Who is closest to Bradman, Lohmann and Garner?

There is a lot of rubbish being trotted out on this forum by people who clearly haven't done their research and are just looking for some excuses mainly as to why Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Luckily, the statistics don't show that, and the commentaries from the majority of expert cricketers, sports historians and journalists all put Bradman as number one. By majority, I mean that if you ask 10000 of those experts who is the greatest batsman of all time, it would not be inconceivable to see 9994 of them vote for Bradman and a vote here and there for Sobers, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Hutton, Richards etc. Similarly with the "greatest cricketer" tag, that one goes to Sobers hands down.

@Xolile, whilst I agree that it could be a matter of faith for a lot of people, it is also clearly a matter of science that can prove the greatness of Bradman. There was a post from Spider1972 that Bradman was sick for much of the Bodyline season. Haven't investigated thoroughly on this, but if that was the case, then an average of 40 in that season is actually great. The 80% of deliveries that he faced from medium to slow bowlers is an evolution thing, there were no genuinely fast bowlers at the time with the speeds of Thomson, Steyn, Lee, the West Indians etc. And when Larwood came on the scene during Bodyline, it was not the pace but the tactics that would have undone most batsman including Bradman. Having a bowler aim the ball from around the wicket at your head or just below the head with leg-side fieldsmen would worry all batsman. Had the tactics been allowed today, batsmen averages would come down even with the invention of helmets.

Bradman played in an era when quality of bowling wasn't even average. Although, he never batted with helmet. I would like to see how the other batsmen in Bradman era fared and what was the bowling strike of the bowlers in Bradman era. Tendulkar is a great batsman because he has played for 2 and a half decades in different conditions, against different bowlers. Don't forget Bradman played only tests, while everyone else in the list played ODIs too! Bradman for the most of his life played against England. He'd grown immune to the English conditions and their bowlers. Scoring against the same team consistently is easier. Cricket in those days was way way newer. Nowadays, technology has advanced which makes the bowlers powerful. Bradman was the greatest but the bowling attack those days, weren't the greatest. People often forget that.

@Sankara: Even Osamas & Gaddafis will claim themselves to be True Blue Muslims, but I'm not sure if majority of muslims would agree to it! I don't see any problem with the article per se as an interesting number crunching exercise that shows the Don's greatness in good light! But, it's meaningless to suggest that if he had played in the modern era, his average would have been even higher playing against the likes of BD & Zimbabwe! Well, the Windies, SAs and the Indians of the 30s and 40s are equally bad as any of the current minnows if not worse! So, the only worthy opponents to the Aussies then were the English alone! But, this should not take away anything from Don's achievements or greatness simply because he was head, shoulders & hips above anyone from his era playing in similar conditions! The comparison of the God of lesser mortals with the Don didn't start when Sachin scored 50 centuries or 10K runs but by the Don himself when he had hardly scored a few thousand runs!

If don bradman is the greatest test batsman (judging mostly by his avg.) then muttiah muralidaran is the greatest test bowler (judging by no. of wickets per test match and also highest no. of wickets), period.

Posted by   on (November 11, 2011, 12:41 GMT)

id like to see bradman playing an in swinging yorker from shoaib akhtar at his peak or malinga now. im pretty sure the fastest bowlers in his time were in todays miduem pacer range. put tendulkar or inzimam or sangakara in those times and i doubt any of the bowlers at that time would be able to get them out. no use comparing people from different generations

Don test average of 99.94 and a first class average of 95. Apply bowling average of 10.7 in test and 13.3 of Lohmann to all well known bowlers and then they are half of him all. Brett Lee average near to 31 and him near to single figure suggest what. Where you are seeing these bowlers in the same light. Warne bowling average is near to 26. Are you ready to accept he is only 40% of Lohmann. Exact less than half only. McGrath also exact half of him and Lillee near to 24, only 45% of him. It means two Lillee equal to one Lohmann. Loahmann is statistically the best so we should decide it that he is the best as his average is just near to single figure JUST like Bradman near to triple figure. For me Warne is one of the best test bowler, not because only of average. Can we say Marshall is half of Loahmann becasue his average is almost double of him. What other guys suggest.

Don peers not come close to him in average. His almost all peers belongs to Australia and England and they were only playing Ashes series. Australia bowling was one the best in history so in timeless matches almost arranged by Australia, it became impossible to play two greatest leg break bowlers (Miley, Grimmet, O Reilly)at a time if they were bowling more than 200 overs per match. Also in England conditions helped Leg break bowlers. So 150 or more overs were enough to send England back to Pavilion twice. Only Don Bradman team batsman could have same advantage but unable to prove. See Headley maintained batting average of 71.2 against England as compare to Bradman 89.78 but Headley had not have timeless matches on home ground advantage. Also he came from other country to adopt conditions against England. When two or three teams are there, disadvantage goes to whom who came from entire other. Fact was that he was better with elegancy and ability to play on wet wicket.

Posted by   on (November 11, 2011, 7:52 GMT)

I personally think Don Bradman was Great Player of his time...Now cricket has changed too much n now its far more complicated than it was before...He mainly scored against one opposition n in similar conditions but still other players of his time also enjoyed these advantages but still he stood high among em...It was classical cricket which is now over...There is no point of comparing Bradman's statistics with modern cricketers who perform in totally differnt environment.

Why people compare Bradman with Tendulkar. I am unable to understand and than make their own judgement that Don is the best. Tenduklar played on 57 different grounds with 57 bowlers took 100 or more wickets in test cricket. Bradman only six in which five from same country with ten grounds totally. He played in two countries only it means cricket without globalization. Had he played toe crushers, in swing, out swing, leg cutter, in cutter, zooter of Shane Warne, Doosra of Murli, flipper of Kumble, no no so why he is no. 1. Just of statistic acheivement. For me, Tenduklar is way ahead of him with proving himself against the giants of bowling. Main thing is attack and Tendulkar played best attacks of the world like when he played AUS. Lee, Gillispie, Warne and McGrath was there. One swing, two seam and one wrist spinner. There is no chance of survival if your technique is slightly wrong. That is why his average is 60.6 against AUS with 11 centuries and 13 half centuries runs socred 3151.