Greatest ODI XI of all-time

[sussexpob]

I think you're manipulating things, sussex. Why did no other player average 99 over 50 odd tests? Yes, Morris, Harvey etc had sublime years, like players do now, but Bradman sustained it, plus lost arguably his best years thanks to the war. Plus he batted with more pressure than any other player in history, including Tendulkar. For me, he's the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the best sportsman of all time.

He sustained it for all those years because, by the end, he was playing an England team that were destroyed by war and its results. Bradman lost his peak years to war, some England players just lost ALL of their years in anything, I find it a little disrespectful that people forget that. Bradman got an honourable discharged and spent the war playing a businessman while others were taking bullets, the war if anything was kind to him.

And as stated above, England were only playing in 1946 (and arguably even 1948) as an open and deliberate goodwill gesture, you have to think that for political reasons the "Empire and Commonwealth" question was ringing out after WWII, so England threw together a list of names they thought would be popular to bring positivity to a post-world war tour that had arguably the potential for serious political ramifications. I mean, had another bodyline series occurred in 1946 from England's bowlers, the political results that could have caused could have been utterly devastating.

And I fail to see how Bradman was under the same pressure as Tendulkar.... Tendulkar played 550 more International matches then Tendulkar, 1050% percent more, for a country of 1.1 billion cricket mad fans, in an era of live television and global interest.... Bradman played for a country of 15 million people, do the maths, come on!!

Bradman never played in Asia or Windies....
Bradman never played more than a handful of international each year, Tendulkar probably played upto 50 in a year at times...
Bradman never landed for a tour and was in a test match 3 days later.... Tendulkar never had 3 months of FC matches before every test to work out the conditions...

These are luxuries that favour Bradman imo

[sussexpob]

think Bradman did average ok in the Bodyline series. It is a sign of his preeminence that an opposition team would devise such a controversial strategy. One that batters subsequently haven't had to face.

The MCC outlawed fast leg theory, and any bowler bowling bouncers before the WWII would be dropped and disgraced..... however, it is duly noted that this only lasted till 1946 under Bradman's instructions, when Australia began to bowl sustained periods of fast and short bouncers to English batsman, which continued into the 1948 series. Walter Hammond was more than mildly annoyed by it, but on the basis of a "goodwill series" he did not complain about it to sour the mood between the teams.

After that from 1950 England followed suit, as did other teams.

[Gingerfinch]

I think you're manipulating things, sussex. Why did no other player average 99 over 50 odd tests? Yes, Morris, Harvey etc had sublime years, like players do now, but Bradman sustained it, plus lost arguably his best years thanks to the war. Plus he batted with more pressure than any other player in history, including Tendulkar. For me, he's the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the best sportsman of all time.

He sustained it for all those years because, by the end, he was playing an England team that were destroyed by war and its results. Bradman lost his peak years to war, some England players just lost ALL of their years in anything, I find it a little disrespectful that people forget that. Bradman got an honourable discharged and spent the war playing a businessman while others were taking bullets, the war if anything was kind to him.

And as stated above, England were only playing in 1946 (and arguably even 1948) as an open and deliberate goodwill gesture, you have to think that for political reasons the "Empire and Commonwealth" question was ringing out after WWII, so England threw together a list of names they thought would be popular to bring positivity to a post-world war tour that had arguably the potential for serious political ramifications. I mean, had another bodyline series occurred in 1946 from England's bowlers, the political results that could have caused could have been utterly devastating.

And I fail to see how Bradman was under the same pressure as Tendulkar.... Tendulkar played 550 more International matches then Tendulkar, 1050% percent more, for a country of 1.1 billion cricket mad fans, in an era of live television and global interest.... Bradman played for a country of 15 million people, do the maths, come on!!

Bradman never played in Asia or Windies....
Bradman never played more than a handful of international each year, Tendulkar probably played upto 50 in a year at times...
Bradman never landed for a tour and was in a test match 3 days later.... Tendulkar never had 3 months of FC matches before every test to work out the conditions...

These are luxuries that favour Bradman imo

What's that got to do with Cricket?

Is this why he averaged 40 more than everybody else.

Bradman's pressure comes from playing during the Australian depression years, in the early 30's. I read that he felt he a nation's feel good factor resting on his shoulders.

[sussexpob]

You seem to have a major bee in your bonnet, Sussex, over Bradman. As Ginger says, and I said earlier, he was so far ahead of his contempories that he was obviously some extremely special talent. Never said he was a good bloke

I think you will find my long post was in response to "he would still average way over a 100 now", or words to those effect, coupled with the comment about him losing his peak years and still playing brilliantly after (hence the comments about why, which you acknowledged were correct due to WWII). That simply isn't true, there were too many mitigating factors in his career that narrow the scope for someone to achieve what he did. DRS for a start would have had him average 20 and not 230 at the start of the 46 Ashes.... a long tour to India followed by a WC and an Ashes series may have taken it out of him.... going to war like others might have finished him... having Larwood bowl to him might have kept him averaging his lower, more realistic levels as per the series he played against him (as playing against Voce at his peak may).....

The whole point is, Bradman may be the best due to the difference of him and his contemporaries, but the extent of his record is made to look better by the era and conditions that were tremendously favourable.

[Gingerfinch]

You seem to have a major bee in your bonnet, Sussex, over Bradman. As Ginger says, and I said earlier, he was so far ahead of his contempories that he was obviously some extremely special talent. Never said he was a good bloke

I think you will find my long post was in response to "he would still average way over a 100 now", or words to those effect, coupled with the comment about him losing his peak years and still playing brilliantly after (hence the comments about why, which you acknowledged were correct due to WWII). That simply isn't true, there were too many mitigating factors in his career that narrow the scope for someone to achieve what he did. DRS for a start would have had him average 20 and not 230 at the start of the 46 Ashes.... a long tour to India followed by a WC and an Ashes series may have taken it out of him.... going to war like others might have finished him... having Larwood bowl to him might have kept him averaging his lower, more realistic levels as per the series he played against him (as playing against Voce at his peak may).....

The whole point is, Bradman may be the best due to the difference of him and his contemporaries, but the extent of his record is made to look better by the era and conditions that were tremendously favourable.

You said he wouldn't get bat on ball, which is like saying Pele wouldn't score more than 3 goals a season if he played now.

[sussexpob]

What's that got to do with Cricket?

Is this why he averaged 40 more than everybody else.

Well in the post war years, he didn't. Morris scored 12 more runs in the 10 matches Bradman and him played after the war, with 4 x 100 as opposed to 2 x 100 (and as mentioned earlier, both those hundreds are famous because Bradman refused to walk when caught out), so he was not the only person to cash in on England's dismal post war back to back Ashes series.

And obviously, in turn, the performance of Australia's invincible team in this period was far more dominant then the close series of the 30's with Bradman at his peak, particularly in the bowling department, which was a result of the war.

So of course the differing experience of the war effected cricket. Had England retained a strong bowling attack, the declining Bradman (who as demonstrated above, was no longer the top scorer in the Australia team in the period) may have experienced some tougher times that knocked his average down a peg or two.

[Gingerfinch]

What's that got to do with Cricket?

Is this why he averaged 40 more than everybody else.

Well in the post war years, he didn't. Morris scored 12 more runs in the 10 matches Bradman and him played after the war, with 4 x 100 as opposed to 2 x 100 (and as mentioned earlier, both those hundreds are famous because Bradman refused to walk when caught out), so he was not the only person to cash in on England's dismal post war back to back Ashes series.

And obviously, in turn, the performance of Australia's invincible team in this period was far more dominant then the close series of the 30's with Bradman at his peak, particularly in the bowling department, which was a result of the war.

So of course the differing experience of the war effected cricket. Had England retained a strong bowling attack, the declining Bradman (who as demonstrated above, was no longer the top scorer in the Australia team in the period) may have experienced some tougher times that knocked his average down a peg or two.

I was talking about the personal dig of 'honourable discharge'. Of course, the war may have hindered him, but he was still a great player after the war, in fact I think he averaged more after it than before, so he wasn't in that much of a decline near the end.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SRTs higher number of international games is offset by all the first class cricket Bradman played. The long tours, the months away from home with no quick return route could quite easily have led to psychological pressures, and I imagine did. Bradman didn't want to make that last tour to England, but did so as a goodwill gesture.

Bradman was a national figure and channeled the Australian identity at a difficult time for the country. Is there more pressure to be gained by having your scorecards read by 1b rather than 9m people?

It was the field that was set for bodyline that made it hard to play against. I don't know when those field were outlawed, but it wasn't long after that series.

And no one has matched how far he exceeded his contemporaries.

[GarlicJam]

The longer this goes on, the more bitter about Bradman you seem, Sussex. I will admit to coming to this discussion from a position of bias - will you?

As for Bradman's discharge from the Army - he was invalided out due to ongoing poor health. He was a long term sufferer of fibromyalagia (spelling may be well off here) and for the last half a dozen or so years of his career he had no feeling in the thumb and forefinger of his right hand. No slight impediment for a cricketer.

As for him refusing to walk (a bump ball, the ump said), well he is hardly to first or last cricketer to take advantage of umpire error. What a total red herring of an argument.

As I have inferred, I don't think that bradman was a nice bloke (I don't think he was terrible, either), but I do think that he was a great cricketer. I also think that life treated him harsher than most people realise.

[sussexpob]

The longer this goes on, the more bitter about Bradman you seem, Sussex. I will admit to coming to this discussion from a position of bias - will you?

I think there is a consistent ignorance shown across the board from older fans towards the modern game which, as a younger fan, is tiresome. That is the bitterness aspect, I admit it. I have no bias towards it though, only ask that a consistent approach to mitigating factors and comparisons are shown to all generations. I cant see how many examples above are considered bias and bitter, but you defaulting players post 1970 to instantly worse cricketers for just wearing a helmet is justified? Every generation has its merits and its considerations, so why should we not discuss them? Bradman was a player who is and should be scrutinised like others.

The helmet example, for instance, is a really good one. After 1932-33, it is unlikely that Bradman needed to wear a helmet until 1950, simply because the bodyline series put a temporary death to short pitch bouncers. This is a known convention, with players not allowed to do it, or face never being selected and disgraced (we know this is true because Larwood never played for England again, and Voce withdrew himself voluntarily due to the disgrace).... so the helmet thing is nothing, in fact the "danger" argument in this 15 year period may mean little, and the advantages for the batsman compared to now in terms of not needing to face short pitched bowling are huge. Did any test cricketers die from a bouncer in Bradman's era? We lost one recently, so this idea that helmets made cricket for pansies is a non-starter, look at the facts??

The above argument I think is valid. Bradman was the best of his era, no doubt, but to say his 99 average is not inflated by circumstance of his era I think is wrong. To say that Modern day averages are on the rise would also be wrong. I would forward the notion that Bradman's average and performance could only have existed in his time, simply because of a set of facts and events that allowed it to happen. Those have never been replicated again, so it wont happen again.

And talking of bias, I am not the person saying he should be included in a ODI XI of all time, despite never playing a OD game. Again that's just disrespectful to those players who have succeeded, to suggest that the progression and inventiveness of the modern day is nothing in comparison to achievements of yesteryear?

I think that's rubbish.... Ted Dexter averaged 31 in OD cricket, how is his name mentioned on here

The biggest underliner is Kohli.... hands and away the best ODI player of all time, yet doesn't make the team because he is still young or playing in an era of heavy bats

I think a lot of older crickets tried to use heavier bats but weren't strong or fit enough to wield them properly

[Gingerfinch]

The longer this goes on, the more bitter about Bradman you seem, Sussex. I will admit to coming to this discussion from a position of bias - will you?

I think there is a consistent ignorance shown across the board from older fans towards the modern game which, as a younger fan, is tiresome. That is the bitterness aspect, I admit it. I have no bias towards it though, only ask that a consistent approach to mitigating factors and comparisons are shown to all generations. I cant see how many examples above are considered bias and bitter, but you defaulting players post 1970 to instantly worse cricketers for just wearing a helmet is justified? Every generation has its merits and its considerations, so why should we not discuss them? Bradman was a player who is and should be scrutinised like others.

The helmet example, for instance, is a really good one. After 1932-33, it is unlikely that Bradman needed to wear a helmet until 1950, simply because the bodyline series put a temporary death to short pitch bouncers. This is a known convention, with players not allowed to do it, or face never being selected and disgraced (we know this is true because Larwood never played for England again, and Voce withdrew himself voluntarily due to the disgrace).... so the helmet thing is nothing, in fact the "danger" argument in this 15 year period may mean little, and the advantages for the batsman compared to now in terms of not needing to face short pitched bowling are huge. Did any test cricketers die from a bouncer in Bradman's era? We lost one recently, so this idea that helmets made cricket for pansies is a non-starter, look at the facts??

The above argument I think is valid. Bradman was the best of his era, no doubt, but to say his 99 average is not inflated by circumstance of his era I think is wrong. To say that Modern day averages are on the rise would also be wrong. I would forward the notion that Bradman's average and performance could only have existed in his time, simply because of a set of facts and events that allowed it to happen. Those have never been replicated again, so it wont happen again.

And talking of bias, I am not the person saying he should be included in a ODI XI of all time, despite never playing a OD game.

Agree there.

[The Waugh Twins]

I'm lost for words, but I see Sussex isn't.

[sussexpob]

I'm lost for words, but I see Sussex isn't.

Not much of a counter argument

[The Waugh Twins]

The longer this goes on, the more bitter about Bradman you seem, Sussex. I will admit to coming to this discussion from a position of bias - will you?

As for Bradman's discharge from the Army - he was invalided out due to ongoing poor health. He was a long term sufferer of fibromyalagia (spelling may be well off here) and for the last half a dozen or so years of his career he had no feeling in the thumb and forefinger of his right hand. No slight impediment for a cricketer.

As for him refusing to walk (a bump ball, the ump said), well he is hardly to first or last cricketer to take advantage of umpire error. What a total red herring of an argument.

As I have inferred, I don't think that bradman was a nice bloke (I don't think he was terrible, either), but I do think that he was a great cricketer. I also think that life treated him harsher than most people realise.

The war years were certainly not kind to Bradman concerning his illness. For sure being in Australia made life a lot more pleasant than being in England, war or no war. Unless you lived in Darwin of course, they did get a rubbing over.
Bradman clearly miles beyond any other cricketer and scored at a fast rate on many occasions. He would easily blitz the modern bowler to all corners of the oval, ha,ha.

[The Waugh Twins]

I'm lost for words, but I see Sussex isn't.

Not much of a counter argument

ha,ha and you summed it up right there Sussex. All you ever seem to do on here is vent to people you don't even know. Yes I like a good rant now and again, but when it's constant it becomes tedious.