Why is Bradman the greatest ever?

[The Sean]

By today's standards and seeing taking into account that he played long inning, lets presume he went into a series today with hours of footage for teams to expose him and find a potential weakness. Perhaps in his 36/37 series he could have scored a mere 200 runs and maybe in 1934, he could have been run out by third umpire on a 100 instead of making 300. Perhaps he would have been particularly vulnerable to spin bowling in India and could tour there 2 tournaments for a mere 600 runs in 6 matches that could take 900 runs off his total, add 600 and 12 innings which does not even take into consideration fatigue which is a major factor in a modern era. That's 6696 runs in 93 (taking into consideration an innings of not out) knocks for an average of 72. Certainly makes him more human. It's perfectly feasible to make assumptions like this seeing as he is labelled the greatest of all time which is also an assumption that people claim unless the modern era does not fall under the "all time" category.

Let's also assume that instead of playing three-quarters of his Test career on uncovered pitches against the strongest possible opposition, he instead got to play on perfectly prepared motorways with roped in boundaries under today's FTP and was able to cash in against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and other minnows far more than 25% of the time, while actually getting the benefit of the doubt of the third umpire and coming out ahead rather than behind because he was correctly given not out on 32 and ended up making 285. All while training under modern coaching and fitness regimes with computer and video analysis of every bowler he was likely to come up against, and without having to stew for weeks while holed up on a ship travelling to play anywhere.

It's perfectly feasible in this instance to assume he would have averaged about 1,000.

I like this game.

 

[jboss]

Averaged 100 for 52 tests without a helmet or a DLF Maximum bat.

Case closed.

He played all his test against one country. Does that mean if Kallis played 50 matches against Bangladesh as the only other opposition with no third umpire runouts no fatigue and predictable bowling make him the greatest if he hasan inflated record?

 

[Red]

So Bradman's incredible legacy can be explained away by the lack of third umpire run outs, lack of fatigue (wtf?) and the predictability of the bowlers he faced?

Of course! He was a ****ing lucky hack!

 

[Flem274*]

He played all his test against one country. Does that mean if Kallis played 50 matches against Bangladesh as the only other opposition with no third umpire runouts no fatigue and predictable bowling make him the greatest if he hasan inflated record?

Were England the cricketing equivalent of Bangladesh back then?

Exactly. Now I'm going to leave you to it.

 

[jboss]

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.

In the modern era Tendulkar has a high average. Ponting, Hayden, Waugh, Clarke, Smith, Cook, Yousuf and Kallis all averaged roughly the same as him, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.

In every era, the best few batsmen have had peers who average something similar to them.

Except in Bradman's era, Bradman had a high average. No one averaged anywhere near his average.

He is not only the most dominant and best batsman of all time, he is the most dominant sportsman in any sport, ever.

So presuming in tomorrow's flawed era. Test matches are only played between SA vs India on a flat track. Batsmen almost never get out and seem to only score hundred for an average of 100 or even 150. Given that the era determines the circumstances under which cricket is played any of those fortunate players will be the greatest of all time.

 

[Satyanash89]

He played all his test against one country. Does that mean if Kallis played 50 matches against Bangladesh as the only other opposition with no third umpire runouts no fatigue and predictable bowling make him the greatest if he hasan inflated record?

Youve outdone yourself now. A better comparison would be if Kallis played all his matches against Australia. Makes the Don's records even more remarkable that he averaged that high even though he played his whole career,apart from a handful of matches, against the best possible opposition.

 

[benchmark00]

Because there was no third umpire is probably my favourite argument so far.

 

[cnerd123]

It's like arguing with a toddler. No matter what you say or what logic you put forward, the toddler is going to walk away thinking he won the debate.

You can't reason with people like this. Why bother?

 

[jboss]

Were England the cricketing equivalent of Bangladesh back then?

Exactly. Now I'm going to leave you to it.

They certainly look the part on paper against one country. It looks like Australia were minnow bashers with England being the Minnows of the time.

 

[benchmark00]

And how good is the 'no video analysis' argument, despite he then goes on to say that he played only one opponent. Well then, wouldn't the opposition have worked him out despite the lack of video??

 

[Satyanash89]

It looks like Australia were minnow bashers with England being the Minnows of the time.

wow...

 

[jboss]

And how good is the 'no video analysis' argument, despite he then goes on to say that he played only one opponent. Well then, wouldn't the opposition have worked him out despite the lack of video??

It's a valid argument that affects the statistics of batsmen in the modern era.Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition with almost ever country in the 90's knowing how vulnerable SA were to spin before some even got to play a test series against them. You act like teams don't use video footage in the modern era if I understand your comments correctly. They simply base it on the last test series! So Eng must have miraculously decided that Dumminy was vulnerable to short bowling despite not even playing against him before last visit to SA.

 

[benchmark00]

It's a valid argument that affects the statistics of batsmen in the modern era.Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition with almost ever country in the 90's knowing how vulnerable SA were to spin before some even got to play a test series against them. You act like teams don't use video footage in the modern era if I understand your comments correctly. They simply base it on the last test series! So Eng must have miraculously decided that Dumminy was vulnerable to short bowling despite not even playing against him before last visit to SA.

"Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition"

Well Bradman only played against England.... so why would not having video footage be an argument??

Can't have your cake and eat it too big guy.

 

[Red]

This thread kicks arse!

 

[CricAddict]

So presuming in tomorrow's flawed era. Test matches are only played between SA vs India on a flat track. Batsmen almost never get out and seem to only score hundred for an average of 100 or even 150. Given that the era determines the circumstances under which cricket is played any of those fortunate players will be the greatest of all time.

In case there is a future era in which batsmen score hundreds for fun and average over 100, they will be compared to the peers of their era and seen. If there is a batsman there who is a totally positive outlier, say averages 200 to the rest of the batsmen averaging 100, then he can be talked about as possibly a contender to Bradman as the greatest of all time.

It is not just about the number 99.94. It is about how it compares to the peers in his era and how no one at that time was even close to it. Hope you get the point.

 

[The Sean]

Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition

Ah so then England must have worked Bradman out completely, given how often they played against him! Right?

 

[benchmark00]

Ah so then England must have worked Bradman out completely, given how often they played against him! Right?

Stop stealing my posts boi.

tbh, he walked into it easier than I could have imagined.

 

[The Sean]

Stop stealing my posts boi.

tbh, he walked into it easier than I could have imagined.

Imitation, flattery etc.

 

[centurymaker]

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. how can you know that tendulkar would've even fared well in the pre helmets era..

 

[jboss]

"Sure if India were only playing Pakistan then one nation would no almost by heart the weaknesses of opposition"

Well Bradman only played against England.... so why would not having video footage be an argument??

Can't have your cake and eat it too big guy.

Due to the fact that even though SA had only played one test against against phil Hughes they already had exposed his potential weakness against short bowling the next game. He made two hundreds in a single game for an average of over a hundred. This strategy was also used against him (through video footage I presume) by England sucesfully despite having never played against him. By all logic Hughes would hav gone into previous Ashes as a gun player with no weakness based on record, but was worked out before even playing against England. I don't see any validity in denying that video footage is used in the modern era against batsmen (and to assist bowlers with correct actions).

Eng bowlers may have had faulty actions against Bradman that could have been corrected in modern era.