Will there ever be another Bradman ??

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Will be? Was... Maradona.

Wash your mouth out with soap & water young man!!!

[Neil Pickup]

Not denying that he's a dirty cheating pothead, but he did win the World Cup all by himself with a very average Argentinian side. Either way, Maradona and Pele are exceptionally close, unlike the Bradman who is head, shoulders and ribcage above anyone else.

(9,999)

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Not denying that he's a dirty cheating pothead, but he did win the World Cup all by himself with a very average Argentinian side. Either way, Maradona and Pele are exceptionally close, unlike the Bradman who is head, shoulders and ribcage above anyone else.

(9,999)

See, I think it's a fallacy that the Argentines had an average team in 86. They also had Valdano, Burruchaga & the magically named Jose Luis Brown. All quality players.

But I digress...yes, dirty cheating pothead is as good an epithet as any.

[Steulen]

Hrmph...time for some sacrilege.

Bradman played a lot of his cricket against one opponent (England), while other countries were only just rising from their Bangladesh-phase.

I believe if you take some of the best current batsmen and skew their figures to heavily favour their favourite opponent and matches against minnows, you would get their averages up to 70 or so.

This still makes Bradman better than the rest, but not otherworldly so. He would then be more in the Schumacher / Maradona regions, I'd say.

So, I don't think there will ever be another Don Twiceasgood, because of the totally different environment of current cricket, but an astonishing 70 career average we might witness...and imho that player would be as good as Bradman.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Steulen

Hrmph...time for some sacrilege.

Bradman played a lot of his cricket against one opponent (England), while other countries were only just rising from their Bangladesh-phase.

I believe if you take some of the best current batsmen and skew their figures to heavily favour their favourite opponent and matches against minnows, you would get their averages up to 70 or so.

This still makes Bradman better than the rest, but not otherworldly so. He would then be more in the Schumacher / Maradona regions, I'd say.

So, I don't think there will ever be another Don Twiceasgood, because of the totally different environment of current cricket, but an astonishing 70 career average we might witness...and imho that player would be as good as Bradman.

Its an interesting point. But maybe a little hard on the South African teams of the era.

But I just had a quick look and The Dons average against England is a pretty healthy 89.79! Not too shabby!

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

For what it's worth, my instinct is that we'll never see his like again. We seem to be in a period where the bat is largely dominant over the ball, but no-one of the current batters with legitimate claims to potential greatness has an average within 40 of the great mans.

A question that sometimes vexes me is why was he so very good? I know during his playing career there was a theory that his eyesight must be better than everyone else's, but when tested it proved very ordinary.

I believe Sir Donald has a legitimate claim to be the greatest sportsman of all time.

I have read people who think Grace (WG) was at least as good: allegedly his test stats don't show that due to his being relatively old when he made his international debut. I'm not sure that I buy that argument, but I'm generally loathe to evaluate the 19th century guys, however dominant they were in the English game.

[Jono]

The question is, is there a productive capacity where no more can be done? Is there a maximum level? If so, was Bradman close?

Additionally there are so many factors. Personally, though Bradman's greatness and position as number 1 cannot be denied, like Steulen said, I believe various factors make cricket a tougher, more competitive sport today (yes I concede factors also make cricket, or inparticular batting an easier sport in ways too) however the environment of stress, pressure and tough schedule do make cricket tougher than back in the day.

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Jono

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

I agree to an extent. It's anal & pointless, but it's good fun to argue the toss, eh?

There are almost innumerable factors to consider, but the averages are the best guide we have. I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

[pskov]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I agree to an extent. It's anal & pointless, but it's good fun to argue the toss, eh?

There are almost innumerable factors to consider, but the averages are the best guide we have. I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

It would have been truly fascinating, nay unbelievably absorbing, to see Bradman match up against Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall et. al.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SJS

Will we ever have a batsman who dominates the game as The Don did. I mean average twice as high as anyone else in his own time and stand the test of time for three quarters of a century. A career that spanned twenty years, with six years at his prime cut down by war, he managed to achieve such mind boggling performance over two decades.

Will the next hundred years see another like him ? If not, why not ?

I am not talking of an average of 99.94 but someone who outscores the next best in the world, in his own time and age, by 100 percent on an average !!

And who knows how much higher it would have been but for Bodyline.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

Relative?
There's fast-short-pitched bowling and there's Bodyline. Bodyline is not everyday, and the fact that it's illegal now suggests the totally unfair advantage it gave to seam-bowlers. We can only imagine how much more unfair it was in the wickets of the day.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pskov

It would have been truly fascinating, nay unbelievably absorbing, to see Bradman match up against Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall et. al.

I don't think it would - I'd say it would be a shame, because some fantastic bowlers would have been made to look very, very ordinary indeed.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Steulen

Hrmph...time for some sacrilege.

Bradman played a lot of his cricket against one opponent (England), while other countries were only just rising from their Bangladesh-phase.

I believe if you take some of the best current batsmen and skew their figures to heavily favour their favourite opponent and matches against minnows, you would get their averages up to 70 or so.

This still makes Bradman better than the rest, but not otherworldly so. He would then be more in the Schumacher / Maradona regions, I'd say.

So, I don't think there will ever be another Don Twiceasgood, because of the totally different environment of current cricket, but an astonishing 70 career average we might witness...and imho that player would be as good as Bradman.

Originally Posted by Jono

The question is, is there a productive capacity where no more can be done? Is there a maximum level? If so, was Bradman close?

Additionally there are so many factors. Personally, though Bradman's greatness and position as number 1 cannot be denied, like Steulen said, I believe various factors make cricket a tougher, more competitive sport today (yes I concede factors also make cricket, or inparticular batting an easier sport in ways too) however the environment of stress, pressure and tough schedule do make cricket tougher than back in the day.

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

If you ask me had Bradman played today he'd have averaged 150 in Test-cricket at least.
We know for a fact that many pitches in his day were very, very poor by today's standards. Equally, there were some (The Oval 1938 for instance) that were every bit as good as the best of today.
If the stuff that supposedly makes cricket so tough today really had that much of an influence there'd be no-one who could cope with Test-cricket today. It was every bit as tough in Bradman's day from what I can tell (certainly following was quite as enthusiastic).
IMO if anyone averaged 70 today they'd be close to being half the player Bradman was!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

I have read people who think Grace (WG) was at least as good: allegedly his test stats don't show that due to his being relatively old when he made his international debut. I'm not sure that I buy that argument, but I'm generally loathe to evaluate the 19th century guys, however dominant they were in the English game.

We can't, of course, say how good WG Grace really was relative to the 20th-century.
We can, however, say that he was probably rather good, because when 20 was a good average he averaged 50 in his heyday. That dropped to 39 as he played into his 40s, 50s and 60s.
I think, personally, WG Grace might well have averaged 70-80 had he played today.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble

Not in the next century maybe - but theoretically the longer cricket goes on the chances of it increase. Seeing as I would like to think that cricket will go on for centuries yet, I think that at some point, it will happen, just as I believe there will be a better footballer than Pele at some point.

I just hope I'm alive to see them both play!

Might be, might not be.
Until there is, we don't really need to worry too much about it! I'm certainly not.