Why is this praised so much today, I know his average was about 99.94, but he only played 100 ininngs and the lack good pitches and competiveness from the opposing bowlers.
As far as I am concerned I don’t think he can compete with todays Lara or Tendulkur or play bowlers like waqar or McGrath, or even Akhtar.
Maybe the reason he is so praised because every sport needs a legend, football has pele or baseball has babe ruth.
Even then when all the bowlers were easy, he was the only one to get that average, thats why. And the way he learned, and used to play as a kid i think is another reason why he is so popular.
But i dont think he is a legend...Cause as you said, he didnt play many games...
Actually he's one of the greatest legends in all sports nowadays..and to say that he's over rated would be wrong.He played only a 100 innings..(this I'll check btw..hehe)..cause cricket then wasn't a commercialised sport as it is now.Then it was just cricket..played for the love of playing the game not for the sake of money.And thus the guy had to make some money as well on the side.Secondly..he's the only one who had a 100 average...there were other players as well who could've gotten to the same average as him but they didn't..did they..? that puts him a mark above everyone else..and I can assure you from the accounts I've read about Harold Larwood..the deadly bodyline bowler...he seems to be as fast as any fast bowler these days.And Donald Bradman ,on his debut, against this great fast..humiliated this guy out of the field.Thats why he's a legend.
All that is gold does not glitter; not all those that wander are lost
You maybe right about him being the greatest of his time, there is no doubt about that, but to talk about him being the greatest ever is unfair to todays great players.
One correction on your behalf is his Test Debut
he scored 18 and 1.
Yeah you were right he didn’t play 100 innings he only played 80 innings which makes my point even better, check his Bio
Check Tendulkur for example so far he has played according to his profile 146 innings, almost twice as of Bradman, if Bradman would have played this much amount of innings in anytime would he be able to maintain his batting average to 99, probably not.
Samething is when comparing to Brian Lara, if you look at his profile
I never said Bradman is not a great batsman, I’m saying he is not the greatest ever, if he would to play today’s version of test cricket where batsman are pressured to score runs at a fast rate than Bradman wouldn’t be the best ever, since test cricket has evolved so much since Bradmans time, it has become more challenging and physical.
I don't think this issue is about a singular player aka Bradman. As far as I am concerned, I always take any formation of "legends" coming out of two countries (India and Australia) with a pinch of salt. These countries have a panache for creating gods out of mere mortals.
Examples:
Bradman most definitely was not the greatest cricketer ever. The myth has been handed down and continues to flourish. Even saying that Bradman was comparable to anyone is a taboo. What nonsense!
Warne is probably the greatest leg spinner but he is most definitely NOT worthy of being one of the Wisden 5 cricketers of the Century.
Tendulkar is a very, very good batsman even the best in the world now but is not the best ever. Lara beats him hands down given that when Lara goes, he goes big and leads his team to a win. And lets not even get started about Viv.
Harbhajan is a very talented player but to have elevated him to the levels of Murli and Saqi after just one series was sheer folly and has only proven to be so over time.
Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes here. But the point I am trying to make is that there is one common factor in all the above cases and that is that India and Australia have very aggressive and strong press. Pakistan does too but they like to cream their own players much more. Australia especially is reknowned for being a very difficult place for touring teams in terms of press controversies, e.g, Akhtar, Murli, Hair....
All in all, I think cricket would be much better off if we didn't not have this obsession with the best-ever debate. It would mean less propaganda.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/27/spt4.htm - Hope this helps you get over your phobia. If Bradman was not the greatest then who ? Hanif Mohammad or Imran Khan ? no wait SHOAIN AKTHAR should be the greatest player of the century.
Really ?? Then why no one (before or after him) came even close to him in Batting avgs ?
40 yeas from now - People might say same about Pete Sampras, But those who have seen him play know he is the greatest in Tennis
I didn’t know Wisden is from Australia, Warne is the greatest leg spinner and he sure can fit there with any of the greats.
AK
i think that he was a better caliber player than all those guys mentioned above...
if you look at babe's record, he might as well be passed by any person