Sir Donald Bradman’s Test batting average of 99.94 puts him in a league of his own – yet it seems not everyone is convinced of the great Australian’s unquestioned superiority over all other cricketers through the ages.
“The Don” made almost 40 runs per innings more than his nearest challenger in the all-time batting records, South African Graeme Pollock ‘trailing’ on 60.97 – just ahead of George Headley, the ‘Black Bradman’.
But those who have tried and failed – with great distinction nonetheless – to approach Bradman’s feats, appear to be collectively challenging his status as his and their sport’s unrivalled genius.
It is the passage of time which proves Bradman’s great adversary as 100 of the world’s best Test cricketers, past and present, pick their all-time greatest teams in ‘In a League of Their Own’ – published this month.
Whereas Bradman towers statistically over all-comers, he surprisingly makes only 53 per cent of the teams picked by a century of fantasy ‘selectors’ of combined world-class calibre and standing.
Far from his accustomed position furlongs clear of the field, Bradman is usurped in popularity and relegated to fifth spot – behind Garfield Sobers (73pct), Viv Richards (64), Shane Warne (61) and Sunil Gavaskar (58).
The rationale quoted by those who choose to omit him is that they cannot fairly select someone, even Bradman, if they did not see him play.
Bradman does, of course, take his place in the book’s all-time World XI – at his habitual No.3, in a team populated otherwise by players of more recent vintage.
Wicketkeeper Alan Knott is the only Englishman in that elite line-up, having appeared in 34 of the 100 teams – while Andrew Flintoff, who features in just one XI (chosen by Jacques Kallis), is the only player in the post-Ian Botham era to graduate from England.
The all-conquering West Indies era of the 1970s and `80s is especially well-represented – and it is one of the most feared performers from that time who cites what he perceives as a paucity of English talent as part of his rationale for leaving out both Bradman and Headley.
” … these two played in a time when cricket was limited globally,” said Colin Croft.
“Both have been highly favoured for runs made against England. But I ask you: When have England ever been the world’s best cricket team? Never!
“England may have invented the game, and its scribes may have conjured up a few heroes. But overall, England has been very poor indeed. Bradman and Headley were great in their time – but, for me, not of all time.”
Bayman
Guest
Sheek, I think you've just about covered it!
sheek
Guest
To be philosophical about this, history tells us where we came from, how we might deal with the present, & how we might prepare for the future. As the saying goes, "if we ignore history's lessons, we are apt to repeat its mistakes", or something similar. With anything delving into the past, & sport is no exception, we rely on the accurate observations of those who went before us. We have to take a lot on trust. We do so blindly with religion. So why do some question Bradman's exploits? The stats are there, unambiguous. Yes, Bradman batted in an era (30s & 40s) where the bat heavily dominated the ball. Great pacemen were thin on the ground. But even if you reduced Bradman's average by 20% to compensate, to around 80, he is still way ahead of everyone else. And what about today's above average batting stats? Batsmen have never had it so good. Full body & head protection, totally reducing the fear factor to zero. Generally even, placid pitches designed for run-making. Beautifully manicured outfields so the ball can race quickly to the boundary. The great Victor Trumper averaged less than 40 in test cricket, but an impressive average for his time (1899-1914). How he would have loved the full body & head protection of today's batsmen. The true, even pitches & manicured outfields of today. And covered pitches when it rained. Today's aficionados simply fail to appreciate how good today's cricketers get it compared to yesteryear.
Bayman
Guest
An intersting observation by Croft given the Windies era of dominance was about twenty years from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. Before that and after that, bugger all. Certainly they had their moments. A series win in 1950 in England heralded much hope for the future but by 1955 Australia was putting them to the sword despite the presence of the three Ws, Ramadhin, Valentine and an emerging Sobers. Curiously, I have found that most fans of the game, tragics if you will, have considerably more knowledge of the game's history that the players. Indeed, having written on the game, and the players, I have found that those players are generally the worst source of detailed, correct information, even regarding their own careers. Croft, it seems, is just another chip off the old players block. He can vaguely remember his own era, not too well, just enough to remember the Windies usually beat England. For reasons none of us can fathom, he hasn't thought too much about why Bradman averaged forty more than the next best - not just last season mind but since Test cricket began over 130 years ago. He also hasn't realised that Australia and England were the dominant teams for a century, until the rise of the Windies in the 1970s. Certainly, both West Indies and South Africa had their moments before then but not for the prolonged period of Australia and England. Certainly, while Bradman played predominantly against England he did play a series against each of West Indies, South Africa and India. Against the Windies his average was a paltry 74.50, against South Africa just 201.50 and against India a piddling 178.75. Probably just as well he played mainly against England. I am reminded of the story of Bradman being introduced to the Windies during a Test in Adelaide when Jones made a big 100, possibly 200, and big Merv Hughes made 70 odd. Patrick Patterson told Bradman that if he was playing today that he (Patterson) would kill him. Bradman, smiled and said, "I don't think so Patrick, you couldn't even get Merv Hughes out". Crofty, I suspect, thinks he's Patrick Paterson! The real surprise, though, is his opinion of Headley, a fellow West Indian. Just another example of the more modern player's lack of respect. People I've spoken to who saw Headley reckon he could play a bit. People whose opinions should be valued reckon he could play a bit. With relatively limited opportunities he averaged 60 in Test cricket which suggests, in an era of uncovered wickets etc., that he could play a bit. As for me, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if Croft is not prepared to do so. Headley, of course, virtually carried West Indian batting single-handedly in those days. He was clearly the absolute class player in the top order. He didn't have the benefits of a Llloyd, Kallicharran, Richards, Richardson etc. around him to make life easier. And still he averaged 60 with 10 Test hundreds in 40 innings (top score 270no). In all first class matches, 164 innings, 22 not out, 33 100s, 44 50s, top score 344no, average 69.86. Yep, I'm still inclined to think he could play a bit. Croft has done Headley a disservice in his assessment and his ignorance of Bradman is astounding until you realise he was a fast bowler - and that probably explains everything. What Croft knows about batting would probably fit on a postage stamp. Of course, if you're looking to clean up the umpire then Crofty's your man. That's something he does know about!