Sir Don Bradman - Is it fair to rate him above batsmen of other eras?

[benchmark00]

Tendulkar can never be regarded as the best batsman of any era, due to the fact he only averages 10 in International T20 cricket.

 

[JBMAC]

I swore after The Sean and Burgey poured total ****e over my head I would never post here again,just visit. BUT this thread is ridiculous.
Archie Mac is one of the most respected posters here and his knowledge is second to none(well maybe SJS is on a par) and his reply and explanation says it all.
I am fortunate enough to have lived long enough to see Don Bradman play in at least 2 Test Matches and a number of Sheffield Shield games as well.
This man,Bradman, could take a rising ball on the off and hook it to square leg and I have never seen ANY contemporaries do this and he could do it regularly. No flash in the pan for him.
One day cricket and pyjama(20/20) cricket would never have appealed to him and he was one of the biggest critics of the ODIs when they started.
Take him out to bat today and he would score formidable runs and given the opportunity to play as many Tests as players do today then you would be discussing when he would reach his 20,000 runs and how much longer after that would he go on.
As to what I am judging his prowess on then I have watched Test and first class cricket since 1946, played FC cricket myself and count as my mentors and friends from playing the likes of Ken Mackay,Wally Grout, Wes Hall and Jeff Thompson , so I am in a definitive position to judge.
I hope this post puts to rest some of the more ridiculous assertions being made here

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah well played.

 

[ankitj]

How true are the statistics of that time?

Records of the batsmen of later eras have been statistically accurate, we see each and every run scored by Lara or Tendulkar or Ponting on TV or some or the other coverage, what about Bradman? how true are his statistics?
What's the proof behind the runs he has scored?

That is at par with holocaust denial.

 

[andyc]

JBMAC, such a gun.

 

[karan316]

Who are these 8 teams?

Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies, NewZealand, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka.

 

[karan316]

Um... Bradman played 75% of his matches against the best opponent available to him. Your "calculations" seem to be assuming players play 50% of games against minnows.
He averaged 90 against the best opponent. See how many other players have managed that over 37 tests... I'd also suggest the "minnows" he played had rather better bowling attacks than Bangladesh's...

As I and lots of other posters have pointed out, batting averages in the 20s and 30s (and '46-'48) were pretty much the same as they are today. Possibly higher than in the some decades from the the 50s through 90s, but only by two or three points. Not 40 points higher.

Bradman played against 1 top team, the players I have mentioned have played 2 top teams,
that is 200 percent of quality opposition what compared to what Bradman faced.

He didn't average 90 against the 'best' opponent, Australia was the best side for most of the time in his career.

 

[Burgey]

Bradman played against 1 top team, the players I have mentioned have played 2 top teams,
that is 200 percent of quality opposition what compared to what Bradman faced.

He didn't average 90 against the 'best' opponent, Australia was the best side for most of the time in his career.

This is rubbish posting. Australia was the best team for much of his career because of him.

He played the vast majority of his cricket against the best opposition team of the time, England. Why can't you understand that? I know Thursday is Troll Day, but come on, this is ridiculous.

 

[weldone]

That is at par with holocaust denial.

Hushhh, next time be ready with the answers when he asks for proof that Donald Bradman ever played test cricket...

 

[honestbharani]

This is rubbish posting. Australia was the best team for much of his career because of him.

He played the vast majority of his cricket against the best opposition team of the time, England. Why can't you understand that? I know Thursday is Troll Day, but come on, this is ridiculous.

Its not Thursday yet here.. Can we be spared of all this?

 

[karan316]

You clearly know nothing about the history of cricket. The 50's were easy batting times? Really?

1st test Brisbane 1951 : Aus 128, Eng 68-7, Aus 32-7, Eng 127 all out.
2nd test Melbourne 1951 : Aus 194, Eng 187, Aus 181, Eng 150
Only two scores over 400, neither over 450, in a 5-match series.

In the India-Pakistan series of 1952, no side made 400 in any innings. Five innings ended below 200. In the same series in 1955, no side made over 330 in any innings of a 5-test series. Compare that with the series in the 1970s!

The same year, England v South Africa, 10 of the 19 innings were all out less than 205...

In 1956, only two innings broke 330 in the 5-test England-Australia series...

New Zealand hit a wet summer in England 1958, their average completed innings was 118!

1958-59 : Aus-Eng, only four innings over 300 in the entire series

I know this isn't relevant to the Bradman issue, but you might want check your "certain facts".

You are just pointing out at some low scoring matches in that period, but overall,
pitches were in favour of the batsmen in his time, you can check the highest everages in the history of the game, most of them belong to the players from 1920 to 1970.

 

[stephen]

You are just pointing out at some low scoring matches in that period, but overall,
pitches were in favour of the batsmen in his time, you can check the highest everages in the history of the game, most of them belong to the players from 1920 to 1970.

Oh dear.

 

[Xuhaib]

Karan just say it loudly Sachin > Bradman and then we can just close this poor excuse of a thread.

 

[stephen]

Karan just say it loudly Sachin > Bradman and then we can just close this poor excuse of a thread.

This thread is so funny though, why would you close it

 

[ankitj]

You are just pointing out at some low scoring matches in that period, but overall,
pitches were in favour of the batsmen in his time, you can check the highest everages in the history of the game, most of them belong to the players from 1920 to 1970.

On one hand you say that there is no proof of the scores Bradman made and on the other ask us to check same fabricated scorecards. Can't make up your mind?

 

[weldone]

This is rubbish posting. Australia was the best team for much of his career because of him.

Exactly. I wonder how the test records of bowlers like Larwood and Verity would look had there been no Bradman! Both of them have freakish FC records.

I have no doubt in my mind that England had a slightly better bowling attack than Australia during most part of his career.

 

[karan316]

These threads are awful because they are 'always' started by rabid Sachin fans. Without exception.

Anyway Bradman sucks.

M not a Sachin fan.

 

[karan316]

I would rather want people to talk with some facts or prove my points wrong instead of just talking about stories of that time.

These are the top 10 bowlers faced by the batsman based on the ICC ratings

Bradman (Average Rating 669) -
Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513

Hammond (Average Rating 595) -
O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251

Hobbs (Average Rating 687) -
Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490

Viv (Average Rating 831) -
Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721

Inzi (Average Rating 855) -
Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762

Sachin (Average Rating 856) -
Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's.

 

[benchmark00]

I don't know where you get the idea that pitches were easier to play on back in the day?

 

[Spark]

To be honest, from the 3 or 4 threads I have seen Karan post in I think all he sees in other people's posts is agreement or disagreement. Given the latter he tends to say things that may or may not be true to further his cause without any regard to earth shatteringly obvious claims made by others, against his cause.

Karan is the Siddle or Cricket Web. He's got passion, big heart, types all day and you know the rest.