Would a batsmen be considered greater then Bradman if?

[The Sean]

Fair enough. What's your rationale for that, given the number of players who are averaging 50-55 as it is?

 

[GotSpin]

IMO, if Bradman debued in 2001 he would still be batting in his first innings

 

[andyc]

Firmly believe that he would've averaged the same today. For every advancement people might mention in fielding or bowling levels, there's been equal improvements to batting technology and training that would've seen Bradman stay just as far ahead of his competition today as he was in the 30s/40s.

 

[fredfertang]

Firmly believe that he would've averaged the same today. For every advancement people might mention in fielding or bowling levels, there's been equal improvements to batting technology and training that would've seen Bradman stay just as far ahead of his competition today as he was in the 30s/40s.

Agree with this - I can't see that Lara, Ponting or Tendulkar are any better or worse than Hammond, Hutton or Headley - thus a 21st century Bradman would be as far ahead of them as the 20th century one was of his contemporaries

 

[Burgey]

I consider Sachin and Lara better than Bradman already..or i should say greater than Bradman..

But how?

I just think Bradman is so far ahead of everyone else, it's nigh incomprehensible. I mean, someone (not sure who) posts that column graph every now and again which shows the averages of all test batsmen in history, and there's this one little dot on the extreme right, about 40 points ahead of the next best.

Of course it's fun to wonder how he'd go if he was at his pomp today - sure the game has moved on. But if we're going to be fair about things, if we reduce his average to say 60-70, then we need to reduce everyone else's from that era by the same amount. So your Hammonds, Sutcliffe's, Hobbs', Woodfulls, Headley's, all become blokes who would be either decent only, or struggling to hold their places.

Personally don't think you can do that. Great players are great players. But Bradman, well, I've been down to Bowral, played on the oval, had a look around, read nearly every book on him (still rate Charles Williams' as probably the best), been in the Members Bar at the SCG and looked at his name from the old scoreboard which is mounted there, done all that.

I confess I've wondered, as most cricket followers have, just how good he was. After seeing Tendulkar, Chappell, Lara, Richards, Miandad, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting et al I sit there and wonder "How the **** anyone can be better than those great, great players by a factor of one-third to one-half"? And you know what? My poor, simple mind just can't comprehend it.

****s me too, that I can't. Would give a great deal to have seen him play. Used to annoy me when I'd go to the cricket with my grandfather and we'd watch all these great players - and he always acknowledged them as greats, to his credit. But I'd wax lyrical about whoever had scored these runs at any given match, and he'd just look at me and say "Yeah, but I saw HIM play".

There was never any question who "HIM" was.

 

[Teja.]

The very suggestion that any modern day(or any age for that matter) batsmen such as Lara or Tendulkar is better than Bradman is Ludicrous with a capital L.

Let's see what the Voice of Cricket Richie Benaud has to say about it:-

Unfortunately I started my career when Bradman retired, 1948-1949, that is something I've always had to live with, so I didn't actually play with him but I've seen him play and he was, I'm sure, by everyone who played with or against him, easily the best, Don't even put anyone in that bracket there, he was far and away the best. With that information and when I'm looking at the modern day players and players from that particular era, my view is that the best player I've ever seen is Tendulkar , not by much from Brian Lara, Greg Chappel was a great Player for Australia, and a lot of other players just a little bit below that level but to chose one, it would be Tendulkar and I've said that for a number of years. When Ravi Shastri made his double century in Sydney, when Shane Warne made his debut, we had a situation where we had this young bowler from Australia coming on to the scene and yet you had this youngster! I've seen him play first at Old Trafford in 1990 when he made a hundred and saved the game, well helped save the game for India, but we had this youngster make a 148 and I still regard that as, If I have to choose the best Innings.....I know he made a century in Perth as well sixteen years ago, in the later test and that was a very good hundred in entirely different circumstances, well India were getting beaten and they were trashed, but in Sydney it was just something else and I marveled at it ever since. So, for me it is Tendulkar by that much but remember there are great other players as well.

 

[Ikki]

But how?

I just think Bradman is so far ahead of everyone else, it's nigh incomprehensible. I mean, someone (not sure who) posts that column graph every now and again which shows the averages of all test batsmen in history, and there's this one little dot on the extreme right, about 40 points ahead of the next best.

Of course it's fun to wonder how he'd go if he was at his pomp today - sure the game has moved on. But if we're going to be fair about things, if we reduce his average to say 60-70, then we need to reduce everyone else's from that era by the same amount. So your Hammonds, Sutcliffe's, Hobbs', Woodfulls, Headley's, all become blokes who would be either decent only, or struggling to hold their places.

Personally don't think you can do that. Great players are great players. But Bradman, well, I've been down to Bowral, played on the oval, had a look around, read nearly every book on him (still rate Charles Williams' as probably the best), been in the Members Bar at the SCG and looked at his name from the old scoreboard which is mounted there, done all that.

I confess I've wondered, as most cricket followers have, just how good he was. After seeing Tendulkar, Chappell, Lara, Richards, Miandad, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting et al I sit there and wonder "How the **** anyone can be better than those great, great players by a factor of one-third to one-half"? And you know what? My poor, simple mind just can't comprehend it.

****s me too, that I can't. Would give a great deal to have seen him play. Used to annoy me when I'd go to the cricket with my grandfather and we'd watch all these great players - and he always acknowledged them as greats, to his credit. But I'd wax lyrical about whoever had scored these runs at any given match, and he'd just look at me and say "Yeah, but I saw HIM play".

There was never any question who "HIM" was.

Awesome post. It annoys me to no end that I'll probably never get to watch a player that much better than anyone else, as well.

 

[GotSpin]

Awesome post. It annoys me to no end that I'll probably never get to watch a player that much better than anyone else, as well.

Yeah same here. Even more than that, I can't even imagine the god like status he held while playing and the role he played in Australian society during years of Great Depression and war

 

[Cruxdude]

But how?

I just think Bradman is so far ahead of everyone else, it's nigh incomprehensible. I mean, someone (not sure who) posts that column graph every now and again which shows the averages of all test batsmen in history, and there's this one little dot on the extreme right, about 40 points ahead of the next best.

Of course it's fun to wonder how he'd go if he was at his pomp today - sure the game has moved on. But if we're going to be fair about things, if we reduce his average to say 60-70, then we need to reduce everyone else's from that era by the same amount. So your Hammonds, Sutcliffe's, Hobbs', Woodfulls, Headley's, all become blokes who would be either decent only, or struggling to hold their places.

Personally don't think you can do that. Great players are great players. But Bradman, well, I've been down to Bowral, played on the oval, had a look around, read nearly every book on him (still rate Charles Williams' as probably the best), been in the Members Bar at the SCG and looked at his name from the old scoreboard which is mounted there, done all that.

I confess I've wondered, as most cricket followers have, just how good he was. After seeing Tendulkar, Chappell, Lara, Richards, Miandad, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting et al I sit there and wonder "How the **** anyone can be better than those great, great players by a factor of one-third to one-half"? And you know what? My poor, simple mind just can't comprehend it.

****s me too, that I can't. Would give a great deal to have seen him play. Used to annoy me when I'd go to the cricket with my grandfather and we'd watch all these great players - and he always acknowledged them as greats, to his credit. But I'd wax lyrical about whoever had scored these runs at any given match, and he'd just look at me and say "Yeah, but I saw HIM play".

There was never any question who "HIM" was.

Echoes my mind. Really cannot imagine any batsman averaging 99. As someone has on their signature, he seems to be more myth than reality. How the hell can a batsman score a 100 almost every single time he took strike. If he played today I don't think he would average 99 but that maybe more because averaging 99 is incomprehensible to me.

 

[GotSpin]

Echoes my mind. Really cannot imagine any batsman averaging 99. As someone has on their signature, he seems to be more myth than reality. How the hell can a batsman score a 100 almost every single time he took strike. If he played today I don't think he would average 99 but that maybe more because averaging 99 is incomprehensible to me.

IMO, there are very few logical reasons to suggest he wouldn't have averaged 99 in todays game. But as you so rightly point out, many struggle to comprehend that a player once averaged 40+ more than the greats today.

 

[Migara]

IMO, if Bradman debued in 2001 he would still be batting in his first innings

Thanks, good fishing attempt.

 

[GotSpin]

Thanks, good fishing attempt.

Not really sure why you're getting upset over a comment that wasn't serious.

It's actually a reference to what another CWer once said in a Bradman thread

 

[Migara]

Not really sure why you're getting upset over a comment that wasn't serious.
It's actually a reference to what another CWer once said in a Bradman thread

Do you think that I took it seriously? anyway no harm was done afterall.

 

[Jono]

If a batsman did exactly what Bradman did, but was left-handed, I reckon he'd be considered better

 

[GotSpin]

Do you think that I took it seriously? anyway no harm was done afterall.

Then why complain about it? It was just a light hearted comment. CW is strung up tight as anything right now.

 

[Furball]

If a batsman did exactly what Bradman did, but was left-handed, I reckon he'd be considered better

Who would have the title of "the right handed Bradman" in that case?

 

[Shri]

What would his IPL contract be worth if he played today?Lesser than Dhoni's for sure.

 

[zaremba]

I just think Bradman is so far ahead of everyone else, it's nigh incomprehensible. I mean, someone (not sure who) posts that column graph every now and again which shows the averages of all test batsmen in history, and there's this one little dot on the extreme right, about 40 points ahead of the next best.

Yeah I post it from time to time, for me it just ends all the arguments.