Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[Cabinet96]

Shame they banned the **** before he had much time to read it.

 

[Jono]

Who would have thought the first post of this thread was going to lead to an argument as to whether Bradman was the greatest or not and result in ****ty posts about Bradman actually not being that good because he only played years ago with few teams blah blah blah.

This thread asked for it, let's be honest here.

 

[the big bambino]

It was always going to spiral clockwise down the toilet.

 

[uvelocity]

imagine what would happen if we had a thread about jono

 

[Jono]

Look I'm not going to fall for your mindgames ahead of our one-on-one battle for the prestigious Last Man Standing AFL title.

 

[honestbharani]

imagine what would happen if we had a thread about jono

you would lose?

 

[watson]

So what would be the criteria whereby Bradman would lose his crown?

If a batsman were to...

1. Play 100+ Tests across a variety of countries.
2. Average 70+ (maybe 65+) with a 55+ Strike Rate.
3. Consistently face bowling of a high standard.

....then perhaps I would call him the best batsman of all time.

 

[Coronis]

So what would be the criteria whereby Bradman would lose his crown?

If a batsman were to...

1. Play 100+ Tests across a variety of countries.
2. Average 70+ (maybe 65+) with a 55+ Strike Rate.
3. Consistently face bowling of a high standard.

....then perhaps I would call him the best batsman of all time.

That would be a massive perhaps imo.

 

[Slifer]

So what would be the criteria whereby Bradman would lose his crown?

If a batsman were to...

1. Play 100+ Tests across a variety of countries.
2. Average 70+ (maybe 65+) with a 55+ Strike Rate.
3. Consistently face bowling of a high standard.

....then perhaps I would call him the best batsman of all time.

Well for me, for a cricketer to be rated above the Don they'd have to average something like 55+ with the bat (plus a few doubles, triple or two and a decent conversion rate etc ) and average something like sub 22 with the ball (wpm of 4+, SR of 50 and below + a handful of 10 fors and 5 fors). And they'd have to do all of this over a fair amount of tests and simultaneously.

 

[Red]

Something I've always found baffling is how Bradman averages 100 and the other best batsmen average 50 (with a few rarities averaging close to 60). Why the hell don't a couple of batsmen average 70 or 75? Bradman is a freak. A complete anomoly.

 

[Jono]

Something I've always found baffling is how Bradman averages 100 and the other best batsmen average 50 (with a few rarities averaging close to 60). Why the hell don't a couple of batsmen average 70 or 75? Bradman is a freak. A complete anomoly.

It's ****ing awesome. I love it.

People would accept it so much more if someone averaged 99, and then another 75, and then another 65 etc. But they didn't. Makes it so much more awesome.

Even those overhyped guys that said Hussey was going to have the second best average to Bradman (so many of us told you ****s to calm down in 2006!) were disappointed. No one comes close!

 

[Coronis]

It's ****ing awesome. I love it.

People would accept it so much more if someone averaged 99, and then another 75, and then another 65 etc. But they didn't. Makes it so much more awesome.

Even those overhyped guys that said Hussey was going to have the second best average to Bradman (so many of us told you ****s to calm down in 2006!) were disappointed. No one comes close!

Its gonna be Pujara!!!!

 

[Justo]

Something I've always found baffling is how Bradman averages 100 and the other best batsmen average 50 (with a few rarities averaging close to 60). Why the hell don't a couple of batsmen average 70 or 75? Bradman is a freak. A complete anomoly.

What always gets me is to consider a guy like Ponting who averaged 80 or so for 6 years. During this time he was unstoppable scoring runs seemingly at will and yet still managed to fall short of Bradman's career average during this time.

Then after that stop and think about First Class cricket and how in the history of game no one has matched or even come close Bradman's record there. You would think that if someone were a better or equal batsmen to Bradman they'd at very least come close to matching his record there where the opposition is likely to be weaker than Test level but it still hasn't happened.

 

[Ruckus]

Vijay Merchant got somewhat closer than most in terms of FC records, but yeah really not that close, and probably playing in a much weaker domestic system too (although this is a total assumption by me).

 

[Coronis]

Vijay Merchant got somewhat closer than most in terms of FC records, but yeah really not that close, and probably playing in a much weaker domestic system too (although this is a total assumption by me).

True. Headley also averaged about 69 in first class. Both Ponsford and Woodfull who played early on with Bradman, in the same domestic system, they still only averaged about 65. Still, 25 runs ahead of Merchant is massive.

 

[Furball]

What always gets me is to consider a guy like Ponting who averaged 80 or so for 6 years. During this time he was unstoppable scoring runs seemingly at will and yet still managed to fall short of Bradman's career average during this time.

Then after that stop and think about First Class cricket and how in the history of game no one has matched or even come close Bradman's record there. You would think that if someone were a better or equal batsmen to Bradman they'd at very least come close to matching his record there where the opposition is likely to be weaker than Test level but it still hasn't happened.

Ponting's got the 2nd best run of 52 Tests, and he 'only' averaged 71 IIRC.

It's the sheer relentless nature of Bradman's runmaking that I can't get my head round. 29 tons in 80 innings, 12 of which were double tons. 12 double tons in 80 innings - most players would be considered special if they scored 12 tons in 80 innings ffs.

And he fell 4 runs short of scoring 7,000 runs in 80 innings. IIRC most of the guys who have been fastest to 7,000 have done it in 130-140 innings.

Look at his FC record - it took him around 300 innings to hit 100 tons. Most good players take at least 550.

His records compared to literally every other batsman to have ever played the game are just mind blowing. If Bradman hadn't existed then I would be laughed at if I suggested that someone could show up and be as good as him. And people seriously want to question his status as the greatest ever, or even more laughably, suggest that batsmen literally half as good are up there with him?

There's a reason I keep bringing up my 'Viv is closer to Chris Martin' fact. Because that's a representation of just how much better Bradman was than some of the greatest batsmen to have ever graced a cricket field. Not one of them can hold a candle to him.

 

[The Sean]

Burgey, Furball and a few others hitting the nail on the head here, and something I've written about at length in one of the thousand other threads that degenerated into this same argument.

Bradman was, quite literally for some people, simply too good to be true. If he'd averaged 69.94, say, I reckon a lot of people would deal with it more easily because at least that is within the realms of what we think is possible for a batsman to average over an extended career based on 126 years of international cricket. He's not within those realms though, to the point that if Bradman didn't exist and you invented him as a mythical Roy of the Rovers-style "Greatest Ever", you'd be accused of being unrealistic and taking the piss - because no one could possibly be THAT good.

But Bradman was.

 

[watson]

Jack Egan and Paul Kelly combine.....

Paul Kelly - Bradman - YouTube

 

[Jono]

Surely one of these Bradman threads can be closed? Getting confused where I've posted.

 

[sledger]

Need more Bradman threads imo.