How great was Sir Donald Bradman?

[Stallion__]

If your competition is low and you are a great player, you always be very valuable and will be far ahead of your peers.

I find this statement absurd.

It's like saying that rest of the world was bad to prove that Bradman was not good. If a system of a particular time is producing players of a specific calibre, how come one guy, who is the product of a same system managed to outshine others by such margin?

If your competition is low, you can only be great relative to that low level of competition, since you yourself is the output of the that lesser competitive system. Even then if you make other greats of the same system look average, it's not about the competition, it's about the player.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

You didn't get it.

I was answering Stallion_ who said that People generally tend to extol the past, but on this forum, the trend is to disparage it. That is not true for PakPassion because the majority of the people here agree that Bradman is the best batsman of all time.

If we specifically talk about Pakistani posters then quite a few of them are allergic to Tendulkar for various reasons and would go to any lengths to prove that his contemporaries like Lara and Ponting were superior to him. In fact, some also argue that Dravid was a better Test batsman.

Outside PakPassion and in general cricketing circles, Bradman is indeed considered the best batsman of all time.

 

[Tusker]

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 thing is the moment I gave you proper explanations for all your main points ... you either quietly move on to a new point or simply claim that Iam wrong. Because in your mind you are right as you have so many reputed experts that say the same thing. How about going deeper to find some solid explanations to those views such that it can stand some minimal cross examination ? Like for example un-covered pitches and protective equipment. In your mind there cannot be more difficult thing than those for a batsman. The truth is uncovered wkts become a problem only when it rains and he very rarely found himself batting under such conditions. The few times he did get to bat he did very poorly. There is no way you can deny this but do you think any of the respected cricket historians or experts will touch upon this ? Absolutely not. Why ? See below.

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.

Never said that you take the fringe view .... my point is really simple : since you claim that your views are in line with views and opinions of so many respected cricket experts why are you finding it so difficult to come up with proper logical reasons and facts to answer my pointed questions? The moment you find the answer to this predicament it will give you a big clue to Bradman's and indeed most old ERA cricketers ratings. The answer is nostalgia, respect for past greats , convention , dogma and such like. Never once will you find any expert answering any pointed questions that question Bradmans achievements let alone challenge it. It is the same thing as criticizing some of America's founding fathers due to their involvement in slavery. You just don't do such things. doesn't mean that they were superhuman nor does it mean that they were atrocious.

 

[Mamoon]

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

Most are reluctant to call Steyn better than the great bowlers of the past and do not extend the flat pitches and big bats argument because that makes him superior to the great bowlers of the past.

There are holes in every cricketer's record. Waqar had a mediocre record against most of the great teams of his time yet his status as an ATG is not questioned. If Waqar was a bowler of today's era, there would be threads on PP on how is not an ATG bowler because he averages xx in so and so countries.

If we accept the argument that modern batsmen have inflated averages because of the flat wickets, big bats and small boundaries argument, we also have to accept that modern bowlers have deflated averages because of the flat wickets, big bats and small boundaries argument, which means that past bowlers who had <25 bowling averages will probably be close to the 30 mark today, while current bowlers who are averaging around 28-30 would be averaging 25 or below in the 90s and 80s, which clearly bridges the gap between the world class bowlers of today and the world class bowlers of the past.

It is a very simple logic which people side-step because of its inconvenience, since it is very easy to bash modern day batsmen due to nonsense hypotheticals.

 

[Tusker]

Most are reluctant to call Steyn better than the great bowlers of the past and do not extend the flat pitches and big bats argument because that makes him superior to the great bowlers of the past.

There are holes in every cricketer's record. Waqar had a mediocre record against most of the great teams of his time yet his status as an ATG is not questioned. If Waqar was a bowler of today's era, there would be threads on PP on how is not an ATG bowler because he averages xx in so and so countries.

If we accept the argument that modern batsmen have inflated averages because of the flat wickets, big bats and small boundaries argument, we also have to accept that modern bowlers have deflated averages because of the flat wickets, big bats and small boundaries argument, which means that past bowlers who had <25 bowling averages will probably be close to the 30 mark today, while current bowlers who are averaging around 28-30 would be averaging 25 or below in the 90s and 80s, which clearly bridges the gap between the world class bowlers of today and the world class bowlers of the past.

It is a very simple logic which people side-step because of its inconvenience, since it is very easy to bash modern day batsmen due to nonsense hypotheticals.

Actually I have seen few people who claim that since batting techniques are soo poor and temperaments non existing and bowlers so slow ( lol ) that even with flat pitches these slow coaches (Like Steyn) can fill their boots easily with wkts galore. Thats why they don't rate current era cricketers. Thats when I post a clip or two from the supposedly glorious ERA's of cricket ( Best is Jack Hobbs documentary on his batting technique) and suddenly the line goes quiet.

 

[Mamoon]

I find this statement absurd.

It's like saying that rest of the world was bad to prove that Bradman was not good. If a system of a particular time is producing players of a specific calibre, how come one guy, who is the product of a same system managed to outshine others by such margin?

If your competition is low, you can only be great relative to that low level of competition, since you yourself is the output of the that lesser competitive system. Even then if you make other greats of the same system look average, it's not about the competition, it's about the player.

Why is it absurd? For the majority of his career, Australia and England were the only two countries that took cricket seriously and even then, it wasn't a full-time profession for most of them because there very few matches. Bradman himself only played 52 Tests in 20 years.

What that tells us that amongst the two major cricketing nations at that time, Bradman was simply the best player by quite some distance, which allowed him to tower above the rest.

More teams = more variety = more challenges = more opportunities to fail.

It is a undisputed fact that Bradman played in a extremely poor era of cricket, whose bowlers could not bat and whose fielders were awful. There was no athleticism in cricket and if the batsmen of those eras (including Bradman) play with their 1930s and 1940s batting techniques, they won't last an over against a club team of today.

Bradman outshone others because he was simply much better than the rest. The problem is that when people assume that he would have so far ahead of his peers in a competitive era. It is obviously not disputable that Bradman was a fantastic, world class player, but his deficiencies were not exposed in that era. Bodyline and sticky wickets challenged him and he struggled with the former compared to his usual standards and failed in the latter. In a more competitive era with more teams, he would have had to overcome more challenges.

The only debate is whether it is right to claim that Bradman is the best batsman of all time or not, and that is where my apprehensions lie. I am not claiming that Bradman was a poor player or would have failed in other eras. In my opinion, and I have repeated this twice or thrice already, it is very difficult to consider one individual cricketer as the best of all time simply because cricket has evolved a lot over the decades, and this he-was-much-better-than-the-competition argument is fallacious for reasons that have been discussed already.

If someone puts a gun to my head and forces to nominate one batsman as the greatest of all time, I will probably go for Tendulkar because he ticks more boxes and has passed more tests than any other batsman in history. Bradman is obviously a strong contender as well.

 

[Tusker]

I find this statement absurd.

It's like saying that rest of the world was bad to prove that Bradman was not good. If a system of a particular time is producing players of a specific calibre, how come one guy, who is the product of a same system managed to outshine others by such margin?

If your competition is low, you can only be great relative to that low level of competition, since you yourself is the output of the that lesser competitive system. Even then if you make other greats of the same system look average, it's not about the competition, it's about the player.

My take on this topic is that we are nominating a player as someone who could hold his own and compete with the best of the best now and in future. Thats the literal meaning of an ATG player. Bradman gets ruled out because he did not ace a few tests in his own ERA ( Short bowling and sticky wkts ). And ofcourse due to circumstances he did not have to deal with the numerous challenges that Modern Day greats have to go thru.

Simply put ... the chances of Tendulkar being competitive in a future ERA are faaaar higher than Bradman being competitive just 25-30 yrs after he retired.

 

[Suleiman]

The supposed greatness of Sir Donald Bradman

Donald Trump, Donald Duck

And then you have Donald Bradman.

What these 3 dons have in common is that there is something about them that is too good to be true, almost fictitious.

For Trump it was when he first won the presidency, seemed like something out of a dream, not believable.

Then ofc Donald Duck is a fictional character, so that one is easy.

But then you have Bradman and his apparent title as the greatest batsman of all time, and honestly about 70+ years on that too seems too good to be true.

For starters the only formidable opponents of his time were England who he'd play on a regular basis. West Indies weren't that formidable (yet), India was a colony and a minnow, the only other team was South Africa.

Now if a batsman were to play an opponent as regularly as he did, wouldn't you expect him to be able to figure out or at least adjust to the majority of the bowlers? That's how I feel it was against England.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that he has already been surpassed. From the 70s onwards there were a lot more quality sides with the introduction of Pakistan, a ruthless West Indies, an okay India, and others. The best bowlers also came between the 70s and 2000s.

Think the batsmen who dominated in those eras have a stronger claim to the greatest of all time tag.

No disrespect to The Don, he's a legend. But his best of all time status is debatable.

 

[Aman]

Don isn't the best batsmen to play the game.

He would likely struggle to score runs against most fast bowlers today.

 

[Gilly]

The greatness of Bradman was and is how he stood out from his peers.

 

[TQ89]

I don't agree. The Don is the holy grail of test cricket. I am very vocal about the standards of cricket back then & have had numerous debates about the pre-60's era cricket.

But i don't think we should contest his greatness. He was a very special type of player and was decades ahead of his peers in his batting technique & style of play. He wasn't an old school bat like the other players in those era. He played similar to what player started playing in the 80's/90's. There is a whole article about his technique in wikipedia, do study that. This is why I always give him benefit of the doubt in any comparison

 

[marlonbrowndo]

It's all relative. You compare players to their peers, not players who played nearly a century after them.

 

[Gilly]

Don isn't the best batsmen to play the game.

He would likely struggle to score runs against most fast bowlers today.

I'm suprised you would say something like that Aman, I could easily say if Bradman played today with the big bats, protective gear and flat wickets he would average considerably more.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

What these 3 dons have in common is that there is something about them that is too good to be true, almost fictitious.

So Bradman delivered phaintas to oppositions in JK Rowling's novels, eh?

 

[Aman]

I'm suprised you would say something like that Aman, I could easily say if Bradman played today with the big bats, protective gear and flat wickets he would average considerably more.

He wouldn't have the reflexes to play today's bowlers.

 

[TQ89]

He wouldn't have the reflexes to play today's bowlers.

Don't agree with that. The don had excellent hand eye coordination. You don't get to score 200 or 300 in a day if you don't have these qualities. Like i said he wasn't like the other batsmen of his era who played with straight bat and had chivalric codes about playing on the leg side. He was at least 30 years ahead of his generation in every regard.

 

[TQ89]

Listen the dude averaged above 50 in the bodyline series. If a batsmen can score through that type of situation, he is something special. If that doesn't convince you, perhaps nothing will.

You should check a post about why bodyline series is considered unanimously unethical in cricketing circles. It was posted about it a few weeks back. Even i didn't know how harmful it was and just supposed it was all about short pitch to the body at leg & middle stump. I am sure you must have the same idea about it. That is not the case

 

[Major]

I think a better judgment could be passed if we compare the stats of other players of that time aswell with him.

Because if he had that success then others should have had aswell

 

[Dios]

It's all relative. You compare players to their peers, not players who played nearly a century after them.

This. No one has dominated their era and was so far ahead of their peers like The Don. For that alone he deserves the utmost respect.

 

[Gilly]

He wouldn't have the reflexes to play today's bowlers.

Yes Aman peoples reflexes have developed over the last 70 years and people now days have faster reflexes just like in 50 years time the human body will have developed faster reflexes.

 

[The Googly]

As has been mentioned earlier, you can only compare players to their peers in their own era. Bradman was miles ahead of everyone. He has to go down as the greatest based on his total domination in his own era. You can argue about the quality of bowling at the time and other factors. What you cannot argue about is his total superiority at the time. If you compare him to todays players, you have to allow for a lot of adjustments. If he was around today, he would have the benefits of the superior equipment and fitness levels. Of course he would not average 99. But it would not surprise me if he was able to adapt and average 55-60. He would still be an all time great.

 

[ammar_merry]

He wouldn't have the reflexes to play today's bowlers.

actually opposite...he was known for best reflexes

'For hours after school each night, the young don would practice his batting, using a cricket stump, golf ball, and a rusty water tank.``I threw the golf ball at the tank with one hand, while holding the stump with the other hand, and as the ball rebounded I gripped the stump in two hands and tried to play a shot,'' explained Bradman. ``At the time I had not the slightest idea this would build my reflexes. I was only trying to amuse myself.''

 

[Gilly]

As has been mentioned earlier, you can only compare players to their peers in their own era. Bradman was miles ahead of everyone. He has to go down as the greatest based on his total domination in his own era. You can argue about the quality of bowling at the time and other factors. What you cannot argue about is his total superiority at the time. If you compare him to todays players, you have to allow for a lot of adjustments. If he was around today, he would have the benefits of the superior equipment and fitness levels. Of course he would not average 99. But it would not surprise me if he was able to adapt and average 55-60. He would still be an all time great.

So Batsmen like Hammond, Hobbs and Hutton from England would only average about 25-30 in todays game. See how silly it becomes when you start making up what someone "would" average.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Exactly. If you want to reduce Bradman's average, it only makes sense to reduce Hutton, Hammond and Headley;s averages too. People are very inconsistent on this.

 

[MMHS]

So Batsmen like Hammond, Hobbs and Hutton from England would only average about 25-30 in todays game. See how silly it becomes when you start making up what someone "would" average.

What's the point of discussing that in this context? Sir Don is the greatest ever batsman for different reasons discussed many times here. Being an Aussie, I understand your stand, but don't think anyone is disrespectful to the great man. But, you are bringing a risky argument here, which in fairness won't go in favour of old generation.

Many old pundits rate Sir Jack Hobbs technically better player than Sir Don - even if not, he averages 57 in Test. There are few batting clips available of Hobbs - go and check those & think if that's good enough to average more than Warne, Kumble or Saqline against the same attack that those spinners faced almost a century later or not. And, you'll laugh at looking KS Ranji & his batting technique, considering that he averages over 56 in FC, in an era when 35 was considered great & hardly anyone ended career over 40 average - KS Ranji scored 25K+ runs at 56 in 1880s & 1890s!!!!

WG, Ranji, Trumper, Barnes, Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Headley, Truman, Sobers ... are the greatest cricketers of their era and Don stood head & shoulders above anyone of his time - we should respect him highest for that & it should end there.

 

[Haz95]

He wouldn't have the reflexes to play today's bowlers.

I know right, people do not understand how much reflexes can develop in a mere 70 years. Lads don't be surprised when 70 years from now cricketers will dodge bullets and batsmen would hit 350m sixes as mishits.

 

[Tusker]

actually opposite...he was known for best reflexes

'For hours after school each night, the young don would practice his batting, using a cricket stump, golf ball, and a rusty water tank.``I threw the golf ball at the tank with one hand, while holding the stump with the other hand, and as the ball rebounded I gripped the stump in two hands and tried to play a shot,'' explained Bradman. ``At the time I had not the slightest idea this would build my reflexes. I was only trying to amuse myself.''

So why don't school coaches these days use this technique to build reflexes if it soo good ?

 

[Sachin136]

What's the point of discussing that in this context? Sir Don is the greatest ever batsman for different reasons discussed many times here. Being an Aussie, I understand your stand, but don't think anyone is disrespectful to the great man. But, you are bringing a risky argument here, which in fairness won't go in favour of old generation.

Many old pundits rate Sir Jack Hobbs technically better player than Sir Don - even if not, he averages 57 in Test. There are few batting clips available of Hobbs - go and check those & think if that's good enough to average more than Warne, Kumble or Saqline against the same attack that those spinners faced almost a century later or not. And, you'll laugh at looking KS Ranji & his batting technique, considering that he averages over 56 in FC, in an era when 35 was considered great & hardly anyone ended career over 40 average - KS Ranji scored 25K+ runs at 56 in 1880s & 1890s!!!!

WG, Ranji, Trumper, Barnes, Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, Headley, Truman, Sobers ... are the greatest cricketers of their era and Don stood head & shoulders above anyone of his time - we should respect him highest for that & it should end there.

Then why would you think that Bradman is the greatest ever batsman?

 

[MMHS]

Then why would you think that Bradman is the greatest ever batsman?

I don't think, but that doesn't mean anything.

He is greatest ever, because he was 60% better than the next man of his time at the highest level. Now, I have reservations about that "highest level", but that shouldn't take any fame out of him - he mastered what was given in front of him.

These days, last SAF 100 metre winner actually was timing better than Jesse Owens (10.28 vs 10.35) in Berlin 1936 - faster sprinter than Owens, yes - greater Athlete or Olympian?

 

[On_the_up]

Bradman statistics cannot be argued against.

He scored a 50+ score in 50%+ of his Tests match inns.

Are we really arguing against a person who's average is near enough 100 (yes a milestone most batsmen strive for and are grateful to achieve) over a 20 year period!

For those who go down the lack of variety route, his record against the variety at the time (5 matches each) was against India (avg 178.75), SA (avg 201.5) and WI (Avg 74.5). Bradman averaged 89.78 against the decent side in England over 37 matches.

Some might say a batsman like Voges averaged very high recently over a period of time. Doing it over a couple of years is a long way away from a whole career of 20 years, both FC and Tests.

His avg probably would have dropped if he had to face the WI pace-men of the 80s or the fast bowler of the 90s etc but to say he is not the greatest when all records show otherwise (before or since) is not as simple task as some here are making it out to be.

Considering the current quality of test attacks, he probably would be averaging more than 100 in today's game.

Looking at youtube clips and coming to conclusions over techniques and how they would have fared isn't a foolproof exercise because great players adapt to what's put in front of them. Initially, they might struggle but they overcome that temporary failing and eventually master their opponents, it's part of what makes them great in the first place.

In no other era, has any batsmen or even sportsman rarely been so head and shoulders above their peers as Bradman did. (Jahangir Khan in Squash maybe).

He also missed 8 years from the age of 30 to 38, some of which are normally considered the best years for a batsman.

 

[James]

He averaged 99.94 in Tests.

Even if you take 33.3% of that away from him for generational gap purposes, he still averages more than both Tendulkar and Pollock who are probably the 2nd and 3rd best batsmen after him.

Those numbers just can't be ignored.

 

[msb314]

Donald Trump, Donald Duck

And then you have Donald Bradman.

What these 3 dons have in common is that there is something about them that is too good to be true, almost fictitious.

For Trump it was when he first won the presidency, seemed like something out of a dream, not believable.

Then ofc Donald Duck is a fictional character, so that one is easy.

But then you have Bradman and his apparent title as the greatest batsman of all time, and honestly about 70+ years on that too seems too good to be true.

For starters the only formidable opponents of his time were England who he'd play on a regular basis. West Indies weren't that formidable (yet), India was a colony and a minnow, the only other team was South Africa.

Now if a batsman were to play an opponent as regularly as he did, wouldn't you expect him to be able to figure out or at least adjust to the majority of the bowlers? That's how I feel it was against England.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that he has already been surpassed. From the 70s onwards there were a lot more quality sides with the introduction of Pakistan, a ruthless West Indies, an okay India, and others. The best bowlers also came between the 70s and 2000s.

Think the batsmen who dominated in those eras have a stronger claim to the greatest of all time tag.

No disrespect to The Don, he's a legend. But his best of all time status is debatable.

To put it in perspective - Walter Hammond, George Headley and Len Hutton were one of the finest batsman of their countries. ATG's for England/WI and one of the best in the 1930's.

Yet Bradman was STILL twice as good as them...

 

[The_Odd_One]

The greatest batsman of all time. No matter how poor was the bowling quality or limited number of teams in his time, an average of 99 is just unreal.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

To put it in perspective - Walter Hammond, George Headley and Len Hutton were one of the finest batsman of their countries. ATG's for England/WI and one of the best in the 1930's.

Yet Bradman was STILL twice as good as them...

Quite true. This is the biggest point in Bradman's favour. Hammond, Hutton and Healdey are aknowledged by all as ATG batsmen.... even on this forum. So if you want to argue Bradman wasn't that good, can you imagine how much worse those 3 were? Even undisputed ATGs only could average 50-60% of what he did.

 

[SL_Fan]

People do tend to over-rate a lot of past players from the amateur era for the sake of it and under-rate modern-day players. Bradman's feats however are just impossible to ignore. He was obviously a freak 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane despite the inferior competition and all that.

Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline which was of course devised just to stop him (in 8 innings 103*, 76, 71, 66, 48, 24, 8, 0). There’s a reason why fast leg theory has since been made illegal. It would be flat out dangerous even with all the protection you can get your hands on today.

I doubt even top modern day bats, had they somehow been transported back in time, would have fared much better. Now does that mean Bradman would have averaged 90+ in the modern game? Highly doubt it. But somewhere around the 70 mark I don’t think is too much of a stretch.

 

[Slog]

Quite true. This is the biggest point in Bradman's favour. Hammond, Hutton and Healdey are aknowledged by all as ATG batsmen.... even on this forum. So if you want to argue Bradman wasn't that good, can you imagine how much worse those 3 were? Even undisputed ATGs only could average 50-60% of what he did.

Maybe Australia had the best bowlers and these English had to play against them whereas Bradman played against inferior bowlers

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Maybe Australia had the best bowlers and these English had to play against them whereas Bradman played against inferior bowlers

Before the war, Australia had the better spinners (Grimmett and O'Reilly) but England definitely had the better pace attack with Larwood.

Post war, England saw Alec Bedser and Jim Laker emerging and Bradman dominated them in the 1948 series.

 

[James]

England had some superb bowlers back then, also Bradman played in the Bodyline series which comprised a good few Tests, and he still averaged just short of 100 with the bat. Undoubtedly the greatest of all time.

 

[Tusker]

People do tend to over-rate a lot of past players from the amateur era for the sake of it and under-rate modern-day players. Bradman's feats however are just impossible to ignore. He was obviously a freak 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane despite the inferior competition and all that.

Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline which was of course devised just to stop him (in 8 innings 103*, 76, 71, 66, 48, 24, 8, 0). There’s a reason why fast leg theory has since been made illegal. It would be flat out dangerous even with all the protection you can get your hands on today.

I doubt even top modern day bats, had they somehow been transported back in time, would have fared much better. Now does that mean Bradman would have averaged 90+ in the modern game? Highly doubt it. But somewhere around the 70 mark I don’t think is too much of a stretch.

I can show you just as serious injuries that were caused by modern bowlers to batsmen wearing helmets as the one that was inflicted by Larwood on Bert Oldfield. But I doubt its going to make you change your opinion.

Just in this last Test match Shikar Dhawan and many others from both teams were batting without any chest guard and arm guard and would have suffered the EXACT same injury that Woodful suffered had the ball hit them in the chest.

And please don't start with the Larwood infinitely faster than the current Indian + SL bowlers .... that lie has been laid to rest. Also laid to rest is the field positions when Woodful was injured.

In any case I just don't understand what is the big deal about that field positions ... if you put half the team behind square on leg side + FSL and bowl at 120Ks you will get plundered for fun today. You can still bowl leg theory lines all day long if teams so want. Please don't confuse leg theory with what the WI fast bowlers did in the 80s.

 

[Chrish]

England had some superb bowlers back then, also Bradman played in the Bodyline series which comprised a good few Tests, and he still averaged just short of 100 with the bat. Undoubtedly the greatest of all time.

Correction: Bradman averaged 56 in bodyline

 

[Chrish]

Maybe Australia had the best bowlers and these English had to play against them whereas Bradman played against inferior bowlers

Definitely true after ww2. Australian attack overall was much superior.

The opposite is true pre-war

 

[msb314]

Quite true. This is the biggest point in Bradman's favour. Hammond, Hutton and Healdey are aknowledged by all as ATG batsmen.... even on this forum. So if you want to argue Bradman wasn't that good, can you imagine how much worse those 3 were? Even undisputed ATGs only could average 50-60% of what he did.

Yes he was head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[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, 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.

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 can't really comment on Bradman, but the Sobers claim is absolutely absurd.

The following players batted against Sobers, Procter, Imran, Hadlee, Rice and Botham:

Barry Richards
Gordon Greenidge
Greg Chappell
Geoff Boycott
Mike Brearley
Dennis Amiss
Imran Khan
Mike Procter
Zaheer Abbas
Geoff Howarth
Mushtaq Muhammad
Sadiq Mohammad
Alvin Kallicharran

The following bowlers all bowled to all of them too:

John Snow
Bob Willis
Andy Roberts
Dennis Lillee
Derek Underwood
Bishan Bedi
Lance Gibbs
Fred Titmus
Intikhab Alam
Mike Procter
Imran Khan

Yet every single one of them says that Garry Sobers was the best.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

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.

Well, it's not like the Bradman era had mediocre players apart from him. There were the likes of Compton, Hammond, Hutton, Frank Worrell, George Headly, Jack Hobbs, Bill O' Reily to name a few who are considered to be ATG's. By that logic, these others should have had their respective batting averages in 70s or 80s and bowling averages below 15 if competetion was not good. The thing that Bradman did what was totally unfathomable is the proof that he is the greatest ever.

Sobers, I dont really think he is the greatest ever allrounder, personally speaking I might pick Kallis ahead of him. Both have similar stats. I don't know of the impact of Sobers I admit

 

[James]

Correction: Bradman averaged 56 in bodyline

Apologies as my post was unclear. I meant that despite playing through the lengthy Bodyline series (where he averaged much less than his usual numbers), he still finished with the near-100 average for his career overall.

 

[Tusker]

I can't really comment on Bradman, but the Sobers claim is absolutely absurd.

Well in the vote for the best Cricketer of the century nobody voted against Bradman. plenty also voted for Jack Hobbs. We now know better than that don't we or you still have doubts ?

Yet every single one of them says that Garry Sobers was the best.

I can't believe so many people fall for this trick all the time .... Why would anyone in his right mind go on and say anything otherwise to knock down Sobers ? See the point above for reasoning.

 

[Haz95]

I can't really comment on Bradman, but the Sobers claim is absolutely absurd.

The following players batted against Sobers, Procter, Imran, Hadlee, Rice and Botham:

Barry Richards
Gordon Greenidge
Greg Chappell
Geoff Boycott
Mike Brearley
Dennis Amiss
Imran Khan
Mike Procter
Zaheer Abbas
Geoff Howarth
Mushtaq Muhammad
Sadiq Mohammad
Alvin Kallicharran

Yet every single one of them says that Garry Sobers was the best.

Out of all these names, only one is an ATG batsman tho? The good batsmen only really appeared in the 80s and late 70s.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

The whole argument put forward by Mamoon is utterly silly anyway. It's kind of like saying McGrath and Steyn are overrated because they didn't have 'competition' from other great fast bowlers (McGrath in 2000s and Steyn from 2006-14). It is a completely ludicrous premise.

 

[Tusker]

The whole argument put forward by Mamoon is utterly silly anyway. It's kind of like saying McGrath and Steyn are overrated because they didn't have 'competition' from other great fast bowlers (McGrath in 2000s and Steyn from 2006-14). It is a completely ludicrous premise.

But McGrath and Steyn did have competition in the form of Shoaib, Asif, Philander, Harris Pollock

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

But McGrath and Steyn did have competition in the form of Shoaib, Asif, Philander, Harris Pollock

Bowlers donot 'compete' against other bowlers. It's a stupid thing to say.

Regardless, none of them are even close to McGrath and Steyn level.

 

[Tusker]

Bowlers donot 'compete' against other bowlers. It's a stupid thing to say.

Regardless, none of them are even close to McGrath and Steyn level.

Nor do batsman, what's your point?

 

[Robert]

Regardless, none of them are even close to McGrath and Steyn level.

In a sense they do. Sir Richard Hadlee motivated himself by choosing a player from the other side and trying to take more wiclets and score more runs.

But I suppose he was no good either as batters didn't hit for power and bowlers weren't fast in the 1970s and '80s.

 

[The_Odd_One]

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.

You do know that Sobers has hit centuries facing bowlers like Fazal, Khan Mohammad, Willis, Underwood, Bedi, Prasanna, etc.?

Bradman is universally accepted as the greatest batsman of all time, barring a small portion of Indian fans who will not accept it for obvious reasons.

Bradman's career lasted 20 years and he still averaged almost 100. It is an amazing achievement considering he did not play a test from 1939 to 1946 which were his peak years. Played 7 tests in 1937/38 and scored 6 100s (2 double hundreds) averaging almost 125.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Nor do batsman, what's your point?

Yes. That is exactly my point. Neither do all rounders compete against each other. So to say Sobers didn't have competition from other all rounders is stupid.

 

[Tusker]

Yes. That is exactly my point. Neither do all rounders compete against each other. So to say Sobers didn't have competition from other all rounders is stupid.

Well that is something you need to argue with the Bradman fanatics who harp upon the fact that Bradman was twice as good as anyone else (i.e the "competition" ) that played in his era. I agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] on the fact that the trickery involves making everyone believe that the bowling and fielding standards have remained constant since Bradman last played nearly 70 yrs ago. They do that to "prove" how Bradman is still twice as good as any modern great who afterall only avg'd in the 50s. This is when I or someone produces some footage of real action from the 1930's and then either the thread goes quiet or people resort to plan-B i.e produce verbal certificates from x-y-z players, ridicule, bluster and ofcourse trolling. This is for most part the standard formula used to keep the Bradman legend going.

Iam yet to find one single Bradman fanatic that is willing to discuss the action as can be seen from footage. Reasons are very obvious.

 

[Gilly]

Well that is something you need to argue with the Bradman fanatics who harp upon the fact that Bradman was twice as good as anyone else (i.e the "competition" ) that played in his era. I agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] on the fact that the trickery involves making everyone believe that the bowling and fielding standards have remained constant since Bradman last played nearly 70 yrs ago. They do that to "prove" how Bradman is still twice as good as any modern great who afterall only avg'd in the 50s. This is when I or someone produces some footage of real action from the 1930's and then either the thread goes quiet or people resort to plan-B i.e produce verbal certificates from x-y-z players, ridicule, bluster and ofcourse trolling. This is for most part the standard formula used to keep the Bradman legend going.

Iam yet to find one single Bradman fanatic that is willing to discuss the action as can be seen from footage. Reasons are very obvious.

What usually happens is when Bradman is discussed we know that he averages 99.94, unheard of then and since. He for whatever reason could score runs almost at will, no other batsman has touched his prowess with the willow. If he were batting today, who knows he might continue to score exactly the same or he might not. Plenty of self made experts know exactly what would happen due to their expertise in the field of knowing everything.

 

[On_the_up]

To the YouTube analysts of history, how much do you think Chanderpaul would have averaged if you didn't know and were solely going by the footage?

 

[Tusker]

What usually happens is when Bradman is discussed we know that he averages 99.94, unheard of then and since. He for whatever reason could score runs almost at will, no other batsman has touched his prowess with the willow. If he were batting today, who knows he might continue to score exactly the same or he might not. Plenty of self made experts know exactly what would happen due to their expertise in the field of knowing everything.

Except that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that the guy in this footage is a ridiculously innocuous bowler who was the "Strike" bowler of that time and has a Bowing avg better than Dale Steyn

https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=2m12s

If you think the standards are the same ...... might as well believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Tusker]

To the YouTube analysts of history, how much do you think Chanderpaul would have averaged if you didn't know and were solely going by the footage?

You mean how much he would have averaged in a different ERA ?

 

[On_the_up]

You mean how much he would have averaged in a different ERA ?

No, how much would you estimate his test average to have been in the era he played, just going by his technique and not looking at the stats.

 

[Tusker]

No, how much would you estimate his test average to have been in the era he played, just going by his technique and not looking at the stats.

That is not the same thing as what I say .... I look at the bowling quality ( and not the batting technique) that Bradman made his runs against and compare that bowling quality with todays. There is no way anyone with a proper understanding of cricket will deny that the quality of bowling in Bradman's time is quite poor.

 

[silentkiller187]

Bradman was a great player don't get me wrong, but due to lack of video evidence it would be difficult to call him the greatest ever. His average of 99 will probably never be bettered, but stats only tell half the picture.Ryan ten doeschate averages 67 in odi's yet he would struggle to make a list of the best 50 odi batsmen due to the fact his runs came against associate bowlers. Similarly Bradman scored a lot of his runs against the same bowlers,who as previously mentioned quality wise would struggle against the batsmen of today's generation. Even so Bradmans records are no mean feat and he deserves to be considered as one of the best to have graced the game, but the best ever, not so sure.

 

[zulfiqar]

Bradman is the greatest cricketer of his era -- there is no doubt about this. Unfortunately, the only true way to compare sportsmen is among those who played in the same era. The reason is simple: the sport will mature and evolve over time.

In the example others have used above, i.e. Bradman's technique will be similar to a Number 11 -- the same holds true for today's greats. It's not far fetched at all to assume that Sachin Tendulkar's technique will be comparable to a Number 11 five decades from now. Not only will the rules of the sport mature, but instruments that cricket uses will also evolve. Not just the tools (i.e. bats, balls, pitches), but the information available regarding fitness & the most optimal method to train or play will get better. If someone here argues that Sachin will never be obsolete, then they are simply mistaken. The same way that today's technology will look ancient in a few decades' time, so will today's sportsmen.

The fallacy though is in assuming that Bradman will fail in our time. If he was born in this time, he would have taken on the sport as an evolved cricketer. He would also have access to the finest coaches, technology, fitness regimens etc. and would have exposure to the sport as it is now. It's unfair to say that he would or would not have been able to adopt to the new sport.

The above is the only reason that the way I personally judge players is how far ahead they are of their peers. What Sir Isaac Newton knew in his time is probably a joke to today's young aspiring physicists, yet he is one of the greatest scientists of all time because of how far ahead he was of his peers - a true pioneer. I know that some of my analogies won't resonate with other posters here, but it's the way I make sense of comparing people across eras. And it's mainly for this reason that I think Donald Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time. The only area I feel he was untested is that the majority of his matches were played against one country, but that's what was available to him at that time.

Anyway, that being said -- to each their own. But to say that Bradman is glorified only because he is from an older era is just plain wrong. He towered above everyone else that lived in his time. Oddly enough, the people who were trailing behind him statistically match up to the players who trail behind the #1 of our times as well (in batting/bowling averages, etc.). Something to think about!

 

[Tusker]

The fallacy though is in assuming that Bradman will fail in our time. If he was born in this time, he would have taken on the sport as an evolved cricketer. He would also have access to the finest coaches, technology, fitness regimens etc. and would have exposure to the sport as it is now. It's unfair to say that he would or would not have been able to adopt to the new sport.

There were coaches in Bradman's time too. People like to throw out red herrings but really what great technological or fitness regime was available to the likes of Tendulkar, Gavaskar , Wasim Akram growing up before there was even cable TV in Asia ?

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

There were coaches in Bradman's time too. People like to throw out red herrings but really what great technological or fitness regime was available to the likes of Tendulkar, Gavaskar , Wasim Akram growing up before there was even cable TV in Asia ?

Are you seriously pretending that medicine and fitness training methods have not improved in 50 years since Bradman retired? Unbelievable.

 

[Tusker]

Are you seriously pretending that medicine and fitness training methods have not improved in 50 years since Bradman retired? Unbelievable.

Yeah it has but what medicines were needed by those players growing up ? Same with fitness training. Tendulkar recently said that his coach made him run two laps of the ground. That was his fitness "training". More or less same with Sunny and Akram.

 

[zulfiqar]

There were coaches in Bradman's time too. People like to throw out red herrings but really what great technological or fitness regime was available to the likes of Tendulkar, Gavaskar , Wasim Akram growing up before there was even cable TV in Asia ?

They had the experience of guys like Kapil, Imran, Miandad, etc. who themselves had played 100+ games to guide them. Techniques evolve overtime, and yes, the diets of sportsmen in 1930s was different than the diet of sportsmen in 1990s. You make it sound like Wasim and Gavaskar had the diet and fitness regiment of a layman.

 

[Sachin136]

Bradman is the greatest cricketer of his era -- there is no doubt about this. Unfortunately, the only true way to compare sportsmen is among those who played in the same era. The reason is simple: the sport will mature and evolve over time.

In the example others have used above, i.e. Bradman's technique will be similar to a Number 11 -- the same holds true for today's greats. It's not far fetched at all to assume that Sachin Tendulkar's technique will be comparable to a Number 11 five decades from now. Not only will the rules of the sport mature, but instruments that cricket uses will also evolve. Not just the tools (i.e. bats, balls, pitches), but the information available regarding fitness & the most optimal method to train or play will get better. If someone here argues that Sachin will never be obsolete, then they are simply mistaken. The same way that today's technology will look ancient in a few decades' time, so will today's sportsmen.

The fallacy though is in assuming that Bradman will fail in our time. If he was born in this time, he would have taken on the sport as an evolved cricketer. He would also have access to the finest coaches, technology, fitness regimens etc. and would have exposure to the sport as it is now. It's unfair to say that he would or would not have been able to adopt to the new sport.

The above is the only reason that the way I personally judge players is how far ahead they are of their peers. What Sir Isaac Newton knew in his time is probably a joke to today's young aspiring physicists, yet he is one of the greatest scientists of all time because of how far ahead he was of his peers - a true pioneer. I know that some of my analogies won't resonate with other posters here, but it's the way I make sense of comparing people across eras. And it's mainly for this reason that I think Donald Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time. The only area I feel he was untested is that the majority of his matches were played against one country, but that's what was available to him at that time.

Anyway, that being said -- to each their own. But to say that Bradman is glorified only because he is from an older era is just plain wrong. He towered above everyone else that lived in his time. Oddly enough, the people who were trailing behind him statistically match up to the players who trail behind the #1 of our times as well (in batting/bowling averages, etc.). Something to think about!

It is far fetched. No one thinks that Gavaskar, who started playing 50 years ago, would be a tailender today, and no one will think that in another 50 years.

Your example about Newton is incorrect, because it isn't about how much you know.

 

[SL_Fan]

I can show you just as serious injuries that were caused by modern bowlers to batsmen wearing helmets as the one that was inflicted by Larwood on Bert Oldfield. But I doubt its going to make you change your opinion.

Just in this last Test match Shikar Dhawan and many others from both teams were batting without any chest guard and arm guard and would have suffered the EXACT same injury that Woodful suffered had the ball hit them in the chest.

And please don't start with the Larwood infinitely faster than the current Indian + SL bowlers .... that lie has been laid to rest. Also laid to rest is the field positions when Woodful was injured.

In any case I just don't understand what is the big deal about that field positions ... if you put half the team behind square on leg side + FSL and bowl at 120Ks you will get plundered for fun today. You can still bowl leg theory lines all day long if teams so want. Please don't confuse leg theory with what the WI fast bowlers did in the 80s.

The reason you don't understand is because you only look at one part of the equation. You choose to ignore the disadvantages of the bygone eras and advantages of the modern era. Not going to get anywhere with that sort of thinking.

 

[SL_Fan]

Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[Tusker]

The reason you don't understand is because you only look at one part of the equation. You choose to ignore the disadvantages of the bygone eras and advantages of the modern era. Not going to get anywhere with that sort of thinking.

I'am very aware of differences in ERA (which is why Iam trying to use situations that are closer to playing conditions that existed back then in this discussion between us on BL bowling and injuries). However in todays Test Cricket I cannot obviously find teams that use 110K strike bowlers with keepers standing up that are reqd to bowl a total of 30+ overs a day backed by lethargic fielding. But that is going against the modern player. ( BTW NewYorker claims there is no difference playing against 110K vs 140K so there is that .... ).

However the propaganda machinery being what it is people will believe in anything they want in order to make their Heroes look better. Example: Uncovered pitches. It is very common for people to express AWE and ridicule those who dare to even look at the details. Simple commonsense will tell us that unless it rains an uncovered pitch behaves exactly the same way as a covered pitch.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Older generations had supermen who could bowl 120 overs in a day on cosistent basis while newer generations have became weak and lost stamina as they huff and puff after 80 overs.

Imagine bowlers coming at you at 90 mph even after bowling 100 overs. Nothing can be more difficult.

 

[Cric1234]

Take out wet wickets from Bradmans record his average goes up to 120.
The bowling speeds for Larwood were 130-40 on average and 120-30 for the medium fast bowlers only a few clicks slower than today's bowlers.
If they were bad bowlers a batsman of Sobers Calibre wouldn't have struggled against them and he's seen smashing the likes of Lillee in the 70s.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Take out wet wickets from Bradmans record his average goes up to 120.
The bowling speeds for Larwood were 130-40 on average and 120-30 for the medium fast bowlers only a few clicks slower than today's bowlers.
If they were bad bowlers a batsman of Sobers Calibre wouldn't have struggled against them and he's seen smashing the likes of Lillee in the 70s.

The day when Bradman scored 300 in a day, 46 overs were bowled in 2 hours.

Harold Larwood opened the bowling for England and with bowlers bowling at 130-140 kmph they managed to average 23 overs an hour.

No pacer in modern game has ever been able to match such efforts. Such efforts can possibly be matched only by spinners.

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7rybPvBa3Oc

Video of bodyline series the delivery by Larwood at 1.06 looks fast to me not 70mph somewhere in the mid 80s.

 

[Chrish]

He was twice the Cricketer Imran Khan was..

 

[SL_Fan]

I'am very aware of differences in ERA (which is why Iam trying to use situations that are closer to playing conditions that existed back then in this discussion between us on BL bowling and injuries). However in todays Test Cricket I cannot obviously find teams that use 110K strike bowlers with keepers standing up that are reqd to bowl a total of 30+ overs a day backed by lethargic fielding. But that is going against the modern player. ( BTW NewYorker claims there is no difference playing against 110K vs 140K so there is that .... ).

However the propaganda machinery being what it is people will believe in anything they want in order to make their Heroes look better. Example: Uncovered pitches. It is very common for people to express AWE and ridicule those who dare to even look at the details. Simple commonsense will tell us that unless it rains an uncovered pitch behaves exactly the same way as a covered pitch.

I do agree that a fair few ppl have bought into the propaganda machine that old is gold but when it comes to Bradman tho his feats are just impossible to ignore for mine. Even with the inferior competition and all that if you were to go back in time right before Bradman came into the scene and tell people that someone is about to score 7k Test runs @ 99.94 and 28k+ runs in FC cricket @ 95 I'm fairly certain that they would have laughed it off and called you crazy. He's just a freak.

 

[Tusker]

I do agree that a fair few ppl have bought into the propaganda machine that old is gold but when it comes to Bradman tho his feats are just impossible to ignore for mine. Even with the inferior competition and all that if you were to go back in time right before Bradman came into the scene and tell people that someone is about to score 7k Test runs @ 99.94 and 28k+ runs in FC cricket @ 95 I'm fairly certain that they would have laughed it off and called you crazy. He's just a freak.

commendable achievement but skillwise it wont even fetch you runs against minnow level bowling today ... thats the harsh reality.

 

[SL_Fan]

Well that might be your version of reality but last time I checked Bradman retired in 1948.

Let me ask you this [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]. Do you believe guys like Viv, Sachin and Lara for instance would have played the same way they did during their playing days had they instead played their cricket in the 1930s/40s?

 

[Tusker]

Well that might be your version of reality but last time I checked Bradman retired in 1948.

Let me ask you this [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]. Do you believe guys like Viv, Sachin and Lara for instance would have played the same way they did during their playing days had they instead played their cricket in the 1930s/40s?

not my version ... its what is plainly visible.

SRT,Viv,Lara would have beaten the living daylights out of those bowlers had they played in the 30s ... and this is JUST because of their incredible hand eye co-ordination even if we take out the modern techniques and styles.