• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sir Don Bradman - Is it fair to rate him above batsmen of other eras?

Status
Not open for further replies.
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
If you can't conclusively say that Bradman was a better batsman than Tendulkar, then by almost the same logic you shouldn't be able to conclusively say that Tendulkar is a better batsman than Erapalli Prasanna ever was.
 
karan316

karan316

State Vice-Captain
Prince EWS said:
The only way to compare players between eras is to do it relatively. A fair cross-era comparison is basically a differentiation of evaluations. (Player X v his contemporaries) v (Player Y v his contemporaries).

If you don't value that as a meaningful method then that's absolutely fine but there are no other even vaguely valid methods available for cross-era comparisons. You can either conclude that Bradman was the greatest ever Test batsman, or that you don't know who the greatest ever Test batsman was and believe it's impossible to determine. If you choose to go by the latter then you can never compare players at all though as no two players ever have or ever will face the exact same circumstances and situations throughout their respective careers.
Click to expand...
I think we will never be able to determine who was the greatest batsmen, comparisons on the basis of stats are ridiculous and shallow, firstly, its really very difficult to compare between great cricketers even if they are from the same era, and comparing between greats of different eras is useless, the circumstances are completely different for almost all the players(even if they are in the same team starting their career together), you can never ever compare.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
karan316 said:
I think we will never be able to determine who was the greatest batsmen, comparisons on the basis of stats are ridiculous and shallow, firstly, its really very difficult to compare between great cricketers even if they are from the same era, and comparing between greats of different eras is useless, the circumstances are completely different for almost all the players(even if they are in the same team starting their career together), you can never ever compare.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that Bradman was that far ahead of everyone else, and the game is similar enough to be able to say conclusively that he is easily and by a longshot the best batsman in history.
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
karan316 said:
I think we will never be able to determine who was the greatest batsmen, comparisons on the basis of stats are ridiculous and shallow, firstly, its really very difficult to compare between great cricketers even if they are from the same era, and comparing between greats of different eras is useless, the circumstances are completely different for almost all the players(even if they are in the same team starting their career together), you can never ever compare.
Click to expand...
Exactly, as I said you can't ever compare any two players and conclusively say that Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than Venkatapathy Raju, for example.

/thread
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Elaborate?

Take issue with the assertion eras are completely different games anyway. Last I checked, cricket's been played with a wooden bat and a leather ball on a grass pitch for over a century. The game, fundamentally, hasn't changed much for a long time.
 
karan316

karan316

State Vice-Captain
weldone said:
Exactly, as I said you can't ever compare any two players and conclusively say that Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than Venkatapathy Raju, for example.

/thread
Click to expand...
I said you can never compare between 'greats',
one great batsman can never be compared to another and same with the great bowlers.
Is it in simple english now?
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
karan316 said:
I said you can never compare between 'greats',
one great batsman can never be compared to another and same with the great bowlers.
Is it in simple english now?
Click to expand...
And how do prove that Raju is not 'great'? ...some more plain English please...
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
karan316 said:
Rules of the game

Bradman played test matches when there was no time limit of five days so Bradman had full time to get used to every type of situation unlike how it became later when there was a 5 day limit.
Click to expand...
All the Tests Bradman played in England before 1940 were four days, except for a couple of matches. The Tests he played after 1938 were 30 hour matches.

karan316 said:
The LBW law in Bradman’s time was that could only be given out if the ball pitched and hit in line with the stumps and then went on to hit them. This automatically rules out the in-swinger, the in-cutter, and the off-spinning deliveries that pitch outside but come in enough to hit in line. This is as potent a weapon for the bowler as the catch or even more as you can pad up to any ball outside off and get away. The batsman also gets the advantage when he is unsure which way the ball would go as he can again pad up and nullify the in-coming as well as the out-going delivery. Bradman was out leg before just six times in his career. The argument that he was so good that he was rarely struck in front of the wicket does not hold as he was bowled 23 times.
Click to expand...
This rule was changed in 1936 (from memory, but could be wrong) with Bradman writing to the MCC suggesting the law be changed as he thought it would help the game.


karan316 said:
Bowling quality of the opposition

The bowling has become so advanced in modern cricket as compared to what it was before.The invention of reverse swing, doosra and all the different kinds of variations that make it difficult for the batsmen to stay at the wicket and keep scoring the runs easily.

Players like Sachin have played against Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop, Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar-Saqlain, McGrath-Lee-Gilespie-Warne, Donald-Pollock,Murali and many more. What about Bradman?
How many of bowlers of England were world class at that time??
Click to expand...
Balance this by no sticky wickets, much better bats and smaller grounds not to mention protective gear.


karan316 said:
Bodyline bowling (which was dealt with players in the later eras)

His average which was usually over 100 in maximum series came down to just 56 in bodyline series. This was the time when he was put under some real pressure with bouncers and aggressive bowling.

The players of later eras, had to face bouncers and hostile bowling a lot more then Bradman did and they still managed to score heavily.
Lillee,Thompson,Holding,Marshall,Roberts,Colin Croft,Joel Garner,etc. were all very brutal
bowlers and also used the bouncers effectively but someone like Gavaskar still managed to score against them with ease without a helmet, he averaged 65 against the great West Indian fast bowlers who were much more skilled than most of the bowlers in Bradman's time.
Click to expand...
You do know about the fielding restrictions that have been put in place to stop bodyline bowling? As well as the lack of helmets in Bradman's day?


karan316 said:
Workload

Bradman played 52 test matches over 20 years, in modern cricket you play that amount of matches in around 5 or 6 years (along with the other formats). The fitness level required to manage the schedule of modern day cricket is much higher than before. Sachin has played 162 tests in 20 years along with 440 ODIs.In the present schedule,Every year there are atleast 10 Tests and 30 ODIs each year.
Click to expand...
You do know Bradman lost 7 years to the war? Also pros in England played six days a week? Bradman once scored 300 in a day. McCabe who was younger than Bradman had to ask him to stop running sharp singles as he (McCabe) was knocked up. I don't it matters who you are you need to be fit to score 300 in a day.


karan316 said:
All I m trying to prove here is that you can never ever compare between players of different eras, Bradman was the greatest of his era and i salute him for his contribution to the game and his country, but similarly a lot of others have been excellent and dominated their respective eras, rating Bradman above all the others on the basis of his average is not fair.
Click to expand...
All you have proved is your lack of cricket knowledge:)
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
After the LBW law changed in the bowler's favour (it was 1935 I think) Bradman, somewhat perversely, was dismissed LBW less frequently than he was under the old law - presumably he was pretty quick off the mark in modifying his technique
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top