Best After The Don

[watson]

It is not correct to assume that larwood, tate, bedser, verity and voce were club bowlers.

I didn't say that they were Club bowlers, and incidently Bradman himself thought that Ken Farnes was a better bowler than Larwood.

But as I said before, modern batsman have quick turn around times when it comes to facing great sets of bowlers in different conditions. I've already cited the example of the Aussie team playing against Bedi and Chandra during December (1969), then Proctor and Pollock the following month in January (1970). Nothing could be more difficult, and it is something that Bradman never had to cope with.

During the1992-93 seasons (a random example) Tendulkar had to combat the following schedule;

Australia away
Zimbawe away
South Africa away
England home
Zimbabwe home
Sri Lanka away

Again, it is something that Bradman never had to cope with. Would he have scored a plethora of 'mega-centuries' against such a variety of bowlers/conditions, and all in a relatively short amount of time? It is possible of course, but I doubt it. And if he did get a stack of runs in the 1992-93 seasons would he have been able to duplicate the same effort the following season, and so forth, and so forth. Again, I doubt it. And haven't even factored in a stack of ODIs!

 

[Flametree]

I just don't get the "it must have been easier back then" arguments.

In the entire 1920s and 1930s Australian teams averaged about 37 runs per wicket against all opposition, including Bradman's distorting effect. If you take him out of it the number falls to around 34.

In the 1990s, Australian teams averaged around 35 runs per wicket against all opposition, so higher than the non-Bradman side pre-WW2 despite this being a supposed golden decade of great bowlers. In the 2000s, they averaged 42 runs per wicket.

If all you look at is numbers you'd say it was clearly easier to bat in the 2000s than it was in the 1930s, so maybe Bradman would have averaged 110 if he batted in the modern era? If we could transport him between eras, his teammates in the more recent era found scoring runs easier than his teammates in the earlier time, so why wouldn't he?

 

[Coronis]

I didn't say that they were Club bowlers, and incidently Bradman himself thought that Ken Farnes was a better bowler than Larwood.

But as I said before, modern batsman have quick turn around times when it comes to facing great sets of bowlers in different conditions. I've already cited the example of the Aussie team playing against Bedi and Chandra during December (1969), then Proctor and Pollock the following month in January (1970). Nothing could be more difficult, and it is something that Bradman never had to cope with.

During the1992-93 seasons (a random example) Tendulkar had to combat the following schedule;

Australia away
Zimbawe away
South Africa away
England home
Zimbabwe home
Sri Lanka away

Again, it is something that Bradman never had to cope with. Would he have scored a plethora of 'mega-centuries' against such a variety of bowlers/conditions, and all in a relatively short amount of time? It is possible of course, but I doubt it. And if he did get a stack of runs in the 1992-93 seasons would he have been able to duplicate the same effort the following season, and so forth, and so forth. Again, I doubt it. And haven't even factored in a stack of ODIs!

You can say all those things, but we will never know how Bradman would've coped. Plus, he had a full time job, and did have several health issues throughout his career, almost dying in the process. Plus, back in those days, there was a much more demanding first class schedule. Many other factors have changed over the years, and there is no way of knowing whether or not he'd be able to play as he did, in more modern conditions.

 

[centurymaker]

Fair enough, didn't think it through enough.

But 50/75 is 0.67. Not sure how your 0.4 or 0.7 fits into it short of some strange rounding-up.

I did
53.5 / 75 = 71%
22 / 53.5 = 41%

both rounded down to 70 and 40 respectively

 

[watson]

I did
53.5 / 75 = 71%
22 / 53.5 = 41%

both rounded down to 70 and 40 respectively

OK Mr. Pedantic, you've got me

 

[The Sean]

I just don't get the "it must have been easier back then" arguments.

In the entire 1920s and 1930s Australian teams averaged about 37 runs per wicket against all opposition, including Bradman's distorting effect. If you take him out of it the number falls to around 34.

In the 1990s, Australian teams averaged around 35 runs per wicket against all opposition, so higher than the non-Bradman side pre-WW2 despite this being a supposed golden decade of great bowlers. In the 2000s, they averaged 42 runs per wicket.

If all you look at is numbers you'd say it was clearly easier to bat in the 2000s than it was in the 1930s, so maybe Bradman would have averaged 110 if he batted in the modern era? If we could transport him between eras, his teammates in the more recent era found scoring runs easier than his teammates in the earlier time, so why wouldn't he?

I tend to think along these lines as well. Of course the game has evolved over time and the challenges faced by modern cricketers are different in a lot of ways to those faced by players 25 / 50 / 100 years ago.

And yet, for all that, Bradman's career overlapped with Hutton's for a decade, Hutton overlapped with Sobers, Sobers overlapped with Gavaskar, Gavaskar overlapped with Border for a decade, Border overlapped with Tendulkar and Tendulkar is still playing.

The game has evolved but but the sport hasn't changed, and all these players through history have overlapped and played against each other enough for us to see that the average levels of performance since WWI, both on the whole and for those at the very top, has remained pretty consistent from generation to generation.

Except for Bradman.

 

[The Sean]

I've often discussed with mates the idea that if Bradman didn't exist and you were asked to invent the greatest batsman of all time, the player you'd create couldn't be as good as The Don because you'd be accused of taking the piss - "come on mate, averaging 100 when no one else in history can break 60? **** off!"

I think we're seeing that kind of thinking with some people now - if Bradman's average had been 69.94 then it would be taken and accepted more easily, because while it would indicate that he's probably the best ever it still keeps him within the realms of everyone else.

But 99.94? Nah, no one could possibly be that good, we have over 100 years of statistical evidence telling us that number just isn't possible. Charles Davis in his book The Best of the Best where he tracked the performance of cricketers and other sportsmen by their standard deviation from the mean, noted that statistically a player as dominant as Bradman could be expected to come along in Test cricket approximately once every 200,000 years. That's not an easy thing to digest or comprehend. Particularly if you don't want to.

I think the problem with Bradman's record is that for some people it is - quite literally - too good to be true.

 

[smash84]

I've often discussed with mates the idea that if Bradman didn't exist and you were asked to invent the greatest batsman of all time, the player you'd create couldn't be as good as The Don because you'd be accused of taking the piss - "come on mate, averaging 100 when no one else in history can break 60? **** off!"

I think we're seeing that kind of thinking with some people now - if Bradman's average had been 69.94 then it would be taken and accepted more easily, because while it would indicate that he's probably the best ever it still keeps him within the realms of everyone else.

But 99.94? Nah, no one could possibly be that good, we have over 100 years of statistical evidence telling us that number just isn't possible. Charles Davis in his book The Best of the Best where he tracked the performance of cricketers and other sportsmen by their standard deviation from the mean, noted that statistically a player as dominant as Bradman could be expected to come along in Test cricket approximately once every 200,000 years. That's not an easy thing to digest or comprehend. Particularly if you don't want to.

I think the problem with Bradman's record is that for some people it is - quite literally - too good to be true.

 

[harsh.ag]

Copy that. Crazy bas**** was Don.

 

[centurymaker]

if it is really 200,000 yrs then it's even harder to just believe that he would've avg'd 100 in the last 40 yrs .

So basically Bradman came ONLY 30 or so yrs into that 200,000 year expected period..I believe it is more a reflection on the state of the game back then than Bradman being one who comes once every 200,000 yrs.



we prob won't get another Bradman till year 202,000 approx. Life on Earth may have ceased to exist by then, who knows...

 

[Migara]

Tough one, not sure I agree SRT is the 2nd best tbh but certainly right up there in the top contenders. The main pros and cons imo below

Pros
Uncovered pitches
poorer bats
protective gear
longer boundaries

Cons
better fast bowlers
more varied pitches
better fieldsman
more video footage for tactics

I would think Bradman would average 74.94

Finger spinners start out bowling wrist spinners.

 

[L Trumper]

if it is really 200,000 yrs then it's even harder to just believe that he would've avg'd 100 in the last 40 yrs .

So basically Bradman came ONLY 30 or so yrs into that 200,000 year expected period..I believe it is more a reflection on the state of the game back then than Bradman being one who comes once every 200,000 yrs.



we prob won't get another Bradman till year 202,000 approx. Life on Earth may have ceased to exist by then, who knows...

Then why no one else at that time did what Don did?

 

[Satyanash89]

Then why no one else at that time did what Don did?

Think this needs to be laminated and hung up somewhere for everyone to see because its something which 99.94-deniers choose to ignore, time and time again, even in this thread. Its just concrete proof that Bradman was miles ahead of any other batsman

 

[honestbharani]

yeah.. look, if the only reason these arguments are starting to spring up so much, at least in India, is because of Sachin, well... Sachin is not even the inarguable best batsman of his generation and for some, not even the inarguable second best.. Bradman was just a freak and the people who fail to appreciate how good the guy was are just cheating themselves. But whatever gets people to sleep better, hey.. We have our fantasies and they have their idea that Bradman was not that good.

 

[Red]

Then why no one else at that time did what Don did?

Yep.

 

[GotSpin]

Then why no one else at that time did what Don did?

Yep.

 

[GotSpin]

I've often discussed with mates the idea that if Bradman didn't exist and you were asked to invent the greatest batsman of all time, the player you'd create couldn't be as good as The Don because you'd be accused of taking the piss - "come on mate, averaging 100 when no one else in history can break 60? **** off!"

I think we're seeing that kind of thinking with some people now - if Bradman's average had been 69.94 then it would be taken and accepted more easily, because while it would indicate that he's probably the best ever it still keeps him within the realms of everyone else.

But 99.94? Nah, no one could possibly be that good, we have over 100 years of statistical evidence telling us that number just isn't possible. Charles Davis in his book The Best of the Best where he tracked the performance of cricketers and other sportsmen by their standard deviation from the mean, noted that statistically a player as dominant as Bradman could be expected to come along in Test cricket approximately once every 200,000 years. That's not an easy thing to digest or comprehend. Particularly if you don't want to.

I think the problem with Bradman's record is that for some people it is - quite literally - too good to be true.

Said what I couldn't articulate

 

[JBH001]

Ian Chappell picks Garry Sobers

The Jury's Out: Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

That's three now: Crowe, Nicholas, and Ian Chappell.

It's a shame that all we can see of his batting now is truncated footage.

To bring up what The_Sean says above: I remember reading, I believe, Cowdrey's auto MCC, where he recounts some of his encounters with Don Bradman. In one, IIRC, he talks of playing Golf with Bradman and becoming aware of his competitive drive to win, and that he seemed to possess the ability to focus and concentrate in a greater degree than anyone else he had come across. Make of that what you will. Maybe that was the secret, that and innumerable hours hitting a golf ball with a wicket.

 

[kyear2]

Even though it was only t20 of which I am not a huge fan, to see Ponting batting with Sachin gave me goosebumps yesterday. Two of the truely ATGs even past their prime was a sight to see, for me at least.

 

[Satyanash89]

Even though it was only t20 of which I am not a huge fan, to see Ponting batting with Sachin gave me goosebumps yesterday. Two of the truely ATGs even past their prime was a sight to see, for me at least.

Yup, gave me chills to watch the two of them bat, even though Ponting struggled to get going. And then Murali came on to bowl, and my head almost exploded...
All it needed was Warne bowling from the other end...