Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[social]

Cricket is a game of skill especially batting, don't think it equates to an average of 100 because you didn't drink or smoke. Warne anyone

Skill will always be paramount and one of the beauties of cricket is that they are always evolving

In W G Graces time, the "mystery" ball was a googly

Bradman never had to face reverse swing or doosras

Until the late 60s, fieldsmen did not leave their feet to stop a ball

 

[Coronis]

But he clearly said 50 or 60 which is the same as others.

This reminds me of something from a Bradman biography I have "it couldn't be that the tracks were only flat for Bradman" or something to that effect... Maybe thats sobers no 1's view.

 

[kyear2]

So Hobbs and co would be mid 30s then, bull****.

I disagree, Bradman was a genius and a great batsman, but those who belive that he would have averaged the same out in any other era are seriously fooling themselves. Hobbs did have some favorable rules, but he played on much tougher wickets and played in a much more bolwer friendly conditions, especially before the war. Bradman was the result of a perfect storm; immence talent and ability, flawless consistency, weak opposition (outside of England), immencely strong team and batsmen around him, flat tracks (especially at home), only two great fast bowlers played againts, regulations favoring the batsmen (smaller stumps and old lbw law) and Bradman, like Grace before him was the man, the main attraction and everyone knew it. He averaged over 200 againts South Africa and over 160 vs India, it's this as much as his record againts England that puses his average towards the hundred mark that defines his legacy. He is the best, but he was also the product of all around him and to his credit was the best suited to take advantage of it.

 

[watson]

I disagree, Bradman was a genius and a great batsman, but those who belive that he would have averaged the same out in any other era are seriously fooling themselves. Hobbs did have some favorable rules, but he played on much tougher wickets and played in a much more bolwer friendly conditions, especially before the war. Bradman was the result of a perfect storm; immence talent and ability, flawless consistency, weak opposition (outside of England), immencely strong team and batsmen around him, flat tracks (especially at home), only two great fast bowlers played againts, regulations favoring the batsmen (smaller stumps and old lbw law) and Bradman, like Grace before him was the man, the main attraction and everyone knew it. He averaged over 200 againts South Africa and over 160 vs India, it's this as much as his record againts England that puses his average towards the hundred mark that defines his legacy. He is the best, but he was also the product of all around him and to his credit was the best suited to take advantage of it.

This still doesn't explain why Ponsford and McCabe didn't average in the 60s or 70s if they played most of their Test cricket in the 1930s like Bradman, and therefore benefited from the same batter friendly conditions.

(Incidently, McCabe played 2 series against RSA and averaged 'only' 56.45. His 5 Tests against the West Indies yielded 196 runs at 32.66.)

Having said that, I do think that Bradman's stats could not be repeated if he played in the 1970s onwards. The hectic schedule involving ODIs and a relentless battery of West Indian and Pakistani fast bowlers would not allow for an Average of nearly 100. As a rough guess I would suggest that he would Average in the mid-70s for his 52 Test matches.

I would also guess that Stan McCabe might actually improve his average a little bit due to his brilliant footwork against fast-bowling. On-the-other-hand, I would expect Ponsford's average to fall to around 40, as he would have real technical difficulties against Snow, Holding, Roberts, Imran etc

 

[fredfertang]

Personally I think that in terms of batting ability Stan McCabe was every bit as good a batsman as Bradman, the difference between them (and a very significant one at that) being that he simply didn't have that all-consuming desire to succeed at all costs and the relentless ability to concentrate consistently that that brings with it

 

[watson]

Personally I think that in terms of batting ability Stan McCabe was every bit as good a batsman as Bradman, the difference between them (and a very significant one at that) being that he simply didn't have that all-consuming desire to succeed at all costs and the relentless ability to concentrate consistently that that brings with it

If Bradman played in the modern era and therefore tallied 100-150 Test matches, as well as a similar amount of ODIs, do you think that he would average near 100?

I think that when people are sceptical of Bradman they are not really questioning his batting skill, footwork, or reflexes. But rather they are calling into question his ability to maintain motivation and concentration during a gruelling and concentrated schedule of cricket formats.

In other words, it would be very interesting to watch Bradman as a member of Bill Lawry's Australian side that toured India in 1969/70, then South Africa straight after. It seems quite reasonable to surpose that Bradman would have come unstuck like the rest of the top-order when fronting up to a rampaging Procter on a Cape Town green-top after battling for a couple of months on the dusty pitches of India. Fatigue and contrasting conditions may have got the better of him.

 

[centurymaker]

I am in total agreement with watson's last two posts.

 

[smash84]

If Bradman played in the modern era and therefore tallied 100-150 Test matches, as well as a similar amount of ODIs, do you think that he would average near 100?

I think that when people are sceptical of Bradman they are not really questioning his batting skill, footwork, or reflexes. But rather they are calling into question his ability to maintain motivation and concentration during a gruelling and concentrated schedule of cricket formats.

In other words, it would be very interesting to watch Bradman as a member of Bill Lawry's Australian side that toured India in 1969/70, then South Africa straight after. It seems quite reasonable to surpose that Bradman would have come unstuck like the rest of the top-order when fronting up to a rampaging Procter on a Cape Town green-top after battling for a couple of months on the dusty pitches of India. Fatigue and contrasting conditions may have got the better of him.

 

[fredfertang]

If Bradman played in the modern era and therefore tallied 100-150 Test matches, as well as a similar amount of ODIs, do you think that he would average near 100?

I think that when people are sceptical of Bradman they are not really questioning his batting skill, footwork, or reflexes. But rather they are calling into question his ability to maintain motivation and concentration during a gruelling and concentrated schedule of cricket formats.

In other words, it would be very interesting to watch Bradman as a member of Bill Lawry's Australian side that toured India in 1969/70, then South Africa straight after. It seems quite reasonable to surpose that Bradman would have come unstuck like the rest of the top-order when fronting up to a rampaging Procter on a Cape Town green-top after battling for a couple of months on the dusty pitches of India. Fatigue and contrasting conditions may have got the better of him.

He had four full of tours of England and never averaged less than 80 odd so I'm not convinced it would have made much difference if he had had a more hectic schedule, nor that playing in more varied conditions would have fazed him - and as far as the present day is concerned I think he might have gained more from the better equipment and the lack of sticky wickets and leg theory than he would have lost elsewhere - the bloke was a one-off

 

[sobers no:1]

WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?

not only bradman , all the abnormal performers WG , SFB , headley , hobbs after 40 ..
their peers were not as competitive as them. but they all can cope up with changing conditions by increasing their competency, a more professional approach. that will reduce gap btwn players.

bradman 100 , hammond 55 = say , 10% competency
bradman 50 , hammond 22.5 = 10% competency

competency remains the same when you reduce the numbers proportionally .

if you increase competency by 5% that may result in reducing the gap by 20%
then bradman 80 , hammond 55

another example
dhyanchand alone scoring 15 goals , opponent team returns 5 goals
now you think , today's game is more competitive so the figures would be dhyanchand 7.5 goals , opposite 2.5 goals. that is illogical . dhyanchandhs/WGs/dons all will become, best among equals . nothing more nothing less.

imagine WG with an average of 110 and don with 100 in modern era.

 

[social]

Tbh, in the few clips that I have seen of Bradman batting, he is far from orthodox (very, very bottom-handed) and hardly an attractive batsman

By way of comparison, McCabe was apparently very orthodox and very good to watch

However, as you say, biggest diference was allegedly in their mentality

 

[sobers no:1]

Personally I think that in terms of batting ability Stan McCabe was every bit as good a batsman as Bradman, the difference between them (and a very significant one at that) being that he simply didn't have that all-consuming desire to succeed at all costs and the relentless ability to concentrate consistently that that brings with it

this
( i think , bradman himself said something similar, on the difference between him and peers)

 

[centurymaker]

Tbh, in the few clips that I have seen of Bradman batting, he is far from orthodox (very, very bottom-handed) and hardly an attractive batsman

By way of comparison, McCabe was apparently very orthodox and very good to watch

However, as you say, biggest diference was allegedly in their mentality

true that

 

[centurymaker]

He had four full of tours of England and never averaged less than 80 odd so I'm not convinced it would have made much difference if he had had a more hectic schedule, nor that playing in more varied conditions would have fazed him - and as far as the present day is concerned I think he might have gained more from the better equipment and the lack of sticky wickets and leg theory than he would have lost elsewhere - the bloke was a one-off

In present day he might have averaged a bit more than say in 70s- till 2000, where I don't believe his average would have been anymore than 75, if not 70

 

[smash84]

I think his average from 70s-90s would be less than that in the 00s

 

[centurymaker]

assuming that he would've played at least 100 tests, not just 52

 

[sobers no:1]

I think his average from 70s-90s would be less than that in the 00s

getting older wont help averaging more

 

[Coronis]

getting older wont help averaging more

Bradman actually averaged more after the war.

 

[sobers no:1]

Bradman actually averaged more after the war.

see , i said that already.. he was abnormal

 

[social]

I think his average from 70s-90s would be less than that in the 00s

Trying to estimate what Bradman would average in the modern game is nothing more than pure speculation and will never reach agreement

For those that say that he would still average around 100, that means that he would be nearly twice as effective as Viv, Sunil and Greg Chappell - I'm calling total bs on that one

For those that say that he would average say 70, that means the likes of Hammond would be nothing more than average batsmen or slightly above

I treat the Don in the same way as I treat Babe Ruth - rather than picking holes in their resume (e.g. the Babe never played with or against the races that dominate modern day baseball), it's best just to respect their achievements and afford them the place in history they deserve