Don Bradman - Most Overrated Sportsman in the history?

[The Rock]

Source :http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A62182587

Don Bradman is the most overrated sportsmen ever. He played in an era of flat bowling or bowling without a swing, seam, spin. Don scored most of his runs against bumbling, clumsy, inept, limited, unfit, sometimes ageing upper class twits with speed on a par with today's club cricketers. There was no Marshall, Ambrose or Walsh. There was no Hadlee, McGrath or Lillee. There was no Akram or Waqar and there certainly was no Warne or Muralitharan to face so how can you measure his runs reasonably?

Watching videos of The Don I was struck by the amount of runs scored by the horizontal bat and i noted that he never never truly mastered batting on sticky wickets. I rate tendulkar far batter then him.

Tendulkar played under huge pressure.1 billion people expecting you to perform in each and every match. To perform consistently well for 21 years as per expectation is just Brilliant!!! Bradman never had such pressure in his whole career apart from bodyline and in his last innings against England.And just look what pressure can do.His average which usually over 100 in maxium series came down to just 52 in bodyline.When the whole world was watching him to score just 4 runs in his last innings he couldn't even score 4 runs..??? This is what pressure is all about..And Tendulkar goes through such pressure in each every match.Even matches like against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe..With one failure public media everyone in India start criticising the Greats of Indian cricket... Still he is performing consistently..Isn't this amazing.

Bradman played mostly against England and he got used to that bowling thats why scored over 5000 runs wid an average of around 92.One series against each minnows[India,SouthAfrica and WestIndies were new in cricket that time] and scored heavily against them.Never played in Indian Sub-Continent against Indian spinners.Playing at Indian pitches is never been easy for any batsman.

A batsman is perfect when he scores against really class bowlings.Excluding Larwood Bradman never played any quality bowlers.Whereas Sachin played against Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop,Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar,… and many more.Played not well on own wicket but also played well at all pitches all over the worlds.Just see the class of fielding nowdays,Rhodes,Ponting,Gibbs..The standard of fielding is far more better than it was in that time!!!

Can't accept Bradman as the all time best batsman just because his stunning average of 99.94. Cricket is not game of only averages..There are many other things should be consider like the standard of playing cricket. Nowdays so much of technology used so that you can take out weak areas of a particular player.The standard of fielding is just too gud.The Media hype and pressure is so much.Lots of cricket played..scoring on every part of the world. Sachin not only play role in batting but also in many other areas like Sachin can spin the bowl like Shane Warne Sachin never affraid of taking responsibilties

 

[Varun]

He's just a statistical marvel. Ultimately none of us have ever seen him play so there's a certain ceiling for any plaudits directed his way, and him and his fans have got to live with that.

 

[The Rock]

Bradman never had such pressure in his whole career apart from bodyline and in his last innings against England.And just look what pressure can do.His average which usually over 100 in maxium series came down to just 52 in bodyline.When the whole world was watching him to score just 4 runs in his last innings he couldn't even score 4 runs..???

Very interesting read

 

[Saurav]

He was the best of his era.but thats that

 

[IndianWillow]

Sports has an evolving nature. If you bring in gold medalist athletes from the pre-war era to compete in olympics today they would not even get beyond the qualifying stage. Heck, they may not even be allowed to compete in the olympics. That does not mean legends like Jesse Owens or Bannister are not all time greats.

Bradman, with the technique and skill levels of his amateurish era is very unlikely to be able to score freely against the fast bowlers of the 80s or the spin wizards of the 80s and 90s. Fielding standards were also poor then. But what makes Bradman stand out is his comparison against his peers. Neither Tendulkar, nor Lara, nor Ponting, nor Sobers, nor Richards et al were so far ahead of their peers like Bradman. That is why Bradman is widely regarded as the all time best. 99.94 is not worshipped because of its absolute value but because none of his distinguished contemporaries could breach 60 while playing under identical conditions.

 

[Inziquicksingle]

Stupid argument. Why didn't anyone else average close to him in the same era? Before someone argues that he just had a purple patch for 50 Tests they should look at his FC stats.

He is by a fair distance the greatest batsman ever.

 

[Gigii]

I've always been a slight cynic regarding Bradman but if it was so easy to bat, why weren't we seeing many other players with averages like his?

There's probably been batsman as talented as him playing in that era who would score as heavily but noone then or since who could match the consistent heavy run scoring.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

you can argue with 99.94 that too in a career that lasted 20 years

 

[Robert]

Silly OP. Bradman was almost literally twice the player that Sachin was.

 

[ElRaja]

i love how the author says his average came down to "just 52" in the bodyline series, considering how inept modern day batsmen, especially from the subcontinent, are against short pacy bowling i would be surprised if they averaged 20 with bodyline tactics and proper quicks like larwood aiming at their heads every ball without the protection of modern pads and helmets.

stupid post by an ignorant author, bradman is head and shoulders above any other batsmen. people say you cannot compare players of different eras, but bradman is statistically so far beyond any other sportsmen i think you can safely say hes the greatest ever, by a long way too.

 

[James]

He scored 100 runs in each innings.

Bankrupt OP.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Very poorly written piece but I agree with the general sentiment.

 

[IndianWillow]

He was the best of his era.but thats that

If there were other batsmen who averaged 80 or 90 during his time you can say that high averages were the order of the era.

Historically, the best batsmen of any era averaged between 50-60 and good batsmen between 40-45. Bradman is the only exception to this rule that is why no one else, not even Sachin can touch him with a ten foot pole.

 

[Gunther]

Very interesting read

Tendulkar was a sitting duck in the two wc finals he played in. Pressure gets to the best of the players.

 

[Electron]

Forget Akhtar, Akram, Lee, Holding etc... Bradman hardly ever faced bowlers bowling at 130s. It's true that most of his runs were scored against bumbling, clumsy, inept, limited, unfit, sometimes ageing upper class twits with speed on a par with today's club cricketers.

Only thing he had going for him was his average. No one ever came close to him. So, statistically, yes he was the best ever. But this being labelled as TROLL ARTICLE by some blind fan-boys isn't justified at all. Writer made some valid points.. which no one can deny.

 

[The Rock]

He scored 100 runs in each innings.

Bankrupt OP.

No one disagree that he was a heavy run scorer and by far the greatest batsman in his era

But when you compare him with cricketers from different eras, question must be raised about the quality of bowling he faced, different conditions he scored runs, against how many teams he sustained an avg of 99, how much pressure during those games?

 

[IndianWillow]

i love how the author says his average came down to "just 52" in the bodyline series, considering how inept modern day batsmen, especially from the subcontinent, are against short pacy bowling i would be surprised if they averaged 20 with bodyline tactics and proper quicks like larwood aiming at their heads every ball without the protection of modern pads and helmets.

stupid post by an ignorant author, bradman is head and shoulders above any other batsmen. people say you cannot compare players of different eras, but bradman is statistically so far beyond any other sportsmen i think you can safely say hes the greatest ever, by a long way too.

At what speed did Larwood bowl? Were a large number of batsmen killed or hurt seriously by Larwood or other speedsters of the era? If the answer is in the negative, it probably means Larwood was a 120ish bowler, very quick and dangerous for that era but not by today's standards.

 

[The Rock]

Tendulkar was a sitting duck in the two wc finals he played in. Pressure gets to the best of the players.

Firstly, Tendulkar played in many many pressure games. In the era of 90's everytime he used to walk on the ground, the pressure on him to deliver was masive. I have never seen any other player been though such situation.

Secondly, in World cups Ind - Pak game was the most pressure game., much more than the final. He was man of the match in 3 out of the 5 games he played.

So don't think that Sachin is not a pressure player, just bcoz he couldn't score in 2 world cup finals.

 

[Sherazkhalid]

Another Sachin is god and rest is trash post. Lets all stop playing cricket and just keep on watching Sachin videos, Sachin this Sachin that, blah blah.

 

[Robert]

you can argue with 99.94 that too in a career that lasted 20 years

And he lost six prime years to WW2.

 

[Inziquicksingle]

No one disagree that he was a heavy run scorer and by far the greatest batsman in his era

But when you compare him with cricketers from different eras, question must be raised about the quality of bowling he faced, different conditions he scored runs, against how many teams he sustained an avg of 99, how much pressure during those games?

How many players in Bradmans era averaged over 90?

How many averaged over 80?

How many averaged over 70?

How many averaged over 60?

How many batsman in ANY era averaged above 60..let alone 99.94?

 

[talha3]

The thought has crossed my mind now and again but then you think that he was still so far above everyone else who played the game then. I would be tempted to give him the 'overrated' title if someone else averaged 80+, even 70+. But as a poster has pointed out, no-one else averaged above 60.

 

[Saurav]

If there were other batsmen who averaged 80 or 90 during his time you can say that high averages were the order of the era.

Historically, the best batsmen of any era averaged between 50-60 and good batsmen between 40-45. Bradman is the only exception to this rule that is why no one else, not even Sachin can touch him with a ten foot pole.

Yes I already said he was miles ahead of his peers,but that doesn't mean he's unarguably the best ever.You just need to see the videos of his batting and its clear he wouldn't be able to handle even decent bowlers of today,let alone greats like Steyn.

I believe in evolution,the present generation is better than past generations and future ones will be better than the present.So not only Sachin,I believe other greats like Lara,Ponting,Kallis are also better in my view

 

[WebGuru]

Let's apply a simple formula remove 10 from his average of 99.9 because he didn't played in the era of Lara, Ponting and Sachin...

Now what is left 89.9, Let's remove 10 more because he didn't played against bowlers like Marshal, Wasim and Holding..

Now what's left? 79.9, Let's remove 4.9 just for the sake of argument...

And if there are more arguments thn let's remove 10 more...

What we got now? An average of 65 in 52 test matches...

Now tell me name of a batsman who played 50 test matches and scored with an average of 65 in any era and i will be the first to call Don the most overrated batsman here...

.

 

[Black Zero]

e-punch + e-kick for the author...

why didn't others batsmen of his era scored at that avg.

even if we adjust his avg w.r.t. to avgs of eras, he still got 94+ ...

 

[saiyan0312]

the guy played in position 3.4.5.6.7 thats 5 positions... in all of them he avg over 50, in 4 of them he avg over 90 and in 3 of them he avg over 100 and the position he played most consistently in, number 3 he avg 103 but that is all crap and every player,sports pundit and majority of the world who considers him the greatest are all foolish. if bowling was so easy somebody must have broken the 60 avg barrier.

The point OP is making that he avg 99.64 facing low grade bowlers and against modern age bowlers he would have avg 50 or high 40,s maybe even low 40,s.... so what about the rest of the cricketers of that era. what they would have avg 10 or less facing these bowlers with test match scores of less then 50 every match. wasim,waqar,imran, the indies attack and the rest taking tenfers every match before the war and after.

 

[DanishJamil]

I think author missed one point here, if today's batsmen have to face bowlers like Akhtar, Akram, Waqar, Mashall, Holding etc. Then they don't play on pitches which are uncovered unlike Bradman even if a bowler is bowling at 120 Kph it would've been very difficult.

 

[Bilal7]

I'd take batting against the likes of Wasim and Waqar wearing a helmet over batting against a 60 year old "gentleman" without one.

 

[King Amla 311*]

Rubbish! The only cricketer who in worldwide sports has the most recognition!!! His average is the finest achievements in not only cricket but in the history of sports!

 

[Robert]

How many players in Bradmans era averaged over 90?

How many averaged over 80?

How many averaged over 70?

How many averaged over 60?

0

0

1 (I think - Headley)

 

[Saurav]

0

0

1 (I think - Headley)

Graeme Pollock and Sutcliffe too

Pujara averages 66 for now

 

[ElRaja]

At what speed did Larwood bowl? Were a large number of batsmen killed or hurt seriously by Larwood or other speedsters of the era? If the answer is in the negative, it probably means Larwood was a 120ish bowler, very quick and dangerous for that era but not by today's standards.

no way anyone will ever know for sure his pace, but from what ive read he was never a 120kph medium pacer, just looking at his action he looks quick.

ever since the equipment to measure pace accurately has been available baseball pitchers and cricket bowlers have been hitting 100 mph, 90 mph respectively it stands to reason players were doing it before too.

 

[iafzal]

What a farce argument put by the writer?

Writer completely ignores:
Cricketers of that time were not professionals? They had other things to do then playing cricket 24/7.
There is also a huge difference in physical fitness when compared to today vs. 70 years ago, heck it is a big difference even with 30 years ago.

So comparing two eras that are so much apart is ludicrous.

Only appropriate comparison for Bradman is with his peers and he was FAR better than any of them. No cricketer has been able to distance himself with rest of his peers like Don Bradman did and that is why he is considered the greatest to ever play the game.

 

[Haripotter]

Avg is wat counts ,like dat even afridi has scored 7000 runs in ODIs ...
I think Umar Akmal may reach an avg of 60, by the end of his career

 

[shakil]

At what speed did Larwood bowl? Were a large number of batsmen killed or hurt seriously by Larwood or other speedsters of the era? If the answer is in the negative, it probably means Larwood was a 120ish bowler, very quick and dangerous for that era but not by today's standards.

As per historical records, he did make a few batsmen bleed like Jogindar Singh and Dickie Burrogh and many experts contend that he was indeed one of the fastest they have seen.

 

[soso_killer]

The article was coming along nicely until "the pressure of 1 billion people", that was a turn off for me. Cricket is a team sport and Tendulkar had the likes of Shastri, Azaradin, Dev in the early 90's guys that he would have looked up too. He would later have Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, and later on Sehwag. I dont buy this "pressure of billions", anyone will tell you the biggest pressure is the one that you put on yourself not that of others.

 

[srh]

May be he is a bit overrated but he still was way better than Tendulkar. Its not even a competition.

 

[iafzal]

Avg is wat counts ,like dat even afridi has scored 7000 runs in ODIs ...
I think Umar Akmal may reach an avg of 60, by the end of his career

yup just like Sir Jadeda is supposed to be #1 ODI bowler but we all know how bad he really is.

 

[IAJ]

They try so hard to somehow put Tendulkar over the Don, but just forget it. He was the best cricketer ever. The rest of them can fight it out for the second spot behind him.

 

[Reverselap]

Forget Bradman, Pointing, Lara and even Kallis are better than the short guy called Tendu

 

[Buffet]

Let's apply a simple formula remove 10 from his average of 99.9 because he didn't played in the era of Lara, Ponting and Sachin...

Now what is left 89.9, Let's remove 10 more because he didn't played against bowlers like Marshal, Wasim and Holding..

Now what's left? 79.9, Let's remove 4.9 just for the sake of argument...

And if there are more arguments thn let's remove 10 more...

What we got now? An average of 65 in 52 test matches...

Now tell me name of a batsman who played 50 test matches and scored with an average of 65 in any era and i will be the first to call Don the most overrated batsman here...

.

He will simply lose 25-30% due to manifold better fielding standards in modern era. Based on some clips, it seems fielders used to simply go and fetch balls from boundary rather than trying to stop it. I won't deduct points for poor bowling but with exact same bowling and batting but different fielding, average of all batsmen from older era will take a substantial drop. Not counting playing in different conditions as well.

Then we are comparing apple to oranges here when we take runs scored in era of timeless matches.

For Bradman here are some scores in timeless matches.

112 - timeless match
123 - timeless match
232 - timeless match
223 - timeless match
152 - timeless match
226 - timeless match
112 - timeless match
167 - timeless match
299* - timeless match
103* - timeless match
244 - timeless match
270 - timeless match
212 - timeless match
169 - timeless match

There were some 6 day matches as well. It will be stupidity to take this 99.96 average literally and compare it to current era.

I still think that he would have averaged in higher 60s or lower 70s. Not overrated in my opinion. I consider Bradman as the best batsman but I don't really take this 99.96 average literally when comparing him with modern era batsmen. Overrated word can be used only when some fans, even at PP, use this 99.96 average literally to measure it against the modern era cricketer.

In short - I think with decent fielding standards, different conditions across the world and sticking to 5 days cricket , all batsmen of Bradmen era would have averaged substantially less. Even if you look at the first class averages then you will see that list is dominated in top by batsmen of older era. There is very good reason for that.

 

[iafzal]

If we are penalizing him for not playing against top notch bowling then why not give him some credit for not having the same protective gear as today and the monstrous bats of today that have made sixes towards over the cover a norm.

 

[Buffet]

If we are penalizing him for not playing against top notch bowling then why not give him some credit for not having the same protective gear as today and the monstrous bats of today that have made sixes towards over the cover a norm.

He shouldn't be penalized for bowling but you can surely consider,

• Timeless matches vs 5 days standard matches ( whole mind set is different)
  
• Playing in 2 countries vs playing across the world ( it's very difficult to play in alien environment for most batsmen)
  
• Fielding doing mainly the job of ball fetcher. Currently even an average team saves lot of runs. I can't say much about catching but ground fielding will cut lot of runs when compared to older era.

The original article is meaningless.

 

[idly sambar]

I dont see any pak fan agree with OP. there is no point in discussing this kinda topic over here. Cricket has evolved. I bet imran farhat is technically as good as bradman ifnot better. If imran farhat had played in my local league he would average 100 and rest of us would be averaging below 50.

 

[Random Aussie]

May be he is a bit overrated but he still was way better than Tendulkar. Its not even a competition.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[idly sambar]

Pretty much sums it up.

lol at this cheerleader. Sorry dude, like I said in my previous post, Imran Farhat is technically better than Bradman, if anyone had watched the video of both Imran Farhat and Bradman, he could easily make out Bradman was nothing great. Yes he was way better than other batsmen he played with.

 

[Random Aussie]

lol at this cheerleader. Sorry dude, like I said in my previous post, Imran Farhat is technically better than Bradman, if anyone had watched the video of both Imran Farhat and Bradman, he could easily make out Bradman was nothing great. Yes he was way better than other batsmen he played with.

Ok then. Thats great, just great.

 

[The Godfather]

lol at this cheerleader. Sorry dude, like I said in my previous post, Imran Farhat is technically better than Bradman, if anyone had watched the video of both Imran Farhat and Bradman, he could easily make out Bradman was nothing great. Yes he was way better than other batsmen he played with.

What is the stuff you are on? We all would love to have some....

 

[90MPH]

^^Lol at Farhat being technically better than Bradman.

Farhat was technically better than Gilchrist but was he a better batsman and player ?

Tendu may have been "technically" better than the Don but he was not a better Batsman.

 

[Anfield]

It's impossible to come up with a modern day average number for Bradman. Too many variables involved. What we know is he was head and shoulders above his peers unlike any other player from any era, that's why, he, unarguably, is the best player ever.

 

[Anfield]

^^Lol at Farhat being technically better than Bradman.

Farhat was technically better than Gilchrist but was he a better batsman and player ?

Tendu may have been "technically" better than the Don but he was not a better Batsman.

How's farhat technically better than Gilchrist?

 

[Haroon786]

I think longevity is abit overated its not Laras or Pontings fault that they had significantly shorter careers than tendulkar and hence should be looked at like that.

 

[Haroon786]

I dont see any pak fan agree with OP. there is no point in discussing this kinda topic over here. Cricket has evolved. I bet imran farhat is technically as good as bradman ifnot better. If imran farhat had played in my local league he would average 100 and rest of us would be averaging below 50.

Sir Bradman himself said that Tendu is the closest batsman who he has seen bat like him, are you going to dispute now that Farhat is technically as good as Tendu. ?

 

[Mamoon]

When you look at his videos, he looks an amateur, street level hack who plays cricket from 3 to 5 after school.

His average doesn't seduce me but the fact that he was on a completely different level to his contemporaries does.

Can't be compared to Tendulkar because both are generations apart and the game has changed a lot.

We don't know how Bradman would've fared today with so much cricket being played in all sorts of conditions and the juggling between multiple formats.

Similarly, we can't deduce how Tendulkar would have dealt with the uncovered pitches, no helmets and poor equipment along with uncovered pitches.

A very hollow comparison and the Tendulkar worshipper who wrote all of this needs to take his frustration out in a more fruitful way.

 

[idly sambar]

Sir Bradman himself said that Tendu is the closest batsman who he has seen bat like him, are you going to dispute now that Farhat is technically as good as Tendu. ?

Its bradman who said that. not the one who has seen both sachin and bradman. for me, Sachin is technically far better than Bradman. I am sure many people who has seen the videos of Bradman would agree with me.

 

[idly sambar]

When you look at his videos, he looks an amateur, street level hack who plays cricket from 3 to 5 after school.

His average doesn't seduce me but the fact that he was on a completely different level to his contemporaries does.

Can't be compared to Tendulkar because both are generations apart and the game has changed a lot.

We don't know how Bradman would've fared today with so much cricket being played in all sorts of conditions and the juggling between multiple formats.

Similarly, we can't deduce how Tendulkar would have dealt with the uncovered pitches, no helmets and poor equipment along with uncovered pitches.

A very hollow comparison and the Tendulkar worshipper who wrote all of this needs to take his frustration out in a more fruitful way.

looks like my post has upset a few people.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Now Afridi may believe that Lara is better than SRT, fair enough. It is his opinion and so be it.But SRT never sought out Bradman's opinion about his batting, in fact it was the other way around ,,, So who am I going to believe ??? The " pitch digger ", the " ball biter " OR Don Bradman ???

 

[Random Aussie]

Now Afridi may believe that Lara is better than SRT, fair enough. It is his opinion and so be it.But SRT never sought out Bradman's opinion about his batting, in fact it was the other way around ,,, So who am I going to believe ??? The " pitch digger ", the " ball biter " OR Don Bradman ???

Hmm well Steve Smith looks like Shane Warne when he bowls.

 

[Random Aussie]

looks like my post has upset a few people.

If you had bothered to search the forum you would see this topic has been done to death.

 

[Iffitheking]

Just like, someone pointed before... Only in India Sachin is better than Bradman... The rest of the world pretty much mutually accepts that Sir Don Bradman is the best...

 

[Bashira_taeli]

At what speed did Larwood bowl? Were a large number of batsmen killed or hurt seriously by Larwood or other speedsters of the era? If the answer is in the negative, it probably means Larwood was a 120ish bowler, very quick and dangerous for that era but not by today's standards.

I would think Larwood was a genuinely fast even by today's standard.

Medium pacers or 120ish bowlers don't do this.

The fuse was lit when Larwood struck Bill Woodfull over the heart and then Bert Oldfield on the head, fracturing his skull.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/bodyline/content/story/148537.html

Have a look at where the keeper and the slip cordon stand. Also at Larwood's carry to the keeper, on the rise as the say.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7rybPvBa3Oc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[amax]

I was watching a video of Pele and he was looking nothing special. I think it has something to to with evolution in the game, they were well ahead of peers at their time.

 

[psyoptica]

* Test average: Bradman 99.94, the next closest is Jonathan Trott 61.53, Tendular 56.94.

* Bradman averaged over a 100 in seven different calendar years – Tendulkar in two.

* A ton for Bradman every 1.79 Tests – Tendulkar every 3.47.

* A ton for Bradman every 2.41 Test innings – Tendulkar every 5.06.

* Double centuries – Bradman 12 from 70 completed innings – Tendulkar six from 258.

* Triple centuries – Bradman two, shared with Chris Gayle, Brian Lara, and Virender Sehwag – Tendulkar none.

* Bradman scored centuries in six successive Tests – Tendular scored two in successive Tests six times.

* Fastest to 1,000 Test runs – Herbert Sutcliffe, and Everton Weekes in 12 Tests, Bradman 13, Tendulkar 28.

* Fastest to 2,000 – Bradman in 22 Tests, closest George Headley 32, Tendulkar 44.

* Fastest to 3,000 – Bradman 33, closest Weekes 51, Tendulkar 67.

* Fastest to 4,000 – Bradman 48, closest Sutcliffe 68, Tendulkar 86.

* Fastest to 5,000 – Bradman 56, closest Jack Hobbs 91, Tendulkar 103.

* And fastest to 6,000 – Bradman 68, closest Gary Sobers 111, Tendulkar 120.

 

[WalkingWiggett]

The Don scored 100* from 22 balls in a club game in Blackheath, New South Wales once. Eat your heart out, Gayle, Lala, etc.

Batsmen averaging over 60 in Tests, qualifications: minimum 15 Tests, specialist bat not keeping wicket

DG Bradman (Aus) 6996 runs at 99, HS 334, 29x 100
KC Sangakkara (SL) 7369 runs at 68, HS 287, 26x 100
CL Walcott (WI) 2910 runs at 64, HS 220, 12x 100
RG Pollock (SA) 2256 runs at 60, HS 274, 7x 100
GA Headley (WI) 2190 runs at 60, HS 270*, 10x 100
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 4555 runs at 60, HS 194, 16x 100

Don was peerless and without a doubt the greatest Test batsman ever. Imagine scoring roughly as quickly as the likes of Viv or KP, and on average essentially scoring 100 every time you bat. Peerless and unbelievable.

 

[WalkingWiggett]

He scored 100 runs in each innings.

This. And probably as quickly as Viv or KP at that. He didn't play ODIs but Test cricket should carry the strongest weighting when judging top-class players anyway, because Test cricket, as the name suggests, is the prime form of the game, the ultimate test.

The Greatest.

 

[Aman]

I believe that title is already taken by yours truly..

/Not trolling either...

 

[W63L35]

I see a few neighbors actually agreed with the article/blog in the OP. So I used the same, points, analogies, tone and more importantly same IQ and re-wrote piece in OP by switching a couple of names.

See what you guys (who agreed with the OP) think?

Sachin is the most overrated sportsmen ever…especially as best ever ODI player/batsman. He played his ODI cricket in an era of flat pitches, toothless bowling or bowling without a swing, seam, spin. Sachin scored most of his ODI runs on flat 350+ runs wickets while opening the batting when pitch is flat, hard rolled, no crack, no roughs …so how can you measure his runs reasonably?

Watching videos of Sachin I was struck by the amount of runs scored by opening the batting when the wicket is really true and i noted that he never ever truly mastered batting on sticky wickets. Sachin was made looked like worse batsman than Chris Martin by a 2nd rated NZ bowling attack during the tour of NZ in 2003 when he averaged 0.66 in 3 ODIs. Therefore I rate Afridi far batter then him as an ODI batsman/player.

Afridi on the other hand has always played under huge pressure. millions of people expecting him to score a 37 ball 100 every time he went out to bat in each and every match. To perform consistently well and trying to hit every ball for six ….and keep such a high S/R for 21 years as per expectation is just brilliant!!!

Sachin never had difficult conditions in his whole career apart from NZ tour on 1999, 2003 and in his last few series where he averaged well below par. And just look what difficult conditions can do. His average which usually over 40/50 in maximum series came down to just 12.66 in those 3 series (9 ODIs).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...n;spanval3=span;template=results;type=batting

If you take the pressure matches and pressure situations, when the whole world was watching Sachin to score and win WC for his country in the two WC finals, he just ran away!!! This is what pressure is all about..And Afridi goes through such pressure in each and every match. Even matches like against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe..With one failure public media everyone in Pakistan start criticizing this Great of ODI cricket... Still he is performing consistently with the same out of this world S/R. Isn’t this amazing or what???

Sachin played most of the times as an opener in ODIs when he used to have all the time in the world to settle down, see of new ball, time to judge the wicket etc. Nobody would question him if scored at a S/R 25 of 55 or 85….. no pressure what so ever .. .no problem! Afridi on the hand came into bat always under pressure circumstances… batting first, he had pressure to score at the RR of 10 runs an over when came to bat between 35-45th over. Did Sachin ever had to deal with that type of pressure? Never!

Batting second, again… he would come in to chase runs when either top order has completely failed or batting at much lower RRR therefore again, either way, Afridi had to bat under pressure..coming at #7 and #8.

A batsman is perfect when he scores under pressure situations and in difficult conditions. ODIs pitches have mostly gone flat during Sachin’s career and producing 300-350 runs totals for most of the time. So when you take out conditions, which neutralizes the top class bowling then the only thing left is pressure… and Sachin rarely batted under pressure when opening the batting. Afridi from the get go, was expected to first ball for six – no matter what the condition or bowler.


Can't accept Sachin as the all time best ODI batsman just because his excellent ODI average of 44.83. Cricket is not game of only averages. There are many other things should be considered while playing cricket – especially ODI cricket. In ODIs, the team which scores the most runs (higher S/R) wins. Team batting first scores 301-0 and the team batting 2nd scores 302-9 wins by 1 wicket. Winning team’s batsmen have much less average than the batsmen of team batting 1st… but their team won because they scored MORE runs. The opening batsmen who scored 150* and boosted their average by many points…. Yet their team lost. That is exactly why Afridi has more Odis than Sachin (% wise) because of his S/R which Sachin can only dream of achieving.

The Media hype and pressure is so much. Lots of cricket played… specially T20s where only requirment is scoring at a faster rate (high RR) in every part of the world. Afridi not only play role in batting at highest of the high S/R but also in many other areas like his leg spin & googlies he bowls bowl like Shane Warne. In addtion Afridi is about 10 times better fielder than Sachin will ever be.

Anybody who takes my piece seriously and makes a complete fool of himself by replying to my post seriously, needs to realize that if two batsmen can be compared by millions of so called cricket-fans and experts, when there is a difference in their average is 46.08 points........... then what is wrong with comparing the two batsmen whose average differs by only 17 and/or 21 points???? Think about it!

 

[Electron]

Here's one interesting stat. Bradman was out bowled 24 times in his relatively small career.
But the number of times he was given LBW throughout his career was a mere 5.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

This stat is staggering as a batsman who gets bowled so often definitely should have been an equally good candidate for LBW. The hype around Bradman was such that, I won't be surprised if there was a little fan-girl inside each umpire too.

 

[Square Drive]

May be he is a bit overrated but he still was way better than Tendulkar. Its not even a competition.

This.

Not gonna agree with the article completely. Even the writer looked inexperienced, hence the poor grammar etc.

 

[amax]

I see a few neighbors actually agreed with the article/blog in the OP. So I used the same, points, analogies, tone and more importantly same IQ and re-wrote piece in OP by switching a couple of names.

See what you guys (who agreed with the OP) think?





Anybody who takes my piece seriously and makes a complete fool of himself by replying to my post seriously, needs to realize that if two batsmen can be compared by millions of so called cricket-fans and experts, when there is a difference in their average is 46.08 points........... then what is wrong with comparing the two batsmen whose average differs by only 17 and/or 21 points???? Think about it!

)):

 

[Tapioca]

Here's one interesting stat. Bradman was out bowled 24 times in his relatively small career.
But the number of times he was given LBW throughout his career was a mere 5.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

This stat is staggering as a batsman who gets bowled so often definitely should have been an equally good candidate for LBW. The hype around Bradman was such that, I won't be surprised if there was a little fan-girl inside each umpire too.

The other possibility is that he was not one of those Shane Watson types who thrusts pad first.

 

[psyoptica]

I see a few neighbors actually agreed with the article/blog in the OP. So I used the same, points, analogies, tone and more importantly same IQ and re-wrote piece in OP by switching a couple of names.

See what you guys (who agreed with the OP) think?





Anybody who takes my piece seriously and makes a complete fool of himself by replying to my post seriously, needs to realize that if two batsmen can be compared by millions of so called cricket-fans and experts, when there is a difference in their average is 46.08 points........... then what is wrong with comparing the two batsmen whose average differs by only 17 and/or 21 points???? Think about it!

))) epic!!

 

[bin_pendi_ka_lota]

Pretty much sums it up.

I am not a big fan of cricketing quality prior to arrival of West Indians. Cricketing quality developed rapidly post colonial era...

Qualitatively, I doubt Bradman is better than average modern batsman...

I do not agree with better batsman theory based on average.

I also do not agree that in modern age, Bradman would have certainly adapted to pace( A lot of players do well in domestic circuit but fail at international level as soon as comepetition gets tougher)

Their have been quite a few batsman who have averaged over 60 in past.... But no one ever towered so much to its contemporary players.. Anyone claiming that based on average Bradmann is greatest of all time has no defence when I say George Lohmann is greatest all time bowler/cricketer.

wasim waqar Imran Thomson Lille Steyn Donald Walsh Marshall..... no one ever comes any closer to this gentleman. Not even he towered his contemporary bowlers he still has best bowling figures and his record will never be broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann


Bradman is greatest batsman of his era and nothing more than that.

 

[Iffitheking]

I see a few neighbors actually agreed with the article/blog in the OP. So I used the same, points, analogies, tone and more importantly same IQ and re-wrote piece in OP by switching a couple of names.

See what you guys (who agreed with the OP) think?





Anybody who takes my piece seriously and makes a complete fool of himself by replying to my post seriously, needs to realize that if two batsmen can be compared by millions of so called cricket-fans and experts, when there is a difference in their average is 46.08 points........... then what is wrong with comparing the two batsmen whose average differs by only 17 and/or 21 points???? Think about it!

Epic hehehe...

 

[sachjinn]

Just because this trashy article appears on some BBC link doesn't give it credence (if any at all).

Sounds as well written and intelligent as a Youtube comment.

So I used the same, points, analogies, tone and more importantly same IQ and re-wrote piece in OP by switching a couple of names.

Shouldn't have been too hard

 

[vicky_iisc]

Let's apply a simple formula remove 10 from his average of 99.9 because he didn't played in the era of Lara, Ponting and Sachin...

Now what is left 89.9, Let's remove 10 more because he didn't played against bowlers like Marshal, Wasim and Holding..

Now what's left? 79.9, Let's remove 4.9 just for the sake of argument...

And if there are more arguments thn let's remove 10 more...

What we got now? An average of 65 in 52 test matches...

Now tell me name of a batsman who played 50 test matches and scored with an average of 65 in any era and i will be the first to call Don the most overrated batsman here...

.

Webguru, this average removal logic is weird at best.. where did you get it from ? Better post was expected from you at least. What is this about removing 10 pointers for not facing quality bowling ? Sorry, it doesn't work.

 

[Random Aussie]

Their have been quite a few batsman who have averaged over 60 in past.... But no one ever towered so much to its contemporary players.. Anyone claiming that based on average Bradmann is greatest of all time has no defence when I say George Lohmann is greatest all time bowler/cricketer.

wasim waqar Imran Thomson Lille Steyn Donald Walsh Marshall..... no one ever comes any closer to this gentleman. Not even he towered his contemporary bowlers he still has best bowling figures and his record will never be broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann

Sure, except that Lohmann played 18 Tests. And 20 Tests in the generally accepted standard for enough Test cricket to consider in the record books.

 

[sachjinn]

Anyone claiming that based on average Bradmann is greatest of all time has no defence when I say George Lohmann is greatest all time bowler/cricketer.

Haha who is this guy.

1841 wickets in 293 FC games

176 5WI.

Good post. Bradman is a joke

 

[vicky_iisc]

I am not a big fan of cricketing quality prior to arrival of West Indians. Cricketing quality developed rapidly post colonial era...

Qualitatively, I doubt Bradman is better than average modern batsman...

I do not agree with better batsman theory based on average.

I also do not agree that in modern age, Bradman would have certainly adapted to pace( A lot of players do well in domestic circuit but fail at international level as soon as comepetition gets tougher)

Their have been quite a few batsman who have averaged over 60 in past.... But no one ever towered so much to its contemporary players.. Anyone claiming that based on average Bradmann is greatest of all time has no defence when I say George Lohmann is greatest all time bowler/cricketer.

wasim waqar Imran Thomson Lille Steyn Donald Walsh Marshall..... no one ever comes any closer to this gentleman. Not even he towered his contemporary bowlers he still has best bowling figures and his record will never be broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann


Bradman is greatest batsman of his era and nothing more than that.

Yaar, this logic applies to every player I think. We can never say that Tendulkar would have adapted well to uncovered wickets. I think each player can be objectively judged in his era only. But still we compare players across era. Subjectivity is what adds the charm becasue there is no "factual" single answer.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Sure, except that Lohmann played 18 Tests. And 20 Tests in the generally accepted standard for enough Test cricket to consider in the record books.

Yes, but there is a point for 50+ average in 200 Test matches.. who can say for sure that 99.94 would not have come down to 60 had he played 150 more matches against more varied bowling attacks than England alone ?

I am not saying it would surely come down, may be he would have taken a liking to other bowlers and averaged even higher.. but we can't compare 52 matches average with 200 matches average either way.