Bradman and Marshall or Sobers and Imran

[subshakerz]

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?

Thanks for proving his point. Basically, the one time when something was done to strategically curb his runmaking, suddenly he wasn't twice as good as other bats.

In other words, Bradman was the greatest, but likely that wasn't all just pure ability but also having an approach that the opposition of that time was limited to find a way around.

In modern day, he would be more tested and then likely regress to still be significantly ahead of others but not twice as great.

 

[Coronis]

Thanks for proving his point. Basically, the one time when something was done to strategically curb his runmaking, suddenly he wasn't twice as good as other bats.

In other words, Bradman was the greatest, but likely that wasn't all just pure ability but also having an approach that the opposition of that time was limited to find a way around.

In modern day, he would be more tested and then likely regress to still be significantly ahead of others but not twice as great.

Except that the strategy was intentionally designed to be unfair to all batsmen and to deliberately strike them on the body - and was thus outlawed - using it as evidence that Bradman would not be as dominant is nonsensical - considering no modern batsman faces such strategy.

 

[shortpitched713]

Don’t worry, that’s just as stupid.

Nah, it's just in line with reality. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching them though.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

I do downgrade players from earlier eras. And I downgrade them more, the earlier it goes. Hence Hobbs = Shakib al Hasan as batsmen.

 

[subshakerz]

Except that the strategy was intentionally designed to be unfair to all batsmen and to deliberately strike them on the body - and was thus outlawed - using it as evidence that Bradman would not be as dominant is nonsensical - considering no modern batsman faces such strategy.

It wasn't conclusive evidence for sure, but the fact that he wasn't scoring twice as much as his teammates suddenly due to a new tactic is something useful for us to consider.

You have unusual confidence that he would be coolly averaging 99 regardless of era.

 

[kyear2]

It wasn't conclusive evidence for sure, but the fact that he wasn't scoring twice as much as his teammates suddenly due to a new tactic is something useful for us to consider.

You have unusual confidence that he would be coolly averaging 99 regardless of era.

I don't think anyone doubts Bradman was the best ever, he was just better than anyone else from his era.
But the unrelenting confidence that he would have averaged 100 even in the '80's or '90's is where I think the arguments goes off the rails. Viv is often criticized but look what he did and who he did it against and that's worth more than the empty calories and higher averages of players of easier eras thereafter.
Bradman was a part of a perfect storm, but still had to be as great as he was to fully capitalize on it.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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.

I certainly don’t discard Sobers in Best after Bradman and have him #3-4 myself.

The 60s were flat again and pitches in Caribbean ofc were always flat. Not like every series against England,Australia were played against same ATG bowlers really.

England attack in early 30s fielded Larwood, Voce, Allen,Verity, Hammond and went with combination of Farnes, Voce, Bowes, Allen, Verity and Hammond in mid - late 30s. That’s too much better than what Weekes, Sobers played 40% plus matches against and comparable (and probably better) than 80-85 percent of the attacks. The only Aussie attack Sobers faced that was superior was in just 1 series with Lindwall, Miller, Benaud etc.I wouldn’t count Davo, Benaud with Meckiff and Mackay as a superior attack. Verity > Benaud and the supporting bowlers of mid 30s attack pretty much covers for Davo.

Any other Australian or English attack (except a few series of mid-late 50s) were comparable or weaker than what Bradman faced.

Its always Bradman who’s stats tend to get reduce by so much. 99 to 66, By 33 in this case.There is solid case to reduce every batsman stats in history by a good margin (5-20 percent depending on the player) and we would only have one ATG (Bradman) left.