What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[kyear2]

Kyear2, why do you have to pull down people selectively?

Who did I tear down?

I said Bradman is the best and I hold Ponting in very high regard, as high as anyone bar Jassy. He is comfortably in my third team and could possibly push for the second. He was a legit ATG No. 3 and elite level 2nd slip catcher. He is one of my all time favorite players.

 

[smash84]

You care to point out Bradman's average against the teams of those times and how bradman was a mortal based on body line. Yet you choose to ignore sobers's terrible record in nz. Heck, other than vs England sobers's record doesn't look that great. Others don't dwell on it to pull him down. Yet you bring disingenuous points to discredit Bradman

 

[OverratedSanity]

You care to point out Bradman's average against the teams of those times and how bradman was a mortal based on body line. Yet you choose to ignore sobers's terrible record in nz. Heck, other than vs England sobers's record doesn't look that great. Others don't dwell on it to pull him down. Yet you bring disingenuous points to discredit Bradman

Yeah this. You pointed out Bradman pumping his stats on flat pitches and against minnows as if every other batsman in history hasn't done the same.

Ironically, Ponting had probably the least opportunity among the modern greats to inflate his average as he played a grand total of 7 out of his 168 matches against the joke Bang/Zim sides. Plus, the one century he did get against bangers was a crucial knock at Fatullah to save Australia's blushes when they looked as though they'd lose.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ponting really has very few holes in his record other than the fact that he was a douche and claimed catches that weren't.

 

[kyear2]

You care to point out Bradman's average against the teams of those times and how bradman was a mortal based on body line. Yet you choose to ignore sobers's terrible record in nz. Heck, other than vs England sobers's record doesn't look that great. Others don't dwell on it to pull him down. Yet you bring disingenuous points to discredit Bradman

This is why I wasn't planning to respond to Jassy.

First of all it's not disingenuous if it's true. Secondly you are now and always tearing down Sobers batting and bowling records to show that Imran was the superior all rounder.

If one doesn't give reasons for statements it's criticized, if one does give reasons one is still bashed for tearing down others. Bradman's record is what it is, to prove a point one has to give their reasons.
For the record I don't believe Sobers was the second best batsman, I believe Richards was (better bowlers, equally dominant, mostly at No. 3) but all in the same ball park with Hobbs, Lara and Tendulkar and of course all for different reasons.

With regards to the perception that I am tearing down or under valuing Bradman, it's hard not to when they are persons who believe that he would have averaged over 100 in any era even the '80's and '90's, even vs the W.I quicks of the mid '80's and I find that hard to believe considering he didn't even average 100 of the W.I quicks of his day while playing at home and when they were a terrible fielding team and he struggled to start the series vs the quicks. He was the best batsman to play the game, his average, his sustained brilliance and thirst and determination for runs demands that status, but no one wants to place any perspective on his record. The rules, general lack of competition in comparison to even slightly later eras, the fact that he played in two countries and was the main attraction everywhere he played all has to be factored in. When ATG's are discussed in tennis, one has to look at the number of early majors were won because of the rules of the day (the defending champion only had to play the finals) and general lack of depth in the field. In basket ball the same, Russell had the most rings, Wilt the best numbers yet Michael is still seen as the best because of who he competed against.
Yes we revere our past greats and we do and Bradman was the best and deserves to be seen as such, but he wasn't a god and to suggest he would have consistently averaged the same say vs an attack of Marshall, Holder, Garner and Walsh or Warne, McGrath and Co or Imran, Waqar and Wasim as he did vs the s.a or Indian attacks he faced is considerably more disingenuous.

 

[Jassy]

Sure Bradman may not have averaged 99, but Sobers may not have averaged 57 either if he had to face Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Murali, Ambrose, Walsh, Bond, etc

The point is you're quick to pull Bradman down but you don't apply the same standards for Sobers who didn't exactly face Lillee, McGrath and Imran Khan day in and day out! And yes, flat pitches weren't just around in Bradman's time. Sobers had his fair share of flat pitches.

If we're going on strength of bowling attacks, a certain Australian number 3 faced all the bowlers mentioned at the start of this post.

 

[fredfertang]

Some might argue that had Bradman played in the 1990s, with covered wickets, full protective equipment and a modern bat, that he might have averaged 120 - I wouldn't obviously, but there are them as would

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is why I wasn't planning to respond to Jassy.

First of all it's not disingenuous if it's true. Secondly you are now and always tearing down Sobers batting and bowling records to show that Imran was the superior all rounder.

If one doesn't give reasons for statements it's criticized, if one does give reasons one is still bashed for tearing down others. Bradman's record is what it is, to prove a point one has to give their reasons.
For the record I don't believe Sobers was the second best batsman, I believe Richards was (better bowlers, equally dominant, mostly at No. 3) but all in the same ball park with Hobbs, Lara and Tendulkar and of course all for different reasons.

With regards to the perception that I am tearing down or under valuing Bradman, it's hard not to when they are persons who believe that he would have averaged over 100 in any era even the '80's and '90's, even vs the W.I quicks of the mid '80's and I find that hard to believe considering he didn't even average 100 of the W.I quicks of his day while playing at home and when they were a terrible fielding team and he struggled to start the series vs the quicks. He was the best batsman to play the game, his average, his sustained brilliance and thirst and determination for runs demands that status, but no one wants to place any perspective on his record. The rules, general lack of competition in comparison to even slightly later eras, the fact that he played in two countries and was the main attraction everywhere he played all has to be factored in. When ATG's are discussed in tennis, one has to look at the number of early majors were won because of the rules of the day (the defending champion only had to play the finals) and general lack of depth in the field. In basket ball the same, Russell had the most rings, Wilt the best numbers yet Michael is still seen as the best because of who he competed against.
Yes we revere our past greats and we do and Bradman was the best and deserves to be seen as such, but he wasn't a god and to suggest he would have consistently averaged the same say vs an attack of Marshall, Holder, Garner and Walsh or Warne, McGrath and Co or Imran, Waqar and Wasim as he did vs the s.a or Indian attacks he faced is considerably more disingenuous.

Actually what you're saying is irrelevant because

1) Youre holding Bradman and Sobers to different standards, because you doubt Bradman would maintain his average in the 80s but assume Sobers would be more adaptive and maintain his stats in any era. Would Tendulkar have averaged lower in the Bradman era because medium pacers like Bedser would have really troubled him? Would Viv have been tied up in knots by Warne and Murali? Would Sobers have averaged 58 against the Windies quartet? You ask none of these questions instead choosing to only concentrate on Don which would help you somehow rate Sobers closer to Bradman. That's why it's disingenuous

2) It doesn't matter anyway because you only face what's put in front of you, etc etc.

 

[Jassy]

I think the modern equipment and pitches don't really come into the equation. There were no 150 km/h bowlers in the Don's time and the pitches statistically in Bradman's era were pretty flat (not sure if I remember this right but I believe the 1930s were the best for batsman alongwith the 2000s statistically or something like that. Could be wrong though).

Kyear genuinely has a good point re. the lbw thing. Here's the thing let's dock 10 points off his average for the lbw, 5 each for pitches and bowlers. His average is still 80! That is ridiculous.

Picking on Bradman's record and all is fine, but the thing is no matter what how strictly you assess his record, his average is still at least 20-25 better than the next best. Do the same thing for Sobers now and see what that 57 becomes....

 

[OverratedSanity]

Even the lbw point isn't relevant because Bradman was the one who pushed for a change in the lbw law and actually averaged MORE after the new law was implemented. So nope, no slashing of average

 

[Jassy]

Even the lbw point isn't relevant because Bradman was the one who pushed for a change in the lbw law and actually averaged MORE after the new law was implemented. So nope, no slashing of average

Hmm look I don't think it would have made any big difference, but I'm pretty sure the umpires weren't as trigger happy as they are today; but yeah, it's pretty irrelevant anyway. Miandad would have most certainly not always had his average over 50 as he does now so it's not like Bradman was the sole beneficiary in the history of cricket.

The point really is, no matter how much you scrutinise Bradman's record you'll still find that he is at least 20-25 points ahead of his nearest rival.

 

[Red]

There were no 150 km/h bowlers in the Don's time.

How many 150kmh bowlers have there ever been? I mean really…

The way you make this point sounds like in Bradman's era everyone bowled 110kmh and in the modern era everyone pushes 160kmh. I know you didn't say that, but...

 

[watson]

There is little doubt that the standard of fielding has improved considerably since the War, and especially after the invention of limited over cricket in the 60s. So I think that Bradman would score less freely against a well drilled modern fielding side.

The other aspect of modern cricket that would curtail his average is the scheduling of numerous 50 and 20 over matches on top an already busier Test match itinerary. There is little doubt in my mind that the constant cycle of ODIs and T20 games would diminish his legendary appetite for runs, and ability to concentrate and focus to the same level that he would be accustomed.

I should also point out that it was his unique appetite for runs, and ability to concentrate and focus for long periods of time, that set him apart from his equally talented peers like Stan McCabe - not just within a single innings, but over entire an life-time. Consequently a busy modern schedule consisting of numerous limited over games would negatively impact Bradman more than most other batsman.

I'm pretty sure that these two facets of the modern game would be responsible for reducing Bradman's batting average more than any other facet or consideration. The former of course, would narrow the gap between him and modern batsman, and the latter would narrow the gap between him and most other, if not all batsman. But by how much, I wouldn't like to speculate.

 

[Jassy]

How many 150kmh bowlers have there ever been? I mean really…

The way you make this point sounds like in Bradman's era everyone bowled 110kmh and in the modern era everyone pushes 160kmh. I know you didn't say that, but...

Well I didn't mean it like that. I meant protective equipment doesn't really come into the equation when bowlers weren't that quick. Pretty much every fast bowler bowls in the 130-140 km/h range these days (Ishant Sharma aside ). Just don't think anyone back then was even that quick; pretty sure they were all considerably slower. Larwood a possible except exception maybe, but even all the anecdotes re. him bowling 100 mph I would take with a pinch of salt.

Anyone, we're digressing I suppose. Watson makes an interesting point and I think it is a valid point. So we have :

1)Fielding and bowling standards
2)(Lack of) variety wrt spinners and pacers
3)Lbw law/biased umpiring
4)Scheduling

And maybe we could add a couple more. The staggering thing though is that even if one were to dock 5 points each for those 4 and then another 10 just for the heck of it, Bradman woud still be averaging 70. In fact, I think that would be his modern average(pure conjecture of course), still comfortably better than everyone. He was just a freak of nature; you really can't argue against that average. If he had averaged 79 and not 99 I would readily rate a few batsmen over him but no matter how one sees it, an average of 99.96 is bloody hard to argue against. True champ. Sobers, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Richards were all champs in their own right but definitely a tier below the great man, possibly two tiers below.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

no matter how one sees it, an average of 99.96 is bloody hard to argue against.

Very true. It's just a shame that no one has ever achieved that average.

 

[Jassy]

Very true. It's just a shame that no one has ever achieved that average.

No doubt Ian Botham would have if he had been more dedicated.

 

[Red]

The thing that I will always find fascinating about Bradman is the complete disparity between him and the very best of the best. Bradman stands on his own, in another stratosphere, in terms of achievement and raw data.

It's worth considering two Englishmen from around Bradman's era- Jack Hobbs and Len Hutton. Both could justifiably be considered England's greatest two batsmen, and both could be considered in the 5 greatest batsmen of all time with plenty of rationale. Hobbs' career ended as Bradman's began, and Hutton played against Bradman plenty, and finished a few years after Bradman.

Hobbs and Hutton both have what are considered remarkably high batting averages (both 57). Consider the fact that a reasonable batsman averages somewhere around 40 (Boon, M. Waugh) and an absolutely outstanding batsman averages somewhere around 50. There are a few who average somewhere between 50-60, but no one who has played more than 20 tests has averaged above 61.The only men to average over 60 were Pollock, Headley and Sutcliffe, and 2 of those 3 had fairly short careers.

The remarkable fact here is that Bradman sits 40 runs per innings above the very best of the best. That is unbelievable almost, when you consider Bradman's worth to his team equalled the output of one of the very best of the best (apart from Bradman) plus a player of the calibre of Mark Waugh averaging 40. So, in very real terms, Bradman's output per innings equalled Graeme Pollock (cream of the crop apart from Bradman) and Mark Waugh (very good test batsman) combined.

Or to put it a few other ways (near enough to accurate)-

Bradman = Ricky Ponting + Steve Waugh

Bradman = Sachin Tendulkar + VVS Laxman

Bradman = Viv Richards + Clive Lloyd

Bradman = Greg Chappell + Ian Chappell

Bradman = Peter May + Ted Dexter

Unreal.

Seriously, to squabble over what Bradman might or might not have struggled with in the modern era is ridiculous. He was head and shoulders above his peers, and he is head and shoulders and torso above everyone, ever.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Had it not been for the War The Don would have retired after the 1942 tour of England with an average reduced to around 98.07 due to the poor weather that summer.

 

[Adders]

Ponting really has very few holes in his record

Some might consider the last 4 years of Pontings career as quite a significant hole.

 

[watson]

In 'relative terms' Bradman is so far ahead of every other batsman that he is indeed worth a Tendulkar and Laxman combined. But that fact misses the point. What we would really like to know is how far ahead is Bradman compared to the other great batsman in 'absolute terms'. That is, if it were possible to create a 'level playing field', how far ahead would he be?

Therefore, it is a matter of first defining what the 'level playing field' would be like. Only then can we attempt to make a true comparison between Bradman and someone like Tendulkar.