Is Michael Clarke as good as Bradman?

Pup.....is one of top 5 player in odis and test......:in this mordern generation...:

Check mate!!!!!!!!!! See me in four years time. I hope he makes a stack of runs in England, and we beat the Poms, but I am not holding my breath. Clarke is in a much better space post-Bingle, which is reflected in his cricket.

Kay, go back to the hard tracks in the park. you should be honoured that Bayman et al even bothered to argue.

What seperates Bradman is how much better he was than anyone in his era. The likes of Ponsford and Barnes Niel Harvey and co still all averages in the high forties and low fifties. No player accept perhaps garfield sobers has stood so much higher than a field of very talented players and thats what makes him the greatest. The higher levels of professionalism means we will probably never see someone like that again. If Clarke can hold this kind of form for 2 to 5 years, which he really is capable of given his age he would be a clear second to the don. Otherwise its just a very good period of a very talanted player. Right now he is rubbing shoulders with Border and Waugh though, and that shouldnt be taken lightly

Andrew Gaze was a better basketballer than Michael Jordan.

If Michael Clarke can (a) perform as well as he did this year for the next four years and (b) perform as well in other countries as in Australia, then I think it is not unreasonable to say that Clarke is a possible match for Bradman. I think his average this year is more than Bradman ever averaged in any year of his career so if Clarke can keep this up (or keep up similar averages) for the next 4 years, then definitely he can rival Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time. However, let's not get carried away. A lot of batsmen have been prolific in a year but then faded away and even though South Africa's bowling attack is No. 1, they haven't been at their best this series. And India's bowling attack last summer wasn't the greatest either. Also, Clarke was not so long ago (before he took on the captaincy) in a lean trot while batting at No. 4. So, I believe that instead of getting carried away, let's look at him on a match-by-match or innings-by-innings basis and hope that he can continue his great form for the sake of Australian cricket for a while longer. And, realistically, when his form deteriorates, let's not forget his achievements this year and let's keep backing him like we should (the media has a habit of sensationalising players one day and calling for their heads the next). Of course, there's a chance he can continue his great form but if he can, then that will surely be unparalleled and rival Bradman's feats easily.

This is all nonsense. Clarke isn't even in the top 5 players of our generation. Clarke may be beginning to knock on the door of the greats but he lacks substantial contributions overseas before he can be considered a great. His home average v his away average is telling (approx 60 v 40). HIs second innings average is also much lower than his first innings average. I dont want to take away much from Clarke 2012 year, cause it is spectacular, but his big innings' have been on runway pitches. On more bowler friendly tracks in WI this year he did struggle. Great batsman dominate across all countries and in all innings. Clarke has shown signs of being capable overseas (his 150 in South Africa last year was wonderful) but overseas and final innings performances have been slim. Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis, Ponting, Sangakkara are batsman who dominate anywhere. Dravid is better overseas than at home. Tendulkar's and Ponting's second (particularly fourth innings) inning's are stuff of legend. Clarke has none of that. Clarke will need a double century overseas and a fourth innings contribution either at home or away before he can be a great.

Kay, From your rather lengthy and, may I say, uninformed comment I can only say you must be a relative cricketing youngster whose interest and knowledge of the game began sometime in the 1970s (or even later). On the first point: Bradman played on relatively few stickies but he played all the time on uncovered wickets. Today, incidentally, and for the past several decades, no player has played on either a sticky or an uncovered wicket. As for him being better than today's players because he played on stickies I can only say - I never said that so your sugestion that I did is a little mischievous. On the second point: Fast bowling did not emerge post 1970s. I would point you at Jason's comment as an introduction to pre 1970s bowlers but, just for fun, I'll let you work out who are the quicks and who are the spinners. As for not understanding the connection between McDermott and Siddle I can only ask, "Who's fault is that?" But for you, a clue. Modern bowlers, and certainly modern Australia bowlers, spent several years not knowing shit from clay. It took McDermott to explain to Siddle how to get the ball to swing. Any schoolboy in Bradman's era, and up to the 1970s, understood this simple skill. Siddle, however, did not. So much for superior modern knowledge and skill. On your third point (other sports) let me say this - those who think Messi and Ronaldo are superior to Pele and Maradona never saw the latter two play. Perhaps you should spend some time assessing the relative strengths of their opponents. The two modern greats are, indeed, great players and deserve the recognition they get. However, it is not an uncommon thing for current scribes to imagine that surely nobody could ever have been better. It comes from not ever having seen the greats of the past. You assume they must be better today because Usain Bolt has recently run faster than anyone else in history (according to the clock). Fooball is not a game that can be measured by time, height or distance. As for the rest, let's see - Golf: The unparalleled Tiger Woods still has not won as many majors as Jack Nicklaus. Tennis: Roger Federer. Still to win two Grand Slams like Rod Laver (that is, the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US in one calendar year - twice). Great player though; although you mentioned Fred Perry, not me! Why you mentioned him I have no idea. Formula 1: Senna drove when the driver still made a significant difference, Schumacher had the best car (but was still pretty good). He hasn't had the best car for some time and doesn't win anymore. Vettel is a very good driver wth the best car - and he wins a lot. The cars are better - the drivers may not be. When was the last time you saw a serious F1 crash which removed a driver from the electoral roll? The cars are definitely safer - and the drivers know it. Pre 1970s and driver mistakes were often fatal - which added its own unique dynamic to the sport. Basketball: Jordan was great in his time. So was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. So was Kareem. So now is.......pick a name. Finally, your killer argument that when picking great bowlers we pick them from the last thirty years. Might I respectfully suggest this is because those doing the picking only saw those bowlers in the flesh. Bradman, however, has that small matter of 99.94 over twenty years getting in the way of modern batsmen. As for me quoting Hilfenhaus and Siddle - I did not. The fact you said I did doesn't mean I did just like the fact you said modern players are better doesn't mean they are. Fast bowling was not redefined by the Australian and West Indies quicks of the post 1970s. I grant you that the Windies played four genuine quicks (without a spinner) but that did not redefine fast bowling. Clive Lloyd may, however, have changed the accepted view of what a bowling attack might look like - but then he never had a class spinner. Lindwall, Miller, Tyson, Statham, Constantine, Hall, Griffith, Heine, Adcock, Pollock et al were all very quick, thank you very much, long before Lillee and Thommo - or Roberts and Holding - or Pattinson and Cummins. They also played a lot more games (by any measure). On the issue of what I may, or may not, have inferred I can only say I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make so I'm not sure if I inferred something or not. Perhaps you are just putting words in my mouth. Bradman a "sitting duck"? Don't embarrass yourself - I'll say no more. As for Bradman being exposed in the modern era I can only wonder what are you thinking - or drinking? Bradman played, and excelled, against Bedser. Do you really think guys like Hilfy or Siddle or Anderson would trouble him. Perhaps you think Walsh and Ambrose would be a problem. Patrick Patterson once suggested to DGB in Adelaide that had he bowled to Bradman the great average may have suffered. Bradman smiled and replied, "I don't think so Patrick - you could not even get Merv Hughes out". Merv had made 70 odd. You claim to have covered off every point I made in my previous post. Not true as it turns out. You have, however, made some pretty wild claims with no evidence to back it up other than you think so. On my missing your earlier points I can only say I wasn't aware you had made any. Wild guesses, tick. Gut feelings, tick. Uninformed opinions, tick. Points, sfa. However, since you highlighted some issues; 1, Relative greatness vs absolute greatness. What the f*ck is that? Cricket, unlike athletics, has no absolute greatness unless we talk of Bradman's average (99.94) or Thommo being timed at 160kph. These absolutes, however, do not measure talent just results. Tait was quick - but he was crap. Two overs and he was lookng for somewhere to lie down. Shane Watson can bat like Bradman in a T20 match but in a Test he just looks like Shane Watson. Was Hutton better than Compton? Ponsford better than McCabe? Warne better than O'Reilly? On that last one you say "Yes" and Bradman said "No". Thommo was quicker than Lillee, and Lindwall, and Miller, and Davidson. But was he better? In case you're wondering, "No, he was not". 2, Pre 1970 vs Post 1970. Several, who saw both, would agree with Bradman that O'Reilly was better than Warne. They might also say that Laker was better than Swann, Grimmett better than MacGill, Benaud better than Sleep/Holland/Hohns, Ramadhin and Valentine better than....any Windies spinner since the post 1970s. On swing, and reverse swing, in those days it was simply called outswing and inswing. It is not the fault of players of the 1920s,30s,40s, 50s, 60s that modern batsmen cannot play a swinging ball. It might, however, be something to do with modern 'techniques' (and I use that word advisedly). 3, Playing the same opposition - with rest days for bowlers. Did I miss something or could this argument support the notion that Bradman was better than the moderns. He faced fresh bowlers after a day off. Your point - not mine (but largely irrelevant I would think). 4. Technology highlighting weakness. It also highlights bowling weakness. We saw in the current Test (Adelaide) what South Africa made of the available technology to highlight weakness. The result was 480 plus in a day. Vastly over-rated I'd say. You can have all the computing power in the world but it doesn't help if the bowler cannot bowl the right line or length and the skipper is a plodder who cannot set a field. Bradman would have had a field day. 5. Sports performance has increased etc. This can easily be measured in, for example, track and field. What's that Olympic motto, "Faster, higher, further". Not so easy, however, in skill based sports. By your reckoning Warner and Cowan are better than Lawry and Simpson for no other reason than they are playing today. You may be surprised to find one or two who would happily argue against you. Pattinson and Siddle must be better than Lillee and Thomson and certainly better than Lindwall and Miller. Again, there may be some argument. Players, on average, may well be fitter today - but are they better? Are they even as match fit as those who went before (see Cummins, Pattinson etc.)? Most fast bowlers today cannot swing the ball consistently and with control - but they could pre-war and post-war. I could at high school as could several of the bowlers I played with and against. So why can't they now. Neil Hawke could swing the ball, Alan Connelly, Alan Davidson, Gary Gilmour, Fred Trueman, Alec Bedser, Garry Sobers. They could do it. James Anderson was briefly considered a world-beater because he was doing what every third bowler was doing decades ago. The problem was that modern batsmen just had not seen that for awhile and their techniques let them down. He wasn't so great - they were crap. I presume it's never occurred to you that modern run rates, and batsmen's averages, are generally better (except for you know who) because the bats are better, the grounds are smaller, the tracks are flatter and the bowlers are just average. Batsmen still get out though through mistakes and poor shot selection. Just like they've always done. Even Bradman got out - seventy times at Test level. It's just that he averaged 99.94 before heading off. Finally as the most recent legspinner to be promoted to Test level I presume, by your reckoning, that Imran Tahir is the greatest leggie of all time. Nah, I didn't think so either.

The fact that more fast bowlers are breaking down these days to me suggests that they are pushing their body's limits further than previous generations. Unfortunately we didn't have radar guns in the 20's and 30's but I can't believe that part time cricketers with little understanding of nutrition or sports science jogging in would bowl anywhere near as fast as cricketers of the modern era. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYDVbYBzCU I think watching this gives an interesting view. Nonetheless Bradman should be revered for the way he dominated his era like no other. As for Clarke... It's typical of the media to engage in sensationalism... He's not as good a batsmen as Kallis or Ponting (was). He's an eye player with inconsistent footwork and a weakness against good short pitched bowling. He's going through a purple patch at the moment that he's making the most of, and we as aussies are enjoying, but with the way he plays it won't take a great loss of reflexes to bring him back to earth. Lets not forget Ponting averaged 59 by the end of his purple patch.

Kay - I think you immediately lose the debate when your list of bowling "titans" includes Brett Lee. Twice. But if you want a list of some bowlers pre 1970 (which seems to be a magical date after which world bowlers became fitter, stronger, faster and better), then you might think about: Lindwall, Davidson, McKenzie, Miller, Ian Johnson, Benaud, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Trumble, Mailey, Turner and Spofforth from Australia; Snow, Trueman, Bedser, Statham, Tyson, Underwood, Laker, Verity, Barnes, Lohmann from England; Peter Pollock, Adcock; Tayfield from Saf; Wes Hall, Gibbs, Valentine, Ramadhin for West Indies,

I guess if Pattinson aimed for 70mph and had a rest day in the middle of a test match he would also be able to play non stop! I've typed a reply to your earlier post above, under Dasilvas post. It wasn't letting me reply under your one.

To Bayman, Thanks for your post - even though I disagree with you, still an informative post! I can understand the whole confusion over the uncovered/sticky wickets. My point is that Bradman hardly played on them, and when he did, his average suffered. But given that he played so few games on them, it's not fair to give him the advantage of having played on sticky wickets as being a reason for him being better than today's players. Secondly, I think I should clarify my view of cricket's eras. It is essentially pre 1970s, and post 1970s for me. Post 1970s is when all of the truly fast bowling emerged, when the worlds greatest spinners emerged, when more teams started playing competitive test cricket, when technology developed to assist umpires in making correct decisions, and now allowing them to review (reducing that benefit of doubt batsmen once latched on to). Craig McDermott is a player of modern times for me, he does not fit into Bradmans time or any time near that, so I am a bit puzzled by your comment on his advice to Siddle. With regards to the 100m analogy, fine, it's athletics, but I'd happily mention any other sport to you in which athletes (both by nature of skill and fitness ) have progressed further. Football : Messi and Ronaldo are now both being considered by experts to be better than Maradona and Pele Golf: Tiger Woods (whatever his off field escapades ) is unparalleled Tennis: Roger Federer, - it would be a joke to mention Fred Perry in the same sentence as him F1: Schumacher, or Senna basketball : it's still Michael Jordan,but there are competitors And many many other sports! Now for my final point, why is it when we pick best ever bowlers, we pick them from the last 30 years but when it comes to batsmen we're adamant on choosing players who wouldn't even survive one ball in the modern game? Let me refresh your memory, you conveniently quote Hilfenhaus, Siddle etc of the modern day but forget these titans, Warne, Murali, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Brett Lee, Denis Lillee, Jeff Thompson, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Courtney Walsh, Curtly Ambrose, Glen McGrath, Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Dale Steyn, Alan Domald, Abdul Qadir, Anil Kumble, With regards to speed, it is the subjective, but anyone present during the emergence of fast bowling in the 70s, including those born in the 20s and earlier at that time, will tell you of how fast bowling was redefined by the Aussie quicks and West Indians. And I haven't even factored in the emergence of the greatest leg spinner ever, Warne, or the reverse swinging duo of Wasim and Waqar. Granted, today, at this very point in time, bowling attacks aren't at their best, but to infer from that the bowling in the last 30 years was also like that is an insult to the greats. Go on, I challenge you, come up with a list of bowlers from per 1970s who you think would rival that. Funnily enough, Sir VIv, Sachin and Lara all faced some of those bowlers at their peaks and still performed. Bradman would have been a sitting duck I am afraid. On ODI cricket and T20 cricket... I take a different view point, Bradman, (as all the batsmen in his time) would have been so exposed in today's era, having to shuffle between country's and adapting to different styles of play! It was a blessing for Bradman he played in the 40s, when he had only the Poms to play and pummel, again and agaiin and again. I have covered off every point you raised against my argument here. Can you at least do the same with your next reply please - you missed out many of my old points earlier? Namely I would like to see your arguments against... 1, Relative greatness vs Absolute greatness 2. Your view on post 1970 and on 1970 bowling attacks - speed, reverse swing, and quality of spinners 3. Your view on playing a single opposition again and again, with rest days in Tests that allow for the recovery of bowlers! 4. Your view on technology exploiting weaknesses in batsmen in the modern game 5. Your (hopefully revised ) view on how sports performance has increased in every sport, yet cricket remains an exception. I am open to changing my mind, but I have thought a lot about this. If your persuade me otherwise, maybe I will change my mind!

I'll just continue on about the whole "mystery spin". Mystery spin was basically PR by Shane Warne to psyche out opposing batsman By creating the myth that leg spinning is this magical art and saying he invented deliveries that don't exist (you know the zooters etc). He can create an image that he is a magician to opposition batsman and win the mental games before he even delivers a ball. Warne may have the slider but really that was a poor substitute for the flipper that he stopped bowling due to injuries. Warne was just a classical leg spinner. Perhaps the greatest leg spinner of all time and his greatness was his execution of the basics that has been around since the days of O'reilly, Grimmett etc rather than innovating or creating new deliveries. The only bowler I can really consider "mystery spin" is muralitharan who is basically one of a kind bowler because due to his double jointed wrist he is essentially a wrist spinning off-spinner and his doosra (although invented by Saqlain mustaq) was certainly unique (by the way, Bradman was a big defender of Muralitharan and his bowling action and he considered Hair no balling him ""the worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/04/1101923389044.html?oneclick=true ) However I think Bradman would adapt to Murali uniqueness and it's not like Murali's record is pretty similar to Warne. There's no reason to think that Bradman would struggle against modern spinners if he didn't struggle against the spinners of his time.

to be fair to the author Most of the content of the article was comparing who was closest to Bradman rather than whether Clarke was as good as Bradman That is only in the title of the essay which makes me think that the title is something put on by editors or was a mistake because it's not connected to the content of the essay

Thanks Bayman that's an informative post.

Johnno, It's been a long day at the cricket in Adelaide followed by a long dinner - and a glass or two of a pretty good red - but I'll at least make a start........ Kay makes a comment about pitches not being as 'uncovered as modern fans like to make them out to be" then immediately talks of an apparent weakness of Bradman's on a 'sticky'. It appears to have escaped Kay's logic that a sticky occurs precisely because, usually, the pitch is uncovered. It gets wet and soft and gooey then the sun starts to dry it and the pitch becomes 'sticky'. This could not happen with a covered wicket. It was stated as a possible weakness in Bradman's skill set though largely in comparison with Jack Hobbs who was a genius on a 'sticky' wicket. Bradman, of course, never faced as many 'stickies' as Hobbs so perhaps this is not surprising. However, given today's players have never seen one I can only imagine the carnage if they suddenly were confronted with such a track. They can't play a swinging ball, let alone a ball jumping out of a mine field. Oh, and on those uncovered wickets - they were as uncovered as uncovered gets. That is, no covers at all so I have no idea what the hell Kay is talking about. Indeed, in the 60s/70s in English county cricket when covers were used they only covered the bowlers run ups - not the wicket. The authorities didn't want a bowler slipping and hurting himself but the poor old batsman had to bat on a quagmire. Kay also blithely suggests that modern athletes are clearly fitter, stronger and better than those of Bradman's day then "proves" that statement by saying 100 metre runners were not as fast as Usain Bolt. Given that many Olympic sports are measured by time, height or distance this is not so surprising. Cricket, however, is best measured by skill for which there is no absolute measure which can be compared. The assumption is that because Usain Bolt holds the world 100 metres record now then all previous sprinters were inferior - and by association all previous cricketers must also be inferior. Yet Peter Siddle, just last year, had to be told by Craig McDermott to pitch the ball further up if he wanted it to swing. Any kid of the past 100 years knew that to be true. Why not Peter Siddle? He's a Test player for God's sake. A hundred batsmen today all lunge onto the front foot because they been told to do it by incompetent coaches. The great players through history have invariably been back foot players yet this skill is not only being ignored it is being lost. Through incompetence. It was good enough for Bradman to average 99.94 but not good enough for the modern gurus who average something slightly less! Kay also suggests today's bowlers have more variety and skill than those of yesterday. How he makes that massive assumption is completely beyond me. Presumably, it is based on the premise that since Usain Bolt is quicker than anyone previously then so must modern bowlers be better than anyone previously. Forgive me if I fail to see the advantages of Siddle and Hilfenhaus over McKenzie and Davidson - or Lindwall and Miller. I must have missed something. Kay also suggests that bowlers of Bradman's era were not as fast as those today and not as well trained or coached. I can only say that Bradman often had to face the same bowlers for five Test matches - not two or three like today's fitness freaks. Cummins, finely tuned machine that he is, has played one Test in a year and a half. Pattinson can generally manage two before straining something, Watson can't manage any. All of our quicks in recent years have missed significant game time (Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Hazlewood, Tait, Johnson.....need I go on?). As for coaching - how does Kay explain Johnson who has manifestly failed to implement anything his coaches may have told him (Yes, I am assuming they mentioned something about landing the ball in the same suburb as the batsman). Kay also mentions bats were not 'thicker' in Viv Richards' day. Er, actually, Kay, they were - and by a factor. Are they even more thick today? Absolutely, and it is a huge advantage. Then, of course, there is Kay's argument about the modern fielders. It is fair to say that fielding standards today are better than in days gone by. However, in Bradman's case, as with all great players, it matters less than for most. The skill of Bradman was to hit to the gaps. Move a fieldsman and Bradman hit to where he had been. A friend of mine played Test cricket for New Zealand and one day played in a match opposed to Everton Weekes, the great West Indian. At lunch he was told by Weekes that he had batted quite well but should have been, at least, 24 more than he had scored to date. Weekes asked what he was looking at just before he took guard and my mate replied, "I look where the fieldsmen are". "No man, no man" said Weekes, "Look at the gaps". In the second dig my mate got 90 odd and during the innings Weekes strolled past and said, "That's better, man". So fieldsmen can be as athletic as they like but guys like Bradman simply don't care. It's irrelevant to them. Hit the gaps and it doesn't matter how fit the fieldsman is. He's simply out of play. That's the skill. And no passage of time, or Olympic records, will alter the fact that in sports where success is not measured in time, height or distance improvement is not guaranteed simply because time has passed. It is a false premise. We might be able to say modern cricketers are fitter - by some measurable scale - but we cannot say they are definitely better. In truth, we probably cannot even say they are fitter given how many of them now sit on the sidelines for extended periods. Fitter, perhaps, by some scientific method of measurement - but not match fitter (otherwise Cummins, Watson and, now, Pattinson would still be available). As for Kay's statement that One Day and T20 cricket somehow mean Bradman must be less of a player - he only played Test cricket - I can only say what Keith Miller said the Richie Benaud after the younger man expressed disappointment at not being able to bowl to Bradman in a first class match. "Everybody gets a lucky break in life" said Miller, "Not having to bowl to Bradman was yours".

Sorry I meant 120 on non-rain affected pitches rather than uncovered

I think your uncovered wicket has some validity http://www.chasingthedon.com/The%20Curious%20Case%20of%20the%20Don%20and%20the%20Sticky%20Wicket.doc This person did an analysis on Don Bradman performance on sticky wickets. Determine that bradman played 11 matches on rain affected matches and 41 matches where it was unaffected by rain The result was he average 20.29 when it rained and 119.9 when it didn't rain and he only scored one half century on the "sticky wicket" Although saying this, this probably leads credence to George Headley being a serious contender to the greatest batsman rather than diminishing Bradman achievement and it still does show that Bradman average would have been much higher without playing on sticky wickets. He wasn't great on sticky wickets but if we compare apples with apples then you can say that Bradman average 120 on uncovered pitches compared to the modern greats who play 100% of matches on uncovered wickets who only average in the mid 50's to low 60's If your argument as that Trumper, Headley etc were a better batsman than bradman and used that argument than that would be valid argument but it isn't really an argument when comparing with modern batsman In terms of mystery spin I'm sorry but the only mystery spin that wasn't invented around bradman time was the doosra. The carrom ball was invented by Iverson who played first class cricket around Bradman's time, O'reilly bowled the googly and top spinner. Charlie Grimmett invented the flipper. It's true that the best spin bowlers were Australian and he didn't face the in test cricket but it's not like Bradman struggled in first class cricket. He would have face all the "mystery spin" in domestic cricket Another thing, what makes it obvious that bowlers were faster today than in the past. Now that may be true but there isn't any evidence. What evidence do you have that Tyson and Larwood isn't express pace? Saying Bowlers are obviously faster now than in the statement without any justification. The fact that the express pace such as lee and akhtar and thompson aren't exactly contenders to the greatest bowlers of all time. Really you only have to be bowling in Mcgrath pace if you were accurate or in the 140's to be serious contenders to be a world class bowler. In the 150's there really isn't evidence that those bowlers dominate world cricket when there are other skills such as accuracy, movement of the pitch, swing etc that are more important. I can accept the increase fitness (in terms of stamina although for some reason not in injury prevention) and superior fielding in modern cricket but when you counter balance with inferior bats, no helmets (in terms of comparing with batsman in the 90's) and the fact that Bradman average 120 on uncovered pitches which is a fairer comparison than the 99.97.

David Aren't you going to suggest that Haddin is #2 after the Don........?

Johnno, You happily say that bowlers in Bradman's time did not have as much variety as those of today. How then was it necessary, just last year, for Craig McDermott to remind our Test quicks that if they wanted some swing they better pitch it further up - a fact known and understood by every schoolboy cricketer of the 30s, 40s 50s, 60s and 70s. And probably then some. Just after the Second World War Australia probably had five or six leg-spinners that would be first picked today if they were still around. Today we have none worthy of the name. More variety today. I don't think so, Johnno. You also say that Bob Simpson never had the coaching like the 80s or 90s players. But then he never needed it. Bob Simpson has forgotten more about cricket than any modern coach will ever know. He got far better coaching than the current players. He got to sit down and talk cricket with those who were his betters and his equals - and even his inferiors - after play without the ice bath and the warm down taking priority. Because it's modern, Johnno, doesn't make it better. It just means that now there's a whole tribe of people protecting their careers and empires and telling us it's all very necessary.