A freak of nature who can defy law of average? Always fascinating thought when some young players show potential.
In statistic driven game like test cricket, these comparisons and is-this boy-it factor fascinates fan.
But what always makes me wonder is why 65 years after Don retired, there is no batsman like him who was head and shoulder above their counterparts ? We have seen many legends but none who dwarfed other of his generation.
We had chapel, gavaskar, richards at one time but none dwarfed another. Then we had greats like Lara but wasnt head and shoulder above Sachin or for that matter ponting, kallis or dravid.
Most of them (except lara) were not even head and shoulder above their own team mates.Eg Ponting had better records but not clearly better than waugh or Hayden. You have Tendulkar but not so head and high above dravid or laxman(many might even prefer one to other).
....
While comparing player to their corresponding sport bradman was found to be statistically No. 1 among any player of any sport.ie not even the likes of Pele, jordan,etc were as best in their time as bradman was .
...
So, is any young player around who may dominate like bradman did?
Pujara has got a brilliant start, root too has potential to be the unquestionable numero uno of his generation.
Kohli at 24 already has 15 ton in ODIs. He may be the ODI's Bradman someday.
Any young teenage player smacking double n triple tons at will at club level somewhere?
Any kids come to your mind?
Any Bradmanesque player on horizon?
posted on 28/7/13
Why?
Was bradman special as in genetically special?some mutation occurred?
Otherwise how could he have such high average over so long a period and matches(including FC matches)
posted on 28/7/13
Comment Deleted by Article Creator
posted on 28/7/13
How many times would Bradman have been given out by an austarlian umpire? they just wouldn't.. Like England in 70/71 in Australia they never got 1 lbw decision in their favour. Not 1? questionable hmm. its like people saying Fred Truman wasbetter than Anderson.. Yet Truman played on uncovered wickets and ball would have seamed everywhere.
posted on 29/7/13
Englandwhoelse,
your whimsical theory holds no water.
If you say bradman would be given not out lbws by Aus umpire, then its likely english umpire would wrongly give him lbws all the time.
End of the day they balance out.
About truman and anderson they are 2 good disciplined bowlers of their generation, nothing more.
posted on 30/7/13
<<its like people saying Fred Truman wasbetter than Anderson.. Yet Truman played on uncovered wickets and ball would have seamed everywhere.>>
So, Anderson is better than Trueman was?
Think of the bowling averages. Think of the speed. Think of who they bowled to.
If you wish to be generous to Anderson, a good compliment to him would be to say maybe he is as good as Bob Willis was.
posted on 30/7/13
There was another player in the same Aus team as Bradman (Jackson ?), who died at an early age but who many at the time thought was the better player of the two.
posted on 30/7/13
I wasn't a huge fan of james Anderson at the beginning.. but in the last 4 years the guy as been top class. Trueman was a good bowler. But playing at home in the 60s against poor Pakistan and indian teams on green seaming wickets that were left undercovered, Yer gonna have a good strike rate.
Bob Willis is a great bowler to. They all are on the top of the list.. but when a batsman averages almost an 100 after 52 test matches such as Bradman. you really need to question the opponents and sometimes the officials. I don't think anyone is an 100 average.
posted on 31/7/13
Bradman retired in 1948.
Trueman began his test career in 1952.
So, Trueman was not among those that helped Bradman to average 99.
posted on 31/7/13
Am not saying he was
posted on 31/7/13
this is the geezer I mentioned earlier :
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6000.html