Put into context. In round figures if a batsman plays 100 tests and averages 50 then he's an all time great: Lara, Richards, Tendulkar etc. Bradman in round figures played 50 tests and averaged 100! Everyone talks about 99.94. But his all round first class average was 95 from a staggering 234 matches!
Different times....travel long and by boat.England and Australia were the heavyweights of the game. There was a 6 year gap due to the war also.There is your answer.
He'd have probably enjoyed playing more against India and South Africa given he averaged 178.75 and 201.50 respectively against them. He was probably also glad he didn't have to play the West Indies again as they dominated him. His 6 innings against them only produced 447 runs at the paltry average of 74.5.
I well remember hearing of The Don's demise on the BBC News (being English) and was not yet 31. Probably the last of the Bodyline series players to die - Verity must have been the first, a war casualty in 1943.
My view on Bradman ,would be ,if he had played in modern times ,maybe his avg would be 60. Different types of pitches , tricky spinners ,extra pace bowlers and improved fielding standards.
Actually, the pitches have becoming more amenable to batsmen as cricket history has progressed, due to better preparation and perhaps more crucially, covering whilst they're not being played on. A scan of the records of the best test bowlers prior to 1914 shows averages that bowlers today could only dream of. My personal view is that given that Bradman is regarded as having had only one weakness - his lesser ability to play on a 'sticky dog' - he might in today's more benign conditions for batsmen, have compiled an even greater average. By the way, my background is not so much in cricket, but in general sporting history, and there I've noted there has been a trend over a long period in time to make things tougher for the 'defenders' in various sports. This is presumably to make them more 'telegenic'. It's harder to be a defender now in soccer, due to changes in the laws relating to tackling; offside and handball. There are progressively more home runs in baseball, and batsmen do better in cricket, for the aforementioned reasons but also because boundary ropes are brought in, the bowlers now deliver the ball when they're not so close to the batsman due to foot placement rule changes, etc.
There's a lot more cricket being played today. Bradman really only had England, New Zealand and maybe South Africa to deal with. Today, there are ODI and T20 along with the Test matches. So maybe he wouldn't be as effective, or maybe he would have been ever better.
Bradman was miles ahead of his time. However, it's a bit unfair to modern day players by calling Bradman the greatest of all time. Bradman played at a time when the game was very different to what it is today. He played at a time when helmets were not worn and bowlers did not bowl at express pace. He did not have to contend with the prospect of facing deliveries at 95mph which could easily cause orbital/facial fractures if you didn't wear a helmet and thus end your batting career. All of Bradman's 52 tests were played in England or Australia meaning he did not have to play on sub-continental turning pitches in hot/humid conditions which would have tested his technique and fitness. He played at a time when there was very little video analysis and individualised bowling strategies that modern professional sportsmen engage in. So it's hard to compare.
Actually, you can compare through mathematical analysis, which has shown that not only is he incontrovertibly cricket's greatest ever international batsman in terms of his scoring record, but also that he's the best scorer in any game played with a ball on an outdoor surface (ahead, for instance of Ty Cobb, Michael Jordan, Pele and Jack Nicholas). If what you were saying was correct, then there would have been a spread of test batsmen who played between 1920 and 1950 who were averaging between 50 and 99. However, the other greats are clustered between 50 and a little over 60. It's that huge gap between Bradman and everyone else that established his reputation, since they were all playing on similar pitches facing similar bowlers in the same period of cricket history. The mathematical analysis that allows comparison, not only between people playing the same sport in different periods but, fascinatingly, other sports is far more complex involving standard deviations and what not, but is compelling. By the way, I'm not Australian and would love to have seen the all time, all sport list topped by Jack Nicholas, but the mathematics doesn't lie! Just to add, my favourite ever cricketer is Barry Richards.
@@Neil-yg5gm I think you are underestimating what it takes to bowl at 95mph. It requires certain physical attributes, of course. However, it also requires specialist physiotherapist, nutritionist and bio-mechanical input which is only possible in the context of a modern day professional sporting environment. 'Professional' cricketers in Bradman's day were essentially just amateurs who had regular day jobs for most of the year when they did not play test cricket. There is no way they were performing at the standard that modern players perform. This is not to take anything away from Bradman because at the end of the day, you can only be as good as the era of your time allows. However, lets just be objective about the facts and not let our objectivity get coloured by sentimental values.
I agree to some extend but you are comparing apples to oranges. It is certainly true that nobody today is as ahead of their time that Bradman was compared to his time. However, the times themselves were very different. So any attempted comparison should be interpreted with caution. @@ontheisland11
![FNAF Into the Pit has A LOT of Unused Graphics | LOST BITS [TetraBitGaming]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6YhZCRdipl4/mqdefault.jpg)
Put into context. In round figures if a batsman plays 100 tests and averages 50 then he's an all time great: Lara, Richards, Tendulkar etc. Bradman in round figures played 50 tests and averaged 100!
Everyone talks about 99.94. But his all round first class average was 95 from a staggering 234 matches!
The GOAT 🐐 may you be peacefully resting Sir 🙏
May God bless you and Warnie,Roy in the other world ..
AUSTRALIA'S Greatest treasure Bradman and Shane Warne🤴
Without doubt the greatest batsman there has ever been and his test match average will remain the best for as long as trhe game is played.
Interesting that Don only played Test matches in Australia & England.
Different times....travel long and by boat.England and Australia were the heavyweights of the game. There was a 6 year gap due to the war also.There is your answer.
He'd have probably enjoyed playing more against India and South Africa given he averaged 178.75 and 201.50 respectively against them. He was probably also glad he didn't have to play the West Indies again as they dominated him. His 6 innings against them only produced 447 runs at the paltry average of 74.5.
I remember going to school with Don Bradman. He was such a funny kid back in the day.
yes, that's true, his great, great grandfather used to tell me this about him every time we had sunday tea, which in those days, was once a week
Ohh wow, you were his childhood friend
@@SannaYoung for that he must be 115 years
@@HIMANSHUSINGH-ki7ms 🤔😄
1908 - 2001
27 August 1908 25 Fabraury 2001
I well remember hearing of The Don's demise on the BBC News (being English) and was not yet 31. Probably the last of the Bodyline series players to die - Verity must have been the first, a war casualty in 1943.
Oh my God wht he was I can't believe he really exists..oh oh my god..
My view on Bradman ,would be ,if he had played in modern times ,maybe his avg would be 60.
Different types of pitches , tricky spinners ,extra pace bowlers and improved fielding standards.
Actually, the pitches have becoming more amenable to batsmen as cricket history has progressed, due to better preparation and perhaps more crucially, covering whilst they're not being played on. A scan of the records of the best test bowlers prior to 1914 shows averages that bowlers today could only dream of. My personal view is that given that Bradman is regarded as having had only one weakness - his lesser ability to play on a 'sticky dog' - he might in today's more benign conditions for batsmen, have compiled an even greater average. By the way, my background is not so much in cricket, but in general sporting history, and there I've noted there has been a trend over a long period in time to make things tougher for the 'defenders' in various sports. This is presumably to make them more 'telegenic'. It's harder to be a defender now in soccer, due to changes in the laws relating to tackling; offside and handball. There are progressively more home runs in baseball, and batsmen do better in cricket, for the aforementioned reasons but also because boundary ropes are brought in, the bowlers now deliver the ball when they're not so close to the batsman due to foot placement rule changes, etc.
There's a lot more cricket being played today. Bradman really only had England, New Zealand and maybe South Africa to deal with. Today, there are ODI and T20 along with the Test matches. So maybe he wouldn't be as effective, or maybe he would have been ever better.
Bye bye
Bradman 99 ave in today is 49
Bradman was miles ahead of his time. However, it's a bit unfair to modern day players by calling Bradman the greatest of all time. Bradman played at a time when the game was very different to what it is today. He played at a time when helmets were not worn and bowlers did not bowl at express pace. He did not have to contend with the prospect of facing deliveries at 95mph which could easily cause orbital/facial fractures if you didn't wear a helmet and thus end your batting career. All of Bradman's 52 tests were played in England or Australia meaning he did not have to play on sub-continental turning pitches in hot/humid conditions which would have tested his technique and fitness. He played at a time when there was very little video analysis and individualised bowling strategies that modern professional sportsmen engage in. So it's hard to compare.
so it's almost a conclusion that steven smith is the best test batsman
Actually, you can compare through mathematical analysis, which has shown that not only is he incontrovertibly cricket's greatest ever international batsman in terms of his scoring record, but also that he's the best scorer in any game played with a ball on an outdoor surface (ahead, for instance of Ty Cobb, Michael Jordan, Pele and Jack Nicholas). If what you were saying was correct, then there would have been a spread of test batsmen who played between 1920 and 1950 who were averaging between 50 and 99. However, the other greats are clustered between 50 and a little over 60. It's that huge gap between Bradman and everyone else that established his reputation, since they were all playing on similar pitches facing similar bowlers in the same period of cricket history. The mathematical analysis that allows comparison, not only between people playing the same sport in different periods but, fascinatingly, other sports is far more complex involving standard deviations and what not, but is compelling. By the way, I'm not Australian and would love to have seen the all time, all sport list topped by Jack Nicholas, but the mathematics doesn't lie! Just to add, my favourite ever cricketer is Barry Richards.
"" He did not have to contend with the prospect of facing deliveries at 95mph""
Really? I think that is rubbish.
@@Neil-yg5gm I think you are underestimating what it takes to bowl at 95mph. It requires certain physical attributes, of course. However, it also requires specialist physiotherapist, nutritionist and bio-mechanical input which is only possible in the context of a modern day professional sporting environment. 'Professional' cricketers in Bradman's day were essentially just amateurs who had regular day jobs for most of the year when they did not play test cricket. There is no way they were performing at the standard that modern players perform. This is not to take anything away from Bradman because at the end of the day, you can only be as good as the era of your time allows. However, lets just be objective about the facts and not let our objectivity get coloured by sentimental values.
I agree to some extend but you are comparing apples to oranges. It is certainly true that nobody today is as ahead of their time that Bradman was compared to his time. However, the times themselves were very different. So any attempted comparison should be interpreted with caution. @@ontheisland11
Sachin by 99.4 miles
Your kidding, Bradman 50 times better then that Indian
Like all Indians no idea what's going on.
You can never have such comparisons. Two completely different Eras. Both are legends of their game.
@@chang-jungkarki1684 truest comments ever.
Sachin who??? Full name please.