2nd best, after Bradman ?

[Blue1980]

Heather Mckay? Undefeated for 20 years. I think she only gave up a handful of games (not matches, games) in that time too.

Yes I know that cricket =/= squash in terms of competition etc but single player dominance of the Bradmanesque kind isn't unique to him.

The amount would probably be able to be counted on one hand though

 

[Monjike]

Ponting, G.Chappell or Smith ?

The above 3 IMO are real close and hard to separate and all have claims, in a statistical sense.

Ponting - need I say any more ? Was averaging 60 after 107 tests and did most of his work batting @ 3.

G.Chappell - champion and played an additional 20 unofficial tests (WSC) , averaging 60, with another 6 tons.

It's hard to see Smith finish his test career with a batting average under 50 now.


I'd love peoples views on this.

Or does anyone think someone like a S.Waugh, Hayden, M.Hussey, Border (only others with a 50+ ave) or another player challenges ?

 

[Monjike]

Ponting, G.Chappell or Smith ?

The above 3 IMO are real close and hard to separate and all have claims, in a statistical sense.

Ponting - need I say any more ? Was averaging 60 after 107 tests and did most of his work batting @ 3.

G.Chappell - champion and played an additional 20 unofficial tests (WSC) , averaging 60, with another 6 tons.

It's hard to see Smith finish his test career with a batting average under 50 now.


I'd love peoples views on this.

Or does anyone think someone like a S.Waugh, Hayden, M.Hussey, Border (only others with a 50+ ave) or another player challenges ?

Greg Chappell scored 425 runs averaging 106 against the World 11 in 71/72.

 

[Monjike]

Ponting, G.Chappell or Smith ?

The above 3 IMO are real close and hard to separate and all have claims, in a statistical sense.

Ponting - need I say any more ? Was averaging 60 after 107 tests and did most of his work batting @ 3.

G.Chappell - champion and played an additional 20 unofficial tests (WSC) , averaging 60, with another 6 tons.

It's hard to see Smith finish his test career with a batting average under 50 now.


I'd love peoples views on this.

Or does anyone think someone like a S.Waugh, Hayden, M.Hussey, Border (only others with a 50+ ave) or another player challenges ?

You mean best after Bradman?(meaning 2nd best overall...)

 

[M Malice]

Purely the eye test for me, I've been watching Test match cricket since the 1974-75 ashes series and the best I have seen is Greg Chappell, elegance personified.

 

[The Passenger]

Those of my vintage grew up with a very steady middle order in their Australian all time XI's - Bradman, Chappell, Border, Miller. That was pretty much just a closed book. After the 7 year old you scribbled down your team to show to the oldies in the garden a few of them might mutter about Harvey or Walters, but really they knew those four positions were locked in.

At the time it would have been unfathomable to me to think youngsters just 25 years into the future would now have just the one spot to choose from and another two players (S Waugh and Ponting) joining the fight for it. Bradman, Smith, ?, Miller.

It's hard to see Smith relinquishing that spot. Some may point to Ponting who looked to have a lock on that #4 spot at one point so it is possible. But it's worth remembering for Ponting's average to come back into mix with the others he played his last 60 tests for an average of just under 40. Most players have some sort of decline the end but they rarely last for 60 tests, and their average during the decline phase doesn't often dip into the 30's.

Ponting's decline in form was both large and long - not impossible to happen again but it would be surprising. Kallis had a period at the end that produced similar substandard performances to Ponting, averaging 43 over his last 20 tests, 39 over his last 15 and 28 over his 10 (which all would have been a lot worse if not for a century in his final test), but he pulled the pin much quicker than Ponting did, which is usually what happens when it gets to that level.

 

[DAlembert]

Those of my vintage grew up with a very steady middle order in their Australian all time XI's - Bradman, Chappell, Border, Miller. That was pretty much just a closed book. After the 7 year old you scribbled down your team to show to the oldies in the garden a few of them might mutter about Harvey or Walters, but really they knew those four positions were locked in.

At the time it would have been unfathomable to me to think youngsters just 25 years into the future would now have just the one spot to choose from and another two players (S Waugh and Ponting) joining the fight for it. Bradman, Smith, ?, Miller.

It's hard to see Smith relinquishing that spot. Some may point to Ponting who looked to have a lock on that #4 spot at one point so it is possible. But it's worth remembering for Ponting's average to come back into mix with the others he played his last 60 tests for an average of just under 40. Most players have some sort of decline the end but they rarely last for 60 tests, and their average during the decline phase doesn't often dip into the 30's.

Ponting's decline in form was both large and long - not impossible to happen again but it would be surprising. Kallis had a period at the end that produced similar substandard performances to Ponting, averaging 43 over his last 20 tests, 39 over his last 15 and 28 over his 10 (which all would have been a lot worse if not for a century in his final test), but he pulled the pin much quicker than Ponting did, which is usually what happens when it gets to that level.

Not sure what vintage you are but I never remember Keith Miller being part of any ones middle order. Yes a flamboyant all rounder who performed very well in that post war era but never seriously our best No 6 Bat....Number 7 as an all rounder he is right up their in the discussion.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Not sure what vintage you are but I never remember Keith Miller being part of any ones middle order. Yes a flamboyant all rounder who performed very well in that post war era but never seriously our best No 6 Bat....Number 7 as an all rounder he is right up their in the discussion.

In terms of an alltime batting lineup no, but in terms of an alltime XI hard to look past an allrounder who is a genuine opening bowler.

 

[melanChronic]

In terms of an alltime batting lineup no, but in terms of an alltime XI hard to look past an allrounder who is a genuine opening bowler.

Agree, allows the luxury of picking McGrath, Lillee and two spinners. Warne and O'Reilly? Or Grimmett? Or maybe we are even getting into the territory where we consider GOAT Lyon (with Warne) to give the off-break leg-break combination?

The other way to go is have Border at 6, with him as backup spinner. Then you go a third quick, one of Davidson, Lindwall, Johnson, or even have Miller at 8? (Although big Patty Cummins will hopefully be comfortably in this slot by the time he is done).

I probably prefer the second option with either Johnson or Miller at 8. Bradman, Chappell, Smith, Border is a middle order that cannot be topped by any other nation.

 

[DAlembert]

Agree, allows the luxury of picking McGrath, Lillee and two spinners. Warne and O'Reilly? Or Grimmett? Or maybe we are even getting into the territory where we consider GOAT Lyon (with Warne) to give the off-break leg-break combination?

The other way to go is have Border at 6, with him as backup spinner. Then you go a third quick, one of Davidson, Lindwall, Johnson, or even have Miller at 8? (Although big Patty Cummins will hopefully be comfortably in this slot by the time he is done).

I probably prefer the second option with either Johnson or Miller at 8. Bradman, Chappell, Smith, Border is a middle order that cannot be topped by any other nation.

AS good a record as he had on pure aesthetics I am not having Border at 6. I will take a Mark Waugh Or Dougie Walters everyday..and if you do not want Ponting at 4 he can go in at 6. Nope no place for stodgy old Border. Gilchrist is at 7 Miller at 8 if you must and then Warne Lillee and McGrath. But you and I both know their are plenty of alternatives who on their day matched any one of these players.

 

[woota]

We have to keep sight of the fact that there's been a handful of aussie batsman over the past 3 decades that have enjoyed a big purple patch in their careers, during which time they were spoken about as being the best of all time if you took bradman away - hayden, ponting, clarke, hussey all fit this mould. Smith is just the next in line. Like I said earlier, if his current form continues to the end of his career then he'll make over 10,000 runs at an average over 60, which has never been done before and that would make him stand out as a clear no #2 behind bradman. However, he might just be going through a purple patch that will eventually end, followed by the inevitable decline like what happened with the aforementioned players. If that happens then he may finish with an average in the low 50s and go down alongside s.waugh, ponting and the others as one of australia's all-time greats, but it wouldn't distinguish him from that cluster of batsman that were once spoken of as being 2nd behind The Don.

 

[sdfc]

Bradman''s whole career seems to have been a purple patch.

 

[iluvparis]

I think you need to explain your use of the word "Relativities" and in what context you are using it. You have made assumptions that may or may not be true and therefor as an argument it is invalid. You are right I do not understand what you are saying.

Actually it is YOU that are making assumptions that are highly unlikely to be true.

Think through it and work out how people getting killed in the war could have made things easier for Bradman. Think about what deaths in the war changes and what it doesn't change. Think about how it changes the overall share of good cricketers in the population.

When you think through that you should be able to work out how you are wrong.

 

[DAlembert]

You did not answer the question. I have done my research and crunched the numbers ..have you? I am neither trying to be right or wrong that is an invalid premise. Bradman was a superstar in any ones book including mine. But your proposition that the World Wars and other conflicts where hundreds of thousands of young men killed does not have an impact on the quality of Sportsman is quite frankly laughable.

 

[Bareth Garry]

He gets to benefit from every single one of those advances as well.

So I don’t believe it is at all.

It’s called relativity.

Do I think Joe Louis would beat Lennox Lewis or Vladimir Klitschko if he was airlifted from his prime to fight one of them? No.

If he was born and raised in the same era as them and exposed to the advances in training and sports science and scheduling?

Of course he could.

You can’t be statistically twice as good as most of your rivals and NOT be blessed with almost divine levels of natural ability. Hell, even the cricket stump hitting of the cricket ball training method would be impossible 95 per cent of elite players to master, both then and now.

Imagine a golfer who was averaging scores of double under par what their rivals were posting, in the 30s and 40s, and trying to make an argument that they wouldn’t be similarly dominant now given the access to new technology and course analysis etc.
As it is, Jack Nicklaus is the benchmark for major wins with what, 18? Tiger, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, Gene sarazen, Gary Player etc all fall in there somewhere behind.
Ben Hogan won 9, and his career roughly spanned the same sort of time frame as Bradman’s cricket career.

Hypothetically, imagine Hogan won about 28-29 majors, and was shooting scores of -20, -25 to win them.
The figures are mind blowing.

Could anyone seriously challenge his status as being the best if he were to ply his trade as a modern player? I doubt it.

People would cite the advances in technology and course design etc. but you could turn around and ask how the hell he achieved such things with wooden drivers, unweighted putters, s**t golf balls on underprepared courses, and the argument would be over.

I can’t see how anything other than the same applies to Bradman.

Great post.

I'd add another example from another sport.

Pele - the man credited as the highest goalscorer in football (soccer) history. Over 1000 including unofficial games. Three time World Cup winner, scored twice in the 1958 Final at the age of 17. Brazil's all time top scorer (77 goals in 92 games). Voted the best player of the 20th Century.

Yet the critics say he played the majority of his career in Brazil before moving for a few years at the end of his career to America where the game was primitive. Supporters point out many of the world's best players (members of Brazil's World Cup winning teams) also spent their careers in their home country. So arguably the Brazilian league was no weaker than the offers he received to go to Europe from grand clubs like Real Madrid and Manchester United.

The critics say the standard of the sport was a lot worse. But the standard of the sport at that period of time was the best the sport had ever been. Evolution of playing conditions, training methods, rule changes etc mean the next generation's basic standard should be higher than the last. But that doesn't mean the players are better. It's harder to play on uncovered pitches than pitches that are smooth as carpet. It's harder to play when you can barely afford to eat full meals yourself never mind feed your family whereas the power of TV in sport transformed salaries and made sporting careers professional. If a 10 year old Pele was transported from 1950 to today in 10 years time he might well be the best player in the world (a 20 year old Ronaldo was crowned it in 1996). Transport a 10 year old Messi from 1997 to 1947 and he wouldn't have access to the medical hormone treatments to help him overcome his height defects. He wouldn't have access to state of the art modern training facilities and full time coaches. Back then your coaches were just ordinary folks who loved the game and wanted to give something back in their spare time.

I'm not entirely against the idea of comparing eras. But era's where extensive footage is limited and you're relying on first hand oratory history (which is dying out) is a very foggy area. I would love to time travel to 1932 to see exactly how fast Harold Larwood was bowling but until some mad scientist figures how to I'll let the numbers and the anecdotes tell me Bradman will never be topped as the yardstick.

 

[iluvparis]

You did not answer the question. I have done my research and crunched the numbers ..have you? I am neither trying to be right or wrong that is an invalid premise. Bradman was a superstar in any ones book including mine. But your proposition that the World Wars and other conflicts where hundreds of thousands of young men killed does not have an impact on the quality of Sportsman is quite frankly laughable.

Please tell me how you have 'crunched the numbers' to suggest that the World Wars impacted on the quality of sportsman - in particular test cricketers.

The only way it makes sense is if good cricketers were killed at an above average rate in the war - which as I have said many times - is a ludicrous proposition. The fact you don't understand that logic suggests to me you 'number crunching' can't be of that high a quality.

 

[Boston tiger]

Helmets bats ,uncovered pitches would be the big points of difference in comparing eras.
Saw a documentary in England about the 1948 tour.. basically said the English could muster up a pretty good Test side but the county sides were pretty decimated still due to the war.

Bradman still gets the lollies by a fairway because of how much daylight there was between him and his peers. If everyone else back then was averaging 80 etc then eras would come into more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DAlembert]

Please tell me how you have 'crunched the numbers' to suggest that the World Wars impacted on the quality of sportsman - in particular test cricketers.

The only way it makes sense is if good cricketers were killed at an above average rate in the war - which as I have said many times - is a ludicrous proposition. The fact you don't understand that logic suggests to me you 'number crunching' can't be of that high a quality.

Nothing to see here...Move on. I have.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You don’t need to be bias or Australian to conclude that Bradman was or is the greatest ever batsman, it can’t be disputed.
In fact in my view he is the greatest sportsman of all time, I cannot name or even think of any other sportsman who can claim to be twice as good as any other person to have ever played their sport.

Bradman obviously is number 1
The rest are all pretty close and therefore much more subjective.
My top 5

1) Bradman
2) Viv Richards
3) Jacques Kallis
4) Brian Lara
5) Sachin Tendulkar

Any of Smith, Ponting, Chappell, Waugh, Border, Gavaska, ABDV, Sangakara, B.Richards, Miandad, Crowe etc would not be out of place.

 

[woota]

You don’t need to be bias or Australian to conclude that Bradman was or is the greatest ever batsman, it can’t be disputed.
In fact in my view he is the greatest sportsman of all time, I cannot name or even think of any other sportsman who can claim to be twice as good as any other person to have ever played their sport.

Bradman obviously is number 1
The rest are all pretty close and therefore much more subjective.
My top 5

1) Bradman
2) Viv Richards
3) Jacques Kallis
4) Brian Lara
5) Sachin Tendulkar

Any of Smith, Ponting, Chappell, Waugh, Border, Gavaska, ABDV, Sangakara, B.Richards, Miandad, Crowe etc would not be out of place.

The caveat is that these types of lists and comparisons apply to test cricket only. The game has evolved since bradman's time and the best limited overs batsman is de villiers by a mile, who we can't compare to bradman in the shortened versions of the game because they didn't exist in bradman's time.

 

[Blue1980]

You did not answer the question. I have done my research and crunched the numbers ..have you? I am neither trying to be right or wrong that is an invalid premise. Bradman was a superstar in any ones book including mine. But your proposition that the World Wars and other conflicts where hundreds of thousands of young men killed does not have an impact on the quality of Sportsman is quite frankly laughable.

So all the good ones were killed except the don? Wtf

 

[Blue1980]

The caveat is that these types of lists and comparisons apply to test cricket only. The game has evolved since bradman's time and the best limited overs batsman is de villiers by a mile, who we can't compare to bradman in the shortened versions of the game because they didn't exist in bradman's time.

Can’t exactly hold against him not playing a form of the game which didn’t exist.

Still now the conversation of best ever still centres around test cricket

 

[woota]

So all the good ones were killed except the don? Wtf

Yeah, some of the young guys that died in the trenches would have become test cricketers and eclipsed bradman's 99.94 batting average.

 

[Pippen94]

Not sure what vintage you are but I never remember Keith Miller being part of any ones middle order. Yes a flamboyant all rounder who performed very well in that post war era but never seriously our best No 6 Bat....Number 7 as an all rounder he is right up their in the discussion.

Miller at #6 in acb team of century;

Australian Cricket Board Team of the Century - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Pippen94]

Agree, allows the luxury of picking McGrath, Lillee and two spinners. Warne and O'Reilly? Or Grimmett? Or maybe we are even getting into the territory where we consider GOAT Lyon (with Warne) to give the off-break leg-break combination?

The other way to go is have Border at 6, with him as backup spinner. Then you go a third quick, one of Davidson, Lindwall, Johnson, or even have Miller at 8? (Although big Patty Cummins will hopefully be comfortably in this slot by the time he is done).

I probably prefer the second option with either Johnson or Miller at 8. Bradman, Chappell, Smith, Border is a middle order that cannot be topped by any other nation.

Miller & Gilchrist can provide stroke play at 6 & 7. Allows for two spinners for all conditions. Border gives batting grit & is probably Australia's greatest left hander.