What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[kyear2]

I don't deny Bradman was a better batsman than any other. where I draw the line is when it's stated that he is twice the batsman as a Viv or Sachin or as Monk states. Head, shoulder and torso ahead of any other. Any objective analysis shows he just wasn't.

 

[Jassy]

I guess I rate Bradman lower than Monk and higher than Kyear. He was comofortably ahead of blokes like Sobers but quite some way off being twice the batsman Sobers (or Viv/Tendulkar) was.

Another good post from Watson. Bradman=Ponting+Mark Waugh (assuming you typed Steve Waugh by mistake) sounds impressive enough but we're not comparing them on level playing field. Also, such stuff is generally not as impressive as it looks. Kallis = Tendulkar+Zaheer Khan was doing the rounds at the time of retirement and the future generations may well see it that way; but he just wasn't the batsman Tendulkar was and not very close to Zaheer either as a bowler...and these 3 blokes played in pretty much the same era! Even more iffy to come up with such equations across eras.

 

[Red]

Statistically, he was twice the batsmen his peer's were.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you consider Tendulkar and Hutton as basically equals as batsmen (which I don't think is unreasonable). Bradman is at least 80% better than either of them, and possible twice the player both of them are based on output. In all seriousness, you can throw all the bull**** into the mix you want, but Bradman is so far ahead of anyone else it's ridiculous.

What more do people want than he has an average of double the very best batsmen?

 

[smash84]

It is amazing that all the very best batsmen in almost 150 years of cricket have an average between 50 and 60. Bradman is just a friggin 100 and that to me is unexplainable. Perhaps, as fred put it. Bradman wasn't twice the batsman that viv was but over the length of his career he was twice as effective.

 

[smash84]

And I rate viv higher than most here. Best after bradman imo

 

[harsh.ag]

It is amazing that all the very best batsmen in almost 150 years of cricket have an average between 50 and 60. Bradman is just a friggin 100 and that to me is unexplainable. Perhaps, as fred put it. Bradman wasn't twice the batsman that viv was but over the length of his career he was twice as effective.

The way I have explained it to myself is that he was - a) More hungry than anybody else and b) Studied the game to a very great extent w.r.t. to how the bowlers bowl and get their movement and spin etc (which comes across in his book The Art of Cricket)

 

[watson]

Statistically, he was twice the batsmen his peer's were.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you consider Tendulkar and Hutton as basically equals as batsmen (which I don't think is unreasonable). Bradman is at least 80% better than either of them, and possible twice the player both of them are based on output. In all seriousness, you can throw all the bull**** into the mix you want, but Bradman is so far ahead of anyone else it's ridiculous.

What more do people want than he has an average of double the very best batsmen?

No one is debating your point Monk, although I'm not sure about the 80% figure.

So here's the question. If Bradman and McCabe were to both play the exact same 200 Tests as Tendulkar, what do anticipate their respective averages would be? Would they go up, down, or stay the same? Obviously there is no concrete answer, but it's an interesting thought experiment just the same.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No one is debating your point Monk, although I'm not sure about the 80% figure.

So here's the question. If Bradman and McCabe were to both play the exact same 200 Tests as Tendulkar, what do anticipate their respective averages would be? Would they go up, down, or stay the same? Obviously there is no concrete answer, but it's an interesting thought experiment just the same.

You're asking if he'd maintain his stats over a larger number of tests right? Can't see Bradman's average going down even in that case. Case in point being his FC average of 95 which was achieved over 22 years and around 65 billion matches (actually it was around 220 matches iirc).

 

[kyear2]

Statistically, he was twice the batsmen his peer's were.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you consider Tendulkar and Hutton as basically equals as batsmen (which I don't think is unreasonable). Bradman is at least 80% better than either of them, and possible twice the player both of them are based on output. In all seriousness, you can throw all the bull**** into the mix you want, but Bradman is so far ahead of anyone else it's ridiculous.

What more do people want than he has an average of double the very best batsmen?

As I had said in an earlier post, Hutton was the first batsman who faced consistently strong bowling attacks. O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Ramadin and Valentine. What he faced post war even though relatively close to same era as Bradman was considerably, considerably more difficult. England's post war attack was initially quite poor and the Indian attack was god awful. No way was Bradman 80% better than Hutton or Tendulkar or Sobers or Richards or Lara or back to Jassy point even Ponting.

The man bad a perfect storm and capitalized on it. The only players he was twice or 80% better that are the ones he played with on his same team over the length of his career.
Even Headley who shared the same era instead of playing India and South Africa played against only the top two teams in the era and both home and away and played in more countries in 20 Tests than Bradman.

I laugh when I hear Australians use the minnows argument vs Murali vs Warne debates because no one capitalized on Minnow attacks more than Bradman in those two series. And to be honest if there was one player who is the closest to Don if not his equal in statistical dominance and ridiculous records it's Murali.

 

[NUFAN]

How's 80% come into the equation? Of course Bradman isn't 80% better than the other greats and there is nothing about his record which suggests he was.

 

[smash84]

As I had said in an earlier post, Hutton was the first batsman who faced consistently strong bowling attacks. O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller, Ramadin and Valentine. What he faced post war even though relatively close to same era as Bradman was considerably, considerably more difficult. England's post war attack was initially quite poor and the Indian attack was god awful. No way was Bradman 80% better than Hutton or Tendulkar or Sobers or Richards or Lara or back to Jassy point even Ponting.

The man bad a perfect storm and capitalized on it. The only players he was twice or 80% better that are the ones he played with on his same team over the length of his career.
Even Headley who shared the same era instead of playing India and South Africa played against only the top two teams in the era and both home and away and played in more countries in 20 Tests than Bradman.

I laugh when I hear Australians use the minnows argument vs Murali vs Warne debates because no one capitalized on Minnow attacks more than Bradman in those two series. And to be honest if there was one player who is the closest to Don if not his equal in statistical dominance and ridiculous records it's Murali.

What would you have to say about sobers's cashing in on the minnow indians? Isnt that where he really cashed in? Averaging something like 86?

 

[NUFAN]

Also, Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad were good bowlers kyear. They'd have even better records if they didn't have to bowl to the greatest batsman of all time.

 

[watson]

You're asking if he'd maintain his stats over a larger number of tests right? Can't see Bradman's average going down even in that case. Case in point being his FC average of 95 which was achieved over 22 years and around 65 billion matches (actually it was around 220 matches iirc).

Fair enough. But I do find your opinion counter-intuitive, especially if we consider all the ODIs Tendulkar had to play as well. But of course, there's no inherent reason why my intuition should be more reliable than your intuition.

 

[harsh.ag]

Bradman is the exception to the "reversion to mean" rule ! Hail the outlier, but we tend to remove such data points from the set while performing analysis/regression. So, sorry Don, you were a blimp that science will refuse to acknowledge.

 

[kyear2]

How's 80% come into the equation? Of course Bradman isn't 80% better than the other greats and there is nothing about his record which suggests he was.

Number Monk used.

 

[kyear2]

What would you have to say about sobers's cashing in on the minnow indians? Isnt that where he really cashed in? Averaging something like 86?

Bowlers Sobers faced and scored at least half centuries against.

Australia: Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Davidson.
England: Trueman, Statham, Laker, Lock, Snow, Willis, Underwood
India: Gupte, Prassana, Bedi, Chandrasekhar

Yes the early Indian attack was poor, it's the same attack that Bradman and Weekes plundered. Don't dispute that, As listed above Sobers scored quality runs against great attacks and these attacks counterbalanced and brought his average back to earth. That is true of every great batsman after Hutton. Also in that list doesn't include what is probably his best innings against Dennis Lillee who called Sobers one of the three best batsmen he bowled to along with the two Richards.

I am not saying Sobers and Bradman are equal, similar to what Nufan alluded to, I also don't believe Bradman was 80% or as Monk put it head, shoulders and torso better that the next tier either. That's the only point I was making.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

In bowling terms, it's as if Bradman took 400 wickets at a shade over 12.

What I find weird is that there's no-one in between 99.94 and the next guy (whoever that would be depending on quals such as minimum Tests etc.) But that next guy (say he averages 60) would have plenty of batsmen right behind him, yet there's no-one averaging 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 or 95.

 

[Red]

Alright. 50%.

 

[Red]

What I find weird is that there's no-one in between 99.94 and the next guy (whoever that would be depending on quals such as minimum Tests etc.) But that next guy (say he averages 60) would have plenty of batsmen right behind him, yet there's no-one averaging 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 or 95.

Agree, it's what I find weird too. That no one has ever averaged in the 70s or 80s even.

It's as if the pinnacle is somewhere around 55-60 for the very elite (and that's a rare few- 50 is outstanding). Then there's Bradman on 99. ****ing uncanny.

 

[watson]

Agree, it's what I find weird too. That no one has ever averaged in the 70s or 80s even.

It's as if the pinnacle is somewhere around 55-60 for the very elite (and that's a rare few- 50 is outstanding). Then there's Bradman on 99. ****ing uncanny.

There have been 3 batsman who have averaged in the 70s over 52 Test matches;

Ricky Ponting (2002 to 2006) = 74.52
Garry Sobers (1957 to 1968) = 72.90
Jacques Kallis (2001 to 2006) = 71.20

And there have been 16 other batsman who have averaged in the 60s (eg Dravid = 66.89) over 52 Test matches.

The List: Who is closest to Don Bradman, George Lohmann and Joel Garner? | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

So as far as Ponting, Sobers, and Kallis are concerned the gap sits at about 25% to 30% for an equivalent amount of Test matches. Given the variety of attacks that they faced in varying conditions, the higher standard of fielding, and in the case of Ponting and Kallis the heavy scheduling of ODIs inbetween the Tests, I would say that the gap between them and Bradman is even closer than the numbers suggest.