Why is Bradman the greatest ever?

[Burgey]

What are your memories of seeing Bradman when you were a teenager?

Seeing him sitting in the grandstands at Adelaide Oval watching the tests.

 

[benchmark00]

Seeing him sitting in the grandstands at Adelaide Oval watching the tests.

Must have been in the after tea session, would've been at the beach and/or shops for the other two sessions.

 

[JBMAC]

Must have been in the after tea session, would've been at the beach and/or shops for the other two sessions.

Nah Playing Golf

 

[watson]

Although, to be philosophically pedantic, jboss is pretty close to the mark when he says;

For this reason I refuse to call him the greatest and will only refer to Don as the greatest of his era, but there are more questions beckoning behind this claim.

After all, do we really know how well Bradman would go against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at the WACA circa 1984 if he were suddenly transported in a time-machine from his home in 1932? We could also choose Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmore circa 1975, or Imran, Wasim, and Qadir circa 1987.

There is a very good probabilty he would score 100+ and average 90+ during a 5 Test series. But it's only a probabilty, and so he might not. It really is impossible to tell.

 

[Burgey]

Although, to be philosophically pedantic, jboss is pretty close to the mark when he says;



After all, do we really know how well Bradman would go against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at the WACA circa 1984 if he were suddenly transported in a time-machine from his home in 1932? We could also choose Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmore circa 1975, or Imran, Wasim, and Qadir circa 1987.

There is a very good probabilty he would score 100+ and average 90+ during a 5 Test series. But it's only a probabilty, and so he might not. It really is impossible to tell.

Isn't the point that he's the only batsman in history about whom you could even say that?

 

[Burgey]

Well, him and Rob Quiney anyway.

 

[Spikey]

well who else would be the best ever

 

[watson]

Isn't the point that he's the only batsman in history about whom you could even say that?

Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.

In other words, we think it likely, or believe that Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s.

We cannot say Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s, and sound certain about it.

 

[Burgey]

Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.

In other words, we think it likely, or believe that Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s.

We cannot say Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s, and sound certain about it.

Yeah I understand that. And if you want to leave it at saying "I don't think you can say anyone is the greatest batsman/ bowler/ keeper ever because it's impossible" then well and good.

But invariably when people say X is greater than or as great as Bradman, they always say Bradman wouldn't have done as well had he played today. It doesn't seem to cross anyone's mind that X might not have done so well in Bradman's era, either.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.

In other words, we think it likely, or believe that Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s.

We cannot say Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s, and sound certain about it.

But we could say with quite a bit of certainty that he would average significantly more that his peers?

 

[kyear2]

Agree that Bradman is the best ever, but not to the extent that he is twice as good as anyone else. Australia was the best team of his era and the only other good attack he would have faced would have been the English with the standout bowlers being Verity and Larwood (one series really) and to a lesser extent Voce and Allen (similar records to Larwood). Bradman, even more than Tendulkar and Murali plundered the minnows of his day. He also did well againts England particularily at home, but his pre war record is not that much better than his other rival of his era.
Headley in comparrison only played againts the top two teams of his era and even the touring teams he plundered had superior attacks to S.A and N.Z which Bradman destroyed and the only English bowler he didnt get to face was Larwood, through no fault of his own. Added to that disparity in suppoting batting talent that Bradman had over Headley and that fact that Bradman was the crowd attraction and the main draw and everyone including the umpires knew it, were all in favor of the Don. Bradman also got more opportunities to hone his craft rather that Headley who only played 19 Tests in 10 years, going from dormant to playing the World's best as the under dog was not easy, eapecially considering he alone bore the brunt of the batting load and responsibility.
All this with out the comparrison with modern players who play with bigger stumps, harsher lbw laws and lets not think that body line was as testing as the '70's and '80's attacks of W.I. and Aus far less the WSC attacks that the Richards' and Chappell handled so well, or even that of his own Lindwall and Miller post war attack that Hutton and Walcott handled on occasion so well. And lets not forget the flat pithes in Australia between the wars that discouraged fast bowling and aided their spinners and Bradman

Bradman was and remains the best ever, but it is not above discussion, as neither is Sobers over Kallis or any other comparrison, though Gilly does get awful close. Think in Ikki's sig Gideon is quoted as saying there will be sooner another Warne than Bradman, Bradman was dealt a perfect hand, but he played it better than anyone else could have.

 

[jboss]

So how do you compare players from different eras? Different style of play etc...not easy

Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.

 

[Spikey]

Yes. Yes it is

like 99.94% of people are totally alright by that too

 

[Burgey]

Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.

It's not your point. Didn't you say in the OP you felt confortable saying Tendulkar is the greatest player of all time? How can you know that?

 

[Dan]

Agree that Bradman is the best ever, but not to the extent that he is twice as good as anyone else. Australia was the best team of his era and the only other good attack he would have faced would have been the English with the standout bowlers being Verity and Larwood (one series really) and to a lesser extent Voce and Allen (similar records to Larwood). Bradman, even more than Tendulkar and Murali plundered the minnows of his day. He also did well againts England particularily at home, but his pre war record is not that much better than his other rival of his era.
Headley in comparrison only played againts the top two teams of his era and even the touring teams he plundered had superior attacks to S.A and N.Z which Bradman destroyed and the only English bowler he didnt get to face was Larwood, through no fault of his own. Added to that disparity in suppoting batting talent that Bradman had over Headley and that fact that Bradman was the crowd attraction and the main draw and everyone including the umpires knew it, were all in favor of the Don. Bradman also got more opportunities to hone his craft rather that Headley who only played 19 Tests in 10 years, going from dormant to playing the World's best as the under dog was not easy, eapecially considering he alone bore the brunt of the batting load and responsibility.
All this with out the comparrison with modern players who play with bigger stumps, harsher lbw laws and lets not think that body line was as testing as the '70's and '80's attacks of W.I. and Aus far less the WSC attacks that the Richards' and Chappell handled so well, or even that of his own Lindwall and Miller post war attack that Hutton and Walcott handled on occasion so well. And lets not forget the flat pithes in Australia between the wars that discouraged fast bowling and aided their spinners and Bradman

Bradman was and remains the best ever, but it is not above discussion, as neither is Sobers over Kallis or any other comparrison, though Gilly does get awful close. Think in Ikki's sig Gideon is quoted as saying there will be sooner another Warne than Bradman, Bradman was dealt a perfect hand, but he played it better than anyone else could have.

Could it not be that the records of Allen, Larwood, Verity, Tate et al. are all made to look far worse than is representative purely because of Bradman?

If you compare the difference between their FC records and Test records to bowlers of today (as a wide-ranging, non-scientific average), the disparity is huge. I somehow don't think that all the bowlers of the 1930s collectively decided to be incapable of stepping up, especially given County Cricket was very, very, very strong at the time.

Verity: 14->24
Larwood: 17->28
Allen: 22->29
Tate: 18->26
Farnes: 21->29

Steyn: 25->23
Warne:26->25
McGrath: 21->22
Gough: 27->28
Pollock: 23->23
Walsh: 22->24

It's a case of circular logic. In matches involving Bradman, no Englishman took a statistically-significant number of wickets without paying more than Verity's 27.22. A plethora of Australians did, against line-ups including Hutton and Hammond.

Bradman's batting devalues the record of the attack, so then, years later, we devalue his record because of the attack's performance against him.

I can assure you, Hedley Verity was no shunt. Neither was Harold Larwood. Maurice Tate was the perfect mix of Peter Siddle and Glenn McGrath, and the likes of Voce, Allen, Farnes et al. made for one hell of a supporting attack.

 

[Red]

Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.

No one played across all eras, so to say someone if the greatest of all time we will have to use our brains a little.

In the modern era Tendulkar has a high average. Ponting, Hayden, Waugh, Clarke, Smith, Cook, Yousuf and Kallis all averaged roughly the same as him, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.

In every era, the best few batsmen have had peers who average something similar to them.

Except in Bradman's era, Bradman had a high average. No one averaged anywhere near his average.

He is not only the most dominant and best batsman of all time, he is the most dominant sportsman in any sport, ever.

 

[jboss]

By today's standards and seeing taking into account that he played long inning, lets presume he went into a series today with hours of footage for teams to expose him and find a potential weakness. Perhaps in his 36/37 series he could have scored a mere 200 runs and maybe in 1934, he could have been run out by third umpire on a 100 instead of making 300. Perhaps he would have been particularly vulnerable to spin bowling in India and could tour there 2 tournaments for a mere 600 runs in 6 matches that could take 900 runs off his total, add 600 and 12 innings which does not even take into consideration fatigue which is a major factor in a modern era. That's 6696 runs in 93 (taking into consideration an innings of not out) knocks for an average of 72. Certainly makes him more human. It's perfectly feasible to make assumptions like this seeing as he is labelled the greatest of all time which is also an assumption that people claim unless the modern era does not fall under the "all time" category.

 

[Flem274*]

Averaged 100 for 52 tests without a helmet or a DLF Maximum bat.

Case closed.

 

[jboss]

It's not your point. Didn't you say in the OP you felt confortable saying Tendulkar is the greatest player of all time? How can you know that?

Yes because it's feesable to pick a player from one era and say they are the best of all time. Logic has it that Tendulkar is amongst the top 5 batsman in Bradman's era and scored 100 international centuries. Odd that there were no ODI's then

 

[Red]

Yes because it's feesable to pick a player from one era and say they are the best of all time. Logic has it that Tendulkar is amongst the top 5 batsman in Bradman's era and scored 100 international centuries. Odd that there were no ODI's then

Do you really not understand this? Why Bradman is the best? Really?