Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[Migara]

That would go for all batsmen. He'd still be a country mile ahead of every other batsman in his side or against.

Still I am not convinced that there will be a that much of a gap. Never faced quicks of West Indian quality (Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Ambrose), or a Hadlee (who had the knack of nailing the best opposition batsman cheaply), never played any legendary spinner (don't say that Verity is a legend, and Laker was very inexperianced when bowled to Bradman) in the opposition, let alone on a dustbowl.

But having said that he'll still lead the averages. But not by 40 runs to the next best.

 

[bagapath]

Still I am not convinced that there will be a that much of a gap. Never faced quicks of West Indian quality (Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Ambrose), or a Hadlee (who had the knack of nailing the best opposition batsman cheaply), never played any legendary spinner (don't say that Verity is a legend, and Laker was very inexperianced when bowled to Bradman) in the opposition, let alone on a dustbowl.

But having said that he'll still lead the averages. But not by 40 runs to the next best.

the fact that bradman averaged a phenomenal 99 over a 20 year international career split by a world war that stopped cricket for 6 long years shows he would be the greatest batsman in any era by a country mile. I dont believe not one great bowler existed outside australia between 1928 and 1948. bradman, and co, must have been so good that bowlers like verity who could have been all time greats otherwise ended up with very good, but short of truly great, career figures. larwood averaged 28. it is possible that he would have averaged under 25 if he didn't have to bowl at bradman. bradman is not a pre 2008 hussey or a pre 2004 gilchrist to have a had one purple patch. he was scoring runs by tons in england in 1930 as well as in 1948. he faced completely different sets of bowlers belonging to different generations and conquered all of them.

 

[zaremba]

don't say that Verity is a legend

Because?...

 

[bagapath]

But having said that he'll still lead the averages. But not by 40 runs to the next best.

bradman never led his team's averages by 40 runs. he led them by more than 50 runs. there was not one batsman from australia in his era who ended with a 50+ average. even from the opposition, among his contemporaries - leaving out hutton and compton who played with him very briefly, only hammond finished on the right side of 50.

 

[fredfertang]

Well there was Headley - but if Bradman had weaknesses, in relative terms anyway, they would be irrelevant in the 21st century so if he was around now I think there's a good argument for saying he'd average 140

 

[zaremba]

Never faced quicks of West Indian quality (Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Ambrose), or a Hadlee (who had the knack of nailing the best opposition batsman cheaply)

Larwood
Tate
Bedser

 

[archie mac]

But it's highly irrational to think that Bradman will be "Bradman" even against a second string all time XI. He would be closer to mortals IMO.

I would not count on that, the better the opposition the better Bradman, he would lift IMO

 

[Burgey]

Still I am not convinced that there will be a that much of a gap. Never faced quicks of West Indian quality (Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Ambrose), or a Hadlee (who had the knack of nailing the best opposition batsman cheaply), never played any legendary spinner (don't say that Verity is a legend, and Laker was very inexperianced when bowled to Bradman) in the opposition, let alone on a dustbowl.

But having said that he'll still lead the averages. But not by 40 runs to the next best.

Neither did Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers, Tendulkar (save Ambrose and possibly a fading Marshall) or Gilchrist. Yet they're in your all time XI.

Bradman's record is so good it's incomprehensible in any real sense.

We can quote statistics and what-not, but personally I find it nigh on impossible to get my head around a bloke who averages one hundred runs per innings.

The problem with attempting to qualitiatvely reduce his average by X amount given the era he played in is you'd have to do that to the other greats of his era as well. So say Bradman would average 65 today. Do we knock one-third off Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe, Harvey et al as well, such that their averages go from the great to the merely good or very good if they played today? I don't think we can do that to those players.

Great players are great players. They adapt to conditions and eras and styles of play as the game evolves. Bradman did (and would do) the same. Neil Harvey kicked off in 47-48 as a teenager, yet adapted to the game in the 50s and 60s. Hutton played both pre-and-post WW2 and excelled in both eras, despite the changes in the game, the different attacks and the fact that he suffered a serious injury himself and had to modify his game.

Steve Waugh started in the mid-80s, went through all the 90s and played the early part of this century too. He walked away with an average of 50, despite the seat of power in cricket shifting in his time and conditions varying greatly. For his part, Border kicked off in the 70s when ODIs were a novelty and the Windies were just coming to their zenith, and went through to the early 90s. There are many other examples, but the point is great players adapt.

I think it's summed up by what Sampras said of Federer after he beat Roddick at Wimbledon this year - "The great ones, they just have that little bit more". And even among the greats, Bradman had more.

 

[silentstriker]

A lot more....

 

[Ikki]

A lot lot more...

 

[Migara]

Larwood
Tate
Bedser

I am ROFL.

Tate / Larwood / Bedser > Ambrose / Marshall / Roberts / Hadlee?

 

[Migara]

Neither did Sutcliffe, Hammond, Sobers, Tendulkar (save Ambrose and possibly a fading Marshall) or Gilchrist. Yet they're in your all time XI.

Sutcliff played Lindwall, Miller and Davidson (open for correction).
Tendulkar, Lara and Gilly played Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Murali and Warne. Other than Walsh I would think all other four comfortably better than what Bradman faced. I ahve not even mentioned Donald. Wasim and Waqar also there, would have been a novel challenge for any body.

Bradman's record is so good it's incomprehensible in any real sense.

That is the very reason for the thought.

The problem with attempting to qualitiatvely reduce his average by X amount given the era he played in is you'd have to do that to the other greats of his era as well. So say Bradman would average 65 today. Do we knock one-third off Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe, Harvey et al as well, such that their averages go from the great to the merely good or very good if they played today? I don't think we can do that to those players.

Possibility is there because they have not played under some conditions the current players have played. Ex. in sub - continent, and against 1990s pace battery. These are the most trying conditions of late histiory.

But the point is great players adapt.

Hit the nail on the hed. More great players in the opposition, more likely you'll get nailed. Doesn't matter whether you are Bradman or not.

 

[aussie]

I would not count on that, the better the opposition the better Bradman, he would lift IMO

Although i am firmly in the Bradman camp, that believes he'd stand up well againts some the great bowlers that where prevalent over the past 30 years. TBF to Migara i do believe The Don would be brought down back to earth a fair bit if be played in recent times - but he of course still would be class above the rest.

The argument i feel Bradman critics tend to miss is. Ok they argue he didn't face 90mph bowlers like Marshall, Imran, Donald etc etc in an era of very flat pitches an average attacks. But he averaged almost 100 FFS againts those type of bowling - the zenith of averages for batsmen.

In this 2000s era on surfaces very similar to the 30s, none of the great batsmen of this era have come close to matching that. So really their should be no doubts about Bradman's ability.

 

[aussie]

Don't rightly agree. He's had his ups and downs, as any bowler does, but he's been having a pretty good run with the ball for South Africa since around the end of 2006. As recently as the last series he played in he took the wickets of Ponting, Hussey and Clarke to in a spell of 3/22 to roll Australia for 207, if you remember.

The Kallis at his peak of bowling powers was the bloke swinging it @ 90mph in WC 99 or vsWI 2001 when Donald on flat pitch he really produced a WC bowling performances. Kallis although he on & off has been able to produce the odd burst in test amcths, he really has been a 5th bowler for a very long time now.

 

[subshakerz]

If averaging 100 over 50 matches in cricket was so achievable, you would see a few more batsmen in history averaging in the 80s or 90s at some point. But nobody came close, ever, except for Bradman. That's what makes him special.

Would he have averaged the same nowadays? Nobody knows. But his achievements in his career are enough to ensure his reputation as by far the best ever.

 

[honestbharani]

You might be making a few good points, but they're invariably littered with "this juz shows u no nothn bout cricket" and "juz accept it ur wrong and its a FACT". I suspect you genuinely struggle to accept that someone might disagree with you and not be an idiot as a result, rather than just being obnoxious for the sake of it. In any case, I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion for that reason.

It gets tiresome when you start labelling your own opinion as FACTS. First thing, your first point DOES indeed show that there is a lot you can learn about cricket... That is not insulting you personally because time and again, in this thread through your posts, you keep making the same point that only the quantity of runs matter and not at the rate it is scored....


And secondly, I used the "fact" line one time and that is with reference to the way you seem to treat what every other cricket fan has said about Sobers' outside of your favourite statsboys... It is a FACT that many well learned and rounded observers rate Sobers' as an all rounder and even as a bowler... Outside of that, I am not sure if I used the "fact" line again...


If you feel you don't want to continue this discussion, then that is fine.. But don put on me the faults that even you have. Me and Ikki have had numerous disagreements and we still get along fine and so is the case with a number of the forum members.. As I said, to have an opinion on Sobers' record is one thing but what you were doing in some of your posts was basically denigrate one of the all time greats AND the opinions of people who have actually seen him.


You seem to enjoy rating people at hindsight.. Unfortunately, cricket is played LIVE and it happens very often that an innings that seems to be a bad one from the scorecard was actually a very good one and vice versa...

 

[honestbharani]

Simple answer: because it is available on cricinfo without the complexities of his batting SR.



I've already presented the data numerous times in many threads, I'll put it out again:

[U]The bowling during Sobers' career[/U]
           [B]AVG.     SR[/B]
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]Pacer[/URL]:[/B]    29.40    71.5
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=2;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]Spinner[/URL]:[/B]  33.02    89.5
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]All[/URL]:[/B]      31.18    79.8

To put it simply, his overall career record, even if he were primarily a spinner, is still above the average of all spinners. Yet what makes it worse is that despite Sobers' overall record being diluted with his 6-7 years bowling pace - which would have brought it down a lot - it's still too high. His period where he bowled pace, depending on where you actually look (usually the start to mid-60s) he averaged in the mid-20s and his SR was in the mid 70s. So even on that account; the average pacer at his peak.

Ikki, out of genuine interest, can you take some time out and list out the bating and bowling averages and SRs of each era and the ones of the men in discussion here?


like Sobers - batting SR - bating avr - bowling SR - bowlilng avr - era bowlling avr - era bowling sr - era batting avr- era batting SR


It might actually provide us more food for thought.


For instance, Sobers' being off the SR of spinners by just 5 is pretty amazing for me... I don't think we have seperate data of his pace and spin bowling though, do we? It will be interesting to compare Kallis' bowling avr and SR and that of this era and see where he stands, for instance.. Same wtih Imran but with batsmen...

 

[Burgey]

Sutcliff played Lindwall, Miller and Davidson (open for correction).
Tendulkar, Lara and Gilly played Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Murali and Warne. Other than Walsh I would think all other four comfortably better than what Bradman faced. I ahve not even mentioned Donald. Wasim and Waqar also there, would have been a novel challenge for any body.

That is the very reason for the thought.

Possibility is there because they have not played under some conditions the current players have played. Ex. in sub - continent, and against 1990s pace battery. These are the most trying conditions of late histiory.

Hit the nail on the hed. More great players in the opposition, more likely you'll get nailed. Doesn't matter whether you are Bradman or not.

Nah mate, Sutcliffe retired pre-ww2.

 

[honestbharani]

bradman never led his team's averages by 40 runs. he led them by more than 50 runs. there was not one batsman from australia in his era who ended with a 50+ average. even from the opposition, among his contemporaries - leaving out hutton and compton who played with him very briefly, only hammond finished on the right side of 50.

He averaged 50+ with bodyline.. I doubt any current batsmen could average even 30 in those conditions against those attacks with that field..


The man is the GOAT.. We are wasting our time arguing that fact, I believe.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, out of genuine interest, can you take some time out and list out the bating and bowling averages and SRs of each era and the ones of the men in discussion here?

like Sobers - batting SR - bating avr - bowling SR - bowlilng avr - era bowlling avr - era bowling sr - era batting avr- era batting SR

Yeah, it's possible, but for what? Sobers' batting is all-time great status. Higher than the average and most probably SR for his time. I already showed his bowling in the post you quoted.

Kallis on the other hand is about as high as Sobers with relation to average but is a few points lower than the average SR of his time (~48).

Anyway, this is the batting, decade by decade (unfortunately, there is no SR):

This is the bowling:

For instance, Sobers' being off the SR of spinners by just 5 is pretty amazing for me... I don't think we have seperate data of his pace and spin bowling though, do we? It will be interesting to compare Kallis' bowling avr and SR and that of this era and see where he stands, for instance.. Same wtih Imran but with batsmen...

Amazingly bad?

We know what he bowled pretty much and when. Until the 60s, he was a slow bowler. In the 60s, he started bowling medium pace and kept it up until the late 60s where he reverted again to bowling spin. So we have a fairly good idea of what he bowled and when.