Yes he is labelled as the greatest batsman to walk on this planet earth, ever. Agreed that the way he almost averaged 100 per inning is absolutely out of the world and feat will never be surpassed. I have seen his videos and he had all the shots in the book.
BUT, was he really the best batsmen ever? I mean with no offence to former legends of the game, they didnt know the trickeries of the modern cricket. Reverse Swing, leg spin, doosra, slower delieveries. Do you think he would have averaged this high and achieved this much had he played against the likes of Holding, Marshall, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Warne and Murali at their peaks?
The way Larwood bowled in the bodyline series...he would make many modern greats look ordinary...
Take into consideration sticky wickets, no front-foot noball, no leg-side field restriction, no restrictions on bouncers, and leg traps, before passing any hasty judgements on the batsmen of the past...
One point you could argue that would probably bring his average down to about 90-95 in modern times is the technology. Run outs were not referred and tight ones usually went to the batsmen.
I agree with the original post, having never watched the guy play, I can't vouch for his greatness. Also, consider the talent he played against, today's players face bowlers from every angle of the earth at the prime of their talent, he just had to face less athletic goras.
Its hard to compare players from different eras. Take the comments on face value, and may be consider statistical evidence. Beyond that, its hard to have a matchup between Bjorg and Federer, for example. Or Muhamamd Ali and Mike Tyson. Who is better than the other? No one really knows. And no one ever will. Its all personal opinions, anyway.
of course I know. Sampras and Agassi are better than two you mentioned. Mike Tyson would have killed Ali in his prime and ofcourse Bradman was the greates batsman ever to take the gaurd from the umpire...does the avergae 99.9 something mean anything to you?
Well… You make a valid point. But you also need to undestand that tricks have not evolved only on bowling side. Batting has evolved too. We have different wuality of bats. We have better equipment to protect batsmen and the most important is that Wickets were not covered those days. Think of modern batsmen going to bat on a wicket which was not covered whole night.
Also keep in mind, during his era difference between him and next best guy was too big. This says he was calss apart from next best bastmen.If it was easy others could have also achieved average of 99.96%.
Bilkul Sahi.. But one better way is to compare him/her to average player of that era. and See howthey performed. Like, In last 10 years, it looks like every Tom,Dick and Harry can achieve an average of 50. Where as there were very few in 80s and 70s who had average of 50. So criter should be how you faired compared to average Joe during your era.
Freder by the time he is done would be head and shoulders above all.
Muhammad Ali was a lot better boxer between the two. Tyson had a powerful punch but his defense has always been very weak plus his ability to defend after taking a few is minimal. Many would rate Holyfield above Tyson. The onlything Tyson beat them at it the others never ate anyone’s ears. Atleast not in public
Sorry for taking the discussion in another direction, just wanted to make a “behas barye behas” post
Very few athletes transcend the era in which the competed. Compare sprinters for example. A sprinter who may have dominated and won all the races in the '60s wouldn't qualify for the finals in the Olympics today. As time progresses and technology improve, althetes become physically better on a objective scale.
Now compare the act of running fast to the complexities that go into making a cricket batsman today - better bowlers, videotapes scouting of batsmen etc. If your comparison is "imagine we had a time machine and could put Bradman in his prime in front of the wicket in the modern game" the answer is he'd probably get destroyed.
So you need a different measure if you want to determine who was the greatest of all time. I'd agree with those people who say compare his relative greatness to the next best person in his era.
Some people say he wouldnt have been as good against the bowling attacks of today but then again, they didnt have the facilities, videos, analyses of bowlers etc etc that we have today so if he was playing today he would have had to face better bowlers but would also have had better training facilties at his disposal. So we cant really say he would have struggled as we dont know, maybe he wouldnt have with all the above facilties.
many guppies have stated valid points, I would say that you cannot compare the batsman of old era to the new era at all, He was a good batsman, heck as everyone say a great batsman, only thing that seperate is his average; the score he belted, everytime when he came to bat.
This maybe a bit early to question but is Sachin Tendulkar the 2nd best to Bradman? or is it B. Lara who holds the record of max runs scored in Test cricket?
many names come to mind L. Hutton, WG. Grace, G. Sobers..............
I can argue if Viv Richards could have continued he could have silent the crowd and created tremors in the record books and What about Z. Abbas a.k.a Asian Bradman?
I would say this is blown out of propotion because:
1) He was an Australian (for sure)
2) During his time there were only few teams capable of fierce competitiveness, no wonder Ashes hatched!
Same could be argue about Pakistan bowling strength, was Khan Mohammad, Fazal Mehmood...etc the best bowler of Pakistan or perhaps the world at that time? the list can go on and argument can be endless. Can you actually compare Fazal Mehmood with Imran Khan or Wasim Akram?
Who is the best bowler of all time?
Like it or not, Australian will say " He is the best" you cannot argue coz judgement is based on evaluation of one's performance within the boundries of a criteria, Hence he is the best!
saby tumhara kuch nai banna
