Don Bradman most over rated player in the cricketing history?

[The Dark Horse]

Who cares.

[Jersey #10]

STAT REQUEST: 1. Total # of bowlers Don faced during his international stint + How many games he played against each of them 2. Total # of unique pitches he played on + the # of times he played on each of them 3. Total # of Teams he played against + the # of times he played agaisnt each of them 4. Has he played any multi national tournaments? ------------ All four of the above queries for Sachin (or any of the today's great batsmen-- ponting, lara etc. for that matter)

[Old guy]

i never like comparing batsmen of different generations too much difference it was almost like both are diff sports its same as comparing odi record of batsman then that of 80's current generation sachin is statistically best,lara was to me most talanted all are masters in diff areas but sachin is most complete batsman (the reason why he has 40 plus avg in every country)

[Robelinda]

He averaged over 100 for a large part of his 52 tests. Going into his last innings he was already averaging 101.39. Respect must be shown to all great players from EVERY era.

[Sachinism]

Bradman played 52 tests. Tendulkar's next test ton will be his 52nd

[Ultimate_Game]

He averaged over 100 for a large part of his 52 tests. Going into his last innings he was already averaging 101.39. Respect must be shown to all great players from EVERY era.

Well said. Average of nearly 100 - nearly 40 more than his nearest competitor points to something great. Hell, even if a player averages 100 against the likes of B'desh and Zimbabwe over 52 tests, it would be a great achievement.

[Tiger80]

If Kumble played in that era... He would have been considered fast bowler. Robin Singh would have been fastest bowler and Best Batsman.

Quite interesting,what makes you think that Kumble could have been fast bowler of that era.These days Dhoni or Hussey easily bowl 115-120 so Why Bowlers from that era were unable to bowl faster than this speed ? Is there any evidence that Human shoulder strength has increased so much?

[Tiger80]

I agree with Mishraji. :hatsoff: to his approach at computing the populations & his line of thought. (Sir) Donald Baldman played cricket when only a small section of the population even in those countries where it was played were into the game. In terms of competition, it was nowhere as close to as it is today. All these factors have to counted for in an all time great mathematical model. As an analogy, it would be easier to get rank 1-10 for the AAIMS entrance test in 1950 than it is today. Simply because the competition was negligible as compared to today. Literacy at that time would be 6% and its at 65% today. Those appearing for the exam would be only 2000 then, as against 4 lakhs appear today. These numbers are, of course, arbitrary. But the logic behind them is what I'm trying to highlight.

In 50s or 60s It was talent that used get admiited in AIIMs or IIT.These days money comes first then talent.If your parents can afford very expensive tuition classes then only you can think of joining these insitutes O/W just Take admission in your local engineering college

[1983-2011]

lol @ this article

[Raghav_12]

Quite interesting' date='what makes you think that Kumble could have been fast bowler of that era.These days Dhoni or Hussey easily bowl 115-120 so Why Bowlers from that era were unable to bowl faster than this speed ? Is there any evidence that Human shoulder strength has increased so much?[/quote'] Yes. Look at any athletics record. Records those were considered most amazing in those times, around 30's, are matched and exceeded by all and sundry from current times.

[Tiger80]

Yes. Look at any athletics record. Records those were considered most amazing in those times' date=' around 30's, are matched and exceeded by all and sundry from current times.[/quote'] I know Athletics Improved a lot but one cannot say 120kph of 30s is equvilant to 160 kph of today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1936_Summer_Olympics_ËÀMen's_100_metres Athletics record 1936 ,fastest man 10.3 second Now 9.58 second .72 second improvement

[CSK Fan]

Well said. Average of nearly 100 - nearly 40 more than his nearest competitor points to something great. Hell' date=' even if a player averages 100 against the likes of B'desh and Zimbabwe over 52 tests, it would be a great achievement.[/quote'] Yes but look at the quality of his nearest competitor too

[mishra]

unfortunately for you had to wait till 78 posts ' date=' when u expected it from 2nd post :hysterical:[/quote'] Actually TBF, ICF doesnt suffer from intellectual poverty (e.g post 29)..... But yeah, LMAO to pseudo cricket Pundits here.....

[akshayxyz]

In 50s or 60s It was talent that used get admiited in AIIMs or IIT.These days money comes first then talent.If your parents can afford very expensive tuition classes then only you can think of joining these insitutes O/W just Take admission in your local engineering college

It is other way round. Back in 50s-80s, only rich ( well-to-do) families had the exposure and resources to get to IITs/AIIMs. A relatively larger proportion of naturally gifted talent were just struggling to get 2 square meals a day ( for themselves and families) - eventually compromising to take up govt jobs after class 12th/BSc. etc. As for role of tuitions - only few people gain from it (those who genuinely lack exposure), the real talent does not need it, mostly go for it, just because feeling of insecurity when seeing everyone else going for it.

[akshayxyz]

On the topic - Bradman. Well single most significant argument in favor of his being #1 test bat is - how well ahead he was of his peers - on a graph of normal distribution of batting averages per dismissal - during that era. And only thing that can argue against it is - statistical outliers also indicate the inefficiencies (lack of competition) of the system, and can not be completely attributed to an individual's skills. Its a mix of system-inefficiencies and individual talent - which is not trivial to figure out, not yet. Most of the other arguments (against him) of fall to answer this basic question - why other peers were not able to take good advantage of the same conditions (quality of bowlers,number of pitches, countries) that he might have benefited from. Similarly, many of the arguments presented in favor him are equally absurd. And it gets most absurd, when people start doing backward/forward extrapolations...he would have scored 70s today, current greats would have scored 120s back then...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[mishra]

Duleep Singh ji just played 12 tests 19 inn at a average of around 60. To top it all he played for England. Now to his records, you put in away game factor, Top it with a icing of playing for foreign team and cherry it with era of British raj..... @ akshay

[Sachin=GOD]

I see lots of potential in this thread

[fineleg]

Restrict your response to only the quality of Bowling as is visible on this video.

And thats where you make a mistake. By restricting it to the bowling and conveniently forgetting that entire-cricket (not just bowling) was a different game back then. He was a legend in that era (pitches, bowling, batting, fielding, mindset, strategies, countries-involved... all different era). If he played in today's era, he may have still been a legend since he may have adapted to today's bowling, today's standards etc. What's to say that he would not have adapted and been a today's legend in the same manner that SRT is a legend? After all, he was a legend in the era that he played as a cricketer. And that is why you cannot go across eras and say that SRT is bigger genius or DGB is bigger genius or lower on scale. Coming back to this thread - DGB is not the most over rated player in history as mishra claims.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --