• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Pitting Don Bradman Against Leaders of Related Sports: An Investigation – Part 1

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This doesn't seem to me to be a good measure since the same would be true for a large number of Olympics sports which you would be very hard pressed to argue don't have as much competition as cricket.
Doesn't matter. There are plenty of measures and none of them put cricket and squash in the same ballpark. Participation at any level. Prize money at any level. Number of players making a living wage. I could go on and on.

I've seen some really bad points on here especially recently but trying to argue that squash is, or was at any stage, as competitive as cricket is one of the worst
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Doesn't matter. There are plenty of measures and none of them put cricket and squash in the same ballpark. Participation at any level. Prize money at any level. Number of players making a living wage. I could go on and on.

I've seen some really bad points on here especially recently but trying to argue that squash is, or was at any stage, as competitive as cricket is one of the worst
Okay dude, you know everything. Except how to have any discussion with civility. You do you. Cheers.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but I was perfectly civil the first 3 or 4 times. I'm sure you knew you were wrong a while ago but kept coming back. I don't get why.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
There are plenty of measures and none of them put cricket and squash in the same ballpark.
What measures are these?

In some current figures I looked at recently, the number of Australians playing cricket was 500 odd thousand and Squash was somewhere about a quarter of that. Now, cricket may have diminished in the same time period, but Squash was regularly played by a million Australians in it's popular days. I mean, sure my dad played squash, but so did my mum. My MUM! Squash was a surprisingly accessible sport. I think you are basing your opinion on squash on how it has been in your life time, where it was hard to find any players, because those players find it hard to find conveniently located courts.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
If I've read this thread correctly, Jahangir Khan would've averaged 100 had he opted for cricket.
I admire your staying power. I gave up at the point where squash was allocated to uncoordinated non sportsman. It takes a great degree of coordination and physical fitness. One thing it’s never had is mass spectator appeal, that’s one reason why it’s not in the Olympics.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Many years ago, I attended a squash tournament in Toronto.

While we waited for the matches to begin, I noticed a short, balding, portly man strolling around the players quarters. Isn’t that Hashim Khan, I asked my brothers ?

So, we approached him for his autograph, which he gladly gave us.

As we turned towards the stands, spectators quizzically looked at us wondering why we were seeking an autograph from this unknown chap.

Little did they know it was Hashim Khan, one of the greats of the game. He started as a ball boy for the British and practiced much after they had retired. He went on to win the British Open at the advanced age of 37 and for many years after.
 

Bolo.

International Captain
Doesn't matter. There are plenty of measures and none of them put cricket and squash in the same ballpark. Participation at any level. Prize money at any level. Number of players making a living wage. I could go on and on.

I've seen some really bad points on here especially recently but trying to argue that squash is, or was at any stage, as competitive as cricket is one of the worst
Just no.

Participation rates for squash were way higher in Khan's time in England and Aus than cricket. Rough numbers of regular players 3 and 1 million.

So probably close to an order of magnitude greater than the total number of players from all test nations in Bradmans time, just by looking at the two countries you are picking for Bradman. And squash has a big global reach. I have never lived in a place with more than 1 paved road that didnt have competitive squash. Lived in a bunch of places where the only cricket option was one of school/gully/none.

Squash is a rubbish spectator sport. Its impossible to watch in large numbers live and I cant remember a player, let alone non-player, ever having said they enjoyed it televised. Number of viewers is completely disconnected from number of players. Lack of audience revenue makes the sport a less attractive career, putting a likely ceiling on quality, so in a sense it may not be one of the huge sports in the context of this discussion, but this applied even more so to cricket in Bradmans era.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Sure, squash doesn't need helmets to stop you being killed, but it does have special eyeware so the ball doesn't suck your eyeball out of it's socket!

Was that just a myth? The idea was scarey when I used to play.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
I just looked it up. It's definitely a thing about eye injuries. Australian stats said about 3% of players get an eye injury. I couldn't be bothered to read again if that was yearly or for a lifetime, but still.

The eyeball thing, though is worse. Yes, the ball does try to suck your eye out of the socket, but perhaps, not all the way out. Maybe just bulgey eye. But worse, is that they said most blindness was caused by it making the eyeball explode. That's worse!
 

Top