Don Bradman v Harmison.

[Ernest]

I have just been answering Milo on another thread, and I started to think about Don Bradman, just how good was he?.

He did not like short pitched bowling, that was a fact.
Larwood had the measure of him in the Bodyline series, he just not score any runs, that was hid downfall.

How would he have faired against the supreme pace and bounce of Harmison, bowling short at him in the 90s in terms of mph, I doubt he would have faired any better.
The same goes for Flintoff, how would he have played the vicious pace and bounce of this player, Brian Lara one of the greatesr batsmen of all times, could not handle him.

Not to forget the likes of Michael Hoding, Marshall, Ambrose, Lilee and Thompson, I am in no way underating Don Bradman, but it is fair room for thought.

What do you think, could he have handled these bowlers, knowing his shortcomings against bowlers the Like of Harmison?.

[Rachael]

What a curious notion: that the guy who averaged 56.57 during bodyline (yes, that's right, more than most mortals would have even dreamt of) "didn't like short pitched bowling". Hmmm. I also point you to this

I also find the notion that "one of the greatesr batsmen of all times" couldn't handle Flintoff rather disingenuous: Lara may be "touched by genius"... but this spring any of literally dozens of Test bowlers could have discomforted him. That no more proves that Lara has a weakness than (for different reasons) Larwood's success in the bodyline series proves the case asserted here.

Let's take the notion serious for a moment though.

Originally Posted by wisden

Bradman himself was of the opinion that there were other batsmen, contemporaries of his, who had the talent to be just as prolific as he was but lacked the concentration. Stan McCabe, who needed a particular challenge to bring the best of him, was no doubt one of them. "I wish I could bat like that", Bradman’s assessment of McCabe’s 232 in the Trent Bridge Test of 1938, must stand with W.G.’s "Give me Arthur" [Shrewsbury], when asked to name the best batsman he had played with, as the grandest tribute ever paid by one great cricketer to another.

So far.. so bad.

Now let's look at some bowlers who did better against Bradman than Larwood did.. starting with that well known pace machine... AV Bedser: six wickets at 54.66 to Larwood's 5 at 77.60. Mmmm.. maybe we should wonder if Bradman could have coped with Chris Cairns.... and as he was suspected of having trouble against quality leg spin we should wonder how he'd have done against an attack of Abdul Qadir, Shane Warne and Anil Kumble.

Nah.. I see much point in pursuing this: it's the longest standing truism of Test cricket that great batsmen LOVE short pitched bowling. Bradman was the greatest of all great batsmen. End of story.

ps - there's a story of which I can't recall the full details.. but it concerns a bowler (I think English).. his captain... and one Viv Richards. The story goes that the captain asked the bowler to do his job.. and eventually (following the disdainful despatching of short pitched delivery after short pitched delivery) the captain asking the bowler what he thought he was doing. The reply was to the effect "well, surely he's going to get one wrong eventually".

Some people are SUCH slow learners

[Ernest]

Rachael
I know my post is strange, but it is for other poster to prove Douglas Jardine wrong (not me).

History says that Jardine had noticed that the otherwise inpregnible Don Bradman had been troubled by short piched bowling, on the Australian series in England, prior to the bodyline series.

Now Milo on another thread has argued with me that it was not Larwood that sussed Don Bradman out, but Douglas Jardine, with his field placings, it was a good podt, please read it Rachael, he seems to have facts.

But I argued with Milo, saying that Larwood had trained to be fit, and blindly followed Jardines orders, and for the first time Don Bradman, had been found wanting.
It was not just Larwood who throubled Bradman, he just could not cope with FAST short pitched bowling.

I am not disputing that Bedster maybe had better numbers, but who set in the rot.

Rachael not being funny, how on Earth would Bradman have coped with {forget Harmison and Flintoff), Ambrose with steepling bounce, and the Likes of Malolm Marshall, or C Walsh.

On this forum is Milos post, see if you can find an answer to that, he is not talking raw pace, he is talking how Jardine, could use that to defeat Bradman, it is a good post.

Ern

[Milo]

Ern, my main contention is with the statement that Bradman did not like short fast pitched bowling. There is a big difference between not liking and not being able to score from it. One of the Don's greatest strokes was the hook - something that has almost died from the game nowadays. However, with the field setting by Jardine and Larwood, scoring from short pitched bowling became impossible. Bradman always said you ran the risk at some point of getting caught at fine leg/backward square leg.

As I said on the other thread, it was Bradman's greatness that prevented him from simply remaining not out at the end of each innings. Bodyline was not invented to dismiss Bradman, but simply to curtail his scoring. This worked and led to Bradman getting himself out by backing away outside leg stump and trying to scoring runs through the off-side (in desperation to score the runs). Having seem Bradman notch up nearly 1000 runs in 1930, Jardine knew that to stop Bradman scoring would be enough to win the series. Now, is that the definition of not liking short pitched bowling. I don't think so.

Just one thought - How successful would any of the batsmen of the modern game be if they had to try and score against five/six short pitched balls outside leg stump with that field. Could we really imagine the likes of Dravid etc backing three foot outside leg stump and trying to swat a bouncer from Ambrose through cover. Nowadays they just duck the ball and wait for the deliveries they can score from.

[Rachael]

OK Ernest.... what, exactly, did Larwood do?

Originally Posted by Milo

It is also a myth that he exposed a weakness in Bradman. As I said on BBC board yesterday, Bradman's main problem in the Bodyline series was sheer frustration at not being able to score quickly enough due to the fielding positions (something he knew he needed to do if Australia were to have a chance). Three of his dismissals were due to his stepping back outside leg stump and trying to hit a ball that pitched four foot out side leg stump through the off-side

Sounds to me less a case of being undone by fast, short piched bowling and more a case of sacrificing his wicket in selfless attempts to force wins in situations where his oppnents were abandoning all hopes of playing cricket in favour of whiling away the hours. If Milo's right then Larwood's bowling was as negative as Giles' was to Tendulkar a few years back.

I can accept that there are a few batsmen who have not liked fast, short pitched bowling. Boycott was your classic instance. HThe guy's always ging on about not liking balls in the rib cage. Then again.. he wasn't a natural timer of the ball who liked to swing his arms... in the manner of Richards... and he wasn't the most agile of cricketers, either: he was not that much better at getting out of the way than Atherton wa.. and Atherton had the excuse of a bad back!

The mark of the GREAT batsmen is the time the seeming have to play the ball. They pick the delivery early, get into position smoothly and then seem to be just waiting, with all the time in the world, watching for signs of lte movement, adjusting up to the last moment in order to get the touch just right. Those guys might get rushed when not seeing the ball well.. when not "in the zone"... but let's get this in perspective: if that was a common state fr them they wouldn't be classed as "great".

If you want to investigate a productive line of inquiry on Don Bradman I suggest you move, instead, to leg spin: the complete oposite of your favoured hostile, aggressive fast bowling... the home of disguise, guile and bamboozlement: even the Wisden profile singles that out as an area in which he looked vulnerable.

[Beny]

We will never know. They say Ganguly dosent like fast short bowling and then he went and made 144 in brisbane.

[Mike Small]

Some of the Aussies I've spoken to actually think he would have averaged even more than 99.94 had he played in this era, but they are Aussies lets not forget! On the serious side, it's interesting question, its hard to predict how Bradman might have fared against not only Harmison or Flintoff but all the modern great bowlers of our time. I'm of the view that if a man has those sort of numbers (averaging well over 50 even in the worsts of times compared to our cuurent lot avergaing in the 50s in the best of times) you can't help but make an impresssion of him having no weaknesses what so ever. But in fairness to both Bradman and Harmison, there can be only one definative answer to that query : we'll never know.

[Beny]

It's impossible to compare. Bradman never recived the amount of coaching and science that players today recive. And in regards to the body-line thing. This is when people did not wear helmets and teams were allowed to load the leg side square of the wicket basicly ruling out the hook shot.Bradmen is the greatest batsmen ever and it it pointless to compare him to todays players who are trained from the time they start playing and live with the improvments of modern technology.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

OK Ernest.... what, exactly, did Larwood do?

All Larwood did was to bowl to the orders of Douglas Jardine, and he did the job to perfection.

But this begs a bigger question, why did Douglas Jardine want Larwood and the other fast bowlers to bowl short to Bradman,

It was jardine who had noticed theat Bradman was not comfortable playing the fast short pitched deliveries, it was Jardines plan, not Larwoods.

History shows Rachael that Jardine had spotted this weakness in Don Bradmans technique,when Australia where touring England, in fact I think Jardine actually thought Bradman feared a fast rearing deliverey.

So fixed was Douglas Jardines mind on this perception that Bradman was vunerable to the short ball, that he spent over a year, hatching the "leg theory" plan. jardine thought that if he had the right set of bowlers, who could bowl at express pace at the line of the body, not just to Bradman, all the Australian batsmen suffered the same fate, then England would win the series, and win back the Ashes we did.
But to achieve this he needed the right bowlers, he spotted Larwood playing for Nottingham, raw as you like, but fast.

Larwood took up the challange offered to him by Jardene, he trained until he was fitter than any cricketer had ever been, he had to to fulfil the role jardine had in mind for him.
Then he trained day after day, week after week, to bowl short at speed with relentless accuracy, and it payed of.

History, not I, has recorded that Douglas jardine, had spotted this weakess in Don Bradmans batting, he was obsessed with his leg side theory, but the fact of the matter is, he had seen how Bradman had reacted to short fast bowling, this was the start of his obsession with "leg theory".

What did Larwod do?, you ask, all that was asked of him by his captain jardine, he bowled accurate, and when given the nod, he bowled short to the line of the body, with devastating results, The Australian batsmen, including Bradman had no answer to this line of attack, time after time, they where hit, or caught on the leg side , fending of deliveries bowled on that line, to prove it worked, there was a corden of leg side fielders waiting for such a chance.

We took home the ashes.

Would he have faired any better against the likes of Malcolm Marshall, we will never know, but I doubt he would.

Originally Posted by Rachae

Sounds to me less a case of being undone by fast, short piched bowling and more a case of sacrificing his wicket in selfless attempts to force wins in situations where his oppnents were abandoning all hopes of playing cricket in favour of whiling away the hours. If Milo's right then Larwood's bowling was as negative as Giles' was to Tendulkar a few years back.

Not the full story, OK to a point it was negative bowling, as far as cricket goes, but the whole point is, and this is far different than Giles (Who did a splendid job), but the negative aspect meant bowling at the body, and it was not a matter of being selfless, it was a matter of survival, stopping himself from getting hurt.

Originally Posted by Rachael

If you want to investigate a productive line of inquiry on Don Bradman I suggest you move, instead, to leg spin: the complete oposite of your favoured hostile, aggressive fast bowling... the home of disguise, guile and bamboozlement: even the Wisden profile singles that out as an area in which he looked vulnerable.

Ok this is off topic, but lets talk goog leg spin bowling for a minute, I could well have started this thread, "How would Bradman have faired against Warne?."
How would Sir Len Hutton, or Clive Lloyd faired against good leg spin, good question, but I don't know the answer, but I would think ANY batsman, would have struggled against the likes of Warne, or a host of indian spin bowlers, let alone singling out don Bradman.

No way am I degrading Don Bradman, Just a thought how he would have faired againsted the likes of Marshall, Lilee, Harmison, when he could not play Larwood.

[Milo]

This is a pure example of 70 years on, "history" having very little bearing on the actual events of the time. This is due to the moaning of the Australians and that Australian TV drama that twisted a lot of the truth.