Why Sir Don Bradman Is The Most OVERRATED Cricketer Ever
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Why Sir Don Bradman Is The Most OVERRATED Cricketer Ever.
Sir Don Bradman is regarded as the best player in the world of cricket scoring 6996 runs with an average of 99.94. He is the most iconic player to ever play this beautiful game of cricket. But, was he really as good as he is made out to be? Would he have scored with the same average if he was playing in the modern age? Is he the most overrated cricketer ever? Watch the video till the end to find out if he was a legend or overrated.
#cricket #donbradman #sirdonbradman #australiancricket #cricketer
Subscribe to my channel if you liked the video.
/ @cricketstories007
Music track: Biscuit by Lukrembo
Source: freetouse.com/music
Copyright Free Music (Free Download) - กีฬา
Hey guys, this video is not to disrespect the LEGEND but to inform you about some misconceptions surrounding Sir Don Bradman and also this are just my opinion. Please do let me know what you all think about this.
Stop whining and accept the fact that he is the GOAT and a Legend.
First of all i hate your voice, second of all as an Indian myself i despise your delusional statements and at last we don't give a flying f about opinion of someone whose existence even would have remained unknown to sir don Bradman in his lifetime. Apne baap ke saamne karna yeh sab samjha? Idhar nahi
A modern college professor would have more understanding of physics than Einstein and Newton. Does that mean Einstein and Newton are overrated?
This betting legend averaged 99.96 per game. He needed only one more 4 to reach the average of 100. No one can touch him. He is a true LEGEND.
Plus he batted with a toothpick,no helmet,poor protection,uncovered wickets.He was a freak.He would have adapted and still averaged over 80 plus in all eras.
Don't buy that nonsense. He played at a time when there were timeless tests and rest days in-between. The travel was through ships so visiting team could not replace an injured person. Also, in his entire career, he hit only one six. Additionally, there were no third empire reviews. Even 3 lbw denied decisions in his favor could change his entire average. I just do not see anyway to compare him to current players or even call him a greatest ever.
m.th-cam.com/video/36uE_m8rWBY/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
No way . Bradman had a fantastic eye and was twice as good against nice medium pace swing bowlers as the rest became he could let go rhe perfect outswinger that others were forced to play at and get caught in slips BUT Bradman wasn't good against fast bowling . He only ever faced one and larwood by himself cut his average to 55 . Bradman was so scared of larwood that after larwood took 32 wickets in the bodyline series, Bradman lobbied cricket officials to ban larwood from test cricket amd after dominating bradman in 32 larwood never played for England again, which Bradman was very happy about. Bradman was used to playing cricket in the " gentlemans game " style where medium pace bowlers always pitched the ball up and tried to get you caught in the slips woth an outswinger or bowl you or get you lbw with an inswinger. Except for larwood no one ever tried to hit the batsmen in rhe chest throat or head in order to scare them enough to get them out . Larwood showed Bradman had a weakness to that and the 4 great windies bowlers roberts ,holding , garner and croft/ marshall who were all a bit faster than larwood and had better bouncers would have brought Bradman dowm to size , and his average would have dropped to much lower than 55.
Look at this ball from garner. There is no way in hell that Bradman can play that ball . No batsmen in the history of cricket could ever play that ball
@@iang8169 That was the era of domestic umpires, timeless tests, and rest days between tests. If people play timeless tests today, then many players will score 300+, boosting their averages. Bradman only hit 1 six in his entire career. I do not want to say if he was great or not, but we are not comparing the same things. People forget that. They look at his average and say he is all-time great.
@@iang8169 So Hammond,McCabe,Headley,Sutcliffe,Hobbs,Woodfull,Ponsford would all average in the 30's.Are you saying Border is as good as Bradman?
@@ppen8359 Don Bradman only played in one timeless test in his career and that was in 1930, the last being played in 1939 between England and South Africa. Don Bradman is quoted ass saying why attempt a six when there is a chance of being caught? It was a deliberate tactic to take one form of dismissal away. Plus, he scored at such a prolific rate he just didn't need to.
Nowadays -It becomes a fashion to say that old Heroes (Bradman,Pele ets) are Overrated.
Perhaps - Jesus,Newton,Nepolian --
Oll are in Overrated Club.
Test cricket has been played for 150 years now - in all kinds of conditions with all kinds of variations in rules, equipment, fitness and so on. In every era, the best batsmen average 50-60. He is head and shoulders above anyone who has ever played. Even in first class cricket, of which he played a lot, his average is 95 - the second highest is about 70.
4:19 Bradman was not the only one batting in Australia. His 97 average in domestic cricket is a miracle on Australian pitches which favor bowlers unlike pitches in Pakistan made for batting. He played test cricket like T/20I long before its invention. He scored century before lunch twice going in at number 3. What is Babar Azam's average in Australia? There were few countries playing at that time and they were top notch not like today. Today Bradman would be playing against India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Afghanistan, Netherlands etc. and his average would be even higher. Greatest batsmen of his day were only half as good as him. This is unheard of in sports where the difference is miniscule. No one understands Bradman otherwise they would have figured it out. Lara as great as he was, could not go much past 50. All the great Englishmen played at the same wickets as Bradman where he was unstoppable. Even bodyline could not drag him under 50. Cricket greats are children compared to Bradman.
As said in the video half of the top 15 batsman with high batting average played before 1970s. Which tells us how easy it was to bat at that time.
The era he played was too very dangerous without helmet playing some of the fastest bowler is just commendable ,to my view he is the greatest without any doubt
Ill answer all this guys doubts here.
If Sachin Tendulkar was born 50 years after his actual birth date, would he still be as good?
All these videos are nonsense. Everyone will say "He would not have done this , now".
And its simple to actually hate someone, but its damn hard to achieve the same. Bradman is no worse than any other legend. Infact, I think he is better.
Sir Don was a freak. The numbers speak for themselves. If today's players had to play under 1930s conditions (uncovered and damp wickets, tiny bats, longer boundaries, no helmets or body protection, back foot no ball rule, inferior practice conditions, etc etc) they would probably struggle to average 40. Don maintained an average of 57 and a strike rate of 100 under bodyline conditions where the ball was continually being bowled outside his leg stump to a packed leg side field.
So why isnt there a player today as far ahead of the others as bradman was in his day ?
Bradman's average is 99.96. If it was easier to bat in his era ,then why there was not a single batsman with average above 60 in that era??
12 out the top 30 highest averaging batsmen in Test matches have played in the 21st century, in first class matches its 15 out of 30, if you're trying to prove that modern batsmen have it more difficult the stats don't seem to agree with you, actually they seem to indicate the exact opposite.
I'd like to see modern era batsmen play with the equipment Don Bradman used, I can guarantee you they will not fair anywhere as well. You can also add to that uncovered pitches and different laws of the game allowing what is considered illegal field placings today. Cricketers play far more cricket these days because it is a professional sport, Don Bradman had to make a living through working as initially as areal estate agent and then with a sporting goods retailer. You just couldn't earn a living playing test cricket and it wasn't until World Series Cricket that players started being paid professionally. So, before calling Don Bradman overrated, consider these things before making an opinion. Place Don Bradman in all the protective gear, give him a modern bat and frequency of playing, he'd still be a level higher than the rest. Of course this is just conjecture, who really knows how he would play in todays modern cricket? So all we have to go on are historical stats and assume that they would translate.
Unprepared wickets, dusty wickets, vicious captains of England, body line bowling, no bar on barrage of bouncers, eight ball an over, no helmet , no arm guards, thigh guards, limited medical back up, no physio and dearth of many such modern gadgets make Don the DON. He's star for stargazers. May God bless his soul.
Amen.
If it was so easy back then, why didn't all of the batsman back then average 99?
He was clearly above his contemporaries. A player should not be judged between eras but how much better was he then his contemporaries.
Sachin ODI average of 44 was high back then, as usually odi average was 35 for others.
But now Virat averages 57, but Babar is 60 and few others above 50
Exactly
Sensible comment
Though ofc batting was easier in those times and he had less competition his nos are monstrous
And so are his performances...
Everyone remembers his innings even now and song his praise
They literally had to use bodyline for first time in cricket history vs him
- back when there was no protection and that series had his worst avg of 60 !😂
So Bradman in the time peak cricket like 90s or 2000s or 2010s would have been a mix of Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar if u can imagine that
Less aggressive than Sachin and more aggressive than Dravid yet with perfect defence like Dravid while beings able to hit boundaries at will
He only hit 5 sixes or so in his career cz he didn't need them
Would be interesting to see his impact if he played today!
Cricket was a hobby then. It remained that way until 1980s. The guy only hit one six in his entire career. There were timeless tests and also several rest days. There were no 3rd empire reviews or even video clips to check for wrong run out and wrong lbw decisions. Also, there was no neutral umpiring. Australians were scammers until 2005.
Great point
You're dumb. You are comparing test with ODIs. Remember odis also have one more thing, strike rate.
Kohli has higher sr than Babar in ODIs. Also now babar's avg has decreased.
Hi is Father of cricket and batting now days cricketers always looks batter than any old cricketers abd is batter than viv rechards 😅 Sunil gavaskar is better than don bradman 😅
Several things need to be considered. One: wickets were not covered then as they now. An uncovered wicket made batting more difficult and dangerous for the batsman. Two: the safety gear worn by modern batsmen did not exist, so batsmen were more vulnerable, which had an effect on their confidence and ability to face pace bowling. Bradman's record compared with other batsmen during the 'bodyline' series is evidence of his powers of concentration and his mindset. Three: his practice of not lofting the ball but keeping it down had a twofold effect. One, he only hit a very small number of sixes during his career, which ould have curtailed his run rate (cf Glenn Maxwell's innings against Afghanistan during the ODI series); two, if you don't hit the ball in the air, you can't get caught.
Four: When he was at his peak, WWII was raging, so no international cricket was played. Five: Bradman played only 29 tests over 20 years, work out the averages of the other top batsmen over 29 of the tests that they played over a comparable and see what the results are.
Rodney Hogg says that Bradman wouldn't average as much these days - wow that opinion means a lot - for starters he would have batted against Hogg who had one good season when all the good players were with WSC.
Bradman may have been at his peak in the years he didn't play test cricket because of the war. And he didn't play against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh or Ireland to improve that incredible average either!
m.th-cam.com/video/36uE_m8rWBY/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
And Bradman never had to go up against roberts , holding, garner and croft / marshall either. Look at this ball from garner. No friken way Bradman can play that ball . No Batsmen in the history of cricket could play that .
Larwood by himself, bowling to try and hit bradman in the chest , throat or head in order to get him out cut his average to 55 . The windies 4 , all faster than larwood and having better bouncers would have cut Bradmans average into the 40s.
Remember after getting petrified by larwood, Bradman lobbied cricket officials to have larwood black balled from test cricket. After taking 32 test wickets in 32 against Australia larwood was never selected to play for England again and Bradman was extatic over that
So the best batsman of all time was overrated? Obviously click bait. Check out his average. Everything else is bullshit
Even in gali cricket we will not find any person with average 99.94 .....no one can ever be like don and touch his record....look at his first class numbers..... At that time no helmet, sticky wickets, slim bat...... Will this youtuber say that kohli is not great because he was not tested against mcgrath, ambrose,walsh,warna,murli,donald,waqar,bret le etc..?
Name one Indian batsman that can smack a golf ball with a stick backwards and forwards against a piece of corrugated iron repeatedly. The only thing you can't get your head around besides his test average.
Is the fact the bats, balls, equipment was completely different.
If you gave The Don the same, rules and same equipment as he had back then, he'd be happier than a kid in a candy store. He valued his wicket like no other and had the hand eye coordination like a Hawk with Surgical Skills.
You may as well, make your next video on Sir Garfield Sobers.
He's atleast around that time and generation of Cricket.
Sorry. Indian here. Your video is BS. You are comparing his performance back in his time, to today. This is utter lack of critical thinking. His record of 29 centuries and batting average says it all. It took decades before Sunny broke his century record. Unless those numbers are mathematically and factually wrong. Don Bradman was the greatest in his time. And his batting average still lives. That makes him great and greatest in that aspect.
Yes, he was the greatest during his time.
@@CricketStories007his average says his best of all time, Steve Smith is second to him. But u can't compare eras. The game was a lot different, the laws of the game have changed twofold & the other cricketing nations weren't apart of international cricket at that time.
When a game is at its embryonic stage a genius would stand out much more than others … imagine a Sobers or Viv playing back in that time . Or a Gavaskar even ..
So Don would not be a 99 average in modern times
Don probably was still a better talent than most who ever loved but remember even his average was cut in half when facing real speed ( body line )
Pls correct me if I am wrong
@@hunar354best batsman ever in today's time is not only limited to Sachin and Kohli now......we can add Jaiswal, Rinku, Steve Smith, Hitman, Travis Head, ABD, Klaasen, Dravid, Amla, Root, Stokes, Sangakkara, Maxwell, Russel, Lara, Gayle, Rachin Ravindra, Williamson and many more....
@@saikatroy9182 in my opinion in order to be considered a great batsman you have to be good in all the formats that exist in the game. If you're only good in 1 for example T20 that means that you're a good T20 batsman, that doesn't mean that you're a good batsman. So in my opinion, Viv, Lara,Sachin and Kohli are the greatest. Sanga is one of the greats aswell.Devilliers is good aswell (he played less matches sadly)
Bro are you serious bradman literally batted with a stick had to face fast bowling with practically no gear had barely anytime to train himself as he had to work a full time job the pitches he played on were way worse they didn’t even have covers yet u say he’s overrated that’s disgraceful if were to play in the modern age he would have a lot more practice better bats and gear and better pitches so yes 1948 Bradman may not have been able to face jimmy Anderson or Mitchell Starc but2023 Bradman would have with ease you just need to accept that Bradman was just simply built different
Bradman is Bradman. Had he born in this era also he would have maintained same run rate. off course less or more. Like Bruce Lee to kung fu, Bradnam is to cricket. He is legend of cricket
You forgot to mention, the tiny bats, rough pitches, bowling friendly rules, big boundaries, and no helmets. Don't be bias, he is the best of all time.
You are right. We do not know about any quality pacer or spinner of that era. Bodyline series had shaken his confidence and Australia had lost that series.
Actually it's you who has no knowledge
During the bodyline series Bradman averaged about 57 or something it's that his colleagues failed to deliver
And tell me a single batsman in cricket even in the current scenario who can constantly play bodyline bouncers
and i would like you to first experience yourself what test cricket batting is about rather than sitting on a chair and doing some analysis about test cricketers lol
using this logic all tennis players before 2000 were all over rated; they didn't train as hard either. And the comment regarding fieldsman being so much better these days is absolute garbage - do some research - people like Bradman and Neil Harvey were exceptional in any era
Tennis and cricket both are very different. You need same skills in tennis but in cricket you need different kinds of skills, against swing, spin, sheer pace.
who says the Don was over rated - Ian Chappell ?
Everything is okay😂
But why u bring this newborn Babar even in to discussion
Iam sorry i skipped u after u mention him😂
Warp modern players back to that time. As you said his style of cricket had never been seen before so the modern players would not play like they do in the modern era. They would play as was the norm then. During the bodyline series, Bradman still averaged 56.57. Back then cricketers were amateurs. Yes back then they played a lot less cricket but that could also be a disadvantage. Less play can affect skills. None of the support and science like today. Then no covers and the protective equipment was far less and the rules have changed a lot since then.
Don played his cricket on uncovered pitches
He may not have had to switch from ODIs to Test cricket but he had to play on wet pitches as they were not covered so much more difficult to play on. As an Englishman I don’t mind saying he is the the best ever batsman by some distance. If we just look at averages at the time the top players had averages around the same as today except Bradman who is miles ahead and that is all we need.
I disagree with you, and I'm English. It was interesting that you mentioned - with no hint of irony - Bradman batting many times in Australia where he was used to the conditions, when India's domination in home tests is what keeps them so persistently near the top of the test rankings. One rule for India but another for Bradman, eh?
I agree to the extent of saying that it is very doubtful that Bradman would achieve today the mountainous averages that he did, for the reasons mentioned in the video. The sheer amount of cricket he would now be playing, the wear and tear mentally and physically, would preclude it. This does not mean he is overrated, however. All any player can do is perform as well as they can in their own time, and statistically Bradman was as far ahead of his contemporaries as he is ahead of players today. It's worth remembering too that in the infamous bodyline series of 1932-3, Bradman still averaged 56.57, ironically better than any English player in the series - and they weren't facing bodyline! Watching the clips of him in the video it is very plain how superb his technique was: foot to the pitch of the ball, head down, high backlift and follow through, etc.
Bowlers dont need to go to gym to bowl fast like Kapil devs 11 won the world cup none of them went to gym...now you are starting to contradict yourself now bosss. i would say keep dreaming dude,
He was a professional quality player during an amateur era. He also wasn't the nicest of blokes, but I digress...
Bradman had to play without any protective gears on uncovered wickets and lighter bats.None of hos contemporary averaged above 60.None of the Aussie while he played averaged above 50.Scoring 300 plus runs is no joke.
This gut who analysed, this prejudiced to his core
Sir Don did a lot for cricket back in the day. You've gotta take in to account that he single handedly put cricket on the world map as well as inspired kids to play the game. Whether in Straya or Pommyland, he was pulling people in thru the turnstiles. With his record & how great he was as well as the show he put on the packed crowds everybody wanted to witness a Sir Don innings hopefully watching a century, double century or triple century. He also gave the Aussie public something to smile & cheer about thru the great depression when all hope looked gone.
To me his stats say he's the greatest of all time with Stevey Smudger Smith behind him in second. Everybody has their opinion & that's we live in nations that allow us to have friendly debates where both people debating are right & wrong. So as much as i don't agree with u, that's ur opinion & i respect that as I'm sure that u respect my opinion also 😊
Of course I respect your opinion 🤝
He averaged about 150 against India and was legally blind you may have a point though.
Damn This Video Is So Accurately Presented . No Manipulation Only Facts .
15/10
I Believe That He Did Had Some Extreme Advantages In His Time But We Should Not Forget That If Batting Was So Easy In 1930s Then Every Aussie Would Have Averaged Same As Sir Don Bradman .
It's An Unpopular Opinion That His Techniques Are What Made Him A Legend More Than His Average
Thanks for appreciating and I think you are right, his style of play was much much different than anyone from that era.
Every change to the Rules of Cricket has benefited the batsman.
The No Ball rule, changed from the back foot to front foot, disadvantaged the bowlers. Before, the back foot had to land behind the popping crease. Fast bowlers would land there foot behind the line and drag it over the line. The front foot was at least two feet over the batting crease giving the batsman less time to evaluate his shot.
Wickets would be uncovered. After the toss, covers were never used again in the match. This meant that the pitch was open to the elements for days at a time. Rain would often result in a “sticky wicket” where average bowlers became unplayable.
You are right in only one aspect. If he was playing today he would NOT average 99.96. It would be closer to 120.
This practice of talking about the greatest of all time is presumptuous. No one knows the future, so speaking of all time is nonsensical. It would be better to word it as one of the best that has played the game. Remove this bit about all time from any statement being made and it can be acceptable.
ok you raised some good points. But he is not overated and heres why: The bats he was using are terrible in todays standards, with a modern day bat he would have much more of an advantage. instead if hitting along the ground he could also go over the top, plus the sweet spot on the bat would be larger. pitchs have also improved to be better for batsmen and they have been more well maintained. He would have had to worry about his safety in his day as he had no protection for the early part of his career and no helmets for all of his career
Thanks for the heart by the way
Using Allan Border as an example because he faced the best fast bowlers of all time,Border scored 11,174 runs off 27269 balls,average 50.56,strike rate 40.98.If Bradman played in Border's era,he would score an extra 5000 runs to get his strike rate around 60,his concentration was superior to Border so give another 10 balls an innings plus 6 runs an innings.He would still get the same amount of not outs batting at 3 as Border did at 4 to 6.Which would give him around 17800 runs off 30000 balls approximately,average 80.54,strike rate 59.33 and an average of 59/60 against the West Indies.And reverse Border's 27 100s,63 50s to 63 100's,27 50's.
Then bowlers who played against Bradman would see their bowling average decrease by one to three runs.Bowlers who played against Bradman in Border's time frame would see an increase of their bowling average by one to three runs.Verity would average 21.38 instead of 24.38, Botham would average 31.40 instead of 28.40.Border averaged 56.32 vs England,Bradman played against a vastly superior English bowling attack,I could easily see him averaging 86.32(30 plus runs an innings) against England in Border's time frame.Border scored 75 off 330 balls on a Sydney slow turning track against Marshall in 1989 would transfer to Bradman scoring 150 plus in the same amount of balls.Purely hypothetical but that's how good Bradman was.
Those who are ahead of their time are always legend.
Cricket was Elites game like Golf. Only Priviledged played with their Stroke Boring Play.
Don Bradman came from Local Working People population.
I agree that ,his avg looks exaggerated at 99.9
But if he had played after 1970s ,may be his avg would come down and be around 65 .
Also these days ,fielding standards have improved ,bowlers have more speed ,more tricky spinners and data analysis of his batting.
These days , player has to travel and play in many different types of pitches .
Exactly 💯
May be because although batsmen were facing hostile fast bowling back then, but barring a few it seems most of them lack so many skills unlike batsmen of the 70s to till the present times. Although, most of the modern-days batsmen seems more pinch hitters and sloggers due to the Evolution of 20-20s.
The pitches he played on were often under-prepared compared to the roads provided for the limited overs versions of the games. Spin bowlers might be able to pitch a ball on a good length and one would jump over the batsman's head, the next would run along the ground.
Then again, you'd have faster bowlers bowling short aiming to hit the batsman's head, a tactic introduced specifically to restrict Sir Donald's impact. Also, if it was so much easier when he was playing, how come his contemporaries weren't scoring at similar levels... eg Walter Hammond, well regarded as one of the best English batsmen of all time averaged 58.45 in his 85 tests (about 60% of Bradman's average).
---------- *AND* ----------
NO ONE since then, who has played more than ten matches, has averaged better than *63* runs per completed innings.
---------- *NO ONE* ----------
Not Brian (with his 400* an amazing feat by itself) [averaging 52.88],
Not Sachin (with his 15,000+ runs over 200 matches) [averaging 53.78]
---------- *NO ONE* ----------
As a matter of fact: there have been, other than Sir Donald, *FIVE* batsmen who have averaged over 60, the highest being 62.15 by H. Brook of England in 12 matches.
AND a further 38 batsmen who have averaged between 50 and 60. That's out of the 3100 players who have ever played the game: i.e. about 1 in every 72 players have averaged more than 50! And only *ONE* has managed to average more than 65.
@@EarlJohn61 exactly!!!
If he played today he would not average more than 35. People ignore that there were rest days during those times. Also, there were timeless tests. They played tests with an objective to not get out especially for timeless tests. That is not the case today.
Still astonishing the records n average he has.
Well with due respect to batters today, with the t20, flatter wickets, bigger bats and shorter boundaries too we can say many are overrated.
Agreed and what Sir Don Bradman did was exceptional too
T/20 has ruined test cricket & even tho India didn't come up that format i still blame India for ruining test cricket thanks to the IPL.
@@Tully_23_32 franchise cricket is now unfortunately preference over national team. Also the one thing I don't like is IPL is given a calendar where there's very little to no international cricket.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but totally disagree with your analogy, of comparing a genius of yesteryear to the modern cricketers. Bradman was a cricket genius, who in my opinion was twice as better than the great cricketers. The average of 99.94 will NEVER be beaten by anyone playing more than 50 tests. Period he was the greatest cricketer that ever lived. Believe me, i am a cricketer lover for over 40 years and Vivian Richards is my favourite cricketer, but Sir Don is the best.
I am a mixed Masala, born and live in South Africa, Indian by origin, Favorite cricketer is a west Indian and believe an Australian (the late great Don Bradman)to be the greatest cricketer to walk on the cricket field.
Sir Don Bradman Era: Other great players had average from 50 to 60. And Bradman's average was 99.94. He fully dominated his era.
Sachin Tendulkar Era: Other great players had average from 50 to 60. And Sachin's average is 53 in test, similar to others. He managed to play for longer than others, but impact in a single match was not that great as compare to Bradman. He didn't dominate cricket that much.
I'm not telling Bradman is better than Sachin technically or any other thing. Cricket is improving from generation to generation. Sachin or any other modern batsman may have better techniques and control. But Sir Don Bradman was way ahead of his era.
I recommend you all to just google Sir Don Bradman to see his performance in detail on wikipedia.
Its for you to decide the greatest, its personal.
For me, I think Bradman (after google his performance and read about his biography)
Next video, modern players has to face social media as previous era don’t. So, mentally players weren’t challenged back in day. Your excuses is like this. Just imagine modern players bat without protection gear, and it’s over for at least me to make comparison.
It's unreasonable to compare players from different times lines. There was no nuclear war in nepolians Era, it doesn't make him a lesser general or overrated. Your entire video is based on assumption that Don bradman has not faced modern bowlers but u also need to think advantages that modern batmen have. Bowling machines, self analysis with videos, favourable rules and lots of protection. You also need to see that second guy after Braman about batting average has average of 60. Bradman is not overrated, our thinking has become strange. We r are not ready to believe that modern day heros we have are not considered all time greats. By this logic one will start claining that Major Dhyanchand was not so great. Because no one has seen him play. Kapil devs innings against Zimbabwe is considered as one of the best odi innings of all times. But it was not recorded. We have not seen it doesn't make it any less great than it is. Bradman was definitely one of the greatest, but was he greatest of all times? People may have different opinions but we should look at concensus which I think is for Bradman, Secondly an impeccable average and winning contribution in his team. Bradman and Major Dhyanchand lost 8-10 of prime years of their carriers due to world war 2. Just imagine the kind of records both would have had!
This story is good. Makes a lot of sense👍
Aussie here. I've always thought he was overrated, but thankyou for putting it so articulately. A generational talent playing against mostly English amateur bowling. If they had played in the modern era, Bradman and Sobers would sit somewhere between Smith, Sangakkara, ..... , ..... , Kohli.
Possibly, he had a different style of play that wasn't normal at that time.
Take a look at cover drives he pkayed in 1920s and 1930s in footage....... Look at the footwork and balance. At that time there were no tv. Today we have 100 technologies to analyse a player, Don was way ahead of its time.
👍
Why other players didnt score with average of 100
In his time he was the best, but of all time?
@@CricketStories007 he had double the average of players in his time. He'll still be better than all today.
now your question if he would be able to adapt to bowlers after lets say 90s the greats i mean my answer is what about the 9 other nine batsman ? wil they not ? i hope you dont answer NO...
Dishonest. Why are you not answering the question how was it that the other players during the Bradman era averaged similar to the current era but Bradman averaged two times more? Bowling standards, fielding standards , bats, pitches, cricket's importance in global terms.....cannot individually or collectively explain it. If you look at batting as something done for your team/country win a cricket match no one comes close to Bradman. Actually it is the case for most cricket fans; they want to see their team/country win. Bradman is rightfully rated as not only the greatest batsman ever but the greatest sportsman ever and the greatest Australian of the 20th century. But there are a few who go to see a cricket match for poised ball striking, thrilling batting, inspiration, courage.....In such case Viv Richards may get the nod over Bradman.
Bradman is still the best. Hands down.
Donald Bradman or Sachin Tendulkar can never be the greatest cricket players, but only the greatest batsmen. The greatest bowlers are Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne. No such thing as the greatest player in a game like cricket.
Sobers
Yeah correct. But you get what I mean ,right?
@@jssidhoo I was looking for the name yesterday. I'd thought was it Clive Lloyd? It was Sir Garfield Sobers.
But still, he could be missing in some aspects of the game.
Btw, even Sachin has a total of 200 wickets between tests and one-days
@@CricketStories007 I do get it. But my point is that we generally tend to consider only great batsmen as great cricketers which is not at all necessary.
Look at how bad Ricky Ponting was at bowling. Fantastic batsman, fielder and captain. Horrendous bowler.
It also depends on the team they play for - Warne had more quality bowlers in his teams so he had less need/opportunity to take wickets. Whereas Muralitharan often carried his team, putting in a lot of work and setting records for most balls bowled in international cricket.
Purely on skill set as a batsman, Bradman will be ONE among many great batsmen.
Not the greatest of ALL times and thus sacrosanct the English speaking world makes us to believe!
Yes Sir, he has been over rated !
He certainly would be ONE among the likes of Viv Richards, Gary Sobers, Sunil Gavaskar, Brian Lara and of course Sachin Tendulkar !
Was he BETTER than these batsmen as a batsman?
His unbelievable Batting Average of that AMATEUR ERA shouldn't CLOUD our rational reasoning!
He was one among the best, yes sir !
🤠
BRO HAS HACKS IRL.
Your theory would be more plausible if other top-notch batsmen before 1970s had also scored significantly higher than today's greats.
Absolutely spot on
Make video about ben stokes
Sure, will work on that. Thanks for suggesting it😄
Totally agree... I have long been saying this.
Yeah
@@theyaduvanshiindian391 Because his era didn't have that great players... Less competition
Modern batsmen are overrated.
The best way is to compare contemporary batsmen.
Kohli got 49 hundreds but someone like Hashim Amla who was not even recognized as some great, has also got 27 centuries in ODIs and 28 in tests. He is fastest to get 3k, 4k, 5k, and 7k runs in ODIs.
Compare that to Kohli.
Looks like Kohli is just a few millimeters ahead of Amla.
Now compare Bradman to his contemporaries. He has first class average of 95+ with 117 centuries and 452 higest score in 234 matches.
Clearly shows the difference.
Just to add: Hashim Amla got 27 hundreds in 181 games, by ratio, that would be 43 hundreds in 290 games (equal to what kohli has played and made 49).
And in tests, Amla got 28 in 124 while kohli has 29 in 111, so even there Kohli is only marginally ahead.
Nothing great compared to a contemporary.
What I said
Nah that's not like that. Stats alone Don't tell us that whole thing. Kohli completed 5k odi runs in 2012-13 i guess. That time Kohli wasn't even as good as kohli is now. His skills changed a lot after 2016. His best year is 2018 but his technique of 2024 is better than his 2018 technique.
There are three formats. In t20i Kohli has avg of 50+ and sr of 138. Amla has an Avg of 33 and sr of 132 which tells us that Kohli has better adapatation to different formats than Amla.
Centuries doesn't tell the whole Thing. Avg does. And avg against Each nation aswell. Williamson's test avg against South africa England Australia India ( S E A I) in SEAI is just over 33.
While his overall avg is mighty 55. Which tells us that in SEAI against SEAI he is not as good.
And he also Averages really high over 70 against lower ranked teams on highway roads. Williamson also averages high 70 in home. However Smith has more than 50+ avg against South africa England Newzeland India in SENI.
Which tells us that he's obviously a lot better than williamson who just bullies at home and Bullies minnows in test like Pakistan.
Don is d best. Next best is Richards.
The thing is, he had to work a job, as cricket did not pay much. He went through body line and India had just gotten independence. Did you want him to play with the freedom fighters or summat? The bats were also thin af. This was a correct video, but other variatiables were also there.
Yeah
Donald Bradman has been described as not only the greatest cricketer of all time, but the greatest player of any ball sport. To understand what a freak he was, in 1939 he won the South Australian Squash Championship after only playing the game for 5 years! He also beat Walter Lindrum at billiards, the best player of his generation.
At Tennis, he took pride in beating every Australian Wimbledon player of his day.
As a golfer, he was a scratch player that one golfing magazine suggested may be the best golfer for his age in the world (i think when he was in his 70s).
To conclude, I believe that he played as well as he needed to given the competition and the conditions he experienced. I honestly cannot conceive that a young Bradman wouldn't have dominated any era of cricket, or for that matter any sport in which he wanted to be the best in.
On his 72nd birthday, he scored lower than his age.
don is legend. no confusion. if not he then who .
I agree, just look at his average (almost half of career average) against the only series probably he was tested -- the Bodyline series, that too mainly one bowler (Larwood). I bet that's will not be comparable against the pace and skill of West Indian pace battery of 1980s, or Wasim, Waqur, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Donald, Stein, Bhoomra, Murali, Kumble or any decent modern team. And let's face it, England team (specially bowling department) is still poor today, u can imagine what was their amateur team quality during Bradman's era. And I truly believe the myth of Bradman was created mainly by the English sports journalists to hide their own incompetence :)
This can happen too
Bradman averaged 95 in Australian domestic cricket after playing 234 matches scored 117 centuries, with highest score of 452.
No pitch cover, no helmet, no physio or trainer - forget physio not even coach, no central contract, no computers or AI to help.
I bet if you put anyone like Kohli in that era, they would probably average 30 with the stick like bats of that time.
@@User-rs6ln do u really think so? Apparently Sir Don himself did not!! During his famous meeting, Sachin Tendulkar asked how much he would average in today's cricket, his reply was around 60. Ya!
I m surprised that u think the level of almost 100 years old amateur cricketers are better (or comparable) than today's super competitive professional cricketers, and somehow today's batting greats would fail to score against those amateurs only because of uncovered pitch or thin bat :)
@@singularsink I think you did not read my comment properly.
Today's batting greats are not greats out of sync. Sachin is better than Kohli because his was a good 20 ahead in average than his contemporaries and well over 35 in terms of centuries. But, that is in ODIs.
Come to tests dear. Sachin scored 51 (200 Tests) hundreds while Kallis scored 45 (166 Tests) along with taking 292 wickets. So, by that Kallis is by far the best cricketer of the modern game.
Imagine Sachin bowling that many overs, he would not even be able to bat after that.
Also, I showed you the statistics of Hashim Amla vs Kohli.
Kohli is not miles ahead, he is only miliimeters ahead of Amla, and even compare Sunil Gavaskar to Kohli.
Gavaskar scored 34 centuries in 125 Tests while Kohli only has 29 in 111, he may just catch Gavaskar. By the standard what Gavaskar faced, Kohli's Test career is nothing special.
You look at Gavaskar videos, even his style will look amateur.
What you don't understand is that Kohli is not professional on hs own. He has had coaches and trainers right from school.
Yes, ameteurs were ameteurs, but all were.
If Don scored 29 centuries in 52 Tests, why others could not in that time?
And also, for your info, Don practiced batting with a single stump during his teenage. That's all. No coach, no trainer, forget about computers, even televisions were not regular those days.
If you think Kohli would have even made it to the ground that time, you don't understnad abything.
Kohli has special bats made for him, those days players used to get made by local carpenters. No helmet, no proper gloves, no guards, and no match money in most matches.
Just to add more, if you heard about WG Grace, his stance will look funny, but you won't understand why people call him one of the best.
WG Grace played in a time when there were no boundary ropes. So, all the 4s and 6s you see in his record were all run - 4s and run-6s. They ran all the 4 runs.
Got it?
And it was his prolific running that finally led to the laws of cricket to have a boundary rope.
Your logic is like this:
Because today's formula 1 cars are superfast, so the person who invented bullock cart 10000 years ago was stupid.
What you don't get is that because of the bullock cart, the journey started which has now come to F1 cars.
It didn't come to your mind that why all the batsman in that era had such an average (99.94) if it was that easy to
bat against the bowlers ( according to you)
It😮 was such a stupid 😮. and idiotic thought!!!
👍
From me , the Greatest Australian Cricketer was - Shane Warne
Yes, he was one of the best
Bradman would probably have averaged 60 in modern cricket if he had adapted well to turning tracks. If not, averaged 50 to 55. He might have destroyed attacks in 1-day cricket.
Yeah 50-55 I can you imagine
Trying to disrespect Sir Don was very IDIOTIC!!
How the hell you could think of it??
Never tried to disrespect the legend.
Biased
Bradman no 1
I stopped watching when you said Babar Azam after Kohli and Smith LMAO forget 20th century cricket you don't even understand modern day anyone who watches cricket today won't put Gobar Azam with kohli and Smith... stop making videos and save Indians respect
😂
Views ke liye kuch bhi topic… kuch din baad bolega sachin is overrated…
just my opinion
misconceptions lol ....hey r u IT student or something similar
👌👌👍
Bradman was an utter coward when facing truly fast bowling.
you are thinking of Ian Chappell
Sorry, this video is a load of rubbish. Absolute garbage. He isn't overrated. He is a legend and he faced quality bowlers during his career. Stop downplaying Bradman and his achievements.
No doubt he is one of the best, but always keeping him above everyone without even watching his matches creates a doubt.
He faced farmers.
Your content is always awesome through your informative, fact-based voice over .
Thank you so much
No doubt that he is rare batsman in that era but he can't maintain half of his average in modern day of very highly demanding & injury prone cricket. Don't forget the highest level of fitness modern day cricketers are maintaining. Unbelievable fitness of kohli, devielier, ponting, lara, Sachin.
yess
For that level, kohli has 20+ support staff, computer with AI algorithms for analysis, great helmets and guards, charted diet, and limited overs cricket.
Clearly, batting in tests by just bashing 80 ball 100s can get anybody a record but not win a game over 5 days.
Not to talk about the pitches and bat quality. If you think Kohli is best, then rethink, even someone like Hashim Amla who played only a few years, scored 27 hundreds in ODI.
If Kohli or Tendulkar played in 1930 they would average 25. They would not have all the advantages of modern players.