wtf
Bradman is a light year ahead of anyone ever in primary
It might be assumed now that when Bradman retired after the war everyone regarded him as the greatest-ever batsman. That was not the case.
In 1951 Pelham Warner asked whether Grace had been superior. In 1962 England's leading cricket writer EW Swanton claimed that Grace, Hobbs and Bradman were equal first, all dominant in their own very different eras. John Arlott always maintained that Hobbs was the greatest batsman. So did leading statistician Roy Webber. A dwindling but vocal minority in Australia still placed Trumper first, though most supported their Don.
Wisden (early 21st century): If Sir Don Bradman was the best batsman ever to grace the cricket field, Sir Garfield Sobers was the best overall cricketer.
EW Swanton writing in 1962: As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.
This was the general view of cricket historians up to that time, who tended to agree on most things. Some also placed Trumper in the same high bracket as a batsman, claiming he was the best of all on a bad wicket. When Sobers matured, he was added to the pantheon as a cricketer, but not necessarily purely as a batsman.
Since then Bradman and Sobers have pulled away from the others in perception as cricketers, with the Australian out in front as a batsman. This was confirmed in the Wisden Top 100 exercise at the turn of the century.
The pitch change alone in the 50's was dramatic, and with intent. The pitches from the mid 20's up until 1948 were flat and uncompetitive. The runs scored during that time were often seen to be devalued, certainly when compared to the pre war period as well as the subsequent 50's.
The amount of ATG bowlers faced during that period were a flat 0, so were the amount of challenging pitches once conditions were dry.
The likes of Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Smith, Richards, and Hutton may not have always dominated the great and ATG bowlers they faced, or on the challenging pitches they batted on, but they performed as well as any have before or since, and they certainly impacted their numbers in ways that Bradman never had to deal with.
Hutton scored his world record in the 30's but his legacy (similar to Hobb's pre WWI and Sachin in the 90's) was made in the challenging '50's.
I have never, and do not still believe, nor did the historians of the time, that Bradman was light years or even twice as good as the greats before him, or after.
To be clear, I also don't think that he's challenged by any of them (besides possibly Hobbs) as the greatest, he is the best batsman of all time. But to somehow believe that in the late 70's to early '80's, the 90's or even today that he would average 100, is ridiculous.
Batsmen are impacted greatly by the level of bowlers they faced, who are greatly impacted by the conditions they have to bowl on.
Bradman was a colossus no doubt, the greatest batsman ever, twice as good as batsmen who faced bowlers considerably better than the ones he faced, on consistently more challenging conditions, and in literally two countries and vs a variety of minnows. No, not as far as I'm concerned.
And again, and to get back to the topic.
With Sobers being a top 5 batsman of all time, a top 5 slip of all time, and a top bowler of his era, I still rate Bradman ahead. But to say the notion is without merit is also not so as many cricketers have called him that, not least of which Ian Chappell and even Keith Miller. Not to add as referenced above, Wisden.
So to compare a top 5 bat, who had unparalleled utilitarian ability and value in every key aspect and component of the game to Kapil, who throughout his career was a good bowler, and going against a borderline, just outside ATG doesn't resonate with me. Especially since it's not enough for even the aforementioned top 5 batsman.
