• 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

Craig

World Traveller
BoyBrumby said:
With Pele (Association Football) however, I know otherwise reasonable people who would argue that a certain stumpy Argentine cheat is a better player. Cases could be made for Johann Cruyff or Ferenc Puskas or whoever too. The point is that it is open to debate. I think The Don's average makes hime beyond that. No-one can reasonably claim anyone is or was a better batter.
Zinedine Zidane. How Alegria must be p*ssed that he chose to play for France instead of them. Or Eddy Merckx in cycling as one that dominated his sport..

Back to Bradman, I guess if he you had four really fast pacemen and a very good left arm spinner, would be probably be the one of the best bets in having a bowling line-up to face him
 

Craig

World Traveller
As great of a rider Lance Armstrong is, his year does revovle around one race - that is the Tour de France.

Armstrong trains and races around the Tour, whilst others do concentrate on the Tour, they do compete in other races (partly because of sponsors and their teams).

People Merckx raced all year around, and won everything.

Have a look on this site.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Chucking a few thoughts into the air, but does Sir Garfield Sobers' all round game come close to equating Bradman's bat?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Langeveldt said:
Chucking a few thoughts into the air, but does Sir Garfield Sobers' all round game come close to equating Bradman's bat?
Interesting point. That's a toughie: Sir Donald or Sir Garfield in your team? I think Sir Garfield is probably amongst the best half-dozen batsmen of all time as well as being a top notch all-rounder. As far as I know he didn't keep wicket, but seemingly could do pretty much everything else (spin, swing, brisk fast-medium & top notch slip fielding). I don't think Sir Donald's prep-school leg spinners (to borrow a Boycottism!) quite bring him into the all-rounder category!

That said 99.94 versus 57.78...looks a no-brainer.
 

telsor

U19 12th Man
I think that the wisden top 5 of the 20th centrury had it right with Bradman at 1, and Sobers a fair way back in second, and then a big gap to the rest.

On talent, Sobers might even have the edge, but as good as he was, he wasn't the dominant force that Bradman must have been. ( maybe for a few series, but I'm talking over his entire career here ).

To put things ina modern context, on averages, Sobers, as a batsman was slightly better than Gilchrist, and his bowling, while excellent and varied for an all-rounder, probably wouldn't have earned him a regular place in the WI team by itself ( just as Gilchrist probably isn't the best pure keeper in Aus ). An awesome talent, and an incredible addition to any team. That said, would you prefer Gilchrist in your team or a guy who is half again as good as Tendulkar?

NB..Bradmans average is actually 175% as good as Tendulkars, but then, I'd rate Sobers over Gilchrist, so I downgraded Bradman somewhat to balance the comparison.
 

Craig

World Traveller
BoyBrumby said:
Interesting point. That's a toughie: Sir Donald or Sir Garfield in your team? I think Sir Garfield is probably amongst the best half-dozen batsmen of all time as well as being a top notch all-rounder. As far as I know he didn't keep wicket, but seemingly could do pretty much everything else (spin, swing, brisk fast-medium & top notch slip fielding). I don't think Sir Donald's prep-school leg spinners (to borrow a Boycottism!) quite bring him into the all-rounder category!

That said 99.94 versus 57.78...looks a no-brainer.
If you could take both, you would.

I would take Sobers over Bradman just, given his all-roundness.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
maxpower said:
99.94 close to perfection. Best ever.
here is a good comparison of his skills vs others.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/bradman/comparisons.htm
It is not even close to perfection.
Perfection would be never hitting a shot anywhere except exactly where you were aiming it, in any game of cricket, anywhere, at any level.
Cricketing perfection is not something we want to get into, because it doesn't exist in human form.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
Chucking a few thoughts into the air, but does Sir Garfield Sobers' all round game come close to equating Bradman's bat?
Put it this way: I'd call Sir Garfield a better cricketer than Sir Donald. Purely because he was one of the best batsmen of all-time and could also bowl just about everything at Test-class (presumably with the exception of wristspin).
However, both of them are so far beyond comprehension that it's a bit pointless trying to compare them.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FRAZ said:
I was just wondering that may be pulling or hooking shots were not in the text books
Watch Stan McCabe's 189* in the first-innings of The First Test of the series, you might reconsider that!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FRAZ said:
Just curious , No disrespect but just want to be argumentative, Apart from Bradman , Were the other cricketers of Australia of that time were so dumb to know how to play short pitch balls ? And I dont believe that any English bowler of that time would have been touching 80 miles per hour , they just look fast in old black and white ...
We can only guess - as eddie has pointed-out, protective equipment in those days was nothing short of appallingly inadequete.
And I can assure you that Leg-Theory was nothing like routine "short pitch balls". Totally incomparable, that's why it was outlawed.
And some of the batsmen even found a way to play Leg-Theory, so certainly they were more than capable of playing routine short-pitchers.
But I don't, personally, see any reason why people shouldn't have been able to bowl as fast then as they can now.
 

maxpower

U19 Cricketer
Richard said:
It is not even close to perfection.
Perfection would be never hitting a shot anywhere except exactly where you were aiming it, in any game of cricket, anywhere, at any level.
Cricketing perfection is not something we want to get into, because it doesn't exist in human form.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sleep:
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
There is nobody who could ever compare to Bradman...the man stands alone.

However I can think of one who would come close...that great Aussie squash player who never lost a game...:)
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr. P said:
There is nobody who could ever compare to Bradman...the man stands alone.

However I can think of one who would come close...that great Aussie squash player who never lost a game...:)
<quack> Bruce Ribena?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I did not start it!
To call anything "close to cricketing perfection" is wholly inaccurate and I was pointing-out why the term should never even be remotely considered!
 

Top