• 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.

Why is Bradman the greatest ever?

Status
Not open for further replies.

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Oh my. No one is saying the modern era doesn't use video footage ffs.


You're the one who has said that you don't need video footage if you play against the same opposition. Now you're saying the opposition needs video footage to improve their own game. Wow.
 
Last edited:

cnerd123

likes this
Due to the fact that even though SA had only played one test against against phil Hughes they already had exposed his potential weakness against short bowling the next game. He made two hundreds in a single game for an average of over a hundred. This strategy was also used against him (through video footage I presume) by England sucesfully despite having never played against him. By all logic Hughes would hav gone into previous Ashes as a gun player with no weakness based on record, but was worked out before even playing against England. I don't see any validity in denying that video footage is used in the modern era against batsmen (and to assist bowlers with correct actions).

Eng bowlers may have had faulty actions against Bradman that could have been corrected in modern era.
Why didnt the other Aussie batsmen average 99.94 then?
 

Flametree

International 12th Man
They certainly look the part on paper against one country. It looks like Australia were minnow bashers with England being the Minnows of the time.
And yet England generally thrashed India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies whenever they played them in that era.

Strange definition of minnow you have.
 

jboss

Banned
Ah so then England must have worked Bradman out completely, given how often they played against him! Right?
Perhaps not. On paper Bradman looks like the master and Eng bowlers must have been ****
If Bradman is to be put on a pedestal in the modern era due to a record on paper, then surely it is fair enough to say on paper that Eng bowlers of that era must have bowled atrociously **** even their no1 bowler of the time. Fielding was probably atrocious too given that I read how few boundaries he scored indicating excessive runs from running between wickets.
 

watson

Banned
Here is a list showing the top 25 'purple patches' of all time. The 'purple patch' consists of 52 consecutive Test matches (Source: http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2010/11/gooch_holds_his_own_with_bradm.php);


Bradman D.G = 6996
Ponting R.T = 5853
Lara B.C = 5576
Sobers G.St.A = 5468
Sangakkara K.C = 5335
Kallis J.H = 5311
Mohammad Yousuf = 5247
Tendulkar S.R = 5236
Hutton L = 5114
Jayawardene D.P. = 5105
Hayden M.L = 5092
Gooch G.A = 5025
Gavaskar S.M = 5007
Sehwag V = 4941
Hobbs J.B = 4897
Dravid R = 4883
Younis Khan = 4842
Hammond W.R = 4827
Barrington K.F = 4800
Inzamam-ul-Haq = 4799
Kanhai R.B = 4765
Chappell G.S = 4756
Gibbs H.H = 4602
Simpson R.B = 4548
Pietersen K.P = 4535

None of those batsman cracked the 6000 barrier apart from Bradman himself. However, Ricky Ponting sort of came close. In a 52-test span between Test # 1595 (Saf vs Aus 15/03/2002) and Test # 1819 (Aus vs Eng 1/12/2006) he accumulated 5853 runs at an average of 74.09 (23 hundreds). His average improved from 45.09 to 59.97.

Therefore, I am going to tentatively suggest that if we were to transport the Ricky Ponting of 2002 back in time to 1929 then he would come close to matching Bradman's record average of 99 should he bat No.3 for Australia during exactly the same Test matches that Bradman did. Including the Bodyline series.

I also fancy the odds of Lara, Sobers, or Sangakkara achieving similar heights if we were to repeat the same hypothetical scenario because of their ability to score huge on a regular basis.

Anyone want to shoot my hypothesis down in flames?
 
Last edited:

jboss

Banned
Oh my. No one is saying the modern era doesn't use video footage ffs.


You're the one who has said that you don't need video footage if you play against the same opposition. Now you're saying the opposition needs video footage to improve their own game. Wow.
Wrong I am saying Bradman was the greatest of his era. Period. Not all time. He didn't even play in the modern era so how is he the greatest of his era and the modern era and tomorrow's era? If people label him as the greatest of all time (and thus all eras), then they should be willing to accept that his record could so easily be tarnished in the modern era due to technology and a far greater variety in opposition.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Perhaps not. On paper Bradman looks like the master and Eng bowlers must have been ****
If Bradman is to be put on a pedestal in the modern era due to a record on paper, then surely it is fair enough to say on paper that Eng bowlers of that era must have bowled atrociously **** even their no1 bowler of the time. Fielding was probably atrocious too given that I read how few boundaries he scored indicating excessive runs from running between wickets.
:laugh: Truly the gift that keeps on giving.

This thread kicks arse!
Ha ha, it really does.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Wrong I am saying Bradman was the greatest of his era. Period. Not all time. He didn't even play in the modern era so how is he the greatest of his era and the modern era and tomorrow's era? If people label him as the greatest of all time (and thus all eras), then they should be willing to accept that his record could so easily be tarnished in the modern era due to technology and a far greater variety in opposition.
Its not 'period'. Bradman was the greatest of his era by a margin so high that no one in any era has been able to match it, thus making him the greatest ever across all eras.
 

jboss

Banned
"Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition"

Well Bradman only played against England.... so why would not having video footage be an argument??

Can't have your cake and eat it too big guy.

Video footage if available in his era, could have aided opposition in exposing minor technicalities that are relevant in the modern era. Cricket is by all logic (currently) a game that uses far mmore technology then of that era. Bowling is also likely of supperior quality in the modern era due to vide technology that is used to improve bowling actions for better efficiency. Did Bradman even face unorthodox bowling in his era. I am assuming that everything was far more orthodox in his era.

These arguments only indicate that Bradman can never be put into the greatest of all time (including the modern era) as not only didn't he have tecnology against him, but modern batsman do.
 
Last edited:

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
None of those batsman cracked the 6000 barrier apart from Bradman himself. However, Ricky Ponting sort of came close. In a 52-test span between Test # 1595 (Saf vs Aus 15/03/2002) and Test # 1819 (Aus vs Eng 1/12/2006) he accumulated 5853 runs at an average of 74.09 (23 hundreds). His average improved from 45.09 to 59.97.

Therefore, I am going to tentatively suggest that if we were to transport the Ricky Ponting of 2002 back in time to 1929 then he would come close to matching Bradman's record average of 99 should he bat No.3 for Australia during exactly the same Test matches that Bradman did. Including the Bodyline series.

I also fancy the odds of Lara, Sobers, or Sangakkara achieving similar heights if we were to repeat the same hypothetical scenario because of their ability to score huge on a regular basis.

Anyone want to shoot my hypothesis down in flames?
There's so, so much wrong with this. And I reckon even you know it.
 

Noble One

International Vice-Captain
With the benefit of video analysis, known ground sizes, variety of opposition, variety of wickets, third umpires, pressure from fans and the professionalism of umpires; Phil Hughes has every opportunity to be the greatest ever.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
With the benefit of video analysis, known ground sizes, variety of opposition, variety of wickets, third umpires, pressure from fans and the professionalism of umpires; Phil Hughes has every opportunity to be the greatest ever.
Quiney too.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Video footage if available in his era, could have aided opposition in exposing minor technicalities that are relevant in the modern era. Cricket is by all logic (currently) a game that uses far mmore technology then of that era. Bowling is also likely of supperior quality in the modern era due to vide technology that is used to improve bowling actions for better efficiency. Did Bradman even face unorthodox bowling in his era. I am assuming that everything was far more orthodox in his era.

These arguments only indicate that Bradman can never be put into the greatest of all time (including the modern era) as not only didn't he have tecnology against him, but modern batsman do.
Fancy Cricket using more technology now compared to the 30s when we didn't even have ****ing TV.

I did an elective at Uni once "the art of good thinking" - A part of the course was about learning how to construct arguments and prevent flawed reasoning in your arguments. Reckon this course would be right up your alley jboss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top