I disagree about Sobers 254.Look at the state of the game and how other great contemporaries fared.The audacity of strokeplay was breath taking and range of strokes traversed regions rarely done.Not for nothing did Bradman rate it as the best he ever saw in Australia.
Considering his era Mcabe's innings was that of a genius when even Bradman could not counter-attack the bowling.Remember helmets were unavailable and the fact that Australia were in the doldrums.We have to respect the era and Bradman's view who ranked it at the very top.
Can you say that in the best innings of Lara,Tendulkar or Viv Richards they only dominated express pace bowlers?Count the percentage of runs even Lara ,Sachin and Viv scored against slower bowlers in their best innings.
I have explained the issue with McCabe's innings. I don't judge quality of cricket in different era for such discussions (hence, you'll always see me picking JB Hobbs, Trumper, Bradman, Syd Barnes, Kieth Miller ....... in such hypothetical teams). But, even if we consider the then context of 1938, on 3 factors I discarded that rankings -
1. That was an absolute batting belter. I read lot about uncovered wickets, which is blown out of proportion by "golden era", since that's one aspect we can replicate now, but do you understand that uncovered wicket had a positive as well - it made wickets "sticky" after rain, but it also bonded wicket far better than recent days. Once the wicket is rolled after rain (next morning or start of next innings), it actually is fresh again. Imagine these guys batting against Kumble on Day 5 Indian tracks without any water for 5 days!!!!
2. That English attack was the worst for them in between the years of 2 great wars. Had he not been killed in WW2, may be, may be Ken Farnes could have been an English great, but that's it. Hammond wasn't a FC quality opening pacer - he opened. Reg Sinfield was right arm slow medium, and he debuted as 38 years young. Doug Wright had a career bowling average of ~40, being specialist bowler.
3. Only quality bowler was Verity, who didn't bowl more than 7'3 overs and came to bowl after 100+ overs. Compare this to BC Lara's 213 at Kingston against that AUS attack, on a wicket where that AUS batting couldn't manage 450 in combined innings ........
Regarding the point on Lara, SRT, or Viv - I think they did dominate both spinners and express pacers; it'll take lots of time to post some. But, regarding Bradman's failure to master - that's one innings; very next innings after following on, he did score 144*, therefore I guess he did counter the bowling, just got out cheap in 1st innings (if 51 is considered cheap).
Finally, the helmet issue - now we'll have to consider something quantifiable, not subjective. If Lara, Viv or SRT or Ponting could bat in an era, when BBC's commentators exclaim - "... here comes Harold Larwood, England's champion fast bowler, bowling at an express pace of 70 miles per hour ......." - I am sure they won't have missed even gloves or pad much, let alone helmet. Cricket was joke than bro - just like 1936 Wimbledon Champion Fred Perry is almost as great as Pete Sampras ..... Joke, that too a silly one.
British media glorifies "golden era" of cricket because their supremacy ended with WW2 - apart from Botham, how many English cricketers would make their all time 15, debuted after 1960s? What Bradman thinks about player of his era - if I put my comments on that, I won't be able to remain respectful to the greatest batsman ever, let's not go there.
Regarding Sober's innings - first of all, it wasn't a Test innings, rather a FC innings. The state of the game was very much even, actually in favor of Sobers - World XI trailed by 100 or so, and Sobers came at 147/3 or so, when DK Lillee had finished his 2nd spell and rest bowlers were rags with a 35+ overs (48+ with 6 ball's over) old ball with out the slightest skills of reverse swing & Terry Jenner being prime spinner.
Stroke play was breath taking and that I'll always give to Sir Gary - he did batting and practiced his golf swing together; and he (& Kanhai) batted like that in an era when best batsmen were Hanif, Barrington, Boycott, Hazare, Simpson, Cowdrey ....... (check their RR). But still, only for aesthetics, you can't put so much value on an innings, which was not even a Test match; in that regard some of Azhar (uddin), Zaheer & Gower's innings will also come into equation. I am sure you have seen Zaheer's 274 against a far better attack (minus DK), if you are to judge it on stroke play only.
It indeed might be best innings in AUS that Bradman was impressed, which again only his personal opinion. Sobers, in his book, 20 years back (a comparison of his 1966 UK touring team vs Lloyd's 1984 team), picked David Holford over Malcolm Marshall for his leg spin & all-round ability ...... that doesn't make Marshall sh!t and Holford the 2nd Sobers. I'll keep telling - everything that Sobers touched was blown out of proportion - even that 6 SIX over; Malcolm Nash was a medium pacer, who was bowling experimental leg-spin, made a mistake on his choice of batsman on Swansea ground, one of the smallest in County circuits; still, some of the balls he bowled were beyond sh!t.
Your list needs lots of checking bro - just one example, of all his doubles, you have picked probably his least significant one. Check BC Lara against Murali in 2001 or 226 at Adelaide at the age of 36, or his 202 at Jo'burg ...... these are epics, you could have added his 196 against SAF or 182 at Adelaide as well. Had he played those in 1930s, by now someone would have got Noble price in English literature ..........
)
