Les Darcy vs Carlos Monzon

Griffo was a falling down drunk , and by all accounts a natural defensive genius.

Bradman was a great batsman but uncomfortable against pace,one wonders how he would have coped against the West Indies fast men coming at him in tandem?

 

Your claims for Bradman are rather sweeping imo.
Greatest cricketer? Apart from batting what was he great at? For versatility he was no Sobers, Botham,Wooley, Khan,and never proved he could handle aggressive pace bowling.
Bradman was a great batsman but there are many ,many
others who have strong claims to being the greatest cricketer .
Lara,Hobbs,Richards,Sobers,Tendulkar,Khan,Kallis,are just a few.

 

He handled bodyline fairly well, though down by his lofty standards and flayed Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Allen, Farnes, etc with aplomb as well as dominating the great Lindwall and Miller at domestic first class level. He made runs against everyone he faced and in epic numbers and even his sole mortal series he averaged 56 which is outstanding by any one else's standards.

These stats show just how incredible a batsman he was and how much better than any of the names you threw up he was.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/474951.html

Comparing any batsmen with him is pointless because no one compares statistically with him and if he didn't lose 8 years of cricket from 1938-46 due to the war I doubt anyone would have matched him for runs and certainly wouldn't have touched him for centuries made imo.

You can make a case for Sobers being the best all round cricketer ever but comparing any other batsmen to Bradman is ridiculous and saying he was only great at batting is to sell him drastically short.

 

I am sorry McVey but do yourself a favour and quit while you are ahead, yeah there are other aspects but greatness is granted to batting or bowling,, I never said he was a better bowler than Lillee or Warne but seriously,... no other batsman comes anywhere near Bradman and if you can't accept that then you are , well... I don't wanna say it, so lets see what you say after this. Tendulkar isn't a patch on Bradman, Richards ? don't make me laugh, Steve Waugh was better than him, more runs more tons. Khan ? now you really are kidding yourself, Kallis ? ask Kallis himself what he thinks of your opinion.... there is no batsman even close to him and thats a fact, he did conquer Larwood who was incredibly fast and Constantine another very fast bowler. Sobers is recognised by eveyone as the finest batting allrounder ever and Jack Hobbs I rate as the second best batsman of all time but not near Bradman... his average doesn't go close does it ??? no of course it doesn't......... Hobbs was also a far slower scorer than Don... the guy I rate at number three is Hammond who was a faster scorer than Hobbs and almost as good, plus Hammond was a good bowler.... but in the end Bradman is just about everyones number one except for a few nutters and fanboys and nationalists, but even Indians admit Don was better than their hero Tendulkar...... Now please don't make yourself look silly mate.

 

Yes well said, I really hope mCVey accepts this because if a guy wants to make himself look stupid it is to say Bradman ain't the best batsman ever, he is said by many many many sports experts to be not only the greatest cricketer of all time but the greatest sportsman of all time... period.

 

I've noticed you get very defensive whenever someone has anything less than complete unwavering praise for an Aussie legend. You shouldn't take it so personally and start calling posters stupid merely for having a different opinion.

Why is Bradman automatically a greater cricketer than, say Kallis, Sobers or Botham, who excelled at two aspects of the game rather than one? Are we not even allowed to ask the question?

As for Bodyline it wasn't much different in spirit to what the West Indians were doing in the 70s and 80s. Be interesting to see how someone like Bradman fared against Garner, Houlding and co. No doubt he'd have hit them all for sixes...

 

Not my bag cricket but interesting reading.

 

No he wasn't a big six hitter and no I am not getting defensive, with Bradman there is no need to be, simple as that, I am not calling McVey an idiot just asking him to rethink before he does look silly, to mention Tendulkar or Hobbs and kallis for instance who are batsmen, in kallis's case he also bowled and qulaifies as an allrounder but his bowling alone wouldn't have got him into test cricket, his batting was really great. Bradman would have handled the west indians as well as he handled Miller, lindwall, Larwood, Voce, Constantine etc, fast is fast, bodyline was vastly worse than what the West indians were doing but obviously they were headhunters too but they never played outside the commonly accepted way to play the game, Bodyline did, it had like 4 to 5 LEG slips as well as a few orthodox slipsmen, this made batting against fast bowling directed at your head and upper body, you were bound to get out caught on the leg side sooner rather than later, if Curtley Ambrose had a field like that he would have been completely inplayable.

There have been great allrounders so many it is hard to separate them...... Sobers is the best batting allrounder ever and Keith Miller the best bowling allrounder....... Warwick Armstrong or the south african Faulkener the best leg spin allrounder and Wilfred Rhodes the best off spin allrounder but to say one of them is twice as good as any other allrounder is not true, Sobers is ahead but not by all that much, Bradman is... and most people recognise him as the greatest cricketer and 99 per cent say the best batsman ever.... so whats wrong with me being adamant about it ??? I am not taking anything personally, in fact I am standing on the solidest ground possible as I am with the vast majority on this subject.

 

so basketball cos you sound like a close relative of Michael Jordan... Air Jordan and Air francis ... lol

 

What else was he great at apart from batting? Ridiculous to compare other batsmen to him ?

Several respected authorities have.Bradman did not play in the first game but was out for a duck in the second.

I'm not saying he wasn't great ,or even that he wasn't the greatest batsman of them all, but the idea that he was twice as good as the next man is ridiculous and the assertion that he was the greatest cricketer is highly debateable.

 

A guy makes himself look stupid when he says his countryman is almost twice as good as anyone else.

It's okay to be patriotic but you carry it to absurd lengths and in your own way you are just as arrogant and condescending as Klompton.

 

The statistics say he was nearly twice as good as the next best and that is the point. The great Graham Pollock (who played even less cricket than Bradman) still averaged 40 runs per innings less in test cricket than Don and Pollock's first class average dropped still further down to the mid 50's from memory yet Bradman still maintained an amazing first class average of 95 over a 20+year first class career.

To say anyone is as good or even almost as good as a batsman is rubbish because no one scored the amount of runs he did at the consistency he did..ever and likely never will.

To deny that and to try and say Kallis or Lara or Tendulker was as good or nearly as good simply doesn't add up when their figure not only pale but are almost irrelevant in comparison.

When someone dominates the game as Bradman did at a level far superior to what anyone has done ever before or since (take a look at the total percentage of runs he scored compared to what the rest of his teammates combined scored to see that he was worth better than 3 batsmen alone) a serious case can be mounted that he was the best cricketer ever no sweat and only Sobers comes close, even if he did only bat(which is a pretty important facet of the game anyway).

 

You failed to mention he made 103 not out in the second innings of the second test in a match we won (the only one of that series we did).

 

A serious case can be made that he was the greatest batsman ,he most probably was, greatest cricketer? Debateable.

 

Bradman was clearly light years ahead of the field in his own time. The main thing I would point out is in his day international competition wasn't what it is now. The only world class side besides Australia was England. Indeed 70% of his Tests were against England. South Africa, India and the West Indies were not the powers they became later. No ****stan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand either.

Bradman may well be the greatest batsman ever. By record, by reputation, by his impact on the game and dominance of his era, it's hard to argue against him. The likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis compiled excellent records whilst circumnavigating the globe facing West Indian pacemen, subcontinent spinners, Warne and McGrath in Australia, Donald and Pollock in SA, Murali in Colombo and so on, on all kinds of wickets in all kinds of conditions. To say they are almost irrelevant by comparison is laughable.