Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[kyear2]

I'm glad that you've highlighted the gulf of difference between BEST/BETTER and GREAT. People get the two terms confused all the time and I find it mildly irritating.

So for example, the statement; 'WG Grace is greater than Garry Sobers, but Garry Sobers is better than WG Grace' is perfectly true IMO.

And just for the sake of completeness, IMO; 'Don Bradman is much greater than Viv Richards, but only moderately better than Viv Richards'

*Lights touch paper, stands back*

Well articulated Watson.

 

[the big bambino]

As usual fails to understand the point. If in a world where only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbos played test cricket, India would have been the best team, Pakistan the second, the rest, trash. (Similar to Australia, England and then trash). Sehwag averages ridiculous amount against them. Since there was other teams we know he was ordinary against them. For Bradman, there was no other team available. And, he was less succesful against a team which was trash, and not his peranniel whipping boys. There is no guarantee that he will average 90 against every opposition if there were 8-9 of them. There is very much likelihood that he's fail against one or two or at least score less heavily.

Hmmm the foolishness is strong in this one. Firstly lets disregard the stupidity of likening SA and the WI in DGB's day to Zim and BD for the self serving crap it is. The last 2 teams can't win tests let alone series which the fmr teams accomplished. Lets also unfrock Migara's deceitfulness by reminding everyone that DGB averaged 99 over 20 years and 52 tests against 4 sides. Whereas Sehwag's only exceptional effort was in 9 tests against Pakistan. This wouldn't be disimilar to many other fine batsmen who seem to make a welter of runs against a particular opponent like Hussey did against SL. Perhaps he is another Bradman on that score according to Migara.

Btw Sehwag's ave in abt 15 tests v Pak, Zim and BD is 74. Which must be trash bcos it is the ave DGB achieved against WI which Migara calls trash (as per highlighted)

 

[Burgey]

I'm enjoying the post-1970 supremacy argument because it will allow me to argue Graeme Wood > Wally Hammond, George Headley et al.

 

[Dan]

Graeme Wood > all.

that doesn't need a post-1970 supremacy argument

 

[the big bambino]

Don't forget Derek Pringle faster than Wes Hall. Its true. I've seen footage.

 

[Migara]

Hmmm the foolishness is strong in this one. Firstly lets disregard the stupidity of likening SA and the WI in DGB's day to Zim and BD for the self serving crap it is. The last 2 teams can't win tests let alone series which the fmr teams accomplished.

The utter stupidity of TBB is unfolded in the way he responds and being unable to undesrstand analogies. Instead now he has gone down to the level of cherry picking stats about players and teams to support his flimsy arguments.

Lets also unfrock Migara's deceitfulness by reminding everyone that DGB averaged 99 over 20 years and 52 tests against 4 sides. Whereas Sehwag's only exceptional effort was in 9 tests against Pakistan. This wouldn't be disimilar to many other fine batsmen who seem to make a welter of runs against a particular opponent like Hussey did against SL. Perhaps he is another Bradman on that score according to Migara.

Exactly the case. There are many fine batsmen who did average a lot against a particular team which was good as well as minnows. But was not able to do it against other good teams. I can bring out that Sehwag scored zillion of runs against SL as well. Sehwag only played 9 matches due to constrainst that he could not control, and if he did, there was every indication that he would have belted Pakistani attack. And to nullify TBBs point, Sehwag didn't play much against minnows to be even a contribuing factor. Sehwag played 7% of his matches against minnows while Bradman played 30% of them against minnows.

Btw Sehwag's ave in abt 15 tests v Pak, Zim and BD is 74. Which must be trash bcos it is the ave DGB achieved against WI which Migara calls trash (as per highlighted)

Once again if you like you can take BAN out and add SL to his record which is way superior than WI or SAF in Bradman's time and he's average 68.8 over 23 test matches, and 12% of them agaisnst minnows. There may be many other batsmen who would average similar, when their records against whipping boys and minnows combined. Sehwag was the top of head example I had because we have been his peranniel whipping boys. And in case of Hussey, against ENG, SL and BAN averages 74.7 in combination. (And that magic number 70 is the average that I expect Bradman to average if he played today)

In a nutshell, a batsman can do well against one single team + minnows, but cannot maintain the same rate of supremacy over other teams.

 

[Dan]

Look, I'm sick of this - both of you, play the post - not the poster. No problems with the debate itself, but attacking and insulting each other is not on.

Last warning for this thread. Next person who does it is getting infracted and the thread closed.

 

[watson]

Yet (ad nauseum) every player in his team faced basically the same circumstances, and Bradman averaged twice as much as them over 52 tests.

No problem Monk comparing apples with apples. However, comparing apples with oranges as if they are exactly the same fruit tends to bother me.

 

[the big bambino]

No problem Monk comparing apples with apples. However, comparing apples with oranges as if they are exactly the same fruit tends to bother me.

He compared Bradman with his team mates in exactly the same circumstances. You couldn't get a better like for like comparison.

 

[JBMAC]

Just in case this thread is closed for nefarious reasons I felt I should have a say. In reply to the question asked in the thread title: Bradman's status as the greatest player to have played our game will never be in dispute. A test average of 99.94 will never be equalled or bettered.Anybody can look at statistics,even this little old country boy, and make them read what he/she wants them to. You cannot though take the greatness out of how these runs were scored or how a player played the game or how the spectators saw a particular innings. I was present in 1954 at the Lindsay Hassett Testimonial match where Bradman came out of retirement to play.The "man" only scored 18 runs but 70,000 people went away happy they had seen him bat again with a standing ovation all the way in and out.The following day in the second innings he scored some 80 odd runs and the crowd brought down the roof. THIS is a measure of the mans greatness.How many other players have come back after 6 years in retirement to such a reception. I, like many of my contemporaries have followed Bradmans career since we were toddlers.THIS is a measure of his greatness.Prior to WW2 how many players had commanded such respect from friend and foe alike?I suppose, in hindsight I should consider myself privileged have been able to witness the greatness that was Bradman.

 

[watson]

He compared Bradman with his team mates in exactly the same circumstances. You couldn't get a better like for like comparison.

Then we are all in agreement on that point.

 

[watson]

Just in case this thread is closed for nefarious reasons I felt I should have a say. In reply to the question asked in the thread title: Bradman's status as the greatest player to have played our game will never be in dispute. A test average of 99.94 will never be equalled or bettered.Anybody can look at statistics,even this little old country boy, and make them read what he/she wants them to. You cannot though take the greatness out of how these runs were scored or how a player played the game or how the spectators saw a particular innings. I was present in 1954 at the Lindsay Hassett Testimonial match where Bradman came out of retirement to play.The "man" only scored 18 runs but 70,000 people went away happy they had seen him bat again with a standing ovation all the way in and out.The following day in the second innings he scored some 80 odd runs and the crowd brought down the roof. THIS is a measure of the mans greatness.How many other players have come back after 6 years in retirement to such a reception. I, like many of my contemporaries have followed Bradmans career since we were toddlers.THIS is a measure of his greatness.Prior to WW2 how many players had commanded such respect from friend and foe alike?I suppose, in hindsight I should consider myself privileged have been able to witness the greatness that was Bradman.

'Nefarious reasons' - Love the word! Is it alright if I use it?

 

[the big bambino]

The utter stupidity of TBB is unfolded in the way he responds and being unable to undesrstand analogies. Instead now he has gone down to the level of cherry picking stats about players and teams to support his flimsy arguments.

Exactly the case. There are many fine batsmen who did average a lot against a particular team which was good as well as minnows. But was not able to do it against other good teams. I can bring out that Sehwag scored zillion of runs against SL as well. Sehwag only played 9 matches due to constrainst that he could not control, and if he did, there was every indication that he would have belted Pakistani attack. And to nullify TBBs point, Sehwag didn't play much against minnows to be even a contribuing factor. Sehwag played 7% of his matches against minnows while Bradman played 30% of them against minnows.

Once again if you like you can take BAN out and add SL to his record which is way superior than WI or SAF in Bradman's time and he's average 68.8 over 23 test matches, and 12% of them agaisnst minnows. There may be many other batsmen who would average similar, when their records against whipping boys and minnows combined. Sehwag was the top of head example I had because we have been his peranniel whipping boys. And in case of Hussey, against ENG, SL and BAN averages 74.7 in combination. (And that magic number 70 is the average that I expect Bradman to average if he played today)

In a nutshell, a batsman can do well against one single team + minnows, but cannot maintain the same rate of supremacy over other teams.

You shifted goal posts . But you had too. The description of 27 - 39 SA and the WI, when they won series and games against the best teams of their era, as minnows was never sustainable. So you had to include SL to make good. Plus you probably checked Viru's stats and realised you picked the wrong teams

Lets assess your ranking of Viru's era SL. On the face of it not too bad. But not good either. From 2002 they have only been a middling test team. No better than Pak, WI, NZ and probably behind Eng. Now compare them to 27-39 SA and WI. Those 2 teams averaged 37 and 35 bowling. 28 and 24 batting. But wait. SA played 95% of their tests against Aus and Eng. The WI 100%. Whereas Viru era SL played only 21% of their tests against Aus and SA, the 2 best sides of the era. Lets throw in India. That's still only 33% of their games against the best. As opposed to the 95% and 100% of the 27-39 SA and WI teams.

I make this point to show that it is a furphy to claim the earlier era benefitted by playing minnows. They did not. Clearly it is the modern sides like SL who benefit by playing minnows (16.5%) and middling teams (50.5%). Its only fair to adjust SL's record so that it is comparable with the task faced by SA and WI from 27-39. It shows them to be a better batting side but an inferior bowling side. Even. So SL are no better than other middling sides of their era or SA and the WI from 27-39.

Now lets deal with the goal posts as shifted by Migara. If you include SL to the other 3 sides he picked Sehwag averaged 73. Humorously this figure settles on Don's ave against the WI which Migara called trash. Yet it is only over 27 tests. Do you think he would have been capable of even maintaining this effort over another 25 tests? I'd say not and history suggests he couldn't.

But why stop there? Lets total Sehwag's efforts against all minnows and middling teams of his era. In other words sides like NZ, Eng and the WI. Hardly top competition in this era and sometimes they played like minnows. In addition to SL, Pak, BD and Zim. His ave falls to 52.5.

Now look at DGB's record against middling WI and SA and a weak India. Average 140.57. Notice that? Against middling and weak teams DGB averaged almost 3 times Sehwag.

Now look at Sewhag's task in the remaining 70 innings of his career to get to an ave of 100. Curiously that no. 70 is about the same DGB played against his no.1 opponent Eng. Sehwag has to average 170 over 70 innings to equal DGB's average. Only a select few would believe it.

That's not all. Apparently Bradman could not average 100 if he played more than 4 sides. He played SA, Wi and Ind and averaged 140. 89 v Eng. Now lets bring his ave down to Sehwag levels.To bring his average down to Sehwag levels Migara is asking us to believe that he would have had to score 72 DUCKS IN A ROW against the might of NZ, or if they existed as test teams at the time, SL, Pakistan, Zimbo and Banglers. Only a select few would believe it.

Finally there is a correlation btwn test and FC cricket. Sehwag's FC ave mirrors his test ave. Coincidentally DGB's matches his test ave. It cannot be argued, even by the most ardent Bradman denier, that the range of his FC opponents was ltd to just 4 teams.

 

[fredfertang]

Just in case this thread is closed for nefarious reasons I felt I should have a say. In reply to the question asked in the thread title: Bradman's status as the greatest player to have played our game will never be in dispute. A test average of 99.94 will never be equalled or bettered.Anybody can look at statistics,even this little old country boy, and make them read what he/she wants them to. You cannot though take the greatness out of how these runs were scored or how a player played the game or how the spectators saw a particular innings. I was present in 1954 at the Lindsay Hassett Testimonial match where Bradman came out of retirement to play.The "man" only scored 18 runs but 70,000 people went away happy they had seen him bat again with a standing ovation all the way in and out.The following day in the second innings he scored some 80 odd runs and the crowd brought down the roof. THIS is a measure of the mans greatness.How many other players have come back after 6 years in retirement to such a reception. I, like many of my contemporaries have followed Bradmans career since we were toddlers.THIS is a measure of his greatness.Prior to WW2 how many players had commanded such respect from friend and foe alike?I suppose, in hindsight I should consider myself privileged have been able to witness the greatness that was Bradman.

I would certainly have loved to see him bat (although not as much as Stan McCabe or Archie Jackson)

 

[Ruckus]

If this thread does get closed soon, I think that's a great concluding comment JBMAC. There hasn't been much agreement amongst the arguments presented here, but I think it's fair to say your sentiments are the common ground most can accept.

 

[Migara]

Lets assess your ranking of Viru's era SL. On the face of it not too bad. But not good either. From 2002 they have only been a middling test team. No better than Pak, WI, NZ and probably behind Eng. Now compare them to 27-39 SA and WI. Those 2 teams averaged 37 and 35 bowling. 28 and 24 batting. But wait. SA played 95% of their tests against Aus and Eng. The WI 100%. Whereas Viru era SL played only 21% of their tests against Aus and SA, the 2 best sides of the era. Lets throw in India. That's still only 33% of their games against the best. As opposed to the 95% and 100% of the 27-39 SA and WI teams.

Hogwash. There's no way to know how good were the #1 team in 1930 than the #4 team in 1990s. Simply there's no way. But by looking at the advances of the game we could safely say that #1 team of modern era will beat #1 team of 30s hands down.

Now lets deal with the goal posts as shifted by Migara. If you include SL to the other 3 sides he picked Sehwag averaged 73. Humorously this figure settles on Don's ave against the WI which Migara called trash. Yet it is only over 27 tests. Do you think he would have been capable of even maintaining this effort over another 25 tests? I'd say not and history suggests he couldn't.

Once again, fails to get the concept, but looks at the names. The stupidity of this fella is beyond me. I said, I took Viru, because he used to whip us regularly and hence familiar with his stats. I am sure there may be few others who average 75+ against a particular team if you go through records.

Now look at DGB's record against middling WI and SA and a weak India. Average 140.57. Notice that? Against middling and weak teams DGB averaged almost 3 times Sehwag.

No they weren't. WI was piss poor team, and if Headly was out of it, they were just as bad as ZIM or BAN. It's only you who call WI, SAF middling. Simply they were piss poor. Other than for Headly, not a single member from those teams will make in to AT WI third XI. What I notice is your blind love for the idea that cricket of 30s were of same quality as today.

Finally there is a correlation btwn test and FC cricket. Sehwag's FC ave mirrors his test ave. Coincidentally DGB's matches his test ave. It cannot be argued, even by the most ardent Bradman denier, that the range of his FC opponents was ltd to just 4 teams.

Not necessarily. There are lest players who average less in FCC than in tests. And FCC is FCC. By no means it is test cricket.

The misconception TBB is having is that you think I am denying Bradman as the best test batsman in history. No I am not. But he's no way as twice good as a Sobers, Kallis, Viv or Tendulkar. Not even close to twice.

 

[fredfertang]

But he's no way as twice good as a Sobers, Kallis, Viv or Tendulkar. Not even close to twice.

Agree with that 100%, but he was getting on for twice as effective, save on damaged wickets of course, which opens up a whole new can of non-arthropod invertebrate little critters

 

[the big bambino]

Hogwash. There's no way to know how good were the #1 team in 1930 than the #4 team in 1990s. Simply there's no way. But by looking at the advances of the game we could safely say that #1 team of modern era will beat #1 team of 30s hands down.

Once again, fails to get the concept, but looks at the names. The stupidity of this fella is beyond me. I said, I took Viru, because he used to whip us regularly and hence familiar with his stats. I am sure there may be few others who average 75+ against a particular team if you go through records.

No they weren't. WI was piss poor team, and if Headly was out of it, they were just as bad as ZIM or BAN. It's only you who call WI, SAF middling. Simply they were piss poor. Other than for Headly, not a single member from those teams will make in to AT WI third XI. What I notice is your blind love for the idea that cricket of 30s were of same quality as today.

Not necessarily. There are lest players who average less in FCC than in tests. And FCC is FCC. By no means it is test cricket.

The misconception TBB is having is that you think I am denying Bradman as the best test batsman in history. No I am not. But he's no way as twice good as a Sobers, Kallis, Viv or Tendulkar. Not even close to twice.

1st para and 3rd para: Yes there is. You compare the records of teams. I wasn't comparing the no.1 team from the old era with the no.4 team from this era. I compared old era SA and the WI to mod era SL. I checked records and stats to back the comparison. It showed SL, common with modern sides and players, rec'd a great benefit from playing minnows more often and top sides less often. When you equalise for the discrepancy old era SA and WI were better bowling sides. Mod SL the better batting side. I checked all 3 teams series results against the top 2 teams of both eras. SL and SA managed series wins but both lost to Aus. There is no distinction btwn SA then and SL now. The WI then were a class below but not minnows as they won tests. Their batting was reliant on Headley. No more than Viru era WI were on Lara. Their bowling was distinctly better. Conclusion: the WI then can't be rated lower than the Viru era WI. Therefore a middle ranking team.

2nd para. I'm not responsible for your analogies. I can only test them. No matter which way you look at it Sehwag's record against middling and weaker sides is 3 times lower than DGB's. Against the best opponents, in approximately the same no of innings, DGB's aver is twice as good. I reviewed your claim that Sehwag could have averaged Bradmanesque figures against cherry picked opponents. The stats show you to be wrong.

4th para. There is a correlation btwn the 2 levels of cricket. When a players test record out strips his fc record we all comment on the discrepancy. Either way its unimportant. You'd expect the argument you propose, that the greater the no of opponents the less likely a batter will average 90-100 to also hold for FC cricket, if it wasn't fundamentally fallacious. DGB's record in FC cricket proves it is fallacious.

I don't care abt your opinion on Bradman and wasn't offering commentary. I was reviewing your comment on Sehwag's av and checking it against his record. From that we can ask whether Sehwag could emulate Bradman or the other way around. To do that you must answer yes to either of these questions:

After averaging 52 against middling and weak teams do you think Sehwag could av 170 over 70 innings v Aus and SA to bring his overall ave to 99.94?

In Bradman's time do you think NZ, or SL, Pak, Zim and BD if they existed as test playing nations,could inflict 72 successive ducks on DGB to bring his ave down to 49?

Those 2 questions describe the task to turn Sehwag into a Bradman or converesely Bradman into a Sehwag.

No one in their right mind could answer yes to either so your point is dismissed.

 

[Flametree]

No they weren't. WI was piss poor team, and if Headly was out of it, they were just as bad as ZIM or BAN. It's only you who call WI, SAF middling. Simply they were piss poor. Other than for Headly, not a single member from those teams will make in to AT WI third XI. What I notice is your blind love for the idea that cricket of 30s were of same quality as today.

I don't think Bradman was bowling to Headley very much and vice versa. Fact is the Windies team of the 1930s had bowlers like Constantine, Griffith, Martindale and Hylton who averaged in the 20's (or 30 exactly in Constantine's case) while playing against only the best two sides of their era 100% of the time. Find me a Bangladeshi attack that averaged under about 70 in their tests against Australia / South Africa in comparison. Fact is these were good bowling attacks - the Windies were poor because as you say they didn't have much of a batting line-up. Not exactly relevant to your argument.

I'll concede that in one tour at least the MCC side sent to the Windies was far from the best team available. But I doubt the Banglas would have averaged much better against Australia's second eleven in the 2000s....

And the South African side of the era was made up of bowlers like Hall, Bell Quinn, Nupen, Vincent, McMillan, Balaskas etc, who averaged in the low-to-mid-30s. Again, while playing ONLY the two strongest opponents available. To continue to call them minnows as if that puts them in the same basket as Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, or even early Sri Lankan attacks is just ignoring facts.

 

[the big bambino]

All the comments I have read from the players who faced them were favourable of the WI bowlers. Conversely they didn't rate the batting apart from Headley as you'd expect. I'm glad you mentioned the point both sides played against the best 2 teams almost exclusively. They rec'd no benefit playing easier series. Its quite a clear disadvantage and I'm amazed at the resistance accepting the point and the consequent attempt to whitewash it. SA however were a strong batting side with a number of players worthy of a place amongst their best ever. Men like Taylor, Mitchell and Nourse in particular. Others like Rowan and Melville as well.