Sir Don Bradman vs Sir Gary Sobers

[smash84]

Umar Gul although not as economical still strikes around 30 balls quicker than Sobers

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah, but for that, you would also need the ineffective bowlers of that era bowling to him.

Dear me. I knew you only started this thread to trash Bradman's efforts by downgrading his opposition. That opinion can't be quietened by the contrary facts it seems but can you at least spare us the tedium of going through it again?

 

[the big bambino]

****, now that puts things in perspective

It does. I thought the comparison with Ishant to be overkill.

 

[smash84]

funnily enough that within 10 years time of Bradman's retirement cricket went through such massive change that it became an unrecognizable sport and Garry Sobers became one of the greatest batsmen of the modern era as his career ended in early 1970s

 

[the big bambino]

Big change to cricket came with Packer, floodlights and the accelerating popularity in the one day game. That came about 30 years Bradman's retirement. Can't see much that changed in the period up til then.

 

[smash84]

the comparison with Sharma really wasn't overkill tbh. See for yourself

Ishant Sharma | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[OverratedSanity]

funnily enough that within 10 years time of Bradman's retirement cricket went through such massive change that it became an unrecognizable sport and Garry Sobers became one of the greatest batsmen of the modern era as his career ended in early 1970s

Was just about to make this point. Even though their careers are just a decade apart, Bradman is somehow made out to be from this primitive age where everyone took to the field merely to burn some calories and Sobers is the "modern" master.

Imagine if Bradman had the privilege of batting on covered pitches, tiny grounds, with proper protective gear, against the likes of Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Sami, with the ridiculous bats of today.
He probably wouldn't have an average

 

[the big bambino]

Sobers was an AR with ball though and bowled in circumstances where Ishant would be useless and to the detriment of his average. In short Ishant got those figures bowling at time to optimise his wicket taking potential (bowling in India notwithstanding). Sir Garry when the work he did would be effective but not shown in his stats.

Next big thing in cricket after Packer was IPL dancing girls

 

[Migara]

Comparing Bradman to anyone is stupid because he's a complete anomaly.

Somebody who can average 58 with the bat, bowl pace, finger or wrist spin and to be a ATG dhrtleg fielder is similar if not a bigger anomaly.

 

[Migara]

Kallis would make a better 5th bowler.

And why is he the best cricketer ever? Bradman is equivalent of 2 ATG batsmen, whereas Sobers is an ATG batsman and Umar Gul.

One ATG batsman and aone good batsman TBH. Averaging 55 + 44 FTR. A Flower plus Laxman.

 

[centurymaker]

Thats just based on raw stats (which can't really be compared across eras)

 

[smash84]

an average of 99 can also be taken as Viv 50 + Inzy 49......

 

[OverratedSanity]

Somebody who can average 58 with the bat, bowl pace, finger or wrist spin and to be a ATG dhrtleg fielder is similar if not a bigger anomaly.

No

 

[kyear2]

And Viv Richards is closer to Chris Martin than he is to Bradman

So this actually tells you average isn't everything then.

Really want to know if average aside, people believe that Viv is closer to Martin than to Bradman.

 

[smash84]

Bradman was a pretty good fielder himself and a better captain too

 

[Coronis]

So this actually tells you average isn't everything then.

Really want to know if average aside, people believe that Viv is closer to Martin than to Bradman.

Yes, yes we do.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So this actually tells you average isn't everything then.

Really want to know if average aside, people believe that Viv is closer to Martin than to Bradman.

I don't know. No one can tell for certain if bradman was twice as good as Richards or 34.17% better. But his output was twice as good as Richards or any other great batsman, which is a fact. Lets just say bradman was a ****load better and leave it at that

 

[ankitj]

Q: What is the thing that if you have more than one of, you actually have none?
A: Anomaly.

 

[DingDong]

sobers quite clearly or at least it's not as close as these aussie fan boys make it out to be

sobers averaged 57 with the bat and picked up 1.25 wkt per inning and i make a guess and say that a wicket is worth 30 runs so it's quite clear that sobers was more valuable. fielding and captaincy cannot be measured using cricket stats so i'll call it a draw there.

i'd like to see the smart arses of the forum like days of grace, pews gimh nufan or flem or whoever try to work out what the worth of a wicket is compared to a run

 

[kyear2]

Yes, yes we do.

Thats just unfortunate then.