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

[miscer]

while i agree on some points the fact remains that bradman averaged 99 which outstrips any batsman before and since and any batsman in his era either by a long long shot.

edit: the only reason I even agree with a point or 2 OP is because of the general trend of sports to become more and more competitive over time (all sports). but bradman is a freak if I was a betting man i'd bet on a young bradman far outstripping any other modern batsman.

 

[fredfertang]

Did Richard ever have a go at working out his First Chance Average?

 

[Crazy Sam]

If we can't compare players because they play in different conditions then clearly we can't compare teams either.

I'm sure Bangladesh would otherwise be #1 right now if all the conditions favoured them so it mustn't be fair on them..

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Not this old chestnut again.

Bradman was the best ever. End of discussion.

 

[ankitj]

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?

So what you are saying is that you cannot compare players in same 'class' which you are calling 'greats' here. That is fair enough but what you must prove is that Bradman is in the same class and not a class higher.

 

[weldone]

So what you are saying is that you cannot compare players in same 'class' which you are calling 'greats' here. That is fair enough but what you must prove is that Bradman is in the same class and not a class higher.

Also to prove - while defining 'class' itself, you are not comparing between different classes

 

[Debris]

The only caveat I would put on Bradman being the best ever is that all sports naturally improve over time. It is a bit difficult to see in a team sport like cricket but becomes very apparent in sports like running or swimming.

 

[Burgey]

I can't believe it's a serious argument tbh.

Edit: not yours Debris, the OP's suggestion I mean.

 

[Nate]

you've been ARCHIE_MAC'd

 

[weldone]

The only caveat I would put on Bradman being the best ever is that all sports naturally improve over time. It is a bit difficult to see in a team sport like cricket but becomes very apparent in sports like running or swimming.

I think it's the 'power' aspect of the game that improves over time due to more scientific coaching, diet (and higher viewership meaning more money meaning more professionalism) etc - but the change in the 'skill' aspect of any game is not so apparent.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah it's harder to define but I can think of two (relatively) recent advances in cricket which weren't around in Bradman's time; reverse swing and more positional play i.e. instead of line/length dictating the shot you should play (e.g. short and wide outside off = cut), get body into position more quickly with a more neutral stance so you can play the ball into the off or leg depending on the field.

Whether the latter has improved batting is obviously debatable. Probably quicker scoring in general, though. Bradman's batting was already considered a bit unorthodox, would have been interesting to see how he would have gone in the days of T20.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah it's harder to define but I can think of two (relatively) recent advances in cricket which weren't around in Bradman's time; reverse swing and more positional play i.e. instead of line/length dictating the shot you should play (e.g. short and wide outside off = cut), get body into position more quickly with a more neutral stance so you can play the ball into the off or leg depending on the field.

Whether the latter has improved batting is obviously debatable. Probably quicker scoring in general, though. Bradman's batting was already considered a bit unorthodox, would have been interesting to see how he would have gone in the days of T20.

I would like to think he would have refused to play T20

 

[Flametree]

I think there's a general perception that even quick bowlers back in pre-war days weren't actually all that quick. I think that comes about because in athletics, the world records for sprinting, javelin throwing etc keep being beaten. So Usain Bolt is a heck of a lot quicker than Jesse Owens for instance and from that we assume fast bowlers must have improved similarly.

But Usain Bolt is also a lot quicker than the best sprinters from the 1970s, say. (Hazely Crawford was it? Alan Wells?) However, I don't think anyone is going to pretend that Morne Morkel or Ryan Harris are quicker than Jeff Thomson, Andy Roberts or Michael Holding. Shoaib Akhtar may have been marginally quicker, but it's debatable.

Going further back, then, folk who lived in that era would swear that Frank Tyson was as quick as, if not quicker than Thomson. Lindwall and Miller were no slouches either. So if that's right we can say that bowlers of today are no quicker than those of the 1950's.

So if bowlers have got no quicker in the past 50-odd years, why would bowlers from 20 years prior to that be any slower? I'm quite prepared to believe Larwood and Allen, Martindale and Constantine, Mohamed Nissar etc were pretty quick...

 

[Mike5181]

I can't believe it's a serious argument tbh.

Edit: not yours Debris, the OP's suggestion I mean.

Achievement-wise he's the greatest ever no doubt but saying he's better skill-wise than Tendulkar, Richards etc only holds true to an extent. The harder conditions of his time disadvantaged him and the protection equipment would harm confidence obviously but we also have to consider the level of opposition.

With the far superior training regimes, more efficient use of technology and the introduction of the limited overs format these batsman are going up against bowlers with a far greater skill set. It's indisputable that guys like Ambrose, Marshall, Akram etc are stronger and faster than their 1930s equivalents. Add to that the superior coaching these guys get at a young age. Just because a guy was well ahead of his time doesn't mean if you warped him to 2011 to face Dale Steyn he would outperform the best of today.

It's like Rocky Marciano. He's one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time which is dam true but if he were to fight Wladimir Klitschko today he would get his ass handed to him.

 

[The Sean]

Archie Mac at his best in this thread.

And to the OP - yes, yes it is.

 

[Flametree]

It's indisputable that guys like Ambrose, Marshall, Akram etc are stronger and faster than their 1930s equivalents. .

Sorry, but it's very disputable. Try working in a mine in the offseason and see how strong you get!!!

 

[weldone]

I would like to think he would have refused to play T20

Would have approached it in the Tendulkar-way, I would like to believe (no International T20, and only IPL) - of course with much better results than Tendulkar IMO.

It is more interesting to think what Grace and Barnes would have done. I think they might have skipped some test cricket for T20 allurement, if needed.

 

[archie mac]

you've been ARCHIE_MAC'd

Archie Mac at his best in this thread.

And to the OP - yes, yes it is.

I appear to be turning into a cranky old man

I apologise to the author of this thread, I imagine he is a young man still learning the history of this great game

If it turns out he is the same age as me, than my first post stands

 

[miscer]

I think there's a general perception that even quick bowlers back in pre-war days weren't actually all that quick. I think that comes about because in athletics, the world records for sprinting, javelin throwing etc keep being beaten. So Usain Bolt is a heck of a lot quicker than Jesse Owens for instance and from that we assume fast bowlers must have improved similarly.

But Usain Bolt is also a lot quicker than the best sprinters from the 1970s, say. (Hazely Crawford was it? Alan Wells?) However, I don't think anyone is going to pretend that Morne Morkel or Ryan Harris are quicker than Jeff Thomson, Andy Roberts or Michael Holding. Shoaib Akhtar may have been marginally quicker, but it's debatable.

Going further back, then, folk who lived in that era would swear that Frank Tyson was as quick as, if not quicker than Thomson. Lindwall and Miller were no slouches either. So if that's right we can say that bowlers of today are no quicker than those of the 1950's.

So if bowlers have got no quicker in the past 50-odd years, why would bowlers from 20 years prior to that be any slower? I'm quite prepared to believe Larwood and Allen, Martindale and Constantine, Mohamed Nissar etc were pretty quick...

tbh without data, and to the naked eye, quick is quick ya know? like for the sprinting record it went down (mile time) by like 1 second every 3 or 4 years or so and that's really nothing. So to me it'd just seem like yea the pace has been constant.

Not in any way advocating that larwood is a hack but maybe bowlers were a couple of mph slower? sure. but either way bradman averages 99.

 

[archie mac]

Would have approached it in the Tendulkar-way, I would like to believe (no International T20, and only IPL) - of course with much better results than Tendulkar IMO.

It is more interesting to think what Grace and Barnes would have done. I think they might have skipped some test cricket for T20 allurement, if needed.

Interesting. If born same era as Tendulkar I think you right. If brought forward in a time machine, I hope they refuse to play