Don Bradman: Unbelievably Great !

Hmm, the Australians of that era have some decent bowling averages. These averages are only between 1928 and 1948, the time span of Bradman's career:

Ironmonger 74 wickets at 17.97
Johnston 43 at 18.88
Lindwall 65 at 18.92
Toshack 47 at 21.04
Miller 40 at 21.60
O'Reilly 144 at 22.59

And we also have:

NZ Cowie 31 at 16.70
WI Martindale 37 at 21.72
ENG Freeman 51 at 22.03
ENG Bowes 68 at 22.33
SA Nupen 34 at 22.85

As you can see these are all exceptional averages by any standard. The volume of wickets is quite low due to the lack of teams playing at the time. One thing to point out might be that the lack of Englishmen dominating the list might have something to do with the fact they had to bowl against a guy who averages almost 100 runs more often than anyone else.

Also, it is amusing to read one of Indiasox's comment relating to bodyline, where he said Bradman "only" averaged 50 in the series, how good do you have to be for an average of 50 in a series to be considered your worst performance?

you forgot verity duncan, average of 17, amazing bowler

Remember also that bowling averages of around 15 grew less common from 1877 until the 1950s when sub 20 averages virtually disappeared due to the covering and rolling of pitches.

I haven't mentioned Sachin as yet, but let's have a little comparison since the Indians all seem so keen to compare the two.

I have split test cricket into pre 1970s and post 1970s as my two eras, mainly to give Sachin more of a chance.

Bradman compared to the next best averaging batsmen of his era who scored more than 2000 runs:

Bradman 6996 at 99.94
Headley 2190 at 60.83

Compare Sachin in the same way:

Tendulkar 15183 at 56.02
Sangakkara 9167 at 56.93
Kallis 12005 at 56.89

Wow, it's so obvious, I can clearly see why Sachin is obviously the best batsman ever even though it is a little unclear that he is even the best batsman of his era.

All these players not as good a test batting average as Andy Ganteaume - West Indies with 112.00.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Like I said previously..Bradman was the best batsman of his era...Sachin the best of his

--------------------

Bradman was unarguably the best of his era, Tendulkar, arguably the best of his.
There is the difference.

"Bradman was unarguably the best of his era, Tendulkar, arguably the best of his.
There is the difference."

Agree

Anyone here saw Bradman bat? If so, who in today's cricket resembles him in terms of technique and shot making?

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Who know's but you can only compare players to their era and Bradman was miles better than anyone else.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator