Will there ever be another Bradman ??

[Craig]

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)

It would be great if the teams played against each other (yes I know this only hypothetical), it would be one hell of a football game.

One thing would be certain, Maradona would have made the Brazlian 1970 side's defence look like rubbish, I mean their goalkeeper Felix IMO is probably the worst goalkeeper to play in a World Cup winning side. He would be lucky to be 3rd choice at any Premiership or Championship club.

EDIT: Yes I have seen footage of Felix in goal.

[Deja moo]

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?

True , there is only so much that DNA manipulation can do , but perfect eyesight , excellent physical condition might elevate the player to much higher levels than he could achieve predominantly on the basis of mental fortitude alone . For example , Tendulkar had/has a bad back which seriously limits his staying powers at the crease. Who knows ,perhaps the absence of such an impediment might have increased his career average by maybe 10 points ?
Genetic engineering would pre-empt physical deficiencies from being a drag on the player ...As for the sweet tooth , it wouldnt come in the way if the person was programmed to not gain weight , would it ? We meet so many people in everyday life who eat so much ,and gain not an inch , just because they have better genes regulating their metabolism.
Of course , it could be argued that if all players were to be at peak physical condition , the only thing seperating the wheat from the chaff would be mental strength. That might be agreeable to some , but would it be sport ?

[SJS]

Excellent debate.

My two bit worth

On how good was Bradman

Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.

Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.

Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.

Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.

He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.

His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.

Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?

He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.

PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.

PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.

PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.

Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat.