Will there ever be another Bradman ??

[wpdavid]

For what it's worth, my instinct is that we'll never see his like again. We seem to be in a period where the bat is largely dominant over the ball, but no-one of the current batters with legitimate claims to potential greatness has an average within 40 of the great mans.

A question that sometimes vexes me is why was he so very good? I know during his playing career there was a theory that his eyesight must be better than everyone else's, but when tested it proved very ordinary.

I believe Sir Donald has a legitimate claim to be the greatest sportsman of all time.

I have read people who think Grace (WG) was at least as good: allegedly his test stats don't show that due to his being relatively old when he made his international debut. I'm not sure that I buy that argument, but I'm generally loathe to evaluate the 19th century guys, however dominant they were in the English game.

 

[Jono]

The question is, is there a productive capacity where no more can be done? Is there a maximum level? If so, was Bradman close?

Additionally there are so many factors. Personally, though Bradman's greatness and position as number 1 cannot be denied, like Steulen said, I believe various factors make cricket a tougher, more competitive sport today (yes I concede factors also make cricket, or inparticular batting an easier sport in ways too) however the environment of stress, pressure and tough schedule do make cricket tougher than back in the day.

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

I agree to an extent. It's anal & pointless, but it's good fun to argue the toss, eh?

There are almost innumerable factors to consider, but the averages are the best guide we have. I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

 

[pskov]

I agree to an extent. It's anal & pointless, but it's good fun to argue the toss, eh?

There are almost innumerable factors to consider, but the averages are the best guide we have. I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

It would have been truly fascinating, nay unbelievably absorbing, to see Bradman match up against Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall et. al.

 

[Richard]

Will we ever have a batsman who dominates the game as The Don did. I mean average twice as high as anyone else in his own time and stand the test of time for three quarters of a century. A career that spanned twenty years, with six years at his prime cut down by war, he managed to achieve such mind boggling performance over two decades.

Will the next hundred years see another like him ? If not, why not ?

I am not talking of an average of 99.94 but someone who outscores the next best in the world, in his own time and age, by 100 percent on an average !!

And who knows how much higher it would have been but for Bodyline.

 

[Richard]

I know he's supposed to have had a weakness against short pitched fast stuff, but still averaged well over 50 in 32/33 with Larwood & Voce trying to take his head off. Such was his standing this was considered a relative failure!

Relative?
There's fast-short-pitched bowling and there's Bodyline. Bodyline is not everyday, and the fact that it's illegal now suggests the totally unfair advantage it gave to seam-bowlers. We can only imagine how much more unfair it was in the wickets of the day.

 

[Richard]

It would have been truly fascinating, nay unbelievably absorbing, to see Bradman match up against Garner, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall et. al.

I don't think it would - I'd say it would be a shame, because some fantastic bowlers would have been made to look very, very ordinary indeed.

 

[Richard]

Hrmph...time for some sacrilege.

Bradman played a lot of his cricket against one opponent (England), while other countries were only just rising from their Bangladesh-phase.

I believe if you take some of the best current batsmen and skew their figures to heavily favour their favourite opponent and matches against minnows, you would get their averages up to 70 or so.

This still makes Bradman better than the rest, but not otherworldly so. He would then be more in the Schumacher / Maradona regions, I'd say.

So, I don't think there will ever be another Don Twiceasgood, because of the totally different environment of current cricket, but an astonishing 70 career average we might witness...and imho that player would be as good as Bradman.

The question is, is there a productive capacity where no more can be done? Is there a maximum level? If so, was Bradman close?

Additionally there are so many factors. Personally, though Bradman's greatness and position as number 1 cannot be denied, like Steulen said, I believe various factors make cricket a tougher, more competitive sport today (yes I concede factors also make cricket, or inparticular batting an easier sport in ways too) however the environment of stress, pressure and tough schedule do make cricket tougher than back in the day.

Is Bradman the greatest of all time? Unquestionable. But is he THAT much better than everyone around today? I don't think the comparison of averages is an accurate measure of that. We'll never be able to find out.

If you ask me had Bradman played today he'd have averaged 150 in Test-cricket at least.
We know for a fact that many pitches in his day were very, very poor by today's standards. Equally, there were some (The Oval 1938 for instance) that were every bit as good as the best of today.
If the stuff that supposedly makes cricket so tough today really had that much of an influence there'd be no-one who could cope with Test-cricket today. It was every bit as tough in Bradman's day from what I can tell (certainly following was quite as enthusiastic).
IMO if anyone averaged 70 today they'd be close to being half the player Bradman was!

 

[Richard]

I have read people who think Grace (WG) was at least as good: allegedly his test stats don't show that due to his being relatively old when he made his international debut. I'm not sure that I buy that argument, but I'm generally loathe to evaluate the 19th century guys, however dominant they were in the English game.

We can't, of course, say how good WG Grace really was relative to the 20th-century.
We can, however, say that he was probably rather good, because when 20 was a good average he averaged 50 in his heyday. That dropped to 39 as he played into his 40s, 50s and 60s.
I think, personally, WG Grace might well have averaged 70-80 had he played today.

 

[Richard]

Not in the next century maybe - but theoretically the longer cricket goes on the chances of it increase. Seeing as I would like to think that cricket will go on for centuries yet, I think that at some point, it will happen, just as I believe there will be a better footballer than Pele at some point.

I just hope I'm alive to see them both play!

Might be, might not be.
Until there is, we don't really need to worry too much about it! I'm certainly not.

 

[Craig]

Not denying that he's a dirty cheating pothead, but he did win the World Cup all by himself with a very average Argentinian side. Either way, Maradona and Pele are exceptionally close, unlike the Bradman who is head, shoulders and ribcage above anyone else.

(9,999)

It would be great if the teams played against each other (yes I know this only hypothetical), it would be one hell of a football game.

One thing would be certain, Maradona would have made the Brazlian 1970 side's defence look like rubbish, I mean their goalkeeper Felix IMO is probably the worst goalkeeper to play in a World Cup winning side. He would be lucky to be 3rd choice at any Premiership or Championship club.

EDIT: Yes I have seen footage of Felix in goal.

 

[Deja moo]

I doubt whether genetic engineering could enable anyone to fine-tune the mental attributes necessary to produce a top sportsman. You could tweak someone's DNA which would give rise to the possibility of the perfect physical characteristics - but what it he had a sweet tooth to rival Freddie in his 'Golden (arches)' years, or Ian Blackwell - or Inzy? Even worse - what if he decided that he liked baseball?

True , there is only so much that DNA manipulation can do , but perfect eyesight , excellent physical condition might elevate the player to much higher levels than he could achieve predominantly on the basis of mental fortitude alone . For example , Tendulkar had/has a bad back which seriously limits his staying powers at the crease. Who knows ,perhaps the absence of such an impediment might have increased his career average by maybe 10 points ?
Genetic engineering would pre-empt physical deficiencies from being a drag on the player ...As for the sweet tooth , it wouldnt come in the way if the person was programmed to not gain weight , would it ? We meet so many people in everyday life who eat so much ,and gain not an inch , just because they have better genes regulating their metabolism.
Of course , it could be argued that if all players were to be at peak physical condition , the only thing seperating the wheat from the chaff would be mental strength. That might be agreeable to some , but would it be sport ?

 

[SJS]

Excellent debate.

My two bit worth

On how good was Bradman

Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.

Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.

Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.

Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.

He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.

His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.

Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?

He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.

PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.

PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.

PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.

Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat.