How do you rate Steven Smith?

[therealAB]

Yeah after Bradman is what I forgot to add.

Nevertheless, my point there was just that you look at the other greats of the game and can think of 6-7 years of peak but Tendulkar in contrast had maintained 15 years of peak(1993-2003 and 2007-11).

If I get a player who will maintain around 60 average for 15 years compare to another player who is maintaining 65 for 6 years, I would rather go with the former than latter.

Yep, Tendulkar is certainly exceptional in that regard for longevity, although Sobers averaged 72 over 10 years between 58 and 67 which for me is the longest sustained peak disregarding Bradman

 

[cricketjoshila]

You think there were no turning tracks before 1955 outside the Subcontinent? There were dustbowls in England and Australia.

Also sticky dogs where skippers would reverse the batting order hoping that the wicket would dry out. These are unknown today.

A grassy hard pitch in Mohali is not the same as one in Gabba or perth.

Conditions are the biggest factor in cricket and they vary from country to country.

Here a player plays in 4 different countries in 12 months, the amount of adjustment he has to do is massive.

Was DRS, computer analysis, professional coaching known in those days?


In every sport, the level has gone up with time. There is no comparison between modern day cricketer and a amateur from the Bradman era.

 

[Robert]

A grassy hard pitch in Mohali is not the same as one in Gabba or perth.

Conditions are the biggest factor in cricket and they vary from country to country.

Here a player plays in 4 different countries in 12 months, the amount of adjustment he has to do is massive.

Was DRS, computer analysis, professional coaching known in those days?

In every sport, the level has gone up with time. There is no comparison between modern day cricketer and a amateur from the Bradman era.

I don’t believe that for one instant. A champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

The difference between amateur and professional status was blurry. Bradman was a professional. There were a few aristocrats such as Ranjitsinji and Jardine who didn’t need to be paid, being independently wealthy, but they all got paid to play cricket anyway.

If you moved Bradman into the modern era he wouldn’t average 99.94 because more of his fours would be cut off, due to improved fielding. So he might average 75. On the other hand he would never face a sticky dog in the modern game, which was all that stopped him averaging 120 in his day. So maybe he would average more than 75.

 

[Advaith]

I don’t believe that for one instant. A champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

The difference between amateur and professional status was blurry. Bradman was a professional. There were a few aristocrats such as Ranjitsinji and Jardine who didn’t need to be paid, being independently wealthy, but they all got paid to play cricket anyway.

If you moved Bradman into the modern era he wouldn’t average 99.94 because more of his fours would be cut off, due to improved fielding. So he might average 75. On the other hand he would never face a sticky dog in the modern game, which was all that stopped him averaging 120 in his day. So maybe he would average more than 75.

Cricket level overall like any other sports is increased with time and exposure it got within society ...In bradmans days if one person is interested in cricket as a career it is now thousands time more , hence greater competition ..Bradman is Bradman because he was an exception in that era but looking to those days cricket quality was very poor.However it is unjusice to compare both ..

 

[Technics 1210]

I don’t believe that for one instant. A champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

The difference between amateur and professional status was blurry. Bradman was a professional. There were a few aristocrats such as Ranjitsinji and Jardine who didn’t need to be paid, being independently wealthy, but they all got paid to play cricket anyway.

If you moved Bradman into the modern era he wouldn’t average 99.94 because more of his fours would be cut off, due to improved fielding. So he might average 75. On the other hand he would never face a sticky dog in the modern game, which was all that stopped him averaging 120 in his day. So maybe he would average more than 75.

You are again missing a crucial point. Bradman really only ever played against 1 team, England, in 1 of 2 countries - Australia and England.

If Kohli had the choice to play against any opposition, Bangladesh, Pakistan, or even, Sri Lanka, at home in India, and respective SC away grounds, he’d end up with a 100+ average after a good part of 2 decades.

Also during Bradman’s years, a good number of players were part-time cricketers.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

What a throwback thread.

Looks like Smith took your advice here bro and really tightened.

From a joke to th GOAT