Sir Don Bradman vs Sir Gary Sobers

[VKN payyans]

Sobers - an under achiever , better than stats = general view

even if we agree Bradman would have averaged 80-90 in a more competitive era of Sobers , he is still a lesser ( arguably ) cricketer to Sobers.
at his peak , Sobers averaged close to 70 and took 4wkts/match. difference in their batting is 20 runs/innings ,
2wkts / innings >>>>> 20 runs/innings
+ Sobers is a better fielder.

WG and Bradman are the only two ARGUABLY BETTER to Sobers cricketers though..

 

[fredfertang]

To be fair to Bradman at least his level of over achievement was consistent

 

[smash84]

Is sobersno1 back?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Is sobersno1 back?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Haha, that guy just keeps trying doesn't he.

Kyear is gonna love this. I think last time it was him who outed Sobers no 1.

 

[Red]

Sobers - an under achiever , better than stats = general view

even if we agree Bradman would have averaged 80-90 in a more competitive era of Sobers , When did we agree on this?
he is still a lesser ( arguably ) cricketer to Sobers.Good reasoning
at his peak , Sobers averaged close to 70 and took 4wkts/match. Ahh, so we assess Sobers at his peak, but Bradman at an adjusted era average. Makes sense for your argument....difference in their batting is 20 runs/innings ,
2wkts / innings >>>>> 20 runs/innings Outstanding logic. Bravo.
+ Sobers is a better fielder.

WG and Bradman are the only two ARGUABLY BETTER to Sobers cricketers though..

....

 

[kyear2]

We were advised last time not to speculate on Multi's.






But man is he persistent.

 

[the big bambino]

If you don't want to compare across eras, fine... I have no issues with that.
But then why you even start this thread, comparing two players from different periods then?

Touche.

 

[Coronis]

I don't think so. There are a lot of members who do believe that Bradman was twice as good as everyone else and if my memory serves correct Coronis doesn't rate Viv that highly.

I don't rate Viv as highly as most other members, but no, I'm not that biased.

 

[Jono]

Always feel like a Corona beer when you post.

 

[Red]

Just had a couple. One to clean the BBQ before and after use. Excellent stuff.

 

[watson]

Mate of mine remarks every time - "behold it changes" - after adding the lime wedgie. So don't forget the lime.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know. No one can tell for certain if bradman was twice as good as Richards or 34.17% better. But his output was twice as good as Richards or any other great batsman, which is a fact. Lets just say bradman was a ****load better and leave it at that

Not having a go but this assumes a linear relationship between talent/performance and average which I don't think is justified. The difference between averaging 50 vs 60 is massively greater than 40 vs 50, for example. Imagine the difference between 55 and, say, 99.94.

 

[Coronis]

Always feel like a Corona beer when you post.

Thats what they pay me for

 

[karan316]

If you don't want to compare across eras, fine... I have no issues with that.
But then why you even start this thread, comparing two players from different periods then?

The statement that the 2 are the greatest was a bit too much tbh.
At present, there is so much competition and the level of cricket is so high that its hard to rate some old greats above everyone else.
And the pressure involved, the amount of professionalism, high quality fielding, number of quality teams have all changed with time.
In India, with the number of people taking up cricket, there are more chances of you getting struck by lightning than getting selected for the national team. So just reaching that level is a big thing, unlike before.


And the thread is just a comparison between 2 given players, so lets keep it to that.

 

[Burgey]

Firstly, the thread is more a comparison between Bradman and Sobers.

Saying that one is the greatest batsmen and the other is the greatest cricketer is a bit too much tbh.
Greatest of their time? Yes, would agree on that, but no the greatest.

This argument gets trotted out time and again by the usual suspects.

If you can't accept Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time, and by a vast margin, then it only confirms you haven't the first idea about cricket and really should be banned until you remove your head from your own fundamental orrifice.

 

[Burgey]

The statement that the 2 are the greatest was a bit too much tbh.
At present, there is so much competition and the level of cricket is so high that its hard to rate some old greats above everyone else.
And the pressure involved, the amount of professionalism, high quality fielding, number of quality teams have all changed with time.
In India, with the number of people taking up cricket, there are more chances of you getting struck by lightning than getting selected for the national team. So just reaching that level is a big thing, unlike before.


And the thread is just a comparison between 2 given players, so lets keep it to that.

The level of cricket is high now? Really? I think the level of cricket at international level now is for the most part piss weak. SA are a very good side, the rest are pretty mediocre really.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The statement that the 2 are the greatest was a bit too much tbh.
At present, there is so much competition and the level of cricket is so high that its hard to rate some old greats above everyone else.
And the pressure involved, the amount of professionalism, high quality fielding, number of quality teams have all changed with time.
In India, with the number of people taking up cricket, there are more chances of you getting struck by lightning than getting selected for the national team. So just reaching that level is a big thing, unlike before.


And the thread is just a comparison between 2 given players, so lets keep it to that.

at those parts in particular. Look, I don't intend to be mean, but your whole point basically boils down to great Cricketer A is better than Great Cricketer B because he's more recent. That's just a piss weak argument

 

[Flem274*]

And even if you're right karan, you can't hold Bradman to the standards of today. It's like saying some random olden day player > Tendulkar because he batted on uncovered pitches. All you can ask is for a player to succeed in the circumstances presented to them, because the past is done and dusted and you can't predict the future.

Bradman is the best because he is the most successful. Put more simply, he averaged 100 for years and years. There are probably a few batsmen who average 80+ against a couple of top four sides over 10 tests, but over decades? That doesn't happen, It's freakish.

 

[karan316]

at those parts in particular. Look, I don't intend to be mean, but your whole point basically boils down to great Cricketer A is better than Great Cricketer B because he's more recent. That's just a piss weak argument

No, cricketers who succeed in a professional era > cricketers who succeed in an unprofessional/semi professional era.