Sir Don Bradman - Is it fair to rate him above batsmen of other eras?

[BoyBrumby]

He was never a big fan of ODI. No doubt if he was playing now he would take the money and who would blame him. What would the IPL pay for him?

Still not sure if was plucked from 1936 he would have take to it.

I always loved the quote from Tiger after his lost his leg. He said "I am just sitting in my kitchen watching the paint dry, but it is still more exciting than watching ODI." What would he say about T20

It's a matter of record Sir Donald was quite the fan of currency tho, isn't it? I reckon we'd have seen him in the IPL.

Anyway, if anyone wanted to make the case Tendulkar (or Lara, Kallis, Ponting, etc) was better than Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton or Sutcliffe then they'd absolutely have a case; with Bradman however the stats do rather kill dead any suggestions refuting his pre-eminance.

 

[archie mac]

You're making the assumption that all people from the same generation think alike on all matters.

How did you get that

Tiger and The Don did not agree on a lot, in fact apart from respect for each others ability they hated each other.

Benaud for instance loves ODI and I am sure lots of other players would have been better at it than they were at Test cricket. And as such would have enjoyed it more than Tests. IMO

 

[ganeshran]

Bradman would obviously be playing for CSK - the greatest side in IPL

 

[miscer]

The same does hold true for Tendulkar etc., but because he hasn't even dominated his own contemporaries very much at all (especially in terms of something like average) t

idk where you got this idea from. tendulkar was by far the finest batsman in the world in terms of batting average and 100s till 2002. This covers the 90s which is widely acknowledged to be a golden period of fast bowling an age where batting averages were near the lowest they have ever been. During this period tendulkar averaged somewhere around 64 (93-2002) while the next best was 55ish. Only about 4 batsmen even managed to average above 50. (waugh, dravid, lara and tendulkar from 93-2002).

Show me a post 02 batsman who did that? kallis, ponting, sanga, dravid have all managed to average around 70 in a period where everyone was racking up runs (a period where tendulkar sadly had injuries galore) and a period where the number of batsmen averaging 50+ skyrocketed. Probably due to the widespread retiring of the ATG bowlers of the 90s.

Regardless the best peak is bradmans, then sobers a little ahead of these 3 in terms of peak -> hobbs/tendulkar/barrington.

 

[MW1304]

Bradman would obviously be playing for CSK - the greatest side in IPL

Which is like saying you're the best looking player at Stoke City.

 

[karan316]

Here are certain facts which needs to be considered

No video evidence

There are very few clips available and hardly any video evidence to backup all his innings.
Bradman was given LBW just 6 times, and was bowled 23 times, this suggests that he would
have been struck in front quite a few times but would have been safe because of the LBW rule
of that time and this also raises a lot of questions regarding the decisions given by the
umpires of that time, I would really want to see the videos of complete Bradman innings to
believe that the decisions made were correct and how much advantage did Bradman get.
There has to be some video evidence in this case, because he is being compared with people
of other eras and is also being claimed to be better then them.

How true are the statistics of that time?

Records of the batsmen of later eras have been statistically accurate, we see each and every run scored by Lara or Tendulkar or Ponting on TV or some or the other coverage, what about Bradman? how true are his statistics?
What's the proof behind the runs he has scored?

Talking about averages and the level of cricket.

The amount of major teams he played was just 1(Eng) leaving out the minnows.
People who say that cricket hasn't changed much, here is one thing about cricket that has
changed a lot, the number of good teams in Bradman's time were just two(Aus and England) and
in the current era, there are 8 teams which are very strong and have extremely talented
players.

The whole hype of Bradman's superiority lies on his averages,
to compare his average with others, you need to have similar conditions to judge the performances of others.

Bradman played 1 top team and 3 minnows, we will see the records of other batsmen against not 1 but 2 top teams and 2 minnows(Even though the minnows of that time were just ridiculous and hardly played good cricket compared to the current minnows)

For e.g.

Mohd. Yousuf has averaged 62 vs England, 101 vs West Indies, 251 vs Bangladesh and 68 vs
Zimbabwe,
which makes it an average of 121 against 2 top teams and 2 minnows unlike Bradman who faced
one major team(which was not that good) and 3 minnows.

Kallis's average against India, West Indies,Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe is 98.

Dravid's average against New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is 74, again its
2 major teams and 2 minnows unlike Bradman.

Sachin's average against Australia,Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabawe is 83.

Sehwag averages 91.14 against Pakistan and 72.88 against Sri Lanka. The strike-rate of
Sehwag is way above that of Bradman, again its against two top teams and no minnows.
Bradman's strike rate was 29.7 compared to Sehwag's 82.09.

Steve Waugh's average against England, SA, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe is 85.

I think all the above examples prove much about these players, similarly, even Bradman's average doesn't prove that he was the best ever.

And to add to that 63% of Bradman’s career was played in four home grounds and 36% in five
grounds in England.


Pitches

The pitches in Bradman's time were batting friendly wickets,
the time before 1920 had bowler friendly wickets,
Between 1920s to 1960s, the pitches were extremely batsman friendly,it was referred to as
the batting-friendly age.
Since 1970s there was a balance in the pitches.

You can check the batsmen with highest averages, most of the batsmen with higher averages
belong to the 1920-1960s era.

And Bradman didn't succeed on the sticky wickets which were the only difficulty in that
time.

Argument that the current wickets are flat and Bradman batted in difficult conditions is
just wrong.

 

[Furball]

Talking about averages and the level of cricket.

The amount of major teams he played was just 1(Eng) leaving out the minnows.
People who say that cricket hasn't changed much, here is one thing about cricket that has
changed a lot, the number of good teams in Bradman's time were just two(Aus and England) and
in the current era, there are 8 teams which are very strong and have extremely talented
players.

Who are these 8 teams?

 

[Howe_zat]

You're aware that there were other batsmen around during Bradman's time, right?

Please pay attention to what other people have said in this thread.

 

[Flametree]

Um... Bradman played 75% of his matches against the best opponent available to him. Your "calculations" seem to be assuming players play 50% of games against minnows.
He averaged 90 against the best opponent. See how many other players have managed that over 37 tests... I'd also suggest the "minnows" he played had rather better bowling attacks than Bangladesh's...

As I and lots of other posters have pointed out, batting averages in the 20s and 30s (and '46-'48) were pretty much the same as they are today. Possibly higher than in the some decades from the the 50s through 90s, but only by two or three points. Not 40 points higher.

 

[NasserFan207]

These threads are awful because they are 'always' started by rabid Sachin fans. Without exception.

Anyway Bradman sucks.

 

[Burgey]

Here are certain facts which needs to be considered

No video evidence

There are very few clips available and hardly any video evidence to backup all his innings.
Bradman was given LBW just 6 times, and was bowled 23 times, this suggests that he would
have been struck in front quite a few times but would have been safe because of the LBW rule
of that time and this also raises a lot of questions regarding the decisions given by the
umpires of that time, I would really want to see the videos of complete Bradman innings to
believe that the decisions made were correct and how much advantage did Bradman get.
There has to be some video evidence in this case, because he is being compared with people
of other eras and is also being claimed to be better then them.

How true are the statistics of that time?

Records of the batsmen of later eras have been statistically accurate, we see each and every run scored by Lara or Tendulkar or Ponting on TV or some or the other coverage, what about Bradman? how true are his statistics?
What's the proof behind the runs he has scored?

Talking about averages and the level of cricket.

The amount of major teams he played was just 1(Eng) leaving out the minnows.
People who say that cricket hasn't changed much, here is one thing about cricket that has
changed a lot, the number of good teams in Bradman's time were just two(Aus and England) and
in the current era, there are 8 teams which are very strong and have extremely talented
players.

The whole hype of Bradman's superiority lies on his averages,
to compare his average with others, you need to have similar conditions to judge the performances of others.

Bradman played 1 top team and 3 minnows, we will see the records of other batsmen against not 1 but 2 top teams and 2 minnows(Even though the minnows of that time were just ridiculous and hardly played good cricket compared to the current minnows)

For e.g.

Mohd. Yousuf has averaged 62 vs England, 101 vs West Indies, 251 vs Bangladesh and 68 vs
Zimbabwe,
which makes it an average of 121 against 2 top teams and 2 minnows unlike Bradman who faced
one major team(which was not that good) and 3 minnows.

Kallis's average against India, West Indies,Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe is 98.

Dravid's average against New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is 74, again its
2 major teams and 2 minnows unlike Bradman.

Sachin's average against Australia,Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabawe is 83.

Sehwag averages 91.14 against Pakistan and 72.88 against Sri Lanka. The strike-rate of
Sehwag is way above that of Bradman, again its against two top teams and no minnows.
Bradman's strike rate was 29.7 compared to Sehwag's 82.09.

Steve Waugh's average against England, SA, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe is 85.

I think all the above examples prove much about these players, similarly, even Bradman's average doesn't prove that he was the best ever.

And to add to that 63% of Bradman’s career was played in four home grounds and 36% in five
grounds in England.


Pitches

The pitches in Bradman's time were batting friendly wickets,
the time before 1920 had bowler friendly wickets,
Between 1920s to 1960s, the pitches were extremely batsman friendly,it was referred to as
the batting-friendly age.
Since 1970s there was a balance in the pitches.

You can check the batsmen with highest averages, most of the batsmen with higher averages
belong to the 1920-1960s era.

And Bradman didn't succeed on the sticky wickets which were the only difficulty in that
time.

Argument that the current wickets are flat and Bradman batted in difficult conditions is
just wrong.

I love this post. I love that the scores of test and first class matches in the 1930s and 40s are somehow made up, that the scorer from the other side went along with the lark of Bradman making 309 in a day, even though he was bowled for 23. And to think the media of the time went along with it too.

I thought the highlight though was when the Queensland team carried Bradman from the field after he made 452 against them, even though he'd been caught behind for 22, just to keep the myth going.

Had a great collective sense of humour back then, eh?

 

[Flametree]

Here are certain facts which needs to be considered
Between 1920s to 1960s, the pitches were extremely batsman friendly,it was referred to as the batting-friendly age.
Since 1970s there was a balance in the pitches.

You clearly know nothing about the history of cricket. The 50's were easy batting times? Really?

1st test Brisbane 1951 : Aus 128, Eng 68-7, Aus 32-7, Eng 127 all out.
2nd test Melbourne 1951 : Aus 194, Eng 187, Aus 181, Eng 150
Only two scores over 400, neither over 450, in a 5-match series.

In the India-Pakistan series of 1952, no side made 400 in any innings. Five innings ended below 200. In the same series in 1955, no side made over 330 in any innings of a 5-test series. Compare that with the series in the 1970s!

The same year, England v South Africa, 10 of the 19 innings were all out less than 205...

In 1956, only two innings broke 330 in the 5-test England-Australia series...

New Zealand hit a wet summer in England 1958, their average completed innings was 118!

1958-59 : Aus-Eng, only four innings over 300 in the entire series

I know this isn't relevant to the Bradman issue, but you might want check your "certain facts".

 

[NasserFan207]

I love this post. I love that the scores of test and first class matches in the 1930s and 40s are somehow made up, that the scorer from the other side went along with the lark of Bradman making 309 in a day, even though he was bowled for 23. And to think the media of the time went along with it too.

I thought the highlight though was when the Queensland team carried Bradman from the field after he made 452 against them, even though he'd been caught behind for 22, just to keep the myth going.

Had a great collective sense of humour back then, eh?

Course, all that was done in the name of the great cricket-web conspiracy to rank Bradman ahead of Tendulkar in the all-time test batting rankings. Those evil bastards.

 

[Spark]

Wow. That's some pretty impressive desecration of the history of cricket karan has going on there.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Here are certain facts which needs to be considered

Bradman was given LBW just 6 times, and was bowled 23 times, this suggests that he would
have been struck in front quite a few times but would have been safe because of the LBW rule
of that time and this also raises a lot of questions regarding the decisions given by the
umpires of that time

There's absolutely no way that it could be saying that he was really good at hitting the ball with his bat, as his other stats seem to indicate?

 

[andyc]

Karan - you realise his first class average - from over 200 games - is as astronimcally high as his Test average, right?

 

[Ruckus]

Karan - you realise his first class average - from over 200 games - is as astronimcally high as his Test average, right?

Yeah that stat isn't flaunted nearly as much it should be imo. Possibly even more impressive than his 99.94, and quite useful in proving the anti-Bradman arguments wrong too. 28067 runs over 234 matches at 95.14!!! So astounding...It proves his talents were entirely capable of being implemented over a large amount of matches (longevity etc.). And it also shows that despite all of the different conditions found in FC cricket across the globe, and the sheer number of FC players over time, he still comes out on the top by a very significant margin:

Records | First-class matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPN Cricinfo

The next best is Vijay Merchant. But if you look closely, just like Bradman's record in tests, the next best after Vijay is only a little worse, and the next best after Headley is only a little worse again. I.e. there is a continuum of talent, with no one player standing out amongst the crowd. And then there is Bradman, a whopping 23.5 points ahead. The man was a freak amongst men.

 

[Joao]

Karan - you realise his first class average - from over 200 games - is as astronimcally high as his Test average, right?

To be honest, from the 3 or 4 threads I have seen Karan post in I think all he sees in other people's posts is agreement or disagreement. Given the latter he tends to say things that may or may not be true to further his cause without any regard to earth shatteringly obvious claims made by others, against his cause.

Karan is the Siddle or Cricket Web. He's got passion, big heart, types all day and you know the rest.

 

[Athlai]

Even if cricket was as strong as current Bangladesh domestics, averaging twice what everyone else does is completely unheard of.

 

[honestbharani]

idk where you got this idea from. tendulkar was by far the finest batsman in the world in terms of batting average and 100s till 2002. This covers the 90s which is widely acknowledged to be a golden period of fast bowling an age where batting averages were near the lowest they have ever been. During this period tendulkar averaged somewhere around 64 (93-2002) while the next best was 55ish. Only about 4 batsmen even managed to average above 50. (waugh, dravid, lara and tendulkar from 93-2002).

Show me a post 02 batsman who did that? kallis, ponting, sanga, dravid have all managed to average around 70 in a period where everyone was racking up runs (a period where tendulkar sadly had injuries galore) and a period where the number of batsmen averaging 50+ skyrocketed. Probably due to the widespread retiring of the ATG bowlers of the 90s.

Regardless the best peak is bradmans, then sobers a little ahead of these 3 in terms of peak -> hobbs/tendulkar/barrington.

Yeah, when Sachin scored runs it was a bowlers' feast and when he doesn't, it is because he is injured.


Try this: In that period, Sachin averaged 61 against non-minnows in 76 games, Steve Waugh avergaed 54 over 110 games. By far, indeed. Gilchrist averaged 57 over 40 games or so.


Look, if averaging 62 over fewer games when the next best was 55 for a decade is what you mean by "far", you just have to assume that Bradman was ahead by infinity over his next best in his era.


And if we go on filtering the stats of players in games where your ATG bowlers played, it comes down even more.

I hate to go on a stats war, but the fact is, in CW itself there is no real consensus that Sachin is the best batsman of his era. Forget the by far. Its not even an argument that the race was close in the 90s.

If you think Sachin (or any other batsman of the 90s) was the best, it is fair enough, but to suggest it was not a close race is just silly.


Just an example of why stats are not be all and end all..

Over 1998 to 2007, against non-minnows, Ponting averages 60, the next best among guys who have played 50+ is 55 by Kallis and Sachin averages 51. Sure, there are a lot more guys averaging 51 -53, but Ponting is just as dominant as Sachin was 1993 to 2002.


And go to the next ten year period (1999 to 2008), Ponting is 61, Kallis 57, Sachin 48.