In any field modern humanbeing is better than our previous generation,Bradman played in an era where there was only one top test team and he averaged 85 against them,Great.But that does not make him better than players of any modern generation where bowlers are fitter ,quicker,different conditions,different pitches and so on.His first class record is extraordinary****, probably the thing I hate most is people that try and play down Bradmans' achievements. It reeks of just refusing to believe that someone could be that good because they don't want to believe it, when it's cricket's greatest story.
I disagree other sports are not so stats centric as cricket so you never are able to compare them.I actually think Bradman is underrated. Not in cricket but in general sports. Don't think anyone stands out quite like he does in any other sport. He is a freak of nature.
He's an average keeper and an average batsman. Can look the part and plays some decent shots but is not "quality".Brumby - Haddin is a good keeper.
Quality bat, too.
Pretty sure the grand majority of sports have some statistical measure to base a player's ability on.I disagree other sports are not so stats centric as cricket so you never are able to compare them.
Agreed. I reckon it's only because cricket isn't popular in America. Hence your Jordan, Federer, Woods, Babe Ruth etc. get more attention.I actually think Bradman is underrated. Not in cricket but in sports in general. Don't think anyone stands out quite like he does in any other sport. He is a freak of nature.
Disagree. Anyway, even in terms of non-statistical measures; for a player to have the impact of two all-time greats combined would be pretty visible. Can't think of a sport which would hide that kind of superiority and have poor statistical measures.They're usually pretty worthless though.
But even in comparison with Graeme Pollock and George Headley, Bradman's average is superior by 39 runs. To put that in context, the difference between Ricky Ponting and Jason Gillespie's averages, is 35.95. Sir Don was an absolute machine. To be that far ahead of his contemporaries is just ridiculous, and that's only on a stats basis. Bradman was superior to his contemporaries mentally. It has been said that Jack Hobbs possessed similar ability to that of The Don, but he didn't posses the mental strength or ruthlessness to make his starts pay as often as Bradman did. Also, technically, Bradman was far ahead of the other batsmen of his era. His hand-eye co-ordination, his timing, his ability to keep the ball on the ground, the movement of his feet, everything was perfect to combat the conditions of his time. I honestly cannot believe people are questioning the legacy of one of the greatest sportsmen of all-time.In any field modern humanbeing is better than our previous generation,Bradman played in an era where there was only one top test team and he averaged 85 against them,Great.But that does not make him better than players of any modern generation where bowlers are fitter ,quicker,different conditions,different pitches and so on.His first class record is extraordinary
but that shows more the quality or lack of it of the bowlers he faced.Peers theory is utter nonsense as there were not that many people playing the game in that era compared to other eras.
1 Australia D.G. Bradman 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94 1928–1948
2 South Africa R.G. Pollock 23 41 4 2256 274 60.97 1963–1970
3 West Indies Cricket Board G.A. Headley 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 1930–1954
4 England H. Sutcliffe 54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 1924–1935
5 England E. Paynter 20 31 5 1540 243 59.23 1931–1939
6 England K.F. Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 58.67 1955–1968
7 West Indies Cricket Board E.D. Weekes 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61 1948–1958
8 England W.R. Hammond 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45 1927–1947
9 West Indies Cricket Board G.S. Sobers 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 1954–1974
10 England J.B. Hobbs 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 1908–1930
11 West Indies Cricket Board C.L. Walcott 44 74 7 3798 220 56.68 1948–1960
12 England L. Hutton 79 138 15 6971 364 56.67 1937–1955
The era in which bradman played had higest averages compared to other eras.
Well Pele scored 1124 goals in 1184 games, and he's (rightly) far from being universally seen as the best player ever.Disagree. Anyway, even in terms of non-statistical measures; for a player to have the impact of two all-time greats combined would be pretty visible. Can't think of a sport which would hide that kind of superiority and have poor statistical measures.
I think there are certain asterisks with regards to Pele's goal record, frankly. And even on that statistic alone he is not as superior as Bradman is to the others. Even the Baresi and Moore examples; think tackles won, interceptions made, clean sheets kept, etc.Well Pele scored 1124 goals in 1184 games, and he's (rightly) far from being universally seen as the best player ever.
Still, it gets even trickier. What statistical measure could you use to compare, say, Franco Baresi and Bobby Moore?
Pass completion %Well Pele scored 1124 goals in 1184 games, and he's (rightly) far from being universally seen as the best player ever.
Still, it gets even trickier. What statistical measure could you use to compare, say, Franco Baresi and Bobby Moore?
No, the thing that distinguishes Bradman is how often he scored big runs. No-one has come close to his 29 centuries in 80 innings.Bradman's sub 30 scores have very similar average to that of other greats. His distinction comes when set he scores real big. That is the very thing that modern tactics will stop him from.
The bowlers of Bradman's era bar very few, looks pedestrian as well. And pitches were probably better than today. Otherwise they'll be not able to play timeless tests. Even without Bradman the average of his era is about 31, which is close to "flat track" era of today. So he might have encountered sticky dogs, but would have encountered super flat tracks to cover up for it as well.