Home > Cricket > Bradman is cricket's greatest batsman of all time - past, present and future
Bradman is cricket's greatest batsman of all time - past, present and future
It's not just Sir Donald's statistics that tell such a remarkable story. This is a man who took sporting prowess to a level we will never see again.
by Craig Hackney on 26 May 2008
Email this Article (26) Comments
Free £25 bet when you register at
Rightly or wrongly, batsmen are the glamour boys of cricket.
Although the input of bowlers is just as important as the guys higher up the order, the big names of the sport, with a few exceptions, are the ones who are proficient at wielding the willow.
Amongst this group are some of the legends of the game. Names like Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara from the recent crop. Going back further we have Viv Richards, Graeme Pollock, Greg Chappell, Sunil Gavaskar, George Headley and Victor Trumper.
As good as this lot are, and there are a number of other names who deserve to be on this list, the very best that any one of them could hope to achieve is to be considered the second best batsman ever.
The reason that these stellar players are reduced to also-rans is, of course, the man known simply as The Don – Sir Donald Bradman. He is the yardstick against whom all others are measured – invariably unfavourably – and whose record will never be equalled.
For the statistically minded, no-one else comes close. Bradman’s average of 99.94 will never be bettered by anyone with any kind of serious Test career. His 6996 test runs in 52 Tests included 29 centuries with a record 12 double centuries and two triple centuries.
He also scored over 5000 runs in Ashes Tests, scored centuries in six consecutive Tests, three double centuries in a Test series, scored 300 in a single day and scored a century in a single session on six occasions. Amazing.
Much is made of Bradman’s final innings. Requiring only four runs to finish his career with an average of 100, he was famously bowled for a duck by Eric Hollies. As nice as the round figure would have been, the duck proved that Bradman was human – almost.
Such was Bradman’s dominance of the sport – some suggest that it is unrivalled by anyone, in any sport – that the infamous “leg theory” was spawned to try to curb his influence. Bodyline was one of the darkest periods in cricket history, but it speaks volumes of the dominance of Bradman, that the English resorted to one of the most unsporting acts ever seen on the cricket field as a way of curbing his influence.
Despite all of the success, it wasn’t entirely a fairytale career. Although Bradman was the foundation stone on which the Australian team was built, he didn’t fit well into the team. He kept himself apart, often travelling separately in first-class - mainly because he could.
Remember, in those days travelling to England took weeks, so the separation was not necessarily out of aloofness; it helped reduce the impact of the journey. Nevertheless, it made him about as popular as poo-flavoured ice cream amongst his team-mates.
The famous incident in which Bradman received a gift of £1,000 pounds from Arthur Whitelaw, as a token of his appreciation of Bradman’s innings of 334 at Leeds, gives an insight into the mindset of the man. Not only did Bradman not share his good fortune with his team-mates as is the norm today, he didn’t even buy them a beer as thanks for their part in his success
But that was Bradman the man, not the batsman. In the middle he was unequalled. It has been suggested by fans of contemporary players like Tendulkar, that Bradman’s position at the top of the tree is undeserved because he played in a time when techniques, both batting and bowling, were undeveloped. What cr*p
Bradman pioneered technique. His cover drive was a thing of unequalled beauty, his horizontal bat shots were sublime. Anyone who suggests he didn’t have technique knows nothing about cricket.
It is true that he didn’t face the amount of analysis and scrutiny that goes into the modern game. It is equally true that bowlers like Larwood were the equal of any modern bowler. And Bradman also didn’t have the benefit of the modern technology that makes the life of today’s batsmen so much easier.
Bradman’s bat was an ordinary lump of wood, not a highly sculpted and compressed weapon that is available today. His pads were only slightly better than going out bare legged. His gloves were cotton with bits of rubber glued on to protect his hands. He had no helmet to protect his head and, worst of all, he had the equivalent of an old jam tin to protect his wedding tackle.
Bradman also had to contend with uncovered pitches, a fact that cannot be overlooked. Today’s pitches are manicured and protected and won’t be played on if affected by the weather in any way.
Sure, the game is different today, but there is no doubt that Bradman would still dominate. His commitment, determination and concentration were what set him apart and those qualities still have currency today.
Who knows, with all of the help available to modern players, he could have been even better. Now that’s a scary thought.
Comments (26)
by Mark T on May 27, 2008
I do not think it is fair to compare the cricketers of today to that of yesteryear. Bradman was a brilliant player, and that cannot be denied. However, the modern age has other pressures. Bradman played 50 odd tests, where todays great players play over a hundred. they also play a lot more frequently than those of the past. Then thrown into this is 50 0ver and 20/20 matches. So as great as Bradman was, I do not think it fair to compare him to the players of today or even speculate that he would have been as great, had he played in the modern era.
by harry the hornet on May 27, 2008
great piece craig..bradman will always be the greatest ever
by Harihar VSG on May 28, 2008
I agree with Mark T. Definitely Bradman was a great, but its hard to say he was a better batsman than a Sobers or a Richards or a Lara. One should should not forget that Jack Hobbs was considered a better batsman than the Don by some of the seasoned observers and mere stats always never give the whole picture. The incomparable cricketer of modern era, Brian Lara has held the world record twice 375 & a 400*, but his 213 & 153* were better than the two world record scores. Its not like how much you score, but how you score. I seriously do not think Bradman any better than the 3 immortal West Indian giants Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Vivian Richards and Brian Lara. Bradman was great, an all-time great for sure, but to call him the best of all-time is perhaps not fair. May be we could call him as statistically the best, but I would always prefer a Sobers, or a Richards or a Lara to Bradman. The fear a Sobers, or Viv or Brian would install in the minds of opponents is unparalleled and Bradman would not have destroyed bowling attacks like these true greats from the Caribbean.
by aniket on June 10, 2008
i think sachin tendulkar has passed bradman as the greatest in cricket with more than one factors first of all its unfair to compare but if one look at the matches sachin has played,his consistensy over a period of time, quality of bowlers faced(warne,macgrath,akram,walsh,ambrose,murli to name just a few)and handling the pressure of billions he is just best
by sachidanand on September 27, 2008
as far as i am concerned there is no one who could be considered as the greatest ever apart from sachin he has proved in both the forms of cricket (not just the tests as well as a ODI batsmen) he plays role of an opener and a middle order batsmen in the tests which is not that easy. no bradman (Although he is also a great batsman)or lara or richards or sobers played with a team that was not that strong.they had a strong team and world class players to back them up every time they failed no one played with the pressure sachin had to bear. no one could handle all those meaningless critics n their criticisms no one has ever won the matches singlehandedly as sachin as done so it has to be sachin
by wayne challenger on March 24, 2009
i dont understand how people have the courage to say sachin is better than lara. first of all sachin tendulkar has never ever dominated a good test bowling attack for a whole series in his career up until now. sachin has never made five hundreds runs in a series and he has been playing for 20 years. sachin had a big series verses australia in 1998 when mcgrath wasnt there and the bowlers were KASPROWITZ, ADAM DALE, GARVIN ROBERTSON and SHANE WARNE supported by LEAHMAN. STEVE WAUGH and MARK WAUGH now if u take WARNE from the bunch the attack is pretty poor. that series tenulkar scored over 400 runs and average over a hundred, the next series in australia when MCGRATH, LEE, WARNE, and FLEMING played he didnt score 250 runs and average 46, those are the areas that tendulkar lacks where lara has come through time and time again
every great player who has played test cricket batted at number 3 at some point in there career, lara batted there and scored 9 centuries and average 60. dont u find it strange that sachin has never ever batted at number 3 in all 157 games he has played? here is why. number 3 is a very testing position where if the team lose an early wicket he had real pressure on him, in ten one day internationals sachin has batted at number 3 he has 92 runs from with an average of 10. now with a record like that its pretty obvious sachin wont do well at number 3, furthermore if sachin is that great a player as some people believe why he never score runs when india lost early wickets? time and time again he had failed when he suppose to step up when india lose both openers early or lose the number 3, i believe greatness is measures by tuff situations and crises and when u are able to rise above that time and time again like how lara has done then your genius cant be questioned. about 25 of lara 34 centuries were scored with west indies having less than 20 runs on the bored most of the times against attacks of supreme quality
brian lara is easily the second best batsman after don bradman. when i heard shane warne said tendulkar is better than lara i could never accept that when lara himself has dominated warne more than tendulkar.in shane warne career there were 6 double centuries that were score against him and lara alone has 3 out of the 6, 277, 226 and 213 and they were all scored when he had good bowlers bowling from the other end such as MCRATH, MCDERMOTT, LEE, GILLESPIE and MACGILL. the other players who got a double century against warne are LAXMAN 281 SHASTRI 206 and NASSER HUSSEIN 207 sachin tendulkar is not a part of that illustrious group, sachin scored some runs verses warne in 1998 when nobody was bowling from the other end GARVIN ROBERTSON,ADAM DALE. MICHEAL KASPROWITZ and GREG BLWETT
some people love to say sachin is this great one day player. i think he is good enough but nothing such as brian lara, sachin has played over 400 one day games and have 43 centuries of all those centuries he has scored weather opening the batting where he have done over 300 times or batting in the middle where has done over 100 times how come not even one of those centuries were scored against AMBROSE, WASIM AKRAM, ALLAN DONALD or COURTNEY WALSH or IMRAN KHAN? those are some of the best bowlers to have played this game and not only did sachin never scored a century against them his average against thm is about 25 where as lara has scored 2 centuries against donald and averge over 50 against him 3 against wasim akram and average over 50 and he did that batting in the middle and opening the batting
by wayne challenger on March 26, 2009
sachin was signed by yorshire in 1992 and didnt even score one century in the four day championship from 18 games played and as a result of that yorkshire came third to the last. now when lara played for warwickshire in the 1994 he scored 2006 runs with 9 centuries from 15 matches and warwickshire won the championship. that is when a player could lead from the front with the bat. i often wonder if sachin never had the likes of azharrudin and vinod kambli early in his career and now raul dravid and the others in india team what would of become of his career cause it seems to me he onlycould score runs if a platform is been laid for him. if u think am lieing CHECK THE STATS
on March 29, 2009 on March 29, 2009
HOW MANY CENTURY HAD LARA SCORED AGAINST THOSE BOWLERS, KINDLY CHECK UR FACTS BEFORE
by wayne challenger on April 04, 2009
this is what SACHIN and LARA did against these bowlers in one day internationals. LARA verses DONALD 16 innings, 754 runs, 2 centuries, average 53.88 LARA verses AKRAM 33 innings 1143 runs, 3 centuries, average 40.82 LARA verses WAQAR YOUNIS 30 innings 1064 runs, 3 centuries, average 38 LARA verses MCGRATH 24 innings 1012 runs, 2 centuries, average 46. SACHIN verses DONALD 26 innings 587 runs, O CENTURY average 22.57 SACHIN verses AKRAM 25 innings 769 runs, 0 CENTURY average 36.61 SACHIN verses WAQAR YOUNIS 22 innings 791 runs, 2 centuries, average 35.95 SACHIN verses MCGRATH 23 innings 829 runs, 2 centuries, average 36. and SACHIN never scored a century against AMBROSE or WALSH either but LARA didnt play against them so they were not included.
this is what LARA and SACHIN did against these bowlers in one day internations. LARA verses DONALD 16 innings 754 runs, 2 centuries, average 53.88 LARA verses AKRAM 33 innings 1143 runs, 3 centuries, average 40.82 LARA verses WAQAR YOUNIS 30 innings 1064 runs, 3 centuries, average 38 LARA verses MCGRATH 24 innings 1012 runs, 2 centuries average 46. SACHIN verses DONALD 26 innings 587 runs, 0 CENTURY average 22.57 SACHIN verses AKRAM 25 innings 769 runs, 0 CENTURY average 36.61 SACHIN verses WAQAR YOUNIN 22 innings 791 runs, 2 centuries, average 35.95 SACHIN verses MCGRATH 23 innings 829 runs, 2 centuries, average 36. and SACHIN never scored a century verses AMBROSE or WALSH either but LARA didnt play against them so they were not included.
by vamsi baratam on April 04, 2009
hey WAYNE CHALLENGER...u r speakin bull shit dude..looks like u know nothin abt cricket..so u r unfit to speak abt sachin..
by wayne challenger on April 05, 2009
how could facts be bullshit? facts is reality that is what it is. all you have to do is rebut what i said with whatsoever knowledge and facts you have about sachin. maybe you are a sachin fan so i could understand where you are coming from. why cant sachin dominate top bowlers?
maybe you are the one who dont know anything about cricket because if you know about the game you would of try to find some ways and means to make what am saying look like its not true. rather than just tell me i dont know anything about cricket.
by wayne challenger on April 11, 2009
and anybody who is ready for a debate between lara and tendulkar i will be waiting. i agree sachin is a top player i wont doubt that but some people mostly indians believe he is the best. this is a player who have score 4 centuries from 9 innings verses kenya and couldnt 1 century in 51 innings combined verses allan donald and wasim akram. u all had better learn how cricket is.
by omar tahir on April 14, 2009
yea all those players r great but inzamam ul haq should be up there in the top three best players of all time without any questions asked.
on April 14, 2009 on April 14, 2009
well i respect inzamam as a top player. he always score runs when pakistan need him the most. as i get said great players are measured by tuff situations and trying times unlike sachin tendulkar who could only score runs when other batsmen lay platform for him. if he had played for west indies his career would of been over 10 years ago because he wont have opening batsmen to rely on.
by wayne challenger on April 14, 2009
i think inzamam is a much better player than what he get credit for. he played some truly superb innings for pakistan during his time but the best innings i have seen from a pakistani batsman is basit ali 127 not out verses west indies in sharjah 1993. ambrose and walsh was smacked to all parts of the ground. however lara spoiled his plan by scoring 153 brilliant runs waqar younis was clubbered for 65 runs from his 8 overs and on two occasions he was despatched for 3 fours in an over by lara
by Anand Krishnan on April 20, 2009
Dear All, Yes Bradman was the greatest in batsmenship till date. As others in their columns have menioned Sobers , Viv, Lara they were the best of their respective generations.Wayne's work on who is the best between Lara v Sachin is very telling. We in India tend to treat over all statistics as a criteria for being the best.Its like saying if I score 10k runs versus zim, bld,kenya, Namibia. will i be called a great batsmen.In fact I read another article by Mr Anantha Narayanan a statistician , he says Sachin is not even India's best.Have a look in a site called third slip. Back to Bradman the bats used would'nt be like todays.The pitches were uncovered .Truly AMAZING.The GREATEST EVER !!!
by wayne challenger on April 21, 2009
well anand am happy you get my point. its very hard to discuss cricket with some people who dont understand the fine points of the game. i dont rate lara greatness based on scores such as 375 and 400 even though they are great feats, is scores like his 277 verses australia in sydney of 1993 when he know he had to come good to keep west indies hopes alive, and his 213 verses australia when the whole series depends on one false stroke. which other batsman could of took their team from 37 for 4 and score a double with pedro collins and jimmy adams at the other end against MAGRATH, GILLESPIE, WARNE and MACGILL? not to mention his 153 not out when he came in at 78 for 3 which soon became 105 for 5 and chased 308 against MCGRATH, GILLESPIE, WARNE and MACGILL? to tell you how controlled that innings was when ambrose came out to bat a number 10 west indies still required almost 70 runs and he form the bowling giving ambrose less of the strike as possible before taking his team home with walsh at the other end. no other player could of played those kind of innings verses that quality of attack in those situations. not PONTING not TENDULKAR. during the ashes in england 2005 ponting was really tested with top class bowling throughout the series and he buckled. well i could called at least 30 times when sachin was suppose to step up for india when they really needed him and he always failed and most times india lose.
by wayne challenger on April 22, 2009
what has sachin tendulkar done that is special to take his place? i dont think he did anything specail at all in cricket. dont you realize sachin tendulkar highest score of 248 not out is against the weakest team in cricket bagladesh? and of his 4 lousy double centuries one was scores against zimbabwe 201 not out? that was before he took ten years to make a double century and when he did he score it against an average new zealand attack 217? hahahhahaha.
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Owen's no gamble - Liverpool's former goal-den boy could be a Manchester United bargain
Galaxies apart: Why David Beckham is NOT the pride of Landon (Landon Donovan, that is)
TEN reasons why South Africa's Peter de Villiers is rugby union's greatest
Arsenal Champions League Chelsea Cricket news Euroleague Fantasy football Football news Formula 1 Liverpool Manchester United NBA Newcastle United Premier League Sports news Tottenham Hotspur Transfer rumours Twenty20 UEFA UEFA Champions League
© SportBuzz All rights reserved 2008 Sportingo- Sports News & Sports Articles site. Sportingo delivers fresh sports news and analysis by fans-Football News, Tennis News, Rugby Union News, Rugby League, Cricket News, Cycling News, Basketball News and other Sports TV. XML Sitemap 2008.