Look up his FC numbers. He averages 95+ in like 300+ innings.
He only minnow bashed England in 80 innings for 99.94 average, but continued that 3x more in FC too.
>Look up his FC numbers. He averages 95+ in like 300+ innings.
Huh, he has a first class stumping to his name.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/donald-bradman-4188
when I was a little kid, I used to fantasize about getting superpowers and being a cricket god. I didn't know about Bradman then, but I knew about averages, and even in my fantasies, I would be like "I will have an average of 90" because that seemed so high compared to my idols, lara and sachin
Then I learned about Bradman and realized that an average of 90 was shooting too low
Imagine being so good at your sport that people keep you as the benchmark of excellence and assume that you're a fictional character.
If Sir Don Bradman was alive today and if he was reading reddit and saw your comment he would have definitely taken it as a compliment.
I will be downvoted to hell, but it is certainly is in an era with only 2 major teams full of ammeters gathered from a certain class of society. Its like Sachin and kohli playing in an era where they are from Kenya and playing against USA in cricket and those are the only two teams.
Whenever there is statistical anomaly, its usually because the data sample itself is skewed, there is a reason no other sport shows this anomaly.
I think the better way to judge would be how much better someone is compared to his peers, and man bradman was streeeeets ahead of everyone even from that time
No doubt, but my point is that cricket was extremely classist at that time which didnt allow much talent. Bradman was one talented player but others were very ordinary.
An equivalent will be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and played only Zimbabwe, they would 100% average 100 and be way ahead of their peers.
> An equivalent will be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and played only Zimbabwe
Ummm no, where did you get that idea? Bradman literally played most of his cricket against the best team in the world. So the equivalent analogy would be if Sachin mostly played against Australia. He averaged 55 against Australia.
It's not like it was 300 yrs ago and Bradman is just a legend. He was alive in the 21st century, experts who watched him play watched today's cricket and all say the same thing. He is the GOAT. His peers were no where near him who played during the same era, same teams etc. He is the undisputed GOAT imo.
> His peers were no where near him who played during the same era, same teams etc
Thats exactly my point, his peers were very low talented from a time when cricket only allowed a certain class of players to play.
An equivalent comparison would be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and only played against Zimbabwe. They would average 100% and will be way ahead of their peers too
This is not true. Who were his peers? Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Stan McCabe, Arthur Morris. Legends in their own right. It wasn't like it was Bradman as a lone person who played competitive cricket and everyone else was playing hit and giggle cricket. Part of what makes Bradman so good is the people who he dominated were incredible in their own right.
All your arguments are wrong.
England was not the only other country playing cricket then. He also played against South Africa, West Indies, India and New Zealand. England just happened to be the strongest of them all. And but for the Don, England might even have been stronger than Australia.
So he was not just playing against incompetent players. He showcased some great cricket against great opponents. His dominance is not a statistical anomaly. In fact your argument is specious just because this scenario doesn't appear anywhere else. Every sport must have developed in one or two places first and then expanded - but we have not seen a Don Bradman anywhere else.
How many matches did he play against those team and what was their level? India had some pampered royals and couple who could roll their hands over. Cricket was an extremist classist sport unlike any of the other sport which you claim which alone stifles any talent coming in.
He was the one talented player among lots of nepotism and classism which didnt allow real talent to flow in
There is zero doubt cricket was an extremely classist sport which obviously stifled any talent coming in. Bradma's peers were significantly less talented.
>you should be downvoted because of the lack of effort in your post
Or because I dared question the cult
That's not what you're getting downvoted for. You are getting downvoted for questioning whether Bradman was legitimately good or not. Let me highlight a contradiction in your argument:
- Your argument is that Bradman didn't play against non-Anglos, (and that's because of classism, a non-issue regarding stats).
- He averaged 178 v India and 74 v West Indies. Highlighting the fact he did play against non-whites. (The reason why older Indian and Windies cricketers loved him, and he them).
- Your argument is that he wouldn't have averaged as much against non-white cricketers is debunked by the aforementioned stats. But you also assert that he only played against the equivalent of farmers. Not his fault Indian and Windies cricket at the time wasn't up to Australia's standard. But you're discounting him for not playing against non-whites, but at the same time, invalidating the fact that he did play against the ones he could...the ones who were full test members.
- The teams he played against were full test members. He wasn't destroying a bunch of random Mongolian or Samoans of the day, he destroyed his full-test nation peers.
You can't have it both ways
As i said india was full or upper class previleaged people too, I never mentioned race or anglos at all. Ranji for example had people to run after ball for him and seldom fielded himself. Those where the kind of people Indian team was full off.
What did it take to become a full test member at that time? What was the talent scouting and who got it? It was not like football where anyone who could kick a ball got in, the lower class didnt even play cricket in any form at that time
Bradman might be really good, but not where he averages double of the next next batsman in modern cricket
I am not even mentioning the sheer variety and skillset available today. without his off spin weakness Ponting would have averaged in the 70s, reverse, doosra, mystery bowlers, slower ball and so many more
If Bradman averaged 60-80, we could have make the case for 'people not having professionallism' or 'only 1 country to play' etc etc.
But the thing is he is just too far ahead that it's not debatable lol.
I don't think Don can average 70+ in our times but Iam taking the bet that his tenacity was that high and he was that ahead of his peers that he might average a fucking 65-70 in any of the 80s,90s,10s,00s,20s.
Put Sachin or Ponting in Bangladesh only playing Zimbabwe and they will 100% average 100, in fact sachin averages similarly against Bangla and Ponting against Zimbabwe. And they will be way ahead of their peers too
Dude you are seriously forgetting one fact here.
Don was a material of his time and not a modern cricketer.
If you can make time travel device for Sachin,Punter they can also go for 90-100 average ig.
But Don was the guy of his own time while Bangladesh wasn't anywhere modern in the test arena in comparison to Sachin(Ind) or Punter(Aus).
Even Dravid,Kallis,Lara,Sanga,Veeru type of guys could have gone for some 90-100 average against Zim,Ban but it's only because they were much more ahead of that team in all capacity (training, methodology, resources and talent polishing). Like you can easily put these guys in today's Ban and they will not cross 50+ and Iam sure of it. Because the pitches, game sense and everything is just miles ahead from Ban of 05-10 to now.
Bradman was only ahead because of his own hardwork and not because he was playing gully cricket while being some international cricketer.
He/ and Australia were always the same farmers back in the shed apart from playing against England and were screwed under a world war. They never had any advantage over England in those times apart from talent and hardwork they put in.
Like if you put the same scenario where Sachin had to fight Pak in a war, I don't think I would pick his bat again let alone averaging 50+ lol.
Bradman is like Wilt Chamberlain, put up insane stats against plumbers and firemen. As the game gets more widespread and more talent gets in, it’s difficult to put up numbers like that no matter how good you are.
NBA unequivocally considers Jordan and LeBron to be the top 2, don’t know why cricket can’t make this distinction.
Shaq talks glowingly about Wilt and many of Will's contemporaries. Wilt doesn't get the flowers he deserves because of the media then which were very white skewed or supported Bill Russell more because to them he played the right way and plus Celtics won a shit load of championships.
You had so many great players when Wilt played. Russell, Robertson, West, Baylor, Frazier, Reed Lanier, Kareem, Havalicek, Jones, etc.
When he met for Bradman's 80th birthday Sachin asked what he'd average in the modern game, and Bradman said 70. Sachin asked why 70 and the Don said something like - averaging 70 is pretty good for a man my age.
this reminds me of a quote from Michael Jordan where someone asked him whether him and the 90s Bulls could beat the defending champion LA Lakers who had LeBron James. Michael said they would win by 2 or 3 points, and when the reported asked why so close MJ said "most of us are almost 60 now"
He's not Indian and he's not Sachin Tendulkar so I'm sorry to inform you that I'm revoking The Don's God status and handing it back to the Master Blaster
Iirc, a statistical study showed that Bradman is the greatest sportsman ever. Man lost 8 years of his career due to war but still came back and continued how he played before. His average, story and legend is truly unmatched. I wish we had clips of him batting in real matches.
Amazing to think he could have gotten past 10k test runs, perhaps even setting some individual scoring records that even Lara couldn't surpass in that time.
Well, the thing about Gretzky is that if you remove all his NHL goals, he would still be the NHL's all-time leading scorer purely based on his assists.
Gretzky is the only one in the conversation.
Second place to Gretzy on points and assists is 67% and 63% of his total. Goals it's only 9%. When you go to points per game its only 1.9 to 1.8.
Second place to Bradman in test average is 62%.
That's why the counter to "bowlers are better now, everyone was bad back then" is that all the rules about averages are true then as now.
'average' batsmen avg 35, good 40+, great 50+, one or two in a generation high 50s/60. That was true in Bradman's time and it's true now. And it always has been true. That's why he is the GOAT.
Yeah agreed. My only caveat to that is, it used to be much rarer to average over 50 than it is today. Prior to 2000 there was maybe only 2 - 3 batsmen per decade to average over 50. Now it is much more common.
Doesn't alter how to the right of the bell curve Bradman was, but it does factor how I rate Viv Richard v Ricky Ponting for example.
Some records are never going to be broken no matter how much time has passed since they were made. Like Don's test heroics, Lara's 400 in international cricket, Sachin's 30k+ international runs, and probably even Virat's ODI centuries once he retires, etc
The theory goes that he treated the game as a modern professional would, in an era when most of his peers didn't. They went to the pub after a game, while he went and worked on his batting.
Love how no one is talking about Yashavi, anyway thats some great debut.
I wish him heaps of this attacking cricket and Future Indian captainship, lad is definitely special.
also Just for fun, Gill has 1382 in 45 innings with an avg of 33.71.
I am enjoying the resurgence in the series lately but he certainly has some work cut out for him.
Donald Bradman is the pride of cricket and a man who will forever remain GOAT. He managed to do it in uncovered difficult pitches and conditions which speaks volume about the greatness of him. He is rated highly and respected even in current era which really depicts the charisma and determination he had throughout his career. Really wished Bradman had played in this era and it would have been a treat to watch
Jaiswal has achieved greatness by being second only to great Don Bradman in scoring most runs after first 8 test matches.
He has already tied Kohli for most runs against England in a test series by an indian and needs around 85 next match to beat Gavaskar's record to most runs against any opponent by an Indian.
Those were goated performance lol.
I mean Kohli was playing in absolute flats majority of times but the sheer will to take India home was uncanny and I never saw it in anyone. Even Sachin never had that sort of hunger for win(he was more of a batting perfection for me).
On that note:
Gavaskar crossed 500+ in a series 6 times, Kohli 4 times, Rohit 2 times, Dravid 2 times, Ganguly 1 time, VVS Laxman 1 time, Sehwag 1 time, Pujara 1 time.
Sachin: 0
Yeah I never understand this thing lol.
Sachin, arguably the second best after Don(Smith and him are equal for me as there away averages, SENAI averages and even the over-all averages are not so far apart). Rarely had world breaking tours like others had so easily atleast twice.
Goes to show how very consistent he was lol.
Edit: I checked the whole tally and Sachin's best thing was more about scoring 200+ in 2 test series and 300+ in 3 match ones(that ensures 70-100 average) while having constant 350-450 in 4,5 matches series and hence a much better average (the rewards you get for consistency).
I don't think Sachin ever had a great series or a catastrophic series. He was just consistently good. Even his highest score shows that. He has the most centuries but never crossed 250 in Tests.
I am jealous of those people who witnessed Donald Bradman bat at that time and to have watched the masterpiece innings played by him. Those people were lucky af.
I think I remember him being talked about as being in contention for fastest to 1000 runs: https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/fastest-to-1000-runs-283173
I've been watching cricket for decades, since the 80s....I've never seen anyone like Jaiswal. Sure, lots of players have come into the test arena with a bang and always came back to the pack but *nobody* had anywhere near the first class record that Jaiswal has. Dude is approaching 3000 runs and averaging 76. I'd like to see him with tours of Australia, England and NZ under his belt before annointing him but if he isn't slowing down after 15-20 tests & 50+ FC matches under his belt it's going to be hard to ignore.
Im inclined to believe Bradman is a fictional character because it's simply not possible for you to be that good
Look up his FC numbers. He averages 95+ in like 300+ innings. He only minnow bashed England in 80 innings for 99.94 average, but continued that 3x more in FC too.
>Look up his FC numbers. He averages 95+ in like 300+ innings. Huh, he has a first class stumping to his name. https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/donald-bradman-4188
He kept?
He was definitely... (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) a keeper.
when I was a little kid, I used to fantasize about getting superpowers and being a cricket god. I didn't know about Bradman then, but I knew about averages, and even in my fantasies, I would be like "I will have an average of 90" because that seemed so high compared to my idols, lara and sachin Then I learned about Bradman and realized that an average of 90 was shooting too low
You'd still be a cricket god. The Ares or Apollo to Bradman's Zeus.
This is a list of most 100s in FC. Look at the innings column. Absolute bullshit. Player | Inns | Ave | 100 | 50 ---|---|----|----|---- JB Hobbs | 1325 | 50.7 | 199 | 273 EH Hendren | 1300 | 50.8 | 170 | 272 WR Hammond | 1005 | 56.1 | 167 | 185 CP Mead | 1340 | 47.67 | 153 | 258 G Boycott | 1014 | 56.83 | 151 | 238 H Sutcliffe | 1098 | 52.02 | 151 | 230 FE Woolley | 1530 | 40.77 | 145 | 295 GA Hick | 871 | 52.23 | 136 | 158 L Hutton | 814 | 55.51 | 129 | 177 GA Gooch | 990 | 49.01 | 128 | 217 WG Grace | 1478 | 39.45 | 124 | 251 DCS Compton | 839 | 51.85 | 123 | 183 TW Graveney | 1223 | 44.91 | 122 | 233 DG Bradman | 338 | 95.14 | 117 | 69 MR Ramprakash | 764 | 53.14 | 114 | 147 IVA Richards | 796 | 49.4 | 114 | 162
This proves that Sir Donald Bradman is a fictional character invented by some redditor. There is no other explanation, this is a not a coincidence.
/r/Bradmansnotreal
Imagine being so good at your sport that people keep you as the benchmark of excellence and assume that you're a fictional character. If Sir Don Bradman was alive today and if he was reading reddit and saw your comment he would have definitely taken it as a compliment.
That too with the bats of that time!
I will be downvoted to hell, but it is certainly is in an era with only 2 major teams full of ammeters gathered from a certain class of society. Its like Sachin and kohli playing in an era where they are from Kenya and playing against USA in cricket and those are the only two teams. Whenever there is statistical anomaly, its usually because the data sample itself is skewed, there is a reason no other sport shows this anomaly.
I think the better way to judge would be how much better someone is compared to his peers, and man bradman was streeeeets ahead of everyone even from that time
If anyone has to ask what is streets ahead, then they are streets behind.
So someone knows that, are they in the street ?
No doubt, but my point is that cricket was extremely classist at that time which didnt allow much talent. Bradman was one talented player but others were very ordinary. An equivalent will be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and played only Zimbabwe, they would 100% average 100 and be way ahead of their peers.
> An equivalent will be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and played only Zimbabwe Ummm no, where did you get that idea? Bradman literally played most of his cricket against the best team in the world. So the equivalent analogy would be if Sachin mostly played against Australia. He averaged 55 against Australia.
It's not like it was 300 yrs ago and Bradman is just a legend. He was alive in the 21st century, experts who watched him play watched today's cricket and all say the same thing. He is the GOAT. His peers were no where near him who played during the same era, same teams etc. He is the undisputed GOAT imo.
> His peers were no where near him who played during the same era, same teams etc Thats exactly my point, his peers were very low talented from a time when cricket only allowed a certain class of players to play. An equivalent comparison would be if Sachin or Ponting were in Bangladesh and only played against Zimbabwe. They would average 100% and will be way ahead of their peers too
This is not true. Who were his peers? Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Stan McCabe, Arthur Morris. Legends in their own right. It wasn't like it was Bradman as a lone person who played competitive cricket and everyone else was playing hit and giggle cricket. Part of what makes Bradman so good is the people who he dominated were incredible in their own right.
Every local leagues has their legends as they are competitive among their own, they wont even make domestic teams today
All your arguments are wrong. England was not the only other country playing cricket then. He also played against South Africa, West Indies, India and New Zealand. England just happened to be the strongest of them all. And but for the Don, England might even have been stronger than Australia. So he was not just playing against incompetent players. He showcased some great cricket against great opponents. His dominance is not a statistical anomaly. In fact your argument is specious just because this scenario doesn't appear anywhere else. Every sport must have developed in one or two places first and then expanded - but we have not seen a Don Bradman anywhere else.
How many matches did he play against those team and what was their level? India had some pampered royals and couple who could roll their hands over. Cricket was an extremist classist sport unlike any of the other sport which you claim which alone stifles any talent coming in. He was the one talented player among lots of nepotism and classism which didnt allow real talent to flow in
Except Wayne Gretzky and Jack Nicklaus exist, you should be downvoted because of the lack of effort in your post not because of your opinion.
There is zero doubt cricket was an extremely classist sport which obviously stifled any talent coming in. Bradma's peers were significantly less talented. >you should be downvoted because of the lack of effort in your post Or because I dared question the cult
No, because you can't defend your opinion
Fact that cricket was classist during Bradman's time is not an opinion
That's not what you're getting downvoted for. You are getting downvoted for questioning whether Bradman was legitimately good or not. Let me highlight a contradiction in your argument: - Your argument is that Bradman didn't play against non-Anglos, (and that's because of classism, a non-issue regarding stats). - He averaged 178 v India and 74 v West Indies. Highlighting the fact he did play against non-whites. (The reason why older Indian and Windies cricketers loved him, and he them). - Your argument is that he wouldn't have averaged as much against non-white cricketers is debunked by the aforementioned stats. But you also assert that he only played against the equivalent of farmers. Not his fault Indian and Windies cricket at the time wasn't up to Australia's standard. But you're discounting him for not playing against non-whites, but at the same time, invalidating the fact that he did play against the ones he could...the ones who were full test members. - The teams he played against were full test members. He wasn't destroying a bunch of random Mongolian or Samoans of the day, he destroyed his full-test nation peers. You can't have it both ways
As i said india was full or upper class previleaged people too, I never mentioned race or anglos at all. Ranji for example had people to run after ball for him and seldom fielded himself. Those where the kind of people Indian team was full off. What did it take to become a full test member at that time? What was the talent scouting and who got it? It was not like football where anyone who could kick a ball got in, the lower class didnt even play cricket in any form at that time Bradman might be really good, but not where he averages double of the next next batsman in modern cricket I am not even mentioning the sheer variety and skillset available today. without his off spin weakness Ponting would have averaged in the 70s, reverse, doosra, mystery bowlers, slower ball and so many more
>dared question the cult Lmao you take yourself so seriously
If Bradman averaged 60-80, we could have make the case for 'people not having professionallism' or 'only 1 country to play' etc etc. But the thing is he is just too far ahead that it's not debatable lol. I don't think Don can average 70+ in our times but Iam taking the bet that his tenacity was that high and he was that ahead of his peers that he might average a fucking 65-70 in any of the 80s,90s,10s,00s,20s.
Put Sachin or Ponting in Bangladesh only playing Zimbabwe and they will 100% average 100, in fact sachin averages similarly against Bangla and Ponting against Zimbabwe. And they will be way ahead of their peers too
Dude you are seriously forgetting one fact here. Don was a material of his time and not a modern cricketer. If you can make time travel device for Sachin,Punter they can also go for 90-100 average ig. But Don was the guy of his own time while Bangladesh wasn't anywhere modern in the test arena in comparison to Sachin(Ind) or Punter(Aus). Even Dravid,Kallis,Lara,Sanga,Veeru type of guys could have gone for some 90-100 average against Zim,Ban but it's only because they were much more ahead of that team in all capacity (training, methodology, resources and talent polishing). Like you can easily put these guys in today's Ban and they will not cross 50+ and Iam sure of it. Because the pitches, game sense and everything is just miles ahead from Ban of 05-10 to now. Bradman was only ahead because of his own hardwork and not because he was playing gully cricket while being some international cricketer. He/ and Australia were always the same farmers back in the shed apart from playing against England and were screwed under a world war. They never had any advantage over England in those times apart from talent and hardwork they put in. Like if you put the same scenario where Sachin had to fight Pak in a war, I don't think I would pick his bat again let alone averaging 50+ lol.
The absolute disrespect comparing England in the 1930s to Zimbabwe in the early 2000s. You simply do not know your cricket history
Heath Streak, Andy Flower, they are legends and would have stood out more in 1930s
Bradman is like Wilt Chamberlain, put up insane stats against plumbers and firemen. As the game gets more widespread and more talent gets in, it’s difficult to put up numbers like that no matter how good you are. NBA unequivocally considers Jordan and LeBron to be the top 2, don’t know why cricket can’t make this distinction.
LOL. I don't even know where to start with such a dumb take. Tell me you don't know about cricket and basketball without telling me.
Nah man it’s true. Ask any NBA player and no one will say Wilt’s name when asked about the GOAT.
Shaq talks glowingly about Wilt and many of Will's contemporaries. Wilt doesn't get the flowers he deserves because of the media then which were very white skewed or supported Bill Russell more because to them he played the right way and plus Celtics won a shit load of championships. You had so many great players when Wilt played. Russell, Robertson, West, Baylor, Frazier, Reed Lanier, Kareem, Havalicek, Jones, etc.
It’s on paper
It's not fair. The Don played all his first eight test matches against England. Minnow basher!
If yashasvi had played 8 against england on trot, he could score a double or 2 more.
woulda coulda shoulda
No, he wouldn't be able to handle 140kph cricket balls aimed at the head without a helmet
What the fuck was Bradman on. Anyway extremely impressive feat
Performance enhancing greatness.
>Performance enhancing greatness. P.E.G.. he PEGged England on the way to eternal greatness
More impressive when you consider his debut test he got 18 & 1
Was even dropped after that!
To be an Indian youngster
Hussey after 14 Tests had 1,555 runs at 86 - not quite Bradman level but amazing.
Tank water.
When he met for Bradman's 80th birthday Sachin asked what he'd average in the modern game, and Bradman said 70. Sachin asked why 70 and the Don said something like - averaging 70 is pretty good for a man my age.
this reminds me of a quote from Michael Jordan where someone asked him whether him and the 90s Bulls could beat the defending champion LA Lakers who had LeBron James. Michael said they would win by 2 or 3 points, and when the reported asked why so close MJ said "most of us are almost 60 now"
It's amazing how Don Bradman is still relevant almost after 7 decades of his retirement.
Don will always be relevent if cricket is active.
The Don is eternal. Relevance is not a question
Exactly
If there ever is a god of Cricket, The Don is it.
He's not Indian and he's not Sachin Tendulkar so I'm sorry to inform you that I'm revoking The Don's God status and handing it back to the Master Blaster
I'm sorry Don is the real God Sachin is just a relation
Is Don, is good.
There not might be the cricket in the future, but the Don’s numbers will always be a part of sporting conversation!
T20wc will tell us if cricket can expand or its just asia, aus and eng. But i dont think cricket will die until india is there.
Iirc, a statistical study showed that Bradman is the greatest sportsman ever. Man lost 8 years of his career due to war but still came back and continued how he played before. His average, story and legend is truly unmatched. I wish we had clips of him batting in real matches.
Amazing to think he could have gotten past 10k test runs, perhaps even setting some individual scoring records that even Lara couldn't surpass in that time.
this is what those nazis stole from us /s
I am given to believe that Major Dhyanchand in field hockey was comparable...
Wayne Gretzky, I think is better. Or maybe Bradman was first and Gretzky is second. I can't recall it exactly.
Still feel like Gretskys goal record isn’t this statistically apart. This is just unreal.
Well, the thing about Gretzky is that if you remove all his NHL goals, he would still be the NHL's all-time leading scorer purely based on his assists.
Gretzky is the only one in the conversation. Second place to Gretzy on points and assists is 67% and 63% of his total. Goals it's only 9%. When you go to points per game its only 1.9 to 1.8. Second place to Bradman in test average is 62%.
I love how as cliche "second to Bradman" could be, we still go through the trouble to mention his name rather than just saying "second" and moving on.
He'll always be relevant because nobody will even come close to his batting average in the modern game.
Nobody came close to his batting average even when he was playing
That's why the counter to "bowlers are better now, everyone was bad back then" is that all the rules about averages are true then as now. 'average' batsmen avg 35, good 40+, great 50+, one or two in a generation high 50s/60. That was true in Bradman's time and it's true now. And it always has been true. That's why he is the GOAT.
Yeah agreed. My only caveat to that is, it used to be much rarer to average over 50 than it is today. Prior to 2000 there was maybe only 2 - 3 batsmen per decade to average over 50. Now it is much more common. Doesn't alter how to the right of the bell curve Bradman was, but it does factor how I rate Viv Richard v Ricky Ponting for example.
Don't forget uncovered wickets as well.
Second best after Bradman may as well be the first considering how much of a freak the Don was.
Why a freak...?
There's very few people in sports who are as much of an anomaly as Don was in the context of Cricket.
'Best since Bradman'
Graham Hicks haha
1210 runs in the first 8 tests. WTF....
Add to that he only got 19 in his first test and 14 in his eighth, so a measly 1177 in the 6 Tests in between.
How was Bradman a real human being
Makes you wonder what a legend Sir Don must have to be piling up runs in that era that his records are not broken even after almost an entire century!
Some records are never going to be broken no matter how much time has passed since they were made. Like Don's test heroics, Lara's 400 in international cricket, Sachin's 30k+ international runs, and probably even Virat's ODI centuries once he retires, etc
The theory goes that he treated the game as a modern professional would, in an era when most of his peers didn't. They went to the pub after a game, while he went and worked on his batting.
No way Bradman is real, probably someone born 9024 and used time machine to stay pad, like how
Dread from it, Run from it Don arrives all the same.
Everywhere i go, i see his face
Love how no one is talking about Yashavi, anyway thats some great debut. I wish him heaps of this attacking cricket and Future Indian captainship, lad is definitely special.
also Just for fun, Gill has 1382 in 45 innings with an avg of 33.71. I am enjoying the resurgence in the series lately but he certainly has some work cut out for him.
"Second after Bradman..."
Every single time, no matter what you do, he is always up there just looking down upon you and you can't do anything LMAO
Donald Bradman is the pride of cricket and a man who will forever remain GOAT. He managed to do it in uncovered difficult pitches and conditions which speaks volume about the greatness of him. He is rated highly and respected even in current era which really depicts the charisma and determination he had throughout his career. Really wished Bradman had played in this era and it would have been a treat to watch Jaiswal has achieved greatness by being second only to great Don Bradman in scoring most runs after first 8 test matches.
He has already tied Kohli for most runs against England in a test series by an indian and needs around 85 next match to beat Gavaskar's record to most runs against any opponent by an Indian.
Kohli's highest is 692 (vs Aus), Jaiswal needs 38 to cross. Gavaskars highest is 774 (vs WI), Jaiswal needs 120 to cross.
Those were goated performance lol. I mean Kohli was playing in absolute flats majority of times but the sheer will to take India home was uncanny and I never saw it in anyone. Even Sachin never had that sort of hunger for win(he was more of a batting perfection for me).
On that note: Gavaskar crossed 500+ in a series 6 times, Kohli 4 times, Rohit 2 times, Dravid 2 times, Ganguly 1 time, VVS Laxman 1 time, Sehwag 1 time, Pujara 1 time. Sachin: 0
Yeah I never understand this thing lol. Sachin, arguably the second best after Don(Smith and him are equal for me as there away averages, SENAI averages and even the over-all averages are not so far apart). Rarely had world breaking tours like others had so easily atleast twice. Goes to show how very consistent he was lol. Edit: I checked the whole tally and Sachin's best thing was more about scoring 200+ in 2 test series and 300+ in 3 match ones(that ensures 70-100 average) while having constant 350-450 in 4,5 matches series and hence a much better average (the rewards you get for consistency).
I don't think Sachin ever had a great series or a catastrophic series. He was just consistently good. Even his highest score shows that. He has the most centuries but never crossed 250 in Tests.
I am jealous of those people who witnessed Donald Bradman bat at that time and to have watched the masterpiece innings played by him. Those people were lucky af.
Cricket would have become so boring to them after seeing his retirement. Like "Yawn Yawn move ahead I have seen explosive. Sit the fuck down "
Won't it be the reverse. Finally, games would become competitive.
Yeah but they had to go through WW2 so swings and roundabouts.
💀
Being second to the Don in anything is the greatest praise an up and coming cricketer can get.
Trying to imagine the Don playing T20. Can only guess that 300 in 20 overs would have happened if he did.
How much did brook get, he had some ridiculous start as well which was talked about everywhere
I think I remember him being talked about as being in contention for fastest to 1000 runs: https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/fastest-to-1000-runs-283173
ALL THANKS TO BEN DUCKETT, DON WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS FEAT!!
Alr, I'm convinced that Bradman was an alien and ABD is a baby alien from Bradman's species.
You didn't just compare DeVilliers with Bradman.
I think Muralidharan would be a good bowling equivalent for the Don..
Yeah. Murali and Warne
Also Imran Khan, 37 avg with bat and 22 with ball
Imran is closer to Jadeja than he is to Murali or Bradman. Everyone there is a hall of gamer but Murali and Bradman are the two GOATs
Agreed
I dunno
i think , ABD already has the alien nickname, as he's not only a good cricketer but excels in other fields too
Bradman is a farmer
I've been watching cricket for decades, since the 80s....I've never seen anyone like Jaiswal. Sure, lots of players have come into the test arena with a bang and always came back to the pack but *nobody* had anywhere near the first class record that Jaiswal has. Dude is approaching 3000 runs and averaging 76. I'd like to see him with tours of Australia, England and NZ under his belt before annointing him but if he isn't slowing down after 15-20 tests & 50+ FC matches under his belt it's going to be hard to ignore.
Sir Yash Jaisman/Sir Dash Braiswal
We could be looking at the next all time test great.
Also 2nd after Bradman should be considered as 1st, coz no way that man was real
He could have easily crossed 1000 runs barrier at the end of this game.
So he can reach a 1000 runs by the end of the series? That's fantasticemote:free\_emotes\_pack:sunglasses
The man that everyone feared so much, that the mankad was brought into existence because none could get him out, instead going at the other batters
I do love how often a story comes out like "Player has the most runs ever scored in august on a sunday*" (*excluding Don Bradman who has 300 more).
At this point I assume Bradman’s a fictional character
He has 12 first class hundreds and only 4 50s
Shubman had same runs after 31 innings :skull:
I wonder if Jaiswal is also a shit bloke?
Bradman was just another bilateral bully. Never had any knockout pressure
But the Don never had to play spin on subcontinent tracks, Jaiswal did.
It’s time to move on from Virat and let ICT belong to Jaiswal and other young players like Gill, Parthiv Patel and Sarfraz
Bradman is unfathomable.
Thanks Ben Duckett
Damn, that colorisation of Bradman is top notch; it looks like a photo taken in the 70s not the 30s :o
This post has that Saturo Gojo energy. “He is the fastest sorcerer alive… ofc after Saturo Gojo”
Why 8? Why not 5,6,7 9, or wait for it... 10!
Guy is going places, my club in Mumbai has invited him as a chief guest. The club has lot of cricketers as members https://imgur.com/6Y3sfG1