Xifio;3200777 said:
would you rate any other player who's stats are on the back of Test matches played exclusively in 2 countries? 60% of which are against one nation? coz I would have my reservations (and I do) ... not Bradman's fault he was born in that era, but them's a criteria for me ...
also, while his cricketing acumen extended from the pitch into the selection and administration committees, he wasn't known to have a likeable personality -- and given the modern penchant for tabloids to do whatever it takes to stir up sensational stories, I'd be interested to know how he'd have handled [and been affected by] the constant press hounding of his every move (along with other adverse ramifications) that his undoubted super stardom would have brought in the modern era ... it's why I prefer to respect The Don's ridiculous stats, while championing the by-far-and-away-stand-out skill and genius of the modern legend who I've actually had the privilege of watching since the mid 90s ...
As I said, my point is this:
As I said, during that era, OTHER batsmen all averaged around the same as they do today. So the whole "one opponent" thing is irrelevant.
In fact, I'm sure if India and Australia ONLY played each other, and only between here and India, it wouldn't raise batting averages over the length of a career.
You can also say that playing mainly England throughout his career was a disadvantage compared to modern players, who get to play tests against MUCH weaker opposition.
Sir Sir_Didier_Drogba;3200851 said:
Personally, I do not think The Don would have achieved his average if he was playing today. I think the professionalism of cricket now and the gradual increase in bowling standards would make a lot of those classic players (Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond etc) look pretty amateurish today. That's not to detract from the quality of their achievements, of course, all achievements are relative to the competition at the time! But for this reason I think Bradman's average is the most unbeatable of the three records.
Another record that will take a long long time to be bettered is the West Indies streak of 15 years without losing a test series!
Those players were the best of their time. If they had access to the bats of today, the shorter boundaries, the much flatter pitches etc, then that would have HELPED his figures.
People always talk about eras etc, but when you look at it statisitically, over time, these things have cancelled each other out. Good batsmen have always averaged over 40, the REALLY good batsmen have always averaged over 50.
Bradman averaged 99. Where are all the other batsmen averaging ridiculously high from this era, where apparently it must have been easy? There isn't any. Even the best, guys like Hobbs and Hammond average mid 50s.
I also don't agree Sachin is by far the best batsmen to watch of the modern era. I think Lara was just as good.
Kallis, Dravid and Ponting have comparable figures, but Kallis and Dravid score much slower - and are all about defence, and Ponting always looks shaky early on. Lara was as graceful as anyone, and made batting look easy, whilst also scoring MOUNTAINS of runs. Sachin has all the shots, and has done it so well for such a long period of time.
I think another record that might not be broken for a while is Australia's 16 test victories in a row (which we ended up achieving twice).
