Bradman and Marshall or Sobers and Imran

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Bradman OP.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers being arguably the second best batsman himself does skew it a bit though, as does Marshall being able to bat a bit himself.

Tendulkar + McGrath vs Imran + Kallis might get to the heart of the question better but people have wildly differing views on Imran and Kallis as well so it's hard to find a good and fair fight.

EDIT: Just saw that Coronis already suggested that.

Let's do this.

 

[kyear2]

In a strong team I'm going for the former, no doubt.
But in an average to weak team think that the all rounders just gives more utility.

 

[subshakerz]

In a strong team I'm going for the former, no doubt.
But in an average to weak team think that the all rounders just gives more utility.

This is disappointing. I thought you would fight harder for the specialists.

 

[shortpitched713]

The whole thing with Bradman, is his numbers are surreal.

My conclusion from that is that Bradman couldn't be quite as good as his numbers would indicate, and that this indicates seismic shifts in the game during the pre War to post War period, and a continued evolution into the "modern" era. Not everyone will share this conclusion though, so the results should be one sided as **** in favor of Bradman-Marshall.

If Bradman is still the GOAT, and a roughly 66 averaging batsman in a comparable to modern era ( a reasonable conclusion in my mind), I'm still going with him and Marshall. If he is even worse than that through some unforseeable reason, then obviously you go with the Imran-Sobers group, but it all falls on the massive delta that Bradman could be.

 

[subshakerz]

In a strong team I'm going for the former, no doubt.
But in an average to weak team think that the all rounders just gives more utility.

Isn't it the opposite?

In a strong team wouldn't the extra value of a McGrath and Tendulkar be muted by the overall strength of the batting and bowling lineups?

Hence those who can be solid 5th bowler or no.8 bats be better.

Whereas in a weak team, a better specialist allows you to build your batting lineup or bowling attack around that person.

 

[Ali TT]

If you've got a mid team, I think I'd want two specialists over the all-rounders as all-rounders in crap teams often just get broken.

Also, Sobers is as freakishly good as an AR as Bradman is as a batter. If we are removing Bradman to make it a fair fight then we should remove Sobers as well and replace with Botham, Kapil Dev, Jadeja etc

 

[Coronis]

The whole thing with Bradman, is his numbers are surreal.

My conclusion from that is that Bradman couldn't be quite as good as his numbers would indicate, and that this indicates seismic shifts in the game during the pre War to post War period, and a continued evolution into the "modern" era. Not everyone will share this conclusion though, so the results should be one sided as **** in favor of Bradman-Marshall.

If Bradman is still the GOAT, and a roughly 66 averaging batsman in a comparable to modern era ( a reasonable conclusion in my mind), I'm still going with him and Marshall. If he is even worse than that through some unforseeable reason, then obviously you go with the Imran-Sobers group, but it all falls on the massive delta that Bradman could be.

So you decrease all pre-WWII batsmen’s average by 33%? I assume you’re also decreasing the bowler’s average too?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

So you decrease all pre-WWII batsmen’s average by 33%? I assume you’re also decreasing the bowler’s average too?

Also his two candidates of Best After Bradman, Weekes arrived at end of Bradman’s career when he was still dominating despite being half the player and Sobers within few years. People just act like how the game went to different league once Bradman retired.

Bradman averaged 96.34 against England attack of 30s.That English side and their bowling attack of 30s would have objectively and subjectively totally smashed those Ind,Nz, Pak teams that both played good deal of matches against. 43 percent for Weekes and 40 percent for Sobers. Not to go with at least finishing in even terms against those Eng/Aus team in average. But it’s only Bradman’s who stats are reduced because they are just too good.

This of course doesn’t mean Sobers isn’t a top 5 batsman or strong contender for best besides Bradman. I would have him 3-4 as well. But rather how people reduce only Bradman’s stats because they are just too good.

 

[shortpitched713]

So you decrease all pre-WWII batsmen’s average by 33%? I assume you’re also decreasing the bowler’s average too?

I don't as a rule, do anything of the sort. Bradman is an exception, and I've made a random shot in the dark under the assumption that he is human and hence could be comparable to other players. Otherwise the exercise in this thread is pointless.

I tend to agree with subshakerz, that he had some kind of "cheat code" of an approach, which is what made him seemingly invincible as a batsman. Inadequate resistance from bowling, or artificially constrained bowling could be a part of it. I do know the one time a captain decided to take him on with more "unconventional bowling/fielding tactics" ( a realization that literally every captain he ever played against should have had ), he came more in line with the mortals.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Also his two candidates of Best After Bradman, Weekes arrived at end of Bradman’s career when he was still dominating despite being half the player and Sobers within few years. People just act like how the game went to different league once Bradman retired.

Bradman averaged 96.34 against England attack of 30s.That English side and their bowling attack of 30s would have objectively and subjectively totally smashed those Ind,Nz, Pak teams that both played good deal of matches against. 43 percent for Weekes and 40 percent for Sobers. Not to go with at least finishing in even terms against those Eng/Aus team in average. But it’s only Bradman’s who stats are reduced because they are just too good.

This of course doesn’t mean Sobers isn’t a top 5 batsman or strong contender for best besides Bradman. I would have him 3-4 as well. But rather how people reduce only Bradman’s stats because they are just too good.

It kinda did tho. 50s were extremely bowling friendly while 40s were the most batting friendly era.

 

[Anil]

Jadeja and Thakur take it.

 

[kyear2]

Also his two candidates of Best After Bradman, Weekes arrived at end of Bradman’s career when he was still dominating despite being half the player and Sobers within few years. People just act like how the game went to different league once Bradman retired.

Bradman averaged 96.34 against England attack of 30s.That English side and their bowling attack of 30s would have objectively and subjectively totally smashed those Ind,Nz, Pak teams that both played good deal of matches against. 43 percent for Weekes and 40 percent for Sobers. Not to go with at least finishing in even terms against those Eng/Aus team in average. But it’s only Bradman’s who stats are reduced because they are just too good.

This of course doesn’t mean Sobers isn’t a top 5 batsman or strong contender for best besides Bradman. I would have him 3-4 as well. But rather how people reduce only Bradman’s stats because they are just too good.

I'm not sure if I follow what you're trying to say exactly, and definitely not trying to restart the Bradman argument.
But the English bowling attacks that Bradman played in the 30's doesn't compare to the ones that Sobers played after the war. Laker, Trueman, Statham, plus the Australian attacks og Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Benaud.
The pitches (outside of the Caribbean) also drastically changed from the early 50's
But again, not sure what point exactly you were trying to make.

 

[Coronis]

I do know the one time a captain decided to take him on with more "unconventional bowling/fielding tactics" ( a realization that literally every captain he ever played against should have had ), he came more in line with the mortals.

Except that you know, he still had the 3rd most runs in the series (440 vs 396, despite only playing 4 matches), the second highest average (Eddie Paynter beat him with 2 not outs in 5 innings) and averaged easily the highest of the Aussies (56.57 to 42.77, next highest was 37).

Should bowlers be bowling Bodyline to everyone just so Bradman still scores more runs than everyone?

 

[shortpitched713]

Also his two candidates of Best After Bradman, Weekes arrived at end of Bradman’s career when he was still dominating despite being half the player and Sobers within few years. People just act like how the game went to different league once Bradman retired.

Bradman averaged 96.34 against England attack of 30s.That English side and their bowling attack of 30s would have objectively and subjectively totally smashed those Ind,Nz, Pak teams that both played good deal of matches against. 43 percent for Weekes and 40 percent for Sobers. Not to go with at least finishing in even terms against those Eng/Aus team in average. But it’s only Bradman’s who stats are reduced because they are just too good.

This of course doesn’t mean Sobers isn’t a top 5 batsman or strong contender for best besides Bradman. I would have him 3-4 as well. But rather how people reduce only Bradman’s stats because they are just too good.

I think Hobbs is probably not that great either, if that helps.

But honestly I rate the hell out of Bradman, it's just I don't think he could have been an alien. There's diminishing returns on all of the batsmen throughout cricket history. Barring extreme bat/ball friendly conditions it goes >40 Good, >50 Great, all the way up to 60, which no one with an adequate length of career has managed to average, not for lack of talent either. Where there is smoke I tend to see a fire, so I think something must have been "off" for Bradman to be that much better. I don't question that he is the GOAT.

Also, I think Bradman having performed so well after WWII is a big part of why I rate him so, so highly (Same as I rate Sobers for keeping up good batting performance in a career that spanned massively changing eras). If Bradman's run scoring plummeted after the war, I would be much more likely to agree with anyone who questions the GOAT status. The footage of games after the war to me shows something with a bit more "intent" for lack of a word, a game played a bit more seriously than before. A world ****ing war can do that to a collective psyche, but regardless Bradman carried on just doing great.

 

[Coronis]

I think Hobbs is probably not that great either, if that helps.

But honestly I rate the hell out of Bradman, it's just I don't think he could have been an alien. There's diminishing returns on all of the batsmen throughout cricket history. Barring extreme bat/ball friendly conditions it goes >40 Good, >50 Great, all the way up to 60, which no one with an adequate length of career has managed to average, not for lack of talent either. Where there is smoke I tend to see a fire, so I think something must have been "off" for Bradman to be that much better. I don't question that he is the GOAT.

Also, I think Bradman having performed so well after WWII is a big part of why I rate him so, so highly (Same as I rate Sobers for keeping up good batting performance in a career that spanned massively changing eras). If Bradman's run scoring plummeted after the war, I would be much more likely to agree with anyone who questions the GOAT status. The footage of games after the war to me shows something with a bit more "intent" for lack of a word, a game played a bit more seriously than before. A world ****ing war can do that to a collective psyche, but regardless Bradman carried on just doing great.

So, what about all the other batsmen who played alongside him against the same attacks? Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Jackson, Brown, Barnes, Hassett, Morris. Were they all playing against the full strength attacks of their time while the bowlers just took it easy against Bradman so he could score so many runs?

 

[shortpitched713]

Except that you know, he still had the 3rd most runs in the series (440 vs 396, despite only playing 4 matches), the second highest average (Eddie Paynter beat him with 2 not outs in 5 innings) and averaged easily the highest of the Aussies (56.57 to 42.77, next highest was 37).

Should bowlers be bowling Bodyline to everyone just so Bradman still scores more runs than everyone?

Ugh, you seem to be painting me as someone who has a different view of Bradman than I actually do. He's the best. And I don't fetishize "oh he could/couldn't do it in the hardest conditions, i.e. cold wet day in Stoke" like many on here seem to do at the expense of looking at an overall record. I think it is very important for a batsman to also make hay when the runs are flowing, something people don't want to acknowledge when denigrating the most prolific so called FTBs of the early 2000s.

I just don't rate earlier eras of cricket, most especially the ones before WWII, and to a lesser extent the ones before the 70s, when fast bowling became solidified as an art of deadly efficiency by the West Indies, laying the blueprint for modern bowling/fielding approaches. It doesn't surprise me that an especially great batsman of an earlier era could be especially great at exploiting the weaknes of that era. For the last time, that doesn't mean he isn't the GOAT, or even not a great batsman, like some would assume such a line of reasoning would lead me to necessarily conclude.

 

[shortpitched713]

So, what about all the other batsmen who played alongside him against the same attacks? Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Jackson, Brown, Barnes, Hassett, Morris. Were they all playing against the full strength attacks of their time while the bowlers just took it easy against Bradman so he could score so many runs?

All a bunch of hacks, by modern standards.


(ACTUALLY THAT IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION, I'M JUST DOING THE THING YOU AND TRUNDLER DO TO ESCALATE THE IMPACT OF YOUR ONE LINER CONCLUSIONS VIA BRUSQUENESS.)

 

[Coronis]

Ugh, you seem to be painting me as someone who has a different view of Bradman than I actually do. He's the best. And I don't fetishize "oh he could/couldn't do it in the hardest conditions, i.e. cold wet day in Stoke" like many on here seem to do at the expense of looking at an overall record. I think it is very important for a batsman to also make hay when the runs are flowing, something people don't want to acknowledge when denigrating the most prolific so called FTBs of the early 2000s.

I just don't rate earlier eras of cricket, most especially the ones before WWII, and to a lesser extent the ones before the 70s, when fast bowling became solidified as an art of deadly efficiency by the West Indies, laying the blueprint for modern bowling/fielding approaches. It doesn't surprise me that an especially great batsman of an earlier era could be especially great at exploiting the weaknes of that era. For the last time, that doesn't mean he isn't the GOAT, or even not a great batsman, like some would assume such a line of reasoning would lead me to necessarily conclude.

Don’t worry, that’s just as stupid.

 

[Coronis]

All a bunch of hacks, by modern standards.


(ACTUALLY THAT IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION, I'M JUST DOING THE THING YOU AND TRUNDLER DO TO ESCALATE THE IMPACT OF YOUR ONE LINER CONCLUSIONS VIA BRUSQUENESS.)

You literally said oh he can’t be this good there must be some crazy factor at play. You’ve also literally said you don’t downgrade other players from his era, just Bradman, he’s the exception. I’m just trying to figure out whether theres any logic involved here or not.

Coming up blank atm.