No doubt that Don Bradman was an extraordinary batsman, but I don’t think he can be considered the batsman ever. I would put Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar in the same class as him. The reason I say that is because I don’t know of any legendary bowlers that were present in his era. Bradman never faced such bowlers as McGrath, Warne, Murlitharan, Imran, Wasim, etc. I am not suggesting that Bradman was just another bastman, but just saying that I don’t think he can be considered the greatest batsman ever due to the bowling attacks he faced. Today’s batsmen have a lot fierce bowlers to face than he did during his era.
Do you agree? If not, why not? (sorry to sound like an exam question :))
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
No doubt that Don Bradman was an extraordinary batsman, but I don't think he can be considered the batsman ever. I would put Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar in the same class as him. The reason I say that is because I don't know of any legendary bowlers that were present in his era. Bradman never faced such bowlers as McGrath, Warne, Murlitharan, Imran, Wasim, etc. I am not suggesting that Bradman was just another bastman, but just saying that I don't think he can be considered the greatest batsman ever due to the bowling attacks he faced. Today's batsmen have a lot fierce bowlers to face than he did during his era.
Do you agree? If not, why not? (sorry to sound like an exam question :))
Dude...
If the the condition under which he managed average of 99%, today's batsmen will pee in their pants. Moment these Laras and Sachins get a wicket which turns a bit or generates pace their ass is on fire although they had all the gadget of the world.
Bradman scores all these runs with minimum safety gadgets. Also wickets on those days were not covered and protected. It was left open all the time.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Impossible to compare batsmen of different eras with each other.
Rules change
Bowler quality change
Wickets and competitors change
Biggest reason why especially older batsmen like Bradman can't be compared to present batsmen, is present technology. In Bradman's era, the bowler did not have the chance to see all stats and view video's of him batting in order to work out where and how to bowl to him.
It is purely out of nostalgia/patriotism/fiction that one can say Bradman (or Viv or Sobers, or Gavaskar, or ...) is the best batsman of all ages. It is an impossibility to compare batsmen of different eras.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Ill put my two cents on Sir Bradman. An average of 99 is incredible, so is a world record for the greatest number of consecutive test centuries, and an amazing assortment of 100s, 200s and even 300s; if batting was all that easy in the past, why dont we see more such high averages and world records? The averages of that eras batsemn is no different from todays, actually, the averages today are a bit greater! The BEST batsmen have averages between 50 and 60 at the end of their careers, there are no averages above 61 for players from any era, and then there is Bradman's 99. That says something, for me.
(NOTE: Hussey has an average of 79, but he is at the prime of his career which just started and therefore the figure will change substanially).
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
You obviously do not know of Graeme Pollock....
Pakap is right man.
Graeme Pollock averaged 60.97 but he played only 23 tests and I think he's over-rated. Miandad for instance was averaging 64.34 after his first 27 tests (2059 runs)
I have always maintained that it's grossly unfair to compare batting averages of batsmen who have played 100 odd tests to those that have played a mere 20-25 tests.
I am sure if Bradman (best batsman no doubt) had played 100 odd tests his average would have dropped to around 80
If Hussey (average of 79.85 after 16 tests) stops playing test cricket now, would you consider him to be the second best batsman after Bradman?
Besides averages alone are not everything. Bevan averaged 54 in ODIs but that does n't mean he was better than King Viv (averaged 47) who was voted the greatest one-day batsman ever by Wisden. Tendu came second in that poll.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Innzi should NOT be mentioned in the same sentence as greats such as Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Pollock, Lara, Tendulkars.........................
Subtract Pollock from that list and I would agree with you. Pollock played a mere 23 tests. Ponting deserves to be in that list too.
Inzi is not as bad as you are making him out to be (average of 50 in tests and 39.52 in ODIs). Ponting (59 and 43), Tendu (55 and 44) and Lara (52 and 40) were/are obviously better batsmen among his contemporaries. Kallis (55 and 45) has better stats but I won't say he's better than Inzi but that's just my personal opinion.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Bradman is the greatest ,no doubt abt that .None of his contemporaries are any where near to him .out of the world.Today the conditions are more batsman friendly.At that time ,no bouncer rule ,explicit body line bowling .An average of 99 ,c'mon.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Subtract Pollock from that list and I would agree with you. Pollock played a mere 23 tests. Ponting deserves to be in that list too.
Inzi is not as bad as you are making him out to be (average of 50 in tests and 39.52 in ODIs). Ponting (59 and 43), Tendu (55 and 44) and Lara (52 and 40) were/are obviously better batsmen among his contemporaries. Kallis (55 and 45) has better stats but I won't say he's better than Inzi but that's just my personal opinion.
Yes you are entitled to your opinion about Inzi better than Kallis. However Kallis got selected in the original squad ahead of Inzi for the World X1 which played Australia. As you may remember Inzi only got selected as Tendulkar was injured or unavailable, plus Inzi made such a fuss about not being selected. People may assume that selectors may have been biased – whether they were or not is a different issue. However, most cricketing pundits or neutrals would have Kallis in their squad ahead of Inzi for various reasons – firstly for his batting skills and all around ability which Inzi can’t obviously match.
Inzi was a good and useful batsman best Pakistan could produce to match likes of batting genius’s such as Lara, Tendulkar, and Ponting etc. There have been othe great players such as Arvandia Silva and Rahul Dravid – in my opinion better batsman than Inzi.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Its hard to compare batsmen from 2 eras this apart. Bradman was great and so are Lara, Tendi, Inzi, Ponting etc. You have to consider 100s of parameters which is almost impossible. For instance, Bradman played only on ONE TYPE of pitches and he faced only limited pool of bowlers with not much variety on the other hand he played his cricket without all these protective gear. Lara, Tendi, Inzi and Ponting are wearing all these gears but on the other hand they also face bowlers of all kinds from Murli to Lee and they play on pitches from Perth to Bangalore !
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
Its hard to compare batsmen from 2 eras this apart. Bradman was great and so are Lara, Tendi, Inzi, Ponting etc. You have to consider 100s of parameters which is almost impossible. For instance, Bradman played only on ONE TYPE of pitches and he faced only limited pool of bowlers with not much variety on the other hand he played his cricket without all these protective gear. Lara, Tendi, Inzi and Ponting are wearing all these gears but on the other hand they also face bowlers of all kinds from Murli to Lee and they play on pitches from Perth to Bangalore !
Pitch angle is actually in favor of Bradman. Those days there was no cover on the pitch. You needed to play on the same field which was kept open overnight.
Bets way to compare is to compare their stats against the other good player of same era and it looked like Bradman's average was almost double of best of that time. It is no mean feat. With this logic , Lara and Pontings of this world will have to average 110 to be in same league. :D
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
It has to be a brave soul to come here and make a comment like "I don't think he can be considered the (best) batsman ever" about Bradman. There are some cricketers who transcend their time and are part of cricket's folklore. Whether Bradman is or isn't the best ever is really not the main issue. Its that he inspires legions of batsmen and has this surreal image of his phenomenal batting prowess that we never really saw but can only imagine. Most of us have only seen some grainy black and white footage of Bradman batting, so there is no way for us to authoritatively comment on his technique. His record stands there on its own.
I consider myself lucky to have seen Viv Richards live in his prime. If anyone comes to me and says "I don't think Richards is as good as people make him out to be", I'd say dude you are an idiot. No statistics needed. 'Enuf said.
Re: Can Don Bradman be considered the best bastman ever?
WG Grace is a legend in his own right, and his perhaps the greatest all rounder ever. Most of modern batting is fashioned after his. Oh and by the way, for those who didnt know, in 1935 when he missed the tour of South Africa due to illness, he took up squash to stay fit, subsequently winning the South Australian Open Squash Championship. Not only a great cricketer, but a great sportsman.