Lol the footage is needed to see exactly who he was up against when he made those "amazing" scores, if Lara and Tendulker played against Zimbabwe and Bangledash in for their entire careers their stats would be way better than the ones they've got now wouldn't they? so it's only fair to be fully clued up on who exactly Bradman was playing against imo.
There's other ways to clue up on who he played against other than watching on TV.
Didn't GS already do that? He showed that minus Bradman the bowlers he faced would have been statistically excellent. Some were statistically excellent even with Bradman - Verity, Voce, Larwood, Bowes... all averaging under 30 against a team which had someone who made 150 more usually than not.
No you don't. If you know one bowler was the best in the world at one time, and another at another time, you can look at how they did across that stretch of time, with their contemporaries, and look at their stats and see how it ranges from one best to the other best. Fact is, relatively, it didn't move much at all. Especially enough to deny an average of 99.94. You have no case.No you need footage to see WHO EXACTLY HE WAS FACING when he achieved those averages!!, which is the gist of my point, and furthermore Bradman didn't START his career in 1948 did he?the damage was well done by the time he retired!!, Sobers was 18 when he made his debut and when his genius started to come through the competition was strong indeed.
Congratulations. Another worthless post
Thanks for coming though
For a lot to change...it would have to change enough that a batsman who is averaging 99.94 could suddenly become regular. Such a change would be akin to a revolution in the sport. Batting averages went up from 90s to 00s merely a few points and people complain about easiness in batting. Imagine what it would have needed to do to make up some 50 points in superiority Bradman had over almost all batsmen.This convo is going round in circles and i can't be bothered to quote everyone, firstly G-S you've already confessed that you are oblivious to the standard of fielding so like i said even if a few of the bowlers that Bradman faced were "good" it doesn't make any difference if the fielding back then was lackluster!!, which is why WE NEED FOOTAGE to see the bigger picture Spark!!, also ikki Sobers started around seven years after Bradman retired, a lot can change in that space of time and he was hardly gonna set the place on fire as an 18 year old was he?!!
I ain't trying to offend the Aussie fans it's just MY OPINION, if you believe Bradman is the greatest then good for you, many people like myself just don't agree with that notion, it's not a crime.
Thanks i know how great punter,warne and hayden are.Congratulations. Another worthless post
And thanks, I already knew how stupid your posts were before this.
I listed 10 bowlers of top quality. Most were from England. Its not like they were spread to one per team.
Cut it out, now.
no. for ****s sake this guy has spammed several threads with his troll posts and nothing is done. they're deliberately made to antagonise
The question can have either answer for someone who doesn't know. So you who think it's a question so you should be open to the possibility of both. Those that know, know. Simply put, the theory that fielding was going to make Bradman average some 50 points less is laughable.
Words cannot describe the magnitude of ignorance in this post.
Why do assume fielding was poor during Bradman's era? Just as I don't assume fielding was poor during Sobers'.
Erm maybe the quality improved after Bradman retired?!! maybe players actually took the game a lot more seriously as the sport developed?!! and you can harp on about the bowlers all day but a question mark about the fielding remains and clearly you haven't got a clue about how the standard was back then,
This is clearly all speculation with little proof or evidence