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.
saurab
Guest
nek minnit
ross
Guest
It is hard to judge sporting people against others through the ages but one would have to say finishing with an average of 99.94 in my books would place Sir Donald Bradman as one of the greats of Cricket no matter what era. The writer of this article should give themselves an upper cut or 10 no idea
meh
Guest
While this article is heaps old, I do think (in my biased opinion) that Bradman has a claim to be rated best sportsman ever. If you compare his stats to his AUSTRALIAN counterparts of the time, he was leagues above them, and regularly carried the team. While I cant be bothered to write down the stats of the other 'Invincibles', none of them were as good even though they played the same games as he did. With regards to how he would play in modern matches, you just dont know, and while speculation can be made as to whether other sports have better athletes, you have to be fair and consider that against all his cricket contempories, bradman was the by far the best, and judging by this criteria, he deserves to be seen as at least ONE OF the best sportsman of all time.
Vaz
Guest
I may have stumbled onto this article very late, but very good reading none the less. Anyone who thinks in their right mind that Don Bradman, though great he was, is the greatest sportsman of all time should simply be disregarded in any discusion about any sport, full stop. That is "American" like, Baseball "World Series" type of stuff, if you know what I mean ... Cricket is barely a world sport anyway ...
Duncan Mackenzie
Guest
England was the competition for Bradman, I'm sure if there was other strong nations during his day the story would have been the same. You don't hear too much that his Sheifield Shield average was nearly 110, I'm sure there wod have been many talented bowlers around the state sides. Poms always argue that Bradman isn't even the greatest cricketer, statistically he is the greatest sportsman by along way. Ever seen him hit a golf ball against a wall with a wicket, not many people have hand freakish hand and eye coordination like that. Above, no way Murali over Warne, talking about playing minows, Murali gained many wickets against Zim and Bang, Warne hary played against them. Warne is easily the greatest spinner ever, or so Wisdons five greatest cricketers of the last century.
Marty
Guest
Obviously you have no idea about cricket and what makes up a great player... Being a batsman is a role , being a bowler is a role and being an all rounder is another role... Would you say that Babe Ruth wasn't a great baseball player because he was over weight couldn't field well and couldn't pitch? No off course not , he was a great hitter... M
al
Guest
Anthony Mundane ?
ben
Guest
Bradman played against nobodies and poms. Big deal. Look at Pele Messi Sugar Ray Robinson Jesse Owens they are great sportsmen against the world not a few 3rd world countries and England.
Stu
Guest
Don't read too much into it. The writer is just being a troll. And with regards the Don not being high on the BBC top 100 - it is a subjective list and was probably filled with modern athletes to appease the crowds (notice the list wasnt posted). This post is so contradictory and one eyed it is laughable.
clint
Guest
This article does make for good reading and it's very well written, however you can't times the amount of discus medals or wins above the next guy as a percentage. You must work out Al Oetter's throwing distances and compare them to his generation and the generations that followed! Can he throw twice as far as anyone else that ever lived? Effectively that is what the Don did! Sir Don Bradman is the greatest sportsman who ever lived. Sir Don Bradman averaged a century every 2.76 innings and averaged 99.94 in one of the most skilled sporting positions in the world - a batsman in cricket. There are many great sportsman - Muhammud Ali, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Rod Laver, Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Sachin Tendulkar (cricket - who averages 56 & scores a century every nearly 5.8 innings) and many others who are considered all time great sportsman except for dart and discus throwers. However, they would all have to double every stactistic within their own sport in their own era - then those stactisitcs would have to remain almost twice as good as all the competitors in every era that followed to even be mentioned as a contender of the greatest sportsman of all time. Bradman still holds the following significant records for Test match cricket today! •Highest career batting average 99.94 •Highest series batting average (5 Test series): 201.50 •Highest ratio of centuries per innings played •Highest 5th wicket partnership: 405 (with Sid Barnes, 1946--47) •Highest 6th wicket partnership: 346 (with Jack Fingleton, 1936--37) •Highest score by a number 5 batsman: 304 (1934) •Highest score by a number 7 batsman: 270 (1936--37) •Most runs in one series: 974 (1930) •Most centuries scored in a single session of play: 6 (1 pre lunch, 2 lunch-tea, 3 tea-stumps) •Most runs in one day's play: 309 •Most double centuries: 12 •Most double centuries in a series: 3 •Most triple centuries: 2 (equal with Chris Gayle, Brian Lara and Virender Sehwag) •Most consecutive matches in which he made a century: 6 •Bradman has averaged over 100 in seven different calendar years - No other player has achieved this in more than two calendar years. •Fastest player to reach 2000 (in 22 innings),3000 (33 innings),4000 (48 innings),5000 (56 innings)and 6000 (68 innings) Test runs. There are many arguments about the variations of strengths, weaknesses, conditions and depth within each era of all sporting debates - however no sportsman has dominated any sport to the same degree as Bradman. Not taking into account the forever standing and unbroken records above - just to be on par with Bradman, Michael Jordan would have to average 70 points per basketball game (Jordan averages 31.5 per game) and the all time great baseballer, Ty Cobb would need to have a batting average of 508! (batting average is 366) Who is the second best sportsman of all time is a good debate!
Sean Keenan
Guest
Listing the attributes of Don Bradman is many. Sobers is the greatest all round cricketer, but you wouldn't pick him first before Bradman. Sobers would have an impact on the game whether batting, bowling or feilding, but he was not a 'freak' in the same way as the don. He averaged 89 against England. Lets not forget about bodyline which curtailed his average and also his final tour was below his standards.... but still averaged 72. He never had a bad series... Sobers, however, definatley did. Scored 12 double hundreds in test cricket...3 more than Lara who played near teiple the amount of tests. Made a double hundred every 6.67 innings; only about 14 players in the games history managed a single century every 6.67 innings. He also would have been targeted in every series and yet he always somehow pulled through. The perfect career. What you're saying is interesting... but look at the story that goes with the stats. He's the greatest cricketer of all time. For what he achieved, he's the greatest sportsman of all-time. A complete freak, miles above anyone else.
rournix
Guest
Just so you know Babe Ruth started his career as a pitcher and was a damn good one. Just so you know.
wayne
Guest
well bradman was the best in his era but i saw him on a tape demonstrating some batting techniques and if he had played from 1975 onwards i think his career would of been over before it stared. any batsman who is going to be playing a defensive shot with his bat about 2 FEET infront of his front pad couldnt score much runs in this generation, i also saw how he got out in his last innings and the shot he played was left a lot to be desired for someone who they said is the greatest ever.
sheek
Guest
Yeah, you're right...I googled Robinson...often claimed to be best boxer of any division, pound for pound. What makes these discussions difficult & intriguing at the same time, is that occasionally it's impossible to separate the off-field achievements from the on-field achievements, especially in Ali's case.
Justin
Guest
Sheek I was referring to Sugar Ray Robinson not Leonard. Sugar Ray Robinson Welterweight, middleweight Ring career: 1940-65 Record: 175-19-6-2 (109 KOs) Career notes: Won world welterweight title in December 1946, and defended it four times before stepping up in weight and winning, in 1951, first of five stints as middleweight champ. … Attempted to win light heavyweight title from Joey Maxim in 1952, but was stopped in the 14th round. … Born Walker Smith in Ailey, Ga. … Was the most complete boxer yet to grace the squared circle. … Lost just one of first 123 fights, to Jake LaMotta, a defeat avenged five times in a classic ring rivalry. … A near-perfect pugilist at welterweight, was less dominant at middleweight, but was still able to win the title five times, including three times after he had retired for two and a half years. … Only stoppage defeat was when challenging Maxim for light heavyweight crown, and then was leading on points until overcome by heat so extreme that it had forced the replacement of the referee in the 10th. From ESPN... And without sounding shallow I am judging by in competition deeds rather than how fine a person they are or were. That combination is another debate in itself!
sheek
Guest
Justin, Ali is a conundrum (riddle). To some purists, he isn't the greatest because he lacked pure punching power, & record of 56 wins from 61 fights is perhaps just below AAA rating. But hell, the positives. Lightning foot & hand speed, ring nous & a chin & body that could handle just about most punishment, making him almost technically perfect. He was also the master of mind games. Then there's his incredible moral as well as physical courage. The way he stood up to the US govt is really, really scary. How many of us could do that? Really do that? And in the ring he was willing to put everything on the line. Finally, he elevated boxing to a level unknown before & since. Maybe Sugar Ray Leonard (not Robinson, I think you meant) was in pure terms a better boxer, but Ali changed the world he lived in. He had an effect on people no other boxer can match. Whether that gives him the right to be called "the greatest" (boxer) is no doubt something that will continue to be debated. Getting back to Bradman, he's the game's greatest cricketer, let's leave it at that. Sure, Sobers is the world's greatest all-round cricketer, no doubt about that either. But consider this, Bradman isn't far off being two Sobers as a batsman. Now that's scary! Bradman played 52 tests, scoring 29 hundreds at an average of 99.94. Add 10 matches for The Rest Of The World, & Sobers would have played 103 tests, scoring 29 hundreds at around about 57. Bradman, 29 centuries in 52 tests. Sobers, 29 centuries in 103 tests. Scary!
Justin
Guest
Sheek I appreciate the detailed response and you did give a great insight as to why he is rated so highly. I understand that he is rated very highly in boxing history, however perhaps you summed it up best - "There have been stronger boxers than Ali, more naturally gifted, better pound for pound". From what I have read over the past day or so most regular people would regard Ali as the greatest boxer, however most boxing people would not, most citing Surgar Ray Robinson as the greatest. Ali is no doubt a great fighter and athlete but he is also the most famous due to his amazing personality and the way he is celebrated in the media. If he is not the greatest boxer then he surely cannot be judged as the greatest overall sportsmen. I am not trying to denigrate Ali or his achievements I am merely attempting to get an objective "ranking" on who the best of the best are.
Brian
Guest
Might I humbly suggest that our own Heather McKay (nee Blundell) must be rated our greatest sporting hero(ine)of all time having won the British Squash title (considered then as the World title) on 16 consecutive occasions. In 20 years at the top level of the sport she was defeated on only two occasions. How about For & Against showing a bit less sexual discrimination and raise her to the top of the podium. Cheers,
sheek
Guest
Justin, Some of my comments inaccurate. When Ali fought Frazier in 1971, it was his 3rd fight back after being banned. He lost 5 fights out of 61 professional bouts, including 3 of his last 4, which puts a perspective on things. Had he retired after winning the world heavyweight championship for the 3rd time, his record would have shown just 3 losses in 59 fights. Wikipedia do a very good article on him.
sheek
Guest
Justin, I thought I gave a fairly good effort of why Ali was rated so highly. The first time he ever lost was to Joe Frazier on points in his comeback fight (1971) after about 3.5 years of being banned from the ring. Mighty effort I think. The second time he lost was to Kenny Norton on points, who also was good enough to knockout Joe Frazier. By the time he lost his 3rd fight to one of the Spinks brothers (& the world heavyweight title for the 3rd time) he was past his prime, but regretfully failed to realise this. Rocky Marciano never lost a fight by comparison, & in a computerized TV fight conducted in the 1970s, narrowly beat Ali on points. Marciano fought in the 50s, Ali in the 60s & 70s. Being an undefeated boxer is not always a reliable guide. Look at how carefully Anthony Mundine's opponents have been selected for him, designed to give Mundine an artificially inflated record (although he lost one title fight badly). Ali was never afraid to put his reputation on the line against anyone. In his later declining years, this cost him his health. You have to look at the competition Ali had. Ali, Frazier, Foreman & Norton were all world heavyweight champions at some stage during the 70s, & all outstanding boxers. Ali was the weakest puncher of the 4, but the smartest mentally & quickest boxer on his feet. I'm told foot speed & body balance are absolutely essential qualities for a good boxer. The fight against Foreman was a bit like Italy's modern armoured army (Foreman) against Ethiopia's spears & arrows (Ali) in the 1930s. Foreman was a brute of a man, just like Mike Tyson in his youth, & nearly a decade younger than Ali. Believe me, the 'rope-a-dope' trick was one of the cleverest things any boxer has ever done. How would you handle a physically superior fighter in order to beat him (legally)? What would your tactics be? This was extraordinary on Ali's part. I have accepted the opinion of someone who used to box competitively as to how good he really was. Do yourself a favour, hire out "When We Were Kings" & watch. It might help you understand better.