I'm assuming you're taking into consideration Sobers' bowling. But as far as I'm concerned, Bradman's batting ability eclipses Sobers easy. I mean averaging 99.94 is absolutely amazing, nothing any other cricketer has produced beats that.
Look, to be blunt, dont be an idiot.
A quality allrounder is MUCH MORE VALUABLE than a quality batsman or bowler and that applies for ANY sport.
In Ice Hockey, Grestksy(the bradman) isnt as good a player as Bobby Hull ( Sobers).
YOU explain to me how the feck bradman is the 'most valuable player', setting aside your pro-aussie prejudice and bias.
YOU tell me which player is more valuable :
Player X, who scores 100 runs, is ordinary on the field and cannot bowl worth shyte or Player Y, who scores 58 runs, saves another 20-30 in the field, holds on to stuninng catches and takes 2-3 wickets @ 30-odd !
Its patently ludicrous to say that player X is a better 'overall player'.
None of you have justified as to how a player who can only score 100 runs is better than one who can score 58, take 2-3 wickets and save a dozen or so runs in the field, while holding on to stunning catches!
Apparently yer hypocritical idiocy knows no bounds.
When Jonty Rhodes comes up, some of you tout him as 'must have' in yer team, simply coz he saves 15-20 runs in the field regularly....but the same doesnt apply for Sobers.
I am getting rather tired of this an*l obsessive behaviour that 'aussies are the best players in every fricking discipline, warney is as good as murali, bradman is da best, blahblahblah' crappola which is almost NEVER justified logically.
