Bradman, the greatest sportsperson ever?

[dhillon28]

Yeah totally agree with this. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that you more often get these freakish 'outlier' athletes in either fringe sports, like squash/darts etc., or sports in their relative nascency, like cricket in Bradman's era or Baseball in Ruth's. That's not to say those players weren't exceptional, but it does make it very difficult to compare with more popular sports or more modern equivalents. That's why I don't think you can say with any certainty something like " this player from a fringe sport statistically dominated their peers way more than MJ, so they must be better". Given MJ likely competed in a much more competitive sport (both by number and quality of participants), the smaller statistical margins he achieved should surely be weighted much higher.

Well reasoned.

 

[the big bambino]

That is the strongest argument (other than people who actually saw him) for Bradman's preeminence amongst batsmen imo, but I don't think it's impervious to debate. I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, but I think it is conceivable that for a game in it's nascency, where fundamental aspects of it like technique, training protocols, tactics, mental approaches to the game etc. are still very much changing and improving, it would be possible for a single player to rise from the 'pack' easier than in the more professional, modern game. I'm not saying any of these apply to Bradman, but e.g. a player might possess a 'radical' technique that simply works better than what the norm of the day is (and no-one else has caught up), they might have a mental/tactical approach to the game different to other players, they might simply have come up with more effective training methods than anyone else to improve their skills etc etc.. In the modern game, most things are pretty standardized and what works and what doesn't it a lot more set in stone, so I think the odds of an outlier emerging are a lot more slim because it would probably mean they genuinely possess freakish natural attributes (which are extremely rare). IMO, given the immense magnitude of his dominance, Bradman could well have been such a 'freak', but I don't think other explanations should be entirely out of question.

Cricket wasn't in its nascent period in Bradman's time.

Professionalism is not a feature of the modern era. It was well entrenched in Bradman's time.

Bradman's pre eminence is unique. Not even when the game was young or professionalism 1st established did it have such a unique player as your devil's advocacy suggests might have produced.

 

[dhillon28]

Tendulkar is today?s Bradman, says Lara | The Hindu - The Hindu: Mobile Edition

Some trolling from Brian Lara.

 

[the big bambino]

Nah just sucking up. Giving the crowd who pay the biggest $$ what they want to hear.

 

[karan316]

Tendulkar is today?s Bradman, says Lara | The Hindu - The Hindu: Mobile Edition

Some trolling from Brian Lara.

A bit more trolling from Viv Richards

Sachin is the greatest batsman: Viv Richards | Cricket News | Cricbuzz.com

But I don't think anyone could have dominated the bowlers the way Viv Richards did in his time. He dominated the most hostile bowlers ever in the most difficult era for the batsmen.

 

[Ruckus]

Cricket wasn't in its nascent period in Bradman's time.

Professionalism is not a feature of the modern era. It was well entrenched in Bradman's time.

Bradman's pre eminence is unique. Not even when the game was young or professionalism 1st established did it have such a unique player as your devil's advocacy suggests might have produced.

Well I don't agree with that. I've seen plenty of footage of cricket from that era, and nothing convinces me it was anywhere near as professional. Hell, you couldn't even make a living from playing cricket back then.

And on your second point, WG Grace.

 

[dhillon28]

Academic trolling from Griffith University in Australia:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[the big bambino]

A bit more trolling from Viv Richards

Sachin is the greatest batsman: Viv Richards | Cricket News | Cricbuzz.com

But I don't think anyone could have dominated the bowlers the way Viv Richards did in his time. He dominated the most hostile bowlers ever in the most difficult era for the batsmen.

The most hostile bowlers of his era were on his side. So he didn't face them. The decadal ave of his era is not remarkably different to any other era and in some cases higher.

 

[fredfertang]

Well I don't agree with that. I've seen plenty of footage of cricket from that era, and nothing convinces me it was anywhere near as professional. Hell, you couldn't even make a living from playing cricket back then.

And on your second point, WG Grace.

I don't think the game was any less professional between the wars - bear in mind its had 80 years to evolve since then

Agree entirely about WG tho'

 

[the big bambino]

Academic trolling from Griffith University in Australia:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Garbage in garbage out. I think if you swapped his method with global warming models you'd get the same result.

 

[The Sean]

Academic trolling from Griffith University in Australia:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Not sure why you're linking that - it was torn apart and discredited as the utterly unscientific joke it was when it appeared two years ago. It was extraordinary that such a flawed "study" received the publicity it did in the first place.

 

[dhillon28]

I totally agree with this point- although Viv is one of my all time favourite players, he never had to face Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc- this should definitely be taken into consideration when analysing his career performance. surprisingly though, it rarely gets a mention.

 

[Coronis]

I totally agree with this point- although Viv is one of my all time favourite players, he never had to face Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc- this should definitely be taken into consideration when analysing his career performance. surprisingly though, it rarely gets a mention.

imo Viv wasn't even the greatest batsman of his era. Greg Chappell performed just as outstandingly against the same and better bowlers. Especially if you take WSC into account.

 

[the big bambino]

Well I don't agree with that. I've seen plenty of footage of cricket from that era, and nothing convinces me it was anywhere near as professional. Hell, you couldn't even make a living from playing cricket back then.

And on your second point, WG Grace.

Well lets just agree to disagree on what the both of us has seen as subjective. Cricket was pro btwn the wars and even earlier. That disagreement can be refereed by the facts.

I don't see how Grace advances your point. If you argue that his pre eminence was due to the game's nascency then you have to remember that he debuted 62 yrs before Bradman or about the same distance of time when DGB retired to now. So if you consider Bradman a contemporary of Clarke you'd have a point...

But cricket was played for a long time before Grace. So its nascency even pre dated him.

Grace was revolutionary as a cricketer. So it could be argued his influence is similar to the one you argued. However his pre eminence did not coincide with the game's nascency and neither was he statistically as dominant as Bradman.

 

[the big bambino]

I totally agree with this point- although Viv is one of my all time favourite players, he never had to face Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc- this should definitely be taken into consideration when analysing his career performance. surprisingly though, it rarely gets a mention.

I hate to be disagreeable but I don't think it should be taken into account. Viv was magnificent. Maybe we should say how lucky his fast bowlers were in that they didn't have to face him or his cohorts.

 

[dhillon28]

Who exactly tore the study apart and discredited it?..... your mates at your local bar?

 

[The Sean]

I totally agree with this point- although Viv is one of my all time favourite players, he never had to face Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc- this should definitely be taken into consideration when analysing his career performance. surprisingly though, it rarely gets a mention.

Yeah, agreed. The he-never-had-to-face-his-own bowlers argument is often raised to mark down Ponting, but very rarely gets applied to Richards. Like you, Viv's one of my all time favourite players and I think his greatness is nailed on, but I am sometimes surprised at the free ride he tends to get in that respect when compared to how often it gets brought up against someone like Punter.

 

[The Sean]

Who exactly tore the study apart and discredited it?..... your mates at your local bar?

Just about every response to it I saw was scathing, and with good reason as it doesn't hold up to even the most basic assessment. Why, are you saying you think it holds up? I'll give you a clue - it doesn't.

 

[dhillon28]

imo Viv wasn't even the greatest batsman of his era. Greg Chappell performed just as outstandingly against the same and better bowlers. Especially if you take WSC into account.

I have often used this argument in favour of Greg Chappell- class batsmen with class record against top quality bowling. Probably my favourite Australian cricketer of all time.

 

[the big bambino]

Who exactly tore the study apart and discredited it?..... your mates at your local bar?

Like I said: Garbage in garbage out.

Appears he was a troll after all.