The 'real' Steven Smith question...

[subshakerz]

? Last three attacks he's faced in Tests are arguably the three best pace attacks in the world outside of Aus, which obviously he can't face.

Pakistans was a poor attack. NZ had no Jamieson or Boult for most the series. Indias attack was weakened most of the series. This Eng attack is ok.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Then in hockey, you have Dhyan Chand who scored more international goals than anyone and at an incredible rate!

1. Chand 570 goals in 185 games

2. Abbas 348 goals in 311 games

Go through the entire list of 50 highest scorers in international hockey and except Dhyan Chand and B Singh, everyone on the list is scoring roughly 1 goal a game or less!

The fact that Chand has scored easily 2-3 times more goals than other top scorers and usually at 3 times the rate-- is a greater statistic than Bradman's.

List of men's field hockey players with 100 or more international goals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

By the same standard used, Chand is easily the greatest hockey player ever and so much superior to anyone else ever. But truth is hockey was also not truly professional in his era and he was so far ahead of everyone. This is similar to Bradman's average in his pre-professional era/amateur era.

In other sports people are sensible enough to realise that the sport has improved drastically and so stats from amateur eras cannot be taken at face value. But only in cricket deluded people still look at ancient amateur averages or pre-professional averages and take them at face value. And then start calling Bradman greatest ever athelete/sportsman, when it cannot be further from the truth.

I would take Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Messi and Ronaldo easily over Bradman as they all are far superior athletes and sportsmen, having broken world records in intensely competitive and professional era.

This is a great post.
No replies on this yet.
Actually I don't think many people consider Dhyanchand as the GOAT player, let alone great most of them haven't even heard about him.
Looks like Hockey fans are way more sensible.

 

[centurymaker]

This is a great post.
No replies on this yet.
Actually I don't think many people consider Dhyanchand as the GOAT player, let alone great most of them haven't even heard about him.
Looks like Hockey fans are way more sensible.

No genuine replies because cricket fans continue to hold on to the myth that there hasn’t been a sportsman who‘s been as statistically superior to his peers as Bradman was.

FTR, Dhyan Chand was so good that Germans felt he had some sort of magnet on his stick, that the ball would barely go too far from it when dribbling, so apparently they had his hockey stick tested!

Dhyan Chand (29 August 1905 – 3 December 1979) was an Indian field hockey player widely regarded as the greatest field hockey player in history and one of the greatest players of all time according to Britannica Encyclopaedia.[6] He was known for his extraordinary ball control and goal-scoring feats, in addition to earning three Olympic gold medals, in 1928, 1932 and 1936, during an era where India dominated field hockey. His influence extended beyond these victories, as India won the field hockey event in seven out of eight Olympics from 1928 to 1964.[7]

Known as The Wizard or The Magician of hockey for his superb ball control, Chand played internationally from 1926 to 1949 where he scored 570 goals in 185 matches according to his autobiography, Goal[12][13] and over 1000 goals in his entire domestic and international career.[14] BBC called him the "hockey's equivalent of Muhammad Ali“

But of course all this was achieved when game wasn’t as competitive so he isn’t universally considered as the best player of all time.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Number of 50 or 50+ avg batsmen in top 25 run scorers

1920s - 10
Australia 4
England 6

1930s - 11
Australia 2
England 7

1940s - 16
Australia 5
England 4

1970s - 6
Australia 2
England 1

1980s - 4
Australia 2
England 0

1990s - 4
Australia 1
England 1

This is interesting!

 

[Nikhil99.94]

((No genuine replies because cricket fans continue to hold on to the myth that there hasn’t been a sportsman who‘s been as statistically superior to his peers as Bradman was.))

B.Singh averaged more goals per game than chand did.But no one averaged over 61 compared to bradmans 99.94 ever.How is chands record even comparable to Bradman cause B.Singh surpassed him ,no one came anywhere near D.G Bradman.No one comes close to matching bradmans dominance. That is enough to say who was more dominant.Chand is S.f Barnes or George lohmann will be better fit ,I guess of hockey. cashed in at a time when goal scoring was far higher.One of the greatest like S.F Barnes but really debeateable to be no.1 in his own department.

 

[andruid]

Bolt was a doper. Shouldn’t be in this conversation

As his drug supplier you should know

 

[centurymaker]

This is interesting!

With increase in competitive countries, despite increase in number of batsmen playing, it led to even fewer batsmen averaging high.

That’s when you know the game became truly professional and competitive and so stats can be taken more at face value.

 

[centurymaker]

B.Singh averaged more goals per game than chand did.But no one averaged over 61 compared to bradmans 99.94 ever.How is chands record even comparable to Bradman cause B.Singh surpassed him ,no one came anywhere near D.G Bradman.No one comes close to matching bradmans dominance. That is enough to say who was more dominant.Chand is S.f Barnes or George lohmann will be better fit ,I guess of hockey. cashed in at a time when goal scoring was far higher.One of the greatest like S.F Barnes but really debeateable to be no.1 in his own department.

Singh played 60 games, Chand played 185 games.


Because fortunately for Bradman no one else came along from the two countries to dominate the game in pre-competitive era. Only two countries were playing seriously and they had a smallish population and they failed to produce a rival to dominate in pre era.


India on the other hand had a vast population and with hockey being the number one sport by far, India was producing gun hockey players back then and they happened to produce a rival or two, who could absolutely dominate in the amateur era.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

B.Singh averaged more goals per game than chand did.But no one averaged over 61 compared to bradmans 99.94 ever.How is chands record even comparable to Bradman cause B.Singh surpassed him ,no one came anywhere near D.G Bradman.No one comes close to matching bradmans dominance. That is enough to say who was more dominant.Chand is S.f Barnes or George lohmann will be better fit ,I guess of hockey. cashed in at a time when goal scoring was far higher.One of the greatest like S.F Barnes but really debeateable to be no.1 in his own department.

The only reason SF Barnes isn't rated as the Bradman of bowling is bcoz he has taken 189 wickets only unlike Dhyanchand who is still the highest goal scorer ever in hockey.
If SF Barnes had more wickets than Murali at an average of 16 then he would also be hailed as the GOAT.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Singh played 60 games, Chand played 185 games.


Because fortunately for Bradman no one else came along from the two countries to dominate the game in pre-competitive era. Only two countries were playing seriously and they had a smallish population and they failed to produce a rival to dominate in pre era.


India on the other hand had a vast population and with hockey being the number one sport by far, India was producing gun hockey players back then and they happened to produce a rival or two, who could absolutely dominate in the amateur era.

Haha.Headley was bradmans contemporary,nourse was from sa ,hazare from ind and dempster from nz who were bradmans contemporary.So that will be 6.
Hockey wouldn’t even match cricket popularity and chand came no one close to matching D.G bradmans dominance.
Hockey’s popularity is quite overrated in India tbh cause we’re still under Britain those days.If it was so popular 1971 cricket series victory in eng wouldn’t be so close to throw hockey from no.1 in india.Hockey would be bit more famous than cricket before 83.It was never like what cricket is now.
It wasn’t fortunate for bradman no one was as good as him.It’s just there couldn’t have been one.Cricket was pretty much the same before 70s and no one came close from 1921-1970,that shows the greatness of the man.

The only reason SF Barnes isn't rated as the Bradman of bowling is bcoz he has taken 189 wickets only unlike Dhyanchand who is still the highest goal scorer ever in hockey.

The stats of S.F is same as chand.For S.f he had 189 wkts at the time of his retirement whereas the no.2 was at 100.The reason why S.f isn’t called no.1 because he cashed in at bowling friendly condition like chand did when goal scoring ratio was far higher.Whereas bradmans adjusted stats in any era would be around 93-94 with SR of 65 compared to barnes which would be bowling average of around 21.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

S.F is same as chand.For S.f he had 189 wkts at the time of his retirement whereas the no.2 was at

Lol, how is it the same.
One guy has a record which still stands the other guy's record was wiped clean in a decade.

Secondly, even this logic is wrong, coz Dhyanchand has scored 500 goals, the second best is Sohail Abbas who has 348 goals and is a modern day player, Balbir Singh is at no. 4 and he has 240 goals, the gap is gigantic. No one came close to him in his era.


That's like Shane Warne taking 700 wickets in an era where the second highest wicket taker was SF Barner.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Lol, how is it the same.
One guy has a record which still stands the other guy's record was wiped clean in a decade.

Secondly, even this logic is wrong, coz Dhyanchand has scored 500 goals, the second best is Sohail Abbas who has 348 goals and is a modern day player, Balbir Singh is at no. 4 and he has 240 goals, the gap is gigantic. No one came close to him in his era.


That's like Shane Warne taking 700 wickets in an era where the second highest wicket taker was SF Barner.

No one came close to S.f Barnes in his.I can’t fault S.f cause international matches used to less than now.
So,no one despite any logic /sportsman one can say from any sport has ever been so far and ahead in his field in the history of team sport then bradman was.The most dominant sportsman who ever lived.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I know eventually this thread will be locked but some very strong points put forward by @CodeOfWisden @centurymaker and @Pap Finn Keighl
(and also from some posters who think otherwise).

 

[_00_deathscar]

So,no one despite any logic /sportsman one can say from any sport has ever been so far and ahead in his field in the history of team sport then bradman was.The most dominant sportsman who ever lived.

Apart from all the people who were as/more dominant in their sport as Bradman was.

 

[andruid]

If you don't start talking about Steve Smith this instant!

 

[_00_deathscar]

If you don't start talking about Steve Smith this instant!

The truth is that it just proves how meh Steve Smith is that no one even wants to talk about him in his own thread.

Unlike true GOATs like Jadeja, who is in every thread. Including this one.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

If you don't start talking about Steve Smith this instant!

Better thing would be to rename the thread.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Some f*****g guy bought Bradman to the discussion.He isn’t even in the question.Nobody was so dominant and without anyone being close to his level in the history of team sport like bradman,and it’s a fact.Bradman averaged 99.94 whereas no Aussie who played with or against him or in next decade after/before him averaged over 52 and aus has been the best cricket team of all time and by a mile.And thats enough to say how good the man was.And crickets participation and popularity during 30s in Australia and England was undoubtedly far more than now.Wi,ind,sa,Nz had some good/great batsman too.
It’s your opinion if you consider him the greatest sportsman of all time or not.If you do it’s no wrong and if you don’t it’s no wrong as well.I personally do have him no.1 and that ain’t any wrong.
He was just too great of a cricketer.

 

[Spark]

Cricket was absolutely the primary sport in both Australia and England during Bradman's time. Football didn't eclipse cricket as the principal sport in the UK until post-war and you could argue it's never been eclipsed in Australia except maybe very recently by AFL.

 

[Nintendo]

Singh played 60 games, Chand played 185 games.


Because fortunately for Bradman no one else came along from the two countries to dominate the game in pre-competitive era. Only two countries were playing seriously and they had a smallish population and they failed to produce a rival to dominate in pre era.


India on the other hand had a vast population and with hockey being the number one sport by far, India was producing gun hockey players back then and they happened to produce a rival or two, who could absolutely dominate in the amateur era.