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.