Don Bradman - Most Overrated Sportsman in the history?

[Electron]

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

Yes, that's one possibility. The one I mentioned is another, and a very reasonable one too.

 

[Random Aussie]

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.

This is missing the point. the point is not how contemporary players would go in the past or how past players would go now. An average measures a players performance relative to his peers.

And in the case of one guy, his average is about 40 higher than his peers, which is the biggest gap seen by a long long way. So if batting was easy, then maybe every body averaged 90 and that guy 99. Or if batting was hard these days maybe one guy averages 52 and everyone else 40. But thats not what is happening right?

 

[Itachi]

Rubbish article.

Tendu > Bradman but no way Bradman was as bad as it makes it out. I'l put him 2nd in the list only because you can not be above than the GOD himself.

 

[Aman]

Rubbish article.

Tendu > Bradman but no way Bradman was as bad as it makes it out. I'l put him 2nd in the list only because you can not be above than the GOD himself.

Just proves why Tendulkar holds the title of most overrated sportsman .

 

[vicky_iisc]

This is missing the point. the point is not how contemporary players would go in the past or how past players would go now. An average measures a players performance relative to his peers.

And in the case of one guy, his average is about 40 higher than his peers, which is the biggest gap seen by a long long way. So if batting was easy, then maybe every body averaged 90 and that guy 99. Or if batting was hard these days maybe one guy averages 52 and everyone else 40. But thats not what is happening right?

Comparing with peers is also not faultless logic. Let us say there are two great players in an era Tendulkar played (Lara being the other), no way Tendulkar can have 40+ difference of average with that of Lara.

In case of Bradman, were there other ATGs who averaged in 50s ? Were those ATGs better than Lara ? It may be that other batsmen in Bradman's era were poor (comparatively) than other batsmen in Tendulkar's era.

I am sure if Nadal hadn't been there, Federer's French open record would have had many more victories, can't say that Federer wasn't greater than Sampras because he wasn't "definitely" better than his peers. The quality of his peers should also be taken into account.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Just proves why Tendulkar holds the title of most overrated sportsman .

If anything, Tendulkar is underrated... and he is also an underachiever in terms of match winning knocks because of his poor bowling attack. Many of his great innings have come in a losing cause because of other players not supporting him.

But yes, I agree he failed many times when the pressure was there in Test matches, and should still have played better in those games. He is not perfect, is he ?

 

[Reverselap]

The best bowler in the World is Indian. This is because no other bowler has to carry the pressures of a billion people

The best batsman in the World is Indian. This is because no other batsman has to carry the pressures of a billion people

One of the points in the OP is something that only an Indian can achieve.

Does anyone really think that a billion people from India watching Sachin play cause pressure, or was he under pressure to play because his country was watching him? Similarly, are Kiwis under pressure to play because of a very small number of people watching them or because those small number of people happen to be their country which is watching them?

Unintellectual point, that only ensures that your ATG will always be from India, no matter what the stats.

 

[amax]

Rubbish article.

Tendu > Bradman but no way Bradman was as bad as it makes it out. I'l put him 2nd in the list only because you can not be above than the GOD himself.

 

[vicky_iisc]

The best bowler in the World is Indian. This is because no other bowler has to carry the pressures of a billion people

The best batsman in the World is Indian. This is because no other batsman has to carry the pressures of a billion people

One of the points in the OP is something that only an Indian can achieve.

Does anyone really think that a billion people from India watching Sachin play cause pressure, or was he under pressure to play because his country was watching him? Similarly, are Kiwis under pressure to play because of a very small number of people watching them or because those small number of people happen to be their country which is watching them?

Unintellectual point, that only ensures that your ATG will always be from India, no matter what the stats.

Yes, I agree. This point of carrying the expectation of billion people is overhyped, (if not entirely untrue), even Pakistani/WI fans are very demanding and can hurt you if you don't perform.

 

[Random Aussie]

Comparing with peers is also not faultless logic. Let us say there are two great players in an era Tendulkar played (Lara being the other), no way Tendulkar can have 40+ difference of average with that of Lara.

In case of Bradman, were there other ATGs who averaged in 50s ? Were those ATGs better than Lara ? It may be that other batsmen in Bradman's era were poor (comparatively) than other batsmen in Tendulkar's era.

I am sure if Nadal hadn't been there, Federer's French open record would have had many more victories, can't say that Federer wasn't greater than Sampras because he wasn't "definitely" better than his peers. The quality of his peers should also be taken into account.

Hobbs
Paynter
Hammond
Sutcliffe
Headley

So I think your argument fails there. For about a decade Indian fans are trying to find someway to make Sachin>>Bradman. It just doesnt work. Its like me saying Siddle>>Waqar. No matter how I argue it it still isnt correct.

 

[WebGuru]

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.

I know it's weird but what more you can expect when the article writer is missing many points and focusing only on 2 points?

Not even mentioned anything related to uncovered pitches of that era...Thn he didn't mentioned anything related to other batsmen averages in that era...

If he wanted to prove anything he should have gone deep into the matter discussing all the factors and thn why he is only comparing Tendulkar? He should have mentioned some other batsman too and compare all of them with Bradman thn and prove with his points why Tendulkar is better thn all of them.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Hobbs
Paynter
Hammond
Sutcliffe
Headley

So I think your argument fails there. For about a decade Indian fans are trying to find someway to make Sachin>>Bradman. It just doesnt work. Its like me saying Siddle>>Waqar. No matter how I argue it it still isnt correct.

I didn't argue that Tendulkar was better than Bradman, let me make it clear. I am just arguing on the logic of comparing with peers.

BTW, were Headley and Hobbs contemporaries of Bradman ? I don't know much, so just asking.

 

[vicky_iisc]

I know it's weird but what more you can expect when the article writer is missing many points and focusing only on 2 points?

Not even mentioned anything related to uncovered pitches of that era...Thn he didn't mentioned anything related to other batsmen averages in that era...

If he wanted to prove anything he should have gone deep into the matter discussing all the factors and thn why he is only comparing Tendulkar? He should have mentioned some other batsman too and compare all of them with Bradman thn and prove with his points why Tendulkar is better thn all of them.

Yes, that's true that the article missed many points. But I was only concentrating on your post, and I expect better from you at least. Sorry, this point removal logic is not good.

 

[vicky_iisc]

The only point which goes (theoretically and without any fault of his) against Bradman was that he did not play varied bowling attacks/conditions, and as the article mentions, the real pace.

Else, there is no point in comparing Bradman with anyone else. He is definitely the best.

 

[WebGuru]

Yes, that's true that the article missed many points. But I was only concentrating on your post, and I expect better from you at least. Sorry, this point removal logic is not good.

I know this logic was not good but i was just making it simple just like the writer made it simple by proving bradman is overrated with only 2 points...

The only point which goes (theoretically and without any fault of his) against Bradman was that he did not play varied bowling attacks/conditions, and as the article mentions, the real pace.

Else, there is no point in comparing Bradman with anyone else. He is definitely the best.

Agree with you this point goes against him but when we look at the averages of other batsmen in that era thn it looks fine...

 

[vicky_iisc]

I know this logic was not good but i was just making it simple just like the writer made it simple by proving bradman is overrated with only 2 points...



Agree with you this point goes against him but when we look at the averages of other batsmen in that era thn it looks fine...

1. Ok.. if you only made that logic in sarcasm or for laymen to understand.

2. The point goes against him (and other greats of his era) only when comparing with greats of other era. That too without any fault of his.. the old saying "you can only beat what's in front of you".

I see people bringing down Tendulkar because he never faced Wasim/Waqar at their peak in 90s.. that should also be taken within context.

 

[Gilly]

Who cares.

 

[Haripotter]

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

That day is not far ,when PP thread vl open comparing ,who is the better legend SIR Garfield Sobers or SIR Jadeja

 

[vicky_iisc]

Who cares.

You cared enough to let us know your view.

 

[James]

There are always people desperate to discredit Bradman and they are almost always Indians.

Hmm. It's not exactly a difficult one to work out.

 

[WebGuru]

2. The point goes against him (and other greats of his era) only when comparing with greats of other era. That too without any fault of his.. the old saying "you can only beat what's in front of you".

I see people bringing down Tendulkar because he never faced Wasim/Waqar at their peak in 90s.. that should also be taken within context.

I just found this piece by NIRMAL SHEKAR: Bradman will always be the Don

IMAGINE a Top Ten list of all-time great composers that does not include the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Imagine a Top Ten list of all-time great painters from which Vincent Van Gogh is missing?

Well, when gimmicky, infantile exercises are undertaken, such things do happen. It did a few months ago when the International Cricket Council came up with its all-time best World XI. But what is worse came three days ago, when Dr. Nicholas Rohde from Australia's Griffith University got his No.1 wrong in a list of batting greats in cricket. That is unpardonable and doesn't say much for the researcher's analytical acuity.

To think that any human being who ever picked up a cricket bat was greater than Don Bradman — no matter who that person may be, no matter how many hundreds of millions of fans happen to worship him — is nothing but puerile phantasm.

You think this is laughable and unthinkable and preposterous? It is none of these, actually. You just do not employ simplistic research methods to rank sporting greats. Or ask lay fans to vote, as did ICC, if you are serious about conducting what might be an interesting — if ultimately pointless — exercise.

Instead, you appoint a panel of experts — former cricketers, journalists and officials — to debate the issue and come up with names.

This is especially so in a sport played with any kind of seriousness in less than a dozen countries and one whose fan base is dominated by citizens of a single nation — India.

It is obvious that a vast majority of voters who chose the ICC all-time best World XI were Indians, for four of their countrymen found themselves in the list. This is not to take anything away from the merits of Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag.

But how can Kapil Dev get in ahead of Gary Sobers, or Virender Sehwag ahead of Jack Hobbs? Of course, the cruel joke was, Viv Richards, arguably the most destructive of post-war batsmen, did not find a place in this list.

Defying all logic

While all lists, including those put together by the best of experts, are bound to have an element of subjectivity involved, online polls make a mockery of common sense. And the latest dished out by Dr. Rohde defies all logic. Even Sachin would laugh at it.

What is more, the Australian researcher's Top Ten does not feature the names of Viv Richards, George Headley, Jack Hobbs and Barry Richards. But, somehow, Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Javed Miandad are in it.

But the point of this column is this: how can a batsman who played in an era of uncovered wickets and without modern protective gear — most of all, one who missed playing international cricket during his peak years because of the Second World War — and ended up with a batting average of 99.94 in 52 Tests with 29 hundreds, be ranked below anyone else who ever played the game?

A school-kid couldn't have got that wrong. For, in no other sport has one player stood so far above the rest. The word ‘incomparable' is often used carelessly in sports journalism. But if there is one batsman who is beyond comparison, it is most certainly Bradman.

For cricket's sake, and sanity's sake, dear researchers, please leave the Don alone!

When he did what he did — which is, bat like no man ever did, before or after — the Don didn't appear to be human. Could a mortal, a mere mortal, do all this, people wondered in the 1930s and 1940s as the greatest batsman in history rewrote record after record.

And the passing of time has done nothing to diminish Bradman's greatness, or take the sheen off his image as a superman. He was a freak of nature who functioned consistently at an altitude no other batsman could dream of rising to.

In an ephemeral world where everything has a limited appeal, where every sports accomplishment has a limited shelf life when it comes to popular appeal, the Bradman legend outgrew itself with each passing era. And the arrival of a Viv Richards or a Brian Lara or a Sachin Tendulkar did nothing to take anything away from the Don, or displace him from his pedestal.

Nobody ever had the aura of invincibility that Bradman did. Had the Second World War not intervened, the greatest cricketer of all time would have perhaps scored over 12,000 runs and averaged over 100.

In an era of helmets and protective gear and batsmen-friendly pitches, at a time when 50-plus is still a true yardstick of greatness, one can surely get an idea of where the Don stands — alone and apart.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...man-will-always-be-the-don/article2742076.ece

 

[Random Aussie]

I didn't argue that Tendulkar was better than Bradman, let me make it clear. I am just arguing on the logic of comparing with peers.

BTW, were Headley and Hobbs contemporaries of Bradman ? I don't know much, so just asking.

Sorry, my mistake

Yes all of the ones I listed were contemporaries, they all played at some point during Don's career. Which does support the contention that it was a good time to be a batsman, but goes against the contention that the other batters of the era were no good.

 

[vicky_iisc]

I just found this piece by NIRMAL SHEKAR: Bradman will always be the Don





Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...man-will-always-be-the-don/article2742076.ece

Isn't this article doing the same (ignoring some points) which we blame the original article for ?

Anyway, calling Bradman lesser than anyone (including Tendulkar) is not proper I think. As cricinfo put it, this is how the middle order batsmen of all time stack up:

Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Headley, Lara, Hammond.

 

[Electron]

I will just end it with the most sensible post in this thread.

- Bradman is so far ahead with his average that it's hard to argue him being the undisputed no.1 statistically. He was far ahead of his time.
- But "his time" was a time of no pace, no spin, no swing, no professionalism. So, him being brilliant against unprofessional trundlers does not mean that he would have been as good facing other challenges.
It's like watching Sehwag bat. If there was no swing+pace, he would be far far ahead of any batsman today with his Avg+SR.

You only get exposed to your weaknesses once you face them. Just because he has been exceptional facing unprofessional trundlers on uncovered pitches does not automatically imply that he would have been as good facing Waqar's reverse swing or Akhtar's pace or Warne's spin.

Based on evidence, he was best of his era. He was so far ahead of his contemporaries like no other batsman has ever been. True.
But being the best ever takes a lot more than that. Best ever has to be a complete batsman, who you can call back in any era, and you know for SURE that he will succeed. Keeping emotions aside, Bradman just does not cut it. Not his fault, but this is how it is.

 

[vicky_iisc]

Sorry, my mistake

Yes all of the ones I listed were contemporaries, they all played at some point during Don's career. Which does support the contention that it was a good time to be a batsman, but goes against the contention that the other batters of the era were no good.

Ok.. yes you proved that the contemporaries of Bradman were greats too and he was greater than them. Although Hobbs scored 100 FC hundreds after reaching 40, I suppose ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

I will just end it with the most sensible post in this thread.

- Bradman is so far ahead with his average that it's hard to argue him being the undisputed no.1 statistically. He was far ahead of his time.
- But "his time" was a time of no pace, no spin, no swing, no professionalism. So, him being brilliant against unprofessional trundlers does not mean that he would have been as good facing other challenges.
It's like watching Sehwag bat. If there was no swing+pace, he would be far far ahead of any batsman today with his Avg+SR.

You only get exposed to your weaknesses once you face them. Just because he has been exceptional facing unprofessional trundlers on uncovered pitches does not automatically imply that he would have been as good facing Waqar's reverse swing or Akhtar's pace or Warne's spin.

Based on evidence, he was best of his era. He was so far ahead of his contemporaries like no other batsman has ever been. True.
But being the best ever takes a lot more than that. Best ever has to be a complete batsman, who you can call back in any era, and you know for SURE that he will succeed. Keeping emotions aside, Bradman just does not cut it. Not his fault, but this is how it is.

We can not apply this logic that he did not face good bowlers.. it's also an assumption that he would have failed had he faced Marshall, Akhtar, Warne, Murali etc. It's pointless to assume one way and asking others to prove the assumption wrong.

Was there something in his batting anyone saw which gives the suspicion that he would have failed facing quality bowling ? Was his technique faulty ? His hand-eye coordination ?

 

[WebGuru]

Isn't this article doing the same (ignoring some points) which we blame the original article for ?

Anyway, calling Bradman lesser than anyone (including Tendulkar) is not proper I think. As cricinfo put it, this is how the middle order batsmen of all time stack up:

Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Headley, Lara, Hammond.

There are some points missing in the first article and some in this...But at least in this article he did mentioned the uncovered pitches. conditions etc

 

[KIC]

Completely different eras. Pointless comparison.

 

[vicky_iisc]

There are some points missing in the first article and some in this...At least in this article he did mentioned the pitches. condition etc

Yes, but this article made it look like the uncovered pitches are the whole sole benchmark of greatness.. I think it is faulting on the same lines as the original article as being selective with the criteria, in the other direction.

Look at this para :

But the point of this column is this: how can a batsman who played in an era of uncovered wickets and without modern protective gear — most of all, one who missed playing international cricket during his peak years because of the Second World War — and ended up with a batting average of 99.94 in 52 Tests with 29 hundreds, be ranked below anyone else who ever played the game?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Completely different eras. Pointless comparison.

then all time world XI is a pointless exercise too.

 

[WebGuru]

Yes, but this article made it look like the uncovered pitches are the whole sole benchmark of greatness.. I think it is faulting on the same lines as the original article as being selective with the criteria, in the other direction.

Look at this para :

But the point of this column is this: how can a batsman who played in an era of uncovered wickets and without modern protective gear — most of all, one who missed playing international cricket during his peak years because of the Second World War — and ended up with a batting average of 99.94 in 52 Tests with 29 hundreds, be ranked below anyone else who ever played the game?

Yea i agree some points are missing in this one too and he is emphasizing too much on some points but i don't think we can find some really unbiased views covering all the points in same piece so it's better to look into different points from different angles and views...

 

[IndianWillow]

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.

Does this mean that since running 100m in 10 sec is becoming a breeze now, it was also like that in the 30s?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Does this mean that since running 100m in 10 sec is becoming a breeze now, it was also like that in the 30s?

Not sure about this, but can a 120kph bowler ever create trouble to good batsmen by bodyline ? Just can't imagine it.. think of Venkatesh Prasad causing terror in opposition ranks by leg side bouncers..

 

[Aman]

You can't take out all the video analysis which has allowed batsmen to perfect their technique and analyse bowlers, I know it works both ways but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.

 

[IndianWillow]

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

Agree with this. All sports have evolved, why would not cricket? Bradman did not have the training nor professionalism of modern cricketers. But since he was way ahead of his peers given the resources and infrastructure he had, he is still the best ever in my opinion.

Here is a old video on one of the most feared bowlers (Arthur Mold) during his era. The bowling hardly looks threatening in spite of his first class avg of 15 odd after 300 games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3d3T6fYSv2o

These were the kind of bowlers who bowled to Bradman and it is likely that the fastest bowlers of his era were 120ish bowlers. They were obviously highly successful and feared during their era, but they would be pretty mediocre (not international class) if you bring them to 2013 straight from the amateurish era.

 

[IndianWillow]

Not sure about this, but can a 120kph bowler ever create trouble to good batsmen by bodyline ? Just can't imagine it.. think of Venkatesh Prasad causing terror in opposition ranks by leg side bouncers..

With the kind of equipment, poor pitches and protection they had, 120ish bowlers would have been dangerous. With 140K or 150K bowlers operating in such conditions, a few key batsmen might have been killed or permanently disabled - and cricket would have been banned. Do you think any batsman today would agree to take out his protective gear and agree to use the bats and gears of the 30s while facing a bowler like Lee or Shoaib?

 

[Aman]

With the kind of equipment, poor pitches and protection they had, 120ish bowlers would have been dangerous. With 140K or 150K bowlers operating in such conditions, a few key batsmen might have been killed or permanently disabled - and cricket would have been banned. Do you think any batsman today would agree to take out his protective gear and agree to use the bats and gears of the 30s while facing a bowler like Lee or Shoaib?

I doubt there was even a man alive that would have been capable of bowling 140 clicks back then anyway.

 

[IndianWillow]

then all time world XI is a pointless exercise too.

All time XIs are based on relative merit only. It assumes a great player in any era would be great in any other era, because the player would have adapted himself to the new era due to his natural talent.

We call Newton one of the greatest scientists ever, but Newton did not know much of what is taught in universities today and his knowledge was probably on par with high school level or at the best under graduate level of today. That is because we have moved far ahead since then. If a person with Newton's brains were born today, he would of course be one of the brightest minds today.

 

[Saurav]

I will just end it with the most sensible post in this thread.

- Bradman is so far ahead with his average that it's hard to argue him being the undisputed no.1 statistically. He was far ahead of his time.
- But "his time" was a time of no pace, no spin, no swing, no professionalism. So, him being brilliant against unprofessional trundlers does not mean that he would have been as good facing other challenges.
It's like watching Sehwag bat. If there was no swing+pace, he would be far far ahead of any batsman today with his Avg+SR.

You only get exposed to your weaknesses once you face them. Just because he has been exceptional facing unprofessional trundlers on uncovered pitches does not automatically imply that he would have been as good facing Waqar's reverse swing or Akhtar's pace or Warne's spin.

Based on evidence, he was best of his era. He was so far ahead of his contemporaries like no other batsman has ever been. True.
But being the best ever takes a lot more than that. Best ever has to be a complete batsman, who you can call back in any era, and you know for SURE that he will succeed. Keeping emotions aside, Bradman just does not cut it. Not his fault, but this is how it is.

agree

 

[IndianWillow]

I doubt there was even a man alive that would have been capable of bowling 140 clicks back then anyway.

Not even 130 perhaps.

 

[Convict]

Bradman was arguably a bigger figure than Tendulkar.

At 1934 when Bradman almost died during a tour of England it was revealed that the English newspapers had prepared newspaper releases in the event of Bradman dying.
The front page of the newspaper would just be a photo of Don Bradman.

The editors said that only the King of England would get the same treatment.

It was then asked what would happen if the King and the Don died on the same day- and the editor said that they'd share the front page.

 

[vicky_iisc]

All time XIs are based on relative merit only. It assumes a great player in any era would be great in any other era, because the player would have adapted himself to the new era due to his natural talent.

.

Yes, my post was a reply to that gentleman's post that across era comparison is pointless.

 

[vicky_iisc]

With the kind of equipment, poor pitches and protection they had, 120ish bowlers would have been dangerous. With 140K or 150K bowlers operating in such conditions, a few key batsmen might have been killed or permanently disabled - and cricket would have been banned. Do you think any batsman today would agree to take out his protective gear and agree to use the bats and gears of the 30s while facing a bowler like Lee or Shoaib?

Ok.. but I still can't imagine in today's time also, Prasad/Munaf/Praveen Kumar causing havoc in opposition batsmen even if they are stripped of protective gear.

I think Australia could not replicate this bodyline tactic back to Eng.. did they not have 120ish bowlers ?

Is there any suggestive proof about the bowling speeds of that era's bowlers ?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Bradman was arguably a bigger figure than Tendulkar.

At 1934 when Bradman almost died during a tour of England it was revealed that the English newspapers had prepared newspaper releases in the event of Bradman dying.
The front page of the newspaper would just be a photo of Don Bradman.

The editors said that only the King of England would get the same treatment.

It was then asked what would happen if the King and the Don died on the same day- and the editor said that they'd share the front page.

I think during his peak in 90s-early 2000s Tendulkar was a much bigger figure in India than any other living person.. English public might not have cared about Tendulkar, but in India his popularity was unparalleled.

Most of Tendulkar fans you see here in Pakpassion were most probably in their 10s during the peak of Tendulkar hence that explains the worshipping

 

[amax]

130+ is pretty fast for an amateur whose reflexes are not fine tuned. I once faced my friend who is 135k round about and it was quite difficult to get bat on the ball and I was beaten by pace many times even though I have faced faster deliveries with tape ball on cement pitches. I think when you are playing with cricket ball with out protection the hardness of the ball in comparison to tape ball also start to play on your mind and you start perceiving the ball faster than it actually is.

 

[IndianWillow]

Ok.. but I still can't imagine in today's time also, Prasad/Munaf/Praveen Kumar causing havoc in opposition batsmen even if they are stripped of protective gear.

I think Australia could not replicate this bodyline tactic back to Eng.. did they not have 120ish bowlers ?

Is there any suggestive proof about the bowling speeds of that era's bowlers ?

Australia could have replicated bodyline, I think they believed the body line tactic was against the spirit of the game and sought to bring new laws that outlawed it. In the era of helmets and big bats, bodyline would be considered negative bowling and would not be viewed as a physical threat and it is no big deal.

I am not sure when the bowling speeds were first measured. Competing in a 1978 fast bowling contest, Thomson came first with a delivery clocked at 147.9 km/h, ahead of Michael Holding (141.3 km/h) and Imran Khan (139.7 km/h).

The 70s era is widely recognized as the era of the rise of modern fast bowling with raw pace and aggression, and I don't think a 140K delivery was common before the 70s. In the pre-war era even 130K was probably considered very quick.

 

[Wattoo]

Still Bradmann is the best of all because

> In his era, there were NO extra ordinary training facilities for batsman. like players have today.

> No videos of the bowlers were available to watch and analyse their bowling, identifying their weakness , making plan to overcome bowlers strength areas. And then scoring heavily.

> There were no highly qualified coaches to train batsmen.

> There were no highly sophisticated bats, just simple piece of woods in shape of bats available.

> Players have to travel in ships, tiring journey of several days and then have to play. Now a days you go by air , no fatigue.

 

[Haroon786]

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.

How can you say this. ? Sachin's technique may be optimal on modern pjtches, wheras Bradman's technique was superior on uncovered.pitches, hence not comparable. The only way to compare is through their peers which Bradman wins by ddaylight

 

[Convict]

I think during his peak in 90s-early 2000s Tendulkar was a much bigger figure in India than any other living person.. English public might not have cared about Tendulkar, but in India his popularity was unparalleled.

Most of Tendulkar fans you see here in Pakpassion were most probably in their 10s during the peak of Tendulkar hence that explains the worshipping

The point is was that Don Bradman was that massive in - England (another country) that if he and the king died they would share equal footing on the front page.

Tendulkar is that massive in India but is he anywhere else?

 

[vicky_iisc]

Australia could have replicated bodyline, I think they believed the body line tactic was against the spirit of the game and sought to bring new laws that outlawed it. In the era of helmets and big bats, bodyline would be considered negative bowling and would not be viewed as a physical threat and it is no big deal.

.

Are you sure about it that Australia only stayed away from it because it was against the spirit of cricket ? I have no proof or opinion also, but it makes me laugh looking at this much dedication to the spirit of cricket from Australia. If it is true, surely Australian cricket has moved on from those days.

 

[IndianWillow]

Still Bradmann is the best of all because

> In his era, there were NO extra ordinary training facilities for batsman. like players have today.

> No videos of the bowlers were available to watch and analyse their bowling, identifying their weakness , making plan to overcome bowlers strength areas. And then scoring heavily.

> There were no highly qualified coaches to train batsmen.

> There were no highly sophisticated bats, just simple piece of woods in shape of bats available.

> Players have to travel in ships, tiring journey of several days and then have to play. Now a days you go by air , no fatigue.

By the same token, bowlers also did have videos to analyze batsmen. So this factor should not matter much.

Today they play a lot more and injuries/fatigue is more then ever before. Today's players are more versatile playing a different format of the game every day. There is so much at stake that players are willing to burn themselves out if necessary. Players in Bradman's time were not professionals, most of them had full time jobs or were rich landlords who played cricket as hobby.

 

[Convict]

Are you sure about it that Australia only stayed away from it because it was against the spirit of cricket ? I have no proof or opinion also, but it makes me laugh looking at this much dedication to the spirit of cricket from Australia. If it is true, surely Australian cricket has moved on from those days.

It was a decision by Australian Captain Bill Woodfull not to retaliate.

 

[Haroon786]

Australia could have replicated bodyline, I think they believed the body line tactic was against the spirit of the game and sought to bring new laws that outlawed it. In the era of helmets and big bats, bodyline would be considered negative bowling and would not be viewed as a physical threat and it is no big deal.

I am not sure when the bowling speeds were first measured. Competing in a 1978 fast bowling contest, Thomson came first with a delivery clocked at 147.9 km/h, ahead of Michael Holding (141.3 km/h) and Imran Khan (139.7 km/h).

The 70s era is widely recognized as the era of the rise of modern fast bowling with raw pace and aggression, and I don't think a 140K delivery was common before the 70s. In the pre-war era even 130K was probably considered very quick.

They were timed from the batsmen's end so their speed woulsd be higher be 10-15 % on modern speeding equipment, infact in a test match later on Thomson was clocked at 160k, Holding at 150 k and Imran in an Odi at 154 k.

 

[IndianWillow]

The point is was that Don Bradman was that massive in - England (another country) that if he and the king died they would share equal footing on the front page.

Tendulkar is that massive in India but is he anywhere else?

Pre-war era was different. The whole world was more or less unified under the British empire and Australia wasn't a completely independent nation back then. Today, each country is a separate entity in a way very different from the 30s.

 

[vicky_iisc]

The point is was that Don Bradman was that massive in - England (another country) that if he and the king died they would share equal footing on the front page.

Tendulkar is that massive in India but is he anywhere else?

I think in today's times, it is almost impossible for foreigners to be that big in India (or anywhere I assume). During that time, Eng had only one opposition, and Bradman was the best opposition player.

In India also, the regional differences are so wide that it is difficult for a single person to rule the minds of all Indians. You just have to experience it to observe that there is no common Indian icon. Tendulkar was the one widely recognised and accepted through most parts of India was a big big thing in Indian context.

In Kolkata for example, some of my Bengali friends considered only Tendulkar worth being rated higher than their God Ganguly

 

[vicky_iisc]

It was a decision by Australian Captain Bill Woodfull not to retaliate.

Even if it costs them the most prestigious series ? Commendable spirit on part of Woodful.

 

[Haroon786]

There is never going to be another Tendulkar, like there hasn't been anotther Bradman in the last 50 years.

 

[IndianWillow]

Even if it costs them the most prestigious series ? Commendable spirit on part of Woodful.

I think cricket was played with the right spirit till then. Bradman's unbelievable batting prowess (974 runs @ 139!! during the 31 series) made the contests so one sided that the English got desperate and resorted to bodyline in an attempt to check Bradman.

 

[Raj-MSDian]

Well if Raul dravid played in timeless tests I wonder what his average would be....in any case bradman is greatest in the world

 

[Haroon786]

Pre-war era was different. The whole world was more or less unified under the British empire and Australia wasn't a completely independent nation back then. Today, each country is a separate entity in a way very different from the 30s.

Are you the utube libk you posted was not a leggie. ?

 

[JibranAnsari]

29 hundreds in 80 innings. Overrated? Really?

 

[Haroon786]

Well if Raul dravid played in timeless tests I wonder what his average would be....in any case bradman is greatest in the world

On uncovered pitches, withouth safety equipment?

 

[IndianWillow]

On uncovered pitches, withouth safety equipment?

Uncovered pitches were difficult to play on, only if it rained. And Bradman usually struggled to score on such sticky wickets.

 

[IndianWillow]

Are you the utube libk you posted was not a leggie. ?

No he was a fast bowler who was even booed out for chucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Mold

 

[yasir]

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

Author is taking jabs at the greatest batsman of all times, I am not sure he is analyzing it correctly...

When Bradman played pitches were uncovered, far more difficult to play than today's covered pitches. People who have seen Bradman play, do agree that his foot work was far superior than anybody else to this date, because of that he was able to play so much better than his peers. He used to get runs so quickly (not by mere slogging, only 6 sixes in his test carrier), but yet so reliability, he is probably the one who started playing fast, make stroke play attractive to watch, the first true super star of cricket!!!

Bodyline jabs are also not fair assessment. At that time there was no protection what so ever, you can see the poweress of Bradman that England did not have any other way to counter him. If bodyline is allowed today with no helmets and upper body pads, can you imagine what will happen to the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, KP, Pounting, Sobers etc?? - How long they will play and what will be their Avges?? - BTW: Bradman had an average of 52 in that series. I have only seen Viv play fast bowling without any fear and protection.

It is disappoint to see English press is taking jabs at the greatest legend of Cricket, they need to look in the mirror before going after Bradman!!!

 

[Convict]

One thing Bradman has going for him was that he thrived on the pressures of captaincy.

Not all players were able to do this unfortunately.

 

[Aman]

One thing Bradman has going for him was that he thrived on the pressures of captaincy.

Not all players were able to do this unfortunately.

I like your subtly

 

[The Rock]

One thing Bradman has going for him was that he thrived on the pressures of captaincy.

Not all players were able to do this unfortunately.

Against How many teams he captained and how many world cups he won?

 

[Convict]

Against How many teams he captained and how many world cups he won?

If we're going by that measure then Ricky Ponting would be the greatest captain of all time.

Whilst Punter is a player who did rise to the challenges of captaincy no one would consider him the equal of Mark Taylor as a captain.

Bradman had a brilliant record as captain in terms of winning and also with the bat. Check out his last three tests of the 1936 Ashes series for instance.

 

[cricketjoshila]

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

Played in quarter no. of test matches in 1/5th the no. of countries with hardly any great bowlers to contend with.

Bradman was a legend.The best of his era.But not the best ever.Neither is Tendulkar.

 

[cricketjoshila]

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.

How many countries actually played serious cricket in those days?

I am travelling so you can check this your self on Cricinfo.

Based on avgs no batsman post 1955 will make it to a world 11 except Graeme pollock.All spots will be taken up by batsmen from pre 1955 era based on avgs.

 

[JibranAnsari]

Different eras, ok. Why didnt anyone even get close to 65 average in that era. Fact is he is the greatest cricketer ever. Sachin on the other hand is a great but many batsmen average close to him , he wins on logevity basis.

 

[Convict]

Different eras, ok. Why didnt anyone even get close to 65 average in that era. Fact is he is the greatest cricketer ever. Sachin on the other hand is a great but many batsmen average close to him , he wins on logevity basis.

And many could argue that Murali, Warne, Kallis, McGrath and Lara were better cricketers.

 

[Jo_Don]

Very poorly written piece. He was way ahead of his peers which is why he was rated so highly. It seems like it was written by an Indian to downplay Bradman while bigging up Tendulkar.

 

[RexRex]

The LBW rule was different and many of his centuries came in timeless matches so a proper comparison is hard to make .. lets be honest.

 

[Haroon786]

Just watched some bodyline vids of Larwood, he was very fast, somewhere in the range of 90-1oo mph

 

[IndianWillow]

How many countries actually played serious cricket in those days?

I am travelling so you can check this your self on Cricinfo.

Based on avgs no batsman post 1955 will make it to a world 11 except Graeme pollock.All spots will be taken up by batsmen from pre 1955 era based on avgs.

I don't think the number of countries makes much difference. Even today only SA, Eng, Aus, Ind, Pak and SL are competitive teams and even there only SA is competitive every where they play.

You seem to think that since Bradman played only against two or three nations he got used to their bowling and made mountains of runs. Does it not occur to you that bowlers also get acclimatized facing the same batsmen again and again?

I agree that no batsmen of the 30s will make it to a world XI on absolute terms. I would even claim that even Shikhar Dhawan who scored 248 today is technically better than Bradman because we live in different times - Bradman did not have the facilities Dhawan had. But I would select Bradman over Dhawan in every World XI team I make. Why is it so?

 

[Reverselap]

I was wondering how BBC had such a poorly written (Grammatically and IQ wise) article. It isn't an article at all. This used to be a BBC forum of sorts, where users could talk. IIRC, there were lots of India/Pakistan wars on it. Anyways, don't be fooled by the BBC URL, it is not an official article by BBC, but the view of a forum member on a now defunct forum

 

[WebGuru]

I was wondering how BBC had such a poorly written (Grammatically and IQ wise) article. It isn't an article at all. This used to be a BBC forum of sorts, where users could talk. IIRC, there were lots of India/Pakistan wars on it. Anyways, don't be fooled by the BBC URL, it is not an official article by BBC, but the view of a forum member on a now defunct forum

Agreed i checked it to confirm yesterday and found that this was something like a community for BBC users they called it 606 and you can comment and submit your own articles there but it's no more working now...Tried to find more articles from this guys but found none...

 

[yasir]

How many countries actually played serious cricket in those days?

I am travelling so you can check this your self on Cricinfo.

Based on avgs no batsman post 1955 will make it to a world 11 except Graeme pollock.All spots will be taken up by batsmen from pre 1955 era based on avgs.

Playing Against more countries is advantage to players for beefing up the stats against weaker teams. What are stats of Tendulkar or Lara against Zim, BD, NZ??
Where as Bradman stats against the best team of the time are as great as his Avg, because he mostly played with them.

You also have to look at the fact that at no point in last 140 years of test Cricket History any batsman has gone close to 100 Avg (60s is the best, mostly in 50s), Don was the only one in 140 years to achieve that. He was miles ahead of everybody else... Why Indians try to push for Tendulkar Vs Bradman, there is no comparison. The authors and supporter look foolish in doing so...