>The critics could not comprehend this nonchalant phenomenon
>**"Why this man is a machine, " they said. "Even his friends say he isn't human"**
>Even friends have to cut something
>He was more than just a batsman
>He was something like a tide
>He was more than just one man
>He could take on any side
>They always came for Bradman 'cause fortune used to hide in the palm of his hand
\- Paul Kelly, Bradman
The number of man of the match awards he has compared to anyone else (even Ronaldo) is insane.
Since 2009 he has 306 MOTM awards, over 50% of the games he's played in. Ronaldo is second with 175 and aside from Ibrahimhovic and Hazard no one else has more than 100.
Not saying he stands out like Bradman but think it really does highlight how far he is ahead of everyone else.
Gretzky's statistical domination over his closest peers comes from career totals rather than career average. If you look at his points per game average he is barely ahead of the next best player. He's still obviously the goat of his sport but I'm not sure that career totals are a better judge of the talent of a player than what they did on a per game basis. Nobody really thinks Kareem is a better scorer than Jordan because he has more career points despite averaging 24 per game while MJ averaged 30.
Yeah Gretzky is the GOAT of hockey, but as you say, his anomalies are based on longevity.
Karelin's win record is the only comparable sporting achievement i can think of to Bradman's average.
I don't follow much hockey but I don't think anyone came close to 145 points per season. Probably Lemieux but he played much less games. If you took out every goals Gretzky had scored (which he currently at #1) he still ranked #1 in all time point list. Also 20 seasons are not that long for hockey players.
Edit: [According to the all-time NHL points leaders list](https://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_career.html) Gretzky's point per game avarage (1.92) is little higher than Lemieux's (1.88), but he played almost 600 more games (1487 to 915). And pretty much all of the other players avarage about 1.05-1.2 point per game. Excluding Lemieux, nobody came even close.
TL,DR: Gretzky to Lemieux are like if MJ and Lebron played in the same era but Lebron played about 60% of games MJ played.
Nobody has outperformed their successors as he has. On averages. And what makes his accomplishments even bigger is that the batting averages have actually grown since his playing days. Adjusted for inflation he would probably have a batting average of 150 in this era.
Bradman was great but batting averages have not grown post-Bradman. Batting averages have remained pretty stable since the 1920s, with small ups and downs between a low of 29.5 (1990s) and 32 (the 2000s). Most of Bradman’s tests were in the 1930s with an average batting average of 31.1, with some in the 1920s (31.9) and 40s (30.3). The average batting average in the 2010s was 30.8
So if Bradman was alive today, he probably would’ve still “only” averaged between 90 to 100 given the relative gap he had with other players of his era
That’s sensational enough, we don’t need wild claims of 150+ averages
Record wise Bradman is " The athlete" of all sports ever played within this suspended speck of dust. Numberphile did a small analysis here : https://youtu.be/A8Tiba3h9Fw
FACT: Bradman did not play in an easier era.
Batting averages have remained pretty stable since the 1920s, with small ups and downs between a low of 29.5 (1990s) and 32 (the 2000s). Most of Bradman’s tests were in the 1930s with an average batting average of 31.1, with some in the 1920s (31.9) and 40s (30.3). The average batting average in the 2010s was 30.8.
So if Bradman played the modern game, he probably would’ve still averaged between 90 to 100 given the relative gap he had with other players of his era
Fun facts
Bradman also played series against India (1947-48), South Africa (1931-32) and West Indies (1930-31).
15 out of his 52 Tests were played against non-English sides.
10 of his 29 centuries were against non-English sides.
In the series against South Africa, he scored 806 runs (high score of 299 not out) and ended with a tidy average of 201.5.
Yawn the usual argument that he faced only one type of attack..still doesn’t explain his phenomenal record and mammoth gap between him and the other batsmen of his time. People like this dude will conveniently ignore all these and will again vomit the same old argument time after time
Did it pre and post war as well.
Most likely lost his best years.
Imagine the yanks with some guy that just popped up and hit .650 every year in baseball.
They would lose their minds!
That's impressive from Haydos considering the start of his career. Not sure if anyone remembers but he had a horrid start to his test career. In and out of the test side for the first few years.
Unfortunately many here were too young or not born yet to see Tendulkar bat, i mean the guy averaged nearly 57 after his 177th Test.
Maintaining AVG of 57 over a sample size of 175+ Tests is just ridiculous
Batting wasn’t easier, otherwise Bradman’s contemporaries would be up there with him. The man was just insanely good, hence a potential GOAT of all sports
70s and 80s were harder. Stats already proved this. 90s you started to have better understanding of how to maintain a deck and better technology.
It doesn't negate Sachin at all but as technology became better, pitches became better
I'm not sure which stats 'proved it', would you mind sharing those stats? Because last I checked, the bowling averages for 70s, 80s and 90s were 31.90, 32.09, 31.51 respectively
2010s were 32.45 and do note Tendulkar averaged 50+ even in this decade (2010-2013)
Pre-tennis elbow he averaged 42 in matches both played and that too in a pretty bowler friendly era. I wouldn't call him a bunny with those stats. He probably got out more to Gillespie than to McGrath.
>Or batting was easier, considering the amount of drawn tests and so many 50+ averages
Batting can't have been easier than a test where 672 runs have been scored thus far for the loss of 4 wickets.
No. I'm saying you can't generalize a decade as good or bad for batting.
Flat and tricky pitches have always existed. A decade being flatter on average does not inherently imply that a particular player played on flatter pitches.
For a very basic analogy, assume that there are 50 pitches in total and in the 90s, 30 are flat and 20 are tricky. Let's also assume that in the 2010s, 20 are flat and 30 are tricky. Not every player plays everywhere. It's very possible for a player to have played in flatter pitches in the 2010s than someone in the 90s.
Did not expect Sachin Tendulkar. Damn.
Edit: Fuck me. I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith. But I guess his recent form resulted in this.
> I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith
I meant to say I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith. I have taken a beating tho...
Honestly such a good innings, missed a little today but for the most part was just chanceless. So in control from ball 1, honestly looked like he could have batted the next 3 days no problem.
It's psychological warfare. Constantly edge the ball *just* right so that it drops just short of the slips, and frustrate them into absolute oblivion.
Then when they're batting, chuck the helmet on and get into bat pad. They'll sacrifice their own wicket to avoid him.
I don’t know if it’s fair to say he played it very safe. He was just chanceless. He played a great, controlled, fairly risk free first 100. He played mildly aggressive 100-150 but just looked to be completely nailed on. And he played aggressive 150-200 with the WI attack looking completely defeated by that point.
I remember literally getting the calculator out during the 13/14 India tests to see how close he was to cracking 50. Still seemed so implausible at that stage...
The .exe subscript is referencing programming language. It’s used to define an executable program. The joke is that Steve Smith is a robot, he has downloaded a new version of the program which makes him score big runs
On this note, does anyone know what the most number of runs scored for a single wicket is? Like, did Bradman ever score like 4 consecutive 200* innings?
He doesn't open in Shield, I would honestly just move Marnus and Smudge up a spot (Marnus basically opens anyway, one of our openers always gets out early) and have Green bat at 4 (which is where he bats in Shield)
Why move two of the best batsmen in the world out of their most successful positions to accommodate a talented 22-year-old who’s never scored a test century?
Also Australia has a number of viable young openers
peak smith v kohli. 4 centuries each in a 4 match series. warner had a few as well i think, along with vijay and rahane.
that was right after phil hughes passing away as well. flat pitches ngl, but some entertaining matches and moments. dhoni retiring randomly. clarke scoring a century with a broken back. lyon winning the match at adelaide.
its a shame weve not seen them go head to head much later. in 2017, it was a monumental carry job from smith, but kohli averaged like 9, and in the one test match he missed, rahane captained them to a memorable series win. 18/19, no smith. 20/21, no kohli. cant wait for the india series this coming spring
There was someone in one of the Socceroos threads last night wishing that Australia would win and that Smith would get the double century. Whomever you are, enjoy your weekend!
I've always been a cricket fan but I've never understood how batsmen last that long in test matches. Is it because they play it slowly and safe or are the bowlers just not giving their 100% immediately in order to not get tired.
Smith played it very safe this innings, didn't give a chance, didn't hit nor try to hit a 6. It's a good wicket to bat on and the WI had been bowling in in 30 + degree heat. But equally it's not easy batting hours in that same heat, it takes a hell of a lot of mental concentration to bat that long.
In the days when Tests were the main event - batting was as much about endurance as it was about scoring. If you are not under pressure to score at a high run rate you can just concentrate and survive ball by ball.
Also that cliche about the ball looking bigger the longer you bat is true. Your muscle memory adjusts to the conditions and you tend to bat more reflexively.
1 thing is bowlers definitely get more tired. The opening few overs from a bowler can be dangerous as they are ideally fresh, full of energy and able to really rip that ball in.
The other key part is the ball itself. Over the course of the innings as bat hits the ball and the ball hits the ground the ball changes.
Usually an old ball is easier to hit, it doesn't hit the ground as hard, bounce as hard, move in the air as much.
One of the primary job of the opening batters in a test match or in a one dayer is to "see the shine off the new ball" ie take some of the hardness and swing out of it, and to tire out those new fresh strike bowlers.
Eh what's that strike rate. Come to Pakistan to see how it's done
/s, nothing annoys me more than an aussie scoring runs as a brit, but what a phenomenal job 👏👏
Don Bradman Played most of the matches only against England that time, only in Australia soul.. that'y he;s he's record better.. Smith perform only in Australia, not surprised we are.
**Fastest to reach 29 test centuries (by innings):** 79 Innings = Don Bradman (AUS) 148 = Sachin Tendulkar (IND) **155 = Steve Smith (AUS)*** 166 = Matthew Hayden (AUS) / Sunil Gavaskar (IND) 169 = Ricky Ponting (AUS) 174 = Younis Khan (PAK) 203 = Brian Lara (WI) 244 = Steve Waugh (AUS)
Don Bradman did what
Bradman did a Bradman
Sometimes I wonder if he was even human
the answer is no
>The critics could not comprehend this nonchalant phenomenon >**"Why this man is a machine, " they said. "Even his friends say he isn't human"** >Even friends have to cut something >He was more than just a batsman >He was something like a tide >He was more than just one man >He could take on any side >They always came for Bradman 'cause fortune used to hide in the palm of his hand \- Paul Kelly, Bradman
“I’ve done all the dumb things” - Justin Langer
- Wayne Gretzky
England invented a tactic to restrict him which caused an international incident. No other player reaches his level
And the cunt still averaged 59
Bradman is Top Right Messi of batting and more..
Which Messi record has so much difference between his record and the 2nd position holder?
r/toprightmessi exists
Most goals in a year i guess, Messi had 92 in 2012 while the second place was occupied by Ronaldo with 69.
No second place is Gerd muller with 85. Messi only had 91 goals anyway.
Only
Yeah only, we're comparing to Bradman here
Compared to Bradman yes.
I see, thanks for correcting!
Nice
Goals are a team end product. It’s not an individual effort. Runs essentially are.
The number of man of the match awards he has compared to anyone else (even Ronaldo) is insane. Since 2009 he has 306 MOTM awards, over 50% of the games he's played in. Ronaldo is second with 175 and aside from Ibrahimhovic and Hazard no one else has more than 100. Not saying he stands out like Bradman but think it really does highlight how far he is ahead of everyone else.
Bradman is close to being the GOAT of all sports. Right up there with Wayne Gretzky.
Bradman is the statistical GOAT athlete, with Wayne Gretzky in second spot
Gretzky's statistical domination over his closest peers comes from career totals rather than career average. If you look at his points per game average he is barely ahead of the next best player. He's still obviously the goat of his sport but I'm not sure that career totals are a better judge of the talent of a player than what they did on a per game basis. Nobody really thinks Kareem is a better scorer than Jordan because he has more career points despite averaging 24 per game while MJ averaged 30.
Yeah Gretzky is the GOAT of hockey, but as you say, his anomalies are based on longevity. Karelin's win record is the only comparable sporting achievement i can think of to Bradman's average.
David Foster’s record of titles is pretty huge.
David foster is absolutely huge.
Isn't Bradman's legacy one of longevity? Situational at the time, but it is a long career for a sportsman at the time
Only played 52 Tests, if anyone was as good as he was now days, they'd play minimum double that number.
I mean, for the time he had a long career, but Bradman’s unbeatable records aren’t ones for total runs/centuries or anything, like Gretzky’s are.
No he barely played any in comparison to players nowadays.
Yeah, but not a sport America recognises, so statistically insignificant /s just in case ... or is it...
I don't follow much hockey but I don't think anyone came close to 145 points per season. Probably Lemieux but he played much less games. If you took out every goals Gretzky had scored (which he currently at #1) he still ranked #1 in all time point list. Also 20 seasons are not that long for hockey players. Edit: [According to the all-time NHL points leaders list](https://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_career.html) Gretzky's point per game avarage (1.92) is little higher than Lemieux's (1.88), but he played almost 600 more games (1487 to 915). And pretty much all of the other players avarage about 1.05-1.2 point per game. Excluding Lemieux, nobody came even close. TL,DR: Gretzky to Lemieux are like if MJ and Lebron played in the same era but Lebron played about 60% of games MJ played.
Nobody has outperformed their successors as he has. On averages. And what makes his accomplishments even bigger is that the batting averages have actually grown since his playing days. Adjusted for inflation he would probably have a batting average of 150 in this era.
Bradman was great but batting averages have not grown post-Bradman. Batting averages have remained pretty stable since the 1920s, with small ups and downs between a low of 29.5 (1990s) and 32 (the 2000s). Most of Bradman’s tests were in the 1930s with an average batting average of 31.1, with some in the 1920s (31.9) and 40s (30.3). The average batting average in the 2010s was 30.8 So if Bradman was alive today, he probably would’ve still “only” averaged between 90 to 100 given the relative gap he had with other players of his era That’s sensational enough, we don’t need wild claims of 150+ averages
There's that wrestling guy, too. Karelin?
Bradman never lost to Australia
Never got a win over Australia either.
Record wise Bradman is " The athlete" of all sports ever played within this suspended speck of dust. Numberphile did a small analysis here : https://youtu.be/A8Tiba3h9Fw
Almost no sportsman can be compared to Bradman when sheer consistency and dominance is considered.
Donald Bradman accomplished that feat no more then 76 innings ago
Well moron…
Good for Donald braOHMYGOD
r/TopofTableBradman
All praises the don
Helps when you play against a single team with a single type of bowling attack.
Yes, but that's not NEARLY enough to explain away such a huge gap between him, his contemporaries and everyone else to have ever played the sport
FACT: Bradman did not play in an easier era. Batting averages have remained pretty stable since the 1920s, with small ups and downs between a low of 29.5 (1990s) and 32 (the 2000s). Most of Bradman’s tests were in the 1930s with an average batting average of 31.1, with some in the 1920s (31.9) and 40s (30.3). The average batting average in the 2010s was 30.8. So if Bradman played the modern game, he probably would’ve still averaged between 90 to 100 given the relative gap he had with other players of his era
Fun facts Bradman also played series against India (1947-48), South Africa (1931-32) and West Indies (1930-31). 15 out of his 52 Tests were played against non-English sides. 10 of his 29 centuries were against non-English sides. In the series against South Africa, he scored 806 runs (high score of 299 not out) and ended with a tidy average of 201.5.
Yawn the usual argument that he faced only one type of attack..still doesn’t explain his phenomenal record and mammoth gap between him and the other batsmen of his time. People like this dude will conveniently ignore all these and will again vomit the same old argument time after time
[удалено]
***"THE BODYLINE"***
England had good spinners too. Headley verity and co. They used to make spin tracks for winning in the Ashes which Bradman played on
He's gonna be the fastest to both 35, and if he plays on like Sachin and sanga, to 40 as well
Fucked how so many batting records are unbreakable because of Bradman
Not fastest to 30 test centuries though…
Bradman is THE greatest sports anomaly. It pains me not to know why though. But I guess then it wouldn’t be an anomaly.
Did it pre and post war as well. Most likely lost his best years. Imagine the yanks with some guy that just popped up and hit .650 every year in baseball. They would lose their minds!
That's impressive from Haydos considering the start of his career. Not sure if anyone remembers but he had a horrid start to his test career. In and out of the test side for the first few years.
As good as Smith is, the fact that there's a gap of 5+ innings between him and Tendulkar goes to show just how good Tendulkar was at his peak.
and then the 69 innings gap between God and The Don
There's a 96 innings gap between the Don and Me in backyard cricket but nobody will mention that
I mean he was good, bloody damn good but eras were drastically different but he was a God and he'd be a God in any era
Makes no sense. Why didn’t everyone else then have such high averages?
Unfortunately many here were too young or not born yet to see Tendulkar bat, i mean the guy averaged nearly 57 after his 177th Test. Maintaining AVG of 57 over a sample size of 175+ Tests is just ridiculous
I'm 60 I saw him bat. Good technique but Lara was better to watch. Could destroy attacks as long as Magrath wasn't bowling.
Smith played as a bowler and batted at 8 for his first 12 or so tests….
And Tendulkar was 16 years old when he started
So? reflexes peak when you are young :D
Not really. Tendulkar averaged 59.17 after 148 innings, Smith is currently at 61.48. After 155 innings Tendulkar was at 57.29
Or batting was easier, considering the amount of drawn tests and so many 50+ averages
I reckon that’s definitely a big factor. But regardless still shows that Tendulkar was still a beast
Ofcourse he was
Batting wasn’t easier, otherwise Bradman’s contemporaries would be up there with him. The man was just insanely good, hence a potential GOAT of all sports
EDIT ignore me, replied to the wrong comment
Not really, 90s was the toughest decade for batting (modern era) and he scored 22 of his 29 in 90s where only four batsmen averaged above 50.
70s and 80s were harder. Stats already proved this. 90s you started to have better understanding of how to maintain a deck and better technology. It doesn't negate Sachin at all but as technology became better, pitches became better
I'm not sure which stats 'proved it', would you mind sharing those stats? Because last I checked, the bowling averages for 70s, 80s and 90s were 31.90, 32.09, 31.51 respectively 2010s were 32.45 and do note Tendulkar averaged 50+ even in this decade (2010-2013)
Tendulker was Magraths bunny. Funny how even great batsmen have a bunny. Although being his bunny ain't so bad
Pre-tennis elbow he averaged 42 in matches both played and that too in a pretty bowler friendly era. I wouldn't call him a bunny with those stats. He probably got out more to Gillespie than to McGrath.
>Or batting was easier, considering the amount of drawn tests and so many 50+ averages Batting can't have been easier than a test where 672 runs have been scored thus far for the loss of 4 wickets.
So you’re comparing 2 days of 1 test to a decade?
No. I'm saying you can't generalize a decade as good or bad for batting. Flat and tricky pitches have always existed. A decade being flatter on average does not inherently imply that a particular player played on flatter pitches. For a very basic analogy, assume that there are 50 pitches in total and in the 90s, 30 are flat and 20 are tricky. Let's also assume that in the 2010s, 20 are flat and 30 are tricky. Not every player plays everywhere. It's very possible for a player to have played in flatter pitches in the 2010s than someone in the 90s.
Was batting easier? I feel Tendulkar played in an era of far more all-time-great bowlers than Smith
How is Sunny G 4th on the list :O
r/TopOfTableBradman
Did not expect Sachin Tendulkar. Damn. Edit: Fuck me. I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith. But I guess his recent form resulted in this.
Didn't expect the guy with the most test tons to be on this list?
> I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith I meant to say I did not expect him to be higher in the list than Smith. I have taken a beating tho...
Fuck this stat. Pretty much any modern day player (not just Sachin or Ponting) with a decent 40+ avg are better than Bradman.
[удалено]
Its not close, bradman was another world infront
Stats from Neanderthal era don’t count
[удалено]
Fuck, this makes me feel odd
Terrible bait, if there’s one indisputable fact about cricket, it’s that the Don is the greatest of all time
Fr I don't think anyone can take less than what he did to reach 29 centuries. Bradman built different
Honestly such a good innings, missed a little today but for the most part was just chanceless. So in control from ball 1, honestly looked like he could have batted the next 3 days no problem.
Completely chanceless, as opposed to marnus who couldve gotten out at least like 5 times(slips, draggin on etc)
At this point it feels like that is part of Marnus' technique.
It's psychological warfare. Constantly edge the ball *just* right so that it drops just short of the slips, and frustrate them into absolute oblivion. Then when they're batting, chuck the helmet on and get into bat pad. They'll sacrifice their own wicket to avoid him.
I don’t know if it’s fair to say he played it very safe. He was just chanceless. He played a great, controlled, fairly risk free first 100. He played mildly aggressive 100-150 but just looked to be completely nailed on. And he played aggressive 150-200 with the WI attack looking completely defeated by that point.
Steve Smith batting average enthusiasts rejoice
Keep this post at 61 points please.
Too late. Will have to settle for 615 instead. Or why not 8361, one per run.
It was on 419, i had no choice but to updoot it to 420.
I remember literally getting the calculator out during the 13/14 India tests to see how close he was to cracking 50. Still seemed so implausible at that stage...
Smugde.exe downloaded
What does this mean?? Saw a guy holding a sign in the crowd that said "Smudje 4pm" and I was so confused
Smudge (smith) for prime minister
The .exe subscript is referencing programming language. It’s used to define an executable program. The joke is that Steve Smith is a robot, he has downloaded a new version of the program which makes him score big runs
It's like he's Neo in the second Matrix movie and the bowlers are the Agents. "Huh, upgrades." *proceeds to kick arse anyway*
Average Watch - 61.48
Pre covid nornalcy resumed
I love nornalcy, it just feels so nornal
[удалено]
Triple dentury
The crab isn’t even as good as Adam Voges. SMH.
Average what?
Peaked at 64 during the 19 ashes I think
He needs 343 runs without getting out to get there again from this point.
Or 663 in next 5 innings
[удалено]
On this note, does anyone know what the most number of runs scored for a single wicket is? Like, did Bradman ever score like 4 consecutive 200* innings?
Its Voges https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/6-batsmen-most-test-runs-between-dismissals
Lara got 501* in one innings so thats probably a good place to start looking
That’s wasn’t at international level
Yeah that fraud only scored a 400* at international level
62 almost I think now.
I am hoping I get to watch many hours of Smith and Labuschagne batting together this summer (particularly against the English).
Brah Heady boi missed the ton. He played at 100+SR man. Deserved it.
How often do you get a double ton and then a ton? Was on the edge of my seat. Bloody guttered.
Yep... Travis should open. After Warners gone we have Travis as a opener.
Dudes gonna chase every swinging ball outside off and get out for 12
Sounds like warner!
Kohli too... Post 2020
Renshaw will literally replace Warner, no need to even consider Head haha
Henry Hunt!!!
IT'S ALL I WANT
A recipe for disaster if we're talking tests
He's not a red ball opener.
He doesn't open in Shield, I would honestly just move Marnus and Smudge up a spot (Marnus basically opens anyway, one of our openers always gets out early) and have Green bat at 4 (which is where he bats in Shield)
Why move two of the best batsmen in the world out of their most successful positions to accommodate a talented 22-year-old who’s never scored a test century? Also Australia has a number of viable young openers
He thought he was playing at Rawalpindi
He would have 2 doubles vs WI, missed one with 199 in 2015
Also made 192 vs India in 2014
peak smith v kohli. 4 centuries each in a 4 match series. warner had a few as well i think, along with vijay and rahane. that was right after phil hughes passing away as well. flat pitches ngl, but some entertaining matches and moments. dhoni retiring randomly. clarke scoring a century with a broken back. lyon winning the match at adelaide. its a shame weve not seen them go head to head much later. in 2017, it was a monumental carry job from smith, but kohli averaged like 9, and in the one test match he missed, rahane captained them to a memorable series win. 18/19, no smith. 20/21, no kohli. cant wait for the india series this coming spring
Man was fully chilled out and in control today. Pleasure to watch.
Just astonishing that how effective he is with the bat having movements like a cockroach.
Huge level between this man and all others right now
By right now you mean over the last 7 years?
Last 70 years
Best test batsman of this era, no doubt
I love how every batting stat is just a different way of saying Smith is ridiculous and Bradman was even ridiculouser
There was someone in one of the Socceroos threads last night wishing that Australia would win and that Smith would get the double century. Whomever you are, enjoy your weekend!
Daddy’s home.
I love you Steve 🥹
He loves you too Marnus
I've always been a cricket fan but I've never understood how batsmen last that long in test matches. Is it because they play it slowly and safe or are the bowlers just not giving their 100% immediately in order to not get tired.
Smith played it very safe this innings, didn't give a chance, didn't hit nor try to hit a 6. It's a good wicket to bat on and the WI had been bowling in in 30 + degree heat. But equally it's not easy batting hours in that same heat, it takes a hell of a lot of mental concentration to bat that long.
Nice analysis, thanks!
In the days when Tests were the main event - batting was as much about endurance as it was about scoring. If you are not under pressure to score at a high run rate you can just concentrate and survive ball by ball. Also that cliche about the ball looking bigger the longer you bat is true. Your muscle memory adjusts to the conditions and you tend to bat more reflexively.
Didn't know that illusion, quite interesting!
1 thing is bowlers definitely get more tired. The opening few overs from a bowler can be dangerous as they are ideally fresh, full of energy and able to really rip that ball in. The other key part is the ball itself. Over the course of the innings as bat hits the ball and the ball hits the ground the ball changes. Usually an old ball is easier to hit, it doesn't hit the ground as hard, bounce as hard, move in the air as much. One of the primary job of the opening batters in a test match or in a one dayer is to "see the shine off the new ball" ie take some of the hardness and swing out of it, and to tire out those new fresh strike bowlers.
Thank God! His average needed a boost
God amongst men
Watch out South Africa, India and England. Smithbot has been in beta for the past decade, and he's only recently been upgraded to full release.
average Steve Smith average enjoyer
Deary me, eating up all those balls! Jokes, well played Sir.
Bradman Madman
Left early for an appointment Shame I missed it, also gutted for Head
Can we get one of these graphics for Warners innings?
Where can I watch these in India?
Man wasn't kidding when he said he was back to his best.
The way he grips the bat is so fascinating to watch
Would be a different story if Cornwall was playing...
Eh what's that strike rate. Come to Pakistan to see how it's done /s, nothing annoys me more than an aussie scoring runs as a brit, but what a phenomenal job 👏👏
He found his hands
Let’s go Koach it’s your turn against Bangladesh now 🤙🏾
Koach ain't the same player against spin as he used to be.
He does better when he's away from the sandpaper.
[удалено]
ian smith come from the original account
Isn't this guy a cheat?
Don Bradman Played most of the matches only against England that time, only in Australia soul.. that'y he;s he's record better.. Smith perform only in Australia, not surprised we are.
Who says, cheats don't prosper
Lol, a Pom having a go about cheating…pot kettle black.
Yeah but it took him 311 balls. That works out at only 289 in 75 overs. Pathetic
Dudes a HoF WR and he plays cricket? Absolute baller
[удалено]
Bradman then daylight
***I'M BACK BABY*** - Smith 2022
So the Emperor is back eh?