Sir Don Bradman vs Sir Gary Sobers

[Dan]

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

...which boils down to "great Cricketer A is better than Great Cricketer B because he's more recent". You can only play what is put in front of you, and at the time you just so happen to have been alive, tbh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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

No... Players who achieve more success > others... Regardless of era

 

[karan316]

Ok, lets not stretch this topic, the same old discussions will be repeated.

Lets stick to the thread.

 

[kyear2]

The thread doesn't make sense. Sobers played in as professional an era and excelled at fielding as much as anyone today. Granted fitness and training didn't reach today's standards until WSC but on the individual level Bradman and Sobers were both as professional as players today even if team levels and most players were not quite on that level.
Bradman retired less than a decade before Sobers and Sobers retired the year before Richards and Lara replaced Richards in his team. There is a continuity and yes bowling did improve from the mid fifties up until the peak of the 90's with the exception of McGrath, Warne, Murali and Steyn it has decreased since. Bradman was the best, by how much is arguable, but to suggest otherwise is an expression of ignorance. To quote another website, the only persons who suggest that Kallis is a better batsman and all rounder that Sobers are those who never seen Garry bat.
They are the two greatest Test players to have played the game and its after those two that the argument starts.

 

[smash84]

IMO Bradman stands head and shoulders above everyone else.

I think you can make a case against Sobers for not being too far ahead of other cricketer. But Bradman is just a freak

 

[kyear2]

IMO Bradman stands head and shoulders above everyone else.

I think you can make a case against Sobers for not being too far ahead of other cricketer. But Bradman is just a freak

I don't rate too highly what previous players have to say about their contemporaries as they are generally biased towards them. Keith Miller played with Bradman and without question stated that he was cleary the best batsman ever, but Sobers was the best cricketer ever. Chappelli, as Australian as they come has a similar perspective.

Numerous publications I have read have stated that there has been three superstars of the game in Grace, Bradman and Sobers who stood above all others and when the scope is limited to Tests then is just the Don and Sir Garry. When Wisden named their 5 players of the century Bradman scored a perfect 100, Sobers came in next with 90 votes, no one else came close.
They are 1 and 1A no matter what order you choose to place them.

 

[VKN payyans]

Bradman is freak . ok
WG ? freakiest ??

take any area or subject , freaky phenomenons happens only in the beginning stage where things are not so professional , not so organised , there are lot to mature , lot to find out..

BRADAMAN was an ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL cricketer in a NOT SO PROFESSIONAL era. that (+ his talent) made him a freak
why there is no SFB , WG , BRADMAN , HEADLEY , HOBBS after 40 , these days ??

Sobers is different . he is definitely better than any player after him. just because he was not limited to one skill. and INARGUABLY 1 of 3 greatest players of all time. and his worst ranking should be no:3 behind WG and Bradman. But Bradman and WG can be placed anywhere in.. say.. top 15 cricketers ranking

its not Viv's / Sunny's / Sachin's/ Lara's fault they played more competitive cricket

no cricketer combined 3 skills of cricket like Sobers did.
arguably (BEST BATSMAN OF ALL TIME + BEST FIELDER OF ALL TIME ) + good bowler ( varieties )
you may argue Kallis is equally good , which is rubbish.. stats from certain angles may show kallis>=sobers . greatness not lies in numbers alone.

 

[Burgey]

Freaks only happen at the beginning of sports? Glad I was around in the late 80s/ early 90s when basketball started and I got to see Michael Jordan play.

 

[Red]

Bradman is freak . ok
WG ? freakiest ??

take any area or subject , freaky phenomenons happens only in the beginning stage where things are not so professional , not so organised , there are lot to mature , lot to find out..

BRADAMAN was an ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL cricketer in a NOT SO PROFESSIONAL era. that (+ his talent) made him a freak
why there is no SFB , WG , BRADMAN , HEADLEY , HOBBS after 40 , these days ??

Sobers is different . he is definitely better than any player after him. just because he was not limited to one skill. and INARGUABLY 1 of 3 greatest players of all time. and his worst ranking should be no:3 behind WG and Bradman. But Bradman and WG can be placed anywhere in.. say.. top 15 cricketers ranking

its not Viv's / Sunny's / Sachin's/ Lara's fault they played more competitive cricket

no cricketer combined 3 skills of cricket like Sobers did.
arguably (BEST BATSMAN OF ALL TIME + BEST FIELDER OF ALL TIME ) + good bowler ( varieties )
you may argue Kallis is equally good , which is rubbish.. stats from certain angles may show kallis>=sobers . greatness not lies in numbers alone.

You're such a tool. Seriously.

Bradman was twice as good as most of his peers, and twice as good as most people in history.

Plenty of other batmen are roughly as good as Sobers. Plenty of bowlers have been way better than him. Plenty of fielders have been as good or better than him.

You could cautiously say that Sobers is the second greatest batsman ever. But that's highly debatable, especially using your logic.

 

[centurymaker]

Freaks do come along only when the game hasn't developed as much. You won't find another Bradman ever again!

But that doesn't mean that Bradman isn't the best batsman ever by a fair distance.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh ffs sake. Cricket was professional in Bradman's era and for a long time before hand. Cricket was developed by the interwar years. Tests began some 50 years earlier. Cricket itself atleast 100. Frankly you morons should just go back to ICF where Sunny was the best of all time until Sachin came along and where 55 is greater than 99.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Big Baby having his usual crying session.

 

[centurymaker]

Oh ffs sake. Cricket was professional in Bradman's era and for a long time before hand. Cricket was developed by the interwar years. Tests began some 50 years earlier. Cricket itself atleast 100. Frankly you morons should just go back to ICF where Sunny was the best of all time until Sachin came along and where 55 is greater than 99.

Firstly, you need to learn to have some manners. You are rude.

Secondly, I never said it was an unprofessional time. Basically, cricket has now reached the peak of professionalism, whereas in that era it was probably in the early stages of professionalism, so cricket still has come a long way since then.

Thirdly, we won't ever get another Bradman again because the professionalism & competition won't allow it.

 

[the big bambino]

Firstly, you need to learn to have some manners. You are rude.

Secondly, I never said it was an unprofessional time. Basically, cricket has now reached the peak of professionalism, whereas in that era it was probably in the early stages of professionalism, so cricket still has come a long way since then.

Thirdly, we won't ever get another Bradman again because the professionalism & competition won't allow it.

I wasn't addressing you. My manners are as good as anyones and I at least know only to respond when spoken to. Since you have spoken I'll reply that cricket wasn't in its early stages of professionalism. It can't be stated with any certainty this era is the peak of the game's professionalism. Professionalism doesn't negate the emergence of the freak performer as Phelps and Jordon prove. You have not shown how competitiveness improves with the passing of time. The topic is only raised to place a subjective handicap on Bradman's record. Whereas you can gain a measure of the competition Bradman faced by isolating him and looking at the averages of his team mates. Then you get an idea of the standard he went on to dominate.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

There must be some correlation between competitiveness and a nations development over time. Take China for example, with the economy doing better they have been able to invest in sport which showed in the Olympics.

 

[the big bambino]

Yes. A nation can improve over time. The example of China is a gold standard. Though I think competitiveness isn't necessarily related to professionalism. Look at our cricket. All the modern benefits of professionalism are available to CA yet our competitiveness has taken a big dive over the last - well since 2009 for sure. Standards improve over time (though I don't think that means a modern player is naturally better than those who preceded them). It seems to me competitiveness fluctuates. I'm guessing 2 reasons for that could be the competence of the the sport's governing administration and the talent of the players available. Right now I don't think Aus, WI or Pak are as competitive as they once were. Eng are better now than at some points in their history but not all. India are as good as they've generally been. SL, not as good as when they had Murali Jaya, Arjuna etc. NZ are improving but I'd still back their team from the 80s as superior. SA, on a high now have been pretty consistent throughout their history.

 

[The Sean]

I think the curious thing about all this is that Bradman and Sobers held each other in the absolute highest possible regard, and would no doubt consider a discussion where either one of them had their achievements questioned or denigrated in order to elevate the other (which is what always tends to happen with these kind of things) to be both pointless and amusing.

 

[kyear2]

Well said.

 

[smash84]

I think the curious thing about all this is that Bradman and Sobers held each other in the absolute highest possible regard, and would no doubt consider a discussion where either one of them had their achievements questioned or denigrated in order to elevate the other (which is what always tends to happen with these kind of things) to be both pointless and amusing.

They probably wouldn't be sitting on an online cricket forum and debating away in the first place

 

[fredfertang]

Sobers certainly wouldn't - now there's a man who knows how to enjoy himself!