The 'real' Steven Smith question...

[honestbharani]

Couldn't even face an attack of unconditioned fast bowlers bowling head-high bouncers. Imagine Bradman facing a modern and conditioned bowler.

Someone like Morne Morkel and Kyle Jamieson would have troubled Bradman with his bat-down shtick greatly.

Not as much as Irfan Pathan.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

((Couldn't even face an attack of unconditioned fast bowlers bowling head-high bouncers. ))Imagine Bradman facing a modern and conditioned bowler.

Someone like Morne Morkel and Kyle Jamieson would have troubled Bradman with his bat-down shtick greatly.

Ya,averaged just 99.94.Current bowling attack of Papua New Guinea would trouble bradman even more.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Couldn't even face an attack of unconditioned fast bowlers bowling head-high bouncers. Imagine Bradman facing a modern and conditioned bowler.

Someone like Morne Morkel and Kyle Jamieson would have troubled Bradman with his bat-down shtick greatly.

I think when guys are very meticulous(aka Smithesque) in their approach they always find a way. Again, this is purely based on my "assumption" but I think Bradman would have figured out some way to tackle tall pace bowlers with peak conditioning just like he found a way to deal with whatever was thrown at him in the body line series. But how much he would have he averaged after making those adjustments is a different question altogether. There are plenty of things that you can't answer, how he would have fared against reverse swing of Wasim and Waqar, against spinners like Murali/Kumble/Saqlain, or against the menacing pace bowlers like Holding, Roberts, Garner, Marshal, etc. I find it practically impossible that someone would score century after century against those great WI bowlers of the 80s. And that era was terrible for the batsmen coz of the way they were attacked with bouncer barrages, beamers, etc.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Personally, I dont think it was ever a hypothetical argument. Bradman was ahead of his peers as a batsman by a margin which is greater than half by which anyone else has ever been, perhaps more than half. Batting average of 50 has almost always indicated greatness (except perhaps the 2005-2015 CEO pitches) and this guy averaged double that.

I dont see it as Bradman would have averaged 80 if he played today nonsense, coz the hypotheticals are just assumptions and usually based on bias anyways. Its just that he was so much better than the next best of his era and no one has ever been that much better than their next best in any era. That makes him unquestionably the best batsman ever. And there is no shame in being in the next tier anyways.

This is a very strong argument compared to what some folks are saying(like he would average 80 or 100 or whatever with modern tools and training, and pitches were roads in other eras, etc.). He was just way ahead of his peers.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

I think when guys are very meticulous(aka Smithesque) in their approach they always find a way. Again, this is purely based on my "assumption" but I think Bradman would have figured out some way to tackle tall pace bowlers with peak conditioning just like he found a way to deal with whatever was thrown at him in the body line series. But how much he would have he averaged after making those adjustments is a different question altogether. There are plenty of things that you can't answer, how he would have fared against reverse swing of Wasim and Waqar, against spinners like Murali/Kumble/Saqlain, or against the menacing pace bowlers like Holding, Roberts, Garner, Marshal, etc. I find it practically impossible that someone would score century after century against those great WI bowlers of the 80s. And that era was terrible for the batsmen coz of the way they were attacked with bouncer barrages, beamers, etc.

Don’t agree .Verity ,laker were no child.bradman did do well against tiger and grimmett.Larwood was as fast any,lindwall was as good as any wi fast bowler.Both had no doubt that bradman was easily the best they ever saw/ever bowled.
we aren’t doubting those wi bowlers achievement because they never had to face D.G Bradman right?Or anyone any where of a player in his level.Or in O’Reillys words players like G.Chappell were child’s play in front of bradman.And Chappell was possibly the best they ever faced.
Ken farnes was 6.5 or 6.6 and bradman did average around 100 whenever he played.

 

[Prince EWS]

So the real Steven Smith question is actually a question about Bradman that has nothing to do with Smith at all. What a turn of events!

 

[andruid]

So the real Steven Smith question is actually a question about Bradman that has nothing to do with Smith at all. What a turn of events!

It was inevitable

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Bradman's average is overrated,

If you check 1920s, 30s and 40s.. Every decade produced 10 or more 50+ avg batsmen.. 5 from Australia and 5 from England.
Compare that to 70s or 80s or 90s
Just 4 or 5 batsmen from 3 or 4 different teams.

 

[Adders]

Some very weird rationales going on in this thread.

Are some of you thinking/suggesting that this discussion is about teleporting Bradman from the 1930's and throwing him into a test match tomorrow with his 30's bat, equipment and training etc. Or are we talking about the Don being born in the 90's with all the natural qualities that he had and seeing how he'd make it in the modern game?

Statistically there is a very strong argument that Don Bradman is the greatest sportsman ever of any sport.....never mind just the greatest cricketer. Twice as good as the next best he played with or against. Why the hell would there be any doubt whatsoever that whatever the qualities he had that enabled him to to be that far ahead of the pack in his era would not allow him to do the same or very similar in this one??

 

[Gnske]

Playing cricket all year round would have broken Bradman.

He'd have done a Bairstow at some point. Gone all in on IPL cash and ruined his technique for wallops. Retire averaging 46.2 in Test cricket

 

[Slifer]

Some very weird rationales going on in this thread.

Are some of you thinking/suggesting that this discussion is about teleporting Bradman from the 1930's and throwing him into a test match tomorrow with his 30's bat, equipment and training etc. Or are we talking about the Don being born in the 90's with all the natural qualities that he had and seeing how he'd make it in the modern game?

Statistically there is a very strong argument that Don Bradman is the greatest sportsman ever of any sport.....never mind just the greatest cricketer. Twice as good as the next best he played with or against. Why the hell would there be any doubt whatsoever that whatever the qualities he had that enabled him to to be that far ahead of the pack in his era would not allow him to do the same or very similar in this one??

Greatest batsman yes. And what Bradman achieved in batting, is probably the greatest statistical feat in sports history. But I disagree that he's the greatest Sportsman. Cricket is not just a batsmans game, taking wickets is just as important and fielding.

 

[Anil]

have we ever had a bradman vs tendulkar comparison thread? shame on us if we haven't yet.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Always thought Bradman was something of a quantum anomaly. Making him play again even in his own era might not return the same outlier stats.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Taken from DoG’s 100 test batsman.If someone wants to know about his adjusted stats and compare with any generation of batsman.Imo the greatest sportsman who ever lived.
No.1

Don Bradman (Australia) 1360

Quality Points: 1293
Career Points: 67

Career/Runs: 1928-1948, 6996 (rank 28)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate:91.96 (99.94) 80.47 (87.45) 65.73 (61.05)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1930-1946): 101.18 93.09 70.24
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate:93.56 81.08 63.52
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 86.66 78.64 65.82

There's nothing I can state about Sir Donald Bradman's skill with the willow that hasn't already been written by scores of cricket writers. Instead I will stick to the stats. The gap between Bradman and Hobbs is a massive 411 points. And yet there are only 270 points between Hobbs and Hanif Mohammad at no.100. That alone should convince anyone that Bradman is not only the greatest cricketer ever but probably the best sports athlete of all time when you look at the sheer chasm between himself and the rest of the field. The Don’s lowest adjusted average across all measures is 86.66 and he ranks 1st in all quality criteria. There will never be another like him. Most sports records are there to be broken. In all likelihood, Bradman’s 99.94 will stand alone forever.

 

[Coronis]

“The gap between Bradman and Hobbs is a massive 411 points. And yet there are only 270 points between Hobbs and Hanif Mohammad at no.100.”

Yet didn’t someone try to say he wasn’t the most dominant athlete ever?

 

[Slifer]

“The gap between Bradman and Hobbs is a massive 411 points. And yet there are only 270 points between Hobbs and Hanif Mohammad at no.100.”

Yet didn’t someone try to say he wasn’t the most dominant athlete ever?

I said he was the greatest batsman but not the greatest sportsman. Why? Because cricket is not just about making runs.

 

[Coronis]

I said he was the greatest batsman but not the greatest sportsman. Why? Because cricket is not just about making runs.

Nope, but he was also a great fielder and captain. 3/4 ain’t bad imo.

 

[Chrish]

How many tours Smith has missed supposedly at peak? A year of tempering. Then covid hit. Cricket Australia pulled out of four test tour to South Africa. In total 2-3 years? Not that I have sympathy for all of it..

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Bradman's average is overrated,

If you check 1920s, 30s and 40s.. Every decade produced 10 or more 50+ avg batsmen.. 5 from Australia and 5 from England.
Compare that to 70s or 80s or 90s
Just 4 or 5 batsmen from 3 or 4 different teams.

Is this accurate? Didn't we have uncovered pitches in that period?

 

[karan_fromthestands]

have we ever had a bradman vs tendulkar comparison thread? shame on us if we haven't yet.

It'll be a complete ****-show.