And That's Four to Bradman

[archie mac]

Did Bradman average 100? http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...-average-to-100/2008/08/22/1219262525317.html

 

[BoyBrumby]

Probably not then. An intereting read for those of us with statto-ish leanings all the same.

Incidently I read somewhere that someone had proposed we should have marked August 5th for the great man, rather than the 27th, as that was the day he would've been 99.94!

 

[SJS]

Probably not then. An intereting read for those of us with statto-ish leanings all the same.

Incidently I read somewhere that someone had proposed we should have marked August 5th for the great man, rather than the 27th, as that was the day he would've been 99.94!

 

[SJS]

Did Bradman average 100? http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...-average-to-100/2008/08/22/1219262525317.html

Bradman is better off without having to stick a grey hand out of his coffin and pinch four from Ryder's

 

[Perm]

Bradman's average is the greatest story in cricket history, it would be sacrilege to change it.

 

[fredfertang]

Given that with the combined might of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and, unlike here, a bit of evidence to back their position, those who wished to achieve it couldn't get Jack Hobbs tally of centuries up to 199 I have no doubt this piece of idle speculation will get nowhere.

 

[Jakester1288]

Well, eitherway, he is the best Cricketer the world has ever seen thus far. I doubt anyone could top what he did.

But yeah, this is the biggest story/legend in the history of Cricket, leave it be imo.

 

[Goughy]

The real story would seem to be a rogue 4 added to give the Aussies the game.

 

[pskov]

I think it is nice that even Don Bradman couldn't average three figures. It sets an impossible target for future generations to aim for. If we play cricket for another 150 years, who's to say we won't get another Bradman who achieves it? Either way I think it is appropriate for cricket, a sport of nearlys and maybes and maybe nots, that the greatest ever player fell just short of complete immortality.

 

[Tapioca]

The article says that Bradman possibly gained four runs but lost one in the Barnes partnership. I do hope they accept this so that he will have 6999 at 99.99

 

[Somerset]

Interesting article. Whilst it throws up an interesting dilemna I wouldn't exactly promote the altering of players' scores from 80 years ago.

 

[andmark]

The real story would seem to be a rogue 4 added to give the Aussies the game.

Fair point.

We should just keep his average as it is.

 

[Top_Cat]

If Bradman's (or anyone's) run total is proveably incorrect, there's no defensible reason not to correct it.

 

[pup11]

Bradman's average is the greatest story in cricket history, it would be sacrilege to change it.

Agree with this, Bradman' duck in his last knock, when he only needed four more runs to push his career average upto the magical 100 mark, but the very fact that the best batsman of all time didn't manage to score those four runs, underlines the unpredictable nature of the game.

 

[chasingthedon]

Well, eitherway, he is the best Cricketer the world has ever seen thus far. I doubt anyone could top what he did.

That might be true; but on what criteria do you base it? If it's batting average, then you can only say he's the best batsman ever, surely?

 

[Jono]

But the difference between his average and ability to score runs is so much better than the 2nd best batsman, that he has to be the best cricketer ever. There is no proper comparison as a bowler. Not to the magnitude of Bradman anyway.

Plus, you could argue this about every player in team sports with every position. Jordan is only the best 'shooting guard' ever, not best player. Pele the best forward/striker ever, not best player etc. (if you don't think they're the best ever in their sport anyway then okay, I'm more arguing the principle).

And as huge a Sobers fan as I am, I don't believe that he's the better cricketer. Obviously he's the better allrounder, but at the end of the day if you're playing school-yard pick'em, everyone who knows anything about cricket will choose Bradman first if given a choice of any cricketer in the history of the game.




Except Nnanden who may choose Bracken but that's another story.

 

[GotSpin]

That might be true; but on what criteria do you base it? If it's batting average, then you can only say he's the best batsman ever, surely?

Oh dear.

 

[fredfertang]

The "Bradman is best" school of thought essentially takes his superiority over his peers as its yardstick and no one can argue with the fact that his overall career average is so much higher than all comers (more in tests)

It isn't that clearcut though - when WG scored his 50th century he had scored 31.44% of all the first class centuries scored by that time - the next best was Harry Jupp (how often does his name get bandied about these days?) with 10 - I would venture to suggest an even greater degree of dominance than Bradman demonstrated.

Would Grace have scored as heavily as Bradman on the 30's shirtfronts? Who knows - perhaps not

Would Bradman have eclipsed Grace in Victorian times on those "sporting" wickets? Who knows - perhaps not

One of them is the greatest batsman who ever lived - but which one?

 

[archie mac]

The "Bradman is best" school of thought essentially takes his superiority over his peers as its yardstick and no one can argue with the fact that his overall career average is so much higher than all comers (more in tests)

It isn't that clearcut though - when WG scored his 50th century he had scored 31.44% of all the first class centuries scored by that time - the next best was Harry Jupp (how often does his name get bandied about these days?) with 10 - I would venture to suggest an even greater degree of dominance than Bradman demonstrated.

Would Grace have scored as heavily as Bradman on the 30's shirtfronts? Who knows - perhaps not

Would Bradman have eclipsed Grace in Victorian times on those "sporting" wickets? Who knows - perhaps not

One of them is the greatest batsman who ever lived - but which one?

I think it safe to say that Bradman is the best ever Test batsman

I have no problem with those who think Grace the greatest of all cricketers, and maybe the greatest of all batsman

 

[Perm]

I don't think you can call Bradman the greatest batsman ever, as by his reckoning there were others who were better than him who fell by the wayside and didn't have the mental capacity that he had. Fairly obviously he's the best Test batsmen though, of that there can be no argument.