Sir Donald George Bradman

[Saqs]

Was he really that much better than the rest...?

If so, is there anybody else in the sporting world that can rightfully claim to have raised the bar so much higher than the rest of the competition?

Jordan has been argued for and against (Magic, Dr J etc.)

Woods has been argued for and against. (Nicklaus...)

Pele has been argued for and against. (Maradona, Zidane?...)

It seems there is pretty much no argument coming from anybody when talking of Bradman's superiority?

It always seems other players are compared to him, only when talking of how good that certain player is, but never challenged his top spot.

(Note - I am not arguing for or against...just wanting to know what you guys think on the matter)

[kingusama92]

The thing about Bradman was that he dominated in an era that not many people that watch cricket know about. All we have are stats and they can at times be misleading. We have the stories of him dominating and his average shows that as well.

I think from hearing about him, he was a class act not just because of his average but the way people said he batted. He seemed to have extreme elegance in his batting.

I think we would have had more arguments against Bradman if he had played from the 1960's onwards. Unfortunately he didn't so most of us have to assume he was great like his stats show him to be. If he had played in the era of the proper video camera.. we would have been able to properly compare him with other legends of the game.

[minhasuz]

@ saqibsalman How did you forget to mention Kareem Abdul Jabbar in there?

[IronMan2009]

I suggest you watch youtube videos of Bradman and how he singlehandedly generated so much interest in cricket. You could see how the crowd come there to watch his batting, enjoy it, adore it. There are tons of articles available about him on the net about why he is rated above others. I am sure not many can provide the same kind of indepth explanation here.

[IronMan2009]

[IronMan2009]

He makes a golden comment at 1:36

[kingusama92]

Originally Posted by IronMan2009 He makes a golden comment at 1:36

everything about him was golden ... including that comment .. what a legend.

[IronMan2009]

The remark about how he was the sole joy to many people during the great depression. should put things in perspective. As a comparison Charlie Chaplin did the same during great depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_D...n_in_Australia

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by saqibsalman Was he really that much better than the rest...? If so, is there anybody else in the sporting world that can rightfully claim to have raised the bar so much higher than the rest of the competition? Jordan has been argued for and against (Magic, Dr J etc.) Woods has been argued for and against. (Nicklaus...) Pele has been argued for and against. (Maradona, Zidane?...) It seems there is pretty much no argument coming from anybody when talking of Bradman's superiority? It always seems other players are compared to him, only when talking of how good that certain player is, but never challenged his top spot. (Note - I am not arguing for or against...just wanting to know what you guys think on the matter)

The reason that Bradman stands out is that he was statistically so much better than everyone else around him. It either means that he was the only decent player of the era and everyone else was crap, or that he was in fact considerably better than everyone else. It's one thing to be 10 runs or so better than everyone else, or to score a bit more tons than everyone else, but he was literally 40-50 runs better than everyone else, and he scored a ton every three matches. If standards were worse back then why did nobody else do so? That's what's so unusual about Bradman. If anything you could probably compare him more to Wilt Chamberlain than to MJ. Or Babe Ruth.

And when it comes to comparing eras, a good way to do so is "chain" players from different eras together. For example, Tendulkar started his career just as Viv Richards was finishing, and you'd have to say there wasn't a lot between the two, in ability or average. Meantime, Richards' career overlapped Sunil Gavaskar, and you could argue that the two were comparable (and the stats prove it to a point). Meanwhile Gavaskar's career overlapped with Garry Sobers, and it's not like standards all of a sudden became higher during the 2nd half of Sunny's career. Sobers career started just as Len Huttons was finishing, and there was little between those two in terms of achievements and standard of bowling faced.

And Len Hutton played a lot of cricket against the Don, but for some reason Bradman's average is just about twice that of Hutton's. Howzat then?

[Keith]

The man is THE legend of legends. No other cricketer, past or current and dare i say in the future, will ever be able to match his exploits on the field. A TRUE legend. The greatest cricketer to ever have breathed.

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by saqibsalman Was he really that much better than the rest...? If so, is there anybody else in the sporting world that can rightfully claim to have raised the bar so much higher than the rest of the competition? Woods has been argued for and against. (Nicklaus...)

I think thats not a good enough argument against woods. The way he is going he'l be far ahead of Nicklaus and every other golfer soon enough, and the way hes dominating everyone else in the sport in his own era is not much different from what Bradman's stats suggest.

Also if you're talking batsmen then statistically no one comes close to him, but if you're talking about cricket then you have to put gary sobers pretty close to him.

[Momo]

Australian umpires may have been one reason for the anomaly. Of course I don't know about the standard of umpiring in those days, but the way the Aussie umpires 'performed' before the advent of neutral umpiring (under the spotlight with cameras on), I wouldn't be surprised if it came to the fore that in those prehistoric days they accounted for twenty five of the fifty run difference between the Don and the rest of the mortals.

We all know how patriotic Aussies are. And how badly they want to win everything.

Don must still have been a pretty special talent though.

Would somebody be brave enough to break his stats (LBWs, caught behinds, home/away, minnows/nonminnows etc) down?

[IronMan2009]

Originally Posted by Momo Australian umpires may have been one reason for the anomaly. Of course I don't know about the standard of umpiring in those days, but the way the Aussie umpires 'performed' before the advent of neutral umpiring (under the spotlight with cameras on), I wouldn't be surprised if it came to the fore that in those prehistoric days they accounted for twenty five of the fifty run difference between the Don and the rest of the mortals.

As a matter of fact his average in England is more than in Australia. He averages 102* there. Including a series tally of 974 runs. Very birth of bodyline series was for Bradman. He still averaged 56 in that series.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by IronMan2009 As a matter of fact his average in England is more than in Australia. He averages 102* there. Including a series tally of 974 runs. Very birth of bodyline series was for Bradman. He still averaged 56 in that series.

How many players can boast the fact that "cricket changed" because of them? Not many, i would bet!!!

[Keith]

Right arm bowler dismissals - 52
Bowled 20, Caught (field) 19, Caught (wk) 8, Stumpings 0, LBW 4, Hit wicket 1
Left arm bowler dismissals - 17
Bowled 3, Caught (field) 10, Caught (wk) 2, Stumpings 0, LBW 2, Hit wicket 0
Unknown arm 1, run out 1


Caught 39, (29 field, 10 wk)
Bowled 23
LBW 6
Run out 1
Hit wicket 1
Not out 9
Retired hurt 1

Ducks 7
100's 29
50's 13
HS 334
Runs 6996
Ave 99.94

Hope that helps you Momo!!!!

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Keith How many players can boast the fact that "cricket changed" because of them? Not many, i would bet!!!

Sir Garfield Sobers can. He's the greatest ever cricketer to grace this earth.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan Sir Garfield Sobers can. He's the greatest ever cricketer to grace this earth.

Great player indeed!! But let me know how the game changed to "specifically counter" him?

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by Momo Australian umpires may have been one reason for the anomaly. Of course I don't know about the standard of umpiring in those days, but the way the Aussie umpires 'performed' before the advent of neutral umpiring (under the spotlight with cameras on), I wouldn't be surprised if it came to the fore that in those prehistoric days they accounted for twenty five of the fifty run difference between the Don and the rest of the mortals. We all know how patriotic Aussies are. And how badly they want to win everything. Don must still have been a pretty special talent though. Would somebody be brave enough to break his stats (LBWs, caught behinds, home/away, minnows/nonminnows etc) down?

OK now we shall discount the average of every Pakistan batsman before 1992 by a suitable amount.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Originally Posted by Keith Great player indeed!! But let me know how the game changed to "specifically counter" him?

He is usually regarded as the greatest ever cricketer, even greater than Bradman. The 3 cricketers who are usually credited with revolutionizing cricket are (according to their eras) -

1. W.G. Grace
2. Donald Bradman
3. Garfield Sobers

There may be others who have had huge impacts, but these 3 completely revolutionized the game of cricket.

[Momo]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie OK now we shall discount the average of every Pakistan batsman before 1992 by a suitable amount.

Okay I know (my second try at an educated guess).

Don never proved himself against four spinners on a crumbling Indian dustbowl with accidental cracks and all and with say Jayaprakash as umpire, did he now? Haan, haan, haan?

Subtract at least thirty immediately.

[OZGOD]

Originally Posted by Momo Australian umpires may have been one reason for the anomaly. Of course I don't know about the standard of umpiring in those days, but the way the Aussie umpires 'performed' before the advent of neutral umpiring (under the spotlight with cameras on), I wouldn't be surprised if it came to the fore that in those prehistoric days they accounted for twenty five of the fifty run difference between the Don and the rest of the mortals. We all know how patriotic Aussies are. And how badly they want to win everything. Don must still have been a pretty special talent though. Would somebody be brave enough to break his stats (LBWs, caught behinds, home/away, minnows/nonminnows etc) down?

What's interesting though is that Bradman averaged higher away from home (102) than at home (98). I'm pretty sure that cheating Australian umpires weren't standing in those Tests. (Though to be fair he didn't have to deal with Jayprakash )

As for his dismissals?

Innings:
80 (10 not out)

Aggregate:
6996

High Score:
334

Average:
99.94

Legend
  	Bowled 	23 	(32.9%)
  	Caught 	29 	(41.4%)
  	Caught Behind 	10 	(14.3%)
  	LBW 	6 	(8.6%)
  	Stumped 	0 	(0.0%)
  	Run Out 	1 	(1.4%)
  	Hit Wicket 	1 	(1.4%)
  	Handled Ball 	0 	(0.0%)
  	Obstructed Field  	0 	(0.0%)

LBWs are about the same as for a bloke named Garfield Sobers.

Legend
  	Bowled 	34 	(24.5%)
  	Caught 	58 	(41.7%)
  	Caught Behind 	21 	(15.1%)
  	LBW 	15 	(10.8%)
  	Stumped 	1 	(0.7%)
  	Run Out 	10 	(7.2%)
  	Hit Wicket 	0 	(0.0%)
  	Handled Ball 	0 	(0.0%)
  	Obstructed Field  	0 	(0.0%)

[IronMan2009]

OZGOD jayaprakash? Those calls could have gone either way. That is blown way out of proportion. I have seen far far worse calls from some umpires. Anyway back to the topic, Sobers was a great. But he did have some serious starting problems. Just look at the beginning of his career.

[Momo]

Originally Posted by IronMan2009 OZGOD jayaprakash? Those calls could have gone either way. That is blown way out of proportion.

But we know which way they did go, don't we?

[Random Aussie]

Originally Posted by IronMan2009 OZGOD jayaprakash? Those calls could have gone either way. That is blown way out of proportion. I have seen far far worse calls from some umpires. Anyway back to the topic, Sobers was a great. But he did have some serious starting problems. Just look at the beginning of his career.

No it would have been blown out of proportion had those decisions gone against India - like every decision that goes against India these days.

Funny to see the umpire defended in the way others are usually defending the umpires against the onslaught of Indian hating.

[pjkilla]

Bradman is no match for The Beast that is known as Shahid Afridi

[IronMan2009]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie No it would have been blown out of proportion had those decisions gone against India - like every decision that goes against India these days. .

Tell me which decisions are doubtful apart from Afridi. India had horrible decisions in England. didn't make noise about it. Ya.. you will hide your bat behind the pad and block straight delivery with pad.. what do you expect? Infact Jayaprakash turned down quiet a few plumb decisions. That is why i said it was blown way out of proportions. It was clueless batting more than anything else on a day 5 pitch.

[IronMan2009]

Before anyone wonders what is Jayaprakash doing in a Bradman thread, that was my last post about umpiring in this thread . Continue your discussion about Bradman.

[Saqs]

Some insightful comments, especially the "chain" of great players as described by Ozgod...very interesting.

Is it just me or did he have one of the most comical sounding voices ever?

[Big Harvey]

Originally Posted by Bublu Bhuyan He is usually regarded as the greatest ever cricketer, even greater than Bradman. The 3 cricketers who are usually credited with revolutionizing cricket are (according to their eras) - 1. W.G. Grace 2. Donald Bradman 3. Garfield Sobers There may be others who have had huge impacts, but these 3 completely revolutionized the game of cricket.

I would add the technical batting innovations of C.B. Fry and Prince Ranjitsinji to that list. Those two pioneered some of the strokes and batting techniques in use today. Although he carried on playing and scoring runs very successfully at a ripe old age, right into the twentieth century, technically W.G. Grace was very much a 19th century batsman (and bowler, in fact). I've seen footage of him batting in the nets, and his technique is immediately noticeable as being markedly different from that of modern batsmen.

That was certainly not the case with Fry and Ranji, and modern players and coaches are still known to consult "Cricket: Batsmanship," C.B. Fry's coaching manual which was first published in 1912. Bob Woolmer admitted to doing so from time to time.