Best performed cricketers across all conditions and vs any opponent

[Victor Ian]

I generally do not agree when you just try to fit in some of the guys from the previous eras everywhere. I mean, how can players of Bradman's time even be considered for this type of thread?? It's about players doing well in a variety of conditions, adaptability becomes a huge factor here, how can you just claim that Bradman would fit in this category?? And I have no problem whether you include Tendulkar or not, I haven't mentioned anything about him anyways.

I mostly took umbrage at the sticky wicket comment. It did not enhance your argument as modern players could not be compared. For the record, I am a huge Tendulkar fan.

I found my answer to how much Bradman averaged on Stickies in another thread Cricket Web - Features: The Curious Case of the Don and the Sticky Wicket. Seems, not very much (20ish). Is there an analysis of how Hobbs or Hammond fared on Stickies so I may appreciate why they are ranked so highly in this regard?

 

[hendrix]

Yes but you have a Bradman obsession. A thread barely passes where you don't take a pot shot at his record to satisfy whatever miniscule grudge you appear to have against him. Even when there is no apparent segue to justify raising the topic. Bradman only played in 2 countries. No matter really. The variable conditions brought about by the weather constituted an ability he had for adaptation. The general belief that players from his time can't be considered for this thread is based on ignorance. Hammond, for example played in 5 of the 6 test nations then playing. He played on matting and jute wickets in SA and the WI. Compared to homogenous modern pitches he played on wickets of greater variety than the modern player will ever see.

There's no question whether he would have done well or not. Of course he would have. He's the best batsman in history.

The point is that he didn't. This thread is about players with the greatest records across any opponent in any continent. Being that Bradman (and other players before the 70s) didn't really play many opponents, he must be excluded.

 

[smash84]

He did well wherever he had the opportunity to play

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I mostly took umbrage at the sticky wicket comment. It did not enhance your argument as modern players could not be compared. For the record, I am a huge Tendulkar fan.

I found my answer to how much Bradman averaged on Stickies in another thread Cricket Web - Features: The Curious Case of the Don and the Sticky Wicket. Seems, not very much (20ish). Is there an analysis of how Hobbs or Hammond fared on Stickies so I may appreciate why they are ranked so highly in this regard?

English stickies are generally regarded. as easier to bad upon than Australian stickies

 

[the big bambino]

There's no question whether he would have done well or not. Of course he would have. He's the best batsman in history.

The point is that he didn't. This thread is about players with the greatest records across any opponent in any continent. Being that Bradman (and other players before the 70s) didn't really play many opponents, he must be excluded.

Look I agree. Its a fact that he only played in 2 countries.I personally don't think it harms his reputation and have my own reasons for thinking his average would have risen if he did play in more countries.

So if you are going to exclude Bradman (or others) bcos they didn't play in as many countries then its a reasonable justification to me. I understand and have no problems.

But just say it and move on. Why mention throwaway comments about sticky wickets being the only challenge of his day? It seems to me thats just raised to belittle the challenges he mastered. In case you think I'm reading too much into the comments I'll respond by saying others picked up on it too and its the latest comment consistent with a pattern.

There are some fans who are jealous of the past bcos there team's record isn't necessarily a proud one. Similarly others might be miffed bcos their team hasn't produced as many quick bowlers as a rival. I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed a strain of commentary that tends to qualify the success of some champions. So we get talk about Bradman's record in an attempt to drag him back to the pack. Or that Imran's "cheating" was unique. Yet the truth is ironically the opposite. Bradman was unique while Imran's ball tampering was not. Admittedly I'm guessing at the motivation for those types of threads but surely I'm not imagining the revsionism itself.

 

[hendrix]

Look I agree. Its a fact that he only played in 2 countries.I personally don't think it harms his reputation and have my own reasons for thinking his average would have risen if he did play in more countries.

So if you are going to exclude Bradman (or others) bcos they didn't play in as many countries then its a reasonable justification to me. I understand and have no problems.

But just say it and move on. Why mention throwaway comments about sticky wickets being the only challenge of his day? It seems to me thats just raised to belittle the challenges he mastered. In case you think I'm reading too much into the comments I'll respond by saying others picked up on it too and its the latest comment consistent with a pattern.

There are some fans who are jealous of the past bcos there team's record isn't necessarily a proud one. Similarly others might be miffed bcos their team hasn't produced as many quick bowlers as a rival. I don't think I'm not the only one who has noticed a strain of commentary that tends to qualify the success of some champions. So we get talk about Bradman's record in an attempt to drag him back to the pack. Or that Imran's "cheating" was unique. Yet the truth is ironically the opposite. Bradman was unique while Imran's ball tampering was not. Admittedly I'm guessing at the motivation for those types of threads but surely I'm not imagining the revsionism itself.

Yeah fair enough and I certainly agree with regards to the vested interests in some of the revisionism. Haven't been around for long enough to notice it from Karan but yeah, fair enough if it's in response to that type of posting.

 

[Red]

The point is that he didn't. This thread is about players with the greatest records across any opponent in any continent. Being that Bradman (and other players before the 70s) didn't really play many opponents, he must be excluded.

Peter May (as an example) played against 6 different opponents in 5 different countries. That was in the 1950s-1960s. That's a decent sample size.

 

[watson]

I think that the concern about batting success on 'sticky' wickets is exaggerated because they are an exception to the norm. That is, about 90% of the time the Don was playing on reasonable wickets, not unplayable ones.

Therefore, would you rather have a batsman in your team who averages 100 during 90% of your matches? Or would you rather have a batsman who scores some useful runs during 10% of your matches?

 

[Red]

A large part of the reason Bradman might've struggled on stickies is that he was Australian and they are unfamiliar here. More common in England.

With the reflexes Bradman clearly had, I'd imagine if he spent any time on stickies, he would've mastered them.

Now, back on topic. If anyone wants to discuss Bradman and stickies further, please start another thread….

 

[Red]

Geoff Boycott.

My admiration for him continues to grow. Wish I'd seen him bat more than I have.

In Africa- 49.66
In Americas- 51.26
In Asia- 58.83
In Europe- 48.40
In Oceania- 40.38

Tremendously consistent player, and considering he was an opener in the era he played in, his record is all the more remarkable.

 

[the big bambino]

Geoff Boycott.

My admiration for him continues to grow. Wish I'd seen him bat more than I have.

In Africa- 49.66
In Americas- 51.26
In Asia- 58.83
In Europe- 48.40
In Oceania- 40.38

Tremendously consistent player, and considering he was an opener in the era he played in, his record is all the more remarkable.

You didn't miss much.

Srsly though a great player and a good mention..

 

[Red]

You didn't miss much.

Srsly though a great player and a good mention..

Ha, so I hear. But I admire "proper" batting technique immensely and from what I hear he had it!

Cannot dismiss someone lightly who can average 50 as an opener in a pretty brutal pace bowling era. Certainly makes it easier for the middle order.

 

[karan316]

Yes but you have a Bradman obsession. A thread barely passes where you don't take a pot shot at his record to satisfy whatever miniscule grudge you appear to have against him. Even when there is no apparent segue to justify raising the topic. Bradman only played in 2 countries. No matter really. The variable conditions brought about by the weather constituted an ability he had for adaptation. The general belief that players from his time can't be considered for this thread is based on ignorance. Hammond, for example played in 5 of the 6 test nations then playing. He played on matting and jute wickets in SA and the WI. Compared to homogenous modern pitches he played on wickets of greater variety than the modern player will ever see.

I do not attack Bradman, its just that there has to be a valid reason when you want to include people in X or Y thread, you can't rely on assumptions to prove your points. Bradman was one of the greatest batsmen ever, and I respect what he has done for the game, but can't just agree with each and every comment made in his favour by his fans. There is no denying that the wickets of those times were flat on most occassions.

Here's a comment from Larwood

“Cricket is a batsman’s game. The pitches are prepared to suit run-making. The laws are made to preserve the batsman’s wicket. It was so biased in favour of the batsmen (in the 1920s and 1930s) that there was no pressure on them at all. If we got four wickets down in a day, we’d done a good day’s work. If we got five, we had an extra drink,”

And talking about the weather conditions, everyone has faced it, you can't make it sound as if only the players of those times had to deal with variable weather, how many times do you see a batting collapes in SA or Eng due to the overcast conditions? it's not something that was exclusive to the players of that time.

I mostly took umbrage at the sticky wicket comment. It did not enhance your argument as modern players could not be compared. For the record, I am a huge Tendulkar fan.

I found my answer to how much Bradman averaged on Stickies in another thread Cricket Web - Features: The Curious Case of the Don and the Sticky Wicket. Seems, not very much (20ish). Is there an analysis of how Hobbs or Hammond fared on Stickies so I may appreciate why they are ranked so highly in this regard?

Look I agree. Its a fact that he only played in 2 countries.I personally don't think it harms his reputation and have my own reasons for thinking his average would have risen if he did play in more countries.

So if you are going to exclude Bradman (or others) bcos they didn't play in as many countries then its a reasonable justification to me. I understand and have no problems.

But just say it and move on. Why mention throwaway comments about sticky wickets being the only challenge of his day? It seems to me thats just raised to belittle the challenges he mastered. In case you think I'm reading too much into the comments I'll respond by saying others picked up on it too and its the latest comment consistent with a pattern.

There are some fans who are jealous of the past bcos there team's record isn't necessarily a proud one. Similarly others might be miffed bcos their team hasn't produced as many quick bowlers as a rival. I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed a strain of commentary that tends to qualify the success of some champions. So we get talk about Bradman's record in an attempt to drag him back to the pack. Or that Imran's "cheating" was unique. Yet the truth is ironically the opposite. Bradman was unique while Imran's ball tampering was not. Admittedly I'm guessing at the motivation for those types of threads but surely I'm not imagining the revsionism itself.

The comment about "sticky wickets" was because of the fact that Bradman failed to adapt and do well on them which pretty much kills the argument that he would have done well had he played in more countries/different conditions, and he wasn't the best performed cricketer across all conditions even in his time. Regardless of that he was still the best player of his time, and like I said before, this is not an attempt to attack Bradman, m just not fine with people over rating the players of the past eras.

And talking about "jealous fans". You can go through my post history, I m pretty much a neutral who has spoken in favour of a lot of players from different countries without being biased. I might or might not be right, but I don't overrate people because they are from my country. I just express my opinions which are a bit practical, I do not like to just blindly believe in things.

And I totally respect and value what the guys from the previous eras have done, but I can't take it when stuff is exaggerated. We have a lot of footages, we can see the big difference in the level of cricket, but most people choose to turn a blind eye to it because they just want to glorify certain players of the past and compare them with the present ones.

Lets just move on with the thread, its no point arguing on this same topic over and over again. My views cant change(until someone provides a strong reasoning for it), and its the same for most people on cricketweb.

 

[Red]

Lets just move on with the thread, its no point arguing on this same topic over and over again. .

 

[the big bambino]

The Larwood anecdote is charming but its based on a myth. The received wisdom that pitches of the 30s were uniformly unmitigated roads is one cricket's greatest misconceptions. In fact the statement would be truer for pitches of the last 14 years.

 

[the big bambino]

...There is no denying that the wickets of those times were flat on most occassions. Here's a comment from Larwood “Cricket is a batsman’s game. The pitches are prepared to suit run-making. The laws are made to preserve the batsman’s wicket. It was so biased in favour of the batsmen (in the 1920s and 1930s) that there was no pressure on them at all. If we got four wickets down in a day, we’d done a good day’s work. If we got five, we had an extra drink,”

There is every denying the highlighted. Ironically if Larwood was as inept as described you wouldn't have heard this story. His club would have sacked him and he'd have gone back down t'pit and no one would have heard of him.

The decadal batting averages for the last 10 decades have been consistently around the 32-35 mark with the exception of the 50s. The 30s ave was 32.7 making it indistinguishable from the 60s 70s and 80s and 3/4 of a point higher than the 90s or no real difference at all. However the 30s ave is distorted both by Bradman's presence and the relatively high proportion of innings he played. Bradman is often a victim of his own success. Revisionists point to the bowling averages he destroyed to argue he didn't face much. While that is false as the decadal averages show it is fair to remove Bradman's stats so we can gauge a baseline ave to see what he had to contend with before battering them. Removing his stats sees the 30s batting ave fall to 31.46 or the 2nd lowest of the last 100 years. Larwood is therefore clearly mistaken.

And talking about the weather conditions, everyone has faced it, you can't make it sound as if only the players of those times had to deal with variable weather, how many times do you see a batting collapes in SA or Eng due to the overcast conditions? it's not something that was exclusive to the players of that time.

Plainly false. Modern players do not play on uncovered and sticky wickets.

The comment about "sticky wickets" was because of the fact that Bradman failed to adapt and do well on them which pretty much kills the argument that he would have done well had he played in more countries/different conditions

The players here are rated on their ability to adapt to different geographical locations. A sticky wicket, like any other bad pitch, is merely a rare circumstance. Bradman's failures on stickies no more define his adaptability than if SRT had a single figure match on a raging green top.

he wasn't the best performed cricketer across all conditions even in his time.

Really? Who was better?

just not fine with people over rating the players of the past eras.

Hmmm. I'm not fine with revisionists under rating past champions for whatever reason might motivate them.

And I totally respect and value what the guys from the previous eras have done, but I can't take it when stuff is exaggerated. We have a lot of footages, we can see the big difference in the level of cricket, but most people choose to turn a blind eye to it because they just want to glorify certain players of the past and compare them with the present ones.

Well yes; the line that holds standards in cricket have improved but not cinematography. Look I could show future generations clips of SRT getting bowled sitting on his butt or Lara getting out to a woman. Doesn't prove much. Besides this thread is about players adaptability not the improving standards of cricket. If that was a consideration you would similarly discount Graeme Pollock, both Richards, Lillee, Thompson Hall...in short practically anyone who'se played the game. But you fixate on Bradman almost exclusively. It suggests a motivation to talk him down. I suspect I know the reason.

Lets just move on with the thread, its no point arguing on this same topic over and over again.

You would have been more genuine if you began with this and left it at that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've always considered this factor (completeness of record against/in countries) as very important when judging whether a batsman is truly great or not. It's no coincidence at all that every single ATG batsman in the history of the game has at most one or two bogey countries. Obviously guys like Tendulkar stand out because of his pristine records across the board. He literally doesn't have mediocre records against anyone. But does that mean he was never ever anything less than great against any opposition he faced? Well no. He had a pretty mediocre record against South Africa for most of his career. Being the greatthat he is, he did score several gems against Donald and Co, but his pure average against them didn't look that great (around 34 I think )

And this means that the other reason he's rated so highly, his longevity, allowed him to have a few more cracks against SA, helping him tick off another box to make his resume seem absolutely perfect. The fact that he played for so long (which is obviously admirable) gives him an advantage in this regard. Would Lara have dragged his average against India over that 40 mark if he'd played for a couple more years? Maybe. Would Kallis have scored heavily against Sri Lanka if he'd had another chance? Yeah, probably. It's weird that one of the main reasons he's rated highly (longevity) fed into another one (completeness of record) and improved his legacy even more. Kinda unfair now I think about it.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm seeing that SRT's ave v SA is 42 overall and 46 in SA which is quality. Charles Davis did a break down of his ave against bowlers faced and he averaged 34 against Donald and you'd have to doubt any other player did as well against Donald.

 

[Spark]

Given that we've had the discussion about six hundred times in different threads, let's actually move on from the Bradman stuff now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm seeing that SRT's ave v SA is 42 overall and 46 in SA which is quality. Charles Davis did a break down of his ave against bowlers faced and he averaged 34 against Donald and you'd have to doubt any other player did as well against Donald.

I get that. My point was that if Tendulkar had retired before his last South Africa tour, he would have retired with a sub 40 average against them. The fact that he played for such a ridiculous amount of time allowed him to have more shots against each nation.