Worlds greatest team

[GotSpin]

With all due respect G-S as i've said already your stats don't prove anything other than SOME of the bowlers were decent, not in the Marshall class though, and furthermore i struggle to comprehend how people can be so adamant that he was "the greatest" when there's barely any footage of the man, everyone has seen what Sobers did though.

At the end of the day i guess the Aussie cricket fans are more inclined to say Bradman and WI fans are more likely to back Sobers, we can leave it at that.

You've dismissed the quality of the bowlers I've mentioned in such haste perhaps you haven't even bothered to look them up?

There was footage of Bradman. Just because there aren't extensive archives of the man doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest. Are you claiming that the feats of historical figures should be discounted simply because digital recording didn't exist?

IMO, at the end of day most will always consider Bradman to be the best, regardless of nationality.

 

[Migara]

Can any of the Sobers fans explain the 15 av over 7 matches in NZ??

True in the 1st series he was very young, but he should have been able to fix it in the next series.

So we should keep considering averages against worst team of the era?

 

[WindieWeathers]

You've dismissed the quality of the bowlers I've mentioned in such haste perhaps you haven't even bothered to look them up?

There was footage of Bradman. Just because there aren't extensive archives of the man doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest. Are you claiming that the feats of historical figures should be discounted simply because digital recording didn't exist?

IMO, at the end of day most will always consider Bradman to be the best, regardless of nationality.

And when i asked you about the quality of the fielding there was no answer!!!, why? because you've barely even seen Bradman play let alone the opposition!! , again i'll stress those bowlers WERE NOT GREATS, good but not in the Marshall class, cricket fans around today either saw Sobers live or can watch him in action on video which is why many believe he's the greatest, you can live by Bradman's stats if you like but as the old saying goes "seeing is believing", anyway we're going round in circles G-S, we simply won't agree on this subject, i haven't met a single WI fan who believes Bradman was the best either so i'm not sure your last comment is valid tbh.

 

[Spark]

And when i asked you about the quality of the fielding there was no answer!!!, why? because you've barely even seen Bradman play let alone the opposition!! , again i'll stress those bowlers WERE NOT GREATS, good but not in the Marshall class, cricket fans around today either saw Sobers live or can watch him in action on video which is why many believe he's the greatest, you can live by Bradman's stats if you like but as the old saying goes "seeing is believing", anyway we're going round in circles G-S, we simply won't agree on this subject, i haven't met a single WI fan who believes Bradman was the best either so i'm not sure your last comment is valid tbh.

I think you need to expand your social circle. I am staggered at your tunnel-vision. Your argument is effectively he is not the best because of the lack of TV cameras?!

 

[GotSpin]

And when i asked you about the quality of the fielding there was no answer!!!, why? because you've barely even seen Bradman play let alone the opposition!! , again i'll stress those bowlers WERE NOT GREATS, good but not in the Marshall class, cricket fans around today either saw Sobers live or can watch him in action on video which is why many believe he's the greatest, you can live by Bradman's stats if you like but as the old saying goes "seeing is believing", anyway we're going round in circles G-S, we simply won't agree on this subject, i haven't met a single WI fan who believes Bradman was the best either so i'm not sure your last comment is valid tbh.

Yes its true, I haven't watched channel 9 coverage of Bradman but there are plenty of videos around that show him batting. You just need to go look. As for fielding, you can only rely on secondary sources as to how good it was. Besides, Bradman is well regarded for his amazing placement of the ball. I don't there would have been a massive difference in fielding level considering Bradman only retired eight years before Sobers international career started (I think).

Just because more people still living today saw Sobers doesn't mean anything really. It's like saying the historical feats of great persons in by gone eras should be discredited simply because everyone has since passed on. I'm not simply living by Bradmans stats. I'm living by the videos, countless reports, obituaries and the legend that has surpassed even his own life time. This is why I didn't want to start this debate in the first place! There is no doubt In my mind that Bradman's feats will withstand the test of time regardless of whether camera crews were there or not, or even when the last persons to witness him have passed on.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the other WI fans on this forum before you make a sweeping generalisation of all Windies fans!

 

[WindieWeathers]

I think you need to expand your social circle. I am staggered at your tunnel-vision. Your argument is effectively he is not the best because of the lack of TV cameras?!

Nope my arguement is there's no proof whatsoever that he played against TOP QUALITY opposition, i'm not saying he wasn't a great player, but if information is lacking regarding the level he played at then it's hard to call him "the greatest" when you can see exactly how Sobers played and who he played against, furthermore we don't even know if the bowlers Bradman faced played bouncers, yorkers, slow balls, or how fast they bowled at etc, or whether Bradman was good against different kind of spinners!!!, it's all a mystery, and when mystery is involved then it leaves room for doubts, as i said i have no problem with the Aussies backing Bradman, that's to be expected but i certainly wouldn't change my mind about Sobers so we can agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[GotSpin]

Nope my arguement is there's no proof whatsoever that he played against TOP QUALITY opposition, i'm not saying he wasn't a great player, but if information is lacking regarding the level he played at then it's hard to call him "the greatest" when you can see exactly how Sobers played and who he played against, furthermore we don't even know if the bowlers Bradman faced played bouncers, yorkers, slow balls, or how fast they bowled at etc, or whether Bradman was good against different kind of spinners!!!, it's all a mystery, and when mystery is involved then it leaves room for doubts, as i said i have no problem with the Aussies backing Bradman, that's to be expected but i certainly wouldn't change my mind about Sobers so we can agree to disagree on this subject.

Are you serious. Have you ever read up on Bradman and who he played against.

It's not like they invented yorkers, slow balls and spin once he retired. God! Those usual methods didn't work so England had to invent an entire new theory that was aimed at countering Bradman. There is no information lacking! It's not just Aussies defending Bradman either...

 

[Spark]

Nope my arguement is there's no proof whatsoever that he played against TOP QUALITY opposition, i'm not saying he wasn't a great player, but if information is lacking regarding the level he played at then it's hard to call him "the greatest" when you can see exactly how Sobers played and who he played against, furthermore we don't even know if the bowlers Bradman faced played bouncers, yorkers, slow balls, or how fast they bowled at etc, or whether Bradman was good against different kind of spinners!!!, it's all a mystery, and when mystery is involved then it leaves room for doubts, as i said i have no problem with the Aussies backing Bradman, that's to be expected but i certainly wouldn't change my mind about Sobers so we can agree to disagree on this subject.

We know he faced bouncers. For an entire series he faced nothing but bouncers... this stuff as GS says is very well documented. The media wasn't invented in the 50's and 60's.

 

[GotSpin]

We know he faced bouncers. For an entire series he faced nothing but bouncers... this stuff as GS says is very well documented. The media wasn't invented in the 50's and 60's.

WW seems to be painting a picture of an era where the only people to witness and recount the feats of Bradman were the scorers.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yes its true, I haven't watched channel 9 coverage of Bradman but there are plenty of videos around that show him batting. You just need to go look. As for fielding, you can only rely on secondary sources as to how good it was. Besides, Bradman is well regarded for his amazing placement of the ball. I don't there would have been a massive difference in fielding level considering Bradman only retired eight years before Sobers international career started (I think).

Just because more people still living today saw Sobers doesn't mean anything really. It's like saying the historical feats of great persons in by gone eras should be discredited simply because everyone has since passed on. I'm not simply living by Bradmans stats. I'm living by the videos, countless reports, obituaries and the legend that has surpassed even his own life time. This is why I didn't want to start this debate in the first place! There is no doubt In my mind that Bradman's feats will withstand the test of time regardless of whether camera crews were there or not, or even when the last persons to witness him have passed on.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the other WI fans on this forum before you make a sweeping generalisation of all Windies fans!

My argument is he can't be hailed as "the best cricketer ever" if there's a lack actual footage for people to analyze his game fully , call him "the best batsman" by all means but the best cricketer is a stretch imo when there's doubts about the quality of the opposition, as for your last comment clearly you didn't fathom what i said, i said "i've never met a WI fan who thinks Bradman was the best", which is true!!, how is that a "sweeping generalisation"? maybe there is WI fans who agree with you but as i said i've never met them.

 

[Ikki]

My argument is he can't be hailed as "the best cricketer ever" if there's a lack actual footage for people to analyze his game fully , call him "the best batsman" by all means but the best cricketer is a stretch imo when there's doubts about the quality of the opposition, as for your last comment clearly you didn't fathom what i said, i said "i've never met a WI fan who thinks Bradman was the best", which is true!!, how is that a "sweeping generalisation"? maybe there is WI fans who agree with you but as i said i've never met them.

You don't need footage to show that an average of almost 100 is above anything, anyone, ever.

Sobers himself debuted 6 years after Bradman retired. His teammates, the 3 Ws, started in 48, which is when Bradman retired. Unless you think standards went to poop overnight, you have no case. If you do think they did, then you still don't have much of a case.

 

[Spark]

So, er, Sobers wins by default because of the massive upswing in footage in the 60's? Bearing in mind that there is still not that much footage of him batting compared to the post WSC era?

Plus how was your point about bowlers of Marshall's quality relevant given Marshall didn't play a test until three years after Sobers played his last?

 

[WindieWeathers]

Are you serious. Have you ever read up on Bradman and who he played against.

It's not like they invented yorkers, slow balls and spin once he retired. God! Those usual methods didn't work so England had to invent an entire new theory that was aimed at countering Bradman. There is no information lacking! It's not just Aussies defending Bradman either...

Erm i only said "we don't know what Bradman faced" BECAUSE of the lack of footage, not that the bowlers didn't have those tools in their make-up, plus i go back to the state of the pitches and the quality of the fielding which are still to be addressed.

 

[Ikki]

Erm i only said "we don't know what Bradman faced" BECAUSE of the lack of footage, not that the bowlers didn't have those tools in their make-up, plus i go back to the state of the pitches and the quality of the fielding which are still to be addressed.

We know well enough the standard of what he faced by simple comparison through contemporaries and contemporaries of other contemporaries. The standards did not fluctuate much era to era. And no one gets near averaging 65 over a 20 year career, let alone 99.94.

 

[GotSpin]

My argument is he can't be hailed as "the best cricketer ever" if there's a lack actual footage for people to analyze his game fully , call him "the best batsman" by all means but the best cricketer is a stretch imo when there's doubts about the quality of the opposition, as for your last comment clearly you didn't fathom what i said, i said "i've never met a WI fan who thinks Bradman was the best", which is true!!, how is that a "sweeping generalisation"? maybe there is WI fans who agree with you but as i said i've never met them.

Yes I misread what you said at the end. I'd still like to see what other WI fans say though.

Bradman's play has been analyzed by hundreds over his career and beyond it. If you don't care to look up some of the footage of him playing you cannot ignore the general consensus made by every cricket commentator, historian, journalist, cricket tragic and every man and his dog that Bradman was THE master of his craft.

Can they all be wrong?
Can headlines with the words 'he's out' be lying that it was a momentous occasion for Bradman to be dismissed before scoring heavily

I've listed a number of top quality bowlers only for you to brush them aside without the specific mention of any one bowler and why they can't be considered great bowlers. IMO, and I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you haven't read anything about Bradman and the time he played in. Otherwise, you'd be able to singularly criticise individual bowlers in some way. Sweeping generalisations just don't work.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You don't need footage to show that an average of almost 100 is above anything, anyone, ever.

Sobers himself debuted 6 years after Bradman retired. His teammates, the 3 Ws, started in 48, which is when Bradman retired. Unless you think standards went to poop overnight, you have no case. If you do think they did, then you still don't have much of a case.

No you need footage to see WHO EXACTLY HE WAS FACING when he achieved those averages!!, which is the gist of my point, and furthermore Bradman didn't START his career in 1948 did he? the damage was well done by the time he retired!!, Sobers was 18 when he made his debut and when his genius started to come through the competition was strong indeed.

 

[Spark]

No you need footage to see WHO EXACTLY HE WAS FACING when he achieved those averages!!, which is the gist of my point, and furthermore Bradman didn't START his career in 1948 did he? the damage was well done by the time he retired!!, Sobers was 18 when he made his debut and when his genius started to come through the competition was strong indeed.

Why do you need footage for this? I mean it's a pretty safe assumption to say that if the opposing team had a certain bowler then Bradman faced him enough for both to work the other out.

 

[GotSpin]

Erm i only said "we don't know what Bradman faced" BECAUSE of the lack of footage, not that the bowlers didn't have those tools in their make-up, plus i go back to the state of the pitches and the quality of the fielding which are still to be addressed.

The state of pitches weren't that conducive to batting seeing as no one was even close to him.

In regards to fielding, I'm not honestly not sure but it's not like fielding would have improved or changed dramatically in a decade or less. And like I said before, Bradman is extremely well known for hitting into gaps.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yes I misread what you said at the end. I'd still like to see what other WI fans say though.

Bradman's play has been analyzed by hundreds over his career and beyond it. If you don't care to look up some of the footage of him playing you cannot ignore the general consensus made by every cricket commentator, historian, journalist, cricket tragic and every man and his dog that Bradman was THE master of his craft.

Can they all be wrong?
Can headlines with the words 'he's out' be lying that it was a momentous occasion for Bradman to be dismissed before scoring heavily

I've listed a number of top quality bowlers only for you to brush them aside without the specific mention of any one bowler and why they can't be considered great bowlers. IMO, and I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you haven't read anything about Bradman and the time he played in. Otherwise, you'd be able to singularly criticise individual bowlers in some way. Sweeping generalisations just don't work.

That's not the first time you've distorted my views and you claim i'm making "Sweeping generalisations"? ok , furthermore obviously my comment about Geoffrey Boycott thinking Sobers was the greatest has slipped your mind because he's as respected as anyone else in the game, so your comment about commentators isn't valid i'm afraid, and most people who "analyze" Bradman seem to only focus on the stats like many people on this thread have, like i keep saying the lack of footage will always leaves doubts, and even the little footage i've seen of him the opposition didn't look the best.

 

[GotSpin]

That's not the first time you've distoted my views and you claim i'm making "Sweeping generalisations"? ok , furthermore obviously my comment about Geoffrey Boycott thinking Sobers was the greatest has slipped your mind because he's as respected as anyone else in the game, so you comment about commentators isn't valid i'm afraid, and most people who "analyze" Bradman seem to only focus on the stats like many people on this thread have, like i keep saying the lack of footage will always leaves doubts, and even the little footage i've seen of him the opposition didn't look the best.

You are making sweeping generalisations because you've simply dismissed the list of top quality bowlers that I provided rather than addressing them individually and pointing out why they were only decent, not top quality. Something you haven't done and seem to be refusing.

I said general consensus. Not every single person - There's always going to be the odd fruit loop that throws out some other players to be in contention.

The majority of people that have analysed Bradman saw him in person - better than watching him through grainy tv footage.