Don Bradman vs Garry Sobers

[capt_Luffy]

There were significant improvements in quality during that time.

New countries, improving pay, improving techniques and evolution. And a lot of it too.

Bradman was the best by far in terms of performance, I'm not insane enough to say otherwise. But he's human, and so there must be something there that's "off" on a systemic basis to explain some or a large part of a lone outlier which is so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so extreme.

Do you remember how freakishly dominant Messi and Ronaldo were in the toughest era of football; or were they also playing against lesser opponents? What about Usain Bolt? Or Michael Phelps? Or Joker-Nadal-Fed?? Surely the competition was tougher in the 80s as nobody dominated on such a scale?
Only Pakistan came into cricket after Don retired and Sobers debuted; and if anything India was a stronger team during the War years than in Sobers' times, NZ was still mid and he never got to play SA. The improvement was marginal at best, definitely nothing significant like what happened post WSC. The technique in the 50s and 60s were stagnant if anything and cricket was starting to loose viewers over boring long drawn games and the pay was still pennies compared to today.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

11 Sobers vs 11 Bradmans would be a draw


Irresistible force vs Immovable Object, probably on a wet wicket Sobers would win against Bradman

 

[smash84]

There were significant improvements in quality during that time.

New countries, improving pay, improving techniques and evolution. And a lot of it too.

No, at least Pakistani cricketers in the 50s and 60s were paid a pittance. And they had other jobs besides playing cricket. It was very similar to the era that Bradman played in.

 

[shortpitched713]

Do you remember how freakishly dominant Messi and Ronaldo were in the toughest era of football; or were they also playing against lesser opponents? What about Usain Bolt? Or Michael Phelps? Or Joker-Nadal-Fed??

None of these names in any of these other sports are anywhere on the same level statistically as Bradman is above all others. Not Babe Ruth, not Wilt Chamberlain, not Jack Nicklaus, not any of them in any sport. It's a topic of consistent discussion on this forum if Bradman was the best in any sport, and the answer is yes.

His level is to such an extent that we do need explanations. Did Bradman have a time stop ability when he blinked? Or maybe he had a sharingan? That could explain it. Or the level of the game improved that much that I don't need to resort to that extent of supernatural explanation for what otherwise seems like a normal human being to put up a non normal human being level of performance.

And yes, he improved along with his time, and his performance didn't dip during his career. That's part of him being the most engaged, professional and hardest working player, in addition to being the most talented ( which I don't doubt any of that ). It's the margin of error value that I doubt. The fact that a significant number of votes were given to such a wide range of values in the poll I made on the subject, also supports that point:

What would Bradman average if he played in a typical (i.e. neither batsman or bowler favored) period of the modern era (1970 - current)?

Obviously none of us will ever know. Just give what you think would be your best guess. I think he would average 65.72 throughout his career, and would still be considered the GOAT batsman, although not nearly in the statistically untouchable and incomparable sense that he currently ends up...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[capt_Luffy]

None of these names in any of these other sports are anywhere on the same level statistically as Bradman is above all others. Not Babe Ruth, not Wilt Chamberlain, not Jack Nicklaus, not any of them in any sport. It's a topic of consistent discussion on this forum if Bradman was the best in any sport, and the answer is yes.

His level is to such an extent that we do need explanations. Did Bradman have a time stop ability when he blinked? Or maybe he had a sharingan? That could explain it. Or the level of the game improved that much that I don't need to resort to that extent of supernatural explanation for what otherwise seems like a normal human being to put up a non normal human being level of performance.

And yes, he improved along with his time, and his performance didn't dip during his career. That's part of him being the most engaged, professional and hardest working player, in addition to being the most talented ( which I don't doubt any of that ). It's the margin of error value that I doubt. The fact that a significant number of votes were given to such a wide range of values in the poll I made on the subject, also supports that point:

What would Bradman average if he played in a typical (i.e. neither batsman or bowler favored) period of the modern era (1970 - current)?

Obviously none of us will ever know. Just give what you think would be your best guess. I think he would average 65.72 throughout his career, and would still be considered the GOAT batsman, although not nearly in the statistically untouchable and incomparable sense that he currently ends up...

www.cricketweb.net

Usain Bolt was as dominant in Track and Fields as anyone in any sport and so was Michael Phelps with 17 Gold Olympic medals..... Bradman is a huge anomaly statistically, the only similar case I can think of is Wayne Gretzky in Ice hockey; there isn't much more really. If the Fed-Rafa-Joker level of absolute shitting dominance over the Grand Slams can be made for 2 decades by 3 players; don't think Bradman needs a sharingan. The 30s saw mostly easy bowling, but that's no where enough of a reason to dismiss his record nor it can justify the sport evolving significantly in Sobers' time, which I show it didn't.

 

[shortpitched713]

Usain Bolt was as dominant in Track and Fields as anyone in any sport and so was Michael Phelps with 17 Gold Olympic medals..... Bradman is a huge anomaly statistically, the only similar case I can think of is Wayne Gretzky in Ice hockey; there isn't much more really. If the Fed-Rafa-Joker level of absolute ****ting dominance over the Grand Slams can be made for 2 decades by 3 players; don't think Bradman needs a sharingan. The 30s saw mostly easy bowling, but that's no where enough of a reason to dismiss his record nor it can justify the sport evolving significantly in Sobers' time, which I show it didn't.

All of those names were brought up and more, and all were found to be short of Bradman's statistical excellence.

We had to go to really niche sports like women's field hockey or squash iirc, before we got something like that statistical superiority of Bradman, in which case we run into the same issue of sample of competitors and access to best athletes, which is the original case against old time cricketers' excellence anyway.

 

[capt_Luffy]

All of those names were brought up and more, and all were found to be short of Bradman's statistical excellence.

We had to go to really niche sports like women's field hockey or squash iirc, before we got something like that statistical superiority of Bradman, in which case we run into the same issue of sample of competitors and access to best athletes, which is the original case against old time cricketers' excellence anyway.

That's the point really. Cricket was even much less competitive pre Bradman era and most other sports have such eras of low competition; but no other athlete dominated any major sport like Bradman; Gretzky has the best case. The take away here should be how freakish Don was, not everyone else was **** imo.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Usain Bolt was as dominant in Track and Fields as anyone in any sport and so was Michael Phelps with 17 Gold Olympic medals..... Bradman is a huge anomaly statistically, the only similar case I can think of is Wayne Gretzky in Ice hockey; there isn't much more really. If the Fed-Rafa-Joker level of absolute ****ting dominance over the Grand Slams can be made for 2 decades by 3 players; don't think Bradman needs a sharingan. The 30s saw mostly easy bowling, but that's no where enough of a reason to dismiss his record nor it can justify the sport evolving significantly in Sobers' time, which I show it didn't.

Joey Chestnut, the hotdog-consuming titan. Witnessed him inhale 74 hotdogs in a mere 10 minutes at Coney Island back in 2018, smashing his previous gulp of 72. Fast forward to 2021, and he's outdone himself again with a whopping 76 dogs, setting the bar even higher. He's been the reigning champ of the sport since 2007, with just one hiccup in 2015.

Regrettably, we won't be seeing him next Thursday as he has been banned by Major League Eating for promoting vegan hot dogs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Joey Chestnut, the hotdog-consuming titan. Witnessed him inhale 74 hotdogs in a mere 10 minutes at Coney Island back in 2018, smashing his previous gulp of 72. Fast forward to 2021, and he's outdone himself again with a whopping 76 dogs, setting the bar even higher. He's been the reigning champ of the sport since 2007, with just one hiccup in 2015.

Regrettably, we won't be seeing him next Thursday as he has been banned by Major League Eating for promoting vegan hot dogs.

I unironically watched a short on this today by DougSharpe..... Though it said there is still some time for the parties to come to an agreement and we may witness the GoAT in action again this year.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I unironically watched a short on this today by DougSharpe.....

I'll definitely miss him; he's my excuse to brave the sweltering July 4th heat and trek to Coney Island. It's an adventure every time: zooming over the Verrazzano Bridge, hopping on the B1 bus, jumping off at 86th & 20th Ave, and catching the 'D' train all the way to Stillwell Ave.

 

[h_hurricane]

Too early to judge. I will wait until they both retire before rating them.

 

[kyear2]

Joey Chestnut, the hotdog-consuming titan. Witnessed him inhale 74 hotdogs in a mere 10 minutes at Coney Island back in 2018, smashing his previous gulp of 72. Fast forward to 2021, and he's outdone himself again with a whopping 76 dogs, setting the bar even higher. He's been the reigning champ of the sport since 2007, with just one hiccup in 2015.

Regrettably, we won't be seeing him next Thursday as he has been banned by Major League Eating for promoting vegan hot dogs.

What? Why?

And yeah, can never watch that stuff.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What? Why?

And yeah, can never watch that stuff.

Apparently, he got a new sponsorship from Impossible Foods, rival brand of Nathan's. So, he is dumped by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest committee.


Indeed, it requires quite a bit of bravery to spectate. It's a risky sport where one might end up biting off more than they can chew, quite literally with a hot dog or two.

 

[number11]

There was barely a 6 year difference between the Don's retirement and Sobers debut. I am at a loss to understand how you reach that conclusion.

"Modern" cricket (for lack of a better word) became a lot more professional in the 1970s with Kerry Packer. the 50s and 60s were pretty tame, except for new teams coming into international cricket. But those early teams were by no means developed like the English or Australian ones.

The real turning point between modern cricket and what came before was the mainstreaming of covered wickets. A good argument exists that you cannot fairly compare players pre/post covered wickets.

 

[kyear2]

Apparently, he got a new sponsorship from Impossible Foods, rival brand of Nathan's. So, he is dumped by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest committee.


Indeed, it requires quite a bit of bravery to spectate. It's a risky sport where one might end up biting off more than they can chew, quite literally with a hot dog or two.

Forgot it was sponsored by Nathans. But even so, that's like the NBA being sponsored by Nike, and banning everyone wearing Adidas.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Forgot it was sponsored by Nathans. But even so, that's like the NBA being sponsored by Nike, and banning everyone wearing Adidas.

Nathan's have always been this strict. The other badass eater, Kobayashi, didn't wanna be exclusively with Nathan's and he was banned.

On July 4, 2010, Kobayashi was present as a spectator at the Nathan's International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Dressed in a black T-shirt emblazoned with "Free Kobi", he mingled with the crowd, standing in a police-barricaded area just below the stage. When the event concluded, the audience started chanting his name, urging for him to be allowed to participate. Heeding their calls, Kobayashi climbed onto the stage, receiving an overwhelming applause. Initially, security officers led him to the stage, but following an order believed to be from George Shea, one officer arrested Kobayashi. He resisted, struggling against the officials trying to detain him. The altercation escalated, with Kobayashi being pushed against the barricades and into the fences, before being handcuffed and ******ed to a police vehicle. Witnesses claimed that Kobayashi's intention was to congratulate the winner, Joey Chestnut, in a show of sportsmanship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeru_Kobayashi

 

[kyear2]

The real turning point between modern cricket and what came before was the mainstreaming of covered wickets. A good argument exists that you cannot fairly compare players pre/post covered wickets.

I don't see Bradman is a case like Grace and the pre WW1 guys, he showed the technique and games required to succeed.

There's also no doubt he's the best, but he also literally played in 2 countries and faced some lackluster attacks on some of the flattest pitches ever.

So do I believe he's legitimately the best, no doubt. Is he averaging anything close to a hundred in the 80's or 90's, not a chance.

 

[kyear2]

Nathan's have always been this strict. The other badass eater, Kobayashi, didn't wanna be exclusively with Nathan's and he was banned.

On July 4, 2010, Kobayashi was present as a spectator at the Nathan's International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Dressed in a black T-shirt emblazoned with "Free Kobi", he mingled with the crowd, standing in a police-barricaded area just below the stage. When the event concluded, the audience started chanting his name, urging for him to be allowed to participate. Heeding their calls, Kobayashi climbed onto the stage, receiving an overwhelming applause. Initially, security officers led him to the stage, but following an order believed to be from George Shea, one officer arrested Kobayashi. He resisted, struggling against the officials trying to detain him. The altercation escalated, with Kobayashi being pushed against the barricades and into the fences, before being handcuffed and ******ed to a police vehicle. Witnesses claimed that Kobayashi's intention was to congratulate the winner, Joey Chestnut, in a show of sportsmanship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeru_Kobayashi

Yeah, that was brain dead stupid by Nathans

 

[shortpitched713]

That's the point really. Cricket was even much less competitive pre Bradman era and most other sports have such eras of low competition; but no other athlete dominated any major sport like Bradman; Gretzky has the best case. The take away here should be how freakish Don was, not everyone else was **** imo.

I think it is more likely to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Being all down to a supernatural (bordering on magical) level of skill of the individual seems to me less likely.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't see Bradman is a case like Grace and the pre WW1 guys, he showed the technique and games required to succeed.

There's also no doubt he's the best, but he also literally played in 2 countries and faced some lackluster attacks on some of the flattest pitches ever.

So do I believe he's legitimately the best, no doubt. Is he averaging anything close to a hundred in the 80's or 90's, not a chance.

How much would he average then?