Would you trade Bradman for these cricketers?

[subshakerz]

The ones you come forward to are the most difficult slip catches to take. The first one at 1st slip was excellent. Those are often seen as half chances for others, Kohli had about two of those during the series that weren't even considered chances.

The 2nd was exceptional by any metric.(Hope I'm remembering it correctly)

We can disagree here. I don't see how you can call Smith elite with the numbers of drops he has.

 

[Bolo.]

Probably????

No one with Sobers and Marshall / Hadlee are reading them for Bradman.

This is where you guys go wayy to far.

I have about 25 elite ATG's, any combination of them I would take over Bradman.

There are multiple combinations of actual teammates that I would take over Bradman.

Marshall and Viv
Lillee and Chappell
Sobers and Hall
Imran and Miandad
McGrath and Ponting
Muralitharan and Sangakkara

Are you saying that you would pick these combos over Bradman alone? As in you are handicapping the Bradman team to one fewer player? I'm not sure anyone thinks Bradman is worth 2 ATGs.

Or do you mean you would pick 2 ATGs ahead of Bradman plus another pretty meh player? Comparing bats to bowlers is more complicated, but Bradman plus a mid 30s averaging bat is definitely worth more than 2 ATG bats.

 

[DrWolverine]

Bradman plus a mid 30s averaging bat is definitely worth more than 2 ATG bats.

Good suggestion for my next thread

 

[Coronis]

Are you saying that you would pick these combos over Bradman alone? As in you are handicapping the Bradman team to one fewer player? I'm not sure anyone thinks Bradman is worth 2 ATGs.

Or do you mean you would pick 2 ATGs ahead of Bradman plus another pretty meh player? Comparing bats to bowlers is more complicated, but Bradman plus a mid 30s averaging bat is definitely worth more than 2 ATG bats.

I don’t think ever trading Bradman for 2 bats would make sense to me. But thats just me.

Either you’re trading 1 batsmen for 2 and losing a spot on your team or even say, Bradman and Zak Crawley for 2 ATGs, I think Bradman + Crawley wins.

Even if it was say you literally get Bradman and a batsman who can’t bowl and will score 0 runs…. Apart from Headley Bradman is basically scoring centuries at twice the rate of anyone. Not only that, but his biggest advantage is his ability to score big tons. 62% of his tons translate to 150’s, 41% to 200’s and 17% to 250’s. His ability to go big after scoring a ton is so insane…. that would still be borderline honestly.

 

[subshakerz]

Good suggestion for my next thread

You're welcome.

 

[Bolo.]

I don’t think ever trading Bradman for 2 bats would make sense to me. But thats just me.

Either you’re trading 1 batsmen for 2 and losing a spot on your team or even say, Bradman and Zak Crawley for 2 ATGs, I think Bradman + Crawley wins.

Even if it was say you literally get Bradman and a batsman who can’t bowl and will score 0 runs…. Apart from Headley Bradman is basically scoring centuries at twice the rate of anyone. Not only that, but his biggest advantage is his ability to score big tons. 62% of his tons translate to 150’s, 41% to 200’s and 17% to 250’s. His ability to go big after scoring a ton is so insane…. that would still be borderline honestly.

Ya, Bradman and Crawley for me (although not by that much).

I kinda regard his ability to go big in relation to scoring consistently as a disadvantage though. He is failing a lot more than 2 quality bats. A 50 is often making a big difference to an innings. A 250 compared to a 200, or a 200 compared to 150... not so much.

 

[kyear2]

Are you saying that you would pick these combos over Bradman alone? As in you are handicapping the Bradman team to one fewer player? I'm not sure anyone thinks Bradman is worth 2 ATGs.

Or do you mean you would pick 2 ATGs ahead of Bradman plus another pretty meh player? Comparing bats to bowlers is more complicated, but Bradman plus a mid 30s averaging bat is definitely worth more than 2 ATG bats.

Doesn't matter, I'm taking all of those combos and easily over Bradman.

What kinda puzzles me is that the entire forum somehow believes that even in the 80's / 90's / current time line, that Bradman would average 100.

 

[smash84]

Doesn't matter, I'm taking all of those combos and easily over Bradman.

What kinda puzzles me is that the entire forum somehow believes that even in the 80's / 90's / current time line, that Bradman would average 100.

What kind of a silly argument is this?

We somehow arbitrarily cut off his average just half a run below our favorite player or something?

Players are not picked to play some random players 100 years from their debut, they are picked to play their peers and that is what they are judged on. When you do hypothetical exercises like ATG sides you don't just arbitrarily start docking people's averages to suit yourself.

 

[kyear2]

What kind of a silly argument is this?

We somehow arbitrarily cut off his average just half a run below our favorite player or something?

Players are not picked to play some random players 100 years from their debut, they are picked to play their peers and that is what they are judged on. When you do hypothetical exercises like ATG sides you don't just arbitrarily start docking people's averages to suit yourself.

The argument is context and quality.

I don't rate Bradman to be twice the batsman over any of the ATGs. And the only way to compare them to to place them into similar context.

Bradman wasn't even seen to be twice the batsman Hobbs was even after he had retired, and they were viewed quite similarly.

The silly argument is to look at averages and to ignore context or scenario.

 

[smash84]

The argument is context and quality.

I don't rate Bradman to be twice the batsman over any of the ATGs. And the only way to compare them to to place them into similar context.

Bradman wasn't even seen to be twice the batsman Hobbs was even after he had retired, and they were viewed quite similarly.

The silly argument is to look at averages and to ignore context or scenario.

Seems like a 'you' problem.

So what exactly is this mythical context and quality you are looking at that no one else is?

 

[Bolo.]

Doesn't matter, I'm taking all of those combos and easily over Bradman.

What kinda puzzles me is that the entire forum somehow believes that even in the 80's / 90's / current time line, that Bradman would average 100.

Without getting into a debate over what he would average in different eras, he doesn't need to average 100 to be ahead of the other bats by a ridiculous margin.

Don't you rate Hammond really highly as a bat? There is a massive gap between them.

 

[The Sean]

All rounder + charismatic leader. Bradman is like having two batsmen, hence two players. Ditto for Imran and Sobers. Their third set of skills of fielding (Sobers) and captaincy (Imran) easily pushes them past Bradman.

So you're including in your equation two more things that Bradman excelled at. He was a very astute, successful captain and a superb fieldsman.

This is not a strong argument.

 

[JBMAC]

The argument is context and quality.

I don't rate Bradman to be twice the batsman over any of the ATGs. And the only way to compare them to to place them into similar context.

Bradman wasn't even seen to be twice the batsman Hobbs was even after he had retired, and they were viewed quite similarly.

The silly argument is to look at averages and to ignore context or scenario.

What a load of codswallop. You never saw Bradman play and you make al lsorts of assumptions based on very little fact. Only statistics . Check your facts first before you troll into misadventure.

 

[subshakerz]

Without getting into a debate over what he would average in different eras, he doesn't need to average 100 to be ahead of the other bats by a ridiculous margin.

Don't you rate Hammond really highly as a bat? There is a massive gap between them.

Yeah but depending how much you cut Bradmans average it can make an argument for replacing with two others

 

[Randomfan]

I will take one ATG and one very good player over Bradman. Assumption - you are getting 2 players for one. I will take pretty much most combinations over Bradman.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah but depending how much you cut Bradmans average it can make an argument for replacing with two others

He already loses to two bats by himself.

You would need to cut a lot before he doesn't beat 2 with the addition of another bat. That level of chopping would push Hammond into the realm of mediocre to good. I'm pretty sure Kyear ranks Hammond way above this.

 

[Migara]

So you're including in your equation two more things that Bradman excelled at. He was a very astute, successful captain and a superb fieldsman.

This is not a strong argument.

Imran is one of the best captains cricket had if not the best. Miles ahead of Bradman as a captain. Bradman never had to bring down the one of the best teams in cricket history, while Imran did exactly that, if not for some cheating from Windies umpires.

Then Sobers is top 5 shortleg fielders. I can only point to Eknath Solkar being better. It is a joke comparing him with Bradman in the field.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah but depending how much you cut Bradmans average it can make an argument for replacing with two others

1. I believe there is a higher chance to be a statistical outlier in the “olden days” compared to be an outlier today

2. That being said if we are going to reduce Don’s average, we have to apply the same reasoning to Hobbs, Sutcliffe & Hammond.

 

[DrWolverine]

What kinda puzzles me is that the entire forum somehow believes that even in the 80's / 90's / current time line, that Bradman would average 100.

Bradman averaged 99.94
Sutcliffe averaged 60
Headley averaged 60
Hammond averaged 58
Hobbs averaged 57

I am not sure how to tell this exactly.

If we believe Don would not average 99 today, then we should also believe the other legends would also average in mid 40s today then

 

[Victor Ian]

The argument is context and quality.

I don't rate Bradman to be twice the batsman over any of the ATGs. And the only way to compare them to to place them into similar context.

Bradman wasn't even seen to be twice the batsman Hobbs was even after he had retired, and they were viewed quite similarly.

The silly argument is to look at averages and to ignore context or scenario.

Mate...you've lost the plot by thinking too much. I accept Bradman ain't averaging 100 against the 80s windies. He probably struggles to average 70. But Border struggled somewhere mid 30s. So Bradman is still worth 2 ATGs.

Then you like to tout a bevy of great bowlers. But only 1 had more than one great bowler at a time. The only thing that has improved over time is bowlers ability to stay on the park. That modern bowlers bowl faster (theoritically) means nothing. I give you Brett Lee or McGrath. The guy bowling at pre war speeds is your problem, not the exceptionally fit speed merchant.

Let's put things into context. You can take a peer of Bradman, take his peer, etc etc right up to today. Where is the sudden jump in skill from one generation to another? All there is, is the ability to focus on nothing but cricket now. Imagine Bradman doing nothing but train and watch videos of bowlers to break down their action and then give him all of the advantages of modern batsman. He'd average 150.

Bradman is a freak because he could last as long as any player in terms of balls per innings while striking at the fastest scoring rates. No one has done that since. They are either Pujara or Viv or somewhere in between. Bradman today would be like Pujara scoring at Viv's rate.