Would a batsmen be considered greater then Bradman if?

[Sir Alex]

The answer depends on what nationality the player is of course.

Lol, if it happens to be a subcontinental player, obv flat track bully.

 

[Sir Alex]

What did he average in FC cricket? I hope he lost the testicle in an O'Brien feat of heroics.

Very valid point.

One of the reasons why I always believe Sachin is a better One Day batsman than Richards, if you figure in their List A games as well.

 

[Burgey]

His Cricinfo profile suggests it was when he jumped over the stumps when completing a run.

Or didn't quite jump over, as the case may be..

 

[AaronK]

I consider Sachin and Lara better than Bradman already..or i should say greater than Bradman..

 

[GotSpin]

I consider Sachin and Lara better than Bradman already..or i should say greater than Bradman..

Many would consider you wrong

 

[Sir Alex]

Lol, on googling 'Bradman' one gets his cricinfo page, description of which starts with 'Without argument the greatest batsman.....' immediately followed by another cricinfo link 'Sachin better than Bradman'.

 

[Sir Alex]

Apologies it is not a cricinfo link but a newspaper story that mentions 'Sachin bigger than Bradman'. Still the placement of the links is mildly amusing.

 

[Jono]

Or didn't quite jump over, as the case may be..

Crowd were quite shocked when the testicle fell, and was confused for the new ball.

 

[andyc]

Pretty simple for mine; he'd have to play 50+ Tests, score 30+ centuries, and average well over 100 (ie. 110) for me to conclusively rank him better than Bradman. First Class performance would come into to it too though, to prove it wasn't just an amazing purple patch.

 

[GotSpin]

Doubt there will be ever a situation where a batsmen is clearly ahead of Bradman in the future. Arguably, many sports haven't had even one Bradman, let alone two.

 

[fredfertang]

There were some at the time who thought Archie Jackson a better prospect than Bradman - for a bloke who was never fully fit, his record is still excellent. So there might have been two of them at the same time

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah I mentioned him in before in the thread. I've read a few sources that did suggest Jackson was seemingly just as good as Bradman. Hard to speculate though. He wasn't ill for his entire career though wasn't he. Thought he was in fairly good health until 1931-1932 and while he was still young obviously, his FC stats don't suggest he would have reached the heights that Bradman climbed

 

[andyc]

There were some at the time who thought Archie Jackson a better prospect than Bradman - for a bloke who was never fully fit, his record is still excellent. So there might have been two of them at the same time

A FC average of 45 is indeed excellent, but it's hardly Bradmanesque, even with poor fitness. Realise there's a lot more to it than averages mind you, but when talking about Bradman it's probably the most important thing, and why absolutely no one comes close to him IMO.

 

[fredfertang]

As I understand it he was often ill although his biography describes it as at "nuisance level" - main problem seems to have been he tired easily - must have militated against his figures being as good as they could have been given what he couldn't do as well was bat for hours on end in the manner of Bradman, Woodfull and Ponsford but we'll never know - he certainly wasn't as ruthlessly single-minded as Bradman - Larwood for one thought he was by some distance the better player of the two - but then I suppose he would

 

[GotSpin]

Not meaning to discredit the potential of Jackson, but Bradman certainly had his own health problems as well when playing

 

[GGG]

Pretty simple for mine; he'd have to play 50+ Tests, score 30+ centuries, and average well over 100 (ie. 110) for me to conclusively rank him better than Bradman. First Class performance would come into to it too though, to prove it wasn't just an amazing purple patch.

Can he also just play against 4 teams? And well over 50 percent vs England and none in the sub continent.

 

[The Sean]

Can he also just play against 4 teams? And well over 50 percent vs England and none in the sub continent.

Yep, as long as that 50%+ comes against the strongest opposition available for him to face in world cricket.

 

[GotSpin]

Can he also just play against 4 teams? And well over 50 percent vs England and none in the sub continent.

Considering England was the strongest opposing team at the time I think this only serves to endear Bradman even further.

- edit. what Sean said.

 

[Jakester1288]

Bradman had worse, uncovered pitches, less protection and technology, coaching and all that. Plus, his sample size was a lot smaller, meaning it could just be a purple patch or something.

I say no. We simply don't have enough money to make a proper judgement, though.

 

[GGG]

I am just saying if someone averaged 100 today he would be a better batsman than Bradman IMO, my guess is Bradman would average 70 if he was playing today.