Viv was never the model of consistency and played way too long last his prime. But he average 61 at no 3 for over 40 tests and at his best, was there anyone better?
The gulf between Bradman and Viv is Border. Think about that.
Yeah, Bradman never played outside of Eng and Aus.
As I just said in a post.
He still played on plenty of spin-friendly pitches and did incredibly well on them. If he did play in other countries he would inarguably still have done very very well.
Inarguably is a crap word in that etymology differs from usage. It is used to mean "I can't see a half-decent argument otherwise".
NZ didn't win an overseas test series from 1969/70 to 1983/84, including 5 years of peak Hadlee.
With due respect, current Australian team has Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon . All these bowlers are very good. But the problem is they are getting outbowled by opposition team . And this will happen to Bradman's team also once they face 80s.
this is very convoluted logic. you could make the same argument that if Aus had an additional quality bat (42 avg overseas) they would've been better off.
You're so close to being right.
Bradman missed his prime do to a war and played past his prime longer than Viv.
And Bradman scored more hundreds than him in less than half the tests.
Can someone remind me the result of BG trophy 2003 where Ponting batted like Bradman.
You favour repechage system.
