Was the don that good ?

[distributer of pain]

Ive been pondering this for a while, why was the don so good ??, was he a freak ?? or can we find a reason for his godly like greatness, now im not saying i totally agree with what im about to say here but i think it deserves a little consideration, the 1st world war would have decimated player stocks from give or take 1914-1920 (and then the mental scars from those who survived and all the sons who had to take over the bread winning duties), the depression would have done a simalar thing as in most young able bodied men wouldnt have had the luxery of playing cricket (and thats for the whole cricketing world), so numbers would have been down greatly, when you put these factors into consideration do you think it was a true average ?, imagine a world 11 batsman now batting against a 4th 11 bowling side for his whole career and thats probably being genorous, i know people will say about bat quality and pitch quailty but a bowlers fitness in those days would have been short of merv hughes fitness, so they wouldnt have bowled quick for that long, as i said im not completly doubting his greatness, i just think its a very false average, id give him 65 max by todays standards. also Australias 2 greatest sporting legends came from the same era, as in the don and pharlap, the same rules apply to both i think, and yes i do know its blasphemy.

[Babies Arm]

The best...

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by distributer of pain

Ive been pondering this for a while, why was the don so good ??, was he a freak ?? or can we find a reason for his godly like greatness, now im not saying i totally agree with what im about to say here but i think it deserves a little consideration, the 1st world war would have decimated player stocks from give or take 1914-1920 (and then the mental scars from those who survived and all the sons who had to take over the bread winning duties), the depression would have done a simalar thing as in most young able bodied men wouldnt have had the luxery of playing cricket (and thats for the whole cricketing world), so numbers would have been down greatly, when you put these factors into consideration do you think it was a true average ?, imagine a world 11 batsman now batting against a 4th 11 bowling side for his whole career and thats probably being genorous, i know people will say about bat quality and pitch quailty but a bowlers fitness in those days would have been short of merv hughes fitness, so they wouldnt have bowled quick for that long, as i said im not completly doubting his greatness, i just think its a very false average, id give him 65 max by todays standards. also Australias 2 greatest sporting legends came from the same era, as in the don and pharlap, the same rules apply to both i think, and yes i do know its blasphemy.

But if you check out players averages and bowlers for that matter they are similar. I'd even say they're weighted more toward bowlers, even though the 40's was bat dominated.

[mas cambios]

The guy was naturally talented but also blessed with a work ethic which allowed to make the most of it.

It's almost impossible to compare different era's but I think it's safe to say that he'd still average over 70. Though bowlers are fitter etc there are things that favour the batsman, such as smaller boundaries, covered pitches and heavier bats (for example).

You can go on and on in terms of the comparisons and tie yourself up in knots, but I think it's safe to say that the guy was a great, not least in the way he earned plaudits from his peers.

[distributer of pain]

yeah i wasnt doubting the great man, i just wanted to bring up the different circumstances that may have aided his average.

[Howard Littlejohn]

99.94 on uncovered pitches, without the bat technology.
If th Don was around these days, he would also have advantages of coaching (though in his case that might be a disadvantage), fitness instructors and nutritionists, etc, the same as modern bowlers.
Its true that playing stocks were lower, both as a result of wars and simply lower populations more generally. On the other hand, he never played a Test against the eighth or ninth ranked nation in the world either.

Its impossible to tell, but the various factors probably roughly cancel each other out. A person can only dominate against the opposition of the day, and nobody has dominated like Bradman did.

[MV!]

... And if he was around now he wouldn't have been nearly died because of appendicitis. He wouldn't have had to deal with constant health problems. He would have the advantage of playing against weak teams (the English team were rarely weak). He wouldn't have lost his best years to the War. Etc, etc.

99.94 on uncovered pitches says it all.

[el-capitano]

Was the don that good ?

Yes, yes he was- end of!

[distributer of pain]

i vaguely remember a history of cricket doco i watched years ago and im pretty sure they mentioned uncovered pitches at test level were fazed out before the dons time, as i said im not 100% sure about it, ive spent a little time googling to find out without sucsess, does anyone know for sure when they were fazed out ?

[hattrick]

The term sticky wicket refers to a situation in which the pitch has become damp, typically due to rain or high humidity. This makes the path of the ball more unpredictable thus making the job of defending the stumps that much more difficult. The full phrase is thought to have originally been "to bat on a sticky wicket." Such pitches were commonplace at all levels of the game (i.e. up to Test Match level) until the late 1950s.

Wicket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the Sir Donald Bradman did for cricket is impossible to calculate.The mere fact of the legendary golf ball training against the water tank regiment ,made him the best batsmen of his era and statistically ever. There is no debate necessary in my mind .. look at the next best average

Donald Bradman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Sir Donald Bradman

Donald Bradman (AUS)
99.94
Graeme Pollock (SAF)
60.97
George Headley (WI)
60.83
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)
60.73
Eddie Paynter (ENG)
59.23
Ken Barrington (ENG)
58.67
Everton Weekes (WI)
58.61
Wally Hammond (ENG)
58.45
Garfield Sobers (WI)
57.78
Jack Hobbs (ENG)
56.94
Clyde Walcott (WI)
56.68
Len Hutton (ENG)
56.67
Ernest Tyldesley (ENG)
55.00
Charlie Davis (WI)
54.20
Vinod Kambli (IND)
54.20