• 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.

jboss

Banned
Out of all the odd claims in cricket in the modern era I find this the most puzzling.

On paper no one would question him due to an unmatched record, but surely in our generation it is unwarranted to make such claims as none of us witnessed him or saw what he was capable of. 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.

In Don's day there were no third umpire runouts and we don't know the size of ground he played on surely he would have at leat one runout going against him. We also know that batsmen of our generation play cricket under far more stress with more globe trotting for longer periods, shorter intervals, and more stress with cricket being a career for some and extra pressure from fans, etc. More importantly the variety of opposition and wickets is a major factor that surely needs to be taken into consideration and lastly even umpiring is likely more professional today than yesteryear.

I feel comfortable with calling Tendulkar the greatest ever and know zero about Bradman beyond wha'ts on paper.

Final factor (a big one) hours of video footage today that teams look through to expose potential weakness areas that batsman have. Look at Phil Hughes as an example.
 
Last edited:

NasserFan207

International Vice-Captain
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Not as interested in discussing past players as other people here.

All I know is that the only way we can judge someone like Bradman is against the people he played against, and he was so ridiculously better than everyone else that says a lot IMO
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Out of all the odd claims in cricket in the modern era I find this the most puzzling.

On paper no one would question him due to an unmatched record, but surely in our generation it is unwarranted to make such claims as none of us witnessed him or saw what he was capable of. 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.

In Don's day there were no third umpire runouts and we don't know the size of ground he played on surely he would have at leat one runout going against him. We also know that batsmen of our generation play cricket under far more stress with more globe trotting for longer periods, shorter intervals, and more stress with cricket being a career for some and extra pressure from fans, etc. More importantly the variety of opposition and wickets is a major factor that surely needs to be taken into consideration and lastly even umpiring is likely more professional today than yesteryear.

I feel comfortable with calling Tendulkar the greatest ever and know zero about Bradman beyond wha'ts on paper.
How's work at PWC, mate?
 

jboss

Banned
Is it really that hard to work out why?
On paper no. But how many countries did he play against in his era? No Murali's from Sri Lanka in his error and maybe even 1 or 2 runouts that were not given in a big score could bring down his record with technology.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
On paper no. But how many countries did he play against in his era? No Murali's from Sri Lanka in his error and maybe even 1 or 2 runouts that were not given in a big score could bring down his record with technology.
Mate, go and have a lie down. Seriously.
 

Beleg

International Regular
the only real argument in favour of bradman is his aforementioned domination of his peers. but that's kind of unfortunate since i don't reckon you can truly compare cricket in the 30s-50s and modern day cricket in a meaningful manner.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
the only real argument in favour of bradman is his aforementioned domination of his peers. but that's kind of unfortunate since i don't reckon you can truly compare cricket in the 30s-50s and modern day cricket in a meaningful manner.
He averaged a hundred ffs. I mean, I know he's not a model of modern day athleticism like inzamam was, but if you want to say he'd average 50 now, then reduce everyone else in that era by the same amount, so Hammond averages about 28, Headley and Sutcliffe 30 and McCabe about 24.

Do you really think all those great players of that era are lesser players than Dave Warner, Ed Cowan and Ian Bell?
 

NasserFan207

International Vice-Captain
He averaged a hundred ffs. I mean, I know he's not a model of modern day athleticism like inzamam was, but if you want to say he'd average 50 now, then reduce everyone else in that era by the same amount, so Hammond averages about 28, Headley and Sutcliffe 30 and McCabe about 24.

Do you really think all those great players of that era are lesser players than Dave Warner, Ed Cowan and Ian Bell?
Its stupid to even compare them. They are people from different eras, where different methods succeeded, everything was different. Its impossible

The only way to compare them is to see how they performed amongst their peers. Which is why this thread is **** and a waste of time

Plus we've had this discussion a million times, OP could at least have done a search and read around
 

mugshot

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Not as interested in discussing past players as other people here.

All I know is that the only way we can judge someone like Bradman is against the people he played against, and he was so ridiculously better than everyone else that says a lot IMO
Totally agree, compare him to others of his day and he was just too good...imo that makes him great. Only thing is...does it make him the best? Im not so sure
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He averaged a hundred ffs. I mean, I know he's not a model of modern day athleticism like inzamam was, but if you want to say he'd average 50 now, then reduce everyone else in that era by the same amount, so Hammond averages about 28, Headley and Sutcliffe 30 and McCabe about 24.

Do you really think all those great players of that era are lesser players than Dave Warner, Ed Cowan and Ian Bell?
Yeah they were. Faced nothing more than 110Km/h dobblers in a cricketing environment where bowlers actually applauded the boundary strokes of batters, if you can believe it.
 
Last edited:

Viscount Tom

International Debutant
And there's been no Hedley Verity's on sticky wickets in this era so you can't say Tendulkar was the greatest either based on your logic.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's this kind of thing that makes one feel so jaded because it's been argued dozens of times before both here and elsewhere.

It's obvious, isn't it? The most one can ask of any sportsman is that he dominates his peers. & Bradman did. By soooo far. He averages 38.97 more than anyone else in history with 2000+ runs.

That's more than 3/7ths of the current Oz top seven average. & that's just how much better he was than anyone else.
 

Beleg

International Regular
He averaged a hundred ffs. I mean, I know he's not a model of modern day athleticism like inzamam was, but if you want to say he'd average 50 now, then reduce everyone else in that era by the same amount, so Hammond averages about 28, Headley and Sutcliffe 30 and McCabe about 24.

Do you really think all those great players of that era are lesser players than Dave Warner, Ed Cowan and Ian Bell?

i don't know. mebbe they're and mebbe they'ren't but it sure as hell ain't as clear-cut as ye are trying to make it sound by resorting to reductio ad absurdum in this instance
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
i don't know. mebbe they're and mebbe they'ren't but it sure as hell ain't as clear-cut as ye are trying to make it sound by resorting to reductio ad absurdum in this instance
Good argument you've put forward there
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top