• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW50 2nd Edition - No 02

smash84

The Tiger King
Number 02 Sir Donald Bradman

Highest Ranking 1
Total Points 1202
Number of Votes Received 51/57
Rank in 1st Edition 1


What they said of him

The greatest cricket of the 20th century (Wisden)

“... he will always be in the category of the brilliant, if unsound, ones. Promise there is in Bradman in plenty, though watching him does not inspire one with any confidence that he desires to take the only course which will lead him to a fulfilment of that promise. He makes a mistake, then makes it again and again; he does not correct it, or look as if he were trying to do so. He seems to live for the exuberance of the moment.” (Percy Fender’s initial analysis on Bradman)

“Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. At last his batting showed human fallibility. Often, especially at the start of the innings, he played where the ball wasn't, and spectators rubbed their eyes.” (RC Robertson’s observation of Bradman on his last tour of England in 1948)




Sir Donald Bradman

“Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century. Only WG Grace, in the formative years of the game, even remotely matched his status as a player. And The Don lived on into the 21st century, more than half a century after he retired. In that time, his reputation not merely as a player but as an administrator, selector, sage and cricketing statesman only increased. His contribution transcended sport; his exploits changed Australia's relationship to what used to be called the "mother country". Throughout the 1930s and 40s Bradman was the world's master cricketer, so far ahead of everyone else that comparisons became pointless. In 1930, he scored 974 runs in the series, 309 of them in one amazing day at Headingley, and in seven Test series against England he remained a figure of utter dominance; Australia lost the Ashes only once, in 1932-33, when England were so spooked by Bradman that they devised a system of bowling, Bodyline, that history has damned as brutal and unfair, simply to thwart him. He still averaged 56 in the series. In all, he went to the crease 80 times in Tests, and scored 29 centuries. He needed just four in his last Test innings, at The Oval in 1948, to ensure an average of 100 ¬- but was out second ball for 0, a rare moment of human failing that only added to his everlasting appeal. Bradman made all those runs at high speed in a manner that bewildered opponents and entranced spectators. Though his batting was not classically beautiful, it was always awesome.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Ah well. Curious how may of the 51 votes placed him at #1. Can't be more than 47 of them for the math to work. Likely much fewer than that I guess. The average points per vote is 23.5, so the average rank in lists of those who voted him would be less than #2. Itstl.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Wow. Wasn't really expecting that. How could 6 people not view him as one of the top 25 cricketers of all time? Who didn't include Bradman in their lists? Show yourself!

I like how he's ranked number 2, and is then described as unquestionably the greatest cricket of the 20th century in the write up. Kinda contradictory.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I have no issue with Bradman not being #1. In fact I didn't even put him there myself.

I don't, however, think this is an accurate reflection of the collective opinions of this site's members. It's come about because of few blokes submitted completely serious lists bar the deliberate exclusion of Bradman (and maybe a few others, but not Sobers) to be funny, hipster or mischievous.

Number of Votes Received 51/57

That says it all, and frankly it discredits the whole list. Again - not because not having Bradman at #1 is crime within itself, but because we all know that's where CW would rate him and that it demonstrates the amount of intellectually dishonest lists that we submitted.
 
Last edited:

Satguru

Banned
Ok, now that we know this isnt a joke, this is a ****ing joke :@

Bradman not at No.1 is wrong. just wrong.

The fact that 6 people didnt nominate him at all made the difference... those 6 might have just done it either as a joke believing their one vote wouldnt make a difference, or did it on purpose to unfairly swing the vote... either way it is a bit of a shame tbh :p
 
Last edited:

smash84

The Tiger King
some people while trying to be funny ended up destroying it.....

the reason I took so long to put this up was that I wanted to do some editing and put Bradman on top....tbh I really was tempted to do it but then decided not to tamper with anything.

I wanted to discuss this with NUFAN but didn't go ahead with the discussion either.....but this is it folks......

it was great to conduct this exercise although in the end people were disappointed.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Average position of Sobers in the list of those that voted him = 3.6
Average position of Bradman in the list of those that voted him = 2.5

6 people not voting for Bradman did him in. I don't how many of them were just kidding
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
I have no issue with Bradman not being #1. In fact I didn't even put him there myself.

I don't, however, think this is an accurate reflection of the collective opinions of this site's members. It's come about because of few blokes submitted completely serious lists bar the deliberate exclusion of Bradman (and maybe a few others, but not Sobers) to be funny, hipster or mischievous.

Number of Votes Received 51/57

That says it all, and frankly it discredits the whole list. Again - not because not having Bradman at #1 is crime within itself, but because we all know that's where CW would rate him and that it demonstrates the amount of intellectually dishonest lists that we submitted.
AWTA. I don't think there's anything wrong with Bradman not being number 1, but the fact that 6 people didn't put him in their lists proves they weren't taking it seriously IMO. I think they should hold their hands up and say who they are tbh.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
i mean it's just lame. don't like the exercise or take it seriously?

don't ****ing vote. don't spoil it for the rest of us.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Not your fault smiley. You have done a great job. Well done and thanks to you and NUFAN.

Name and shame IMO
 

Top