Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?Well the point with Bradman isn't that he's better than his peers, he's better than everyone across all eras by an absurd degree. I don't think it's fair to being up the 'was everyone else any good' question here more than any other sport. It's not that cricket hasn't had other great players, if we just look at it and pretend Bradman doesn't exist for a second someone would probably be making an argument for Sachin Tendulkar in this thread. Or maybe Steve Smith if we limit it to tests. Those guys were undeniably brilliant but they're blown out of the water by Bradman.
That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?
I mean there's no way of knowing but a batting average of 99.94 when the next highest credible average is Steve Smith at 61.8 (ignoring Adam Voges but he's only slightly ahead of Smith anyway) suggests that he'd be great in any era. When roughly half his average at 50 puts you in the conversation for all time great (Root is in that area and many would say he's England's best batsman ever but that's for another thread) I think there's a strong case that he's on another level. No one from his era managed to put up similar scores regardless of how good the bowling may or may not have been. It's hard to gauge how he'd have done in another era but it'd be much easier to make a case that he'd be the best in any era than to claim that Smith/Weekes/whoever would manage a similar average in his era.Indeed, but Bradman's stats were compiled against the bowling attack of his peers. Would they be as impressive if you put him in a time machine and transported him to face the West Indies in the 80s or Australia in the 2000s?
Its going to take me some hard convincing its not Alistair Cook (and it likely would of been Trescothick if not for his mental health), mind you if today is anything to go by he's going to try his best. Basically he has emulate Cook's heroics in the 10/11 ashes for me (766 runs at an average of 127.66).(Root is in that area and many would say he's England's best batsman ever but that's for another thread)
Well put, what I was trying to say but probably better explained. As you've said the key point is that all through cricketing history the best players have generally been able to hit averages of 50-60, where 60 seems a soft upper limit especially across an entire career. And then Bradman is there at nearly double everyone else.That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.
It's not a viewpoint I'd agree with, either in the modern era or looking back through history (if you go off averages alone it'd appear that most of England's best played in the first half of the 20th century). But it is a view a fair few people seem to subscribe to. I can see him surpassing Cook but agreed that it hasn't happened yet. My point is more that Root averages in and around 50 (think he's back over after today) and that's been enough to propel him into the conversation of the best ever for one of the game's most significant countries. And Bradman has twice his average. The best way to illustrate his dominance is that a bowler who took wickets every 20-30 balls at an average of 11-13 would be the equivalent and that seems more or less impossible. (Those numbers are very rough but it's an attempt to show Bradman's statistical dominance more than anything).Its going to take me some hard convincing its not Alistair Cook (and it likely would of been Trescothick if not for his mental health), mind you if today is anything to go by he's going to try his best. Basically he has emulate Cook's heroics in the 10/11 ashes for me (766 runs at an average of 127.66).
I'm not disputing any of that, I was responding to the notion that his stats prove that he's better than anyone who else. Maybe I'm getting too hung up in semmantics, but all that it proves is that he was significantly better than those who played at the same time as him. Just playing devil's advocate, FWIW, he would be my pick as GOAT within the parameters defined, particularly as I'm a believer that once a sport has reached maturity (in terms up uptake and how seriously it's taken by competitors) players' greatness can only be assessed in terms of how they fared against their peers.That's kind of the point of the comparison against his bowling peers he was leagues ahead of every Batsman who played. Bradman is at 99.94 where as nobody of his era was close in terms of timing Herbert Sutcliffe was at 60.73 at no.7, no. 2 on the list was Voges at 61.87. Steve Smith is mordern era an averages 61.80 and he regularly has to play India, NZ and Eng all of whom have formidable pace attacks. The history of cricket shows an average of 50-60 is obtainable in any era and is pretty much for the elite players. For one player to have 50% more an average is unheard of in any sport.
This is where comparisons across sports become tricky. I wish I understood more about statistics and that what I was taught was explained in real world terms. I don't think that you can make simple comparisons like this across sports (or even within a team sport, but that's a different argument). By this rationale, Usain Bolt would have had to run a sub 5 second 100m to be considered on a par with Bradman.Lets looks at the top 25 poinst scorers in rugby Dan Carters PPG is 14.26 and he comes up on top but to be Don Bradman good everyone else who ever played the game would have to have a PPG of 8.66, or below but in the top 25 overall points scorers only 8 fail that threshold and a whole host in the same and diffrent era being directly comparable (within 1.5 points) on that front.
Less so early era bowlers went for insane averages Charles Marriott is technically the best but only played one test match at 8.71, his first class average is pretty top tier at 20.11. But there was a stage where batsman were just shocking.I'm not a cricket fan in particular, so I ask from a position of ignorance, but are the statistically best bowlers revered as all time greats?
Thats why I picked PPG in a team sport its slightly more directly comparable with a batting average.This is where comparisons across sports become tricky. I wish I understood more about statistics and that what I was taught was explained in real world terms. I don't think that you can make simple comparisons like this across sports (or even within a team sport, but that's a different argument). By this rationale, Usain Bolt would have had to run a sub 5 second 100m to be considered on a par with Bradman.
Yes, IMO. Nadal and Djokovic less so.As people have mention part of the issue is comparing players of different eras. The games were usually very different, different rules, different equipment. Imagine Federer using a racquet like Borg or McEnroe. Would he still be as good?
Fair enough, again I'm not saying he wouldn't. I'm just highlighting how it's almost impossible to accurately compare players. For me the best athletes are the ones who perform well at a high level consistently.Yes, IMO. Nadal and Djokovic less so.
I'd agree with this for the most part and if I had to give one answer to the question it'd probably be Messi but I do think cricket isn't outside that echelon given that it is by far the most popular sport in a country of 1 billion people and very popular in several other countries that have a history of success in other sports.Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.
Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.
And yet I still find football incredibly boring to watch.Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.
Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.
Good post. This is what I was getting at when I mentioned sports that have "reached maturity".Even ignoring eras in the relative field argument I think the sport has to be considered and every sport trailing behind soccer. This is a bit theoretical and abstract but if you could imagine the perfect game, with perfect athletes and tactics in any sport, soccer had come closest to achieving it. The top teams in the world are at the cutting edge for training, nutrition, physio, data analytics etc... and while some (not many) other sports match this none can match the player pool to select from.
Put a bit more simply, you don't have to be as good at rugby to play for New Zealand or as good at cricket to play for Australia as you have to be at soccer to play for Real Madrid or Barcelona because there is far far less competition to get there. Getting to the top level of less popular sports and being far and away the best gets you in the conversation but considering Ronaldo and Messi did the same in soccer I still think Bradman, Gretzky, Woods or whoever it may be falls short.
Mentioned above, IMO Jim Thorpe is more impressive. Eric Liddell another famous example from that era.CB Fry represents his country in multiple sports.
Google for his achievements.
Cant imagine anyone in modern era getting close.