The 'real' Steven Smith question...

[Spark]

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..

Even if the sandpaper incident had never happened, Smith was collapsing mentally at the time IMO. Would have been nowhere near as productive until he got a proper break, especially had he been forced to go on every tour. His batting had already fallen away badly compared to the 18-19 Ashes.

The pandemic probably made more of a difference. From all reports that hit most Aus players pretty hard, they spent like six months in biosecure bubbles and couldn't see family from about August until after Christmas. Smith certainly looked like he was batting with a stick in that India series until the bio-bubble ended, then looked fine again. I think we underrate the sheer attritional impact that endless touring and endless cricket has on these elite top-level batsmen in particular and how much a break can refresh them: see also Root, Joe, and how he batted pre-pandemic break compared with post.

 

[honestbharani]

Which shows the break he got due to tampering may have ended up helping his record ultimately. That is such a strange way of things working out, lol.

 

[Slifer]

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

Captaining is not a personal cricket skill. Anyone could've captained the Aus teams of the 90s, the wi of the 80s and they still would've done well. And Bradman the fielder is not on a different plane from anyone else. It's only Bradman the batsman who's in rarified air. As far as a particular discipline in any sport, he mastered his more than any other sportsman but he wasn't the greatest sportsman. The only example I can really think of, is Nadal at the French open where he's played what 108 matches and lost 3 over 16 years. That's sick. But he (imo) isn't the best tennis player, let alone sportsman.

 

[Coronis]

Captaining is not a personal cricket skill.

Ok.

And Bradman the fielder is not on a different plane from anyone else. It's only Bradman the batsman who's in rarified air. As far as a particular discipline in any sport, he mastered his more than any other sportsman but he wasn't the greatest sportsman. The only example I can really think of, is Nadal at the French open where he's played what 108 matches and lost 3 over 16 years. That's sick. But he (imo) isn't the best tennis player, let alone sportsman.

So who in your opinion was the greatest sportsman?

 

[Slifer]

Ok.



So who in your opinion was the greatest sportsman?

Too many to choose from. From the sports I follow :

Basketball: Jordan, Wilt, Kareem
Tennis: Roger, Novak, Nadal, Laver,
Baseball: Ruth,
Football: Pele, Diego, Beckenbauer etc.
Hockey: the Great one
Boxing: really depends on weight class
Swimming: Phelps
Track/Field: too many disciplines but I'd give it to one of the great decathletes ex: Ashton Eaton etc
American Football: Jim Brown, Brady


Then you have people like Jim Thorpe, Deon Sanders etc who were worldclass in multiple sports disciplines. And of course there are a multitude of sports that I missed like volleyball, netball, gymnastics, wrestling, etc And I haven't even mentioned female athletes.

 

[Coronis]

Too many to choose from. From the sports I follow :

Basketball: Jordan, Wilt, Kareem
Tennis: Roger, Novak, Nadal, Laver,
Baseball: Ruth,
Football: Pele, Diego, Beckenbauer etc.
Hockey: the Great one
Boxing: really depends on weight class
Swimming: Phelps
Track/Field: too many disciplines but I'd give it to one of the great decathletes ex: Ashton Eaton etc
American Football: Jim Brown, Brady


Then you have people like Jim Thorpe, Deon Sanders etc who were worldclass in multiple sports disciplines. And of course there are a multitude of sports that I missed like volleyball, netball, gymnastics, wrestling, etc And I haven't even mentioned female athletes.

I wasn’t asking about the best from each sport, you said Bradman isn’t the greatest sportsman overall, so who do you think is?

 

[Slifer]

I wasn’t asking about the best from each sport, you said Bradman isn’t the greatest sportsman overall, so who do you think is?

Oh my bad. I honestly can't say. Just too many sports. Gun to my head, I'd go with someone like the Great one or Ruth. Ruth was an outstanding batter, great fielder, and very good pitcher.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Oh my bad. I honestly can't say. Just too many sports. Gun to my head, I'd go with someone like the Great one or Ruth. Ruth was an outstanding batter, great fielder, and very good pitcher.

None of the 2 top D.G BRADMAN. Bradmans test+ fc should be compared while comparing with the two imo.Ruth is basically a W.G grace of baseball.

 

[Slifer]

None of the 2 top D.G BRADMAN. Bradmans test+ fc should be compared while comparing with the two imo.Ruth is basically a W.G grace of baseball.

Yeah but even including FC, Bradman is still just the best batsman of all time. You're not winning any matches without taking wickets. Ruth, while not at Bradmans level in any of his disciplines, was far enough ahead as a batters of his time, while being a great fielder and pitcher. Let's put it this way, you could realistically win a baseball match with a team made up of just Ruths, can't do the same with Bradman.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Yeah but even including FC, Bradman is still just the best batsman of all time. You're not winning any matches without taking wickets. Ruth, while not at Bradmans level in any of his disciplines, was far enough ahead as a batters of his time, while being a great fielder and pitcher. Let's put it this way, you could realistically win a baseball match with a team made up of just Ruths, can't do the same with Bradman.

So,W.G =Ruth..And wait Bradman surpassed W.G.
(Just the best batsman)??His fc century ratio is twice good than other who scored 100 fc centuries.Hobbs average 51,bradman 95.His test avg is 99.94 compared to other in 50s.
Using your logic Gretzky would need a GK to win match so he can’t no.1 right and WG=Ruth.

 

[Slifer]

Who would you give MOS to:

Bradman 1930: 974 runs in 5 tests at 139
Barnes 1914: 49 wkts 4 tests at 11
Sobers 1966: 722 runs at 103 and 20 wkt at 27.

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Who would you give MOS to:

Bradman 1930: 974 runs in 5 tests at 139
Barnes 1914: 49 wkts 4 tests at 11
Sobers 1966: 722 runs at 103 and 20 wkt at 27.

I thought we were comparing careers not a single series,right?

 

[Slifer]

So,W.G =Ruth..And wait Bradman surpassed W.G.
(Just the best batsman)??His fc century ratio is twice good than other who scored 100 fc centuries.Hobbs average 51,bradman 95.His test avg is 99.94 compared to other in 50s.
Using your logic Gretzky would need a GK to win match so he can’t no.1 right and WG=Ruth.

Yes Bradman is literally just the best batsman of all time. What's so hard about that to understand?? I mentioned Gretzky and Ruth but I also said before that, that there are too many sports and too many things to consider b4 one can proclaim any one person as the best. Guess you missed that part. For example how do we compare individual sports to team sports. Then you have American sports prior to the 50s where African Americans weren't allowed to play etc. Bradman mastered one particular discipline in his sport probably more than anyone else in any other sport ie he's 50% better than other great batsmen. But cricket is not just a batsmans game.

 

[Slifer]

I thought we were comparing careers not a single series,right?

Don't be facetious, just pointing out that run scoring is not all what cricket is about...

 

[andruid]

So...this Steve Smith fella. Pretty good at cricket yeah?

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Yes Bradman is literally just the best batsman of all time. What's so hard about that to understand?? I mentioned Gretzky and Ruth but I also said before that, that there are too many sports and too many things to consider b4 one can proclaim any one person as the best. Guess you missed that part. For example how do we compare individual sports to team sports. Then you have American sports prior to the 50s where African Americans weren't allowed to play etc. Bradman mastered one particular discipline in his sport probably more than anyone else in any other sport ie he's 50% better than other great batsmen. But cricket is not just a batsmans game.

Ok.But using your opinion Gretzky would need a GK to win.His stats are no way better than of bradman.W.G>=Ruth.
So,It’s not wrong to consider Bradman the greatest.Cause the 2 you mentioned aren’t better than bradman.No one from any sport can be definitely better than Bradman. Bradman would certainly beat everyone by stat.

 

[Slifer]

Ok.But using your opinion Gretzky would need a GK to win.His stats are no way better than of bradman.W.G>=Ruth.
So,It’s not wrong to consider Bradman the greatest.Cause the 2 you mentioned aren’t better than bradman.No one from any sport can be definitely better than Bradman. Bradman would certainly beat everyone by stat.

Tbh, those were just two of several I had in mind, including Bradman. But like you mentioned, in team sports by their nature, you generally need teammates for you to perform. So how do you compare those players to players in individual sports? You really can't.

 

[centurymaker]

Too many to choose from. From the sports I follow :

Basketball: Jordan, Wilt, Kareem
Tennis: Roger, Novak, Nadal, Laver,
Baseball: Ruth,
Football: Pele, Diego, Beckenbauer etc.
Hockey: the Great one
Boxing: really depends on weight class
Swimming: Phelps
Track/Field: too many disciplines but I'd give it to one of the great decathletes ex: Ashton Eaton etc
American Football: Jim Brown, Brady


Then you have people like Jim Thorpe, Deon Sanders etc who were worldclass in multiple sports disciplines. And of course there are a multitude of sports that I missed like volleyball, netball, gymnastics, wrestling, etc And I haven't even mentioned female athletes.

Michael Phelps, has won 23 GOLD Medals! TWENTY THREE Golds in the modern era, next best in the entire olympic history is '9 Gold Medals!' And he won golds in several swimming disciplines. And won 8 in the 2008 olympics itself. Bradman's achievement isn't even close to that.

Usian BOLT completed 3 sets of 3 gold medal clean sweeps. 100m 200m 100 relay - 2008, 2012, 2016, while also breaking world records by quite some margins!

These achievements are far greater and super human than some batting supremacy and that too in the 1930s and 1940s, a semi-professional era! Bradman's is a statistical anomaly, which is possible when the game isn't fully professional yet.

But what Phelps and perhaps also Bolt have done is unparalleled. They have conquered the entire world, in the very common disciplines of swimming and running!

Bradman only conquered batting in his era, when how many people even batted in the niche sport? Just some select number of English and Australians and maybe few more. That isn't world domination, not even close. I can agree with Bradman being best batsman ever because of what he achieved in his era. But what is absolutely silly is to suggest he is the greatest sportsman of all time.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

Number of 50 or 50+ avg batsmen in top 25 run scorers

1920s - 10
Australia 4
England 6

1930s - 11
Australia 2
England 7

1940s - 16
Australia 5
England 4

1970s - 6
Australia 2
England 1

1980s - 4
Australia 2
England 0

1990s - 4
Australia 1
England 1

 

[centurymaker]

Then in hockey, you have Dhyan Chand who scored more international goals than anyone and at an incredible rate!

1. Chand 570 goals in 185 games

2. Abbas 348 goals in 311 games

Go through the entire list of 50 highest scorers in international hockey and except Dhyan Chand and B Singh, everyone on the list is scoring roughly 1 goal a game or less!

The fact that Chand has scored easily 2-3 times more goals than other top scorers and usually at 3 times the rate-- is a greater statistic than Bradman's.

List of men's field hockey players with 100 or more international goals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

By the same standard used, Chand is easily the greatest hockey player ever and so much superior to anyone else ever. But truth is hockey was also not truly professional in his era and he was so far ahead of everyone. This is similar to Bradman's average in his pre-professional era/amateur era.

In other sports people are sensible enough to realise that the sport has improved drastically and so stats from amateur eras cannot be taken at face value. But only in cricket deluded people still look at ancient amateur averages or pre-professional averages and take them at face value. And then start calling Bradman greatest ever athelete/sportsman, when it cannot be further from the truth.

I would take Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Messi and Ronaldo easily over Bradman as they all are far superior athletes and sportsmen, having broken world records in intensely competitive and professional era.