Bradman, the greatest sportsperson ever?

[smash84]

I'll say this again: in terms of batting average Viv Richards is closer to Chris Martin than he is to Don Bradman.

Your statement is closer to stupid than it is to sensible

Kapil Dev's bowling average is closer to Ishant Sharma (or at least until recently) than it is to Malcolm Marshall, doesn't mean ****

 

[fredfertang]

Your statement is closer to stupid than it is to sensible

It is 100% accurate, so I can't see that - you may not like or agree with the implication, but that's another issue altogether

 

[Coronis]

There was still Snow, Willis, Hadlee, Lillee, Thomson, Hogg, Imran, 2 W's, Botham, Procter, Dev, Indian Quartet and Underwood were the players he faced. Yes, for me the Ali of cricket.

btw Bradman also didn't face the best two bolwers of his era in O'Reilly and Grimmett and the only other great bowlers hed faced were Larwood, Verity and then Bedser after the war, and for all of the critism that Murali gets for plundering Murali, Bradman equally benefitted vs the minnows (weak teams) of his day India and South Africa.

To the original question, Bradman is overrated. The best batsman ever, no doubt. But when people start stating that he was twice as good as (an example recently used) Lara, Tendulkar or Viv or would have absolutely destroyed even the quartet of the '80's and give him almost god like status (despite how they ridicule the India's for similar treatmeant for their hero) the yes he is over rated. But so is Warne, and yes even Sobers.

Late for work, will expand later.

Viv never played against Waqar. He also played 1 match against Procter, scoring 13 and 30. In fact, in that match, facing a bowling attack that was equal to or better than the Windies (Procter, Rice, Le Roux, Underwood), he didn't perform very well at all. He only played two matches against a 35 year old Snow. Just for the record

 

[Dan]

I reckon the whole 'evolution throughout time' is a pretty moot point IMO. There is absolutely no way to tell how Bradman would fare today if he'd been brought up in the modern era with the modern game, and similarly no way to tell if a modern player would succeed if he were born and raised in the 1920s.

To put this in international relations (namely realist) terminology, since I have no other way to really express it, nobody gives a **** about absolute ability. If everyone's special no one's special. What matters is your ability relative to those around you.

So yes, every player in the modern era may, in absolute terms, be significantly better than Don Bradman. But you have a long list of blokes averaging around 50 that are the premier batsmen of the day - nobody stands out from the crowd by a hugely significant margin (on any given day, form notwithstanding, Amla = Cook = Clarke = de Villiers = Pietersen = Smith = Kallis = Tendulkar = Hussey or thereabouts). So in terms of relative ability, the top batsmen of today are remarkable close.

Let's apply this to the 1930s and 1940s. More-or-less, Hutton = Hammond = Headley = whoever else you want to throw in the analysis, but Hutton/Headley/Hammond definitely ≠ Bradman. In absolute terms, you can argue quite readily that Bradman is not as good as Tendulkar because of the evolution of the game and whatnot, but in relative terms, Bradman is that far ahead of anyone else that he is clearly the greatest.

Absolute ability means nothing if you have nothing to compare it to. It takes on value in how it stacks up compared to peers.


So in an ATG selection context, you look at who had that much relative ability compared to their peers, and use that as a measure of greatness - otherwise there is a huge argument that an English ATG XI would look like this:

Cook, Strauss, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Hoggard

simply because the game has evolved since 2000.

 

[Spark]

There is absolutely no way to tell how Bradman would fare today if he'd been brought up in the modern era with the modern game

Disagree. He would have ****ing dominated - his success was built on extraordinary natural hand-eye coordination, concentration and natural skill, which would serve him just as well nowadays.

Human beings didn't suddenly naturally get better at hitting a cricket ball in 1950 or so. That's the whole point.

 

[the big bambino]

btw Bradman also didn't face the best two bolwers of his era in O'Reilly and Grimmett and the only other great bowlers hed faced were Larwood, Verity and then Bedser after the war, and for all of the critism that Murali gets for plundering Murali, Bradman equally benefitted vs the minnows (weak teams) of his day India and South Africa.

Sigh. We've been through this before. Firstly DGB faced Grimmett and O'Reilly several times. Secondly Australia DID NOT have the best bowling of the era. As I've shown you the statistics clearly show that Eng, leading up to the war at least, had a much superior bowling attack than Australia.

SA weren't minnows. They beat England twice who beat Aust in more tests from 28-38. DGB played the great majority of his tests against the strongest team of his era. It is modern players who benefit from playing more often against minnows, not Bradman.

 

[karan316]

Disagree. He would have ****ing dominated - his success was built on extraordinary natural hand-eye coordination, concentration and natural skill, which would serve him just as well nowadays.

Human beings didn't suddenly naturally get better at hitting a cricket ball in 1950 or so. That's the whole point.

A lot of such stuff is written on Bradman, if you read a few articles on him, you'll say he is just extraordinary, the greatest ever, but if you see his videos, you would wonder if the bowlers which he faced are even good enough to feature in your club side.

 

[the big bambino]

The day someone proves that playing against 1 good team(which is a lot inferior to your own team) and 3 minnows in a semi professional era is tougher than playing 8 good teams and 2 minnows in a professional and competitive era, that day I will agree that Bradman was the greatest and better than the current lot of players.

You know what is ironical about the highlighted? It actually fits Richards more than Bradman. There was no side better than Richard's West Indians.

However Eng beat Aus more often from the time Bradman debuted up to the war.

Coincidentally the Saffies, whom you wrongly describe as minnows, beat that same English team in 2 series.

Therefore DGB hardly played any games against minnows.

Whereas modern players play minnows far more often and derive a greater benefit from doing so than Bradman ever did.

 

[Ruckus]

I reckon the whole 'evolution throughout time' is a pretty moot point IMO. There is absolutely no way to tell how Bradman would fare today if he'd been brought up in the modern era with the modern game, and similarly no way to tell if a modern player would succeed if he were born and raised in the 1920s.

To put this in international relations (namely realist) terminology, since I have no other way to really express it, nobody gives a **** about absolute ability. If everyone's special no one's special. What matters is your ability relative to those around you.

So yes, every player in the modern era may, in absolute terms, be significantly better than Don Bradman. But you have a long list of blokes averaging around 50 that are the premier batsmen of the day - nobody stands out from the crowd by a hugely significant margin (on any given day, form notwithstanding, Amla = Cook = Clarke = de Villiers = Pietersen = Smith = Kallis = Tendulkar = Hussey or thereabouts). So in terms of relative ability, the top batsmen of today are remarkable close.

Let's apply this to the 1930s and 1940s. More-or-less, Hutton = Hammond = Headley = whoever else you want to throw in the analysis, but Hutton/Headley/Hammond definitely ≠ Bradman. In absolute terms, you can argue quite readily that Bradman is not as good as Tendulkar because of the evolution of the game and whatnot, but in relative terms, Bradman is that far ahead of anyone else that he is clearly the greatest.

Absolute ability means nothing if you have nothing to compare it to. It takes on value in how it stacks up compared to peers.


So in an ATG selection context, you look at who had that much relative ability compared to their peers, and use that as a measure of greatness - otherwise there is a huge argument that an English ATG XI would look like this:

Cook, Strauss, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Hoggard

simply because the game has evolved since 2000.

Given we are dealing with a sport that has a evolved (which everyone agrees on), how someone is relative to their peers has little validity when comparing players across eras - times and circumstances change. It's analogous to me saying 'x player has dominated relative to his peers in shield cricket, therefore that means he should be in the test XI'. Sure, it might provide an indication the player should be in the test XI, but that's all it can ever be.

 

[the big bambino]

A lot of such stuff is written on Bradman, if you read a few articles on him, you'll say he is just extraordinary, the greatest ever, but if you see his videos, you would wonder if the bowlers which he faced are even good enough to feature in your club side.

You'd get the same impression about Philander too from a distance.

 

[the big bambino]

Given we are dealing with a sport that has a evolved (which everyone agrees on), how someone is relative to their peers has little validity when comparing players across eras - times and circumstances change. It's analogous to me saying 'x player has dominated relative to his peers in shield cricket, therefore that means he should be in the test XI'. Sure, it might provide an indication the player should be in the test XI, but that's all it can ever be.

If youre not picking someone dominating fc cricket for tests I'd hope you'd have a good reason.

 

[karan316]

You'd get the same impression about Philander too from a distance.

No, he doesn't look like an unfit amateur bowler running in and bowling without a plan.

 

[NUFAN]

So anyway karan, who is the greatest sportsperson of all time? Give me a couple of names if you like.

 

[Ruckus]

If youre not picking someone dominating fc cricket for tests I'd hope you'd have a good reason.

It's not the point I intended; let me clarify. Dominating in shield (or club) cricket relative to your peers by no means says anything definitive about how you will fare relative to your peers in test cricket - they are different games, with changes in the level of competition, amount of training etc. Just as Bradman era cricket is to the modern game imo.

 

[the big bambino]

No, he doesn't look like an unfit amateur bowler running in and bowling without a plan.

Oh get off the grass. He looks like chubby hick barely able to bowl quicker than Ricky Ponting.

Still pretty good figures all the same though. Appearances can be deceptive.

The idea that bowlers of earlier eras bowled without a plan is one the more foolish modern conceits.

As for fitness look at how easily modern bowlers break down

 

[the big bambino]

It's not the point I intended; let me clarify. Dominating in shield (or club) cricket relative to your peers by no means says anything definitive about how you will fare relative to your peers in test cricket - they are different games, with changes in the level of competition, amount of training etc. Just as Bradman era cricket is to the modern game imo.

All the same you'd punt on a player dominating at one level being ready for the next.

 

[Ruckus]

You'd get the same impression about Philander too from a distance.

Na...getting tired of people pretending cricketers from that era were as good as they are today. They weren't, I'm sorry. The game has evolved and improved, and there is to reason why they should have been.

 

[Ruckus]

All the same you'd punt on a player dominating at one level being ready for the next.

It's an indicator, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[the big bambino]

Na...getting tired of people pretending cricketers from that era were as good as they are today. They weren't, I'm sorry. The game has evolved and improved, and there is to reason why they should have been.

No one's saying that. Its just that its unimportant. You're deluded if you think people are just so much more talented now. That's just crap. People now are just luckier, not better and have improved because of the advances made by those before them.

 

[the big bambino]

It's an indicator, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah well you know, I think its been a proven rule that's guided cricket selection for, oh I dunno - forever that you can draw a pretty safe conclusion that they would make it,