Mike Sheahans Top 50 Players

[InCase]

As much as I am a fan of Warney, 'The Don' is in a league of his own. His record has stood the test of time. No batsman has come close to emulating his sensational Test batting average of 99.94.

Warney, the best bowler of all time. Bradman the greatest cricketer of all time.

Would his average have been so good had he played as many tests as they play today? would his average been so good had he played against the quality and speed of the bowlers of today?

Both very arguable, I would put money on his average decreasing to around the 50's, just like the greats of today.

I am in no way saying that Sir Donald Bradman is not a great cricketer, I am just saying you can not compare current sports starts to sports stars from years back.

 

[Crow-mo]

Would his average have been so good had he played as many tests as they play today? would his average been so good had he played against the quality and speed of the bowlers of today?

this is flawed thinking. it is much easier today than before. for a number of reasons. the biggest is that players now can squeeze so many more tests in during their physical prime. if you are in your best physical nick for say 5 or 6 years, lets say 23 - 28 as an example. is it better to play 50 tests or 15?

and who says the quality or speed of players is better today? that's a made up assertion without evidence whose sole purpose is to advance your argument where facts will not.

now, you are also obviously not aware of the differences in rules.
for example, there was only a backfoot no ball rule. this meant that the actual length between the batsmen and the bowlers hand was considerably decreased. now a bowler must keep his front foot behind the line. the massive difference that makes is obvious.

Pitches were also uncovered. If it rained, it rained. this again, obviously resulted in more variable surfaces. today, it is a consistent, flat track in optimum condition by comparison.

the conditions, rules, distances etc. made it soooo much more difficult in previous times, that you were not aware of these things seriously undermines your position.

Both very arguable, I would put money on his average decreasing to around the 50's, just like the greats of today.

there is a difference between arguing based on sound cogent positions, and crossing your fingers and hoping. you have nothing to support this fanciful idea more than it suits you.

I am in no way saying that Sir Donald Bradman is not a great cricketer, I am just saying you can not compare current sports starts to sports stars from years back.

that's a lazy cop out. people always compare, and it is often difficult to come to a consistent position. that much is true. however, we are not talking about similar or comparable achievements in this case. what's more we are talking about achievements so far and away superior to those attained in modern times which luxuriates in considerably more favourable circumstance.

someone whose record is vastly superior, in more difficult circumstance, can be easily compared across era's. its when things are not so disparate that it becomes difficult.

 

[Tigersman]

Would his average have been so good had he played as many tests as they play today? would his average been so good had he played against the quality and speed of the bowlers of today?

Both very arguable, I would put money on his average decreasing to around the 50's, just like the greats of today.

I am in no way saying that Sir Donald Bradman is not a great cricketer, I am just saying you can not compare current sports starts to sports stars from years back.

If that was the case there would be at least a few more with figures similar to Bradman from thatera, just as there is several "greats" around the 50 average now.

He was clearly a superior player to anyone around at the time.

Hard to imagine anyone that dominant statistically these days in any sport.

Tiger would be the only one even close in my mind.

 

[Ebert80]

Lindrum was possibly as dominant in his sport as Bradman was in his, but with billiards being a "minor" sport he hasn't been given as much prominence.

 

[Tigersman]

Lindrum was possibly as dominant in his sport as Bradman was in his, but with billiards being a "minor" sport he hasn't been given as much prominence.

Fair enough

Cant say I know much about him.

 

[huggy_b]

you're very certain of things, that are far from certain.

the russell > Chamberlain thing is very, very far from a sure thing.
Did you know that Russell often played with 3 or 4 other future hall of fame players whereas Chamberlain didn't. Also, that Russells per game averages fell down the toilet playing against Chamberlain, because he did nothing other than front him defensively, and couldn't score on Wilt. he sacrificed his entire game to make sure there was a marginal drop in Wilt's production, so his other, much more talented teammates could make the difference.

There is almost no doubt that Wilt was a far, far, superior player. the jordan versus Wilt is an era thing. in which the modern era always wins in these things.

No Bill Laimbeer, no care.

 

[MightyHawks]

As if.
Not even close...
6 championships to 2 in favour of Jordan...

So Cats fans know that premierships are what counts...

On that logic...

Greg Madigan > Gary Ablett Snr

Also Michael Tuck = Geelong Football Club

 

[Stats Man]

Haha!! Gold by the guy who mentioned that the 'scruff', says Mike, Craig Bolton goes top 10!!!

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thats strange that Lethal was:
Best & Fairest 1971,1972,1974,1976,1977,1978,1980,1982 (8)
but only
All Australian 1972,1982,1983 (3)

Why the discrepency?

All-Australian teams prior to the modern era were selected on performances at the interstate carnivals. There were no AA teams named in 1970-71, 73-78, 81-82 & 84 during Matthews' career.

In The Best Of The Best, Charles Davis analysed the statistical records of dominant sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations by which their performances differed from the average. His findings were

Player . Statistic . . . +SD Odds against
-----------------------------------------
Bradman .Batting average 4.4 . . 184000/1
Pelé . . Goals per game .3.7 . . . 9300/1
Cobb . . Batting average 3.6 . . . 6300/1
Nicklaus Major titles . .3.5 . . . 4300/1
Jordan . Points per game 3.4 . . . 3000/1

Thus he concluded that Bradman's performance is statistically far more extraordinary than that of other sporting legends.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

A lot of people say that Mathews is terribly overrated...

By 'alot of people', you mean 'I', right?

Don't think I've ever heard Matthews labelled as overrated before.

 

[Ron]

I'm disappointed Ben Kinnear isn't in the list.

You've got a lot to answer for Mike.

 

[wildchild3]

would like to know where u think heather mckay fits into this..dominated squash for a good decade or more.

also for the person who said eddie mercxx has a case, iv seen no mention of lance armstrong who is a cut above the rest for dominance in a sport.

cricket - the don although im sure viv richards would be right up there, probably higher that warne.

basketball - jordan easily. think about the quality of players they played against.