W.G. Grace - Perhaps the Greatest ever?

[Belawal2014]

Good to know. I'll write this down.

Write it in blue please, it's my favorite color.

 

[Sachin136]

Nope, not at all.

Barry Richards played 4 Tests in 1970 in which he averaged 72 followed by SuperTests fully 7 and 8 years later in which his average was even higher.

And he never got to play the minnows of the day - India and New Zealand and England.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was the next best batsman after Bradman, and those of us who watched him pulverise international bowlers - including spinners - in domestic cricket in Australia and England are well aware of his status.

Still missing the point. If a batsman plays, let's say, 10 tests over the course of 10 years (with a lot of rest between them) and averages a certain number, it is very reasonable to expect that the average will reduce should he play more tests. That's why when comparing batsman, you don't look at how well they did for some 10 odd tests out of their entire career, you look at their entire career.

Now since the other test matches he played were after a few years, it can be said that he continued his form for that period of time (of 7-8 years). However, if you play 4 international matches, then play 4 more after 8 years and do just as well, it in no way suggests that if you play 100 more matches over 10 more years then you will perform in the same way.

If you're watched him and feel that he was the second best batsman after Bradman then that's fine. But what you said was that people like Bradman, Barry Richards etc outmatched their contemporaries by statistics alone, which is not true (of course it is true for Bradman but not really for Barry Richards).

For all we know Barry Richards, had he played more tests, could have continued averaging that high. But most evidence suggests that as one plays more test matches, the average does not remain as high as it was at some point in their career.

 

[Thivagar]

Write it in blue please, it's my favorite color.

Too bad, wrote it aqua-green.

 

[yasir]

I'm no fan of Bradman, but given that we now have flat covered wickets, helmets, leg side fielding restrictions and the weakest bowling standards since the 1920's I suppose that he would average well over 150 in modern Test cricket.

Well Bradman only played in two conditions. He never really played in dust bowls of Asia, that's a whole different challenge. Where playing 4/5 day of rest is really challenging. Asian spinners at their home is not a cake walk. Plus he played one kind of cricket and one kind of bowlers, playing three different format is not easy.

At the same time Bradman is Bradman, he had twice the avg of next guy not only in test but also in FC. Which is just too good to be true. That's why his name is definition of impossible. Anybody who can better him, he will be worthy of name tag. "Better than Bradman", I don't think I will see that in my life time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WrexEverything]

Well Bradman only played in two conditions. He never really played in dust bowls of Asia, that's a whole different challenge. Where playing 4/5 day of rest is really challenging. Asian spinners at their home is not a cake walk. Plus he played one kind of cricket and one kind of bowlers, playing three different format is not easy.

At the same time Bradman is Bradman, he had twice the avg of next guy not only in test but also in FC. Which is just too good to be true. That's why his name is definition of impossible. Anybody who can better him, he will be worthy of name tag. "Better than Bradman", I don't think I will see that in my life time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately he didn't have a time machine. What if, 30 years from now, we start playing on matting or astroturf? And what if some new nation like Netherlands or Ireland or China becomes a full test nations with their own home pitches? Suddenly, will people start saying Tendulkar and Lara would not have been able to handle these new conditions? Essentially by that logic , it will become "more recent player=better".

So, the debate is rather pointless. One can only play what is in front of him.

The fact that even the other acknowledged ATGs of his era(Hammond, Hutton, Headley, Hobbs) who are still considered by most to be at the top tier levelonly managed to average half of what he did seals his position as the greatest batsman without a shadow of doubt.

 

[SL_Fan]

Don't buy this rubbish of Bradman averaging the same or anywhere close to 99 in this era.. As I said the only reason for rating him is he was above his peers.. Nothing more, nothing less. So, feel free to remove those rose-tinted glasses.

And that's based on what exactly?

Late 1928 (20 y/o) - late 1938 (30 y/o)
5100 runs @ 98

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

No Test cricket for 8 years (30 y/o - 38 y/o) because of the war so lost some of his best years as a batsmen

Late 1946 (38 y/o) - late 1948 (40 y/o)
1900 runs @ 106

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting


Now if you look at the numbers of batsmen from the last 20 or so years (min 20 Tests) Sanga tops the list with an ave of 59

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

As for Bradman he averaged around 35 more than the next best (Compton with an ave of 64) during his time (again min 20 Tests from 1928 to late 1948)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

So Bradman averaging in the 90s in modern times is not that far fetched actually. He was an absolute freak of nature.

 

[Chrish]

And that's based on what exactly?

Late 1928 (20 y/o) - late 1938 (30 y/o)
5100 runs @ 98

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

No Test cricket for 8 years (30 y/o - 38 y/o) because of the war so lost some of his best years as a batsmen

Late 1946 (38 y/o) - late 1948 (40 y/o)
1900 runs @ 106

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting


Now if you look at the numbers of batsmen from the last 20 or so years (min 20 Tests) Sanga tops the list with an ave of 59

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

As for Bradman he averaged around 35 more than the next best (Compton with an ave of 64) during his time (again min 20 Tests from 1928 to late 1948)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

So Bradman averaging in the 90s in modern times is not that far fetched actually. He was an absolute freak of nature.

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

 

[Mamoon]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

Pretty thought provoking post actually, but people will either not answer it or look to deflect it with weak reasoning.

 

[Chrish]

Pretty thought provoking post actually, but people will either not answer it or look to deflect it with weak reasoning.

Thanks for the kind words

 

[Neferpitou]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

Great points.

Somewhat disagree on the last one, the athletes mentioned are superior to their peers but not to the extent Bradman was. He is an anomaly and his domination can only be compared to Wilt Chamberlain(basketball) but similar to Bradman his performances are taken with a grain of salt because of inferior competition.

In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head with the high school to university transition example and the examples of the players given below further strengthens that argument.

 

[Sachin136]

Bradman was a brilliant batsman. The best ever. But you can't just look at his average, compare it to others in his era, and say that he was two times the batsman the next best batsman was in his generation.

 

[Sachin136]

Great points.

Somewhat disagree on the last one, the athletes mentioned are superior to their peers but not to the extent Bradman was. He is an anomaly and his domination can only be compared to Wilt Chamberlain(basketball) but similar to Bradman his performances are taken with a grain of salt because of inferior competition.

In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head with the high school to university transition example and the examples of the players given below further strengthens that argument.

Jahangir Khan too.

 

[Enforcer]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

excellent analysis.

 

[Acricketfan]

let's assume i always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now i am enrolled into university where i have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do i still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in aus and england. Sa, ind and wi were less than mediocre bowling units and england was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against bd, 89.33 against zim, and 80.25 against pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: When you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from wi, pak, nz, and eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like south africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in india after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at medrid) and messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in european league. Then there is alexander karelin, usain bolt, michael phelps, floyd mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: Is bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

potw

 

[leatherface58]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

It would be unfair to not give this POTW.

 

[Slog]

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

whose to say not.

the argument's basic premise is strong but it is a very general argument which can be applied to a broad spectrum of players.

Bradman did not shield himself from any teams in his era so it is not his fault. The university example is flawed because it makes it seem like Bradman willingly did not test himself against the top competitors and restricted the competition he faced which is far far from the truth

The English bowlers Bradman faced like Larwood, Voce and Verity were world class and average in the 20s and their average is in the 20s mainly due to Bradman's success against them. But there you maybe onto sth

Most importantly you ignore that it is unequivovally true that Bradman played in the era of the toughest pitch conditions (uncovered etc.)

Also your quoting of Ronaldo or Bolt's example is very faulty. Neither are streets ahead of their peers. Ronaldo's case is closer. In the time Messi and Ronaldo have been in La Liga they have been neck and neck. This is especially faulty because in his last 2 seasons in La Liga Falcao averaged the same too . So they are hardly anamolies in the mould of Bradman. Same with Boult. If a couple had average din the 70s or 80s with Bradman at 99.9 then your point may have stood but with no one else over even 60 the point is very weak.

You cant equate the differences in the peaks of the athlethes you mentioned and their peers to the difference in the level of Bradman and his peers

The argument has good premise but its easy to find loopholes in it

 

[Stallion__]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

Very fine post Chrish. Sharp insights.

P.S. those who feel its worthy POTW, should nominate it officially, so that it is considered for it.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?25069-The-Official-POTW-Nominations-Thread!/page11

 

[WrexEverything]

Indeed. I think it's a decent post, but the basic problem with it is that it tries too somehow diminish the gap between Bradman and the rest without asking similar questions for modern batsmen. For example,would Sachin, who was less comfortable against medium paced bowling compared to pace and spin have managed to play the greatest medium pacer ever, Alec Bedser with as much authority as Bradman did? No one knows... they're hypotheticals. Meaningless fantasies. One can only play what is in front of him. Bradman didn't have a time machine to foresee what the game would be like in 50 years and change his playstyle accordingly

The point about India and SA being bad opposition is more fair. But then, I ask, sn't this balanced out by the fact that for 37/52 ie almost 75% of his matches, Bradman faced the best possible opposition. Shouldn't players from that era get more points for this particular factor compared to modern players. For example, Sanga has played 38 matches combined against the two best teams of the era, Aus and SA, out of his total of 130 matches. Tendulkar played 61 matches out of 200 against them. Modern players like Sachin get to bash minnows (like Bradman did in his time) but they also get to play B-tier opposition like West Indies (post 2000), NZ (1990- 2013).

If it's fair to dock points for old timers playing only 2 big opposition, isn't it balanced out by the fact that they played the toughest opposition more often than modern players? I think this question needs to be asked here and it hasn't been.

 

[Junaids]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

I'm sorry, but this post does not survive even cursory scrutiny.

Bradman played 37 of his 52 Tests against the best team in the world other than his own - and he averaged 89.78 in those Tests.

And he averaged at least 74.50 against all four opposing teams that he ever played Tests against.

 

[Slog]

one more thing which counters the fact that Bradman mastered the best bowlers of his era is the fact that those bowlers also knew Bradmans game inside out due to the frequency of facing him. So its a 2 way street. So cant say Bradman got used to them. They got used to him too

 

[Slog]

the basic problem with it is that it tries too somehow diminish the gap between Bradman and the rest without asking similar questions for modern batsmen.

this!

the gap between the sportsmen he named and their closest peers is nowhere as big as what it was between Bradman and his closest peers

 

[Neferpitou]

Bradman did not shield himself from any teams in his era so it is not his fault. The university example is flawed because it makes it seem like Bradman willingly did not test himself against the top competitors and restricted the competition he faced which is far far from the truth

OP never claimed Bradman avoided competition. He is arguing there is no guarantee Bradman would be this dominant if the spectrum of opposition and conditions were to widen. He goes on to give examples of players who were dominant against particular sides but their overall career averages were brought down when faced with a variety of opposition in different conditions.

 

[Slog]

OP never claimed Bradman avoided competition. He is arguing there is no guarantee Bradman would be this dominant if the spectrum of opposition and conditions were to widen. He goes on to give examples of players who were dominant against particular sides but their overall career averages were brought down when faced with a variety of opposition in different conditions.

yes but thats a false assumption

 

[WrexEverything]

OP never claimed Bradman avoided competition. He is arguing there is no guarantee Bradman would be this dominant if the spectrum of opposition and conditions were to widen. He goes on to give examples of players who were dominant against particular sides but their overall career averages were brought down when faced with a variety of opposition in different conditions.

But it's pure assumption. It's also assumption to say modern batsmen would have succeeded in the Bradman era where medium paced swing and cut bowlers and quickish spinners were more difficult to face than the quicks due to the nature of the pitches. I don't know why these hypotheticals even enter the debate.

 

[Acricketfan]

But it's pure assumption. It's also assumption to say modern batsmen would have succeeded in the Bradman era where medium paced swing and cut bowlers and quickish spinners were more difficult to face than the quicks due to the nature of the pitches. I don't know why these hypotheticals even enter the debate.

What was so terrifying about pitches in that era ?

 

[WrexEverything]

What was so terrifying about pitches in that era ?

When did I say they were terrifying?

I said that medium paced cutters and quickish spinners were more successful than quick bowlers because of the lack of seam movement in pitches. They were generally good batting pitches. They were simply more different to modern pitches in that they were more conducive to the Bedser-type medium pacers. Different challenge compared to modern pitches, that's all.

 

[Pantani]

People talk about Bradman as though he would fail in Asia, because he never played there. A quick reality check - no matter how vicious the slow turners in Asia during the 1920s-40s could have been, Australia would have wiped the floor with any Asian team of the era. It's not 2015, where Asian teams are actually good, and non-Asian teams are actually not as good as they once were. None of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka were even independent countries for the vast majority of Bradman's career. It is foolish to assume that top class cricketing teams could have been put together by the Asian countries, whose best men at the time would have, ideally, been involved in the various independence movements.

 

[Robert]

The fact that even the other acknowledged ATGs of his era(Hammond, Hutton, Headley, Hobbs) who are still considered by most to be at the top tier levelonly managed to average half of what he did seals his position as the greatest batsman without a shadow of doubt.

Sure. Wally Hammond is generally considered to be the best ever England batter (and has a fair claim at all-rounder status in the Sobers and Kallis range too). Yet he averaged 58 to Bradman's 100, facing ATG spinners such as Grimmett and O'Reilly. He was considered a better bat than Hutton and Compton, who are still within living memory.

 

[Neferpitou]

yes but thats a false assumption

But it's pure assumption. It's also assumption to say modern batsmen would have succeeded in the Bradman era where medium paced swing and cut bowlers and quickish spinners were more difficult to face than the quicks due to the nature of the pitches. I don't know why these hypotheticals even enter the debate.

Nope, it's a legit argument. It's also an assumption Bradman would've averaged 100 with greater competition. There is no guarantee on either side.

 

[Neferpitou]

Sometimes people just need to use common sense. It's ridiculous to assume Bradman would've averaged 100 against the great bowlers of 80s-90s. He simply had England's number and tortured them mercilessly. A very similar case to Sanga and Sehwag dominating Pakistan.

 

[Enforcer]

Sometimes people just need to use common sense. It's ridiculous to assume Bradman would've averaged 100 against the great bowlers of 80s-90s. He simply had England's number and tortured them mercilessly. A very similar case to Sanga and Sehwag dominating Pakistan.

True

 

[WrexEverything]

Sometimes people just need to use common sense. It's ridiculous to assume Bradman would've averaged 100 against the great bowlers of 80s-90s. He simply had England's number and tortured them mercilessly. A very similar case to Sanga and Sehwag dominating Pakistan.

The problem with the Sanga/Sehwag vs Pak argument as I said before is that England were the best opposition in Bradman's time. And he still averaged 89 vs the strongest team. Over 37 matches, which was 75% of his whole career.

 

[Neferpitou]

The problem with the Sanga/Sehwag vs Pak argument as I said before is that England were the best opposition in Bradman's time. And he still averaged 89 vs the strongest team. Over 37 matches, which was 75% of his whole career.

England were the only opposition in Bradman's time. All other teams were equivalent to club teams today, perhaps even worse.

Are there examples in cricket and sports generally of athletes torturing a particular side? Yes, there are, which is simply the case here.

Stop clutching at straws. This argument is over unless you have something else to argue.

 

[WrexEverything]

England were the only opposition in Bradman's time. All other teams were equivalent to club teams today, perhaps even worse.

Are there examples in cricket and sports generally of athletes torturing a particular side? Yes, there are, which is simply the case here.

Stop clutching at straws. This argument is over unless you have something else to argue.

This isn't clutching at straws. It's simple logic mate, England were an extremely powerful team. Bedser, Larwood, Verity, Voce were all excellent bowlers. Not to mention England had Hammond, Hutton, Compton in their batting lineup. You keep calling England the only opposition without realising that the England of Bradman's era was arguably one of England's strongest ever teams, which you aren't acknowledging. You're equating the Bradman era England to just another team, like Pakistan or India of today. But they weren't, they were a side which was filled with multiple ATGs.

It's akin to say, Sanga playing Australia in 90s-2000s in over 70% of his total matches and averaging 80+.

 

[Neferpitou]

This isn't clutching at straws. It's simple logic mate, England were an extremely powerful team. Bedser, Larwood, Verity, Voce were all excellent bowlers. Not to mention England had Hammond, Hutton, Compton in their batting lineup. You keep calling England the only opposition without realising that the England of Bradman's era was arguably one of England's strongest ever teams, which you aren't acknowledging. You're equating the Bradman era England to just another team, like Pakistan or India of today. But they weren't, they were a side which was filled with multiple ATGs.

It's akin to say, Sanga playing Australia in 90s-2000s in over 70% of his total matches and averaging 80+.

I acknowledge their greatness and he performed against a great team. Those guys were considered ATGs because there was no one else around. It's funny how they stopped producing ATGs when other teams started coming into the fold.

 

[WrexEverything]

I acknowledge their greatness and he performed against a great team. Those guys were considered ATGs because there was no one else around. It's funny how they stopped producing ATGs when other teams started coming into the fold.

Are you saying Bedser, Compton, Hutton, Hammond, Verity were only great because there were fewer ATGs back then?

I don't even know what to say to that.

 

[as-95]

[MENTION=74271]O[/MENTION]P: Grace was overrated and a cheat. That is all.

 

[Robert]

I acknowledge their greatness and he performed against a great team. Those guys were considered ATGs because there was no one else around. It's funny how they stopped producing ATGs when other teams started coming into the fold.

It's not funny, or that simple. The last English ATG was Botham. When he emerged, there were five other test nations of quality. Same situation in in the 1950s when England were producing a lot of top men.

English cricket stopped producing ATGs because the County Championship stopped being fit for the purpose of producing excellent test players.

1. The pitches became more uniform, so the English stopped learning how to bat on bouncy pitches and turning pitches.

2. Leg-spin went out of the game because it was not trusted by the skippers, who preferred a flat off-spinner instead, or perhaps an SLA if they felt aggressive.

3. The seven-day-a-week nature of the cricket meant that young fast bowlers turned into medium-pacers to prolong their careers.

Additionally:

4. In the 1970s a lot of the schools sold off their sports grounds so that cut off a source of cricket talent.

5. The heavy industry sector collapsed, so the Larwoods and Truemans who came out of the mines and steelmills and saw cricket as a way to better themselves stopped coming through.

 

[Neferpitou]

Are you saying Bedser, Compton, Hutton, Hammond, Verity were only great because there were fewer ATGs back then?

I don't even know what to say to that.

Yes, it's the same case as the brainwashing done in textbooks. Some old white guy discovered this, invented this and that, etc.

Of course you'll have nothing to say because it's the truth. England haven't produced an ATG for a millennium now apart from Botham who barely qualifies mainly on word of mouth because of his insufficient stats.

 

[Neferpitou]

It's not funny, or that simple. The last English ATG was Botham. When he emerged, there were five other test nations of quality. Same situation in in the 1950s when England were producing a lot of top men.

English cricket stopped producing ATGs because the County Championship stopped being fit for the purpose of producing excellent test players.

1. The pitches became more uniform, so the English stopped learning how to bat on bouncy pitches and turning pitches.

2. Leg-spin went out of the game because it was not trusted by the skippers, who preferred a flat off-spinner instead, or perhaps an SLA if they felt aggressive.

3. The seven-day-a-week nature of the cricket meant that young fast bowlers turned into medium-pacers to prolong their careers.

Additionally:

4. In the 1970s a lot of the schools sold off their sports grounds so that cut off a source of cricket talent.

5. The heavy industry sector collapsed, so the Larwoods and Truemans who came out of the mines and steelmills and saw cricket as a way to better themselves stopped coming through.

Valid excuses. I'll believe it when I see em produce em.

 

[Convict]

Sometimes people just need to use common sense. It's ridiculous to assume Bradman would've averaged 100 against the great bowlers of 80s-90s. He simply had England's number and tortured them mercilessly. A very similar case to Sanga and Sehwag dominating Pakistan.

And dominated South Africa and kept up the same record at first class level.

Sangakkara's record against Bangladesh and Pakistan is not consistent with his overall first class record.

Bradman's record against England at test level is inferior to his overall first class record.

 

[Convict]

I acknowledge their greatness and he performed against a great team. Those guys were considered ATGs because there was no one else around. It's funny how they stopped producing ATGs when other teams started coming into the fold.

Alternatively it happened when cricket's popularity sharply declined and was overtaken by soccer.

 

[Neferpitou]

And dominated South Africa and kept up the same record at first class level.

Sangakkara's record against Bangladesh and Pakistan is not consistent with his overall first class record.

Bradman's record against England at test level is inferior to his overall first class record.

Kudos to him.

 

[Neferpitou]

Just like to clarify, if Bradman were to play today, could he still go down as the greatest batsman? Yes he could. He was obviously a freak much like Sobers, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar were. But would he average 100? Absolutely not.

 

[Belawal2014]

The argument has good premise but its easy to find loopholes in it

You can find loopholes in anything if you try hard enough.

 

[Slog]

Just like to clarify, if Bradman were to play today, could he still go down as the greatest batsman? Yes he could. He was obviously a freak much like Sobers, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar were. But would he average 100? Absolutely not.

that is conjecture and has no basis in fact


I also believe he wont average 100 but that is more likely due to the sheer volume of matches he would end up playing rather than a lack of ability.

He would be better trained, have better equipment and more knowledge abt the technical aspects of opposition bowling which any champion would exploit

 

[Buffet]

Alternatively it happened when cricket's popularity sharply declined and was overtaken by soccer.

How many professional players played cricket in Eng in the last 40 years? Not the last 10-15, but 40 years? How many for all other countries? Eng numbers will be much bigger than many countries. Every country has produced few ATG players except Eng.

 

[Neferpitou]

that is conjecture and has no basis in fact


I also believe he wont average 100 but that is more likely due to the sheer volume of matches he would end up playing rather than a lack of ability.

He would be better trained, have better equipment and more knowledge abt the technical aspects of opposition bowling which any champion would exploit

Lol, I love your denials without any counter arguments. It is obviously my opinion, and of many others, based on the aforementioned reasons above.

 

[Slog]

Lol, I love your denials without any counter arguments. It is obviously my opinion, and of many others, based on the aforementioned reasons above.

lmao what!! you listed no reasons for me to counter. You just said you 'believe' (lmao) that he wont average that much.

Infact I listed reasons too. I said I think he wont but not due to same reasons as you

 

[Neferpitou]

lmao what!! you listed no reasons for me to counter. You just said you 'believe' (lmao) that he wont average that much.

Infact I listed reasons too. I said I think he wont but not due to same reasons as you

Boy oh boy, you sure do struggle to comprehend. That was obviously a clarification statement, my reasons for it were mentioned in the many posts above. Anyway, I'm done here, I have to face-palm every time I read your posts.

 

[Slog]

Boy oh boy, you sure do struggle to comprehend. That was obviously a clarification statement, my reasons for it were mentioned in the many posts above. Anyway, I'm done here, I have to face-palm every time I read your posts.

yes you can stay happy in that knowledge if it work for you. Good day

 

[Buffet]

that is conjecture and has no basis in fact


I also believe he wont average 100 but that is more likely due to the sheer volume of matches he would end up playing rather than a lack of ability.

Sheer volume and fielding standards. Fielding standards have gone up big time in the last 25-30 years. Without counting catching , simply ground fielding may save 25% runs from all players and fielding is independent of batting/bowling standards. Just look up old clips and you will see that average fielders simply used to walk to boundary to fetch ball rather than trying to stop it to start with. Many boundaries would have been stopped if fielders had put any effort. There were few individuals who were very good but collective fielding standard was pathetic.

Good fielding in any era will reduce average of all batsmen, including Bradman, without any doubt. I am not talking about Jonty here. Simply an average fielder. You can argue that batsmen could adapt to great bowlers if born in different era but there is not much to adapt when you have one situation where fielders used to simply walk to boundary to fetch the ball and second situation where fielders do everything they can to stop the ball.

Improvement may be gradual over the years but there is a huge gap when you go back 5-7 decades back. We are not talking about Bradman's status as being the best here. I do think that he would have been the best. But to think that he would have averaged near 100 is ridiculous. Quality of peers, volume of cricket and fielding standard were responsible for a freak getting average near 100. If all 3 factors goes against you then still getting similar average is lot less likely. Yes, it's all simply an opinion because we are talking about a hypothetical to start with.

Having said all this, I do think that this freak was the best freak we have seen.

 

[Sachin136]

that is conjecture and has no basis in fact


I also believe he wont average 100 but that is more likely due to the sheer volume of matches he would end up playing rather than a lack of ability.

He would be better trained, have better equipment and more knowledge abt the technical aspects of opposition bowling which any champion would exploit

It has a lot of facts supporting it. It is well known that facing much better bowlers with so many competitive teams will make it more difficult to bat.

And yes the more matches played would reduce the average. That is still due to ability because he doesn't have the ability to bat that well playing so many matches. So while he would average probably in the 70s even today, it isn't that much of an anomaly that people make it seem like.

 

[Slog]

It has a lot of facts supporting it. It is well known that facing much better bowlers with so many competitive teams will make it more difficult to bat.

And yes the more matches played would reduce the average. That is still due to ability because he doesn't have the ability to bat that well playing so many matches. So while he would average probably in the 70s even today, it isn't that much of an anomaly that people make it seem like.

it is.

In no other era has a batsman been so so far ahead of his peers so it def is an anomaly. Only one who came close is Barry Richards but his sample set is too low for him to be considered. I suggest you search for the meaning of the word if you don't think its a big anomaly

 

[Sachin136]

it is.

In no other era has a batsman been so so far ahead of his peers so it def is an anomaly. Only one who came close is Barry Richards but his sample set is too low for him to be considered. I suggest you search for the meaning of the word if you don't think its a big anomaly

I didn't say that it isn't a big anomaly. I said "it isn't that much of an anomaly that people make it seem like." Averaging 70 when other world class batsman average 55 is very good, but compared to when he averaged 100 when others averaged 50 it isn't that big of a difference.

 

[Buffet]

it is.

In no other era has a batsman been so so far ahead of his peers so it def is an anomaly. Only one who came close is Barry Richards but his sample set is too low for him to be considered. I suggest you search for the meaning of the word if you don't think its a big anomaly

Agree here. Averaging 70 will be an anomaly. It's far ahead of others. I am not talking about scenarios where one modern batsman mainly play against minnows or only at home conditions with low sample size. If we take reasonable sample size with many opposition with different venues then averaging 70 is far ahead of anyone else. Yes, I will see 100 tests sample differently than 50 Tests samples but even for 50 Tests, if you average around 70 then you are far ahead in history.

 

[Mamoon]

Well those who believe that Bradman would average 100 even in today's era, my question is that let's if a batsman emerges today with an average of around 63-65 in both Tests and ODIs after a good number of games, such as 50 Tests and 100 ODIs, would he still be considered an inferior batsman to Bradman?

What does a modern-day batsman need to do to be considered better than Bradman? Keeping in mind the number of matches, teams, and different conditions today as well as three formats.

 

[SL_Fan]

Let's assume I always ranked 1st in my class of 60 students from 1 to 12 grade. I absolutely outdid everyone by ranking consistently no.1. Now I am enrolled into university where I have to compete with 1000 students.. Now do I still have a chance to maintain the same level of success? Maybe yes but now it's much much lower. Who's to say there won't be any one, two or even three students out of that sample size who will be as good as or even better than me?

Bradman played mainly against the same opposition in similar wicket conditions in Aus and England. SA, Ind and WI were less than mediocre bowling units and England was the only "strong" side by that ear's standard. Also, there has been a lot of debate about his performance on sticky wickets.

Sanga averages 95.57 against BD, 89.33 against Zim, and 80.25 against Pak. Sehwag averages 91.50 against Pak. But when we look at their overall record, they couldn't maintain the same level of success against all oppositions. Which brings to my main point: when you compete against just few oppositions, it's not imposable to adapt.. However when you compete with multiple sides, your success rate will be affected. If Bradman was playing in 80s, he would be competing against the quality bowlers from WI, Pak, NZ, and Eng. If we go 90, there will be an addition of side like South Africa. Moreover, there will be lot of variety of wicket conditions such as fast wickets and slow-turning tracks. Ponting's average of 26.48 in India after 14 matches is the proof that even world-class batman can fail to adapt to wicket conditions that they aren't used to.

So, who's to say Bradman will succeed against all oppositions in all pitch conditions? It's one thing playing against 4 oppositions (only 1 quality side) and playing against 9 teams (4 or 5 quality sides)?

Bradman is not an anomaly when we look at other sports. Ronaldo (at Medrid) and Messi averages 1 goal per game in past few seasons in European League. Then there is Alexander Karelin, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Floyd Mayweather.. All these players are head and should above their peers. So, it's absolutely possible for someone to be as good as bradman.. But the real question remains: is Bradman as good as he is portrayed to be?

Your school to university analogy doesn't apply in this case actually. It would relate if we are discussing say the jump up from FC to Test cricket. But here we are talking about international cricket with the best players competing. Using your very own analogy Bradman would actually be someone who dominated in the top most university itself (in percentage terms over 150% ahead of the next best in his field - not just during his time but in the university’s entire history).

During 130+ years of Test cricket over 450 batsmen (nos 1-7) have played at least 20 Tests. Yet the next best average after Bradman is G Pollock with 61 - should add that Bradman was striking around the 60 mark as well btw.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting

Bradman is not just a massive anomaly in cricket but in history of professional sports itself. Not to mention he lost some of his best years as a batsman as well due to the war (age 30-38). Statistically no great of any professional sport comes even close to his level of domination. To put it simply he is THE freak of all freaks.

This graph pretty much sums it up.

 

[Gilly]

I think its a shame that people try to compare Bradman to modern cricketers, he was the player of his time and had an incredible record, we will never know anything other than what he has accomplished.

 

[Slog]

Well those who believe that Bradman would average 100 even in today's era, my question is that let's if a batsman emerges today with an average of around 63-65 in both Tests and ODIs after a good number of games, such as 50 Tests and 100 ODIs, would he still be considered an inferior batsman to Bradman?

What does a modern-day batsman need to do to be considered better than Bradman? Keeping in mind the number of matches, teams, and different conditions today as well as three formats.

don't think anyone really does

but yeah an average close to 70 def would have a stronger case

what people somehow don't take into account is that Bradman didn't have the facilities these modern batsmen do either so any advantages he had are cancelled out. You cant just put him down by talking abt how he may have had it easy but ignore how it was difficult.

The greatest testament of his greatness to me (as in case of SRT or Viv) is that he maintained beastly standards over an extended period. It was not just a peak. Secondly as SLFan pointed out he missed a great chunk of his peak too due to extenuating circumstances

 

[Mamoon]

it is.

In no other era has a batsman been so so far ahead of his peers so it def is an anomaly. Only one who came close is Barry Richards but his sample set is too low for him to be considered. I suggest you search for the meaning of the word if you don't think its a big anomaly

I don't think you understood [MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION]'s point.

A batsman averaging 70 today would be well ahead of his peers, but not as ahead as Bradman was in his time, because we have numerous batsman averaging 50 today. In fact we have someone like Sangakkara almost 60 and the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid were close to averaging 60 before they had a slump at the end of their career, so the argument that Bradman is not as ahead of other great batsman in history as his average suggests definitely has some merit, but yes it is based on a lot of assumptions.

 

[Mamoon]

don't think anyone really does

but yeah an average close to 70 def would have a stronger case

what people somehow don't take into account is that Bradman didn't have the facilities these modern batsmen do either so any advantages he had are cancelled out. You cant just put him down by talking abt how he may have had it easy but ignore how it was difficult.

The greatest testament of his greatness to me (as in case of SRT or Viv) is that he maintained beastly standards over an extended period. It was not just a peak. Secondly as SLFan pointed out he missed a great chunk of his peak too due to extenuating circumstances

No one has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman, that's a given. That is why he is considered the best ever batsman, but my point is that we cannot take his average of 99 in absolute terms, simply because cricket was a totally different game at that time, and bowling, fielding standards etc. were not that great, but he still stood out emphatically among his peers and his status as the best ever is not questionable.

However, I'd definitely considered a batsman averaging 65-70 in both Tests and ODIs today as equal to if not superior to Bradman, that is why his 99 average (in absolute terms) is sort of overstated, and that's why I don't believe he is as ahead of the other all-time great batsman in history as his average suggests.

If you look at his average only, you'd think he's twice the batsman Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards etc. are, but I don't believe that is the case. He is still better then them all, but not by such a margin.

 

[Slog]

No one has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman, that's a given. That is why he is considered the best ever batsman, but my point is that we cannot take his average of 99 in absolute terms, simply because cricket was a totally different game at that time, and bowling, fielding standards etc. were not that great, but he still stood out emphatically among his peers and his status as the best ever is not questionable.

However, I'd definitely considered a batsman averaging 65-70 in both Tests and ODIs today as equal to if not superior to Bradman, that is why his 99 average (in absolute terms) is sort of overstated, and that's why I don't believe he is as ahead of the other all-time great batsman in history as his average suggests.

If you look at his average only, you'd think he's twice the batsman Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards etc. are, but I don't believe that is the case. He is still better then them all, but not by such a margin.

ok. agree with your points. Pretty much saying the same.

I don't think anyone claims he is twice the level of other greats

 

[Gilly]

No one has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman, that's a given. That is why he is considered the best ever batsman, but my point is that we cannot take his average of 99 in absolute terms, simply because cricket was a totally different game at that time, and bowling, fielding standards etc. were not that great, but he still stood out emphatically among his peers and his status as the best ever is not questionable.

However, I'd definitely considered a batsman averaging 65-70 in both Tests and ODIs today as equal to if not superior to Bradman, that is why his 99 average (in absolute terms) is sort of overstated, and that's why I don't believe he is as ahead of the other all-time great batsman in history as his average suggests.

If you look at his average only, you'd think he's twice the batsman Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards etc. are, but I don't believe that is the case. He is still better then them all, but not by such a margin.

that's the trouble with his record, its not something we can comprehend, when we form our opinion we revert to what we have experienced and that dictates what we believe, how can we believe someone is capable of doing something we don't believe is possible. For all we know Bradman may be even better if he played now, we cant comprehend it but its not impossible. Players don't average twice as much as the next player so to us it is inconceivable, its too much for us to wrap our minds around. If you had of told me in 1982 that the West Indies would be easybeats I would have laughed at you, it was inconceivable then.

 

[WrexEverything]

Well those who believe that Bradman would average 100 even in today's era, my question is that let's if a batsman emerges today with an average of around 63-65 in both Tests and ODIs after a good number of games, such as 50 Tests and 100 ODIs, would he still be considered an inferior batsman to Bradman?

What does a modern-day batsman need to do to be considered better than Bradman? Keeping in mind the number of matches, teams, and different conditions today as well as three formats.

Let me ask you a question. Let's forget Bradman for a minute here. If you think Bradman would have averaged 60-odd in this era, fine. But then what about Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Hobbs etc. These are top tier ATG batsmen. If you think Bradman's average would drop by 20-30 points, what happens to the others, do you slash 20-30 points off their averages too? Would Hammond and Hutton average 25 in today's era? See how absurd this hypothetical assumption is?

One more thing people need to realise is that simply saying a batsman averaging 100 in today's environment is impossible is the weakest possible argument. Do you think people believed 100 avg was possible before Bradman came along? Absolutely not. He still did it. And again, all ATG batsmen across history, in virtually every single era average 50-60. If Bradman's era was so much easier for batsmen, wouldnt we have seen someone average atleast 80? Or even 70? Or 65? There was no lack of great batsmen in that time, but why did no one come close? The very fact that this statistic of batting average stays within the 50-60 limit is undeniable proof for me how far ahead Don was.

 

[Mamoon]

that's the trouble with his record, its not something we can comprehend, when we form our opinion we revert to what we have experienced and that dictates what we believe, how can we believe someone is capable of doing something we don't believe is possible. For all we know Bradman may be even better if he played now, we cant comprehend it but its not impossible. Players don't average twice as much as the next player so to us it is inconceivable, its too much for us to wrap our minds around. If you had of told me in 1982 that the West Indies would be easybeats I would have laughed at you, it was inconceivable then.

I agree with this, it is always futile to compare players across generations because a lot of assumptions are involved, what is an undisputed fact though is Bradman indeed is the best batsman to ever play Test cricket. How better he was than the other elite Test batsmen is debatable, and you'll never get the right answer for it.

 

[Mamoon]

Let me ask you a question. Let's forget Bradman for a minute here. If you think Bradman would have averaged 60-odd in this era, fine. But then what about Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Hobbs etc. These are top tier ATG batsmen. If you think Bradman's average would drop by 20-30 points, what happens to the others, do you slash 20-30 points off their averages too? Would Hammond and Hutton average 25 in today's era? See how absurd this hypothetical assumption is?

One more thing people need to realise is that simply saying a batsman averaging 100 in today's environment is impossible is the weakest possible argument. Do you think people believed 100 avg was possible before Bradman came along? Absolutely not. He still did it. And again, all ATG batsmen across history, in virtually every single era average 50-60. If Bradman's era was so much easier for batsmen, wouldnt we have seen someone average atleast 80? Or even 70? Or 65? There was no lack of great batsmen in that time, but why did no one come close? The very fact that this statistic of batting average stays within the 50-60 limit is undeniable proof for me how far ahead Don was.

If I were to make an educated guess, keeping in my mind how much the game has changed and how much cricket is played today, along with the variety of conditions, teams etc., I'd say that Bradman would probably averaging around 70, which still makes him the best of all time and ahead of his peers.

Similarly, if were are too keep the inflation of averages at a time where cricket was not as professional as today, it is not inconceivable to assume that the likes of Hammond and Hutton were not as good as their averages might suggest; they may not be as good as the great batsmen of the 90's (Tendulkar, Lara) or the greats of 2000's like Ponting, Kallis and later on Sangakkara, de Villers etc., and perhaps would be averaging much lower today, but like I said, if we are to compare players across different eras, then we have to assume a lot (notice the no. of times I've used the word may), because no one can safely conclude how all these batsman would have done today, simply because cricket today is a totally different game today then it was in the 1930s and 1940s.

My point is that as a result of this discrepancy, Bradman's 99 average cannot be taken in absolute terms, but what is beyond dispute that he no batsman in any other era has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman was, which is why he is rightfully considered the best ever. I agree with you that it is safe to conclude that since no one in his era came close to achieving what he did, which by default makes him the standout batsman in history.

However, I don't agree that an average of 100 today is achievable, simply because too many variables are involved, which is why as far as I am concerned, if a batsman today averages around 65 in both Tests and ODIs after a sizable no. of matches, I'd definitely rank him in the same class as Bradman, because I think that Bradman today would be averaging around 70.

Again, it is all based on assumptions; he may still be averaging 100 today, or his average might be even lower than 70 because he may not have adapted to modern-day cricket. Therefore, let's just keep it to the fact (which cannot be disputed) that since he was well ahead of other batsmen of his time, he is definitely the greatest of all time.

 

[Neferpitou]

I agree with this, it is always futile to compare players across generations because a lot of assumptions are involved, what is an undisputed fact though is Bradman indeed is the best batsman to ever play Test cricket. How better he was than the other elite Test batsmen is debatable, and you'll never get the right answer for it.

If it's futile to compare players across generations then it is also impossible to judge who the greatest is. We simply don't know.

 

[Mamoon]

If it's futile to compare players across generations then it is also impossible to judge who the greatest is. We simply don't know.

It is not impossible, in fact fairly simple.

No batsman has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman, so that makes him the best ever by default.

 

[WrexEverything]

If it's futile to compare players across generations then it is also impossible to judge who the greatest is. We simply don't know.

Nah you can argue all you want about him not being as good as his average suggests, but the gap statistical gap is so overwhelmingly huge that him being the best isn't really in doubt.

 

[Neferpitou]

It is not impossible, in fact fairly simple.

No batsman has been as ahead of his peers as Bradman, so that makes him the best ever by default.

Greats from other eras didn't enjoy the same circumstances. Prove to me that Viv, Sachin, Sobers wouldn't be scoring hundreds left and right if they played during Bradman's time for 52 tests mainly against one quality team(also debatable) which they had the number of. Bradman's peers were his teammates and England, that's all. Not much to compete against.

 

[Neferpitou]

Just like you're assuming Bradman would average around 65-70 in the current era. I can also assume Viv, Sachin, Sobers would average around 90-100 in such a weak era with only one quality competition.

 

[Gilly]

Greats from other eras didn't enjoy the same circumstances. Prove to me that Viv, Sachin, Sobers wouldn't be scoring hundreds left and right if they played during Bradman's time for 52 tests mainly against one quality team(also debatable) which they had the number of. Bradman's peers were his teammates and England, that's all. Not much to compete against.

Can you prove to us that Viv, Sachin, Sobers could manage to average over 40 if they had to use inferior bats, uncovered pitches, travel on boats and not have all the modern facilities they enjoyed.

 

[Neferpitou]

Can you prove to us that Viv, Sachin, Sobers could manage to average over 40 if they had to use inferior bats, uncovered pitches, travel on boats and not have all the modern facilities they enjoyed.

Forget 40, they'd average 140 against the bowling Bradman faced.

 

[Gilly]

Forget 40, they'd average 140 against the bowling Bradman faced.

Prove it, that's all I ask.

 

[Mamoon]

Fastandfurious, you cannot prove it either way; that is why it is futile to compare players across eras, because such a discussion always hits a dead end.

The most logical criteria of rating a great player is to see how he compares with his peers. Viv, Sachin and Sobers were not as better than their peers as Bradman was, which is why Bradman's greatness towers above them.

 

[Slog]

if it was so easy to average 99 back then why did no one else even cross 60 let alone come close to 90?

or are we assuming that everyone else back then were duds just to satisfy ourselves?

 

[Sachin136]

if it was so easy to average 99 back then why did no one else even cross 60 let alone come close to 90?

or are we assuming that everyone else back then were duds just to satisfy ourselves?

I think it is a generally accepted fact that the quality of batsman has improved vastly since Bradman's era. While there were several great batsman in that time, the quality overall was significantly less.

 

[Sachin136]

Fastandfurious, you cannot prove it either way; that is why it is futile to compare players across eras, because such a discussion always hits a dead end.

The most logical criteria of rating a great player is to see how he compares with his peers. Viv, Sachin and Sobers were not as better than their peers as Bradman was, which is why Bradman's greatness towers above them.

But doesn't it become harder to be ahead of your contemporaries as the sport develops? The batsman have more training facilities, and in general the quality of batsman has increased. So if there is more competition, it is obviously more difficult to stand out from it. And despite that Richards, Sachin, Ponting etc were ahead of their peers significantly. I think the difference in how better Sachin, Richards etc where than their peers compared to how better Bradman was is negligibly, considering all those factors.

 

[Jo_Don]

Fastandfurious, you cannot prove it either way; that is why it is futile to compare players across eras, because such a discussion always hits a dead end.

The most logical criteria of rating a great player is to see how he compares with his peers. Viv, Sachin and Sobers were not as better than their peers as Bradman was, which is why Bradman's greatness towers above them.

I'd say that Viv actually was in the 80s, especially when you combine both formats.