Bradman vs Ponting

[rickyp]

Bradman vs Ponting

First of all, Ricky Ponting and Don Bradman are two of the most fine batsman ever, no question about it, BUT.... Despite the fact that the don has an average of 99.94 compared to pontings 58. My view is that this average is much closer than the 41 on paper. One major change signifies this, bowling, in bradmans era it was half the speed and half as accurate (not literally). You dont hear of many people hurling a ball at 150km/h back in the 1930's. Fielding being another issue, you could even compare todays fielding to 10 years ago, the differences are still very noticable. Every throw directly at the stumps at an extreme speed, diving to protect one run, putting your body on the line to take a catch, back in bradmans era this didnt exist. Not to mention the influence TV replays, computers and coaching have had on the development of the game in the form of overall skill and finesse. These distinguishing differences between both era's make it an interesting proposition as to whether the two players swapped era's, who would have the higher average?

To put it simply, I believe that batting in Bradman's era was much easier than batting today. The reasons for this are, faster bowling, more accurate bowling, intelligent fielding, more competent coaching.

Personally, I believe that if Ponting was batting with Bradman, the averages would be a lot closer than perceieved on paper. This is my view, now i would like to hear yours and your reasons behind it. I havent done much research on this topic so I would like to hear some educated answers, something ive come to find very common to the planetcricket boards.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Bowling was as fast in the 30s. Look up Harold Larwood, and read about bodyline. And there were no helmets. The reason why you don't hear of anyone bowling at 150km/h in the 30s is because there was no speedo.

Pitches were uncovered, making batting a lot more difficult.

Batting today, Bradman would probably still average more than anyone else, although he may struggle on the sub-continent. Look at Bodyline, where Bradman faced some of the fastest, most accurate, and most hostile bowling in history, and still averaged twice as much as everyone else.

If Ponting went back in time and played in the 30s, his average would probably be a lot less. He'd have to face bowling just as fast and accurate as today, and would have to change his timing to cope with uncovered pitches, and would have no padding other than on his legs, and on his groin. And even that wouldn't have provided as much protection as they do today. He'd adjust with time, as he has natural talent, but he wouldn't be as good as he is today straight away.

 

[puddleduck]

I always think one of the defining factors is that there were other batsman who averaged similar to the current day batsman, but Bradman was still a good 40-50 runs in front of them. Ponting is not even 10-20 runs ahead of his fellow professionals.

It is the fact that Bradman stands out by such a distance from his fellow players in his day that seperates him. Noone in history since has averaged so much more than players playing at the same time as them.

 

[aussie1st]

It's always hard to compare players of yester year with current players. But one guy stands out above the rest and thats Bradman. He was 30 clear of the next best guy in his time. He is still 30 clear of anyone else in the history of the game.

It takes something special to average 100 in test match cricket over a long period of time. None of the greats of our era have managed it.

 

[Brett_Lee]

Bradman vs Ponting

First of all, Ricky Ponting and Don Bradman are two of the most fine batsman ever, no question about it, BUT.... Despite the fact that the don has an average of 99.94 compared to pontings 58. My view is that this average is much closer than the 41 on paper. One major change signifies this, bowling, in bradmans era it was half the speed and half as accurate (not literally). You dont hear of many people hurling a ball at 150km/h back in the 1930's. Fielding being another issue, you could even compare todays fielding to 10 years ago, the differences are still very noticable. Every throw directly at the stumps at an extreme speed, diving to protect one run, putting your body on the line to take a catch, back in bradmans era this didnt exist. Not to mention the influence TV replays, computers and coaching have had on the development of the game in the form of overall skill and finesse. These distinguishing differences between both era's make it an interesting proposition as to whether the two players swapped era's, who would have the higher average?

To put it simply, I believe that batting in Bradman's era was much easier than batting today. The reasons for this are, faster bowling, more accurate bowling, intelligent fielding, more competent coaching.

Personally, I believe that if Ponting was batting with Bradman, the averages would be a lot closer than perceieved on paper. This is my view, now i would like to hear yours and your reasons behind it. I havent done much research on this topic so I would like to hear some educated answers, something ive come to find very common to the planetcricket boards.

Thats well said rickyp Reps for you

Although as aussie1st said it is very hard to compare players over a different
era.

But As ponting is a fine batsman you cant beat an average of almost 100.

 

[kodos]

Agreed. It is Bradman, light years and then Ponting. Ponting is a fine batsman but labelling as second to Bradman is an overstatement. Even the modern legends Tendulkar and Lara are probably still rated ahead of Ponting. Those two faced the great bowlers in the 90's such as Akram, Walsh, Donald, Waqar, McGrath and Pollock at their prime, while Ponting realistically has only faced mediocre bowlers in the past few years. In the test series against SA, if SA had held all or most of their chances and had decisions go their way then there would be no debate of Ponting v Bradman.

 

[yashved]

The improvements in TV Replays, computers, and other technologies does not necessarily make batting difficult. It may even work the other way round. Ponting can see with the use of technology as to exactly where his fault lies and can avoid the mistake next time or can make out the flaws in bowling of opposite side, which Don Bradman was not able to do..

Hence, even if you consider all the differences in both the eras, I still think that Bradman is above everybody... 99.94 average implies that he got a century almost every single time he held went on the field with bat!

 

[Sman-21]

Bradman by a long,long way.

Ever heard of the Bodyline series.
Bradman had to put up with stuff like that and back then they didnt have helmets.

Hussey would have had more of a chance to coming close and being compared to Bradman than Ponting.
Its a shame our selectors didnt put him in the team when he was about 25-26 back then he was awesome aswell.
The guy lives and breathes cricket every minute of the day hence the name Mr Cricket.
Just like Don bradman.

Of current players i would rate Lara ahead of ponting and then tendulkar.