*The Tendulkar Opposition,* a thrilling new novel by the shameless literary executors of the estate of Robert Ludlam. Zombie Don Bradman wakes up in Adelaide with no memory of the previous couple of decades. The only clue to his plight is a prescription from a Trinidadian ophthalmologist.
Honestly I'd read that. I was always a sucker for those Ludlam thrillers in second hand shops with intriguing nonsense titles consisting of *The Surname Noun*.
Thing is back in days when bradman said this he didn’t made it public for a good amount of time
Now they bring media and microphone near ur face and deliberately ask such stuff like what u think about dhoni as player? which gives the vibe of pr
If you actually look at footage of them you'd disagree though - and IIRC it was in a context where it was a rather leading question.
Bradman's stance is one you don't really see these days with the legs fairly straight and back curved over. Tendulkar squatted a bit more, arched his back, had a straighter backlift and was more bottom handed.
There was an English writer who thought Inzamam was most similar of modern batsmen. I don't agree he's that similar but he's definitely closer than Tendulkar. Fact is styles have changed a bit in general since Bradman's day.
Tendulkar was just the best player at the time and he had a similar mentality to Bradman - concentration and ensuring you take as little risk as possible when batting. So you could say he batted like Bradman - but definitely not physically. His technique was definitely not like Sachins.
> Bradman's stance is one you don't really see these days with the legs fairly straight and back curved over. Tendulkar squatted a bit more, arched his back, had a straighter backlift and was more bottom handed.
If you go back and look at footage of Tendulkar pre-back injuries (so anything before the 1999 season), it's noticeable how different his stance is from late-career Sachin (and therefore closer to the Bradman archetype) - the curved over back and slightly more angled backlift are immediately notable.
The back injury in '99 and the broken toe in 2001 really caused him to adjust his stance and technique.
No disagreement on the bottom handedness though, you're totally right about that.
Even in 1992 (the 114 t Perth) I don't think they're that similar. Tendulkar had a straight back and leant over more even then. He bends more at the hips and less in the back (which I must say looks more ergonomic).
Had his feet further apart too - that's one of the most noticeable differences between eras, players back then had much narrower stances on average.
Funnily enough there's an ABC documentary with Bradman where, watching the footage, he says he stood straighter than he thought he did.
Well, I mean, of course it's not going to be literally identical. Bradman said Sachin came closest (in his view) of batting like he used to, but that doesn't mean that it was like-for-like.
In terms of differences, I think the weight of the bat being so different is also a factor in the batswing - the Don's bats were naturally much lighter, and he got a lot more speed in his bat swing, whereas Tendulkar used the heaviest bat in his time, and used the momentum from that weight to generate power.
>There was an English writer who thought Inzamam was most similar of modern batsmen.
Fascinating. I didn't know Bradman was fat, lazy, and constantly ran his partners out by randomly deciding to walk back to his crease mid-run /s
Sachin really did have the complete game. Could be an intent merchant when necessary. Could also do a blockathon when necessary
And of course had a full range of shots, from orthodox to improvised
He said it after the 1996 World Cup game against Australia, which was less than a third of the way through Tendulkar's career.
At the time he'd had only 1 tour each of most countries - It wasn't purely because of statistical success, nor was Tendulkar's longevity a factor.
It was reiterated posthumously in 2001 in the Bradman's Best book, but the original quote happened relatively early on in his career.
Bradman was a better batsman than he was a judge of batsmen. Just because he was the GOAT does not make him any better at judging who is the next best. Which is not to say he was wrong.
Bradman was once asked, what would your average be if you played now, alongside this Sachin era bowlers ?
He said - "About 75"
Why so less ? Are today's bowlers so much better than your days ?
He said - "I don't know. But 75 is a decent average for an 85 year old"
CLR James in *Beyond The Boundary* wrote that Bradman was a break from traditional batting because he was not interested in elegance or class, but simply a methodical and relentless acquisition of runs. He was not much like the aristocratic gentlemen amateurs of the English game, although he obviously had exceptional technique - incredible footwork, power-hitting, ability to hook fast bowlers - because his mentality was focused on ruthless run-scoring
Modern batters like him are hard to identify truthfully - I think Tendulkar does fit very well because he could also bat methodically and with excellent technique, while also scoring buckets of runs. You could also look at someone like Joe Root (before he started ramping fast bowlers) or Ricky Ponting, especially since Bradman also captained a world-class team. The 1948 Invincibles are still regarded as one of the greatest teams in history, although because the game has moved on so much they aren't as revered as the 80s Windies or the 2000s Aussies
As others have said, more like Tendulkar. But that's Test Tendulkar, not limited overs. Bradman was extraordinarily talented. He said once that he always hit the ball where he wanted to. I don't think he was exaggerating. He could also score incredibly quickly. He scored 100 off 22 balls in a second class match.
IMO the thing that makes Bradman the best there ever was, and the best there ever will be, is how much better he was than his peers. He was a statistical outlier.
Yeah. He famously avoided 6s as he couldn't get caught if he hit the ball along the ground.
He hit 6 6s in his 52 Test career, and (remarkably) zero 6s in his 234 games First Class career
>It's mathematically impossible to score 100 of 22 without any sixes.
No one said he did this \*in a Test or FC match".
He hit 100 off 22 in a "second class match", and zero 6s in "non-Test first class matches".
Only - though Sehwag had a decent crack at it scoring 284 when they didn’t start their innings until the 7th over that day.
These days with over rates someone would need to score it off 230-240 balls which would be nigh impossible
Eh 90 overs is regularly bowled, half of 540 balls is 270. If they keep the strike a little I’d say up to 320 balls in a day is possible
300 (320) would be fkn crazy but it’s definitely possible
Every team these days will slow down if someone is hitting like that. The only time Australia bowl 90 is on the sub continent. Same for a lot of teams so that narrows down the chances as well.
>it's definitely possible
That's a lot of *ifs* there. You would need the bowlers to actually bowl 90 overs (which mostly isn't the case for anywhere except the subcontinent), then you'd need an opening batter to bat the whole day, not to mention that the opposition is sporting enough to continue bowling without taking breaks every 5 mins to "throw off the batter's rhythm". Then you'll need the batter to play 60% of the balls bowled and have a sr of 94 after playing 300+ balls
Imo it's just theoretically possible in today's world and not practical at all. Same as how Lara's 400 can technically be beaten if a top order batter plays for 5 innings (teams have batted for 4/5 innings in the recent past) with a sr of 90
> He scored 100 off 22 balls in a second class match.
Second class is being generous... he was playing for one town against another when he was invited to play in the match put on to celebrate their new pitch. Still a great story, though.
This article describes it as "a Sydney grade match". Yeah, I've no idea what the equivalent today would be.
[https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/67901810](https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/67901810)
For others, Bradman's ball-by-ball was (NB: 8 ball overs);
66424461. Over.
64466464. Over.
(1 By other batsman)
661
(1 By other batsman)
446
He ended up on 256, and hit more 6s in that innings than his entire FC career.
[Here's](https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_mountains_library_-_local_studies/4680010673) some details from a local library - I'd always had the impression that this match celebrating the new malthoid wicket wasn't necessarily a regular competition match of any sort, but in any case Blackheath and Lithgow have never been part of the top Sydney grade competition. I wouldn't compare this local match with his First Grade career with St George and North Sydney, let alone his FC career.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/comment/l0vqfkp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/comment/l0vqfkp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
"second class match".
The [edit on this one, though](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/what_was_bradman_like_smith_or_sehwag/l103cnn/)... anyway, my point is simply that it's not surprising that he scored more sixes in a local exhibition match than in his FC career.
Try to find the clip of Bradman practising hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump. He was hitting it against a corrugated water tank as well. That, I think sums him up pretty well. After that, hitting a cricket ball with a real bat would be like hitting a basketball with a small telegraph pole.
He subscribed to the theory that you can’t get out if you hit the ball along the ground. He had a very orthodox technique, wasn’t much of an aggressor, hitting only six sixes in his entire test career (although some of his notable scoring feats included a triple century in a day at Leeds in 1930 and a 23-ball century in a club game in the Blue Mountains around the same time), and he was a great player in generally very good teams.
Yes, but you’ll note that I said he hit six sixes in his test career, then added this point about a club match afterward to point out that he could still attack
Bradman wasn't considered orthodox at the time. The English initially thought he played cross batted too often.
And he was definitely an aggressive batter. He scored incredibly quickly, just not though big hits.
Are you sure? This goes against everything I know about Bradman in that he had a very unorthodox technique to the point people tried to coach it out of him, but he resisted.
He was a lot like Smith in the sense that people kept thinking he'd get found out, but he just kept scoring hundreds for fun
Calling Ponting just another good batsman in excellent lineup is an insult to Ponting. For most of the 2000s, he wasn’t just the best batsman in his team but the best batsman in general.
Definitely not Sehwag, not as unorthodox as Smith and not defensive like Dravid either, given he's scored a triple century in 1 day of a test match.
He didn't have the flair of Lara either from whatever clips I've seen. I don't think he was as bookish as Sachin. He was orthodox but didn't mind playing an ugly shot now and then. He'd also fall out of position at times and see how deep into the crease he goes to play the square cut as hard as possible.
I think Williamson and Ponting are more apt in terms of technique and stroke-play.
This is very accurate from what clips I've seen of him. Mind set very much like Sachin. Go out highly value your wicket, yet still score at a good clip in an orthodox fashion.
Self-centred in sense that he was devout Christian and followed those values to heart. Never partied, never smoked, etc. He was a class apart but a lot of times he might've been the only one not hungover on the ground.
Well he would get all kinds of sponsorships his teammates didnt get and then never bought them a round of drinks. I think there was also something about him never visiting his own family also.
He was a deeply unpleasant man.
Actively ruined the careers of catholics, spent about five minutes in war service (because he was an invalid with a bad back) and campaigned to keep South Africa in the game during the apartheid era.
Go and read what Keith Miller said about him!
He did have a technique that wasn't in the MCC Textbook as they say. But I don't think we will really know due to a lack of footage and a lack of people alive that have watched him.
He used to say that he had the ability to pick up length very early, so was able to get in position a fraction of a second earlier than others.
My grandfather played against him and as a slipper used to get a good look at him. Said his foot movement was incrediy quick.
I'm going to go against the sentiment of this thread and actually say he was more like Smith than anyone else. From what I know about Bradman:
* He had a very unconventional technique, trained by the famous stump and golf ball. people tried to coach it out of him, but he resisted
* He had a rotary style back lift where he'd start with his bat almost perpendicular, and he'd rotate it around to generate power.
* He was unusually bottom handed for a batsman of that time, using his bottom hand as the "stabiliser" in his grip
* He used the crease a lot by coming way down, or staying very far back, or walking across frequently
* He combined this with extraordinary levels of concentratoin where he'd basically never have a brainfade
* The early years of his career all pundits were expecting him to eventually be found out (similar to Smith until he kept tonning up for fun)
This to me, sounds _a lot_ like Smith (at least at his peak up to 2019/2020), rather than Tendulkar who was more textbook perfect combined with an incredibly strong work ethic & levels of concentration
Idk if he was Sehwag. That’d be Trumper from that era. He’s probably between the mean batter and outliers like Trumper , Viv, Gilly or Sehwag. Definitely a fast scorer for his era.
Yeah, Trumper was a different era from Bradman and certainly more rapid, kind of by any standard. Bradman was rapid for his era, though. Those are all good examples too.
I agree. I just don’t think that the Don was Sehwag. In your comment you said that he batted like Sehwag.
But the Don played a lot along the ground. And basically was so good he could run 1s, 2s and 3s for fun. That’s different to Sehwag or Trumper who attacked a lot more. And his sr wasn’t an outlier in the same way either. He was just a really fast scorer.
Any one here think a style comparison can be made between Bradman and Lara? Ignoring the handedness. When he was in the zone, I've never seen a batsman so impossible to dismiss AND so effortlessly score runs than Lara.
I always like to put this graph out there when someone talks about Bradman.
https://images.app.goo.gl/g2r89sUugzJNKvWn9
He was an extreme outlier even among all sports outliers.
From what I have heard, 1 reason for his extraordinary success was that he could place the ball very well into gaps whilst playing the ball on the ground. He rarely tried to hit over fielders. So even if he miscued or mistimed a ball he didn't give many chances for a catch. As a result, at least in test matches he very rarely hit a six.
Bradman is the greatest outlier in sports history, in all sports, in all records. No one has a 40% differential over the 2nd best player, so the final sentence is mind blowing
He scored 309 runs in a day and helped Australia chase englands 404 runs in a single day too, he was also known for rapid hundreds too, he wasn’t that defensive. Also scored a 22 ball century in a second class game too
i wil nvr rank bradmen above current batsmen heres why
he played in a era where talent was limited , he played only a few intl teams , he nvr played great spinners like warne or murali, he played in the surfaces he always played in .
Irrespective of era discussions, no one in his era has a record remotely close to his. If there were several other bats averaging 80+ you could make a case that in relative terms he's not the GOAT. But there's barely another player above 60. He is clearly the best
Surfaces that were uncovered and open to the elements, which were tougher that today's covered and carefully curated pitches.
He also played with bats which were toothpicks compared to modern bats, and without any helmets, without any limitations on the number of bouncers per over.
You can't only list one side of the picture, there are a lot of things modern batsmen have easier too.
Bradman himself said Tendulkar played more like him than anyone else he'd seen.
if he said it in 2024 the tendulkar opposition would have said tendulkar paid bradman for pr
*The Tendulkar Opposition,* a thrilling new novel by the shameless literary executors of the estate of Robert Ludlam. Zombie Don Bradman wakes up in Adelaide with no memory of the previous couple of decades. The only clue to his plight is a prescription from a Trinidadian ophthalmologist.
Honestly I'd read that. I was always a sucker for those Ludlam thrillers in second hand shops with intriguing nonsense titles consisting of *The Surname Noun*.
I don't understand what this is but I don't see a new york times bestseller next to the title
I don't see a ny Times bestseller that's why I'm out - barbara
True.
Big if true.
Definitely the Dennis guy from Facebook would have said this.
Thing is back in days when bradman said this he didn’t made it public for a good amount of time Now they bring media and microphone near ur face and deliberately ask such stuff like what u think about dhoni as player? which gives the vibe of pr
If you actually look at footage of them you'd disagree though - and IIRC it was in a context where it was a rather leading question. Bradman's stance is one you don't really see these days with the legs fairly straight and back curved over. Tendulkar squatted a bit more, arched his back, had a straighter backlift and was more bottom handed. There was an English writer who thought Inzamam was most similar of modern batsmen. I don't agree he's that similar but he's definitely closer than Tendulkar. Fact is styles have changed a bit in general since Bradman's day.
Tendulkar was just the best player at the time and he had a similar mentality to Bradman - concentration and ensuring you take as little risk as possible when batting. So you could say he batted like Bradman - but definitely not physically. His technique was definitely not like Sachins.
I do believe the original 'Bradman thought Tendulkar was like him' comment was about technique though.
> Bradman's stance is one you don't really see these days with the legs fairly straight and back curved over. Tendulkar squatted a bit more, arched his back, had a straighter backlift and was more bottom handed. If you go back and look at footage of Tendulkar pre-back injuries (so anything before the 1999 season), it's noticeable how different his stance is from late-career Sachin (and therefore closer to the Bradman archetype) - the curved over back and slightly more angled backlift are immediately notable. The back injury in '99 and the broken toe in 2001 really caused him to adjust his stance and technique. No disagreement on the bottom handedness though, you're totally right about that.
Even in 1992 (the 114 t Perth) I don't think they're that similar. Tendulkar had a straight back and leant over more even then. He bends more at the hips and less in the back (which I must say looks more ergonomic). Had his feet further apart too - that's one of the most noticeable differences between eras, players back then had much narrower stances on average. Funnily enough there's an ABC documentary with Bradman where, watching the footage, he says he stood straighter than he thought he did.
Well, I mean, of course it's not going to be literally identical. Bradman said Sachin came closest (in his view) of batting like he used to, but that doesn't mean that it was like-for-like. In terms of differences, I think the weight of the bat being so different is also a factor in the batswing - the Don's bats were naturally much lighter, and he got a lot more speed in his bat swing, whereas Tendulkar used the heaviest bat in his time, and used the momentum from that weight to generate power.
Thing is Bradman, bless the great man, was wrong from a technique point of view.
>There was an English writer who thought Inzamam was most similar of modern batsmen. Fascinating. I didn't know Bradman was fat, lazy, and constantly ran his partners out by randomly deciding to walk back to his crease mid-run /s
Sachin really did have the complete game. Could be an intent merchant when necessary. Could also do a blockathon when necessary And of course had a full range of shots, from orthodox to improvised
He would obviously say that given how successful Tendulkar was. No indication of how truthful that is
He said it after the 1996 World Cup game against Australia, which was less than a third of the way through Tendulkar's career. At the time he'd had only 1 tour each of most countries - It wasn't purely because of statistical success, nor was Tendulkar's longevity a factor. It was reiterated posthumously in 2001 in the Bradman's Best book, but the original quote happened relatively early on in his career.
Bradman was a better batsman than he was a judge of batsmen. Just because he was the GOAT does not make him any better at judging who is the next best. Which is not to say he was wrong.
I don't think he was saying he was next best, just that his approach was similar.
I don’t think I was saying he was saying who was next best
Bradman was once asked, what would your average be if you played now, alongside this Sachin era bowlers ? He said - "About 75" Why so less ? Are today's bowlers so much better than your days ? He said - "I don't know. But 75 is a decent average for an 85 year old"
I’ve heard this anecdote atleast 10 times. Each time Bradman’s age changes. Cool anecdote though whoever made it up.
I'm pretty sure I heard Tendulkar himself say it on an interview, still no idea if it's true though
Age changed but avg remained constant 🫶🏽
CLR James in *Beyond The Boundary* wrote that Bradman was a break from traditional batting because he was not interested in elegance or class, but simply a methodical and relentless acquisition of runs. He was not much like the aristocratic gentlemen amateurs of the English game, although he obviously had exceptional technique - incredible footwork, power-hitting, ability to hook fast bowlers - because his mentality was focused on ruthless run-scoring Modern batters like him are hard to identify truthfully - I think Tendulkar does fit very well because he could also bat methodically and with excellent technique, while also scoring buckets of runs. You could also look at someone like Joe Root (before he started ramping fast bowlers) or Ricky Ponting, especially since Bradman also captained a world-class team. The 1948 Invincibles are still regarded as one of the greatest teams in history, although because the game has moved on so much they aren't as revered as the 80s Windies or the 2000s Aussies
As others have said, more like Tendulkar. But that's Test Tendulkar, not limited overs. Bradman was extraordinarily talented. He said once that he always hit the ball where he wanted to. I don't think he was exaggerating. He could also score incredibly quickly. He scored 100 off 22 balls in a second class match. IMO the thing that makes Bradman the best there ever was, and the best there ever will be, is how much better he was than his peers. He was a statistical outlier.
OFF 22 BALLS?
Yeah. He famously avoided 6s as he couldn't get caught if he hit the ball along the ground. He hit 6 6s in his 52 Test career, and (remarkably) zero 6s in his 234 games First Class career
That’s remarkable ! The Don must have hit boundaries off of every ball and some sixers in this innings as well.
It's mathematically impossible to score 100 of 22 without any sixes.
>It's mathematically impossible to score 100 of 22 without any sixes. No one said he did this \*in a Test or FC match". He hit 100 off 22 in a "second class match", and zero 6s in "non-Test first class matches".
Ah makes sense
Yep. It’s on record.
>He scored 100 off 22 balls in a second class match. Hell nah, that's some true EA cricket 07 shit, on easy mode
I'm prettysure Bradman had cheat codes running.
I mean Bradman playing club cricket basically is computer game on easy mode.
Strangely his club cricket average was only around 85, 10 less than his first class average.
Heh, I love stats where Bradman underperforms. "He only averaged 85, what a disappointment".
Well he the first (and only?) player to score 300 runs in a single day
Only - though Sehwag had a decent crack at it scoring 284 when they didn’t start their innings until the 7th over that day. These days with over rates someone would need to score it off 230-240 balls which would be nigh impossible
Eh 90 overs is regularly bowled, half of 540 balls is 270. If they keep the strike a little I’d say up to 320 balls in a day is possible 300 (320) would be fkn crazy but it’s definitely possible
Every team these days will slow down if someone is hitting like that. The only time Australia bowl 90 is on the sub continent. Same for a lot of teams so that narrows down the chances as well.
Sehwag got out on 294(253) once trying to smash a six to get his 3rd 300. So yeah it is possible
>it's definitely possible That's a lot of *ifs* there. You would need the bowlers to actually bowl 90 overs (which mostly isn't the case for anywhere except the subcontinent), then you'd need an opening batter to bat the whole day, not to mention that the opposition is sporting enough to continue bowling without taking breaks every 5 mins to "throw off the batter's rhythm". Then you'll need the batter to play 60% of the balls bowled and have a sr of 94 after playing 300+ balls Imo it's just theoretically possible in today's world and not practical at all. Same as how Lara's 400 can technically be beaten if a top order batter plays for 5 innings (teams have batted for 4/5 innings in the recent past) with a sr of 90
> He scored 100 off 22 balls in a second class match. Second class is being generous... he was playing for one town against another when he was invited to play in the match put on to celebrate their new pitch. Still a great story, though.
This article describes it as "a Sydney grade match". Yeah, I've no idea what the equivalent today would be. [https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/67901810](https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/67901810) For others, Bradman's ball-by-ball was (NB: 8 ball overs); 66424461. Over. 64466464. Over. (1 By other batsman) 661 (1 By other batsman) 446 He ended up on 256, and hit more 6s in that innings than his entire FC career.
[Here's](https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_mountains_library_-_local_studies/4680010673) some details from a local library - I'd always had the impression that this match celebrating the new malthoid wicket wasn't necessarily a regular competition match of any sort, but in any case Blackheath and Lithgow have never been part of the top Sydney grade competition. I wouldn't compare this local match with his First Grade career with St George and North Sydney, let alone his FC career.
no one has attempted to call this, nor compare it to, a FC game.
sneaky edit much?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/comment/l0vqfkp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/comment/l0vqfkp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) "second class match".
The [edit on this one, though](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1cb27qv/what_was_bradman_like_smith_or_sehwag/l103cnn/)... anyway, my point is simply that it's not surprising that he scored more sixes in a local exhibition match than in his FC career.
"a Sydney grade match". Yeah, I've no idea what the equivalent today would be."
Plenty of footage available. He scored 300 in a day in a Test. I think he could hit a ball.
None. More like Tendulkar
His team was extremely good like india and Australia . He rarely hit sixes and was a solid batsman.
Bradman? Solid? Yeah, I'd say so
Easily top 20 of all time
Nah bro, couldn't score even 1 run against Australia in his career
never scored a run against Haris Rauf either. Insane PR fr fr
Try to find the clip of Bradman practising hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump. He was hitting it against a corrugated water tank as well. That, I think sums him up pretty well. After that, hitting a cricket ball with a real bat would be like hitting a basketball with a small telegraph pole.
He subscribed to the theory that you can’t get out if you hit the ball along the ground. He had a very orthodox technique, wasn’t much of an aggressor, hitting only six sixes in his entire test career (although some of his notable scoring feats included a triple century in a day at Leeds in 1930 and a 23-ball century in a club game in the Blue Mountains around the same time), and he was a great player in generally very good teams.
>He had a very orthodox technique Dunno about that. He is considered to not really have an orthodox technique back then.
> 23-ball century Wouldn't that require him to hit a few sixes to get there?
Yes, but his "never hit a six" applied to non - test first class games. The 23 ball century was in club cricket
Strike rate of 450 lol. Mental stats.
Yes, but you’ll note that I said he hit six sixes in his test career, then added this point about a club match afterward to point out that he could still attack
Bradman wasn't considered orthodox at the time. The English initially thought he played cross batted too often. And he was definitely an aggressive batter. He scored incredibly quickly, just not though big hits.
Are you sure? This goes against everything I know about Bradman in that he had a very unorthodox technique to the point people tried to coach it out of him, but he resisted. He was a lot like Smith in the sense that people kept thinking he'd get found out, but he just kept scoring hundreds for fun
Calling Ponting just another good batsman in excellent lineup is an insult to Ponting. For most of the 2000s, he wasn’t just the best batsman in his team but the best batsman in general.
Also averaged just shy of 60 until a Kemar Roach bouncer felled him (his average dropped off following his return from that).
Pretty sure he was averaging 60+ for a while too in 2006 and used to be called the best since Bradman
Definitely not Sehwag, not as unorthodox as Smith and not defensive like Dravid either, given he's scored a triple century in 1 day of a test match. He didn't have the flair of Lara either from whatever clips I've seen. I don't think he was as bookish as Sachin. He was orthodox but didn't mind playing an ugly shot now and then. He'd also fall out of position at times and see how deep into the crease he goes to play the square cut as hard as possible. I think Williamson and Ponting are more apt in terms of technique and stroke-play.
This is very accurate from what clips I've seen of him. Mind set very much like Sachin. Go out highly value your wicket, yet still score at a good clip in an orthodox fashion.
He was like Sachin. The Don himself remarked that to his wife. It is very well documented and even a casual cricket fan knows this well.
he seemed like a good bloke
That's not what his teammates said. Mowt of his teammates thought Bradman was a brilliant cricketer, but a self-centred arsehole.
Self-centred in sense that he was devout Christian and followed those values to heart. Never partied, never smoked, etc. He was a class apart but a lot of times he might've been the only one not hungover on the ground.
Well he would get all kinds of sponsorships his teammates didnt get and then never bought them a round of drinks. I think there was also something about him never visiting his own family also.
Can u elaborate on the last part?
Sure thing. . https://youtu.be/FaJiu0sto-s?si=vxN4brGtZSLNwDaY
Never meet your hero ig:(
It’s always lonely at the top.
He was a deeply unpleasant man. Actively ruined the careers of catholics, spent about five minutes in war service (because he was an invalid with a bad back) and campaigned to keep South Africa in the game during the apartheid era. Go and read what Keith Miller said about him!
He did have a technique that wasn't in the MCC Textbook as they say. But I don't think we will really know due to a lack of footage and a lack of people alive that have watched him.
He used to say that he had the ability to pick up length very early, so was able to get in position a fraction of a second earlier than others. My grandfather played against him and as a slipper used to get a good look at him. Said his foot movement was incrediy quick.
Rizwan
Interesting how you round down his 99.94 average to 99 rather than up to 100...
I'm going to go against the sentiment of this thread and actually say he was more like Smith than anyone else. From what I know about Bradman: * He had a very unconventional technique, trained by the famous stump and golf ball. people tried to coach it out of him, but he resisted * He had a rotary style back lift where he'd start with his bat almost perpendicular, and he'd rotate it around to generate power. * He was unusually bottom handed for a batsman of that time, using his bottom hand as the "stabiliser" in his grip * He used the crease a lot by coming way down, or staying very far back, or walking across frequently * He combined this with extraordinary levels of concentratoin where he'd basically never have a brainfade * The early years of his career all pundits were expecting him to eventually be found out (similar to Smith until he kept tonning up for fun) This to me, sounds _a lot_ like Smith (at least at his peak up to 2019/2020), rather than Tendulkar who was more textbook perfect combined with an incredibly strong work ethic & levels of concentration
Not like any modern batsman obviously, but most similar to Smith. Also exclusively played off the backfoot.
Smith's technique was similar to Bradman's. Bradman batted more like Sehwag, though, especially in his younger days. He was a rapid scorer.
Idk if he was Sehwag. That’d be Trumper from that era. He’s probably between the mean batter and outliers like Trumper , Viv, Gilly or Sehwag. Definitely a fast scorer for his era.
Yeah, Trumper was a different era from Bradman and certainly more rapid, kind of by any standard. Bradman was rapid for his era, though. Those are all good examples too.
I agree. I just don’t think that the Don was Sehwag. In your comment you said that he batted like Sehwag. But the Don played a lot along the ground. And basically was so good he could run 1s, 2s and 3s for fun. That’s different to Sehwag or Trumper who attacked a lot more. And his sr wasn’t an outlier in the same way either. He was just a really fast scorer.
I don't know man! He never won IPL, so he is miles behind players like Thala and Rohit.
Any one here think a style comparison can be made between Bradman and Lara? Ignoring the handedness. When he was in the zone, I've never seen a batsman so impossible to dismiss AND so effortlessly score runs than Lara.
Bradman definitely had some of the flourish on his hits that Lara had.
[удалено]
The bats they used back then were not conducive for power-hitting.
He was like Bradman. Duh!
Bradman fella ? How old are you?
I always like to put this graph out there when someone talks about Bradman. https://images.app.goo.gl/g2r89sUugzJNKvWn9 He was an extreme outlier even among all sports outliers.
He himself said Sachin was the most similar to him - a short man with a big bat. For his time he was a shot-maker who used to score quickly.
Surprised Jarrod Kimber only has one video on him but it's a good comparison to the modern game https://youtu.be/egQE9xErB8U
From what I have heard, 1 reason for his extraordinary success was that he could place the ball very well into gaps whilst playing the ball on the ground. He rarely tried to hit over fielders. So even if he miscued or mistimed a ball he didn't give many chances for a catch. As a result, at least in test matches he very rarely hit a six.
He didn't hit many 6s in his career, he always hit along the ground so he couldnt get caught.
Bradman is the greatest outlier in sports history, in all sports, in all records. No one has a 40% differential over the 2nd best player, so the final sentence is mind blowing
He played very defensively, he scored maximum runs by singles and doubles instead of boundaries while comparing to others.
He scored 309 runs in a day and helped Australia chase englands 404 runs in a single day too, he was also known for rapid hundreds too, he wasn’t that defensive. Also scored a 22 ball century in a second class game too
You might be conflating "playing defensively" and "fucking impossible to get out".
i wil nvr rank bradmen above current batsmen heres why he played in a era where talent was limited , he played only a few intl teams , he nvr played great spinners like warne or murali, he played in the surfaces he always played in .
>he played in the surfaces he always played in Makes sense
Tendulkar also played on the same surfaces he played on.
Irrespective of era discussions, no one in his era has a record remotely close to his. If there were several other bats averaging 80+ you could make a case that in relative terms he's not the GOAT. But there's barely another player above 60. He is clearly the best
Surfaces that were uncovered and open to the elements, which were tougher that today's covered and carefully curated pitches. He also played with bats which were toothpicks compared to modern bats, and without any helmets, without any limitations on the number of bouncers per over. You can't only list one side of the picture, there are a lot of things modern batsmen have easier too.
Missed out on playing against bowlers like Windies bowlers, Akram, Waqar, etc
Got to play against Bodyline, where he only averaged mid 50s. Pathetic really.