find it hard to believe the very best in the world by a clear margin, more than any other sport, would drop from being by far #1 to outside top 50 in Oz alone.
Remember too, cricket was probably more popular back then too.
Cricket is an Anglo and Indian sport in Australia.
Aborigines don’t care for it. Asians don’t either. Neither do Arabs. These are the bulk of new migrants. Other sports have risen too.
It’s not like a nice sport that has since blown up.
Cricinfo profile of the 'James Bond' of cricket:
FULL NAME: Angus James Mackay
BORN: 13 June 1967, Harare
KNOWN AS: Gus Mackay
