Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[sobers no:1]

i think that this is a pretty fair assessment

bradman himself admitted (in the bradman tapes iirc) that he never had to face an attack of anything like the unrelenting pace and quality of the wi team of the 70s/80s

this was something of a revelation considering the nonsense that his contemporaries (e.g. O'reilly and harvey) spouted about standards "in their day."

bradman: Genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94

 

[kyear2]

you have to adjust with the conditions available.. be it rules , helmets..
for me the real difference is the level of competence


( bradman was best of his era. no doubt.. bt hammond and headley wd equal him on modern era .. wont digest .. dont try it )

I prsonally rate Hammond, below Hutton, Hobbs and Headley from that era and think that he was just a tad over rated and not effective enough againts pace bowling. That being said, he was just amazing againts spin, but for a number three, I belive that he needed to be better againts fast bowling. His slip fielding and fast medium bowling greatly elevates him greatly in my estimation and is one of the great under rated all rounders.

 

[centurymaker]

I think that this is a pretty fair assessment

Bradman himself admitted (in the Bradman Tapes iirc) that he never had to face an attack of anything like the unrelenting pace and quality of the WI team of the 70s/80s

This was something of a revelation considering the nonsense that his contemporaries (e.g. O'Reilly and Harvey) spouted about standards "in their day."

Bradman: genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94

two quality posts.
It's equivalent to a great now playing in a domestic circuit
(extreme eg- tendulkar playing in the ranji where he still averages close to a 100 )

if bradman had debuted between 1970-1990, i doubt he'd be anything more than 25% ahead of his contemporaries which is probably as good as being 100% ahead back in the old days,

 

[fredfertang]

I think the Don may have been being unduly self-effacing then. The Bodyline attack of Larwood, Voce and Allen was pretty fearsome - none of them had the durability of the great West Indians but all three were at their peak, comfortably, in that series, and they were backed up by as good an orthodox left arm spinner as the game has seen. They did of course reduce Bradman to an average of merely 56, but if he'd had the protective equipment he'd have had in the 80s against them, and there was no leg theory, nor chance of a sticky wicket, I'm pretty sure he'd have averaged well over 100

And while he may have been the "ultimate professional" in some ways, the fact remains that Hobbs, Hutton and Hammond were full time professionals and I don't believe they were any less dedicated than Bradman who did still have to earn a living outside the game - that he may well have not been so successful today may well be correct, but if it were I think the only reason would be because with all the analysis that coaches carry out now someone might actually detect a chink in his armour, and it would then be played on remorselessly by everyone - but I'm not convinced

 

[the big bambino]

I think that this is a pretty fair assessment

Bradman himself admitted (in the Bradman Tapes iirc) that he never had to face an attack of anything like the unrelenting pace and quality of the WI team of the 70s/80s

This was something of a revelation considering the nonsense that his contemporaries (e.g. O'Reilly and Harvey) spouted about standards "in their day."

Bradman: genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94

I'm not sure about that. I think DGB got sick of all the snipers and admitted he would ave only 50 in the modern era. Then he added but I am in my 80s now...

I think all the revisionists heard the 1st bit but didn't stick around for the punchline.

Btw I don't know where the fallacy gained ground that cricket wasn't professional in the DGB era. It was. Infact Bradman was ostensibly the amateur and his English opponents the professionals. The difficulty here convincing people of their errors is firstly to show them that their misconceptions are contrary to the facts.

I'll reply to kyears post later.

 

[the big bambino]

The point I'll raise later is the belief that Australia possessed the best bowlers of DGB's era. That is true in the late 40s but not at any time btwn the wars. Eng's bowlers were superior. And far from the WI being superior to SA back then the opposite is true.

 

[the big bambino]

Btw we appear to have abandoned the idea that Hobbs scoring runs into his 40s is a negative comment on his era. Progress indeed!

That will save me mentioning people like Jayasuriya and G Pollock. Or even Bobby Simpson who came 10 years out of retirement at 41 years age and captaining to victory a 3rd rate Aussie team over a full strength India possessing the "world's greatest batsman ever" in Gavaskar.

Then what about pace bowlers? They get older faster than batsmen don't they? So a fast bowler 35 years or over can be likened to a batsman over 40 right? Well what about Donald, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath and Walsh? The latter played onto almost 40! What does that tell us abt prevailing standards that such "old men" are competitive in the modern game?

 

[Coronis]

The point I'll raise later is the belief that Australia possessed the best bowlers of DGB's era. That is true in the late 40s but not at any time btwn the wars. Eng's bowlers were superior. And far from the WI being superior to SA back then the opposite is true.

No, we did have the best bowlers in the 30's O'Reilly and Grimmet's names ring a bell?

 

[the big bambino]

They do. The stats show England had the better bowling team though.

 

[sobers no:1]

Btw we appear to have abandoned the idea that Hobbs scoring runs into his 40s is a negative comment on his era. Progress indeed!

That will save me mentioning people like Jayasuriya and G Pollock. Or even Bobby Simpson who came 10 years out of retirement at 41 years age and captaining to victory a 3rd rate Aussie team over a full strength India possessing the "world's greatest batsman ever" in Gavaskar.

Then what about pace bowlers? They get older faster than batsmen don't they? So a fast bowler 35 years or over can be likened to a batsman over 40 right? Well what about Donald, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath and Walsh? The latter played onto almost 40! What does that tell us abt prevailing standards that such "old men" are competitive in the modern game?

no one dominated the game like bradman / wg in modern era
no better bowler than SFB
no better batsman than don/wg and headley
no batsman in his late 40s continued playing international matches in ATG level

all seems abnormal.
thats the problem.

another example from field hockey is dhyanchandh (he scores goals like runs in cricket - don )

 

[sobers no:1]

edited

 

[the big bambino]

no one dominated the game like bradman / wg in modern era
no better bowler than SFB
no better batsman than don/wg and headley
no batsman in his late 40s continued playing international matches in ATG level

all seems abnormal.
thats the problem.

another example from field hockey is dhyanchandh (he scores goals like runs in cricket - don )

Moving the goal posts I see. Now its guys over a certain age that excludes everyone but Hobbs.

Look I agree its abnormal. Champions are. That is why all the examples I've spotted are champions. They can do it. Doesn't mean its impossible.

 

[social]

I'm not sure about that. I think DGB got sick of all the snipers and admitted he would ave only 50 in the modern era. Then he added but I am in my 80s now...

I think all the revisionists heard the 1st bit but didn't stick around for the punchline.

Btw I don't know where the fallacy gained ground that cricket wasn't professional in the DGB era. It was. Infact Bradman was ostensibly the amateur and his English opponents the professionals. The difficulty here convincing people of their errors is firstly to show them that their misconceptions are contrary to the facts.

I'll reply to kyears post later.

I think that there is a vast difference between being paid to do something and adopting a professional approach

IMO, the latter implies doing virtually everything in one's power to give yourself the best chance of being succesful.

In Bradman's case, he was notoriously meticulous in his preparation and his discipline to the task at hand was legendary whilst the same could not be said of his contemporaries (many of whom would not have survived in today's environment)

 

[sobers no:1]

I think that there is a vast difference between being paid to do something and adopting a professional approach

IMO, the latter implies doing virtually everything in one's power to give yourself the best chance of being succesful.

In Bradman's case, he was notoriously meticulous in his preparation and his discipline to the task at hand was legendary whilst the same could not be said of his contemporaries (many of whom would not have survived in today's environment)

this is the REASON behind 99.94 (+ his talent)

1990s' cricketer in 1930s

 

[archie mac]

First of all I have never presented the argument that Bradman isn't the greatest batsman to play the game or is over-rated but to empirical evidence that his numbers are open to scrutiny as much as crtitics of Murali and Sachin in particular that argue that their stats are boosted by playing againts minnows and his comparative average is not that far ahead of his closest comtempoary as their final averages would attest.
The strongest bowling attack of Bradman's era was undoubtably his own especially on the flat, spin friendly tracks that he enjoyed at home, the second best was England by some distance and then the W.I attack. Bradman avaraged an amazing, marvelous 89 againts England and that alone is testament to his standing as the best batsman to play the game. Headley before the war averaged around 78 againts the same opponent if not always the againts the same bowlers. The point that I was making is that outside of England, Bradman played three series againts India (avg 178), South Africa (avg 201) and the W.I (avg 74) and all at home, Headley played his only other series vs Australia in Australia who did a wonderfuul job of scouting him during the tour matches long before it was in vouge and found an initial weakness that he, to his immence credit eliminated by the end of the series. Headley never got to face any of the minnows while Bradman faced all three and as any great batsman would appropriately cashed in. The fact was that based on playing againts comparative opponents their records are not that far apart and the fact that Bradman was playing on the strongest team of his era and in a extremely strong batting side (probably the strongest ever) and Headley was the sole quality batsman of his minnow team and the only obstacle between his side and defeat and he only got to play test matches infrequently (19 matches over 10 years) which would not have helped his consistency.
This comparrison is not to even infer that Headley was the superior to Bradman, but definately not half as good either.
The argument can futher extend to players of subsequent era's who faced tougher batting conditions, regulations and opponents.
It was well known that the Australian pitches between the war were not fast and as such not condusive to pace bowling hence the Australian reliance on spin bowling in their attacks and the rules of the day were very batsman friendly as well. The stumps initially were smaller than they are today and the size was increased because of the great man, the LBW rule was such that the ball had to pitch in line with the stumps to gain a positive decision, so anything pitching outside of the off stump would lead to a not out decision, again a reason why leg and lh spin was the prefered method to take wickets in that era. Both of these rule changes were made to made to assist bowlers and to help even the playing field between bat and ball. Finally regarding the level of competion Bradman, as previously discussed faced only one strong attack, and the only ATG bowlers he would have faced were Tate, Larwood and Verity and Verity apart none of them averaged below 29 vs Australia.
The closest modern rivals of the great man were Sobers, Pollock, G. Chappell, V. Richards, Tendulkar and Lara, they all would have faced more varied conditions, stronger teams, more quality bowlers and tougher regulations. Chappell and Viv in particular proved their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt in WSC taking on the best attacks even assembled and dominated, Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara took on the great attacks of the '90's which included such greats as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Warne, Kumble and Muralitharan and more than held their own. Sobers too took on the great bowlers of his era and added to his work load being for long streaches the main strike bowler and at worse the third seamer for his team, and in both events bowling for extended periods (at times the stop bolwer) that would have had to affect his batting, and this would not have helped againts Davidson, Benaud, Gupte, Trueman, Statham, Mahmood and that memorable innings againts Lillee at his very best.
This is in no way to denigrate the fact that Bradman is the greatest batsman to play the game, but to say that he was twice the batsman of some of the players listed above is something that I cannot endorse and evidence and facts cannot support. Sobers in the 60's ran himself ragged with his schedule and bowling work load playing in every first class league to maximise his imcome, destroying his knees and sholder in the process and adding additional challenges to his scoring. The consistency of Tendulkar has been amazing and the totality of his numbers cannot be ignored, 100 international centuries and playing in the amount of grounds and various conditions is a monumental feat, so is the dominace of a Richards againts the fastest of bowlers and the match winning ability of Lara againts the highest quality of opposition.
Bradman is without question the best to have played this great game who encountered a perfect storm and fully capitalised, twice as good as these gentlemen at their very best, not by any objective measure.

Good post but some of your statements are wrong imo. England easily had the best pace attack in the world. Larwood, Voce, Tate and later Farnes. Verity was every bit as good as Grimmett if not quite up to Tiger.

Some of the England teams that played the WI were 2nd rate at best and some close to 3rd. England always played their best team against Australia. GH was a great player but please don't compare him to Bradman no contest imo. The rest of your post it is simply unknown how Bradman would have faired against modern teams, no doubt still well in front

 

[archie mac]

Bradman: genius + ultimate professional in an amateur game + ordinary competition + rules favoring batsmen = 99.94

So all those pros in England playing for their livelihood and who earned a lot more money if they played for England not to mention travel opportunities, they were what just playing for fun and giggles? Please

 

[social]

So all those pros in England playing for their livelihood and who earned a lot more money if they played for England not to mention travel opportunities, they were what just playing for fun and giggles? Please

I didnt say that they werent taking it seriously

I said that they werent as professional in their approach as today and it doesnt take Einstein to work that out e.g. the dietary, drinking and smoking culture was far different at that time

 

[archie mac]

I didnt say that they werent taking it seriously

I said that they werent as professional in their approach as today and it doesnt take Einstein to work that out e.g. the dietary, drinking and smoking culture was far different at that time

Cricket is a game of skill especially batting, don't think it equates to an average of 100 because you didn't drink or smoke. Warne anyone

 

[Red]

no one dominated the game like bradman / wg in modern era
no better bowler than SFB
no better batsman than don/wg and headley
no batsman in his late 40s continued playing international matches in ATG level

all seems abnormal.
thats the problem.

another example from field hockey is dhyanchandh (he scores goals like runs in cricket - don )

WG didn't dominate his era. Was revolutionary, but hardly dominant compared to his peers.

Plenty of bowlers from around SFB's era have comparable records to him.

No one from Bradman's era has anywhere near his record, nor has anyone else from any other era had a record so far above his own team mates and opposition as Bradman did.

This all stems from the fact you think Bradman is overrated. Seriously cannot believe it's still going.

 

[watson]

If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.