- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Australians revel in our sporting prowess. We wallow in it. We’re smug about it. We have woven a national mythology of sporting superiority. Central to this mythology is the axiom that Sir Donald Bradman, the mighty Don, is without doubt the greatest sports person to have walked the planet.
I have heard this view on television, in living rooms, in newspapers and in pubs. It is a view Australians have adopted as sporting fact.
In fact, it is nonsense. Which is not to say that the Don was not a supreme athlete. He was. It’s just extremely glib and narrow minded to conclude, by referring solely to his freakish batting average, that he is the greatest sports person the world has seen.
I can hear the shrill hysteria of patriotic condemnation already. You un-Australian bastard! Well, before you lynch me, remember that we are still, despite John Howard’s best efforts, a free country. So put your jingoism firmly to one side, stuff your xenophobia in your pocket and hear me out on this one.
First of all we have to point out that it may be wrong to assume that the Don was even the greatest cricketer of all time. This claim is usually made by reference to those four famous digits: 99.94.
The claim conveniently ignores the fact that the Don was a pretty average bowler. He bowled a grand total of 160 balls and captured two (count them) wickets. Bowling was, the last time I checked, a fundamental aspect of the game of cricket. Surely then his claim to cricketing hegemony is questionable.
Surely Sir Garfield Sobers has a stronger claim. Sir Garfield could bat. He averaged 57.78. He also collected 235 wickets. The Don may have been a 72% better bat than Sobers. Sobers, however, could counter that he was a 1175% better bowler than the Don. Jacques Kallis or Adam Gilchrist might justifiably making similar claims.
The next thing we have to take into account is the fact that the Don played his cricket at a time when the sport was anything but international. He basically bludgeoned the Poms mercilessly for a prolonged period of time. As most of the sporting world has made a habit of bludgeoning the Poms we should perhaps hesitate before elevating the Don to a position of world supremacy based on Pommy bludgeoning.
It is also true that his average was nicely “assisted” by his records against India and South Africa, then minnows of the sport in the true sense of the word minnow. In fact, his average against the mighty Poms was actually less than 90. How would he have faired against Messrs Holding, Garner, Roberts and Croft in the 1970s?
Now I can hear the howls of protest. It’s not fair, you say, to denigrate the Don’s era. He could only play against the opposition placed before him, he should only be measured by reference to his abilities relative to the standards of the time.
Further, applying the vaunted theories of Australian sporting superiority and conveniently ignoring the claim of the all rounders of the game, Australian like to assume that his record relative to the field is clearly superior to any other sports person.
Which is a great argument except for the fact that it’s wrong or, at the very least, nowhere near clearly right. It’s based on an assumption that nobody could possibly have outperformed the field to the extent that the Don did.
However, a little bit of research (and I mean a little bit) explodes that myth. What about Al Oetter? He won the discus at four consecutive Olympics from 1956-1968. Leaving aside a bloke called Michael Sheridan who won three in the early days, those halcyon days when you could compete if you could afford the boat ticket or happened to be on holiday in the right country at the right time, nobody else has won it more than twice.
Consequently, applying simple mathematics, it’s possible to argue that Oetter was 200% better than any other discus thrower, out performing the Don comfortably.
Nonsense you say! It’s not fair to exclude Sheridan. Personally, I think it is. But in any event I have another trick up my sleeve. I present to you Priestley Taylor. This portly Englishman (yes a Pom) is better known as Phil “The Power” Taylor and he has comprehensively dominated the world of darts in a manner far more emphatic than the Don and his 99.94. Taylor has been world champion 14 times. He is a magnificent athlete. Actually, he’s a fat bastard. Nevertheless, the next best thrower, the even fatter Eric Bristow, has collected only five titles. Consequently, Taylor is 280% better than the next best darts person and comprehensively trumps the Don. Not satisfied? How about Jahangir Khan, who won 555 consecutive games of squash?
I am of course cognizant of the fact that neither darts nor squash nor discus throwing rank high on the totem pole of world sports. I have to concede this point. But, and here comes my killer point and it’s a newsflash…neither does cricket.
Cricket is a game played by a few ex-colonies of a once great empire. It appears that most of Her Majesty’s ex-colonies discarded it on the basis that it was boring and took too long. I love cricket. It’s a great game. However, as a matter of fact, it is globally irrelevant.
Ask a Brazilian or Argentine or Dutchman what they think of the Don? You will get a puzzled reply. Que? The Who? They would no doubt proffer different names; perhaps a Pele or a Maradona or a Cruyff. They would argue that these men, though perhaps not 64% ahead of their contemporary opponents, are greater sports people because they rose to the summit of a much more competitive peak.
Which leads to the final point. Cricket is a game that lends itself to statistics. The things that cricketers do are readily measurable. The Dons’ abilities as a batsmen can be easily assessed by reference to his batting average. This type of analysis does not necessarily apply to all forms of sporting endeavour. Some might argue that Bobby Moore was the greatest footballer who ever lived.
Some may even go so far as to say that he was that far ahead of the defenders of his era that he should be considered the greatest sports person of all times. It would, however, be an extremely contentious opinion. You can’t measure defensive ability like you can measure a batting average. What about Maradona? His goal scoring record, good as it was, does not compare with those of the other great goal getters in the game and is certainly not 64% better than the rest. Yet how do we measure the fact that Maradona chose to play for underdog clubs and never played as an out and out striker? It is not possible.
I am making this argument mainly to annoy one of my For and Against colleagues. I can guarantee he will find this argument unfathomable, facetious, offensive and irritating. He will defend the Don to the last decimal point. He will, if all else fails, give his life to ensure that the Don retains a spot on the sporting ladder ahead of Tiger Woods. Which is where this all started because another member of the For and Against team had the temerity to suggest that Tiger Woods is the greatest. A golfer? Is that even a sport? Give us a break.
How will it all turn out? How do you think? All will be revealed at the link below….unless we actually kill each other during the show. Ultimate Studio Death Match, anyone.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.