CMJ's Top 100 cricketers

[Sachinism]

and I bet you if you asked most of those players to play with a helmet they would have rejected it straight away. If you've played cricket you'd know how uncomfortable it is to go from wearing nothing to wearing a helmet and batting, as bublu pointed out you'd get used it, yes there is an increased risk, but the batsman would be more comfortable without

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - is there any way you think something like what I suggested in post 45 is doable?

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Currently it's compulsory in the UK for batsmen in club cricket to wear helmets. Refusing to wear one would make you ineligible to play itself.

[Serani]

Currently it's compulsory in the UK for batsmen in club cricket to wear helmets. Refusing to wear one would make you ineligible to play itself.

No its not, its compulsory for u-18's. I have seen some bad facial injuries to batsman that dont wear helmets but they are usually over 30. Most people in there 20's grew up having to wear helmets so its natural to wear one.

[akshayxyz]

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'] Well - to comment on 'irrefutable fact' you have quoted. If you consider billards an sport - and if you have some understanding of the game, then IMO, this guy ( Walter Lindrum) comes very close to Don ( may be even beats him !) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lindrum

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - is there any way you think something like what I suggested in post 45 is doable?

BUMP again for Bossbhai :). if you think this is a lost cause, please feel free to let me know. Just feeling curiouser and curiouser..

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Well - to comment on 'irrefutable fact' you have quoted. If you consider billards an sport - and if you have some understanding of the game, then IMO, this guy ( Walter Lindrum) comes very close to Don ( may be even beats him !) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lindrum

Thanks for the share, but I had in my mind the more traditional sports when I made the statement. If we expand it to other 'sports' I guess Reinhold Messner in mountaineering would also figure in the realm. But regardless, the point remains that the kind of domination Bradman commanded is extremely rare if not entirely unique.

[putrevus]

Thanks for the share' date=' but I had in my mind the more traditional sports when I made the statement. If we expand it to other 'sports' I guess Reinhold Messner in mountaineering would also figure in the realm. But regardless, the point remains that the kind of domination Bradman commanded is extremely rare if not entirely unique.[/quote'] Babe Ruth dominated his baseball like nobody has ever seen, he hit home runs more than other teams all by himself.

[teacup]

Babe Ruth dominated his baseball like nobody has ever seen' date=' he hit home runs more than other teams all by himself.[/quote'] Babe Ruth went from being the best pitcher for a season or two to the best slugger of all time in a remarkable role switch. There was even a meeting between Babe Ruth and Don Bradman in New York.

[teacup]

Thanks for the share' date=' but I had in my mind the more traditional sports when I made the statement. If we expand it to other 'sports' I guess Reinhold Messner in mountaineering would also figure in the realm. [b']But regardless, the point remains that the kind of domination Bradman commanded is extremely rare if not entirely unique.

Not true. Babe Ruth (as mentioned already), Rod Laver (2 calender Grand Slams, No. 1 for 7 consecutive years), Pele, Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer have dominated their peers as much as Bradman. I would put Roger Federer above all for his domination in the most competitive of all eras and in a sport that tests both the physical and mental fitness of the individual like no other.

[thevortex]

Most definitely doable ... I think this had been done on the Cricinfo blog by its statisticians ... very time consuming and the difficluty lies in assigning weights to various factors. If you can come up with the rules I can crunch them. :--D

Just sent you a PM, Bossbhai! :)

[The Outsider]

Not true. Babe Ruth (as mentioned already), Rod Laver (2 calender Grand Slams, No. 1 for 7 consecutive years), Pele, Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer have dominated their peers as much as Bradman. I would put Roger Federer above all for his domination in the most competitive of all eras and in a sport that tests both the physical and mental fitness of the individual like no other.

At the risk of digressing from the main discussion of the thread, I would take exception to most of the names above. I don't really follow baseball, so will take your and others' word on Babe Ruth. However, Pele, Jordan, Woods were all great like Sobers or Tendulkar. They were never twice as good as the best amongst their peers. To put in modern cricket terms, if we take Tendulkar as the benchmark then the next best batsman was like Moin Khan - such was Bradman's dominance over his peers. Even Federer has been consistently challenged by Nadal and was not even number 1 for a significant length of time a couple of seasons back. I'd venture and say that you are underestimating the dominance of Bradman. EDIT : For 17 straight years, Bradman was ranked the number 1 batsman in the world with a gap of just 1 test match.

[teacup]

At the risk of digressing from the main discussion of the thread, I would take exception to most of the names above. I don't really follow baseball, so will take your and others' word on Babe Ruth. However, Pele, Jordan, Woods were all great like Sobers or Tendulkar. They were never twice as good as the best amongst their peers. To put in modern cricket terms, if we take Tendulkar as the benchmark then the next best batsman was like Moin Khan - such was Bradman's dominance over his peers. Even Federer has been consistently challenged by Nadal and was not even number 1 for a significant length of time a couple of seasons back. I'd venture and say that you are underestimating the dominance of Bradman. EDIT : For 17 straight years, Bradman was ranked the number 1 batsman in the world with a gap of just 1 test match.

I am not underestimating Bradman but on the other hand you seem to be doing the same to some of the greatest sportsmen of all time. Woods is not twice as good as his peers? How many Grandslams do others have when compared to him? How many Grandslams does Federer's nearest rival, Nadal, have when compared to Federer? More than twice in Federer's case and 6 or 7 times for Woods right? And, they are not done yet. Jordan won 6 NBA titles for the Bulls and made such a difference to the success of his team that when he chose to take a break after winning 3 consecutive titles to play Baseball for couple of seasons the Bulls did not win the title but when he came back to the bulls he won three consecutive titles again! He was second-best only to Babe Ruth in AP's list of greatest sportsmen of the century. Length of domination cannot be equated across sports as the physical toll in sports such as Tennis, Basketball and Soccer are much higher than in Cricket.

[thevortex]

Teacup - you make very pertinent points for sure. But see the difficulty would be in finding a parallel for the 99.94 average that he ended up with at the time he hung up his boots. That is like Federer not losing a match to anybody outside the top 3 in the men's game for 10 years? I dont know that a direct parallel can be made with other sports and players. But surely you get the drfit.

[The Outsider]

Teacup, I am not denying those sportsmen greatness. But take Federer as an example. As great as he is, can you really say that the gulf between him and Nadal is of the level of Tendulkar - Moin Khan. Nadal was number 1 in the rankings for an entire year just till last year and has been very close on the heals of Federer for quite some time now. Anyhow, this would meander into an endless discussion, but even the harshest Bradman critics would find it hard to come up with more than a handful of sportsmen to have achieved his level of dominance. I think that much we can agree on.

[teacup]

Teacup - you make very pertinent points for sure. But see the difficulty would be in finding a parallel for the 99.94 average that he ended up with at the time he hung up his boots. That is like Federer not losing a match to anybody outside the top 3 in the men's game for 10 years? I dont know that a direct parallel can be made with other sports and players. But surely you get the drfit.

If you take his record in the Grandslams and the fact that he has featured in 18 of the last 19 finals that was played, you will get the drift.

[teacup]

Teacup, I am not denying those sportsmen greatness. But take Federer as an example. As great as he is, can you really say that the gulf between him and Nadal is of the level of Tendulkar - Moin Khan. Nadal was number 1 in the rankings for an entire year just till last year and has been very close on the heals of Federer for quite some time now. Anyhow, this would meander into an endless discussion, but even the harshest Bradman critics would find it hard to come up with more than a handful of sportsmen to have achieved his level of dominance. I think that much we can agree on.

I am not anti-Bradman but there have been sportsmen - only a handful, yes, but - comparably dominant as Bradman was and it is a fact. Anyways, coming back to the topic, what do you have to say about the role coaching has played in leveling the field sort of between genius batsmen and the "merely" great batsmen?

[vvvslaxman]

In my humble opinion Bopara should be there in that list.

[thevortex]

If you take his record in the Grandslams and the fact that he has featured in 18 of the last 19 finals that was played' date=' you will get the drift.[/quote'] Yes, its an amazing feat. But surely not equivalent to a career average of 99.94! But then this is bound to be a subjective thing as the discussion is not based on comparing equivalent aspects.