To put things into perspective, Bradman had a 6 or 7 year gap in test cricket with WW2 halting play . In an interview before his death , he was asked how he would fair playing in the current time . He replied that his average would only be around 70. The interviewer perplexed asked why that low an average and Sir Don nonchalantly replied " You do realise I am 90."
A former Australian captain once retired from the pitch not out in order to not break sir Donald's record. That's the respect this man has from Australian fans.
Haydos smashed the record. That was cool too. Tubby Taylor was being critiqued and was fighting for his spot in the team when he equalled the 334 Australian Test record score. That was special, and I am glad I got to see it live. ❤
Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are: 4.4 - Bradman (Cricket) 3.7 - Pelé (Soccer/Football) 3.6 - Ty Cobb (Baseball) 3.5 - Jack Nicklaus (Golf) 3.4 - Michael Jordan (Basketball) The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".
@@StevenHazeI don’t think they rate snooker/billiards as a ‘sport’. It’s more a game of skill. But if they did, sure lindrum would be off the charts. They’ve also left out Heather Mackay or Khan in squash. They dominated for years. But I’m guessing they are comparing major sports with huge followings.
In cricket Don is God, there's no question, no debate, everyone's agree. Then there's the three greats of the modern game Brian Lara, Ricky Pointing and Sachin Tendulkar.
in test cricket you are considered a great batsman if you average over 50 runs per innings, virat kohli averages 49.29, steve smith is still playing and i think has the second highest average of all time at 58.61, bradman averaged 99.94, at a time when the batting surfaces were not covered when rain occurred and the surface was a lot more difficult to bat on, amazing
...gloves made of nothing more than a thin piece of leather, pads that were bamboo shoots wrapped in cotton and a small amount of padding, oh and don't forget a bat that was basically a fence pailing.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australia's main public national tv/radio station can be contrcted at post office box 9994 in any capital city in Australia
@@jimbobbobby5103 na, if that was the case then the guys who averaged around 50 back then would average 100. The guys below him were similar talent to today’s elite, he was just far and above the ‘elite’.
His 452 runs would have been in one game. The narrator said 452 runs in 415 minutes, which works out to just over 6 hours. That's pretty impressive, I hadn't heard that before, that's amazing really. What is pretty funny though is when Bradman is playing his first Test in England and he's commenting on how well everybody is treating them, Yeah......that doesn't happen anymore, they hate us over there.
In his last innings he batted he got a duck. Goes to show how amazing he was as a batsman with that average. A duck in cricket is when as a batsman you get out for 0. A golden duck is when you get out for 0 on the first ball. Silver duck on the second ball. Bronze duck on the third ball. A diamond duck is when you get run out without even facing a ball.
Don Bradman actually meet with Babe Ruth in1932 at Yankee Stadium most of The Dons records have been broken but his career batting average of 99.94 will be around long after I have left this world the next best batting average is around 62 there are players who have higher averages but have only had 1-2 at bats other records that still stand are Fastest to 2,000 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 and 6,000 Test runs: Most Test double hundreds most first class double hundreds 37 and most triple hundreds 6 most hundreds scored in a single session 6 times each session is about 2hrs the morning session is from the start of play to lunch afternoon lunch to tea and evening from tea to close of the day only batsman to score centuries in 6 consecutive Tests Most runs by a batsman in a single day’s play in Test cricket 309 the next day he was out for 334 the newspaper's front page just said "He's out" it was the only thing printed on that page other than the name of the paper n the date but everyone knew what and who it was about
It's very very hard to compare players from different eras in any sport. But there's 3 things we can say about Bradman fairly definitively. 1. Bradman often had to bat on pitches that were far inferior to those of today. 2. He had to face bowling that was not constrained by the rules of today. 3. The stats don't lie. Bradman was utterly punishing. If he got a start you were pretty much fkd. What people don't understand about Bradman compared to todays sloggers is that Bradman almost never hit the ball in the air. He basically never gave you a chance. And he was no Geoffrey Boycott. Bradman scored briskly and relentlessly. The Don was an utter megastar. And JB, he was also fairly widely acknowledged as..... an asshole! Hahaha. Not exactly universally loved in the dressing room! My Australian cricket hero is someone who was universally loved, and has an incredible story, Keith Miller. What a man!
I'm sure I read somewhere that he only hit 6 sixes in his entire Test career. Just incredible that he needed to score only 4 runs in his last innings to lift his Test average to 100, but was bowled out without scoring.
Keith Miller flew Mosquitoes in WW2 over Germany. After one mission, he took a detour returning home to fly over Bonn…because that’s where Beethoven was born, his favourite composer. Once, a cricket writer was asking him about the pressure of playing Test cricket. His reply was pure Miller: “There’s no pressure in playing cricket. It’s just a game. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse!” Which sounds about right…😂😂😂
@@metallewd3472 I think it doesn’t matter about pitches, helmets, etc. Tendulkar fanboys especially, of today make up all sorts of reasons he is the GOAT. But he doesn’t even have the best average from today’s players, and it is pumped up from playing more tests against Bangladesh, who are a state level team at best. The very good players under Bradman averaged about the same as very good players from today. So they are on a par with each other. He was twice as good as the next best player, from ANY era. That’s all that needs to be said.
you should check out a documentary on the bodyline series, the most controversial ashes series of all time, even the goverments at the time got involved,
One difference between Babe Ruth and Bradman is that Babe Ruth died early, and never got to see players like Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, etc. Bradman lived into his 90's and got to saw the great batsmen of the 80's and 90's. He was able to comment on the batsmen of the modern era.
His feats were even better than modern players. Now pitches are drop in and consistent in bounce and movement. They are also well covered during rain periods for protection from weather. In Bradman's day pitches were left exposed and subject to local soil conditions. It resulted in some very bowler friendly wickets. A nightmare for batsmen. The ball could be downright dangerous in the hands of some very famous fast bowlers. Remembering no helmets then. Yet he batted on and plundered runs making some famously feared bowlers look ordinary. My dad went to school with him, although in younger grades. He just worshipped him.
Some great bowlers back then as well and the pitchs were uncovered all the time back then not like they are now where they are covered if it rains and over night, His Test average was 99.94 and his Test aggregate 6,996 runs. In 96 Sheffield Shield innings, he averaged 110.19. Bradman's total of 117 first-class centuries (including 37 double centuries) is still a record for any Australian.
452 not out was not just in one game but in one innings. To put things into perspective, The Don's test average was 99.94 (ie. on average, he scored 99 runs every time he went into bat the next best is an Englishman, HC Brook whose average was 62.15. That is in the entire history of the game. Ironically, in his last innings of test cricket he was bowled for a duck (0). Popular mythology says it he didn't see the ball because he had tears in his eyes knowing this was going to be his last Ashes test. I don't believe that, but it's a good yarn. No disrespect to the great Babe Ruth, but the The Don owns the sports stats battle by a country mile. I was lucky enough to meet him and photograph him once.
Harry Brook only just got there, Time will tell if he can hold that average as Warner, Smith and Marnus have all averaged over 60 at stages to fall away. As has Kohli and Ab Devilliers I think. It puts 99.94 in real perspective in that sense.
you have to remember that it would take 70 days on a steam ship to get from Australia to England for test matchs or to go to India or South Africa or the West indies, cant imagine how many more matchs he would have played if they had transport like today
Mate, I’m so happy you enjoyed that and Sir Donald Bradman makes me so proud to be an Aussie and the fact that it’s an international sport. I barrack for Collingwood in the AFL but when you can compete world wide, it’s next level greatness.
Alot of dons records still stand.. The kitchen bats and all round technology was terrible revolving cricket compared to now days, the cricketers now wouldn't survive back then.
My favourite story of Bradman was when he was invited to play in a club game he had score 30 odd runs when the captain of the other team made a bowling change Bradman turned to the keeper and asked what is this bowler like the keeper replies with don't you remember he took your wicket a few weeks ago he has been bragging about it ever since so the Don said something along the lines of oh watch this then then next over went 6 6 4 2 4 4 6 1 (they were 8 ball overs back then) the next over went 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 4 the other batsman scored a run in the next over then Bradman went 6 6 1 (bye or leg bye) 4 4 6. scoring over 100 runs in 3 overs or 18 minutes the fastest century scored in T20 came of 38 balls Bradman did it in 22 just think about that for a second that is how good this bloke was
I think being that far ahead of others at the time you're playing is the key to determining the goat. Obviously times change, but being so far ahead of the pack is the important point. As to bowlers, he faced some of the most ferocious bowling of all time.
I'd like to think that these sporting greats are watching over us. So, Babe Ruth, "Don" Bradman, and Walter Payton; may your fields be forever green. May we continue in your footsteps!
Sir Don Bradman was actually born in 1908 in the NSW country town of Cootamundra.. in the home that was shown in your documentary 86 Adams Street to be precise... I know this because I live at number 53! Many people and articles state he was born at a farm near Cootamundra, but this is not correct. It is a popular place to visit if you are a cricket fan. The family moved to Bowral in 1911 for his mother's health. Thoroughly enjoying your reactions and your site. Cheers and Merry Christmas from Down Under.
Don Bradman is held in very high esteem in every cricket playing nation , his Test match average of 99.94 is and will forever be far above any other players and is for every time he batted , normally a test match consists of 2 innings for each team and the test team is selected from the best players from each country . There are lots of great stories about " The Don " .
Great to see some Americans finally learning about Bradman , To put in perspective if Bradman played baseball and considering .340 is a Great career average for a Major league Baseball player , Then double it .680 , Now your in Bradman's League , That's how good he was.
The distance between Bradman (in terms of averages) is so far - it is unlikely it will ever be broken. We watch amazing batsmen now, who we say “he’s as great as bradman” - but their average is nearly half of Bradman. He absolutely dominated the opposition.
Like others have said, there is virtually no doubt that Bradman is the cricket GOAT. His test match average of 99.94 is way ahead of the next best average of 62.15. His first class average (professional non-test games) of 95.14 is also far ahead of the next best of 71.70. (For batters who played at least 20 matches.) There were very good fast bowlers and spinners in Bradman's day. Larwood, the main Emglish bowler in the Bodyline test series, was fast and accurate - his 154.5 kph is up with the best of today; he could place a coin on the pitch and hit it 6/6
On his first overseas tour in 1930 to Britain in all games, including 'first-class games against the professional English counties, he scored 2,960 runs. Against the full England national team he scored 974 in five Test Matches (International matches). That total did not include the 452 he made in a single innings; that was scored in Australian first-class 'State cricket' before going to England.
Bodyline is something you may want to delve into more. Basically the English players tactic was to bowl bouncers. That is, bowl the ball short and at high speed, and then it would end up around head height. It did not look Ike they had helmets back then. Many years later, we have had a fatality where a batter got hit in the head with a ball in 2014, and passed away two days later. RIP Phillip Hughes who was only 25 years of age. He had been wearing a helmet too. Totally 💔 heartbreaking
I don’t say this lightly, look up Sir Don’s batting average and then look up the second best ever, the brilliant thing about cricket is that EVERY stat is recorded, Sir Don is streets ahead of the next best.
Don averaged 99 every time he batted in the same time the second best averaged around 50 Ever since the best average is less than 60 As you have seen he was incredible at a lot of sports including of scratch of golf, could have played top level tennis got a break of 100 at snooker I don't think there has been a sportsman like him I actually got to see him when I was young in a grandstand at Sydney Cricket ground I just stopped and started to cry
Hi Johnny. I think I'm right when I say, that at one stage during his career, Don was in the States and met up with his baseball equivalent, Babe Ruth. What a meeting of two legends that would have been.
The world will never forget The Don. He was not on the next level. He was on the level above that. I reckon that if he were around today, he would be batting #3 for Australia, and scoring runs like a machine.
My father saw him play at the SCG before WW2 and after WW2. He saw Bradman get out for a golden duck which was a rare thing to see with this great man.
In those days it was First Class or Test Cricket which was played over 4 days, with both teams playing two innings each. I believe the record run was scored in one innings.
Bradmans batting average is 99.94 the next best is 62.15, no one in any sport as far as I’m aware world wide in any sport on an international or national basis holds a candle to Sir Don and I include the likes of Jordan and Ruth statistically speaking.
That average of 99.94 won't be beaten anytime soon & the lovely thing about Bradman compared to some sportsman now was the complete humbleness, especially in view of the way the media held him up
Don Bradman is such a huge statistical anomaly, despite the argument about ‘his era’ etc. his average is whole three standard deviations away from the next nearest player ever….that is a huge gulf, not even close. Definitely the GOAT.
the 452 was in one Innings of one game v Qld. the 1000 runs in May is a thing in england that only the best of the best ever acheive. His run tally in that 1930 Test series has yet to be exceeded in almost 100 years. Including a triple century in a day! Great teams these days are considered to be scoring quickly if they can combine to scor 300 in a day. He did it by himself. All this on uncovered pitches with rudimentary protective equipment. He was not just the Babe Ruth of Cricket, (they actually met) he was Muhamed Ali, Mike Jordan and Joe Montana as well. There has never been a more phenomenal sportsman than him.
In terms of skills regarding modern cricket, the fielding is more intense and a higher level. But that is the advent of the 2 short forms (20-20 and One day international). Are the bowlers better? possibly (but not hugely), but in those days they did not put covers on the pitch, this meant rain could turn a highway (easy pitch) into a swinging, seaming horror story. So yes his record average of nearly double the best of the rest does stand peerlessly. There was one South African guy who scored at 75 but his career was cut short by Apartheid bans on South African sport, so we will never know in his case.
During the era of the great West Indian teams of the 80's the Don was at the MCG watching their quartet of truly terrifying fast bowlers shred the Aussies. During the lunch break someone asked don how he would go against this formidible bowling line-up. don was quiet for a momemnt and finally said "I would average around 70'. this flabberghasted his inquisitor who said, 'But, sir Don, you had a batting average of almost 100, you are the greatest player ever, how can you say you would only average 70?' The Don grinned and replied, 'Well I am nearly 80'.
In Test cricket, a batsmen who has an average of over 50 runs across his career (of which there are only a few dozen) is considered great. Bradman's average was 99.94; to put this in perspective, the nextt best for a batsman who has played 20 or more Tests (so as to discount a player who only has one or two great seasons but can't maintain his performance) is just 61.87 by Adam Voges. So it really is Bradman is the greatest then daylight to everyone else. BTW cricket wickets are MUCH easier to bat on these days, and bats are more powerful too.
I live in the southern highlands not far from bowral and their is the Bradman museum across from the bowral cricket ground which is great..my son who is 20 plays cricket and is a bowler and one of the good batters in his team is jokingly called “Donny” in reference to Sir Don Bradman..so that just shows you that a bunch of kids aged between 17-21 know who Don Bradman is as he is and was such a part of our culture.. it’s a bit like a lot of younger kids knowing the great horse Australian horse pharlap
Here's a classic bit of history trivia. There was another Bradmanesque batsman at the same time by the name of Archie Jackson. Who was another cricket prodigy at the same time. He played first class cricket at 15, selected for his State when he was 17 and was selected to play for Australia at 19 in the 1928-29 Test Series against England. He scored a maiden century of 164 in his first test. Imagine a team with 2 prodigies at the same time. However, Jackson contracted TB during this time which definitely effected his playing career and died at 23. Imagine.
Thanks Johnny. 😀 Good question about the bowling. A rabbit hole for you to dive in to is the "bodyline" tactic. This eventually changed the game in the bowlers favour. Modern protective equipment, in particular helmets have changed the game. As well as rule changes regarding bouncers. All things considered, the Don is still way ahead of everyone else. Don Bradman was impressed by Sachin Tendulkar. Tendulkar went on to make the most centuries in history. Don said that the young Tendulkar was the player that was the most similar to himself. These two men are the best statistically. Bradman has the highest batting average and Tendulkar is the leader in most other batting stats.
There are many, many variables in regard to whether The Don would have been so prolific in modern cricket. I'll wait for someone to chime in, they usually go with pitch conditions not favouring bowlers. I'll begin with bat technology. I'm all over this and can outweigh any argument starting with at least ten major factors in modern cricket, that if anything, would push that average past 99.94. By the way, I was playing a game of pool at the local pub with a Welshman. He told me how he went for his Australian citizenship, so I asked him what the questionnaire was like. The first example he gave was, what was Don Bradman's international test cricket batting average? Of course the answer dropped out of my mouth automatically.
@@arconeagain Doesn’t matter mate. Every talks about variables, it’s rubbish, let’s keep it simple. The best players from his era averaged about the same as the best players from this era. So logically, the ‘variables’ have evened themselves out. When some idiot (usually Tendaulker fanboys) start going on about this and that, you just say “Well how come no one else in Bradman’s era averaged 70/80/90?”. Shuts them up pretty quickly. He was nearly twice as good as the next guy, from ANY era.
The fact that he handled bodyline without getting hurt when so many of were and they only brought it in to stop the Don is a testament the he would still make it today. His batting average is still by the best of all batsmen 99.97 runs.
that is not quite true the highest test batting average of all time is 144 held by Kurtis Patterson but he only played two tests batting in only two innings with a high score of 114 not out
I have a new colleague who has been shouting about how many tickets he wrote in December, I looked up our numbers and I wrote more in 3 days during December than he wrote in the whole of December. As you say the good shout about it....
G'day Mate! A bit late to your journey down the cricket rabbit hole but here in Australia Nathan Lyon an "Off Spin" bowler( as distinct from Warnie the leg spinner) has just become only the 8th bowler to take over 500 test wickets!...Warnie and Glenn McGrath are the two other Aussies to do that...BTW the Aussie BBL is on now if you can find a stream for over there... Cheers! and keep looking at cricket the second most watched sport after football in the world!
To help you understand the esteem that Don Bradman was held, consider this. The postal address for Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC, is PO Box 9994, in your capital city. This is in tribute to Bradman’s batting average of 99.94 runs per innings. He was a hero to people in a small country going through some tough times like the depression and ww2. Personally, I don’t think his record as an administrator was as illustrious as his cricket career, but that’s another story I guess.
Although the amount of bowlers who could bowl 145kmh back in Don's day were limited to probably only one bowler per team, please note that the batsmen wore hardly any protection. They definitely didn't have helmets, arm guards or thigh pads. They also played on uncovered wickets, which means the pitch was uncovered throughout the full 5 days of a test match and overnight too, rain, hail or shine. These wickets made the game dangerous, due to 'sticky' wickets or green tops, where big cracks would open up and if the ball hit these cracks, the ball would veer, left, right, up and down, making batting near impossible. Today, the pitches are mostly prepared specifically for batsmen, with flat tracks, where the ball has no life in the pitch, making scoring much easier. Sir Don was a once in a lifetime cricketer to average nearly 100 runs for every bat throughout his career in this era.
Crickets is the most unique of all sports - no one questions who was the best of all time. We argue who was the best AFTER Bradman. His career test average of 99.95 per test innings beats every other batsman by a country mile. There is a statistical anomaly where the highest test average of, I think, 125…scored in the only test that he played. The next greatest batsmen average in the 50’s, maybe low 60’s. During the Bodyline series he averaged 56, and every one believes he failed. An English bowler said that they would’ve given him 75 runs if he didn’t bat! Such was his dominance, for 20 years, 1928-48.
Old footage, unrelated to sport but the photo's of boys as a child in a dress was common. Back then so many children died before 5 or so they were dressed as girls, harder to grow out of since might not get to 5. So until then (5 is a guess) they would be in a dress and afterwards would get pants and that was a big celebration. Medicine has come so far. And the new media really made him the 1st superstar. Get a stick, a golf ball and a water tank and see how you go :)
The difference between your regular everyday GOATS and The Don is, there's Bradman and then there's daylight. There is no Batsman who can even come close to his record.
Hey, nice vid. here is 5 min vid from the Numberfile channel that focuses on his incredible scoring, comparing to other greats and how he nearly had a 100 ave. Not suggesting you react to it but you will find it awe inspiring i think. Thanks mate.
Yeah the debate around comparing older players to modern players is a tough one but in the Don's case most things actually work in his favour. Batting has generally gotten easier over the years, bat technology, player protection, pitch quality and outfield quality have all improved massively, yes bowlers are more athletic now but pace hasnt increased drastically and the lower quality pitches back then made the bounce much less predictable. The big point I think people often try to ignore is that no one else back then was scoring at the rate that Bradman was either. The next best batsmen in Bradman's day had the same averages that the best batsmen today have. An average between 50-60 in Test cricket is considered elite, only a handful of batsmen finished their career above 60 and they all had relatively short careers. Bradman averaging 99.94 is just outrageous, it was outrageous back then and its still outrageous today.
JB, cricket is a game, like baseball, that revolves around statistics. When you begin to understand more about these stats, you will look back on this video in awe at Bradman the batsman. Let's not forget though, that he was a divisive and often unliked character among his peers. Even Bradman wasn't perfect.
in Bradman's day the cricket pitch was not covered at the end of the days play, so if it rained. A bit you still played. And the bats not the same not as thick! the cricketers today would not play on the pitches That they played on back then and i should know as i made cricket pitches for 30 years.
i think any sport has its own elite players, if they rise above their opposition it shows their class, so i certainly think regardless of their opposition then and now, they would rise above them, its a mindset, a passion to play, winning follows that passion
Sir Donald Bradman has a career Test average of 99.94. The next best is 60.97. That's a 64% advantage over the second best player of all time. The Don would have finished his career with an average over 100 (it was 101.39 at the time of his last game) but he scored a duck (0) in his last Test innings. The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to match Bradman's dominance, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records for each sport are .366 and 30.1
Many of Bradmans batting records still stand. No batsman in the history of the sport has retired with an average matching Bradmans 99.4. To put that into perspective, an average of 50 is considered elite, few players retire with averages above 50 and that has been consistent throughout the history of the game. Bradmans average was double that. There are only a handful of players with averages above above the lofty mark of 60, which seems to be the natural ceiling for batsmen. It is astonishing that he obliterated that ceiling and that his record appears unlikely ever to be challenged. His record of 29 test centuries has been passed, but nobody has ever come close to scoring that many centuries in only 52 tests. It takes most twice that many tests. His record of a century every third innings is also unlikely ever to be challenged.
Unlike a lot of sportsmen and sportswomen who are called the greatest of all time he actually is undeniably the greatest batsman of all time. His average runs per innings of 99.94 is a record that still stands today in test cricket. Nobody has even come close to that before or since. I believe his record of 364 runs in a single day of test cricket is record he still holds to this day but you might want to double check that. All those records he got then were in a day when bats were like toothpicks compared to what they use now and also in the days of uncovered pitches which meant that the ball behaved a lot worse for batsmen than it does now and the bowlers were a lot quicker back then. Harold Larwood who was the bowler that was instructed to bowl 'bodyline' to curb his run scoring was believed to bowl consistently around the 100mph mark although speed guns weren't around at the time. There were other players who had other roles roles to play on the field such as wicket keepers, fast bowlers, spin bowlers, all rounders (people who batted and bowled) so you can never say definitively that he was the greatest cricketer but he is certainly up there. You should look into the bodyline series in more detail to see just how dangerous cricket was back then if rules were pushed to limits. Great to see you taking such a good interest though.
@longjohn5322 , there is or was a video somewhere can't remember if it was on here or skysports that used old footage that roughly measured the speed of Larwood, Vose and Bose where they measured the distance to time including the release point and they were all touching or over 90mph on a regular basis. Larwood regularly over 90mph. Combine that with spiteful uncovered pitches means the batsman had a lesser reaction time to what they have now.
The equivalents of Shane Warne in Bradman's time were two other leg-spinners Clarrie Grimmet, and later Bill O'Reilly. At Bradman's peak, if you had to pick an Australian team with either Bradman or Grimmet, but not both, to win a game, you might well go with Grimmett, because, without Bradman the other batsmen would make a reasonably score but without Grimmett they would not bowl the opposition out twice. Bill O'Reilly, was rated, by Bradman, as the best bowler he faced in his career. He was more like a medium-pace leg spinner, than slow, but had the "mental aggression of a fast bowler. When watching news clips of sportsmen in that era you should bear in mind they did not have the ball by coverage we are used to. All they did was show a clip of a player reaching 100, or 200, or the teams being presented before the game started. It was not until the 1950s that TV channel bosses realised that audiences would be interested in ball by ball coverage for the whole day's play. It was of course a technological challenge for the equipment of the day, that often resulted in the player being filmed knocking a few balls back in the practice nets. It was often the cricket writers of the 1930s that gave a more compelling account of a day of of test cricket than the newsreels ever did.
Cricket video to watch from Australia winning the world cup last month. "Glenn Maxwell delivers the greatest batting performance" by Jomboy media, a American baseball fan who is delving into cricket so watch Maxwell win a match in Indian heat while suffering entire body cramps and he cannot run or move his legs yet hits 6,s and 4,s easy, crazy stuff.
A good way to understand how far ahead Bradman was, and still is, would be to compare his average to a baseball average, well kind of. Ty Cobb has the best batting average ever at .366 can you imagine someone averaging around .720 for their baseball career? Think about that and you might understand how far The Don was ahead of everybody else. He is almost twice as good as the next best.
If the next best average was 50 then your math would be accurate but it’s not. And if Ty Cobb has the best average in baseball then I think it’s more likely that you would compare Bradman to the second best average, as it is with Bradman’s average being compared to the next best.
Well I said about twice as good. Guess I could do the maths exactly if I had to. I was just trying to get a baseball fan, who would understand baseball batting averages, to imagine someone being nearly twice as good as the next best. He would understand how good Ty was and then try to imagine someone being nearly twice as good. Imagine if there was a guy who batted 0.700, that's where Bradman is. Just trying to give him some kind of comparison. 😊
