Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[tooextracool]

There is one obvious problem with that point though, Bradman' stats during that same phase were much better than any other batsman from that same era who were playing in the same conditions.

Now if you take a look at any other era of the cricket the gulf between performances of the best batsman from that era and the other good batsmen from that era has never been so huge which clearly shows that Sir Don was miles ahead of the rest.

I personally have no problem in anyone wanting to criticise anybody as long as the criticism is justified, but in Bradman's case it seems like people just want to criticise him just becuase they just can't come to terms with the fact that somebody could actually play like that.

Bradman was the best of his time without a shadow of a doubt. In fact he was at least twice as good as every other batsman that he played with. However, what rankles me is when people come up with fictitious numbers like he would average 80 in this era or that bowling/playing conditions in Bradman's time were harder than the modern era. What Bradman did in his time is not comparable to what anybody is doing now because quite simply the game is different. One cannot assume that if Bradman could time travel that he would still somehow maintain the sort of advantage that he held over his own contemporaries in much the same way that one cannot assume that he would be able to do so.

As far as criticizing Bradman is concerned, I dont think anyone has done that. I don't agree with Migara on pretty much anything, but in this case, I think his point is valid.

 

[Top_Cat]

Think whether you want to argue that pitches were flatter or the bowling was worse, the bottom line is that scoring runs was at least as easy if not more so than scoring runs in the last 2 decades. It cant merely be coincidence that some of the highest batting averaging players happened to be playing in that era. In fact, in the top 10 highest averaging players of all time (who have played more than 20 tests), 9 of them (Bradman, Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe, Paynter, Barrington, Weekes, Hammond and Sobers) all played in the era of uncovered pitches and no helmets.

Does it not strike you as slightly ironic that whilst they were playing on uncovered pitches and against batsmen that didnt have half as much protection as they have today that batsmen happened to have comparable averages to the current era? Could it be that perhaps the bowling wasnt as good as people like to think it was? Its certainly a valid argument. I simply cant agree with the flip side though, suggesting that it was more difficult to bat back then while a bloke was averaging 99.94 and another handful averaging nearly 60 is just ridiculous.

Not every pitch was a rank spitter, was pretty rare from all accounts. Bradman himself said that the majority of the time, they were flatter than the ones we see in modern times.

Re: comparability of players from years gone by, the eras are more difficult to compare, sure, but it's not an impossible task. Wouldn't even be that difficult statistically. Would just rely on a few assumptions which your average statistician makes routinely, tbh. Christ, if you can build a climate model which stretches back a few thousand years, comparing a bunch of cricket matches with another bunch from 80 years ago wouldn't be that hard.

The biggest problem isn't comparability, it's the measures themselves.

 

[benchmark00]

Michael Hussey.

 

[Top_Cat]

Trent Copeland.

 

[benchmark00]

Nathan Adcock.

 

[Spikey]

has anyone mentioned sachin tendulkar?

 

[Top_Cat]

Steve Waugh

 

[benchmark00]

Steve Waugh

You MONSTER!

 

[robelinda]

Nathan Adcock.

Brad Wigney.

 

[tooextracool]

Re: comparability of players from years gone by, the eras are more difficult to compare, sure, but it's not an impossible task. Wouldn't even be that difficult statistically. Would just rely on a few assumptions which your average statistician makes routinely, tbh. Christ, if you can build a climate model which stretches back a few thousand years, comparing a bunch of cricket matches with another bunch from 80 years ago wouldn't be that hard.

The biggest problem isn't comparability, it's the measures themselves.

The problem when making the comparisons is that there are too many variables. We're talking about a guy who batted without helmets, in an era of lighter bats, against possibly worse bowlers, playing only a tiny number of test nations, in only a handful of test nations. No one for sure knows how fast those bowlers were bowling, or how good they were, or how much they turned the ball or how accurate they were because all accounts of this are either biased or inaccurate as the technology back then was simply not available. There is also no possible way to conclusively state whether pitches were flatter back then or not.

It is possible to make an argument that, using statistics on a relative basis, Bradman is superior to every cricketer to play the game. However, there is no conclusive argument that states that Bradman would dominate the world of cricket today as he did in the 30s much like there isn't really a conclusive argument that Dinosaurs would rule the world if Jurassic Park happened.

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem when making the comparisons is that there are too many variables. We're talking about a guy who batted without helmets, in an era of lighter bats, against possibly worse bowlers, playing only a tiny number of test nations, in only a handful of test nations. No one for sure knows how fast those bowlers were bowling, or how good they were, or how much they turned the ball or how accurate they were because all accounts of this are either biased or inaccurate as the technology back then was simply not available. There is also no possible way to conclusively state whether pitches were flatter back then or not.

It is possible to make an argument that, using statistics on a relative basis, Bradman is superior to every cricketer to play the game. However, there is no conclusive argument that states that Bradman would dominate the world of cricket today as he did in the 30s much like there isn't really a conclusive argument that Dinosaurs would rule the world if Jurassic Park happened.

Yeah, I agree. There's no way you can say with any certainty that Bradman would have dominated in this or any other he didn't play in, but I just don't think that's at all relevant to how good he was or should be regarded.

A batsman doesn't develop his game in order to be successful in imaginary circumstances that don't exist yet or haven't existed for years - the end game was for him (and every player, in fact) to do as well as he could for his team, relative to everyone else playing at the time. As a batsman he did that better than anyone else has in the history of Test cricket by a massive margin. Whether or not he would've done things he wasn't even trying to like succeed in theoretical situations of other eras is about as relevant as whether or not Brian Lara would've been successful as a leg spinner on uncovered wickets at the turn of the last century. It's just not a factor for me.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, I agree. There's no way you can say with any certainty that Bradman would have dominated in this or any other he didn't play in, but I just don't think that's at all relevant to how good he was or should be regarded.

A batsman doesn't develop his game in order to be successful in imaginary circumstances that don't exist yet or haven't existed for years - the end game was for him (and every player, in fact) to do as well as he could for his team, relative to everyone else playing at the time. As a batsman he did that better than anyone else has in the history of Test cricket by a massive margin. Whether or not he would've done things he wasn't even trying to like succeed in theoretical situations of other eras is about as relevant as whether or not Brian Lara would've been successful as a leg spinner on uncovered wickets at the turn of the last century if that's what he put his mind to. It's just not a factor for me.

Well said

 

[Migara]

For me Hutton is second only to Bradman and well ahead of anyone else - a number of reasons - in summary

1. Never batted on Australian shirtfronts before the war
2. Missed his best years - 24-30 - because of the war
3. Played most of his career (ie after the war) with one arm shorter than the other because of his wartime accident
4. English wickets were generally "sporting" after the war
5. Had to put up with the stress of being England's first professional captain

Still averaged 56 in Tests and 55 overall

Your reasons 1 & 3 certainly have merit. Number 5 argument is nothing special. Waugh, Border, Ponting, Sangakkara, Lara, Richards all did it and averaged 50.

But losing best years to war is a logical fallacy. Because everybody lost that years, it was bowlers who lost more than batsmen. Bowlers tend to end by mid 30s while batsmen go up to late 30s. And after such a break where cricket was not layed much, bowlers will be in a much disadvantageous position than batsmen, because they have grown "more older" than batsmen in their careers. On contrary to popular belief old batsmen tend to boss old bowlers more than young batsmen to young bowlers. The sporting wickets would have been good post war, but the ability of a aged bowling units of oppositions has to be taken in to consideration.

 

[GIMH]

I'm pretty sure Waugh, Border, Ponting, Lara, Sangakarra and Richards weren't England's first professional captain. How about you read a point properly before trying to argue it?

 

[Migara]

I'm pretty sure Waugh, Border, Ponting, Lara, Sangakarra and Richards weren't England's first professional captain. How about you read a point properly before trying to argue it?

Being England's captain is umpteen times difficult than that of WI, Pakistan, India, SL or Australia?

 

[GIMH]

He said FIRST PROFESSIONAL CAPTAIN

 

[smash84]

Being England's captain is umpteen times difficult than that of WI, Pakistan, India, SL or Australia?

how come?

 

[hang on]

he's being sarcastic, smalishah.

my tuppence.

being the first professional captain meant the pressure of having the whole old boys' (amateurs - partly aristo or certainly gentlemanly, landed or otherwise) network/classes waiting for u to fail, and thus being able to say, "i told u so, old chap. not born to command..haw, haw" and suchlike. of course, the reformists and the political environment after the war needs to also be kept in mind (labour in with a massive win), so popular expectation and hopes rested on the professional captain.

a very simplistic explanation.


on the otherside,

it can be argued that the captains of india, australia, pakistan have to deal with pressure equal to or greater than what hutton had to face. this is an intangible and cannot really be compared constructively.

if pressure and weight of expectation had to be brought in, then i do not think that any cricketer (including the don) has had to deal with a fraction of the pressure that tendulkar has had to. but i do not think that that should count in his favour when assessing his worth as a batsman.

 

[fredfertang]

Although there were doubtless some who didn't agree with the decision it was the gentlemen amateurs who appointed Hutton so I don't think there was pressure generated by anyone waiting for him to fail, and he had a straightforward start against the 1952 Indians - The pressure arose out of the fact that he had no experience of captaincy (Yorkshire didn't have a pro as skipper until after Hutton retired) and that he was not the most outgoing person. He actually proved to be a very astute, if defensive captain - but then again with his background he was never going to be a flamboyant chancer

 

[hang on]

it was very simplistic, i admit, fred. but i think that it wasn't just the lack of experience that created the pressure but the whole break with tradition, and the concomitant pressure to not stuff up in the public eye, thus proving the naysayers right. hutton himself felt that he wasn't going to get the job. and there were dissenters querying his ability to 'lead' and manage the vagaries of an away tour a couple of years after his appointment, after all.

again, a simplistic post, i will admit, with the analytical prism being more the manifestation of the class struggle and all that!