Why is Bradman the greatest ever?

[flibbertyjibber]

He just was. End of discussion.

 

[Burgey]

i don't know. mebbe they're and mebbe they'ren't but it sure as hell ain't as clear-cut as ye are trying to make it sound by resorting to reductio ad absurdum in this instance

But you can. Great players are great players. They adapt, they grow as the game changes. Tendulkar is an example of that himself, so was Bradman. The game isn't static, but when blokes have careers which last decades and they're fantastic players, then you can comfortably say they'd be great no matter the era.

Bradman debuted before the depression, went through Bodyline then played post-war under rules allowing a new ball every 55 overs. Tendulkar debuted in an era dominated by pace, went through the 90s then into a more spin-dominated era in the 2000s. He adapted and excelled, because he's a great player.

But he didn't manage to average 40 points higher than the best of his peers. That's why I think you can comfortably say Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time, and by some insane margin.

 

[Beleg]

Good argument you've put forward there

oh resorting to ad hominem are we now?

burgey conjured up a ridiculous oversimplification and then proceeded to use it as the basis for a confrontational non-sequitur. the post deserves all the disdain you can heap on it. if he actually wants a productive discussion then he needs to lay off the grumpy old gramps schtick

but at least he managed to put up a sembleance of substance
all you croaked out's a reek inducing excretion doused in group(ie)think

 

[Top_Cat]

Standard bell curve

Distribution of Test averages

Discuss.

 

[Beleg]

But you can. Great players are great players. They adapt, they grow as the game changes. Tendulkar is an example of that himself, so was Bradman. The game isn't static, but when blokes have careers which last decades and they're fantastic players, then you can comfortably say they'd be great no matter the era.

Bradman debuted before the depression, went through Bodyline then played post-war under rules allowing a new ball every 55 overs. Tendulkar debuted in an era dominated by pace, went through the 90s then into a more spin-dominated era in the 2000s. He adapted and excelled, because he's a great player.

But he didn't manage to average 40 points higher than the best of his peers. That's why I think you can comfortably say Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time, and by some insane margin.

and i am not denying bradman's excellence. there's clearly something sublime about the manner in which he not only adapted to changing conditions but also managed to dominate his peers so effortlessly


however, cricket in his era was a very different ballgame. he'd didn't really have many peers to speak of, to begin with. the sheer variation in pitches, tactics, expectations, the pressure that stems from being under constant media scrutiny in a manner unimaginable to the celebs in 1930s, the targetted assaults aided by all manners of tech-stuff, the attitudes towards fielding, the selection policies, the underlying cricketing strategies, there's so many variables here that i don't see how you can use linear interpolation to reduce all of 'em to a matter of mere averages. or, well, you can do that, but it isn't really productive if ye are interested in an objective'ish approach to the process. statistics without context are utterly useless, imo

i'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's actually watched the players in question and can focus on difference in application/technique/yer common cleverness on the fields as a means of baselining across the different eras


and i don't reckon tendulkar is the best player ever. well i might say so at times if i feel like taking the piss or winding someone up or some such but the truth is i just don't know how to compare across eras, based on statistical evidence, in a way that accounts for most, let alone all, the anomalies.

 

[andyc]

Standard bell curve

Distribution of Test averages

Discuss.

Came here to post this. Tells it all really.

 

[Cabinet96]

Standard bell curve

Distribution of Test averages

Discuss.

I assume that ODI one is out of date?

 

[NasserFan207]

and i am not denying bradman's excellence. there's clearly something sublime about the manner in which he not only adapted to changing conditions but also managed to dominate his peers so effortlessly


however, cricket in his era was a very different ballgame. he'd didn't really have many peers to speak of, to begin with. the sheer variation in pitches, tactics, expectations, the pressure that stems from being under constant media scrutiny in a manner unimaginable to the celebs in 1930s, the targetted assaults aided by all manners of tech-stuff, the attitudes towards fielding, the selection policies, the underlying cricketing strategies, there's so many variables here that i don't see how you can use linear interpolation to reduce all of 'em to a matter of mere averages. or, well, you can do that, but it isn't really productive if ye are interested in an objective'ish approach to the process. statistics without context are utterly useless, imo

i'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's actually watched the players in question and can focus on difference in application/technique/yer common cleverness on the fields as a means of baselining across the different eras


and i don't reckon tendulkar is the best player ever. well i might say so at times if i feel like taking the piss or winding someone up or some such but the truth is i just don't know how to compare across eras, based on statistical evidence, in a way that accounts for most, let alone all, the anomalies.

Because averages, or at least averages in relation to peers is all we have to go on mate. There's literally no way we could say how Bradman would've done in todays era, nor does that stop him from being the GOAT

 

[centurymaker]

the fact that viv richards would scare the living hell out of pacers in a era without helmets, he has to go down as the greatest batsman imo.

after bradman

 

[Top_Cat]

however, cricket in his era was a very different ballgame. he'd didn't really have many peers to speak of, to begin with. the sheer variation in pitches, tactics, expectations, the pressure that stems from being under constant media scrutiny in a manner unimaginable to the celebs in 1930s, the targetted assaults aided by all manners of tech-stuff, the attitudes towards fielding, the selection policies, the underlying cricketing strategies, there's so many variables here that i don't see how you can use linear interpolation to reduce all of 'em to a matter of mere averages. or, well, you can do that, but it isn't really productive if ye are interested in an objective'ish approach to the process. statistics without context are utterly useless, imo

i'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's actually watched the players in question and can focus on difference in application/technique/yer common cleverness on the fields as a means of baselining across the different eras


and i don't reckon tendulkar is the best player ever. well i might say so at times if i feel like taking the piss or winding someone up or some such but the truth is i just don't know how to compare across eras, based on statistical evidence, in a way that accounts for most, let alone all, the anomalies.

Agreed if the averages were with cooee of each other, though. 4.4 std's away from the others is ludicrous and, more importantly, unlikely to be explained by chance, pressure celebrity, video evidence, etc.

 

[benchmark00]

lol. There are no excuses for this thread.

 

[NUFAN]

In Don's day there were no third umpire runouts and we don't know the size of ground he played on surely he would have at leat one runout going against him.

This is the worse reasoning ever. We know the size of the ground. Some of the stadiums he played in are still around and they didn't have ropes or anything so they were actually bigger and with lighter bats.

The distribution of Test averages says it all.

 

[andyc]

The run out argument is also stupid because, as with most arguments about this (increases in technology, training, etc.), people forget it goes both ways. He may well have been run out even though the third umpire may have shown him to be not out.

 

[uvelocity]

woftam

 

[watson]

and i am not denying bradman's excellence. there's clearly something sublime about the manner in which he not only adapted to changing conditions but also managed to dominate his peers so effortlessly


however, cricket in his era was a very different ballgame. he'd didn't really have many peers to speak of, to begin with. the sheer variation in pitches, tactics, expectations, the pressure that stems from being under constant media scrutiny in a manner unimaginable to the celebs in 1930s, the targetted assaults aided by all manners of tech-stuff, the attitudes towards fielding, the selection policies, the underlying cricketing strategies, there's so many variables here that i don't see how you can use linear interpolation to reduce all of 'em to a matter of mere averages. or, well, you can do that, but it isn't really productive if ye are interested in an objective'ish approach to the process. statistics without context are utterly useless, imo

i'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's actually watched the players in question and can focus on difference in application/technique/yer common cleverness on the fields as a means of baselining across the different eras


and i don't reckon tendulkar is the best player ever. well i might say so at times if i feel like taking the piss or winding someone up or some such but the truth is i just don't know how to compare across eras, based on statistical evidence, in a way that accounts for most, let alone all, the anomalies.

This is one of the most insightful posts I read in a long time. Thanks.

IMO I don't think that it is possible to rank the various decades (from the1880's to the present) according to their quality of cricket with objective certainty.

When I participate in a Draft I bias my choices to players from the 1980s because I 'intuitively feel' that the1980s is the pinnacle of cricket excellence. But I can't really explain my motivations in any 'concrete' sense. Although I could have a good go if pushed.

Conversely, I have a natural antipathy toward players who played the bulk of their career prior to WWI, but again I can't really explain why.

Hence, all we are really left with are relative comparisons between players of the same era/decade. Bradman was streets ahead of his peers therefore he is the greatest by definition. That sort of thing.

But even measuring players from the same era is fraught with danger. If you were to compare Ricky Ponting with Michael Clarke then you may be tempted to say Michael Clarke is greater because you had forgotten the Ricky Ponting of 2001, and had just seen Michael Clarke rattle up a double century against Steyn and Morkel. In other words, which Ricky Ponting do you choose to compare to which Michael Clarke? There are endless varieties of both these two cricketers.

 

[JBMAC]

Out of all the odd claims in cricket in the modern era I find this the most puzzling.

On paper no one would question him due to an unmatched record, but surely in our generation it is unwarranted to make such claims as none of us witnessed him or saw what he was capable of. 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.

In Don's day there were no third umpire runouts and we don't know the size of ground he played on surely he would have at leat one runout going against him. We also know that batsmen of our generation play cricket under far more stress with more globe trotting for longer periods, shorter intervals, and more stress with cricket being a career for some and extra pressure from fans, etc. More importantly the variety of opposition and wickets is a major factor that surely needs to be taken into consideration and lastly even umpiring is likely more professional today than yesteryear.

I feel comfortable with calling Tendulkar the greatest ever and know zero about Bradman beyond wha'ts on paper.

Final factor (a big one) hours of video footage today that teams look through to expose potential weakness areas that batsman have. Look at Phil Hughes as an example.

What a load of codswallop! I was not going to even bother replying until I saw where you are purportedly based. Referring to highlighted section above, I saw Bradman play his cricket and have been fortunate also to have seen Tendulkar.The former rates well above the latter. As for the other diatribe you sprout I feel you must have been a Kiwi in another life as your posts remind me of one long departed from here.

 

[Burgey]

Was hoping for a Mac Attack here. Top stuff.

 

[benchmark00]

Was hoping for a Mac Attack here. Top stuff.

What are your memories of seeing Bradman when you were a teenager?

 

[uvelocity]

But even measuring players from the same era is fraught with danger. If you were to compare Ricky Ponting with Michael Clarke then you may be tempted to say Michael Clarke is greater because you had forgotten the Ricky Ponting of 2001, and had just seen Michael Clarke rattle up a double century against Steyn and Morkel. In other words, which Ricky Ponting do you choose to compare to which Michael Clarke? There are endless varieties of both these two cricketers.

you answered your own question. Clarke is approaching a level currently which can be compared with Ponting. Nobody has even flattered to imitate Bradman, even for a short period before or since.

The only people you can compare Bradman to are from other fields. Michael Jordan, Einstein, Spielberg, Bill Gates.

 

[benchmark00]

you answered your own question. Clarke is approaching a level currently which can be compared with Ponting. Nobody has even flattered to imitate Bradman, even for a short period before or since.

The only people you can compare Bradman to are from other fields. Michael Jordan, Einstein, Spielberg, Bill Gates.

And I stand out from my fellow posters like Bradman did to his peers.