v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Match 5

The last sixteen’s four match up pitted Bjorn Borg against Steve Redgrave for a spot in the final 8, it was the Olympic rowing champion who established an early lead and maintained it all day to progress without every really looking threatened by Borg. The Grand Slam champ exits the tournament at this stage after dispatching Jackie Joyner Kershee, Joe Montana, Gareth Edwards and the wildcard LeBron James.

Elsewhere in the competition SRR and Michael Jordan competed in a rematch of their round 2 face off in what can only be described as a grudge match! After a day of voting swinging in both directions it was eventually Jordan that took the match and progresses with 54% of the vote.

Today we move into the second half of the draw with a another blockbuster match up, pitting arguably two potential GOAT’s in their respected fields: Diego Maradonna and Don Bradman.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Diego Maradonna- Football- Championed by Hero

One day, Lionel Messi will possibly prove to be the global game's greatest player, but not yet, and certainly not just because he has blown the all-time number of goals in a calendar year. Messi may be scoring goals at a rate rarely seen since Dixie Dean's heyday, but he does have the advantage of being at the sharp end of probably the greatest club side of all time. Take Messi out of Barcelona and what do you have?
We already have an answer.

In the last World Cup Messi failed to score in five matches as Argentina lost in the quarter-final to Germany whilst his Barca teammates have lifted the Euro twice and the World Cup. It is argued that the Champions League is now a higher standard than the World Cup (not that the presence of Apoel Nicosia in the quarter-finals adds much weight to that view). Whether it is or not is irrelevant when judging Messi because he is playing for the best team in the competition, a team which even without him would be formidable. A truly great player is capable of turning a moderate team into a winning one. Like Diego Maradona.

English attitudes towards Maradona are understandably coloured by the ""Hand of God"" goal but his notoriety should not obscure his greatness. Maradona turned base materials into gold on both the club and international stage. Napoli were a shambles when they somehow found the cash to buy him in 1984. Fighting relegation had become a way of life with the club surviving by a point the previous season. Maradona turned them into title contenders and in 1986/87 they won the first scudetto in the club's history. A second Serie A title, and Napoli's first European prize, the Uefa Cup, followed. Since Maradona left, the club have not won a trophy.
Maradona was similarly central to Argentina's 1986 World Cup success. Ten of their 14 goals were scored or created by him, and his five goals included superb ones against England and Belgium of the type now associated with Messi. In the final, after West Germany had come back from 2-0 down to level, he supplied the pass for Jorge Burruchaga to score the winner. All this while carrying a knee injury which had threatened to rule him out of the tournament.

Brian Glanville, in The Story of the World Cup, his history of the competition since 1930, wrote: ""It will always be remembered as Maradona's World Cup, seldom has a player, even Pele, so dominated the competition. In an era when individual talent was at a premium, defensive football more prevalent than ever, Maradona – squat, muscular, explosive, endlessly adroit – showed that a footballer of genius could still prevail.""

This context is another factor in Maradona's primacy. He formerly played in an era when the tactics were negative and the tackling brutal. Maradona's relative lack of impact at Barcelona, and later decline, had much to do with the injuries he suffered including the notorious ankle-break by Andoni Goikoetxea, the ""Butcher of Bilbao"". Only after the 1990 World Cup, when Maradona carried to the final an Argentine team which was as guilty of these sins as any, did Fifa begin the crackdown which has allowed players like Messi to flourish.

Simply put Maradona was the best player in the most global sport and therefore rightfully should challenge for the biggest prize of all, the G.O.A.T.

Don Bradman- Cricket-Championed by Fists of fury

Sir Donald Bradman
Australia
Test record: 6,996 runs in 80 innings at an average of 99.94 (29 centuries)

It is a rare phenomenon indeed where an individual can be undisputedly and universally acknowledged as the finest to have ever participated in a sport. It is rarer still for that individual to be recognised as the greatest there ever will be, despite seemingly no human being beyond Mystic Meg and the recently unmasked Eric Bristow possessing the gift of foresight.

For Pele, there is Maradona. For Nicklaus, there is Woods. For ‘The Don’, there is no rival. He stands alone.

Such are the statistics of Donald George Bradman. Plying his trade throughout the 1930’s and 40’s in the famous ‘baggy green’ of Australia, Bradman compiled a record almost twice as formidable as anyone else in the history of Test cricket. In a sport harking back to 1877, that is an astonishing feat. Bradman’s final Test average of 99.94 grows all the more impressive when you consider that the widely recognised barometer for a modern batsman attaining greatness is, in comparison, a mere 50. For a sportsman to be so far afield of his predecessors, contemporaries and successors is surely unique.

Perhaps indicative of the supremacy asserted almost every time The Don walked to the crease, former Australia captain Bill Woodfull proclaimed Bradman to be “worth three batsmen to Australia.” Where a team scoring 300 in one day is classed as operating at a fairly brisk pace, Bradman once single handedly made 309 on the first day of a Test against England at Headingley. Such dominance of bat over ball was unusually rare in the age of uncovered pitches, and remains so in today’s comparatively batsman friendly era.

Despite being the holder of records that will likely never be challenged in anger, let alone broken, statistics are but one facet of what makes a great sportsman. It often takes a truly inspirational individual to transcend the sport within which they participate. Much as Muhammad Ali transcended the sport of boxing, Don Bradman transcended cricket. Bradman emerged during a period of great economic hardship in Australia, and through the sheer force of his on-field performances it is said gave happiness and hope to a populace in the midst of depression.

You can't tell youngsters today of the attraction of the fellow. I mean, business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing and likely to go in - all the offices closed, the shops closed; everybody went up to see him play. – England bowler Bill Bowes, 1983

Bradman would go on to exhibit a further trait of any world class sportsman: success in the face of adversity. After scoring an extraordinary 974 runs at an average of 139.14 in the 1930 Ashes tour of England, Bradman was infamously targeted by hostile and aggressive ‘Bodyline’ bowling during the 1932-33 return series in Australia – a theory designed with the sole intention of taking Bradman’s wicket, whereby the English fast bowlers would deliberately target the body of the batsman with a packed leg-side cordon of fielders lying in wait – The Don was almost rendered mortal with a series average of 56.57 (still a world class average by anyone’s standards). It was his own controversial tactic of combating bodyline by backing away and hitting the ball in an unorthodox manner in to the vacant off-side that won Bradman plaudits for attempting to find a solution to Bodyline.

It should be noted that, despite the whole of Australia being in uproar over the “vicious and unsporting” tactics employed by the English captain Douglas Jardine, and despite his own misgivings, Bradman conducted himself with dignity throughout and fought the onslaught in the way he knew best – by scoring runs. ‘Bodyline’, or ‘fast leg theory’ as it was also known, would later be outlawed.

Somewhat ironically, and perhaps unfortunately, the great Don Bradman is as much remembered for his final innings than the unsurpassed genius that had carved a path of destruction through the cricketing world wielding but a plank of willow in the preceding years. Striding to the crease at The Oval in 1948, Bradman required a mere 4 runs from his final Test innings to ensure an overall perfect Test average of 100. Whether through the emotion stirred in The Don through the adulation of the English crowd and opponents as he walked out that day (as much cheers of relief that his utter dominion over England’s bowlers was nearing an end, perhaps?), or the cricketing Gods inflicting a cruel twist of fate as if to reclaim the immortality they had lent him, Bradman was bowled for a duck by Warwickshire leg-spinner Eric Hollies, thus ending his career with that infamous average of 99.94 – a now magical figure in its own right. It will never be bettered.

Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. A miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal – cricket writer R.C. Robertson-Glasgow upon Bradman’s retirement, 1949

Sir Donald Bradman died in February of 2001 aged 92. It would have come as a surprise to many that he failed to get out of the 90’s. There are numerous others with a rightful claim to being the greatest sportsman that ever lived, but in Bradman there has surely never been another so superior to their peers. A genius, an icon and a gentleman; The Don satisfies all of the criteria.

Sir Donald George Bradman was, without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games. – Wisden Almanack

Bradman for me. I know he played 70 years ago and against limited opposition but he was far ahead of every other batsman in history and lost arguably his prime years to the war, certainly the early part.

Huge match up but has to be Bradman who is my overall GOAT so will be getting my vote in every round.

Ha ha, a pre-post war Cucumber Sandwich muncher

Bradman by a mile here. So clearly and so easily the greatest within his own field that comparisons with anyone else from it are pointless.

Take Tendulkar and Lara, for instance, often cited as the two finest test batsmen of the past quarter of a century. Add their respective test averages (54.32 and 52.89 respectively, wonderful by anyone's standards over a career) together, and they still only surpass the Don's average by a very small handful of runs. I mean, come on - Bradman averaged 56 in the 'Bodyline' series but, so incredible was he, that was considered something of a 'disappointing' return!

You have to remember, also, that Bradman campaigned in the times of uncovered pitches, smaller bats, bigger boundaries and more unfavourable bowling regulations. Cricket's primarily a batsman's game these days, but that wasn't the case when Bradman was murdering all bowling attacks he faced on the international stage between 1928 and 1948.

Maradona a giant in footballing history, of course, but nowehre near as supremely consistent as Bradman and certainly doesn't hold dominance similar to the Don's. Maradona made Mexico '86 in to a one-man show of sorts, I guess, but Bradman did the same within his own field countless times.

88Chris05 wrote:

You have to remember, also, that Bradman campaigned in the times of uncovered pitches, smaller bats, bigger boundaries and more unfavourable bowling regulations.

Although I would also vote for Bradman, shouldn't you also mention that he played in an era where there was no distraction of one-day cricket and he could just focus on test cricket? The international work load would have nowhere been as much as today. How many modern cricketers have we not seen, retiring from one format to prolong their careers or do well in the other format? Thats a huge disadvantage to modern cricketers.

Another issue people tend to forget is that India and South Africa, against whom who scored super heavily, in his days are the equivalent of modern day Bangladesh. Having said all that, I don't think there is a batting equivalent to Bradman in any era.

Nice testimony, Fists.

Some comments I would make in addition to what you have written on Sir Don Bradman:

i) the career interruption during the War years and
ii) how he had to deal with several serious health issues

These impositions/setbacks occurred when he should have been in the prime of his career.

Also, it wasn't just 'business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing' - it was a nation-wide phenomenon just about.
The mass-hysteria he created here can still be felt ringing (if you listen closely) more than 60 years after his last Test dig.

I regard Diego Maradona as one the top 3 footballers of all time (possibly the greatest at his peak) and I would most likely have him in my top 5-7 sportsmen of all time. However, on this ocassion he drew the short straw being paired up against The Don.

Bradman nearly died on the 1934 tour and still came back to score hundreds.

Again, the draw moves from 2 not really worthy to two outstanding candidates.

For me though, it has to be Bradman - clearly and by a fantastic distance the greatest batsman of all time. Remember that the next best Test batsmen average just under 61, and that there is a cluster of all time greats that averaged in the upper 50s - top 10 table below (20 Test minimum):
Rank Batsman Tests Innings N.O. Runs Highest Ave
1 D. G. Bradman 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94
2 R. G. Pollock 23 41 4 2256 274 60.97
3 G. A. Headley 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83
4 H. Sutcliffe 54 84 9 4555 194 60.73
5 E. Paynter 20 31 5 1540 243 59.23
6 K. F. Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 58.67
7 E.D. Weekes 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61
8 W. R. Hammond 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45
9 G. S. Sobers 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78
10 J.B.Hobbs 61 102 7 5410 211 56.95

The Wikipedia page on 'batting averages' also shows a graphic of test batting averages, which probably gives an even better picture of how much better than the rest Bradman was.

As for Maradona, while he's been waved through up to this point on account of his fantastic skill as a footballer, there certainly are some weaknesses in his record and legacy. Yes he was instrumental in Argentina winning the 86 World Cup, although that was much less a one man team than is now portrayed. 1982 he was still younf g and could be kept out of the game, while in 1990 Argentina were lucky to make the final after losing their opening group game and progressing on penalties twice in the knock-out stages - Maradona was not the player of 4 years previously (carrying a minor ankle injury). As for 1994, well being sent home for a doping offence (positive test for ephedrine) is not the stuff of legend.
As for his club career - successful as a young player in Argentina, but a couple of years in Barcelona with some success on the pitch (when not injured) but disputes with the club off the field yielded little. Then on to Napoli and taking a middling Serie A side to two league titles in 4 seasons before ultimately being fined and moved on because of his cocaine addiction.
Perhaps best to gloss over Maradona the coach. Suffice to say that he proved the adage that gret players do not necessarily make great coaches.

My conclusion for Maradona is that he was a flawed genius, who was extremely lucky that his addictions and character defects didn't interfere more with his playing ability and legacy. Could very easily have been another George Best, in having a career that was over by his mid 20s

Sachin_Federer, I tend not to mark candidates down on factors which were totally out of their control. Bradman didn't pick the era he was born in and, even with their exemplary records in ODI cricket, the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, Richards, Lara etc are still nowhere near to even holding a candle to the Don.

Yes, there were less opponents to play against back in bradman's day, but again this doesn't at all disqualify or lessen his claim to be a true sporting pehnomenon all that much in my eyes; there was test cricket played for several decades before Bradman, and for several decades afterwards, and still no other player has even come close to managing what he did.

BRADMAN!!!

Stella wrote:Bradman nearly died on the 1934 tour and still came back to score hundreds.

Did he choke on a cucumber sandwich?

super_realist wrote:

Stella wrote:Bradman nearly died on the 1934 tour and still came back to score hundreds.

Did he choke on a cucumber sandwich?

Yes, some joker left the crust on.

88Chris05 wrote: there was test cricket played for several decades before Bradman, and for several decades afterwards, and still no other player has even come close to managing what he did.

May be you can say, he is the greatest by a "mile" in the pre-one-day era. But, comparing with the likes of Lara and Tendulkar to make a even bigger case for him, is unfair in my view. We would not know how much Lara and Tendulkar would have averaged if all they had to do is to play about 5 test matches or so in a year, rather than 12 test matches and about 40 one-dayers in a year.

Agreed, good as Bradman was, it wasn't a very competitive era.

I think if Ive learned anything from this process its that test cricket really was still in its infancy as regards any real depth of talent from any nations outside of England and Australia.
For me personally its taken the gloss off Bradmans achievements, but he still has al ot going for him. So not sure on this one yet.

sachin_federer wrote:

88Chris05 wrote: there was test cricket played for several decades before Bradman, and for several decades afterwards, and still no other player has even come close to managing what he did.

May be you can say, he is the greatest by a "mile" in the pre-one-day era. But, comparing with the likes of Lara and Tendulkar to make a even bigger case for him, is unfair in my view. We would not know how much Lara and Tendulkar would have averaged if all they had to do is to play about 5 test matches or so in a year, rather than 12 test matches and about 40 one-dayers in a year.

Exactly my point; we can only guess how Sachin and Lara would have done in Bradman's era. However, we don't need to guess for Bradman, as the cold, hard facts are there. He dominated his era like no other. Again, I stress the point that, just as it is in modern times, a test average of 50 was considered truly exceptional and the sign of an elite player back in the Depression years and after, which Bradman peaked in. You can argue that Bradman had it easier than the two aforementioned greats, of course, but it's not as if his era produced a series of men who could even get close to him, is it? A 99.94 average was still freakish and almost impossible to fathom even then.

To counter the point about Bradman not playing ODIs he would have played a lot of first class ticket on tour. Wouldn't an Ashes tour typically last for months and feature games against most of the counties? Sachin and Lara never had to put up with that.

VTR

Tourists played approx 20 matches on tour back in his day, from what I know. Three day games as well.

That's a few more than they do now.

Stella wrote:VTR

Tourists played approx 20 matches on tour back in his day, from what I know. Three day games as well.

That's a few more than they do now.

Just found this on the Invincibles tour in 1948. Its a lot of cricket!

"Including five Test matches, Australia played a total of 31 first-class fixtures, plus three other games, two of the non-first-class matches being played in Scotland. They had a busy schedule, with 112 days of play scheduled in 144 days, meaning that they often played every day of the week except Sunday. Their record in the first-class games was 23 won and 8 drawn; in all matches, they won 25 and drew 9; many of the victories were by large margins. They won the Test series 4–0 with one draw"

Yes, 31 matches during the 1948 Invincibles tour... plus a few more matches on the side. So it was a gruelling schedule.

112 days of play in 144 days. 23 won, 8 drawn.

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:VTR

Tourists played approx 20 matches on tour back in his day, from what I know. Three day games as well.

That's a few more than they do now.

Just found this on the Invincibles tour in 1948. Its a lot of cricket!

"Including five Test matches, Australia played a total of 31 first-class fixtures, plus three other games, two of the non-first-class matches being played in Scotland. They had a busy schedule, with 112 days of play scheduled in 144 days, meaning that they often played every day of the week except Sunday. Their record in the first-class games was 23 won and 8 drawn; in all matches, they won 25 and drew 9; many of the victories were by large margins. They won the Test series 4–0 with one draw"

Cheers

Football's GOAT against Cricket's GOAT. Bradman wins for me.

I feel bad for Maradonna here, but whilst he isn't the clear cut greatest footballer of all time, Don Bradman is probably the clear cut greatest sportsman of all time, let alone greatest cricketer.

Is Maradona 40% better than the next best? As great as he was, no.

Considering the conditions, lack of protection and hostility etc faced by Bradman he has to get my vote. A sportsman of surreal statistics that are never to be bettered.

For us to be able to say that when there are great cricketers that haven't even been born yet is something incredibly special.

Don Bradman, for me.

88Chris05 wrote:

However, we don't need to guess for Bradman, as the cold, hard facts are there. He dominated his era like no other.

My point. Bradman's statistics on their own are good enough to say he is the greatest; whether by a "country mile" or a by an "inch" is up for debate. Comparing with someone who played 50 years after him under whole lot different circumstances, to prove he is the greatest by a "mile" does not help the debate.

sachin_federer wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

However, we don't need to guess for Bradman, as the cold, hard facts are there. He dominated his era like no other.

My point. Bradman's statistics on their own are good enough to say he is the greatest; whether by a "country mile" or a by an "inch" is up for debate. Comparing with someone who played 50 years after him under whole lot different circumstances, to prove he is the greatest by a "mile" does not help the debate.

Someone just say Sachin is the greatest and we can move on from this. I've seen this before on numerous cricket boards: one-eyed India fans who wont have it there's ever been anyone better than Sachin.

sachin_federer wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

However, we don't need to guess for Bradman, as the cold, hard facts are there. He dominated his era like no other.

My point. Bradman's statistics on their own are good enough to say he is the greatest; whether by a "country mile" or a by an "inch" is up for debate. Comparing with someone who played 50 years after him under whole lot different circumstances, to prove he is the greatest by a "mile" does not help the debate.

Help the debate? Mate, this is an exercise to decipher who, by v2 consensus, is the greatest sportsperson of all time. On that basis, surely you must have expected that people were going to make comparisons across eras? I'm arguing that Bradman is great enough to make the last eight of his process, so therefore I'm obviously going to use certain pieces of evidence to bolster that claim.

If we were simply arguing over who was the greatest cricketer, then naturally I wouldn't go in to such depth, as there's no discussion to be had. But Bradman here is being directly compared to Maradona, another sporting giant. To justify my vote for Bradman, I'm trying to highlight that he's carved out a much more dominant place in his sport's history than Maradona has in his.

How exactly does that harm the debate?

Something tells me sachin_federer might be a Tendulkar fan

The graph I mentioned from Wikipedia, to place Bradman in context

Spoiler:

Bradman for me, easy to say the era was not as tough but it does pose the question why is nobody else from this apparently weak era even close to him. Also disregards how many of the modern greats averages have been boosted from the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Remember one of the England players, want to say Ian Bell but may be wrong who early in his England career had an average of something like 114 after his first season solely because his career thus far had constituted of one tour of Zimbabwe and one set of tests against Bangladesh. (Apologies to the cricket geeks if this is not wholly accurate but it is not too far wrong.)

Rowley wrote:Bradman for me, easy to say the era was not as tough but it does pose the question why is nobody else from this apparently weak era even close to him. Also disregards how many of the modern greats averages have been boosted from the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Remember one of the England players, want to say Ian Bell but may be wrong who early in his England career had an average of something like 114 after his first season solely because his career thus far had constituted of one tour of Zimbabwe and one set of tests against Bangladesh. (Apologies to the cricket geeks if this is not wholly accurate but it is not too far wrong.)

Probably they were too busy fighting Germans.

super_realist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Bradman for me, easy to say the era was not as tough but it does pose the question why is nobody else from this apparently weak era even close to him. Also disregards how many of the modern greats averages have been boosted from the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Remember one of the England players, want to say Ian Bell but may be wrong who early in his England career had an average of something like 114 after his first season solely because his career thus far had constituted of one tour of Zimbabwe and one set of tests against Bangladesh. (Apologies to the cricket geeks if this is not wholly accurate but it is not too far wrong.)

Probably they were too busy fighting Germans.

In the 30s? No wonder Hitler felt got so angry.

Probably just had proper jobs then.

Are we seriously considering someone from a time when a sport was barely even professional?

Are you still going on you serial bore?

super_realist wrote:Probably just had proper jobs then.

Are we seriously considering someone from a time when a sport was barely even professional?

If that era was rubbish, as you claim it was, why doesn't anyone else have as high batting averages like the Don from that same time period? Why does no one even average 90/80 or even 70? It's because the Don was so far ahead of anyone else, both in his era and in today's era.

I think back then we were talking about a miniscule pool of talent and opposition, way smaller than that which Steve Redgrave was yesterday being accused of being part of and a reason to not include him in consideration for GOAT.

Worldwide in 1928-48, just how many Cricketers were professional AND involved in touring test sides? He was up against hardly anyone of any note, in fact of all the people being considered for GOAT he was probably up against the smallest number of opposition.

Yes, I don't deny he's the best of his generation (we can't compare batting averages of a semi professional 5 tests a year era to today) but he wasn't exactly up against opposition that was terribly professional or competitive.

Maradona all the way in this one.

It's a bit like saying Barbara Cartland is the greatest author because of her books per year average. Hardly quality though.

super_realist wrote:It's a bit like saying Barbara Cartland is the greatest author because of her books per year average. Hardly quality though.

It's not at all like that, actually, but thanks for at least posting a coherent and reasoned argument as to why you've voted the way you have, which makes a refreshing change to your usual tact of saying that neither candidate is a GOAT contender, that any sport aside from football is rubbish and how us mods / admins have done a terrible job of putting this whole thing together. You should debate in this vain more often!

LIsten, considering a cricketer from 1928-1948 is absurd. It's totally incomparable to today so as good as his record is, do you really think he'd have those averages when his opposition are not part timers?

Actually, I don't like football either, and I didn't say had done a terrible job putting it together just that it was rather rashly thought out and there were too many canditates (which is obvious)

I think you've done a good job of dealing with 64 people, but it's not hard to see it's dragged on longer than it can maintain as much interest as it should.

Bradman played 37 or his 52 Tests against England, the strongest opposition of the day, averaging 90.

I'd argue he had it harder than modern players who would not be playing the next best opposition with anything like that regularity. The talent pool in England in this era would in no way be shallow with county cricket being a lot more prestigious than it is today.

You can compare averages across eras as 50+ still works as a benchmark of excellence today as it did in Bradman's day.

super_realist wrote:LIsten, considering a cricketer from 1928-1948 is absurd.

In your opinion. The fact that Bradman was not only considered for this process but is also getting close to making the last eight of it demonstrates that plenty of others, who know their sport, think otherwise.

Don't take the other bits I said too seriously, mate. Just light hearted ribbing as you have been a wee bit of a Victor Meldrew type of character throughout this process!

Come on though, England may well have been the best around, but what standard was cricket in 1930's compared to today?

Would Fred Perry or Stanley Matthews be that big today?

I agree that absolute standards would have increased across all sports as sports science and equipment technology advance.

Its not relevant to me though, we need to judge people in their own era, against those who had the same advantages and disadvantages as they did.

super_realist wrote:Come on though, England may well have been the best around, but what standard was cricket in 1930's compared to today?

Would Fred Perry or Stanley Matthews be that big today?

As I said to you before, why does no one else have averages of 70/80/90 then in that era? Why is the Don so far ahead?

super_realist wrote:Come on though, England may well have been the best around, but what standard was cricket in 1930's compared to today?

Would Fred Perry or Stanley Matthews be that big today?

You're missing the point. If we're talking about all-time (again, there's a big hint there!) great tennis players / footballers, then whether or not Perry or Matthews would be virtuoso performers in today's era is insignificant. What's significant is that, roughly seventy-odd and sixty years respectively after their primes, they're still talked about as giants within their own fields, which is a far fairer way to judge. Every era of every sports has players who are regarded as being amongst the best in the world at that particular time, but far fewer are still so highly regarded decades later. You can't help the era you're in.

Would Bradman have managed a test average of 99.94 today? Maybe, maybe not. We're not talking about a sport, in cricket, where the pace of the game and the fitness levels of its participants have gone through the roof, ala tennis or football, when compared to a few decades back, so I don't see any grounds to downplay Bradman's chances of replicating his record in the modern era based on that generalisation.

Likewise, cricket is much more of a batsman's game today than it was back then. Pitches were uncovered when the Don played, with unpredictable bounce commonplace. Also, as I said earlier, bats were smaller, boundaries bigger and the bowling regulations of today were not in place. As I said, if you look at the 'best of the rest' behind Bradman, the norm has been remarkably consistent right throughout the history of test cricket, be it in 1913 or 2013; the elite batsmen average between 50 and 60, with a couple surpassing that latter mark by the skin of their teeth.

Say what you like about the quality of Bradman's era, but the fact remains that, in the years leading up to it, a 99.94 test average over a whole career was considered impossible, unthinkable, just as it is now.

Are Bradman's stats indicative of a terrible level of competition and lucky circumstances, or are they indiciative of a genuine one-off who was just born to score runs? There's seldom a case where it's one hundred percent one or the other, but in this case I'm certainly more inclined to believe the latter by a pretty big majority.

Its not that England were particularly the best around, its that it would seem to all reasonable intents and purposes they were the only opposition around.
And lets face it post WW1 England had plenty of problems in the gene pool area. Lost generations of men killed in the war or the flu epedemic afterwards.
I think its best if we just discount anyone from that era.....

Diggers wrote:Its not that England were particularly the best around, its that it would seem to all reasonable intents and purposes they were the only opposition around.
And lets face it post WW1 England had plenty of problems in the gene pool area. Lost generations of men killed in the war or the flu epedemic afterwards.
I think its best if we just discount anyone from that era.....

Exactly.

so what about pre-war and lost years during the war? Remember he was 38-39 when he was playing post war cricket, so was not exactly in his prime.

Was anybody else?
NObody has really explained the standard of cricket back then. Was Bradman just the best of a very very average lot? After all, when you look at the standard of football, golf, tennis, snooker etc from back in those days it's laughably bad. Can't really see how Cricket could be that good back then.
It's a completely different game and I think totally relevant when talking about a GOAT of a sport, because how can you be a GOAT if all you've done is be better than a bunch of fat old men who play cricket as a hobby.

And lets face it post WW1 England had plenty of problems in the gene pool area.

The effects of which can still be evidenced on this forum.

SR as matter of point what would be your top 5 GOAT? I think we're all intrigued as to whom you judge worthy.