How great was Don Bradman?

[atreus]

for all the yap about the standards of that era, I'll remind you that the distance between Bradman and Gavaskar is the same as the one between the current batters and Gavaskar, nobody really rates Gavaskar as a lower player than the guys batting today, it was also a cricketer from 1954, not even 10 years after Bradman, who smashed through Indian and Australian pacers in his elderly years. I think the logic of discarding early cricket as being too simplistic and inferior stops working at about the Golden age, most batting techniques had been developed by Doctor WG Grace, Bart King had introduced swing bowling at about the turn of the century, Spin bowling at the time was aided by countless factors and had been introduced since the 1780s, seamers were also around and so forth. So really, the golden age is the perfect time to start.

the 30s-50s is where you definitely have to start though, really.

 

[atreus]

He is obviously the greatest but there are some things mythical about him. It is true that no one could manage an avg of 99 for over 50 tests. However, will he avg so much had he been playing in modern era? I have doubts.

When Bradman played, cricket was not a very competitive sport and it used to be a lazy Sunday afternoon game. Most of the bowlers were dibly dobly medium pacers (trundlers). Apart from Larwood and Laker, there was not a single good bowler Bradman had faced. Larwood troubled him few times as well with his face.

Bradman never faced proper pace bowling like West Indies of 80s or Wasim/Waqars/Mcgraths of the world, neither he faced any quality spinners like Indian spin quartlets or Warne, Murali, Saqlain etc. During his time there were no variations, cutters or doosra as cricket was not evolved back then.

well before the war he averaged 97 and scored 5000 runs, after the war he averaged 105 and scored 2000 runs, if he played the war he'd probably have 70-80 tests of averaging 90+, and that's an insane stat, even his first class numbers are out of the world really.

even facing Larwood and the Bodyline tactic he averaged 55 to everyone else's 30, plus obviously there are gonna be limits and each generation faces new innovations, tricks and challenges, but Bradman had to play on wickets where the ball due to the moisture would often turn into a sticky dog, stick into the pitch and not bounce consistently or well at all, that type of bowling today is monstrous considering how difficult South Africa is, bowlers back in the day could tamper without restrictions as well as bowl as many bouncers as wanted with them having no protective gear, gloves or thick bats.

That's the beauty of cricket, every era is unique with it's own sets of challenges

 

[Rajdeep]

well before the war he averaged 97 and scored 5000 runs, after the war he averaged 105 and scored 2000 runs, if he played the war he'd probably have 70-80 tests of averaging 90+, and that's an insane stat, even his first class numbers are out of the world really.

even facing Larwood and the Bodyline tactic he averaged 55 to everyone else's 30, plus obviously there are gonna be limits and each generation faces new innovations, tricks and challenges, but Bradman had to play on wickets where the ball due to the moisture would often turn into a sticky dog, stick into the pitch and not bounce consistently or well at all, that type of bowling today is monstrous considering how difficult South Africa is, bowlers back in the day could tamper without restrictions as well as bowl as many bouncers as wanted with them having no protective gear, gloves or thick bats.

That's the beauty of cricket, every era is unique with it's own sets of challenges

No one is denying his greatness but I am saying there are caveats on his record. However, he was the greatest among his peers but I refuse to compare players cross era.

 

[sweep_shot]

Best batter of all time.

Average of close to 100.

 

[atreus]

But didnt Compton ended up with an away average of 36, i.e. Warner-esque or Mahela level?

He was actually fine away from home, he just had an absolutely horrible Ashes down under in 1953 because he was batting with an injury and had a bad away series at the end of his career

 

[sweep_shot]

I fully expect Indians to downplay and discredit Bradman. Many of them don't know how to respect historical figures and often try to rewrite history.

If Bradman was an Indian, we might have seen 100 Bollywood movies about him.

Bradman was someone who averaged almost 100. Nobody came close to that record whether in the past or in the present. He is the best batter of all time statistically.

 

[mominsaigol]

If this was another dig on Sachin, I humbly disagree.

Like no one else could manage avg of 99 when he played, no contemporary of Sachin could manage all the runs/centuries across both the formats. Either they were not good enough to sustain for that long or fizzled out quickly. So that is why Sachin stands out in modern era like Bradman does in Victorian era.

#FACTS

Bradman never had to worry about his buddies fizzling out.

He was just better then them from every angle, peak or not.

Not the case qith Sachin who frequently got outperformed and his fans go back to but but but but he has longetivity nonsense.

 

[Rajdeep]

Bradman never had to worry about his buddies fizzling out.

He was just better then them from every angle, peak or not.

Not the case qith Sachin who frequently got outperformed and his fans go back to but but but but he has longetivity nonsense.

There are different ways to measure greatness.

We should measure greatness for the overall career and not based on whether another player outperformed him on his peak or without gloves or when fielding at silly point etc.

I am sure there are days when other batters out performed Bradman as well.

Longevity and playing for 22 years across both the formats requires maintaining fitness, form, appetite and dedication. So for you to call it a non-sense shows your understanding of the game.

Why you think others fizzled out and couldn't maintain the same longevity and stack up as many runs/centuries like SRT did? So thats why he stands out in this modern era.

 

[mominsaigol]

There are different ways to measure greatness.

We should measure greatness for the overall career and not based on whether another player outperformed him on his peak or without gloves or when fielding at silly point etc.

I am sure there are days when other batters out performed Bradman as well.

Longevity and playing for 22 years across both the formats requires maintaining fitness, form, appetite and dedication. So for you to call it a non-sense shows your understanding of the game.

Why you think others fizzled out and couldn't maintain the same longevity and stack up as many runs/centuries like SRT did? So thats why he stands out in this modern era.

I am sure there are days when other batters out performed Bradman as well.

Never happened. They may have outperformed in one innings but game by game, Bradman was always the top scorer.

Even in the bodyline series he averahed 56 while the rest of his team couldnt even avg 10-15. Infact he was so good, bodyline was invented just to neutralise him and he still outperformed even English batters despite the fact that they weren't even exposed to bodyline and could only avg 30 to 53.

in sachin's case ge was outperformed year by year. Infact in 24 years he was only top scorer of the year twice.

And mnay surpass him in multiple metrics. Sanga in test avg, Kohli in odi centuries, De villers and Bevan in odi avg etc etc.

 

[Rajdeep]

I am sure there are days when other batters out performed Bradman as well.

Never happened. They may have outperformed in one innings but game by game, Bradman was always the top scorer.

Even in the bodyline series he averahed 56 while the rest of his team couldnt even avg 10-15. Infact he was so good, bodyline was invented just to neutralise him and he still outperformed even English batters despite the fact that they weren't even exposed to bodyline and could only avg 30 to 53.

in sachin's case ge was outperformed year by year. Infact in 24 years he was only top scorer of the year twice.

And mnay surpass him in multiple metrics. Sanga in test avg, Kohli in odi centuries, De villers and Bevan in odi avg etc etc.

I am not denying Bradman's greatness as I truly believe he was the real institution of batting.

However, regarding Sachin's case as you yourself said Sanga has better test avg than him, Kohli has outscored him in ODI centuries, Bevan and even MSD has got better ODI avg than him and Root may surpass his test runs tally etc. But there is not a single player who was equally good like him in both the formats. Bevan and Dhoni were limited over greats but sucked in test matches. Root is ATG in test but poor in white ball cricket..so on and so forth.

This is what makes SRT distinct and why he is the institution of batting in modern era.

Bradman himself had said that, so who are we mere mortals to argue.

 

[mominsaigol]

I am not denying Bradman's greatness as I truly believe he was the real institution of batting.

However, regarding Sachin's case as you yourself said Sanga has better test avg than him, Kohli has outscored him in ODI centuries, Bevan and even MSD has got better ODI avg than him and Root may surpass his test runs tally etc. But there is not a single player who was equally good like him in both the formats. Bevan and Dhoni were limited over greats but sucked in test matches. Root is ATG in test but poor in white ball cricket..so on and so forth.

This is what makes SRT distinct and why he is the institution of batting in modern era.

Bradman himself had said that, so who are we mere mortals to argue.

If you actually bothered reading my posts you'd realise I already accepted that Sachin is no 1 in odi + tests and no 2-5 in tests depending on perspective.

However I disagreed with the notion of him being unmatched or an undisputed no 1.

He can't be undisputed if their are disputed metrics that people are argue upon which in the case of Bradman do not exist for his particular era.

The only argument for Bradman is that he played in an amateur era, however the same logic applied for the likes of Sachin and kohli since these 2 had access to coaching, leagues, high quality equipment whole Bradman was a part time office worker who had to make ends meet due to world war 2.

I'd like to see Sachin succeed with no infrastructure.

When everyone played with zero infrastructure, they all avg 40 to 60 but Bradman who was on equal footing avg 99.94.

But in Sachin's case lots of players in his era who are on equal footing with him can take him on in some areas.

Hence Sachin creates debatable topics while Bradman does not.

Therefore Bradman is an undisputed no 1 as their is nothing to dispute. Not the case with Sachin.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Came across a great video that I felt like sharing. Does alot to tell you how great the GOAT was. And yes, he was the GOAT. There should be no question about that.

 

[Fanboy375]

During Bradman time first class batting was improving

 

[sweep_shot]

Came across a great video that I felt like sharing. Does alot to tell you how great the GOAT was. And yes, he was the GOAT. There should be no question about that.

It is mostly Indians who question Don Bradman. Other people agree Don Bradman is the best batter of all time.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

It is mostly Indians who question Don Bradman. Other people agree Don Bradman is the best batter of all time.

I can understand certain Indians questioning it. Tendulkar is pretty much the only other player that is compared to Bradman. If a Pakistani player accomplished what Tendulkar has accomplished, maybe I would be a bit susceptible to be biased too.

But no, sorry, there is no real comparison to someone who averaged 99.94 in Test cricket, even though he played in an era of uncovered pitches and lost some of the peak years of his career due to the Second World War.

 

[Buffet]

The best batsman in his era by a large margin.

The best batsman for me in the test format in history.

If some one does not put him as the best then i undertsand the logic. But he is the best test batsman for me despite considering that logic.

 

[Fanboy375]

During Bradman era batting average was high.Eng batsman average batting average were 34 against Aus but it is 27 now.His average would be 70+

 

[Fanboy375]

Hey @DeadlyVenom @mominsaigol any idea whom Bradman considered greatest batsman after him and told his mrs that the little guy bats like him?

Wonder why never talked about Lara, Ponting or Sanga (without gloves )

Bradman died before Sanga came to play first time.Lara and Ponting were not in their hay days during that time

 

[Fanboy375]

I can understand certain Indians questioning it. Tendulkar is pretty much the only other player that is compared to Bradman. If a Pakistani player accomplished what Tendulkar has accomplished, maybe I would be a bit susceptible to be biased too.

But no, sorry, there is no real comparison to someone who averaged 99.94 in Test cricket, even though he played in an era of uncovered pitches and lost some of the peak years of his career due to the Second World War.

Some Australians (Tony Greg) compare him to Bradman too

 

[mominsaigol]

People who downplay bradman act like every tom dick and Harry in his era avg 99.94.

 

[Hitman]

Sir Donald Bradman scored his first Test century on this day in 1929, scoring 112 against England in Melbourne.

 

[mominsaigol]

It is mostly Indians who question Don Bradman. Other people agree Don Bradman is the best batter of all time.

The gap between Bradman and Sachin is so unbelievably wide its not even funny.

 

[big_gamer007]

People often confuse the “GOAT cricketer” with the “greatest batsman ever.”

Don Bradman is comparable to Wilt Chamberlain in basketball. Wilt was a mythical figure who famously scored 100 points in a game and once averaged 50 points per game for an entire season. Yet, despite these extraordinary numbers, no serious basketball analyst considers Wilt or Bill Russell the greatest of all time.

Cricket is unique in this regard. Bradman is widely regarded as the GOAT batsman, largely because cricket’s historical narrative was shaped by two dominant countries: one that Bradman represented, and another he routinely dominated.

If Bradman were judged purely by today’s cricketing standards, he likely wouldn’t even make a Ranji Trophy team. However, there are two important considerations that complicate the debate:

1. If a great like Bradman were born in the modern era, it’s possible he would have evolved his game to adapt to today’s conditions and remained just as dominant.
2. Bradman’s statistical peak came against bowlers delivering at speeds of 110–120 km/h. We often see in sports that some players reach exceptional heights against certain styles of play, but struggle or get exposed against others.

In sports, we can never be 100% certain how players from one era would perform in another.

Bradman is arguably the GOAT cricketer from a historical perspective. But as a batsman, he is not necessarily in contention for being the best ever. The title of the best batsman should go to a modern player—someone like Sachin Tendulkar, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, or Ricky Ponting—who excelled in a more competitive and evolved era.

Once people understand the difference between the “GOAT cricketer” and the “best/GOAT batsman,” they will begin to rate Bradman in a more balanced and realistic way.

 

[big_gamer007]

People who downplay bradman act like every tom dick and Harry in his era avg 99.94.

No one ever denies Bradman was the best in his era. Anyone who denies that is slightly wrong in the head.

However, no one can be 100% certain if he would have thrived and be successful in modern era or not, it’s all conjecture.

So no point comparing between different eras, especially pre-war era with modern era.

 

[mominsaigol]

People often confuse the “GOAT cricketer” with the “greatest batsman ever.”

Don Bradman is comparable to Wilt Chamberlain in basketball. Wilt was a mythical figure who famously scored 100 points in a game and once averaged 50 points per game for an entire season. Yet, despite these extraordinary numbers, no serious basketball analyst considers Wilt or Bill Russell the greatest of all time.

Cricket is unique in this regard. Bradman is widely regarded as the GOAT batsman, largely because cricket’s historical narrative was shaped by two dominant countries: one that Bradman represented, and another he routinely dominated.

If Bradman were judged purely by today’s cricketing standards, he likely wouldn’t even make a Ranji Trophy team. However, there are two important considerations that complicate the debate:

1. If a great like Bradman were born in the modern era, it’s possible he would have evolved his game to adapt to today’s conditions and remained just as dominant.
2. Bradman’s statistical peak came against bowlers delivering at speeds of 110–120 km/h. We often see in sports that some players reach exceptional heights against certain styles of play, but struggle or get exposed against others.

In sports, we can never be 100% certain how players from one era would perform in another.

Bradman is arguably the GOAT cricketer from a historical perspective. But as a batsman, he is not necessarily in contention for being the best ever. The title of the best batsman should go to a modern player—someone like Sachin Tendulkar, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, or Ricky Ponting—who excelled in a more competitive and evolved era.

Once people understand the difference between the “GOAT cricketer” and the “best/GOAT batsman,” they will begin to rate Bradman in a more balanced and realistic way.

You realise it's been stated numerous times that Bradman did face 100mph bowlers? I highly doubt the books of Bradman and Bradman himself would be dishonest in this regard.

Secondly you realise that none of these cricketers can play in bradman's era either? Those bats dont allow for any of these funky shots like we see today. An edge aint going to the boundary with those bats.

You can't play drives or pullshots in a conventional way those bats.

Its also 100x harder to bat with virtually no equipment. Wicket keepers in that era where putting raw beef in their gloves to catch the ball amd cusion the blow.

Playing a pull shot wasnt easy as it is today, no helmet and no equipment such as arm guards makes people resistant to play that shot if the threat of death is their. Not everyone is viv Richards. In this era concussion checks happen 24/7 if a ball even remotely hits you in the head.

You can't even sweep properly with those bats.

Modern era batters would have the advantage of footwork and hand eye coordination due to their skills, but when it comes to bat swings, shot selection etc etc they'd have to relearn the very art of batting.

It's similar to programming. Modern programmers are far more skilled then programmers who utilised woreframes but these c++ experts wont be able to handle 1962 computer code either. They'd have to relearn everything and adjust to the limitations of that era.

Similarly Magnus Carslen in chess would destory Bobby Fisher, but can Magnus carslen win in that era where he'd be forced to learn chess off newspapers? It's easy for a grandmaster in chess to reach fisher level if you have endless upon endless game analysis via the Internet plus an Ai stock fish coach.

Could carslen win if he was to relearn chess via newspapers and wouldnt have access to Amy chess data except memory? Hikaru even stated that the only reason the gap between him and carslen increased was due to them playing so much that carslen learned of all of his openings?

 

[mominsaigol]

No one ever denies Bradman was the best in his era. Anyone who denies that is slightly wrong in the head.

However, no one can be 100% certain if he would have thrived and be successful in modern era or not, it’s all conjecture.

So no point comparing between different eras, especially pre-war era with modern era.

Already answered

You realise it's been stated numerous times that Bradman did face 100mph bowlers? I highly doubt the books of Bradman and Bradman himself would be dishonest in this regard.

Secondly you realise that none of these cricketers can play in bradman's era either? Those bats dont allow for any of these funky shots like we see today. An edge aint going to the boundary with those bats.

You can't play drives or pullshots in a conventional way those bats.

Its also 100x harder to bat with virtually no equipment. Wicket keepers in that era where putting raw beef in their gloves to catch the ball amd cusion the blow.

Playing a pull shot wasnt easy as it is today, no helmet and no equipment such as arm guards makes people resistant to play that shot if the threat of death is their. Not everyone is viv Richards. In this era concussion checks happen 24/7 if a ball even remotely hits you in the head.

You can't even sweep properly with those bats.

Modern era batters would have the advantage of footwork and hand eye coordination due to their skills, but when it comes to bat swings, shot selection etc etc they'd have to relearn the very art of batting.

It's similar to programming. Modern programmers are far more skilled then programmers who utilised woreframes but these c++ experts wont be able to handle 1962 computer code either. They'd have to relearn everything and adjust to the limitations of that era.

Similarly Magnus Carslen in chess would destory Bobby Fisher, but can Magnus carslen win in that era where he'd be forced to learn chess off newspapers? It's easy for a grandmaster in chess to reach fisher level if you have endless upon endless game analysis via the Internet plus an Ai stock fish coach.

Could carslen win if he was to relearn chess via newspapers and wouldnt have access to Amy chess data except memory? Hikaru even stated that the only reason the gap between him and carslen increased was due to them playing so much that carslen learned of all of his openings?

 

[big_gamer007]

You realise it's been stated numerous times that Bradman did face 100mph bowlers? I highly doubt the books of Bradman and Bradman himself would be dishonest in this regard.

Secondly you realise that none of these cricketers can play in bradman's era either? Those bats dont allow for any of these funky shots like we see today. An edge aint going to the boundary with those bats.

You can't play drives or pullshots in a conventional way those bats.

Its also 100x harder to bat with virtually no equipment. Wicket keepers in that era where putting raw beef in their gloves to catch the ball amd cusion the blow.

Playing a pull shot wasnt easy as it is today, no helmet and no equipment such as arm guards makes people resistant to play that shot if the threat of death is their. Not everyone is viv Richards. In this era concussion checks happen 24/7 if a ball even remotely hits you in the head.

You can't even sweep properly with those bats.

Modern era batters would have the advantage of footwork and hand eye coordination due to their skills, but when it comes to bat swings, shot selection etc etc they'd have to relearn the very art of batting.

It's similar to programming. Modern programmers are far more skilled then programmers who utilised woreframes but these c++ experts wont be able to handle 1962 computer code either. They'd have to relearn everything and adjust to the limitations of that era.

Similarly Magnus Carslen in chess would destory Bobby Fisher, but can Magnus carslen win in that era where he'd be forced to learn chess off newspapers? It's easy for a grandmaster in chess to reach fisher level if you have endless upon endless game analysis via the Internet plus an Ai stock fish coach.

Could carslen win if he was to relearn chess via newspapers and wouldnt have access to Amy chess data except memory? Hikaru even stated that the only reason the gap between him and carslen increased was due to them playing so much that carslen learned of all of his openings?

There is enough footage available online for you to watch the standard of cricket during Bradmans time. I don’t need any books or anyone else’s vision to make my judgement, I have seen enough videos online to make my own judgement on quality of cricket back in the day compared to modern times.
The standard just doesn’t compete with a modern county/ranji game let alone an international game.

You are free to disagree and make your opinions based on someone else’s vision and opinions. I prefer to make my own.

There is no reliable evidence of Bradman facing 100 mph. That’s untrue and bogus stories one exaggerates, I mean, as per Junaids, Sylvester Clarke clocked in at 170kmps, Larwood and trueman were 100mph etc.
If you are to believe people without evidence then you should also believe Atul Sharma as the fastest bowler in the world whose average speed was 110 mph?
That’s not how real world works.

The crux of my post was one should not compare between eras, however, it’s factually correct that quality of cricket in Bradmans era was substantially poor than quality of cricket in modern era, hence, Bradman cannot be the best batsman ever, he can still be the GOAT cricketer but certain not the best Batsman.

 

[mominsaigol]

There is enough footage available online for you to watch the standard of cricket during Bradmans time. I don’t need any books or anyone else’s vision to make my judgement, I have seen enough videos online to make my own judgement on quality of cricket back in the day compared to modern times.
The standard just doesn’t compete with a modern county/ranji game let alone an international game.

You are free to disagree and make your opinions based on someone else’s vision and opinions. I prefer to make my own.

There is no reliable evidence of Bradman facing 100 mph. That’s untrue and bogus stories one exaggerates, I mean, as per Junaids, Sylvester Clarke clocked in at 170kmps, Larwood and trueman were 100mph etc.
If you are to believe people without evidence then you should also believe Atul Sharma as the fastest bowler in the world whose average speed was 110 mph?
That’s not how real world works.

The crux of my post was one should not compare between eras, however, it’s factually correct that quality of cricket in Bradmans era was substantially poor than quality of cricket in modern era, hence, Bradman cannot be the best batsman ever, he can still be the GOAT cricketer but certain not the best Batsman.

How can I validate your eye test? Or validate anything you claim to be factual in terms of standards?

I have no issue believing books. I've seen the quality of those black and white telecasts. Their absolute rubbish and I can't determine anything. Atleast these books contain citations and claims that can somewhat be validated over standard eye tests that I cannot validate unless I was Charles Xavier from the X Men.

 

[big_gamer007]

How can I validate your eye test? Or validate anything you claim to be factual in terms of standards?

I have no issue believing books. I've seen the quality of those black and white telecasts. Their absolute rubbish and I can't determine anything. Atleast these books contain citations and claims that can somewhat be validated over standard eye tests that I cannot validate unless I was Charles Xavier from the X Men.

Where did I ask you to validate my eye test?

There are enough videos available online for any unbiased person without nostalgia and more than 10 cricket IQ to see the standard of technique and quality of cricket during Bradmans time compared to modern era.

Just YouTube Bradmans batting and watch available videos and look at the bowling and batting technique, compare it to modern time yourself and if you still think they are comparable then you are a lost case, if you understand the different in quality of cricket and still want to debate further with new arguments feel free to bring them forth.

 

[mominsaigol]

Where did I ask you to validate my eye test?

There are enough videos available online for any unbiased person without nostalgia and more than 10 cricket IQ to see the standard of technique and quality of cricket during Bradmans time compared to modern era.

Just YouTube Bradmans batting and watch available videos and look at the bowling and batting technique, compare it to modern time yourself and if you still think they are comparable then you are a lost case, if you understand the different in quality of cricket and still want to debate further with new arguments feel free to bring them forth.

Mate patting yourself on the back wont do anything nor will sliding in egotistical remarks about your greatness.

Let me ask again, how do I validate any of your claims? I watch a YouTube video and claim something else then what? Who is correct in this regard?

That's why books and statements are more accurate for that era.

 

[big_gamer007]

Mate patting yourself on the back wont do anything nor will sliding in egotistical remarks about your greatness.

Let me ask again, how do I validate any of your claims? I watch a YouTube video and claim something else then what? Who is correct in this regard?

That's why books and statements are more accurate for that era.

Are you purposely missing the point? Let me dumb it down for you.

I wouldn’t make my opinion based on anyone else’s opinion when I have the option to watch the evidence and make my own opinions. Had there been no videos of cricket during Bradmans time then we would have taken books and articles during that time into account, however, since there is evidence of cricket played during time, free for everyone to watch, including yourself, you can watch those videos and come to conclusion yourself, instead of believing anyone else be it books or be it my opinions.

There are many videos, you can watch yourself, now you can compare the bowling, batting, fielding technique with modern era and make your own opinion instead of relying on any books.

There will be plenty of other videos from that era available on Internet you can check yourself.


I made my opinion on Bradmans batting compared to any modern great from the videos I watched from that era, and it let me to conclude that Bradmans era quality wise is worse than today’s first class games.

Does it mean Bradmans greatness is any less? NO, he is still arguably the greatest cricketer ever. However, he cannot be the best batsman ever because batting and bowling has improved 100 folds since then.

It’s same as MMA, compare the old UFC fighters to modern fighters, and the difference in technique is huge. Eventually there will come a point when the scope of improvement for humans reaches a plateau and to improve any further or push further boundaries you need evolution.

Same case with basketball, baseball, golf, hockey, tennis or any sport.

Cherish Bradman for his impact on game, but don’t say he’s the best batsman ever.

Mate patting yourself on the back wont do anything nor will sliding in egotistical remarks about your greatness.

Let me ask again, how do I validate any of your claims? I watch a YouTube video and claim something else then what? Who is correct in this regard?

That's why books and statements are more accurate for that era.

Are you purposely missing the point? Let me dumb it down for you.

I wouldn’t make my opinion based on anyone else’s opinion when I have the option to watch the evidence and make my own opinions. Had there been no videos of cricket during Bradmans time then we would have taken books and articles during that time into account, however, since there is evidence of cricket played during time, free for everyone to watch, including yourself, you can watch those videos and come to conclusion yourself, instead of believing anyone else be it books or be it my opinions.

There are many videos, you can watch yourself, now you can compare the bowling, batting, fielding technique with modern era and make your own opinion instead of relying on any books.

There will be plenty of other videos from that era available on Internet you can check yourself.


I made my opinion on Bradmans batting compared to any modern great from the videos I watched from that era, and it let me to conclude that Bradmans era quality wise is worse than today’s first class games.

Does it mean Bradmans greatness is any less? NO, he is still arguably the greatest cricketer ever. However, he cannot be the best batsman ever because batting and bowling has improved 100 folds since then.

It’s same as MMA, compare the old UFC fighters to modern fighters, and the difference in technique is huge. Eventually there will come a point when the scope of improvement for humans reaches a plateau and to improve any further or push further boundaries you need evolution.

Same case with basketball, baseball, golf, hockey, tennis or any sport.

Cherish Bradman for his impact on game, but don’t say he’s the best batsman ever.

 

[mominsaigol]

Are you purposely missing the point? Let me dumb it down for you.

I wouldn’t make my opinion based on anyone else’s opinion when I have the option to watch the evidence and make my own opinions. Had there been no videos of cricket during Bradmans time then we would have taken books and articles during that time into account, however, since there is evidence of cricket played during time, free for everyone to watch, including yourself, you can watch those videos and come to conclusion yourself, instead of believing anyone else be it books or be it my opinions.

There are many videos, you can watch yourself, now you can compare the bowling, batting, fielding technique with modern era and make your own opinion instead of relying on any books.

There will be plenty of other videos from that era available on Internet you can check yourself.


I made my opinion on Bradmans batting compared to any modern great from the videos I watched from that era, and it let me to conclude that Bradmans era quality wise is worse than today’s first class games.

Does it mean Bradmans greatness is any less? NO, he is still arguably the greatest cricketer ever. However, he cannot be the best batsman ever because batting and bowling has improved 100 folds since then.

It’s same as MMA, compare the old UFC fighters to modern fighters, and the difference in technique is huge. Eventually there will come a point when the scope of improvement for humans reaches a plateau and to improve any further or push further boundaries you need evolution.

Same case with basketball, baseball, golf, hockey, tennis or any sport.

Cherish Bradman for his impact on game, but don’t say he’s the best batsman ever.



Are you purposely missing the point? Let me dumb it down for you.

I wouldn’t make my opinion based on anyone else’s opinion when I have the option to watch the evidence and make my own opinions. Had there been no videos of cricket during Bradmans time then we would have taken books and articles during that time into account, however, since there is evidence of cricket played during time, free for everyone to watch, including yourself, you can watch those videos and come to conclusion yourself, instead of believing anyone else be it books or be it my opinions.

There are many videos, you can watch yourself, now you can compare the bowling, batting, fielding technique with modern era and make your own opinion instead of relying on any books.

There will be plenty of other videos from that era available on Internet you can check yourself.


I made my opinion on Bradmans batting compared to any modern great from the videos I watched from that era, and it let me to conclude that Bradmans era quality wise is worse than today’s first class games.

Does it mean Bradmans greatness is any less? NO, he is still arguably the greatest cricketer ever. However, he cannot be the best batsman ever because batting and bowling has improved 100 folds since then.

It’s same as MMA, compare the old UFC fighters to modern fighters, and the difference in technique is huge. Eventually there will come a point when the scope of improvement for humans reaches a plateau and to improve any further or push further boundaries you need evolution.

Same case with basketball, baseball, golf, hockey, tennis or any sport.

Cherish Bradman for his impact on game, but don’t say he’s the best batsman ever.

The first video is india who he avg 238 against . The 2nd video shows nothing wrong with the way england is bowling.

Thank you for sharing your opinion but I'd rather stick to documented facts then someone's judgment on a YouTube videom

 

[Ball Blazer]

On this day in 1908, the great Donald Bradman was born

Among batters who’ve played at least 25 Tests, Bradman’s average is nearly 40 runs higher than the next best, Herbert Sutcliffe (60.73)

He scored 29 centuries in 80 innings, reaching three figures every 2.76 innings

 

[Ball Blazer]

Sir Donald Bradman's baggy green from the 1946-47 Ashes, one of 11 known to be worn during his career, has been bought for more than $400,000

https://twitter.com/x/status/1961366292243578997

 

[Hitman]

I wish I had that much money. I would have bought the cap.

 

[Vikram1989]

I wish I had that much money. I would have bought the cap.

Its all business. No one will let us to get it even if we have it.There is a Bradman museum ( his home in Bowral) Sydney.its a commercial rip off targeting mostly Indians.But one of the best thing is selling rare old cricket books for 10 aud.

Bradman | Bradman Museum | St Jude St, Bowral NSW, Australia

The Bradman Museum celebrates the stories and people who shape the spirit of cricket. Enjoy our interactive exhibitions as the defining moments of the game come alive. At the heart of our Museum is the greatest cricketer of all time, Sir Donald Bradman.

www.bradman.com.au

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Farokh Engineer has a Don Bradman cap too. I wonder if he is the one who sold it.