How great was Sir Donald Bradman?

[Moiza]

Every time there is a comparison of ATGs the list starts from 2 since Donald Bradman is unquestionably the greatest cricketer that has ever lived but what many do not take into context is that the time during which Sir bradman used to play the test matches used to very long, many were played till a result was reached. Another thing to consider is the fact that the bulk of the matches Australia played were against England, a few were play against IND, SAF and WI, I dont know how good WI back then but Im guessing Indians Safs were not as good. Moreover he only played in England (19 tests) and Australia (33 tests).

So keeping in mind all these things should Bradman still be considered the greatest ever?

Any facts for and against the topic would be appreciated since the era Im discussing is quite old and its not very easy to get info on stuff that happened in the early 90s

 

[Rayyman]

Look at his average.

 

[FlickedOffHips]

conventional wisdom is that he was undoubtedly the greatest cricketer, and also probably the greatest sportsman ever, because he was so much better than others who played the same sport, compared to greats of other sports.

Some people here have a different view however, I would be interested to hear it actually.

 

[Moiza]

conventional wisdom is that he was undoubtedly the greatest cricketer, and also probably the greatest sportsman ever, because he was so much better than others who played the same sport, compared to greats of other sports.

Some people here have a different view however, I would be interested to hear it actually.

He was no doubt better than all the players of his time but all the good players of his time were from England or Australia. Now if you compare him with SRT or any modern great who played in a time where cricket is much more diversified and pitches are of such contrasting qualities then I dont think 99 run avg in 1930s mean as much.

 

[Mamoon]

I can write a 3,000 word essay on why both Bradman and Sobers are nowhere near as great as they are made out to be, and it is the propaganda of the cricket establishment to give them the greatest-of-all-time batsman and A/R title, but for the sake of brevity, I shall add my two cents as briefly as possible.

I will not argue over why Bradman is not the best batsman to walk the earth, because that is difficult to do so consider cricket was a completely different sport in his time. We are not talking about the 90s, 80 and even 70s here; we are talking about the 1930s.

One common argument that I often here is he is the best ever because no other batsman has been so far ahead of his peers. No doubt that's true, but why must we assume that his level of competition was great?

Why is not possible that he was lucky to be a great player in an era of decent to average to awful players? Would he still be the clear number one if his competition was Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kohli etc.?

The major fallacy in this no one else has been so much better than his competition argument is the convenience to keep the level of competition across eras constant.

It might be true that he is the greatest genius of all time and his peers were also great but he made them look mediocre, or it could also be true that his competition was not great. The point is that we do not know, and thus we cannot say that he is undisputedly the best of all time.

Bradman with his 1930s technique would be a number 11 today, but I won't argue technique. It is a product of time and if Bradman lived today, he would have had a different technique and would have still been a quality player. However, the reverse is also true. The contemporary greats would still have been greats had the played in Bradman's era and it is possible that they would have a similar average if one considers the argument that his competition was not great.

Same goes for Sobers, but he is not the topic of discussion here. Nevertheless, he was a champion of his time, the apex cricketer, but there were no quality A/Rs in his era. Had he played in the 80s with Imran, Botham, Hadlee, Rice and Kapil as his competition, would he still be the undisputed best of all time? Most likely no.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I've seen extensive footage of him and Bradman had a very good technique, great mental strength and was a true competitor but if he played in the 80's(with the same attributes) , he would never come close to the likes of Richards.

 

[Junaids]

I can write a 3,000 word essay on why both Bradman and Sobers are nowhere near as great as they are made out to be.....

Same goes for Sobers, but he is not the topic of discussion here. Nevertheless, he was a champion of his time, the apex cricketer, but there were no quality A/Rs in his era. Had he played in the 80s with Imran, Botham, Hadlee, Rice and Kapil as his competition, would he still be the undisputed best of all time? Most likely no.

I cannot speak for Bradman but I can for Sobers compared with Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Rice and Procter.

You forget that the same players played against all of them AND Sobers - people like Ian Chappell, Eddie Barlow, Zaheer Abbas and Dennis Lillee.

Try asking them who was hardest to bowl to or bat against.

I've never heard any player who played against them nominate anyone other than Sobers as the best all-rounder.

 

[Robert]

So keeping in mind all these things should Bradman still be considered the greatest ever?

You have to look at who else was around at the time. Hammond, Hutton and Compton were England's gun batsmen of the time - three ATG England players. People who can remember Compton - there are a very few left - said he was so good that you wouldn't believe it, possessed of a skill level you don't see in an England shirt any more.

Sir Donald was basically twice as good as them. Goodness knows how many centuries he would have scored if he had not lost six prime years to WW2.

His only problem was the sticky dog, on which he averaged about 20. England should really have made one in every test he played in, but this type of track did not turn up often, even in the days of uncovered wickets.

 

[Robert]

You forget that the same players played against all of them AND Sobers - people like Ian Chappell, Eddie Barlow, Zaheer Abbas and Dennis Lillee.

Try asking them who was hardest to bowl to or bat against.

The best ever England fast bowler was Fred Trueman. He described Sobers as "magic" - the hardest man he ever bowled at.

I can just about remember seeing Sobers play in a OD match against Sussex, who had Jon Snow - whom Ian Chappell described as the most hostile quick he ever faced. Not Lillee, not Holding. Sobers hit Snow on the up, and the ball went for a flat six into the sightscreen. At the time, Sobers was 40 years old.

 

[sarmad1983]

The best ever England fast bowler was Fred Trueman. He described Sobers as "magic" - the hardest man he ever bowled at.

I can just about remember seeing Sobers play in a OD match against Sussex, who had Jon Snow - whom Ian Chappell described as the most hostile quick he ever faced. Not Lillee, not Holding. Sobers hit Snow on the up, and the ball went for a flat six into the sightscreen. At the time, Sobers was 40 years old.

WOW. this thread is awesome because we can hear stories like that. thanks for sharing with us. keep them coming...

 

[Chrish]

There are two sets of extreme views on Bradman.. One is that he would be just as successful in current era. The other is he would be found out in current age

I find both views to be equally unlikely. I reckon he would be number 1 if playing today but no where near the margin of good old days.

When I look at other sports, there does seem to be tendency to overrate players from donkey's era. In Baseball you have Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner etc who are always rated in top 5, then you have Pele in Soccer and some old timers in Cricket etc.

Basketball and Tennis are the only two major sports I can think of where the modern players occupy the main spot (Jordan and Federer).

 

[jnaveen1980]

One thing i admire about him is the amount of time he practiced at home. That was depression era. He was very passionate.If not for anything he should be saluted for inspiring generations of players. Legends like him should not be trivialized by their statistical brilliance. They are much more than that.

 

[JattMaula]

He was 100% better than his contemporaries and that's enough for me. Just hope he wasn't another Voges.

 

[Slog]

I can write a 3,000 word essay on why both Bradman and Sobers are nowhere near as great as they are made out to be, and it is the propaganda of the cricket establishment to give them the greatest-of-all-time batsman and A/R title, but for the sake of brevity, I shall add my two cents as briefly as possible.

I will not argue over why Bradman is not the best batsman to walk the earth, because that is difficult to do so consider cricket was a completely different sport in his time. We are not talking about the 90s, 80 and even 70s here; we are talking about the 1930s.

One common argument that I often here is he is the best ever because no other batsman has been so far ahead of his peers. No doubt that's true, but why must we assume that his level of competition was great?

Why is not possible that he was lucky to be a great player in an era of decent to average to awful players? Would he still be the clear number one if his competition was Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kohli etc.?

The major fallacy in this no one else has been so much better than his competition argument is the convenience to keep the level of competition across eras constant.

It might be true that he is the greatest genius of all time and his peers were also great but he made them look mediocre, or it could also be true that his competition was not great. The point is that we do not know, and thus we cannot say that he is undisputedly the best of all time.

Bradman with his 1930s technique would be a number 11 today, but I won't argue technique. It is a product of time and if Bradman lived today, he would have had a different technique and would have still been a quality player. However, the reverse is also true. The contemporary greats would still have been greats had the played in Bradman's era and it is possible that they would have a similar average if one considers the argument that his competition was not great.

Same goes for Sobers, but he is not the topic of discussion here. Nevertheless, he was a champion of his time, the apex cricketer, but there were no quality A/Rs in his era. Had he played in the 80s with Imran, Botham, Hadlee, Rice and Kapil as his competition, would he still be the undisputed best of all time? Most likely no.

Poor argument

Your premise hinges on the fact that cricket, like any other sport, has advanced so much now compared to half a century ago. It is true that by every measure, cricket today is a more competitive sport played at a supremely higher level. That all is true. But cricket in another 50 years would have broken even more ceilings and we will be looking back at cricketers from 80s and 90s as amateurish in that context and then some person would also question whether the legends were really as good as the establishment says anyways?

Any sport evolves with time which is why you compare with the contemporaries. Unless the sportsman pretty well made the sport himself there is no argument to disregard his performances compared to contemporaries.

Ofcourse if you magically transport Bradman to today he will be out of place but if he grew up today with the same base level as a child which he had in his time, he most likely will still be the best

 

[Slog]

the only convincing major argument against Bradman ive heard is that 37 out of his 52 tests were against England so he didnt really face a wide variety of attacks or contend with mystery bowlers and alien conditions.

 

[Statsman]

Was there enough variety of bowlers to find and exploit loop holes in his batting? Sehwag averaged 90+ in Pakistan but Asif made his life difficult with the ball that cut in and then other bowlers kept attacking him in a similar way.
South African, English and Aussie batsmen find spin difficult and thrive against pace. KP had weakness against left arm spin.
Variety tests batsmen.

 

[jeetu]

Still the greatest ever Test batsman in my book. His consistency was off the charts.

 

[Slog]

Was there enough variety of bowlers to find and exploit loop holes in his batting? Sehwag averaged 90+ in Pakistan but Asif made his life difficult with the ball that cut in and then other bowlers kept attacking him in a similar way.
South African, English and Aussie batsmen find spin difficult and thrive against pace. KP had weakness against left arm spin.
Variety tests batsmen.

yes as i said in the post above that is the only somewhat convincing argument against Bradman. Rest just come across as bitter.

 

[Robert]

the only convincing major argument against Bradman ive heard is that 37 out of his 52 tests were against England so he didnt really face a wide variety of attacks or contend with mystery bowlers and alien conditions.

English wickets were of much greater variety in those days - green mambas, fliers, stickies, dustbowls - so successful batters had to have universal techniques.

 

[Stallion__]

One common argument that I often here is he is the best ever because no other batsman has been so far ahead of his peers. No doubt that's true, but why must we assume that his level of competition was great?

I wonder why no one else managed to surpass his contemporaries by THAT margin even if we assume that level of competition was not great.

 

[JattMaula]

English wickets were of much greater variety in those days - green mambas, fliers, stickies, dustbowls - so successful batters had to have universal techniques.

Are you including all of the British Empire's wickets in that?

 

[ExpressPacer]

conventional wisdom is that he was undoubtedly the greatest cricketer, and also probably the greatest sportsman ever, because he was so much better than others who played the same sport, compared to greats of other sports.

Some people here have a different view however, I would be interested to hear it actually.

Sorry brother, he may well be the greatest cricketer but the title of the greatest sportsman ever is solely Jahangir Khan's. He was literally galaxies ahead of his contemporaries and has been the finest sportsman ever because of his distinction.

 

[R0H1T]

English wickets were of much greater variety in those days - green mambas, fliers, stickies, dustbowls - so successful batters had to have universal techniques.

That still doesn't prepare you against say Kumble on a track like Kotla of old, fifth day & he'd arguably be the most difficult spinner to face, compared to anyone & anywhere else in the world. Then there's the real dustbowls of Mumbai 2004 & Nagpur 2015, no place in England can mimic the turn on a red soil, put Jadeja or even Clarke & you have the best batters in the world fall like nine pins. Then there's Wambrose & 'Last day at Kensington Oval always belongs to us' Kensington Oval at Barbados. Of course the famous Laker & Oval. So unless some of these marvels could be duplicated or even replicated in England of 1930~50 alongside the accompanying bowlers I doubt you'd have the same impact, it's all nice having the pitch do the work for you but to get the best out of these tracks you need good bowlers, the great bowlers though will make even the best of batters look like fools on such tracks. I'm not even counting the greatest bowling spells in a match or series, even discounting things like reverse swing.

 

[Hitman]

The greatest batsman ever beyond any argument.

 

[Tusker]

Not this topic again !! We just went thru this like 2 weeks ago and as I said elsewhere the usual suspects will continue to bury their heads in sand and stubbornly refuse to admit that there is no contest between Amateur ERA cricket and Professional cricket.

Link for that thread : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...s-the-best-batsman-after-Donald-Bradman/page3

Pretty sure [MENTION=142156]Snatch[/MENTION] has quitely exited from that thread

Poor argument

Your premise hinges on the fact that cricket, like any other sport, has advanced so much now compared to half a century ago. It is true that by every measure, cricket today is a more competitive sport played at a supremely higher level. That all is true. But cricket in another 50 years would have broken even more ceilings and we will be looking back at cricketers from 80s and 90s as amateurish in that context and then some person would also question whether the legends were really as good as the establishment says anyways?

If cricket changes as drastically as it has already done since Bradman ( ~ 70 yrs ) then we should acknowledge the future players as the best. It makes no sense to bury our heads in sand and pretend otherwise. I have explained this and many other questions on that thread (see link above)

Any sport evolves with time which is why you compare with the contemporaries. Unless the sportsman pretty well made the sport himself there is no argument to disregard his performances compared to contemporaries.

Ofcourse if you magically transport Bradman to today he will be out of place but if he grew up today with the same base level as a child which he had in his time, he most likely will still be the best

Well ... there are some fanatic Bradman supporters who refuse to accept that he will be out of place ... but there is no doubt that he would never be able to avg 99.94 in the modern ERA not even close. Just the introduction of leg theory (a.k.a "Bodyline") cut down his avg to 56.

 

[Tusker]

I cannot speak for Bradman but I can for Sobers compared with Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Rice and Procter.

You forget that the same players played against all of them AND Sobers - people like Ian Chappell, Eddie Barlow, Zaheer Abbas and Dennis Lillee.

Try asking them who was hardest to bowl to or bat against.

I've never heard any player who played against them nominate anyone other than Sobers as the best all-rounder.

What exactly is sooo great about Sobers batting ? Can you explain that without falling back upon certificates of accomplishments from his peers who are notorious for concocting fairy tales. I mean what did you expect them to say when they are asked to comment about a famous cricketer ? Do you really think they would even think about critiquing Sobers ? How can people not realize this simple problem?

Here is a video clip from one of sobers famous hundred : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTYhehNbDKo

So can you explain purely based on that footage (and not the personalities involved ... I am aware that Underwood, Grieg and Bob Willis are famous cricketers but again there is a huge disconnect between fame and hard evidence ) why we should consider him to be the best ?

 

[TestMatch]

What's so great about Sobers?

That his record is even better when you factor in his Rest of the World Tours, where he played the best of the best, and still managed to outshine the stars.

That he averaged 71 for 11 years.

That he could bat from 1 to 9.

The he scored runs with style.

That he was the second highest wicket taker of the 60s.

That he could bowl both spin and pace.

That he was an excellent fielder.

That he had mighty chest hair and proudly displayed it upon the most glorious of pitches.

 

[Bilal7]

Easily the best batsman of all time. This one does not even warrant an explanation beyond a simple, two digit number:

99

 

[Pantani]

Bradman with his 1930s technique would be a number 11 today

No way, you know his technique was devised by years of hitting a golf ball with a stick? He was like Geoff Boycott's Grandmother/mother (who, if anyone has ever heard Boycs commentate, could reportedly achieve the most unimaginable feats of batsmanship using only a stick of rhubarb) in real life!

Such exceptional hand eye coordination would at least set him up as a Sehwag/Steve Smith type player in the modern era. If he could develop a classical technique on top of that, or a more modern one with all the 360° shots of the T20 age he would have been unstoppable. The raw material for success in any era - unparalleled hand eye coordination - was there for Bradman.

 

[Pantani]

Not this topic again !! We just went thru this like 2 weeks ago and as I said elsewhere the usual suspects will continue to bury their heads in sand and stubbornly refuse to admit that there is no contest between Amateur ERA cricket and Professional cricket.

Link for that thread : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...s-the-best-batsman-after-Donald-Bradman/page3

Pretty sure [MENTION=142156]Snatch[/MENTION] has quitely exited from that thread




If cricket changes as drastically as it has already done since Bradman ( ~ 70 yrs ) then we should acknowledge the future players as the best. It makes no sense to bury our heads in sand and pretend otherwise. I have explained this and many other questions on that thread (see link above)



Well ... there are some fanatic Bradman supporters who refuse to accept that he will be out of place ... but there is no doubt that he would never be able to avg 99.94 in the modern ERA not even close. Just the introduction of leg theory (a.k.a "Bodyline") cut down his avg to 56.

Fast leg/Bodyline is ineffective with helmets and protective gear, because the intimidatory factor is removed. You don't need to worry about fending at the ball to save yourself from injury. See Michael Clarke's hundred v Morne Morkel's bouncer barrage, 2014. Clarke took blow after blow to his body, uncompromising until Morkel was finished with his spells, like a boxer waiting for his opponent to fade away by tiring himself out from over-attacking. This could not have been possible in the 1930s.

 

[Mamoon]

I wonder why no one else managed to surpass his contemporaries by THAT margin even if we assume that level of competition was not great.

Why couldn't it be true that no other great player had worse competition and opposition than Bradman?

The problem with this competition argument is that it assumes that Bradman's competition was great, which may/may not be the case.

Please note that I have made both a for and against case here. I personally don't believe that Bradman is the greatest of all time, but I'm not discounting the possibility.

It could be true that he was the most gifted batsman of all time whose competition was great but he still towered above them like no one else, or it could be true that he was a great player playing in a poor era, thus enabling him to be at least twice as good as the next guy. Essentially, an international class player playing in a group of amateurs.

In my opinion, Tendulkar has the strongest claim of all batsmen for the greatest of all time title. 'Strongest claim' because it is very diffcult to give one batsman this position.

Tendulkar ticks more boxes than anyone else: longevity - played for 24 years and was world class for at least 20 years, mastered three generations of bowlers, performed home and away across both formats and performed in World Cups as well, and also holds more individual records than any other batsman in history.

 

[Mamoon]

No way, you know his technique was devised by years of hitting a golf ball with a stick? He was like Geoff Boycott's Grandmother/mother (who, if anyone has ever heard Boycs commentate, could reportedly achieve the most unimaginable feats of batsmanship using only a stick of rhubarb) in real life!

Such exceptional hand eye coordination would at least set him up as a Sehwag/Steve Smith type player in the modern era. If he could develop a classical technique on top of that, or a more modern one with all the 360° shots of the T20 age he would have been unstoppable. The raw material for success in any era - unparalleled hand eye coordination - was there for Bradman.

Yes I know that, but hand-eye coordination alone is not enough. Your professional tennis players have tremendous hand-eye coordination, but would that make them good batsmen? You need good batting basics as well. From the footage that is available, Bradman's basics look terrible to much and inferior to those of Sehwag and Smith. Not only him but Hobbs as well, they look dreadful, at least to me. I don't envision them succeeding in contemporary cricket with those techniques.

 

[Hasan123]

A great batsman no doubt a average of 99 is just amazing.

 

[Haroon786]

Universally lauded and I personally agree as the GOAT.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

How do you measure the greatest batsman? One simple method, compare him to his peers.

Bradman is nearly 2x better than every single cricketer that has played with and against him. Over two decades. That's possibly the greatest achievement in every single profession sport known to humans.

What, if and buts are meaningless when you compare batsmen of different era. However by comparing Bradman to his peers one can find nobody has ever dominated cricket, or any sport with such consistency for such a long period. Until we get another Bradman, he's the best there was and still is. By some margin

 

[Haroon786]

Yes I know that, but hand-eye coordination alone is not enough. Your professional tennis players have tremendous hand-eye coordination, but would that make them good batsmen? You need good batting basics as well. From the footage that is available, Bradman's basics look terrible to much and inferior to those of Sehwag and Smith. Not only him but Hobbs as well, they look dreadful, at least to me. I don't envision them succeeding in contemporary cricket with those techniques.

Fallacious argument.

You can't compare a batsman who was brought almost a century ago, played in those conditions and climates in Australia and England (mostly) and then extrapolate how he batted in that era to what would transpire if he employed the same technique decades later because it is simply not translatable to only consider using one aspect of the past to be measured in the present (when it can't be measured due to the complete transformation in all aspects of Cricket).

Comparing eras is subjective and dependent on your personal biases - it never leads to conclusive outcomes.

 

[Mamoon]

Poor argument

Your premise hinges on the fact that cricket, like any other sport, has advanced so much now compared to half a century ago. It is true that by every measure, cricket today is a more competitive sport played at a supremely higher level. That all is true. But cricket in another 50 years would have broken even more ceilings and we will be looking back at cricketers from 80s and 90s as amateurish in that context and then some person would also question whether the legends were really as good as the establishment says anyways?

Any sport evolves with time which is why you compare with the contemporaries. Unless the sportsman pretty well made the sport himself there is no argument to disregard his performances compared to contemporaries.

Ofcourse if you magically transport Bradman to today he will be out of place but if he grew up today with the same base level as a child which he had in his time, he most likely will still be the best

A major point to consider here is that there is very little, if at all, conclusive footage available of players like Bradman and Sobers, and most of their greatness today is based on hearsay.

Former player X said this about Sobers and Former play Y said that about Bradman, which as we have seen throughout history, can be heavily skewed. For example, if 50 years down the line, someone were to take the comments of MoYo on Shafiq, he would assume that he is one of the greatest batsman produced by Pakistan, but that of course will not happen because contemporary cricketers are playing in a digital era where they will not be able to get away with a pack of lies and exaggerations.

No disrespect to Junaids, but his views on the prehistoric players is a prime example of how the anecdotes and accounts of who-said-what needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

50 years from now if cricket gets more advanced, future generations be able to look back at the players of the current era with a more objective lookout because everything will be available to them. They will not be relying on who-said-what about Kohli or Root or Starc or Ashwin etc., they will be able to judge for themselves and compare them to player of that era.

I absolutely agree that cross-era comparisons are very difficult, which is why I have a problem with the untouchable statuses of Bradman and Sobers.
Similarly,

 

[Mamoon]

I cannot speak for Bradman but I can for Sobers compared with Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Rice and Procter.

You forget that the same players played against all of them AND Sobers - people like Ian Chappell, Eddie Barlow, Zaheer Abbas and Dennis Lillee.

Try asking them who was hardest to bowl to or bat against.

I've never heard any player who played against them nominate anyone other than Sobers as the best all-rounder.

The best ever England fast bowler was Fred Trueman. He described Sobers as "magic" - the hardest man he ever bowled at.

I can just about remember seeing Sobers play in a OD match against Sussex, who had Jon Snow - whom Ian Chappell described as the most hostile quick he ever faced. Not Lillee, not Holding. Sobers hit Snow on the up, and the ball went for a flat six into the sightscreen. At the time, Sobers was 40 years old.

That is the problem with the pre-70s players. Their legacy is pretty much entirely dependent on who-said-what about them. It is the word of the former players and people who have watched them play, and as we have seen, the opinions of players/observers is heavily subjective.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that Sobers was a better all-rounder than Imran or Miller or Botham. At least not as a bowler. There is ample evidence that he was a part-timer.

 

[Haroon786]

That is the problem with the pre-70s players. Their legacy is pretty much entirely dependent on who-said-what about them. It is the word of the former players and people who have watched them play, and as we have seen, the opinions of players/observers is heavily subjective.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that Sobers was a better all-rounder than Imran or Miller or Botham. At least not as a bowler. There is ample evidence that he was a part-timer.

That's interesting - if ex-player opinion and statistics are not good enough to measure a player's greatness, then what is ?

 

[Mamoon]

Fallacious argument.

You can't compare a batsman who was brought almost a century ago, played in those conditions and climates in Australia and England (mostly) and then extrapolate how he batted in that era to what would transpire if he employed the same technique decades later because it is simply not translatable to only consider using one aspect of the past to be measured in the present (when it can't be measured due to the complete transformation in all aspects of Cricket).

Comparing eras is subjective and dependent on your personal biases - it never leads to conclusive outcomes.

I think I have established it in multiple posts that Bradman was a great batsman, and would have been in any era had he evolved his technique to suit that era. However, the debate here is how much better he would have been compared to his contemporaries in different eras, where he would have had to play a 100 Tests against 8-10 teams in a variety of conditions.

If we assume that the level of competition is a constant, then we can definitely say that his 99 average is conclusive and he would have been twice as good as the next best batsman in any era.

I have already said that cross-era comparisons are almost always futile, which is why I have come to the conclusion that Tendulkar has the strongest claim to the greatest batsman ever title because he excelled against bowlers of three different generations in both formats. I believe no other batsman has achieved that.

 

[Mamoon]

That's interesting - if ex-player opinion and statistics are not good enough to measure a player's greatness, then what is ?

Ex-player opinions are not conclusive as a measure because of their subjective nature. We can use them as a guide, but who-said-what is enough concrete enough to declare that for e.g., Sobers was a better all-rounder than Imran or Botham.

However, if you dispute his status as the untouchable all-rounder, the first line of defense is always who-said-what about him, and that is the problem with players of that era - there is almost no footage available which means that there is a lot of room for exaggeration and hyperbole.

The legend of contemporary cricketers would have been greater had they played in that era, and would Sobers still be the untouchable all-rounder if his competition was the 80s all-rounder? Highly doubt so.

 

[Pakpak]

Yes I know that, but hand-eye coordination alone is not enough. Your professional tennis players have tremendous hand-eye coordination, but would that make them good batsmen? You need good batting basics as well. From the footage that is available, Bradman's basics look terrible to much and inferior to those of Sehwag and Smith. Not only him but Hobbs as well, they look dreadful, at least to me. I don't envision them succeeding in contemporary cricket with those techniques.

I agree with you here. This ''better than rivals'' logic is neither here or there.

Vitali Klitschko ruled heavyweight boxing in his prime post-Lewis till his defeat. He was much better than everyone in the HW division, left his rivals in dust. Yet there is no way he's even close to being GOAT.

Generally we can't really compare players from different eras.

 

[Mamoon]

I agree with you here. This ''better than rivals'' logic is neither here or there.

Vitali Klitschko ruled heavyweight boxing in his prime post-Lewis till his defeat. He was much better than everyone in the HW division, left his rivals in dust. Yet there is no way he's even close to being GOAT.

Generally we can't really compare players from different eras.

Yes, pretty much, unless we assume that the level of competition is a constant, which of course it is not.

 

[Haroon786]

I think I have established it in multiple posts that Bradman was a great batsman, and would have been in any era had he evolved his technique to suit that era. However, the debate here is how much better he would have been compared to his contemporaries in different eras, where he would have had to play a 100 Tests against 8-10 teams in a variety of conditions.

If we assume that the level of competition is a constant, then we can definitely say that his 99 average is conclusive and he would have been twice as good as the next best batsman in any era.

I have already said that cross-era comparisons are almost always futile, which is why I have come to the conclusion that Tendulkar has the strongest claim to the greatest batsman ever title because he excelled against bowlers of three different generations in both formats. I believe no other batsman has achieved that.

I think competition is also subjective, for instance someone like Victor Trumpet who iirc didn't average very highly at all was regarded as someone who was incredibly talented - a player before Bradman's time. Ultimately it comes down to what your opinion of being the most complete, the most versatile and the most effective player is.

BTW Bradman's career also spanned quite lengthier than the average player lasting 20 years.

 

[Mamoon]

The statistics are misused as well. We are supposed to believe in Bradman's 99 batting average but are supposed to ignore Sober's rubbish bowling strike of 92 and yet assume that he is the greatest 'all-rounder' to live.

With that SR, the greatest ever all-rounder is not going to get more than 5 overs per series.

 

[Haroon786]

Ex-player opinions are not conclusive as a measure because of their subjective nature. We can use them as a guide, but who-said-what is enough concrete enough to declare that for e.g., Sobers was a better all-rounder than Imran or Botham.

However, if you dispute his status as the untouchable all-rounder, the first line of defense is always who-said-what about him, and that is the problem with players of that era - there is almost no footage available which means that there is a lot of room for exaggeration and hyperbole.

The legend of contemporary cricketers would have been greater had they played in that era, and would Sobers still be the untouchable all-rounder if his competition was the 80s all-rounder? Highly doubt so.

I am not disputing whether 'who-said-what' is conclusive to making bonafide claims about past or current players but rather just querying - what should constitute an accurate assessment of a player's calibre ?

 

[Haroon786]

The statistics are misused as well. We are supposed to believe in Bradman's 99 batting average but are supposed to ignore Sober's rubbish bowling strike of 92 and yet assume that he is the greatest 'all-rounder' to live.

With that SR, the greatest ever all-rounder is not going to get more than 5 overs per series.

No one is conflating Sobers with the Don here. That is a topic for another thread, personally I rate IK as the GOAT cricketer and AR.

 

[Mamoon]

I think competition is also subjective, for instance someone like Victor Trumpet who iirc didn't average very highly at all was regarded as someone who was incredibly talented - a player before Bradman's time. Ultimately it comes down to what your opinion of being the most complete, the most versatile and the most effective player is.

BTW Bradman's career also spanned quite lengthier than the average player lasting 20 years.

Yes it did, but the only time he was exposed to a unique bowling tactic, i.e. the Bodyline, his average immediately dropped to the 50s.

In an era where he would have had to play 100 Tests and 200 ODIs against about 10-12 teams in a variety of grounds and conditions, it is likely that he would have been nullified at some point, or perhaps not, which is why there is no point in giving him the untouchable status.

 

[Mamoon]

I am not disputing whether 'who-said-what' is conclusive to making bonafide claims about past or current players but rather just querying - what should constitute an accurate assessment of a player's calibre ?

There is no one accurate measure. It is a collection of measures and of course player opinions have their importance. However, the problems is that with past players that along with statistics, it is the only thing left and there is no footage available where the bowling speeds of the pacers as well as the techniques of the batsmen can be properly critiqued.

For those who didn't watch these players play, there is almost no way they for them to form an opinion of their own. That hasn't been a problem from 80's onwards and will obviously not be a problem for the future generations who will be able to assess the 2010 era players with solely relying on what the past players have to say.

 

[Robert]

Are you including all of the British Empire's wickets in that?

No, I meant English wickets.

 

[Haroon786]

Yes it did, but the only time he was exposed to a unique bowling tactic, i.e. the Bodyline, his average immediately dropped to the 50s.

In an era where he would have had to play 100 Tests and 200 ODIs against about 10-12 teams in a variety of grounds and conditions, it is likely that he would have been nullified at some point, or perhaps not, which is why there is no point in giving him the untouchable status.

At that point in Cricket history, tactics were still developing and certain ploys hadn't been used, the body line series eventually led to the 2 fielders behind square leg rule due to the threatening nature of the bowling, not to mention that there were no helmets of course at the time. Also, in the present, we have the hindsight knowledge of all types of tactics being employed in the past and thus this knowledge can be utilised to implement on the field to advance your own game or to counter the opposition's plan.

 

[cricwiz]

Average of a batsman runs per innings in Test cricket trumps every other statistics when talking about batting - the start and end of discussion !!!

Having an average of almost hundred means that the batsman had immense amount of concentration and was nearly impossible to get out cheaply - and that to do over a 20 years career span in 52 Tests (where nearly every batsman face drop of form at some stage) is more than a remarkable achievement. If a batsman scores a brilliant century in 1st innings of a Test match (lets say 105) and than scores a 50 in 2nd innings (lets say 55) - but gets out in both innings, his average would drop to 80. So just imagine a batsman being able to somehow maintain an average of over 100 is unimaginable unless a batsman is able to get extremely big scores when once settled. And that is exactly what Bradman did, he didnt stop for 100 only but went on to make double many a times and even reached 300 figure couple of times - so out of his 29 centuries there were 12 double centuries...

But the more freak fact is that his appetite for big runs was even evident in first class cricket where he amassed 28000+ runs with an average of over 95. This is just mind boggling stat..

 

[Junaids]

I think competition is also subjective, for instance someone like Victor Trumpet who iirc didn't average very highly at all was regarded as someone who was incredibly talented - a player before Bradman's time. Ultimately it comes down to what your opinion of being the most complete, the most versatile and the most effective player is.

BTW Bradman's career also spanned quite lengthier than the average player lasting 20 years.

You're certainly right about Victor Trumper.

When I went to the Sydney Test a fortnight ago I made the usual pilgrimage to his grave overlooking the Pacific Ocean at Waverley Cemetery.

The only players for whom I'd do that would be Victor Trumper, Archie Jackson, Malcolm Marshall, Frank Worrell or Hedley Verity. Nobody else.

Admittedly because all five perished tragically young, and arouse a sadness that other cricketers don't.

 

[Chrish]

Doubt it if Vic Trumper was any better than VVS..

Their legacy comes down to elegance and ability to play miracle innings facing challenging conditions (bad wickets in trumper's case and bowling attacks in the case of VVS).

Trumper gets applauded cause he was the first of his kind. Another overrated guy from donkey's era IMO.

Give me Ranji any day. Much superior FC record.

 

[Chrish]

English wickets were of much greater variety in those days - green mambas, fliers, stickies, dustbowls - so successful batters had to have universal techniques.

What about Australian wickets? I have read lot of conflicting accounts

Some say Aussie wickets were absolete roads those days other than when it rained; while others point out the wickets did have pace in them. I have yet to form definite opinion because of this.

 

[Tusker]

Fast leg/Bodyline is ineffective with helmets and protective gear, because the intimidatory factor is removed. You don't need to worry about fending at the ball to save yourself from injury. See Michael Clarke's hundred v Morne Morkel's bouncer barrage, 2014. Clarke took blow after blow to his body, uncompromising until Morkel was finished with his spells, like a boxer waiting for his opponent to fade away by tiring himself out from over-attacking. This could not have been possible in the 1930s.

1. Larwood was nowhere as tall as Morkel who can extract bounce from a awkward length
2. Nor was he as fast as Morkel not even in the same speed category.
3. You are allowed to bowl as many deliveries as you can which will target the body even today just as Larwood did. What is not allowed is more than 2 above shoulder height ( and the field placings which are irrelevant ).
4. Watch Mushfiqur Rahim going down in a heap just few days ago even with a helmet and you will realize that the protection doesn't mean much.

 

[Tusker]

What exactly is sooo great about Sobers batting ? Can you explain that without falling back upon certificates of accomplishments from his peers who are notorious for concocting fairy tales. I mean what did you expect them to say when they are asked to comment about a famous cricketer ? Do you really think they would even think about critiquing Sobers ? How can people not realize this simple problem?

Here is a video clip from one of sobers famous hundred : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTYhehNbDKo

So can you explain purely based on that footage (and not the personalities involved ... I am aware that Underwood, Grieg and Bob Willis are famous cricketers but again there is a huge disconnect between fame and hard evidence ) why we should consider him to be the best ?

Nobody wants to touch this ehh ? So much for "Greatest" ever AR / Cricketer .... you would think that people would be falling over each other drooling over footage of Sobers in action .... guess not ! explains quite a bit

 

[Gilly]

What about Australian wickets? I have read lot of conflicting accounts

Some say Aussie wickets were absolete roads those days other than when it rained; while others point out the wickets did have pace in them. I have yet to form definite opinion because of this.

In the 30's batsmen averaged 27 on Australian wickets and 32 on English wickets, this indicates that batting in Australia was harder than England, adding to that Bradman averages 94 in Australia and 114 in England.

 

[MMHS]

In the 30's batsmen averaged 27 on Australian wickets and 32 on English wickets, this indicates that batting in Australia was harder than England, adding to that Bradman averages 94 in Australia and 114 in England.

True, with a foot note. Till 40s, Test cricket in AUS was played for Timeless - that's till end; while ENG Tests were often 3/4 Days (sometimes time less in last Test). Which often resulted teams declaring in ENG for say 449/7, to force results - that often didn't allow bowlers to take the tail-ender. Same match in AUS, teams will play till 5th/6th day for 40 wickets, which allowed bowlers to take every wicket of tail. In those days, actually there was not much batting from 8 to 11. But, I need to check the data to be sure - I am writing from mind, analyzing the scorecards long back - didn't cross check it.

Bradman's stats in AUS is a bit dented for the Body-line series, where he averaged 56; but more or less it's similar in both countries. He had 2 triples in ENG & 180+* in penultimate innings; but in general it was considered that wickets in ENG was tougher than AUS.

 

[Gilly]

True, with a foot note. Till 40s, Test cricket in AUS was played for Timeless - that's till end; while ENG Tests were often 3/4 Days (sometimes time less in last Test). Which often resulted teams declaring in ENG for say 449/7, to force results - that often didn't allow bowlers to take the tail-ender. Same match in AUS, teams will play till 5th/6th day for 40 wickets, which allowed bowlers to take every wicket of tail. In those days, actually there was not much batting from 8 to 11. But, I need to check the data to be sure - I am writing from mind, analyzing the scorecards long back - didn't cross check it.

Bradman's stats in AUS is a bit dented for the Body-line series, where he averaged 56; but more or less it's similar in both countries. He had 2 triples in ENG & 180+* in penultimate innings; but in general it was considered that wickets in ENG was tougher than AUS.

A quick look at batting in the 30's and only at batsmen 1-5 in England averaged 42 and in Australia 37. That sort of takes out the tailender part.

 

[Gilly]

Further on those figures if you only look at the first innings of the matches for batsmen 1-5 in the 30's so it takes away the time frame batsmen in England averaged 50 and in Australia 43.

 

[MMHS]

A quick look at batting in the 30's and only at batsmen 1-5 in England averaged 42 and in Australia 37. That sort of takes out the tailender part.

Does it? In 30s & 40s ENG batsmen played home Test against IND, NZ, SAF & WI in England .................. and played only AUS in AUS

 

[Gilly]

Does it? In 30s & 40s ENG batsmen played home Test against IND, NZ, SAF & WI in England .................. and played only AUS in AUS

The figures were not for ENG batsmen but for all matches played in ENG and Aus.

 

[Snatch]

Not this topic again !! We just went thru this like 2 weeks ago and as I said elsewhere the usual suspects will continue to bury their heads in sand and stubbornly refuse to admit that there is no contest between Amateur ERA cricket and Professional cricket.
.

Haha by usual suspects assume you mean 99% of cricket writers, historians & proper cricket tragics as opposed to some random guys on an Asian cricket forum brainwashed into believing a modern batsman, who's not even 'clearly' the best batsman of his own era is the greatest cricketer ever, because he happens to be the best batsman of a nation with 1.3 billion people, and of course because he played from a young age.

There's nothing left for either of us to say to one another on the Bradman vs Sachin debate itself, because it's been done to death.

I'm unconvinced by your argument that Sachin is even categorically the best Test batsman of his own era, let alone even fit to tie Bradman's boots. I still maintain that it comes to personal preference between the Pontings, Lara, Sachin's etc. And you're unconvinced when I point out that Bradman was a freak & was basically twice as good as the next best batsmen in his time. and because he was so much better than the next best, (not just a little bit), that closes the deal. Statistically speaking arguably the greatest sportsman ever.

I will however pull you up on the 'usual suspects' comment, because outside of young uneducated Indian cricket fans mostly of whom wouldn't even have heard of Bradman, you're the one of the minority, not these usual suspects you talk about.

You go to any English, Australian, West Indian, NZ, South African cricket forum and you'd realise just how extreme the Sachin > Bradman view really is.

 

[Snatch]

Poor argument

Your premise hinges on the fact that cricket, like any other sport, has advanced so much now compared to half a century ago. It is true that by every measure, cricket today is a more competitive sport played at a supremely higher level. That all is true. But cricket in another 50 years would have broken even more ceilings and we will be looking back at cricketers from 80s and 90s as amateurish in that context and then some person would also question whether the legends were really as good as the establishment says anyways?

Any sport evolves with time which is why you compare with the contemporaries. Unless the sportsman pretty well made the sport himself there is no argument to disregard his performances compared to contemporaries.

Ofcourse if you magically transport Bradman to today he will be out of place but if he grew up today with the same base level as a child which he had in his time, he most likely will still be the best

Yes this of course is obviously a slippery slope.

Those who want to claim Bradman's era isn't worthy of comparisons because nutrition, technology, bats, helmets, covered wickets etc have improved the level of cricket, can't have their cake and eat it is well. If they want to take this view, they have to be consistent and accept in advance that Tendulkar, Lara and all today's modern days players won't be worthy to be compared to the future players in say 50 years time.

Of course when you point out this is using the same logic, they tie themselves in knots. They want to have it both ways.

 

[R0H1T]

Haha by usual suspects assume you mean 99% of cricket writers, historians & proper cricket tragics as opposed to some random guys on an Asian cricket forum brainwashed into believing a modern batsman, who's not even 'clearly' the best batsman of his own era is the greatest cricketer ever, because he happens to be the best batsman of a nation with 1.3 billion people, and of course because he played from a young age.

There's nothing left for either of us to say to one another on the Bradman vs Sachin debate itself, because it's been done to death.

I'm unconvinced by your argument that Sachin is even categorically the best Test batsman of his own era, let alone even fit to tie Bradman's boots. I still maintain that it comes to personal preference between the Pontings, Lara, Sachin's etc. And you're unconvinced when I point out that Bradman was a freak & was basically twice as good as the next best batsmen in his time. and because he was so much better than the next best, (not just a little bit), that closes the deal. Statistically speaking arguably the greatest sportsman ever.

I will however pull you up on the 'usual suspects' comment, because outside of young uneducated Indian cricket fans mostly of whom wouldn't even have heard of Bradman, you're the one of the minority, not these usual suspects you talk about.

You go to any English, Australian, West Indian, NZ, South African cricket forum and you'd realise just how extreme the Sachin > Bradman view really is.

Oh look another brilliant post from a self proclaimed(?) cricket expert.

Yes I've been to these forums & some of the posts are just as biased as they can get. When Smith was given lbw in the Perth test many, on one such forum, were criticizing DRS & how the umpires should be thrown of the game for giving such a decision, I'd say a majority were dissing DRS & (quality of) umpiring at that time. Of course they'd label India & Indians as cheat for not going with DRS, till the England series happened & then after Perth most of them saw the light. The same goes for many of the English boards & news columns/blog posts et al.

Needless to say these guys have great understanding of cricket, or maybe not? For them Jadeja is a darter, like O'Keefe & they simply can't figure out how he still takes as many wickets as he does. In their world they're oblivious to his accuracy or fast(ish) spin, cause even of flat surfaces Jadeja can spin the ball as well as any other bowler. That his pace & line/length are his major weapons shouldn't surprise many who understand cricket.

Am I getting the point across? If not we can have some vintage footage to see those lovely cover drives of the Don, oh wait

A sample set comprising 100% of other people's opinion is just that an opinion, 99% is no different. If it weren't so then we'd still be living in an age where the earth would be flat & the sun/moon gods would regularly decide our collective fates.

 

[Slog]

Oh look another brilliant post from a self proclaimed(?) cricket expert.

Yes I've been to these forums & some of the posts are just as biased as they can get. When Smith was given lbw in the Perth test many, on one such forum, were criticizing DRS & how the umpires should be thrown of the game for giving such a decision, I'd say a majority were dissing DRS & (quality of) umpiring at that time. Of course they'd label India & Indians as cheat for not going with DRS, till the England series happened & then after Perth most of them saw the light. The same goes for many of the English boards & news columns/blog posts et al.

Needless to say these guys have great understanding of cricket, or maybe not? For them Jadeja is a darter, like O'Keefe & they simply can't figure out how he still takes as many wickets as he does. In their world they're oblivious to his accuracy or fast(ish) spin, cause even of flat surfaces Jadeja can spin the ball as well as any other bowler. That his pace & line/length are his major weapons shouldn't surprise many who understand cricket.

Am I getting the point across? If not we can have some vintage footage to see those lovely cover drives of the Don, oh wait

A sample set comprising 100% of other people's opinion is just that an opinion, 99% is no different. If it weren't so then we'd still be living in an age where the earth would be flat & the sun/moon gods would regularly decide our collective fates.

lol this is just a directionless ramble

 

[R0H1T]

lol this is just a directionless ramble

Any discussion on the Don is meaningless, because the argument goes something like this -> 99.94 end of debate.

I've pointed out, like many others, that there have been better sportsmen or women, way ahead of their peers in their respective fields as well. Then there's the argument about uncovered pitches, really if they were so bad how come we don't see too many sub 100 scores in such matches? Lastly the competition, just one to speak of i.e. England, & no bowler close to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Murali etc.

The argument always ends at 99.94 which frankly is absurd, btw no ramblings to follow after this one!

 

[Mamoon]

Yes this of course is obviously a slippery slope.

Those who want to claim Bradman's era isn't worthy of comparisons because nutrition, technology, bats, helmets, covered wickets etc have improved the level of cricket, can't have their cake and eat it is well. If they want to take this view, they have to be consistent and accept in advance that Tendulkar, Lara and all today's modern days players won't be worthy to be compared to the future players in say 50 years time.

Of course when you point out this is using the same logic, they tie themselves in knots. They want to have it both ways.

Unfortunately it is the other way around. Those who accept that cross-era comparisons are difficult to establish and modern day greats could well be better than the past greats accept that 50 years down the line, if cricket becomes more advanced, the greatest of 2050 era could be greater than the greats of this era.

There is only one group that want to have it both ways and tie themselves in knots: it is the brigade that keeps downplaying modern day batsmen because of flat pitches, and as a result, declare that the past batsmen were better than the modern day batsman because they batted on tougher pitches.

Using the same lazy logic, modern day bowlers are then better than the past bowlers because they bowl on tougher pitches unlike the previous generation bowlers, but it is not acceptable to that brigade and they want to insist that both batting and bowling has declined in the modern era.

 

[Tusker]

Haha by usual suspects assume you mean 99% of cricket writers, historians & proper cricket tragics as opposed to some random guys on an Asian cricket forum brainwashed into believing a modern batsman, who's not even 'clearly' the best batsman of his own era is the greatest cricketer ever, because he happens to be the best batsman of a nation with 1.3 billion people, and of course because he played from a young age.

There's nothing left for either of us to say to one another on the Bradman vs Sachin debate itself, because it's been done to death.

As I said right at the beginning of that discussion ... its one thing to shout from the roof top that Bradman is the best but you will get stuck trying to back that up with proper reasoning logic and facts. So when you get stuck rehashing the usual points your one and only fall back is to hide behind others opinions and run away. You just don't want to accept that you are wrong and will do everything to save face.

I'm unconvinced by your argument that Sachin is even categorically the best Test batsman of his own era, let alone even fit to tie Bradman's boots. I still maintain that it comes to personal preference between the Pontings, Lara, Sachin's etc. And you're unconvinced when I point out that Bradman was a freak & was basically twice as good as the next best batsmen in his time. and because he was so much better than the next best, (not just a little bit), that closes the deal. Statistically speaking arguably the greatest sportsman ever.

My response to that was how does it prove that Bradman better than everyone after him? It ONLY proves that Bradman > His Peers because the the standards are now un-imaginably higher. Have you responded to that ? Absolutely not . Reasons are not hard to figure out.

And was Bradman an Indian then when he rated SRT so highly even when he was just a third into his career ?

I will however pull you up on the 'usual suspects' comment, because outside of young uneducated Indian cricket fans mostly of whom wouldn't even have heard of Bradman, you're the one of the minority, not these usual suspects you talk about.

You go to any English, Australian, West Indian, NZ, South African cricket forum and you'd realise just how extreme the Sachin > Bradman view really is.

Resorting to throwing insults like high school kids now? Happens when you are falling short of proper logic and reasons to counter. It should have been really easy to counter my points if you truly believed that Bradmans achievement could hold against all cross-examination .... so not surprised at the face saving exit from you. Come back here when you truly understand cricket and have developed some maturity to realize and acknowledge that not all things in the world of cricket are etched in stone. Cricket in the past was highly prone to stupidity all around ... the most obvious ones are sticking with uncovered wkts , promoting amateurs over pros, and timeless tests for many decades. And here you are trying to argue that these things are all great virtues and presented big challenges ... laughable.

 

[Stallion__]

The problem with this competition argument is that it assumes that Bradman's competition was great, which may/may not be the case.

No it doesn't.

The quality of cricket (or of batting in particular) of every era are the product of that time (as you might have mentioned). And it varies across the eras.

The key thing here is the impact. How valuable a player has been for his team, what standards and examples he is setting for his progenies, what is his contribution to the game, how much ahead he is as compared to the playing standards of his time and what percentage of matches he wins for his team; these factors are of cardinal value. And these things remain constant for any player regardless of the era.

Variables are never a good indicator for comparison but constants are. Impact is constant while quality is a variable.

In my opinion, Tendulkar has the strongest claim of all batsmen for the greatest of all time title. 'Strongest claim' because it is very diffcult to give one batsman this position.

Tendulkar ticks more boxes than anyone else: longevity - played for 24 years and was world class for at least 20 years, mastered three generations of bowlers, performed home and away across both formats and performed in World Cups as well, and also holds more individual records than any other batsman in history.

Tendulkar definitely has a strong claim of being the Best player of all times.

See, when you are talking about being best, it means a proven champion player who has played in the most competitive age and passed out with flying colors. What Tendulkar has done against the best bowlers of all time is known to everyone. What Bradman would have done, we never know. In this case, the variables carry greater weightage.

But greatness is different. You can't take it away from someone just because he was born in a wrong time. Kohli hasn't faced many of the ATGs yet he is destined for greatness, and he might not even be half way into his career (since he is a method player who usually lasts long). The reason being, he is setting the unprecedented standards and showing the world that what has never been achieved, can be achieved. He is bringing something new to the game with his ridiculous consistency and winning myriad of games for his team. Playing McGrath, Warne, Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim and doing well against them definitely strengthens a batsman's profile but not facing them is not an impediment to achieve greatness.

Bradman was far ahead of his contemporaries. Forget cricket, he has dominated his game, no other sportsman has ever done in any era.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/sep/16/comment.news1

People generally tend to extol the past, but on this forum, the trend is to disparage it.

 

[Snatch]

As I said right at the beginning of that discussion ... its one thing to shout from the roof top that Bradman is the best but you will get stuck trying to back that up with proper reasoning logic and facts. So when you get stuck rehashing the usual points your one and only fall back is to hide behind others opinions and run away. You just don't want to accept that you are wrong and will do everything to save face.




My response to that was how does it prove that Bradman better than everyone after him? It ONLY proves that Bradman > His Peers because the the standards are now un-imaginably higher. Have you responded to that ? Absolutely not . Reasons are not hard to figure out.

And was Bradman an Indian then when he rated SRT so highly even when he was just a third into his career ?




Resorting to throwing insults like high school kids now? Happens when you are falling short of proper logic and reasons to counter. It should have been really easy to counter my points if you truly believed that Bradmans achievement could hold against all cross-examination .... so not surprised at the face saving exit from you. Come back here when you truly understand cricket and have developed some maturity to realize and acknowledge that not all things in the world of cricket are etched in stone. Cricket in the past was highly prone to stupidity all around ... the most obvious ones are sticking with uncovered wkts , promoting amateurs over pros, and timeless tests for many decades. And here you are trying to argue that these things are all great virtues and presented big challenges ... laughable.

I was making the rather obvious point that the opinion of respected cricket writers and historians & experts should be taken over your average Indian cricket fans, who by default have been trained to believe Sachin is the greatest cricketer ever, and when you question them, rarely know much about Bradman or cricket history at all.

But since you're on the subject of school kids, suggesting I'm running away from anything is school-like since both of us have made the same points & counterpoints to one another over and over again, so I don't see the point of continuing going around the same circles for the sake of it.

The fact you appear to be crowing in victory following repeating that same tired point about modern cricket being at a different level than it was 60 years ago as if that settles the Bradman vs. modern batsmen debate is quite hilarious.

Even more hilarious is you pretending that it's me who takes the fringe view on this one, and that most proper cricket authorities (and I do mean historians, so neither you nor I) share the same view as you.

 

[Snatch]

Oh look another brilliant post from a self proclaimed(?) cricket expert.

Yes I've been to these forums & some of the posts are just as biased as they can get. When Smith was given lbw in the Perth test many, on one such forum, were criticizing DRS & how the umpires should be thrown of the game for giving such a decision, I'd say a majority were dissing DRS & (quality of) umpiring at that time. Of course they'd label India & Indians as cheat for not going with DRS, till the England series happened & then after Perth most of them saw the light. The same goes for many of the English boards & news columns/blog posts et al.

Needless to say these guys have great understanding of cricket, or maybe not? For them Jadeja is a darter, like O'Keefe & they simply can't figure out how he still takes as many wickets as he does. In their world they're oblivious to his accuracy or fast(ish) spin, cause even of flat surfaces Jadeja can spin the ball as well as any other bowler. That his pace & line/length are his major weapons shouldn't surprise many who understand cricket.

Am I getting the point across? If not we can have some vintage footage to see those lovely cover drives of the Don, oh wait

A sample set comprising 100% of other people's opinion is just that an opinion, 99% is no different. If it weren't so then we'd still be living in an age where the earth would be flat & the sun/moon gods would regularly decide our collective fates.

Firstly, forget Australia since Bradman was Australian. Why would South African, English, NZ, West Indian cricket fans or historians have any special bias here? They have no foot in the either camp.

Secondly, forget about you and I being cricket experts, I think I know a lot, but I'm okay with that assumption. Then look to famous well-known cricket historians, by far the majority of them hold the view that this is not even a legitimate debate, and that Bradman is miles & miles ahead, and as I said, arguably the greatest sportsman ever in terms of statistics since he was almost twice as good as anyone else.

BTW I agree Australian can be biased about their own, Indian's can be biased about their own. That's obvious and quite natural, so then look at well known cricket writers and historians from other countries other than those two, and you'll find the consensus is it's Bradman easily.

Now in terms of the vintage footage, I love watching those old clips. I love how The Don was able to keep those pulls strokes along the ground. It's little wonder once he was in he'd score big double/triple hundreds, he'd never give you a chance. An absolute master.

If you are interested in a legitimate debate among most non-aussie/non-indian historians though, it's the one of the 2nd greatest batsman after Bradman, of which a good case can be made for Tendulkar, along with the likes of Sobers, Hammond, Ponting, Lara, Hobbs, Sanga & Kallis. That's actually an interesting debate that one since their records are all fairly similar and generally comes down to personal preference.

I've never heard a consensus everywhere that there's any real debate about Bradman vs Tendulkar until I came to this forum. Nowhere else. It's kind of weird and surprising to me.

 

[Slog]

[/b]

Unfortunately it is the other way around. Those who accept that cross-era comparisons are difficult to establish and modern day greats could well be better than the past greats accept that 50 years down the line, if cricket becomes more advanced, the greatest of 2050 era could be greater than the greats of this era.

There is only one group that want to have it both ways and tie themselves in knots: it is the brigade that keeps downplaying modern day batsmen because of flat pitches, and as a result, declare that the past batsmen were better than the modern day batsman because they batted on tougher pitches.

Using the same lazy logic, modern day bowlers are then better than the past bowlers because they bowl on tougher pitches unlike the previous generation bowlers, but it is not acceptable to that brigade and they want to insist that both batting and bowling has declined in the modern era.

lol this is some alternate world

maybe you personally hold to this view but the brigade you identify with def doesnt

 

[Snatch]

The key thing here is the impact. How valuable a player has been for his team, what standards and examples he is setting for his progenies, what is his contribution to the game, how much ahead he is as compared to the playing standards of his time and what percentage of matches he wins for his team; these factors are of cardinal value

Correct. It's so bizarre people don't get this. This is how any historical sportsmen across sports are compared.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think a more pertinent question is this.

Would self-proclaimed "Tendulkar is the best ever batsmen" fanatics be so raucous in their claims to defend Tendulkar if he was Pakistani instead of Indian?

I can almost bet 99 percent of Indians would have run away and acknowledged Bradman as great.

Chauvinism blinds a lot of people when it comes to sport.

 

[Mamoon]

No it doesn't.

The quality of cricket (or of batting in particular) of every era are the product of that time (as you might have mentioned). And it varies across the eras.

The key thing here is the impact. How valuable a player has been for his team, what standards and examples he is setting for his progenies, what is his contribution to the game, how much ahead he is as compared to the playing standards of his time and what percentage of matches he wins for his team; these factors are of cardinal value. And these things remain constant for any player regardless of the era.

Variables are never a good indicator for comparison but constants are. Impact is constant while quality is a variable.

This 'impact' that you speak of, i.e. the value of a player, his contribution, how far ahead he is of his peers, how many wins he has influenced etc. is a product of the level of competition and thus, cannot be considered as a constant.

If your competition is low and you are a great player, you always be very valuable and will be far ahead of your peers and obviously win your team a lot of matches. That doesn't tell us a lot about how that particular player will fare in different eras, and thus the impact is not constant.

Bradman's 99 average tells us that he was simply far, far better than any other batsman in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not tell us that he would have towered over every other batsman in every other era, because the game has evolved too much.

Bradman himself struggled in Bodyline (by his standards) and was a complete failure on the sticky wickets. Different eras would have had laid down different challenges for him. More teams, more matches, more conditions, more formats etc. etc., which is why the claim that Bradman is the best batsman of all time because no one else has been so much better than his competition is fallacious.

It is possible that he would still have been the best, but it is also possible that he could have been inferior to others like was inferior to certain players on sticky wickets. That is why I believe that cross-era comparisons are almost always futile and since the game of cricket has evolved so much, calling one individual the greatest of all time is not possible.

Tendulkar definitely has a strong claim of being the Best player of all times.

See, when you are talking about being best, it means a proven champion player who has played in the most competitive age and passed out with flying colors. What Tendulkar has done against the best bowlers of all time is known to everyone. What Bradman would have done, we never know. In this case, the variables carry greater weightage.

But greatness is different. You can't take it away from someone just because he was born in a wrong time. Kohli hasn't faced many of the ATGs yet he is destined for greatness, and he might not even be half way into his career (since he is a method player who usually lasts long). The reason being, he is setting the unprecedented standards and showing the world that what has never been achieved, can be achieved. He is bringing something new to the game with his ridiculous consistency and winning myriad of games for his team. Playing McGrath, Warne, Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim and doing well against them definitely strengthens a batsman's profile but not facing them is not an impediment to achieve greatness.

Bradman was far ahead of his contemporaries. Forget cricket, he has dominated his game, no other sportsman has ever done in any era.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/sep/16/comment.news1

I don't think I have ever disputed the status of Bradman as a great player and a legend. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that he was a special cricketer, but I'm merely disputing his position as the greatest of all time and how his status can apparently not be questioned because no one else has enjoyed such dominance.

The only thing that cannot be disputed is that no other era has produced such a dominant cricketer, but that does not tell us that Bradman would have been the most dominant player in every era.

Bradman would still be a great player (not with his 1930 technique) in any era, but the level of challenge would be far greater in other eras due to a more professional setup, more teams, matches, conditions, formats etc. and video footage that allows other teams to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the players.

People generally tend to extol the past, but on this forum, the trend is to disparage it.

Not true, 90% of the people on this forum believe that Bradman is the best batsman of all time, which might be due to the jealousy with Tendulkar as Pakistani fans, because apart from Bradman, he has the strongest claim of being the best batsman of all time.

 

[Mamoon]

lol this is some alternate world

maybe you personally hold to this view but the brigade you identify with def doesnt

No, it is very common, In fact, it is the most common argument on PP that modern day batsmen are inferior to the batsmen of the 90s and 80s because they have the luxury of flat pitches, big bats, short boundaries etc.

It is obviously a nonsense argument for multiple reasons, but even if we go by what they say, they refuse to apply the same logic to the bowlers of the 80s and 90s who had the luxury of not bowling on flat pitches, bowled to batsmen with small bats and had bigger boundaries as well. In addition, the tail-enders of that era were awful with the bat and bowlers got a lot of cheap wickets.

It is fine if we say that Kohli, de Villiers, Root, Smith etc. are inferior compared to Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc., but if we extend the same logic and based on the same reasoning claim that Starc, Steyn, Anderson etc. are better than Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Imran, Hadlee etc., the same people start foaming in their mouths and will come up with a gazillion reasons why the modern day bowlers are inferior to the bowlers of the 80s and 90s, in spite of the conditions they themselves laid out to downplay the modern day batsmen.

 

[Slog]

No, it is very common, In fact, it is the most common argument on PP that modern day batsmen are inferior to the batsmen of the 90s and 80s because they have the luxury of flat pitches, big bats, short boundaries etc.

It is obviously a nonsense argument for multiple reasons, but even if we go by what they say, they refuse to apply the same logic to the bowlers of the 80s and 90s who had the luxury of not bowling on flat pitches, bowled to batsmen with small bats and had bigger boundaries as well. In addition, the tail-enders of that era were awful with the bat and bowlers got a lot of cheap wickets.

It is fine if we say that Kohli, de Villiers, Root, Smith etc. are inferior compared to Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc., but if we extend the same logic and based on the same reasoning claim that Starc, Steyn, Anderson etc. are better than Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Imran, Hadlee etc., the same people start foaming in their mouths and will come up with a gazillion reasons why the modern day bowlers are inferior to the bowlers of the 80s and 90s, in spite of the conditions they themselves laid out to downplay the modern day batsmen.

Steyn is definitely equal or better to the list you have chosen. And most agree to that now

Starc is new-ish relatively so bringing him into the discussion is premature

Anderson is a great bowler but he has many holes in his record which we all know about

So in short not the best examples

 

[Slog]

Bradman is the best batsman of all time, which might be due to the jealousy with Tendulkar as Pakistani fans, because apart from Bradman, he has the strongest claim of being the best batsman of all time.

This is just fantasy talk lol

Bradman isnt called the greatest just on this forum or just by Pakistanis

In fact if you take a general world staw poll, most people would say Bradman is the greatest batsman in pretty much every country in the world apart from India and that is where bias comes in.

You know this. Different story if you want to ignore it.