Don Bradman: Deserving of his praise in the 21st century?

[dildildalwalla]

The recent "100 Greatest Cricketers" list from Sky got me thinking. Bradman is consistently ranked as one of the top 2 cricketers of all time (it's normally between him and Sobers) and personally, I have no problem with him being placed in ATG lists but that high? All the time? THAT does not sit well with me.

First of all, I'm always a bit sceptical when comparing across eras but I feel from 1950 beyond, there are more comparisons to be made and the game truly came into its own. In the age of Bradman, there was only one tour to England (vice versa for the English to Australia). There may have been the odd trip to South Africa or India which were given first class status but these were largely against teams with few facilities and few players of world class pedigree.

In terms of Bradman himself, he only played in tow territories, at home and in England. His opposition included England, a world class team but then the Bangladesh of their day, South Africa and India. At no point did Bradman have to contend with the long, hot Indian days or the rank turners we see today. At no point did he have to deal with the sheer physical toll and high altitude of some South African locations.

So how does he get to be ranked above players who travelled and performend world wide, the likes of Ponting his compatriot, or Tendulkar or Imran Khan or Richards or Sobers or Akram or Lara?

 

[shaz619]

The sky analysis in general is a joke and heavily biased in favour of Aussies and Englishman, they have Jack Hobbs and Kallis in their top 10 for gods sake. Bradman eliminates all anomalies due to his 99 average, it simply can never be disputed and is the single greatest stat in the history of sport which is why it is a no brainer to have him at the very least in the top 2 if not no.1 spot as the greatest of all.

 

[CricFan2012]

No.

 

[TahirFan]

Its difficult to compare sportsmen from different eras

In F1 people compare M Schumacher with Juan Fanjio. Fans want to know who was the greatest

Schumacher raced in an era when F1 cars exceed 300 kph. Fanjio raced in an era when cars rarely reached 150 kph

Fanjio drove a car with a manual gearbox, no power breaks or power stearing, no abs , he drove a car with no assistance

Schumacher drove a car with a automatic gearbox, power steering, skid control, abs etc

It's almost impossible to compare the two

 

[dildildalwalla]

The sky analysis in general is a joke and heavily biased in favour of Aussies and Englishman, they have Jack Hobbs and Kallis in their top 10 for gods sake. Bradman eliminates all anomalies due to his 99 average, it simply can never be disputed and is the single greatest stat in the history of sport which is why it is a no brainer to have him at the very least in the top 2 if not no.1 spot as the greatest of all.

The stat showed that he scored a lot of runs and did so at a very consistent rate...against England. He had 5 tests against India and I think 5 against SA. Neither of those teams had professional structures or any large number of truly world class cricketers.

Joel Garner has an ODI bowling average of 18. Yet no one would pick him over Akram or Murali as the best ODI bowler of all time. I doubt Garner would make too many top 5 even.

So the 99.94 is embedded in time and honestly, that shows a level of greatness but consistently being top 2 by only playing one world class side...no. That is not justified.

Its difficult to compare sportsmen from different eras

In F1 people compare M Schumacher with Juan Fanjio. Fans want to know who was the greatest

Schumacher raced in an era when F1 cars exceed 300 kph. Fanjio raced in an era when cars rarely reached 150 kph

Fanjio drove a car with a manual gearbox, no power breaks or power stearing, no abs , he drove a car with no assistance

Schumacher drove a car with a automatic gearbox, power steering, skid control, abs etc

It's almost impossible to compare the two

The comparisons with F1 do not work.

 

[shaz619]

The stat showed that he scored a lot of runs and did so at a very consistent rate...against England. He had 5 tests against India and I think 5 against SA. Neither of those teams had professional structures or any large number of truly world class cricketers.

Joel Garner has an ODI bowling average of 18. Yet no one would pick him over Akram or Murali as the best ODI bowler of all time. I doubt Garner would make too many top 5 even.

So the 99.94 is embedded in time and honestly, that shows a level of greatness but consistently being top 2 by only playing one world class side...no. That is not justified.



The comparisons with F1 do not work.

That's the same as saying Joe Louis is was not a great HW fighter given the era he fought in but we all know that is absolute rubbish, Bradman was far ahead of his competitors; his 99 average is immortal and whether I or you like it or not his greatness has been cemented and he'll forever be regarded by most experts, peers, historians and respected publications as the greatest.

 

[dildildalwalla]

That's the same as saying Joe Louis is was not a great HW fighter given the era he fought in but we all know that is absolute rubbish, Bradman was far ahead of his competitors; his 99 average is immortal and whether I or you like it or not his greatness has been cemented and he'll forever be regarded by most experts, peers, historians and respected publications as the greatest.

Oh look, I'm not saying Bradman isn't great. I already said in my original post Bradman is one of the greats but would Louis be regarded as a top 2 atg in boxing? Hell no. Plus, boxing suffers from the same nostalgia disease as cricket.

But, keeping with the cricket, why should bradman be regarded as a better batsman than say, Viv Richards when Richards played against more varied bowlers, across more countries, conditions, pitch types and matches? And he held up an incredible level of consistency himself. On top of all that, how does one judge any sportsman merely on numbers with barely any footage?

 

[Messiah]

That's the same as saying Joe Louis is was not a great HW fighter given the era he fought in but we all know that is absolute rubbish, Bradman was far ahead of his competitors; his 99 average is immortal and whether I or you like it or not his greatness has been cemented and he'll forever be regarded by most experts, peers, historians and respected publications as the greatest.

It's easy to be far ahead of competitors when you have barely any competition. The amount of people who played cricket back then was so low that you can't really compare guys from that era to today's players

 

[shaz619]

Oh look, I'm not saying Bradman isn't great. I already said in my original post Bradman is one of the greats but would Louis be regarded as a top 2 atg in boxing? Hell no. Plus, boxing suffers from the same nostalgia disease as cricket.

But, keeping with the cricket, why should bradman be regarded as a better batsman than say, Viv Richards when Richards played against more varied bowlers, across more countries, conditions, pitch types and matches? And he held up an incredible level of consistency himself. On top of all that, how does one judge any sportsman merely on numbers with barely any footage?

Yes, Louis is in fact ranked in the top 2 greatest HW of all time; this is universally accepted much like the Don being the King of Batting. The nostalgia disease only exists for those who do not appreciate history and overly rate modern times.

It's not just numbers alone or video footage although that 99 pretty much eliminates the anomalies for many, but like I said peer reviews, historians and experts who have watched the Don in his prime advocate his greatness in comparison to modern batsman they have lived to see; why should such knowledge and the 99 average be completely disregarded?

 

[The_Odd_One]

He absolutely deserves it. None has come close to matching his numbers. Yes, he played in an easy era but then he barely received any coaching which modern cricketers receive.

 

[kukkad kamaal]

He is the number one no doubt about it

 

[dildildalwalla]

Yes, Louis is in fact ranked in the top 2 greatest HW of all time; this is universally accepted much like the Don being the King of Batting. The nostalgia disease only exists for those who do not appreciate history and overly rate modern times.

It's not just numbers alone or video footage although that 99 pretty much eliminates the anomalies for many, but like I said peer reviews, historians and experts who have watched the Don in his prime advocate his greatness in comparison to modern batsman they have lived to see; why should such knowledge and the 99 average be completely disregarded?

I said number 2 ATG....not just heavyweight but all divisions. C'mon, you knew that when I typed it but like I said, boxing has the same nostalgia issue and right now, we're talking cricket. No idea what Joe Louis has to do with Bradman.

Again, did I at any time say all that info should be disregarded?

 

[shaz619]

I said number 2 ATG....not just heavyweight but all divisions. C'mon, you knew that when I typed it but like I said, boxing has the same nostalgia issue and right now, we're talking cricket. No idea what Joe Louis has to do with Bradman.

Again, did I at any time say all that info should be disregarded?

Well that would be either Ali or Sugar Ray Robinson! and the point stands! or are we going to rate AJ as the GOAT due to his stunning victory over the legendary charles martin you see it's not nostalgia which is the issue but a lack of knowledge and appreciation for history