• 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.

Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

Status
Not open for further replies.

the big bambino

International Captain
Why does this bother you and so many others? If they have got an IDOL then why should you despise that? If they think he's the best ever, then that's their opinion.
Kind of hoping this thread will die but it never does. Anyway its not his opinion. He's asserting it as fact and for provocation whether intended ot not. Yet all of it is wrong. From the comment about bowlers, to surfaces and professionalism. There wasn't video back then but...relevance?

Anyway I'm sick of it and I'm about to take a cheap shot of my own. I don't know how to quote a post from one thread to this one so I'll say here I've found one stating SRT's record against McGrath, Donald and Akram. Lets just say there's a difference btwn facing good bowlers and scoring runs off them. Maybe he should've studied the videos a little closer. Maybe he did and is lucky coz he'd have averaged 10 runs fewer otherwise. Either way you'd think a God of cricket wouldn't need such earthly assistance. Anyway fanbois it seems your man aint all that. :ph34r:
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
You know most of those fans are just Teens, take it easy.

Anyone saying Bradman is the best or isn't doesn't change anything. Those are just opinions. The fact is he avg'd 99.
I'm a teenager. Sachin is easily the most overrated player in the history of the game.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Well thats fine. I'd only add the qualification that he never had the opportunity so we'll never know for sure. Given all the bats who have had the opportunity SRT's case is certainly strong.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
If you're only looking at Tests, then he is. But if you are considering both formats, then he isn't.
Well yeah, we are most often talking about tests here..

The fourth table on this page is interesting, seeing how Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid are all ahead of Tendulkar, just from his own team...
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Shows you how misleading that is hey, since Sehwag and Laxman don't hold a candle to Tendulkar.
 

centurymaker

International Captain
Well yeah, we are most often talking about tests here..

The fourth table on this page is interesting, seeing how Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid are all ahead of Tendulkar, just from his own team...
True but those only reflect how much of an impact his mid 00's slump had on his avg that it was only 50 for that particular period.
Tbh he's been a diminished batsman ever since about 2003/04 (in both formats).
 

centurymaker

International Captain
Well yeah, we are most often talking about tests here..

The fourth table on this page is interesting, seeing how Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid are all ahead of Tendulkar, just from his own team...
Other thing people here don't often realize is that ODI cricket is HUGE in SC (bigger than test cricket), so when you see sachinfanboys, they are also taking ODIs into consideration, so naturally they think he's amazing. Even when they only consider Tests, ODIs still in all likelihood cloud their assessment significantly, so you end up with something like "tendulkar is god" lol
 
Last edited:

DeanWhipper

Cricket Spectator
God some of garbage in this topic.

To suggest Bradman somehow had it easier back then is absolute crap, he played his entire career on uncovered pitches, do you know how much it rains in England and the southern parts of Australia?

It's a safe bet to assume at least half of the tests he played in where rain effected, and by rain effected I mean the pitch got soaked creating the worst possible playing conditions.

We know from every other batsman of the period that 50 was a fantastic average in those conditions against those bowlers, therfore, Bradmans average of 99 makes him the greatest of the period and that's all you can ever judge a sportsman on.
 

watson

Banned
God some of garbage in this topic.

To suggest Bradman somehow had it easier back then is absolute crap, he played his entire career on uncovered pitches, do you know how much it rains in England and the southern parts of Australia?

It's a safe bet to assume at least half of the tests he played in where rain effected, and by rain effected I mean the pitch got soaked creating the worst possible playing conditions.

We know from every other batsman of the period that 50 was a fantastic average in those conditions against those bowlers, therfore, Bradmans average of 99 makes him the greatest of the period and that's all you can ever judge a sportsman on.
I dunno, but I think that we've all agreed on that fact.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
It takes a pretty fickle bent of mind to have your objectivity colored by trolls. And it's quite easy to make out a troll, or someone who's just blatantly ignorant, if you've used the web for any amount of time. I think the best post on this thread has been where they said Bradman surpassed his peers by an obscene amount, never approached in the game before or since. Now I generally subscribe to the linear progression in sport line but that also is strictly hypothetical and so you have to say that no cricketer has ever stood so far above his contemporaries as Bradman. If that is your criteria, then I have no problems calling him the undisputed greatest.
 

JBMAC

State Captain
Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time. In Bradman's era there was no video analysis technology, the umpiring was poor, the sport was not professional. Therefore he faced little challenge. In fact in this era his average would be below 60 for sure. Who knows he may have been "found out" and his average could be very low.
Rubbish
 

JBMAC

State Captain
It's no big secret because he didn't face supremely talented bowlers that have appeared after the game became professional. Nor did he face mystery bowlers or bat on all surfaces.

He mainly played against one country too, that also when the sport was very much in it's infancy. He was never analysed the way modern players were.

Too small a sample. If anyone thinks he would average close to a ton in this era, they are deluded.

Tendulkar is called God of cricket the way Michael Jordan was described by a fellow player as God disguised as Jordan. Such level of talent is very rare.
I cannot believe you are sprouting this
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It does amuse me the way this subject polarises opinion,and particularly the way that folk who I assume are essentially intelligent human beings come out with such mindless drivel.

I'll admit to being in the "Bradman" camp, but not because I particularly like him, but because of his dominance over 20 years - yes that's 20 years - and he lost seven good years to the war - - his stats are so far ahead of his peers that it defies logic to compare his dominance with guys whose stats are very similar to at least half a dozen of their contemporaries.

If he played today I think the biggest problem Bradman would have would be with the quality of fielding. Piercing the gaps in the field was one of his great talents, and he'd find that harder, but then he'd have a much better bat, so perhaps that wouldn't matter.

He'd also have had to face more genuinely quick bowlers, and its said he didn't like real pace. But that's a silly argument really, 'cos what he didn't like to do was risk injury. The speed of his reactions and his hand/eye co-ordination were always superlative, so with all the modern protective equipment I reckon he'd have come off best against the quicks, like he did against Larwood in 1930.

And the change he'd have liked most would be covered wickets. His weakness on sticky wickets is overstated, if only because they cut everyone down to size, but it was undoubtedly the major flaw in his CV - he was no Sutcliffe - but he'd never encounter one now, so his biggest problem would be gone.

And don't forget Bradman was adaptable too - the biggest law change in his time was in the lbw law - a whole new aspect of the game opened up once bowlers no longer had to pitch the ball in line to get a decision. Bradman played just about exactly half his career under the old law and half under the new - he was out lbw 16 times pre 1935, and 11 times after, so he sorted that one out without any trouble - the suggestion that he wouldn't have adapted his technique to other changes is just ludicrous.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
It takes a pretty fickle bent of mind to have your objectivity colored by trolls. And it's quite easy to make out a troll, or someone who's just blatantly ignorant, if you've used the web for any amount of time. I think the best post on this thread has been where they said Bradman surpassed his peers by an obscene amount, never approached in the game before or since. Now I generally subscribe to the linear progression in sport line but that also is strictly hypothetical and so you have to say that no cricketer has ever stood so far above his contemporaries as Bradman. If that is your criteria, then I have no problems calling him the undisputed greatest.
Its fair to assume standards improve but its unfair (imo) to judge earlier eras against modern players who have benefitted from advances. Imo it is fair to equalise all players across time by referencing the 1 measure which has been consistent over time; their averages. Bradman's superiority over his peers was quite distinct leading up to the war. Australia had a line of strong batsmen in that time yet the next highest ave after Bradman's 98 is Ryder's 54; or about a Mark Waugh difference btwn the 2 of them. However Ryder's ave accrued over 1 series after which he retired. It could be considered his high water mark rather than his general form. It tells you the bowlers who effectively corralled our batsmen completely failed against Bradman and that underscores his talent.

The argument that he prospered by playing in friendly conditions should be supported by other batsmen also recording comparatively high averages. That clearly didn't happen leading up to the war. It did in his 3 series after the war when 3 others of Australia's top 6 batsmen recorded averages in the 60s and 70s. Another averaged 55. The last 43. All recorded substantially above their career stats. So you could say that DGB benefitted from weaker opposition and friendlier conditions after the war bcos that is reflected in the averages of his team mates. It should be noted though that Bradman still averaged 105 after the war or abt 30 runs better than 2nd place. A whole Phil Hughes above his nearest contemporary. This is still a remarkable achievement as he not only bettered his team mates he did so when at the end of his career while his team mates where in their prime.
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's no big secret because he didn't face supremely talented bowlers that have appeared after the game became professional. Nor did he face mystery bowlers or bat on all surfaces.

He mainly played against one country too, that also when the sport was very much in it's infancy. He was never analysed the way modern players were.

Too small a sample. If anyone thinks he would average close to a ton in this era, they are deluded.

Tendulkar is called God of cricket the way Michael Jordan was described by a fellow player as God disguised as Jordan. Such level of talent is very rare.
tumblr_lltzgnHi5F1qzib3wo1_400.jpg
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
FMD. Stop quoting him, have him on ignore and you ****s keep making me have ot read his posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top