Best After The Don

[akilana]

Then how about the so-called 2nd greatest batsman, Sobers? He played tests only but people have no qualms accepting his average. Is he really better than Lara and Sachin?

Souldn't Viv's average be adjusted because his average against the best team was not all that flashy?

 

[watson]

I even said that. Thanks.

You're welcome.

So how well would Bradman cope against Bedi et al, barren pitches, and riots in India 'one day' (December), then Mike Procter at Newlands the 'next' (January)? To be honest we'll never know. But I'll hazard a guess and say just as badly as Bill Lawry and the rest of the 1970 team.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman thread argument cycle

- Bradman is the greatest- 99.94
- Yeh, but he never really faced really good bowlers did he?
- Yes. Larwood, Tate, Voce, Bedser, etc were all good bowlers
- But not as good as Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts
- Well, they might have been
- Bradman played on uncovered wickets and didn't have a good bat or helmet
- Didn't he struggle against Bodyline though?
- Yes, and if you teleport Bradman to the 1980s, he'd fail against the WIs pace quartet
- But Bradman still topped the Bodyline averages and Larwood was quick
- Bradman inflated his average against minnows
- But don't modern players have even more opportunity to do that?
- By some random calculation, I have worked out that in the modern era, Bradman would only average 64.78. But if it was modern bowlers on uncovered wickets in the 1890s that Bradman had to face, his average would drop to 51.23
- So this shows that he is a worse batsman than Tendulkar, right?

and so on....

Don't think anyone is trying to say Tendulkar is better than Bradman. All I am trying to say is that I don't think he is twice the batsman that Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Chappell, Lara were. Additionally there is no way that all of the rule changes (stumps, LBW ect), and conditions and more compeditive teams would not have affected his average.

 

[Red]

I think it's neat and convenient that Bradman's average is basically 100. It makes it heaps easier to work stuff out.

Like Lara is 52.88% the batsman Bradman was

Tendulkar is 53.86% the batsman Bradman was

Viv is 50.23% the batsman Bradman was

Very clear cut,

 

[Flametree]

But kyear, if Bradman had it so easy, why do you have Hutton and Hobbs in your first xi, and Headley and Sutcliffe in your second xi? Surely if Bradman's average is inflated 30% by how easy it was to be a batsmen in that era, then the averages of Hobbs et al must be similarly discounted, which puts them all way behind modern greats like Hayden and Samaraweera?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyway getting away from the nonsensical attempts to belittle the Don I think the poll has it right. Tendulkar at 1 which satisfies the statsmongers. Viv at 2 which satisfies people who actually watch cricket. Sobers at 3 which satisfies everyone because he's Garry and he's the best. Everyone's a winner.

 

[watson]

Anyway getting away from the nonsensical attempts to belittle the Don I think the poll has it right. Tendulkar at 1 which satisfies the statsmongers. Viv at 2 which satisfies people who actually watch cricket. Sobers at 3 which satisfies everyone because he's Garry and he's the best. Everyone's a winner.

I don't think anyone is trying to 'belittle' Bradman, rather we are trying to humanise him.

In other words, it's never healthy to elevate any human being to the status of a cricketing Jesus or Mohammad. I just have a problem with demigods that's all.

 

[kyear2]

But kyear, if Bradman had it so easy, why do you have Hutton and Hobbs in your first xi, and Headley and Sutcliffe in your second xi? Surely if Bradman's average is inflated 30% by how easy it was to be a batsmen in that era, then the averages of Hobbs et al must be similarly discounted, which puts them all way behind modern greats like Hayden and Samaraweera?

one at a time.

Hutton played modern rules entire career, and significantly better bowlers especially LIndwall and Miller (with new ball every 55 overs) and Ramadin and Valentine at their peak. The is also the small issue of missing his absolute best years to the war (unlike Hammond, Headley and Bradman who played at least for 10 yrs prior) and that nasty injury he had to over come. Absolute class.

Hobbs played in a totally different era before the first war when the pitches were a mess and he dominated the bowling (rather than Sutcliffe snail like pace) and the longevity of his first class career.

Headley I place almost on par with Bradman as they both had healthy averages vs England (though Headley didn't always play the first strength attack he faced Verity, Allen and Voce missing only Larwood through the fact that he stopped playing for England) and apart from playing them Headley had to face Australia in Australia (Grimmett and Ironmonger) in foreign conditions while Bradman got to play South Africa and India at home. That would have made quite a difference in their final averages and results

Sutcliffe by default, not a huge fan, but he did play on some dodgy wickets. The opening position is the weakest on the ATG level and he kinda makes it on default.

Once again Bradman was the best, not discounting that at all.

 

[The Sean]

But kyear, if Bradman had it so easy, why do you have Hutton and Hobbs in your first xi, and Headley and Sutcliffe in your second xi? Surely if Bradman's average is inflated 30% by how easy it was to be a batsmen in that era, then the averages of Hobbs et al must be similarly discounted, which puts them all way behind modern greats like Hayden and Samaraweera?

That's not how it works mate. Every other batsman in Test history has an excuse for not averaging more than they did, whereas everything fell uniquely and unrealistically in place for Bradman - and only Bradman - to achieve what he did.

And, as if by magic...

one at a time.

Hutton played modern rules entire career, and significantly better bowlers especially LIndwall and Miller (with new ball every 55 overs) and Ramadin and Valentine at their peak. The is also the small issue of missing his absolute best years to the war (unlike Hammond, Headley and Bradman who played at least for 10 yrs prior) and that nasty injury he had to over come. Absolute class.

Hobbs played in a totally different era before the first war when the pitches were a mess and he dominated the bowling (rather than Sutcliffe snail like pace) and the longevity of his first class career.

Headley I place almost on par with Bradman as they both had healthy averages vs England (though Headley didn't always play the first strength attack he faced Verity, Allen and Voce missing only Larwood through the fact that he stopped playing for England) and apart from playing them Headley had to face Australia in Australia (Grimmett and Ironmonger) in foreign conditions while Bradman got to play South Africa and India at home. That would have made quite a difference in their final averages and results

Sutcliffe by default, not a huge fan, but he did play on some dodgy wickets. The opening position is the weakest on the ATG level and he kinda makes it on default.

Once again Bradman was the best, not discounting that at all.

 

[The Sean]

For what it's worth, I'm acutely aware that I should just stay away from this thread and leave it alone as it's just been going around in circles for quite some time now, and I'm kinda mad at myself for continuing to engage.

But it simply feels wrong to let the abject, disingenuous **** that is being posted here (and in a couple of other threads) over and over and over again sit there without a response. Cricket Chat deserves better than that, and it has warmed the ****les somewhat to see that it is pissing a lot of other people off as much or even more than me.

Or else it's just late and I'm old and grumpy. Equally plausible.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For what it's worth, I'm acutely aware that I should just stay away from this thread and leave it alone as it's just been going around in circles for quite some time now, and I'm kinda mad at myself for continuing to engage.

But it simply feels wrong to let the abject, disingenuous **** that is being posted here (and in a couple of other threads) over and over and over again sit there without a response. Cricket Chat deserves better than that, and it has warmed the ****les somewhat to see that it is pissing a lot of other people off as much or even more than me.

Or else it's just late and I'm old and grumpy. Equally plausible.

The thread is so bad it's quite funny. The silliest part is that there was no need to even mention The Don aside from the title. Someone should start their own "Was Don Bradman really any good?" thread if they think it's a discussion worth having.

 

[watson]

The thread is so bad it's quite funny. The silliest part is that there was no need to even mention The Don aside from the title. Someone should start their own "Was Don Bradman really any good?" thread if they think it's a discussion worth having.

I suppose it is off topic to discuss Bradman himself rather than the second best batsman like Tendulkar.

But on the other hand, this thread is a good place to quantify by how much Bradman is better than Tendulkar.

The Bradmanites are trying to tell everyone that he is about twice as good/skillful/talented as Tendulkar because his average is about twice at good. Yet, commonsense tells us that this is highly unlikely to be true because Bradman was not THAT superb, and Tendulkar is not THAT deficient.

The fact is, to say that Bradman must average 100 if he played in the same modern circumstances as Tendulkar is not believable, and I don't have to believe it just because the Bradmanites say so.

Indeed, the only way that the Bradmanites can prove their assertion is to run a real time experiment whereby Bradman is transplanted into 1990s and then plugged into the Indian batting order. But since this is an impossibility the dogmatic assertion that Bradman is twice as good/skillful/talented as Tendulkar is just that - an unprovable dogmatic assertion.

 

[watson]

Or to put it another way;

The statement: 'Bradman is twice as good/skillful/talented as Sachin Tendulkar because his batting average is twice that of Sachin Tendulkar' is overly simplistic and just plain silly.

 

[archie mac]

Post of the thread, in my opinion.

A smart man Nah, thanks for that

Or to put it another way;

The statement: 'Bradman is twice as good/skillful/talented as Sachin Tendulkar because his batting average is twice that of Sachin Tendulkar' is overly simplistic and just plain silly.

Did anyone actually write he is twice as good as Sachin? Bradman told Doug Walters in the 80s (or perhaps the 70s), he thought he would average less in the modern era but still a fair bit more than anyone else. Modesty or Boasting? Not sure, but Bradman was always a realist

 

[kyear2]

Or to put it another way;

The statement: 'Bradman is twice as good/skillful/talented as Sachin Tendulkar because his batting average is twice that of Sachin Tendulkar' is overly simplistic and just plain silly.

Sachin, Viv, Sobers, Lara, Chappell et al.

Was watching some cricket on youtube tonight, mainly Mcgrath and Marshall (thanks Rob), and I would say that 9/10 LBW decisions given to RH bowlers bowling over the wicket to RH batsmen, the ball pitched outside of the off stump coming in, it also set up the caught behind the wicket dismissals as when the ball pitches outside of off you are still inclined to play for the instances that the ball comes back in or straightens.

Also watched this gem from 1976, twice as good as this must be pretty special.

Viv Richards 232 vs England 1st test 1976 - YouTube

Back on topic though Sachin, Viv and Sobers, all for different reasons are just too close to call, Lara, Chappell, Hutton and Hobbs just there as well. With Ponting, Pollock, Gavaskar, Kallis, Hammond and Walcott ect not far behind. Great history this game of ours has, will try to focus more on the positives of it.

 

[kyear2]

A smart man Nah, thanks for that



Did anyone actually write he is twice as good as Sachin? Bradman told Doug Walters in the 80s (or perhaps the 70s), he thought he would average less in the modern era but still a fair bit more than anyone else. Modesty or Boasting? Not sure, but Bradman was always a realist

But that is the basis of the argument, no one thinks Sachin or anyone else is better than Sir Donald, some of us just don't belive he was twice as good or worth two ATG batsmen either.

 

[archie mac]

But that is the basis of the argument, no one thinks Sachin or anyone else is better than Sir Donald, some of us just don't belive he was twice as good or worth two ATG batsmen either.

I don't think you will find anyone on here writing he is twice as good

We have had people on here (the site) saying SRT is the better batsman

 

[watson]

I don't think you will find anyone on here writing he is twice as good

We have had people on here (the site) saying SRT is the better batsman

Then have a go at quantifying how good Bradman is relative to the No.2, Sachin Tendulkar. Is he 10% better, or perhaps 25% better?

I understand that there is no correct answer because no answer can be proven in any concrete terms - but have a go anyway, just for fun.

 

[archie mac]

Then have a go at quantifying how good Bradman is relative to the No.2, Sachin Tendulkar. Is he 10% better, or perhaps 25% better.

I understand that there is no correct answer because no answer can be proven in any concrete terms - but have a go anyway, just for fun.

Tough one, not sure I agree SRT is the 2nd best tbh but certainly right up there in the top contenders. The main pros and cons imo below

Pros
Uncovered pitches
poorer bats
protective gear
longer boundaries

Cons
better fast bowlers
more varied pitches
better fieldsman
more video footage for tactics

I would think Bradman would average 74.94

 

[watson]

Tough one, not sure I agree SRT is the 2nd best tbh but certainly right up there in the top contenders. The main pros and cons imo below

Pros
Uncovered pitches
poorer bats
protective gear
longer boundaries

Cons
better fast bowlers
more varied pitches
better fieldsman
more video footage for tactics

I would think Bradman would average 74.94

Ironically, that average of near 75 was my wild guess on one of our Bradman threads several months ago. This figure would also translate in rough terms to Bradman being 25% better than Tendulkar.

Fair enough.