CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[thevortex]

Here is an irrefutable fact about Bradman - no sportsman' date=' in any sport or era, has dominated his peers by the margin and to the extent he did.[/quote'] When you say 'dominated his peers', it should actually read as 'dominated one team'. That, in summation is really the only but nevertheless most powerful criticism against the man. Well, you could add that he played all his cricket in one of two countries on a very limited range of surfaces. I know it is not too fair. But taking a look at whatever video evidence there is of Bradman batting, you tend to wonder about his batting average. There is no substitute for watching the man play live, of course. But I wonder if he could, in the modern game, have gotten away with changing his grip on the bat just to play a particular shot - for example, leg glance or flick.

[Cow Corner]

When you say 'dominated his peers', it should actually read as 'dominated one team'. That, in summation is really the only but nevertheless most powerful criticism against the man. Well, you could add that he played all his cricket in one of two countries on a very limited range of surfaces. I know it is not too fair. But taking a look at whatever video evidence there is of Bradman batting, you tend to wonder about his batting average. There is no substitute for watching the man play live, of course. But I wonder if he could, in the modern game, have gotten away with changing his grip on the bat just to play a particular shot - for example, leg glance or flick.

That's a fair point, well made. Just had a look at his stats, he did play tests against India, South Africa and the West Indies (15 all up) he was very effective in those games. He did average over 90 in first class cricket too

[Ram]

So he was the only talented batsman who cared about this batting? :two_thumbs_up:

No, maybe cricket was not so big back then and most of the guys who played did it just for the 'funz and stuff..'.. :D Its a bit like any 'leading' school in India.. You go to a standard X class.. There are those boys who'll always want to have fun.. and then there's that one nerd sitting in the corner of the class, ignoring everyone, who'll study no matter what, even during Diwali holidays (which to me, was the hardest part of the year to study..) :--D

[The Outsider]

On what measure? His test batting average. Why should subsequent greats and their peer player dominance be assessed on the same metric? It's school playground 'i got here before you did' logic.

Well depends on how you calculate the margin. If it the batting average, then you are right, but if the margin was the most number of international runs scored or most number of internatinal hundreds or most number of wickets taken or a combination of both? Again he probably is/was the greatest batsman, definitely can't be said the greatest cricketer. That probably would be Sir Gary Sobers.

You can choose any metric or measure except something which is a sheer function of the the volume of cricket played. Centuries, double centuries, runs per innings, practically any batting statistic. Again, I am not necessarily comparing Bradman with a modern player - just stating the fact that on any well accepted and intuitive batting metric, his dominance is unsurpassed not only in cricket, but any sport. Kallis has similar numbers to Sobers.

When you say 'dominated his peers', it should actually read as 'dominated one team'. That, in summation is really the only but nevertheless most powerful criticism against the man. Well, you could add that he played all his cricket in one of two countries on a very limited range of surfaces. I know it is not too fair. But taking a look at whatever video evidence there is of Bradman batting, you tend to wonder about his batting average. There is no substitute for watching the man play live, of course. But I wonder if he could, in the modern game, have gotten away with changing his grip on the bat just to play a particular shot - for example, leg glance or flick.

No, first class cricket was a big thing in those days. There were well established first class rivalries and instances where players have been known to have skipped international matches for first class matches. So, it wasn't "one team". You and I can argue all day, and I have in the past, about batting grips, pitches, bowlers, uncovered pitches etc. etc. and it will all be subjective and has been done many times in the past. Despite all that, the fact remains that the magnitude of Bradman's dominance remains unchallenged. We would merely be talking about if he would be so dominant today, and if not by what margin.

[thevortex]

The Outsider - I find numbers too cold to argue for or against:). That is, numbers alone. If only I had been able to watch him, I might be able to talk better, but that works both ways. So, yes, this is all a bit of a 'what if' situation as you say. Nobody anywhere in the world can argue against the numbers that Bradman has racked up. Those are stupendous to say the least. But see there are so many number-experts here. What if we attach weightages to the factors that affect batting in general and then sort of even up the field a little. It could even be an exercise which may not have been attempted before (as far as I know). Bradman's average is 99.9. Now, what if we were able to work out a percentage figure which affects players' averages when they play away from home a lot and other percentage figures for the increase in quality of fielding. And what if we also come up with balancing percentages for the lack of quality spin bowling in those days (also considering that the wickets there were not conducive to spin). We could, sort of, punitively apply these negative weightages to Bradman's average and then try and see if that makes him any more human. Of course this is just my own pet delusion. Please dont think I am assigning anybody a job. I just am not that good with numbers :). On the flip side, people can always ask for Tendulkar's and Lara's numbers to be revised considering full body protection, uncovered wickets etc. So, I guess it will go on. But in my mind the above exercise might actually be something really interesting for the true numbers' fans.

[goose]

People speak of the volume of cricket played by Tendulkar as if it were somehow removed from his skills as a batsman. He debuted at 16 and quickly justified that. When he got those two hundreds at Perth and Sydney aged 19 one respected veteran pundit said he'd never seen anyone, including Bradman, bat better on Australian soil. Obviously, being the batsman he was, he was rarely if ever dropped in the 21 years that followed. Again, being the skilled batsman he was, afforded him to bat several notched below his own best and still be useful. His highest test score to date coincided with his form slump. At the *** end he's still breaking new ground. His genius has afforded him a stage to perform for much longer than is normally possible. I look at Lara and Ponting. When they were bad, they were really bad. All that said, i've never been one to be wowed by Tendulkar's longevity. I see it a natural by-product of his status as the greatest modern day batsman, a status i had bestowed on him before the turn of the century. I'm quite certain Tendulkar's second coming is almost entirely down to his fitness and gym time. I'm the wrong side of 30 but comfortably in the shape of my life. It makes a gargantuan difference.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[graphic23]

Boss, but how can one refute Shwetabh's claim that Bradman averaged nearly 50 runs more / innings against the same set of bowlers that everyone else faced? :hmmm:

[Lurker]

So seriously WTF is wrong with some of you that CMJ's thread is again a pooja-sthal for Sachin? Back to the topic, I have this book (bought in at Heathrow while travelling to India). Is a pretty good collection really. Borrows perhaps from the pre-internet age era where compilation like 100greatest players, best teams, 10 best bowlers etc. were read and re-read by fans, the stats memorized and tales told at dinner table. The author had made his selection pretty fairly I would say, even if I dont quite agree to all of them. As for those laughing at Ponting, well he comes a rank ahead of Kapil Dev so not exactly a lost cause. Maybe you should check the ranking out first? And Coffee saab, who is CMJ? Really??????

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[teacup]

You cannot refute Bradman's dominance over his peers. However, the difference in the quality of coaching and the role coaching plays today in making good players play better cannot be overlooked. It is simple, Bradman was a genius and in his own words did not require coaching but the others who played during his time were not as gifted as him and could not take full advantage of bad bowling and fielding standards. A bad ball is a bad ball whether the wicket was covered or not and should be put away for four by a good batsman but maybe in his time except for Bradman others did not have the ability to do it consistently. Another aspect of Bradman's batting (as pointed out by CMJ) was his mastery of playing the percentages - cutting out risky shots but still managing to score at a pretty quick rate - which again is an evidence of the genius in him that others could have replicated with coaching had it been as developed as it is now. When you compare Bradman's era to the present, you have to account for all this. Here is a quote from me on this thread.

Only a handful of the people alive today have seen Bradman play and it happend so long ago they would remember only a few things about his batting' date=' so, most people who believe Bradman is the greatest go by statistics alone. His 99.94 average is unsurpassed and the next best batsman of his time averaged nearly 40 runs behind, so he was certainly an outlier without parallel in the history of cricket. However, if you look at statistics alone and not the context of the era and how cricket coaching has developed since Bradman's days and it's role in making talented young players into really good ones then you are letting your perception to be overly influenced by the record books. The difference between a genius and a very good player in an age of very little information broadcasting and facilities (no bowling machines and simulated pitch conditions) is bound to be greater. Bradman was ahead of his times but so is Tendulkar and that is the only thing you can say with certainty when comparing them.[/quote']

[The Outsider]

Even otherwise ... that 99.94 theory would be acceptable if the skill levels required to score of off bowlers in modern era was the same as what DGB played against. I have asked this question soo many times on this forum and not even the most die hard hand-in-the-sand Bradman bhakt agrees that the bowlers from his era were all time world beaters. The less said the better about fielding skills, pitches, strategies followed by captains and so on and so forth back then. I had made this list of bowlers about 2 yrs ago ... here it is : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=585934&postcount=173

The point has already been argued against. Unless you believe that the likes of Hutton, Hammond, and Hobbs were of the batting caliber of Razzaq, Moin Khan, and Aakash Chopra it's a fruitless argument. Look up some old thread - there was a long discussion on it and Bradman himself was at least partially responsible for the bowlers' higher averages. You are dismissing causality here.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Err, he was rated as the fourth best batsmen ever by Wisden...Test average of 58...50,000 first class runs, 700 first class wickets... If another cricketer comes along an averages 60 whilst the rest of the world averages 35 then you might be able to argue that the world has changed batting wise and his relative difference puts him up there with the Don, but seriously, when you average that much more than all time greats from that era its saying something.

He was rather laughing off at the position Ponting got.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

So you are going with List1 = List2 then ? :hmmm:

That's more close to reality than 55.56 > 99.94.:hatsoff:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Bublu ... are you the same guy that posts on the PAdosee site :--D

Yup.

[The Outsider]

Yup Verity Voce , Larwood & Co = Donald Amby Steyn and Co ... that makes perfect sense ..... Not. BTW Is that why you agreed sometime back that the 99.94 back then was much lesser in todays terms ... :giggle:

Yeah, and I still stand by my assertion that he would have averaged in the 70s if he played today. You can do all sorts of statistical gymnastics which in itself is pretty funny, given you are a stats driven guy trying to prove 55 > 99! PS : I managed to move goose over to the dark side of Bradman a tad bit over a couple of Grey Goose Vodkas last night, so maybe we should have a drink together. :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --