Interesting take on Bradman's concentration levels.

[shortpitched713]

I just don't believe you're approaching this with clean hands. Of course you can make comparisons with stats. It is the most impartial measure and it is linked to performance. Yes there are contexts such as improving standards but that is countered by the fact great players adjust to improvements otherwise their careers would've abruptly ended. I think they're peripheral to cross era comparisons whereas I think you are using them to make a point but without providing examples to justify it.

The examples I give must be analagous across sports. Only because we're talking about a 1 of 1 phenomenon within each sport. From statistical standpoints, there is no other Morphy in chess. There is no other Ruth in baseball, Chamberlain in basketball, Pele in soccer, etc. The similarity they all have is that they could push the boundaries of their respective sports, in a golden era when the canvas of individual expressive excellence was yet to be fully explored. To say Bradman is better than these other greats of sport based on sterile statistics, seems to miss something important. Similarly too to say that any of these "foundational/golden era" greats were definitively greater than every single one that came after. In foundational influence, yes. Excellence, well that is highly contentious due to the confounding factors of time and context of more developed game(s).

 

[shortpitched713]

Wrong. He is.

Well that settles it then.

 

[shortpitched713]

More seriously, I think that Bradman had to face less adversity than some of the other foundational/golden era GOATs of their respective sports, but I'm sure that sort of opinion is going to be considered a bit nitpicky/unpopular on a cricket forum.

 

[ataraxia]

He averaged 100. Next highest averaged 60. No one comes close – in any sport. (Imran doesn't count.)

 

[shortpitched713]

He averaged 100. Next highest averaged 60. No one comes close – in any sport. (Imran doesn't count.)

I know, and I totally agree about that point. But it is still stats without context. There is a meaningful context which I think we're trying to gloss over to make our sport's guy come out looking better.

 

[Spikey]

I had a look at the 1930 Ashes and was surprised they were 4 day tests with a rest day in the middle. As they seemed to bowl 120-130 overs per day did they have extra long days which is why the rest day was needed after day 2?

1930 Ashes was the first one they played over 4 days. If the series was undecided going into the last test, it became timeless. Previous to that English tests were played over 3 days while Australian tests were timeless. The 1948 Ashes changed it to 5 days, which are the only 5 day tests Bradman ever played as I recall. England continued to play 3 day tests outside of matches against Aus in this era. Rest day was just because of the sabbath on Sunday. No play on Sundays lasted a very long time. (similar concepts existed in other sports)

this is an annoying article because the whole bradman discussion is simply why was Bradman able to convert his 20+ scores into centuries, and double centuries, at a rate no other human has come close to. concentration would then indeed be an important factor to consider. and so this article just.....does nothing? what a waste of time from that person

 

[ataraxia]

I know, and I totally agree about that point. But it is still stats without context. There is a meaningful context which I think we're trying to gloss over to make our sport's guy come out looking better.

The difference between Bradman's batting output and Headley's batting output is the same as that between Headley's output and Hedley Verity's output. Even if you think his average would be massively nerfed to 80 these days, then the difference between Bradman's output and Sangakkara's output is the same as that between Sangakkara's output and Mark Butcher's. It is huge.

 

[Burgey]

More seriously, I think that Bradman had to face less adversity than some of the other foundational/golden era GOATs of their respective sports, but I'm sure that sort of opinion is going to be considered a bit nitpicky/unpopular on a cricket forum.

lol how and why would you say that?

 

[shortpitched713]

lol how and why would you say that?

So, for the most obvious example, although sports just became desegregated, segregation in all other spheres of life were still a thing while Wilt Chamberlain was out there breaking records. Similar discrimination and racism experienced by Pele. Paul Morphy struggled from mental health ailments potentially as severe as schizophrenia. To name a few examples.

 

[shortpitched713]

Three more GOAT candidates in their sports having to struggle through segregation would be Sugar Ray Robinson, Bill Russell and Muhammad Ali.

 

[centurymaker]

Rod Laver, Pele, Dhyan Chand are some of the other equally exceptional greats who thoroughly dominated their sports in their foundational eras. They were peerless. Far faaaaar ahead of the field just like Bradman.

Rod Laver was the undisputed best in the 1960s by a long long way similar to Bradman. He won 19 Major titles, in total, over a 9 year period. That's unparalleled success. (there used to be just 3 pro slams each year ftr). However despite all this, he is not even considered among the Top 3 best players of all time. Similar stuff can be said about Pele but he is not even top 2 of all time. So this criteria of rating someone solely based on how superior they were compared to their contemporaries doesn't seem to apply to other sports (when it comes to rating foundational era greats). You only see it in cricket.

 

[Burgey]

lol as though tennis was in its infancy in the 60s. Laver didn’t win 19 singles slams either.

Who’s rating Bradman compared with his peers? We’re talking all time ratings here.

Lop 40% off his numbers, but do the same for everyone else who played when he did, so Hutton, Hammond and Hobbs as examples average a standardised 30 odd.

You suggesting Zak Crawley or Mitch Marsh are similar standard test players as those fellas? And better than blokes like Compton, Ponsford, Woodfull and McCabe? Of course not. If you thought that you’d have your head up your own arse.

 

[shortpitched713]

Crawley and Marsh are hardly the best players of this era, though.

 

[the big bambino]

That's right. It is a consequence of the absurdity you're suggesting. There wasn't anyone above that standard in the Bradman era except Bradman ... maybe

 

[Coronis]

Grace 1870s.

iirc someone did that in a thread. It was an excellent read.

 

[peterhrt]

Bradman achieved 100 average from 52 Tests spanning about 14 years (taking away the war years). Also averaged <95 (can't be bothered calling exactly) from an addition 182 FC matches in Australian FC level.

Do we know of any player playing cricket at any level, achieving a comparable statistical batting feat? Surely there could be a ringer somewhere playing multiple levels down who equalled this over a similar span/match number? I'll take any half decent source as evidence, btw. I think it's unlikely it would even be tolerated.

There doesn't appear to be evidence of any other batsman averaging close to 100 over an entire career, at any level. A handful of club batsmen are known to have scored 4,000 runs in a season. The highest average attained was 77.

Various claims have been made for Frank Roro in non-white South African cricket, despite most of the records being lost or destroyed. His career lasted thirty years so the hundred centuries is plausible.

Given the poor pitches, a career average in three figures seems far less likely. There are only five scorecards of his matches on Cricket Archive, admittedly when he was in his forties. In these he scored 225 runs at an average of 25.

 

[capt_Luffy]

There doesn't appear to be evidence of any other batsman averaging close to 100 over an entire career, at any level. A handful of club batsmen are known to have scored 4,000 runs in a season. The highest average attained was 77.

Various claims have been made for Frank Roro in non-white South African cricket, despite most of the records being lost or destroyed. His career lasted thirty years so the hundred centuries is plausible.

Given the poor pitches, a career average in three figures seems far less likely. There are only five scorecards of his matches on Cricket Archive, admittedly when he was in his forties. In these he scored 225 runs at an average of 25.

Yeah, I have to admit, given what was par score on those SA pitches, 100 does seems a bit way too good to be true. Though I will say only 5 scorecards to deduce a guess on his average is probably insufficient. I do have read of a few other significant innings he played though; like 1934 Zonal Finals where he scored 134 in the 1st innings and 95 out of 127 in 2nd; and 102 out of 137 in 1950 vs Western Provinces. But really, information of him is extremely scarce. I have tried to dug up on him over the past year a number of times but almost found nothing new. Infact it seems most articles shares some kind of basic source, which makes their authenticity a bit questionable. A real tragedy.

 

[Ali TT]

There's some weird stuff on this thread.

Bradman didn't play in the "foundational era" of cricket - test cricket had been around 50 years by the time he debuted. That is quite different to someone like Chamberlain who really did arrive as if from another world to a professional basketball league that'd only been in existence a decade. He is statistically freakish but his stats trended downwards as his career progressed in a way Bradman's did not, although that also saw him finally win titles.

The one freakish statistical sporting happening I'd compare to Bradman is not one player but 3 - the utter dominance over 15 years of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Having one 20+ slam titles winner at one time, when the next best is 14, is itself remarkable, having 3 in one era is crazy.

 

[the big bambino]

It's weird because what they believe is demonstrably wrong, yet they hold onto it anyway. Completely deranged. The point with tennis is interesting and debunks the so called foundational argument used against Bradman.

I think Fed, Djoker and Nadal peaked at the around the same time. Don't forget Murray was there too and he was a great player but totally overshadowed by the others. Previously tennis went through eras with the older player dominating the younger star until time eventually reversed the order. So Tilden dominated until Vines who dominated until Budge, who dominated until Riggs, who dominated until Kramer, who dominated until Gonzalez, who dominated until Rosewall, Laver, who dominated ...

The big 3 era was very enjoyable though my favourite players to watch were Agassi and McEnroe.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The truth is he was ONE example of the human ability for excellence, professionalism and skill through means of devotion of craft applied to a god gifted ability.

...nor did he posses a supernatural ability beyond a human being.

Hmmm