Cricketweb's most overhyped players.

[andyc]

Other than the batting average graph, one of my favourite representations of Bradman is the list of most Test hundreds in a career. Bradman's 29 has really only recently been surpassed, and all of those players played at least twice as many Tests as Bradman's 52 (well Hayden played 103, but you get the point).

 

[Spark]

Whis is it then that the next highest FC average of players from Eng and Aust, is Ponsford (Aus) @ 65.18? That means Bradman's FC average was 30 more than the next best...you lose.

I'd not bother TBH. There's a point where reason just stops working.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have absolutely no time for the cricket opinions of anyone who doesn't think Bradman was comprehensively the best batsman of all time. I'm just completely dismissive of the idea; it's ludicrous. You might as well declare Uganda the best team in the world.

 

[Furball]

The pool of player when bradman played was smaller ,There were two nations playing real cricket not to mention he played 52 tests and who knows law of averages might have catched up to him also if he played more.

Lol no.

Quick list of great post-WW1 batsmen (this is just a quick list off the top of my head)

Hobbs
Hammond
Hutton
Headley
Weekes
Walcott
Sobers
Gavaskar
Pollock
Border
G. Chappell
Sir Viv
Lara
Sachin
Ponting
Kallis
Dravid
Sangakkara
Jayawardene

All of them, regardless of era, have a fairly consistent spread of averages: off the top of my head I'd reckon most of the above average between 50 and 54, with a couple of outliers (Sobers, Pollock) who are the higher end.

Then you have Bradman, miles out on his own. Sir Viv is actually closer to Chris Martin in terms of batting average than he is to Sir Don.

 

[Spark]

i have absolutely no time for the cricket opinions of anyone who doesn't think bradman was comprehensively the best batsman of all time. I'm just completely dismissive of the idea; it's ludicrous. You might as well declare uganda the best team in the world.

awta

 

[Jarquis]

Eoin Morgan

As a First Class or Limited Overs batsman?

 

[Prince EWS]

As a First Class or Limited Overs batsman?

Both.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah people don't realise that overhyped and overrated isn't always a slight on the player. It just means that they're not necessarily as good as the media or fans make them out to be. They can still be good, hell they can still be great.

Nah, Swann's "just not that good"

 

[andyc]

Sir Viv is actually closer to Chris Martin in terms of batting average than he is to Sir Don.

Heh, like this. Will steal.

 

[Furball]

Other than the batting average graph, one of my favourite representations of Bradman is the list of most Test hundreds in a career. Bradman's 29 has really only recently been surpassed, and all of those players played at least twice as many Tests as Bradman's 52 (well Hayden played 103, but you get the point).

The other one I like is looking at fastest to 100 hundreds. Most batsmen have done it in between 550 and 650 innings (iirc), Bradman did it in less than 300.

 

[Jarquis]

Both.

I'd agree with you about FC, but you know my opinions about Limited Overs haha.

 

[Cevno]

Here is a post i made in another thread about averaging 80/90 odd in this era and from now on-

In this day and age you just need to have one of your weakness found with the help of all the technology available and until you can sort it out ,4/5 innings are gone and your career average takes a tumbling.

Same is the case with different conditions arround the world,and taking time to get yourself set in those conditions and days of travel.
Then there is acclimitization required from one format to another and acclimitization to different bowlers.
Just take Mendis for example,it took Indians one whole series and more before he could be sorted out.

Probably averaging 50 odd is easier in this era,but then averaging anything like 80/90 odd is only probably gonna get tougher from now on.

So Basically saying that because no one would average 90 odd for his career,there won't be anyone as good as Bradman is a bit of a unreasonable argument for me.

Just look at Bradman's average against West indies 74.50 in Australia.God Knows how much he would have averaged if he had to play away against them.

Yes he stands out from the pack,but there is fair reasonable logic to think he is comparable to others and his record also stands up for scrutiny .
For me he is the greatest but personally i don't see as big a gap as some here do.

 

[PhoenixFire]

and who knows law of averages might have catched up to him also if he played more.

 

[Furball]

Here is a post i made in another thread about averaging 80/90 odd in this era and from now on-




So Basically saying that because no one would average 90 odd for his career,there won't be anyone as good as Bradman is a bit of a unreasonable argument for me.

Just look at Bradman's average against West indies 74.50 in Australia.God Knows how much he would have averaged if he had to play away against them.

Yes he stands out from the pack,but there is fair reasonable logic to think he is comparable to others and his record also stands up for scrutiny .
For me he is the greatest but personally i don't see as big a gap as some here do.

Your point falls on it's face. No-one in history, with one exception, has come close to averaging 80-odd in their career. It's not a question of it being harder, it's been impossible to do throughout the history of the game.

 

[Cevno]

Your point falls on it's face. No-one in history, with one exception, has come close to averaging 80-odd in their career. It's not a question of it being harder, it's been impossible to do throughout the history of the game.

Herbert Sutcliffe averaged pretty much into the high 70's playing in almost the same era as Bradman in Australia and England before his last 3 years in about 35 test matches.

His average dropped to 12 in Newzealand and 46.44 in South africa.

How can one be conclusively sure that Bradman's average wouldn't have dropped had he toured other countries as well.
And as a result how his confidence and form and fitness would have been affected.

 

[Ruckus]

Nah, Swann's "just not that good"

Haha clearly I struck a nerve.

 

[morgieb]

Anybody that thinks that anyone is or ever will be anywhere near Bradman is deluding themselves. Yes, the pitches were flatter and bowling poorer. But he averages 39 runs higher than the next best batsman, and 25 in FC cricket. If that isn't dominance then I don't know what is.

Gideon Haigh said that there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. He's wrong. You may find a spinner that averages 25 somewhere. You won't find a man that averages 99.94 in a million years.

 

[Migara]

The biggest problem in assessing Bradman's feat is that we cannot quantify the differences in standards of the cricket played. The standards were pretty poor and I don't buy in to these averages across eras. My understanding is Hammond or Hobbs cannot be equated to a Tendulkar or Lara, because they played a poorer game when it comes to stratergies, techniques and tactics. They might still average 50 in current era but it's just a speculation.

My 2 cents is that Bradman would have averaged somewhere between 60 - 70 in current era, I don't see a gulf between him Sobers or Tendulkar. But once again, this also speculative.

 

[Migara]

Anybody that thinks that anyone is or ever will be anywhere near Bradman is deluding themselves. Yes, the pitches were flatter and bowling poorer. But he averages 39 runs higher than the next best batsman, and 25 in FC cricket. If that isn't dominance then I don't know what is.

Gideon Haigh said that there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. He's wrong. You may find a spinner that averages 25 somewhere. You won't find a man that averages 99.94 in a million years.

He didn't had to look anywhere. There was a contemporary of him who averaged 22.8 with the ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

Twatling