Million Dollar Question

Verified Enigma

PlanetCricket's Sherlock Holmes
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Champions League Winner
Avengers
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Chris Gayle will the number one T20 Batsman (till now) undoubtedly. But, would he have been the best batsman in the 1900s? Majority of you will say, no. As there were no T20s.

Similarly, in retrospect, isn't it possible that had Bradman been born today, he wouldn't have been regarded the best ever batsmen but only a best in test sort of, like Smith is refered to today. And someone like Kohli, would overtake him as the 'Best Ever Batsmen' across formats.
 

Aislabie

Test Cricket is Best Cricket
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Derbyshire
It's easy to overlook the fact that Bradman scored considerably quicker than any of his contemporaries, and had numerous power-hitting exploits in shorter formats when they were played - including the famous three over century. He was just freakishly better than any of his contemporaries.

As for Chris Gayle - who knows how he'd have played in the 1900s. He'd have the benefit of countless innovations that had happened between that era and the present day, but he'd also have to deal with considerably different playing conditions.

You can only ever really compare players to their contemporaries, and by the definition of being furthest ahead of his contemporaries, Bradman is the only choice for the greatest player of all time
 

Verified Enigma

PlanetCricket's Sherlock Holmes
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Champions League Winner
Avengers
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
What about the fact that cricket as a whole had improved a lot professionally. There a 100x more players who are better than what were during the time. Competition has raised 100x
 

NILAYSHAH60

Dreamcatcher
Sportsbookie
Fantasy Cricket Team
India
NZ....
PlanetCricket Award Winner
The Boys
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Location
Thane, India
Profile Flag
India
I tend to disagree with the Bradman argument. I would say no one would ever better him. He would and always be the greatest ever Cricketer of all-time by a fair-margin. I would say the next best was Sachin but he was still far far away from Bradman. You could imagine how great a Cricketer Bradman would've been to still have an average which is impossible to achieve for close to a 100 years now.
 

Aislabie

Test Cricket is Best Cricket
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Derbyshire
What about the fact that cricket as a whole had improved a lot professionally.
In answer to this, this:
You can only ever really compare players to their contemporaries

You can ask, "well, how would Bradman have fared against Brett Lee bowling 150 kph at his head?" And while that's a valid question, so is the question of "How would Bradman have fared with improved bat technology, top-quality protective equipment and meticulously prepared pitches?"

We just don't know. The only reasonable way I can see to compare is using VARP.

When compared to the same contemporaries as Steven Smith, Bradman comes out with 7,150 runs @ 94.08 (37 centuries, strike rate: 81.20) in 85 Test innings as a top-order batsman. That's how far ahead of his contemporaries he was.

Player|Inns|Runs|Avg|100s|SR
:aus: Steven Smith|85|5,563|71.64|21|56.38
:aus: Projected Bradman |85|7,150|94.08|37|81.20
Note: only applies to innings batting at number three and four

I hope that also answers your query about whether Bradman would have had the capacity to be a successful white-ball batsman.
 

NILAYSHAH60

Dreamcatcher
Sportsbookie
Fantasy Cricket Team
India
NZ....
PlanetCricket Award Winner
The Boys
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Location
Thane, India
Profile Flag
India
"well, how would Bradman have fared against Brett Lee bowling 150 mph at his head?"
Poor Larwood became a scapegoat in the Bodyline affair. I believe Harold Larwood was far better than Bret Lee. He was pacy, mean and aggressive from what I have read about him. Obviously not possible to properly watch his bowling in unclear B/W videos with lesser Camera angles.

Edit:
Also it is not possible for a human to bowl 150 mph :p
 

NILAYSHAH60

Dreamcatcher
Sportsbookie
Fantasy Cricket Team
India
NZ....
PlanetCricket Award Winner
The Boys
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Location
Thane, India
Profile Flag
India
Why must the K and M keys be so close together? I feel wronged
Well just having a bit of fun with you. :p
Since I am not involved with the drafts so I miss that.
Hope I find enough motivation soon to participate in drafts. It honestly requires dedication and a lot of research once you get involved in that. Just don't feel like involving so much in just one thing that too for hours.
 

blockerdave

ICC Chairman
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Location
London
Profile Flag
England
Chris Gayle loses more off his bat when he taps the crease than Bradman’s bat weighed in total...

I agree that the contemporary argument is the most valid one.

The Flynn effect in IQ is a reasonable comparison. Over time “average” IQ raises, so e.g. 100 today would be 120 in 1900 and 100 in 1900 would be 85 today...

but a genius in 1900 would still be a genius today, and an “average” in 1900 wouldn’t be a ****** today...

Bradman’s contemporaries contained some genuine acknowledged greats and yet he towered above them. It’s reasonable to say he wouldn’t average 99.94 today (such an average is itself entirely unreasonable!) but I’d happily bet he’d still stand out.[DOUBLEPOST=1607611253][/DOUBLEPOST]Btw - I’m not dismissing Chris Gayle here, who is a fantastic player, and before he became entirely T20 focussed was a great ALL FORMAT player - he has 2 Test Triple centuries, after all!
 

Verified Enigma

PlanetCricket's Sherlock Holmes
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Champions League Winner
Avengers
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
My point is,

Just forgot someone named Bradman existed in the 1900s

There would be someone like Viv who might be called as the greatest batsman in today's world.


Then we might see Bradman emerge today in the 2010s.

Will he be the entitled to be the world's greatest batsman?

Or will Viv retain that title?

Little controversial. But something to think about.
 

Aislabie

Test Cricket is Best Cricket
Moderator
Ireland
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
Derbyshire
If anything, recency bias would make it more likely that he be hailed as the best ever, in much the same way as Tendulkar still is by many. Exactly where you rank Tendulkar or any other player is a matter of personal preference, but he's certainly not the best of all batsmen.

Similarly, it's important to disentangle "best" from "greatest". Best is a specific way of describing quality and skill. Greatest includes a great deal more intangibles.

In all likelihood you'd end up with people acknowledging that 21st Century Bradman was the best, but still thinking of Viv as the greatest.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top