When Steve Smith made a century in the first innings at Edgbaston, he had brought up his 24th Test century in 118 innings.
It was faster than the three next best in Virat Kohli, Sachin Tendulkar and Sunil Gavaskar who each achieved the same feat in 123, 125 and 128 innings respectively. Then there was Don Bradman sitting away in the distance, who achieved the same feat from 66 innings. Out on his own, as usual.
When Smith finished his second innings century – another superb display to help Australia to a first Ashes Test win – he had accumulated the second most runs by anyone after 119 Test innings with a total of 6,485. This is ahead of Walter Hammond’s 6,440 runs on the list, who has been relegated to third spot.
Out in front was – you guessed it – Don Bradman on 6,996. Completed in only 80 innings.
Which other sport has the best player so far ahead of second best and virtually unreachable from the chasing pack?
Walter Hagen held the record for most golf majors for 44 years – with a total of 11 – but then Jack Nicklaus came along and took the record to 18. His record has stood for 46 years but will one day be beaten, if not by Tiger Woods then by someone else. It is not unbreakable.
Usain Bolt’s 2009 world record of 9.58 seconds for the 100 metres has stood for ten years, but whether it takes ten, 20 or 30 more years one day it will be broken. A swimmer who gets close to what Michael Phelps has achieved will one day come along – maybe not in this generation or the next – but he will come along one day.
But no cricketer who can match Bradman will ever play the sport again. His records are untouchable.
(Photo by S&G/PA Images via Getty Images)
Don Bradman had missed eight and a half years due to World War Two, but in his first Test back – in Brisbane in 1946 – he made 187. The bad news for England was he was just warming up. He went down to Sydney and made 234.
One way to look at Bradman’s records is to suggest he had very limited opposition to play against. Only England, and the inexperienced India, South Africa and West Indies teams.
However, Bradman’s average of just below 100 in Test cricket didn’t stop at that level. Over 234 first class matches he averaged 95.14. In Sheffield Shield cricket he averaged 110.19. He rarely took a day off, and made runs like nobody before or since.
The term ‘best since Bradman’ has become synonymous in cricket. Was Ricky Ponting Australia’s best since Bradman? Is Steve Smith the best batsman since Bradman? Whilst Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Richards, Gavaskar, Miandad, Ponting, Kohli and Smith are all compared with each other, nobody is comparable to Bradman.
So is having a player that far ahead of everyone else good for cricket? Is having the best that far ahead of second best a good thing, or did he ruin it for everyone else?
The positives could be that the modern day goat arguments don’t get played out so much. Federer, Nadal or Djokovic? Le Bron James or Michael Jordan? Tiger or Jack? Cricket has only one winner.
The name Bradman can travel in a similar way to how Wayne Gretzky travelled to non ice-hockey-playing nations. Even if you aren’t an ice hockey fan, there is a good chance you have heard of the Canadian. Bradman has helped non cricketing people come to know cricket.
He did make it hard for every other cricketer though. Nobody can match what he has done, as there will never be someone who averages 100 with the bat in cricket.
His unattainable records will remain that way, and for those of us who didn’t see him we can just sit and wonder – how in the world did he do it?
Nick
Roar Guru
Phelps is untouchable in terms of total gold medals. No one else will come close to that. Phil Taylor in Darts is unlikely to ever be challenged either...especially now that more people are playing darts professionally.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That's why I prefaced my opinion that it's irrelevant with the comment that it was subjective. I'm always happy to hear other opinions, that's why I like this site. I also like that my opinion might be considered by others when they form or express theirs.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
Yes, I guess it is a very modest claim.
Parer Ben
Roar Rookie
“Fairly well” lol!
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Just did the sums. For Smith to catch Bradman, he would effectively have to score a double hundred and finish not out in his next 19 innings. A slight better Smith surrounded by collapses.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Also consider the biggest disadvantage that Bradman had over today’s plays is covered wickets or the lack there of! Imagine coming out after a rain delay to a soggy wicket and having to play on it. That and helmets, shorter boundaries and huge bats.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
I was referring to the amount of Test cricket played at that time when using the term leisurely. I am not trying to put down Bradman, one measure of a great sportsman is to perform at a high level over a long time, and to perform at a high level when age would dictate that the sportsman was no longer physically capable of performing as well as in their peak years. Bradman achieved that. Smith has yet to play for long enough to be tested in the same manner. There is more money in modern sport than there was decades ago, but Bradman did fairly well for his time and good luck to him. A story that Bradman told several times, including to Tendulkar, when asked what he would average in the modern game was: "Fifty", "Only 50?" in response, "Well you must remember that I am 87 years old."
Parer Ben
Roar Rookie
But that’s my point you can’t compare eras but you can contemporaries. Bill Woodfull, a great batsman himself, enjoyed a 192 run partnership with Bradman, where the Don scored 142. As to the Dons professionalism, I don’t think he was particularly special in this regard. Was it more leisurely? Bodyline caused an international rift with direct communication between Prime Ministers. I don’t think you should underestimate the level of interest in cricket during Bradman’s era where shield games attracted 100,000 crowds.
Old mate
Roar Rookie
Good point. Bradman also has the highest median score
Onside
Guest
8 ball overs. lighter bats. uncovered pitches. a 4 had to actually hit the fence, a 6, clear it. the only protective clothing were flimsy batting gloves, pads, and a batting box . no front foot rule, meaning fast bowlers released the ball much closer to the batsman.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
You can certainly say that about Bradman. As with Pollock, it’s interesting to point out and to speculate. It can’t change the stats, but whether it’s “relevant” is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Howzat
Guest
Heather McKay (squash) lost 2 matches in her entire career and was undefeated from 1962 through to 1981 when she retired.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
As you say, it's subjective, however the figures don't lie, they can be admired. Whatifs on Pollock, BRichards and any player who had a career cut short aren't relevant. What if......the war didn't intervene, would we be talking about Bradman's duck, or would he have had an average of 120 and made 10,000 runs?
Aransan
Roar Rookie
Bradman scored 334 runs off 448 balls in 383 minutes, a strike rate of 74.6%. Smith, in two innings, scored 286 runs off 426 balls in 662 minutes, a strike rate of 67.1%. How would the pitches compare? What can be said is that modern bowling rates are much less than in Bradman’s time, there is no way Bradman could have scored 300 runs in a 90 over day. I am sure Bradman was the ultimate professional and ahead of his time in preparation and fitness. How would modern cricketers go in the former more leisurely environment? How would Bradman go in the modern game? These are questions with answers that can only be guessed at.
matth
Roar Guru
Interestingly the batting average for all players in cricket has remained relatively static through the eras since WWI in the low thirties. Makes Bradman even more of a statistical outlier.
Parer Ben
Roar Rookie
I don’t think you should use the argument about the standard of cricket when comparing eras because there are far too many variables, though I suspect when compared to contemporaries the Don was still leaps ahead. The biggest difference I see in eras is equipment and particularly helmets, bats and covers. In one sense I agree averages don’t tell the full story but they give comparative indications within the era. Compare Borders scores against the bowling attack of 80s Windies with a retirement/rebel tour ragtag Aussie team with the bowling that smith faces. Though I will acknowledge the post war England team was poor. As to the standard of the game, I’d argue it’s not a better standard now than in previous decades. T20, crowded tours, squashed domestic comps, declining crowds mean less focus on tests and talent lost to other sports. As to selfishness Bradman scored at a clip as the game dictated. His third test in England he had a hundred before lunch, 200 by tea, 288 at stumps and went out for 334. Bradman was not Lara.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
The medley records should last the longest. You can get strong swimmers in the individual strokes but he's the only one so far who is world class in all 4. The G.O.A.T, no doubt at all.
Targa
Guest
Don't count out Williamson either. His batting to tame and beat Pakistan with Yasir Shah on a UAE bunsen last year was pretty special.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
It will be interesting to see if Smith can finish his career with a 60+ ave U. There’s no way he’ll catch Bradman but if he can stay @ 60 or better that’s still a very special career.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Like the proposal. Would add in Sangakkara, who averaged 63 over his last 10 years when he has mostly stopped keeping. Actually for me, Smith doesn’t rate with Sobers or Richards at their best. It’s all hypothetical, but many think Graeme Pollock would have finished with an average ahead of what Smith had now, given he was already averaging 61 when he played his last Test aged only 26. And the Australians like Hogg or Alderman who got thrashed around by Pollock when he was over 40 during the rebel tours to SA in the mid-80s would agree. As for Barry Richards, who knows? He could take on the best bowlers in the world and dominate them, like Pollock, Richards and Sobers. In a way that Smith hasn’t. E.g averaging 24 in the South African series last year. AB de Villiers, who averaged 70 against a very strong Aussie attack on sometimes helpful pitches, looked like the best batsman in the world then. Will be interesting to see if Smith can match what Kohli did against England last year across a whole series, against an attack with Anderson at his best.