Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seeing him sitting in the grandstands at Adelaide Oval watching the tests.What are your memories of seeing Bradman when you were a teenager?
Seeing him sitting in the grandstands at Adelaide Oval watching the tests.What are your memories of seeing Bradman when you were a teenager?
Must have been in the after tea session, would've been at the beach and/or shops for the other two sessions.Seeing him sitting in the grandstands at Adelaide Oval watching the tests.
Nah Playing GolfMust have been in the after tea session, would've been at the beach and/or shops for the other two sessions.
After all, do we really know how well Bradman would go against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at the WACA circa 1984 if he were suddenly transported in a time-machine from his home in 1932? We could also choose Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmore circa 1975, or Imran, Wasim, and Qadir circa 1987.For this reason I refuse to call him the greatest and will only refer to Don as the greatest of his era, but there are more questions beckoning behind this claim.
Isn't the point that he's the only batsman in history about whom you could even say that?Although, to be philosophically pedantic, jboss is pretty close to the mark when he says;
After all, do we really know how well Bradman would go against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at the WACA circa 1984 if he were suddenly transported in a time-machine from his home in 1932? We could also choose Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmore circa 1975, or Imran, Wasim, and Qadir circa 1987.
There is a very good probabilty he would score 100+ and average 90+ during a 5 Test series. But it's only a probabilty, and so he might not. It really is impossible to tell.
Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.Isn't the point that he's the only batsman in history about whom you could even say that?
Yeah I understand that. And if you want to leave it at saying "I don't think you can say anyone is the greatest batsman/ bowler/ keeper ever because it's impossible" then well and good.Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.
In other words, we think it likely, or believe that Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s.
We cannot say Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s, and sound certain about it.
But we could say with quite a bit of certainty that he would average significantly more that his peers?Yes that's right. I was merely highlighting the difference between probability and certainty, belief and fact.
In other words, we think it likely, or believe that Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s.
We cannot say Bradman would average about 100 if he played 52 Tests during the 1980s, and sound certain about it.
Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.So how do you compare players from different eras? Different style of play etc...not easy
It's not your point. Didn't you say in the OP you felt confortable saying Tendulkar is the greatest player of all time? How can you know that?Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.
Could it not be that the records of Allen, Larwood, Verity, Tate et al. are all made to look far worse than is representative purely because of Bradman?Agree that Bradman is the best ever, but not to the extent that he is twice as good as anyone else. Australia was the best team of his era and the only other good attack he would have faced would have been the English with the standout bowlers being Verity and Larwood (one series really) and to a lesser extent Voce and Allen (similar records to Larwood). Bradman, even more than Tendulkar and Murali plundered the minnows of his day. He also did well againts England particularily at home, but his pre war record is not that much better than his other rival of his era.
Headley in comparrison only played againts the top two teams of his era and even the touring teams he plundered had superior attacks to S.A and N.Z which Bradman destroyed and the only English bowler he didnt get to face was Larwood, through no fault of his own. Added to that disparity in suppoting batting talent that Bradman had over Headley and that fact that Bradman was the crowd attraction and the main draw and everyone including the umpires knew it, were all in favor of the Don. Bradman also got more opportunities to hone his craft rather that Headley who only played 19 Tests in 10 years, going from dormant to playing the World's best as the under dog was not easy, eapecially considering he alone bore the brunt of the batting load and responsibility.
All this with out the comparrison with modern players who play with bigger stumps, harsher lbw laws and lets not think that body line was as testing as the '70's and '80's attacks of W.I. and Aus far less the WSC attacks that the Richards' and Chappell handled so well, or even that of his own Lindwall and Miller post war attack that Hutton and Walcott handled on occasion so well. And lets not forget the flat pithes in Australia between the wars that discouraged fast bowling and aided their spinners and Bradman
Bradman was and remains the best ever, but it is not above discussion, as neither is Sobers over Kallis or any other comparrison, though Gilly does get awful close. Think in Ikki's sig Gideon is quoted as saying there will be sooner another Warne than Bradman, Bradman was dealt a perfect hand, but he played it better than anyone else could have.
No one played across all eras, so to say someone if the greatest of all time we will have to use our brains a little.Exactly my point. People claim Bradman is the greatest of all time yet he didn't play in the modern era. Isn't that discounting the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, etc.
Yes because it's feesable to pick a player from one era and say they are the best of all time. Logic has it that Tendulkar is amongst the top 5 batsman in Bradman's era and scored 100 international centuries. Odd that there were no ODI's thenIt's not your point. Didn't you say in the OP you felt confortable saying Tendulkar is the greatest player of all time? How can you know that?
Do you really not understand this? Why Bradman is the best? Really?Yes because it's feesable to pick a player from one era and say they are the best of all time. Logic has it that Tendulkar is amongst the top 5 batsman in Bradman's era and scored 100 international centuries. Odd that there were no ODI's then