Will there ever be another Bradman ??

[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 !!

 

[luckyeddie]

I think the odds are probably 99.94-1 against - but I would never say never (!)

 

[SJS]

I think the odds are probably 99.94-1 against - but I would never say never (!)

Would you like to see that ? One batsman who was totally unconquerable and because of whom a team remained undefeated, almost for 20 years ?

 

[a massive zebra]

Charles Davis did some work on the likelihood of another Bradman and found that one in every 200,000 Test players should be this good. So we should not see another Bradman.

 

[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!

 

[SJS]

Charles Davis did some work on the likelihood of another Bradman and found that one in every 200,000 Test players should be this good. So we should not see another Bradman.

Thats interesting. Is there an article on this somewhere ?

 

[SJS]

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

You said it. I would love to see someone like Bradman and a Sid Barnes. The ultimate would be to have them playing against each other. That would be the ultimate contest.

 

[Deja moo]

I'm guessing that no one in the future will recognise such a player even if he came along . Genetic engineering will render all sport worthless , and there will be no way of being sure about the "purity" of players .

 

[a massive zebra]

Thats interesting. Is there an article on this somewhere ?

In his book 'The Best of The Best'.

 

[luckyeddie]

Would you like to see that ? One batsman who was totally unconquerable and because of whom a team remained undefeated, almost for 20 years ?

I don't know whether I should like to see it or not - when Lara first came to prominence, I thought that here was that man, but of course he's not. Nowhere near.

Whereas Bradman did dominate the game, there were far fewer international players then, there was no facility for mass-marketing of the game, coaching tended to be a 'hands on' thing, all of which make me think that it is becoming less and less likely for any one player to dominate.

To be so far ahead of everyone else, it could prove to be the death of the game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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!

Will be? Was... Maradona.

 

[SJS]

Will be? Was... Maradona.

Unlike with Bradman...this claim is highly debatable and debated.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm guessing that no one in the future will recognise such a player even if he came along . Genetic engineering will render all sport worthless , and there will be no way of being sure about the "purity" of players .

I doubt whether genetic engineering could enable anyone to fine-tune the mental attributes necessary to produce a top sportsman. You could tweak someone's DNA which would give rise to the possibility of the perfect physical characteristics - but what it he had a sweet tooth to rival Freddie in his 'Golden (arches)' years, or Ian Blackwell - or Inzy? Even worse - what if he decided that he liked baseball?

 

[Barney Rubble]

Will be? Was... Maradona.

That's a much longer debate for another time.....don't even get me started!

Don't think the Bradman thing is really up for debate though!

 

[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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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]

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]

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!