honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
And we thought posts like this will be a thing of the past with the Like feature.. So much for the "evolution" of CW..
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Bradman, the greatest sportsperson ever?
- Thread starter karan316
- Start date
- Status
And we thought posts like this will be a thing of the past with the Like feature.. So much for the "evolution" of CW..
smash84
The Tiger King
And we thought posts like this will be a thing of the past with the Like feature.. So much for the "evolution" of CW..
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
On evolution or whatever...and suggesting Bradman wouldn't cope in the modern era...
A guy like Justin Langer would've been killed if he'd had to face the bodyline bowlers. The amount of times during his career he got hit in the helmet was ridiculous.
A guy like Justin Langer would've been killed if he'd had to face the bodyline bowlers. The amount of times during his career he got hit in the helmet was ridiculous.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I love these imbeciles saying if Bradman played today he'd get killed by the bowlers because the game has evolved. This is ****ing ridiculous. What you're really saying is "Get in a time machine with your fence paling for a bat, no helmet and rudimentary equipment and face up to a 1980s WI attack on a green top".
What a load of ****. Players, especially great players, adapt. They change their game to fit conditions and the players they're opposed to. That's part of greatness ffs. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but if you reckon Bradman would "only" average 45-50 odd today, then you must halve the averages of all his contemporaries too. Using that logic Wally Hammond < Shane Watson.
If you genuinely want to say Bradman wouldn't easily be the best batsman of this era (or any other) you're pulling your pud. There's a game with over 120 years of history and there's a bunch of brilliant players across all eras averaging 50-60. Then there's one bloke who's that much better than every other great batsman who's played the game.
It's that simple. I can understand it's hard to believe. In a sense, if someone else had averaged 80-90 odd it would be a bit easier to comprehend that someone could be that good. But there isn't anyone else. Blokes have great series or patches of forms over a few years - like, say Clarke has had in recent years, averaging around 100. Bradman did it for 20 years. Even if you take out the lesser ranked sides, he still averaged nigh on 90 against England.
I honestly don't know why this argument about who's the greatest batsman of all time comes up so often. I get it's hard to fathom how great he was, but he was. Deal with it ffs.
What a load of ****. Players, especially great players, adapt. They change their game to fit conditions and the players they're opposed to. That's part of greatness ffs. I don't know how many times this has to be said, but if you reckon Bradman would "only" average 45-50 odd today, then you must halve the averages of all his contemporaries too. Using that logic Wally Hammond < Shane Watson.
If you genuinely want to say Bradman wouldn't easily be the best batsman of this era (or any other) you're pulling your pud. There's a game with over 120 years of history and there's a bunch of brilliant players across all eras averaging 50-60. Then there's one bloke who's that much better than every other great batsman who's played the game.
It's that simple. I can understand it's hard to believe. In a sense, if someone else had averaged 80-90 odd it would be a bit easier to comprehend that someone could be that good. But there isn't anyone else. Blokes have great series or patches of forms over a few years - like, say Clarke has had in recent years, averaging around 100. Bradman did it for 20 years. Even if you take out the lesser ranked sides, he still averaged nigh on 90 against England.
I honestly don't know why this argument about who's the greatest batsman of all time comes up so often. I get it's hard to fathom how great he was, but he was. Deal with it ffs.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No he wouldn't ffs, because he'd play entirely differently. That's the whole point. You're a product of your time and your environment.
Yep, the introduction of helmets has completely changed the way the hook shot was played. Langer, if he were a product of the 1920s, would hook in the way McCabe did against Bodyline - head inside the line of the ball.
1970 is pretty much equidistant between the debut of Bradman and now. That's a long time, featuring a lot of dramatic changes, to consider mostly homogenous.
3rd umpire, covered pitches, helmets, ODI cricket, T20 cricket, DRS, bigger bats, smaller boundaries - all changes implemented at least in part after 1970.
IMO it's bull**** to say cricket evolved up until an arbitrary point and then just stopped; it smacks of a desperation to find some justification, no matter how specious. It's almost "colour pix or it didn't happen"
Ruckus
International Captain
I'll put it this way for you; do you think if Dennis Lillee (debuted in early 1970s) were to be transported to the present (with a chance for only minimal adaptation), he would average roughly similar (say <30) to what he did in his day? The answer for me is, yes. And that is simply because the game had reached a level of professionalism by then which has by and large plateaued - i.e. it was a fully professional era back then, just as it is now. Now, if you ask the same question with regards to say, Clarrie Grimmett, considered one of the finer spin bowlers of his day, it would be an unequivocal no for me. I think he would he get destroyed. And that is not largely because his game was 'designed' for the conditions of his day, it is because he simply wasn't as professional - I think it's analogous with asking would a club cricketer if transferred instantaneously to test cricket average the same? No, they wouldn't. And before some annoying person pipes in, I am not saying Clarrie Grimmett couldn't be as good if he was raised in the modern era and had the same opportunities to adapt to the modern game. All I'm saying is it's impossible to have any idea of just how good he would be, when we are comparing eras where the standards where qualitatively different.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Grimmett was a pretty fastidious trainer from what I can gather, and also incredibly accurate. I think Grimmett could be transported straight in to the current Ashes squad and he'd be very successful.
I've seen a fair bit of footage of early era bowlers, like Jack Gregory, Ted McDonald, Larwood, Bedser, Lindwall, Miller, Trueman etc. There's no reason to think they weren't as quick and/or as skilful as modern day bowlers, at all.
I've seen a fair bit of footage of early era bowlers, like Jack Gregory, Ted McDonald, Larwood, Bedser, Lindwall, Miller, Trueman etc. There's no reason to think they weren't as quick and/or as skilful as modern day bowlers, at all.
Ruckus
International Captain
This is just a small sample of footage out there. If you think those standards are the same as today's, well I think you're a bit confused, but people can make up their own minds...THEY'RE WELL AFTER THOSE "ASHES" - British Pathé Grimmett at the 1 minute mark as well.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I was going to crack the ****s at you complaining about people being dicks and saying Bradman isn't the best, and then engaging them, but by absolute accident I think you may have brought up a great point.
A few decades ago it was just a given that Bradman was the greatest and everyone accepted it. Even in India - you asked someone 10-15 years ago in India and they'd have said Bradman was the best. However as more and more information about the game has become available some people are finding it harder to accept that he was the best. They're wrong, no doubt, because Bradman simply was the best. But what is interesting about your post is the fact that people just simply can't accept that someone like Bradman was THAT much better than Viv, Sachin etc. (when he simply was). Its almost a testament to Bradman that his record was SO ****ING GOOD that people just refuse to believe that he'd have done it in whatever era. They refuse to accept that since he was better than all his peers it means he's the best, taking into account his environment. It just goes to show that his record is so ****ing good, its genuinely unbelievable for some.
Honestly WAFG Bradman is.
Last edited:
Ruckus
International Captain
There's plenty of match footage (Ashes stuff as well) on the same site I just linked...the standards aren't any different.
Ruckus
International Captain
I personally think Bradman was the best, but I have to admit, I don't subscribe to that belief with such conviction that most people do. And it is because of the reason you highlighted - if he really was nearly twice as good as all of those greats you mentioned, then he must have been a biological freak of nature, with something qualitatively different about him to everyone else. Because we are already comparing him to the best in the sport, who themselves are very gifted naturally (you don't just find a Tendulkar in the street). For someone to possess such a natural gift is probably comparable to being something like a prodigious savant (only about 100 in the entire world). When we are talking such mind-boggling rarity, there will always be some doubt in my mind.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Damn you, people, you are going to make me accept something untoward on a cricket forum. Bradman the best sportsperson of all time? Not even close. Because whether we like it or not, the best sportsperson will come from sports like Tennis, Swimming, Boxing, Cycling etc. The competition between a bowler-batsman (as much as I love the game), pitcher-batter etc is not as much of a thing.
Michael Phelps comes close, so does Muhammad Ali, so does Roger Federer, so does Diego Maradona.
Michael Phelps comes close, so does Muhammad Ali, so does Roger Federer, so does Diego Maradona.
Ruckus
International Captain
What sport do people think requires the most effort/skills to get really good at? I'd be tempted to say football, because it requires a lot of finer skills, fitness training, and covers most of the other bases...plus the competition and pressure is the highest out of any sport on the planet. Would also consider tennis, but people are naturally way more dextrous at using their hands than feet so I feel that's another tick for football.
Last edited:
- Status