With no major cricket happening at the moment (the IPL hasn't held my attention much this season) I thought I would throw a question up for discussion: Who is the best after Sir. Donald Bradman? The question has floated around cricinfo of late so I thought I would throw my two cents in as well. First it is important to get back to first principles and examine why the question exists at all, then I will mention some of the common answers to the question before putting forward my best suggestion.
Every article on the subject includes the line, or words to the effect of, 'you cannot get past the stats' and nor should there be an article that isn't bound by Bradman's numbers, stats that have overshadowed cricket since his retirement in 1948. If you're an English cricket fan you might sheepishly suggest that his numbers overshadowed the game since the end of the 1930 Ashes tour, but I get ahead of myself. The facts are:
Sir. D. G. Bradman (1928/29-1948)
- 52 tests, 80 innings/10 not-outs, 6996 runs @ 99.94 with 29 centuries and 13 half-centuries, High score of 334. (PLUS 28,000+ first class runs @ 95 with 117 centuries)
- He made 2 triples centuries (also a 299*)
- He also made 10 other double centuries - one every 5 test matches!
- In the 1930 Ashes series he made an astonishing - and still unbeaten - 974 runs (innings of 8, 131, 254, 1, 334, 14 and 232).
His first series as captain was the 1936/37 Ashes series in which his team did poorly in tough conditions, 0-2 down after two tests before he made 270 in Melbourne, 212 in Adelaide and 169 in Melbourne again to win the series 3-2 - the ONLY instance of a team winning after being 0-2 down.
Indeed he was hardly diminished by captaincy, as so many batting-captains are, averaging 101 while leading Australia - Richie Benaud often lords him as Australia's finest captain. To illustrate his value to the team 23/29 centuries came in the 30 victories celebrated in his 52 match career. His ability to dominate a series wasn't restricted to early in a tour either, his average actually increases test by test (over 100 in the 3rd and 4th matches of a series) and he averaged 130 in the 3rd innings of test matches where most batsmen begin to drop off.
He was simply the master batsman of his age and the staggering degree to which that was true suggests he could have been just as destructive in any age of cricket. He was asked in the 1990s by Warne and Tendulkar what he thought of cricket today and how he might go, with little pause he suggested his average would probably drop to 70. They further asked how he came to that conclusion to which he grinned in reply 'well 70 isn't a bad average considering I turned 90 this week!'.
Now I am not fond of being in the majority on cricket matters but in the case of Bradman I and most writers/commentators believe that not only does he have no equal but there is sunshine between him and the next best, the question is really just the degree of sunshine. Several names are often sighted as coming close to his genius. Sir. Garfield Sobers, who made 8000 runs, took over 200 wickets (with pace, swing and finger & wrist spin) as well as amazing fielding skills, was probably the greatest 'cricketer' of all time but whether he was close to Bradman in pure batting terms is an interesting discussion - it is true that he averaged around 60 for most of his career. His predecessor of West Indian batting talent, George Headley was named the 'Black Bradman' for his ability to score consistently in a similar vain to his Australian rival. Headley had to play in an otherwise average side only new to test cricket and I wonder what he might have achieved if he had played in the West Indies teams of the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In England the best argument goes for Sir. Jack Hobbs who dominated batting for almost 30 years before Bradman arrived, and could play brilliant innings on any surface as well as the record of 199 first-class centuries. Although spare a thought for poor Walter Hammond who is probably underrated only because his career ran parallel to The Don who overtook every record Hammond tried to set. South Africans place two greats up for inspection with Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock but their careers were never fully realised due to the isolation of their nation during the 1970s and 1980s.
In my lifetime there have been 2 (perhaps 4) individuals who dared to answer my question. Sachin Tendulkar, the most successful batsman of all time has played any number of amazing innings and carried the attack to quality bowling all over the world in conditions alien to his native India. Brian Lara has probably come closest to Bradman in the modern era, in terms of making big runs with scores of 375 and 400 (as well as his remarkable run of form against Australia in 1999). Then there is Ricky Ponting who dominated for most of the first decade this century and finally Jacques Kallis who is till churning out centuries with remarkable consistency.
The latter two, it must be said, thrived in an age of relative weakness in terms of fast bowlers. While I probably place Ponting higher than Kallis, this would only be due to his ability to attack from any position as well as defend when it was required; a more complete top-order batsman as Kallis has a reputation for scoring runs how-and-when he wants (great for his average but not always for the team). Lara's genius was almost artful in its execution at the expense of any and every bowler that came across him in form. If he has a blot on his career, a weakness in his setup it would have to be the extended form slumps that appeared to almost be a product of his skill - he was so talented that when form deserted him his natural instincts could not be curbed and thus he would appear so fragile only to suddenly smash another century. Tendulkar, again a genius but if he has a negative attribute to his legacy it would perhaps be the opposite to Lara and that is a lack of desire to truly pile on runs, to dominate, to score 300 in a day. The remarkable thing about Bradman was the ability AND the desire to bat all day for 300 - a kind of Tendulkar + Sehwag cricket entity.
For my opinion I want to single out the FEAR. The fear of bowling to Bradman. Young South African and Indian teams almost subsided before the game had started against him while England devised a regrettable bowling strategy (Bodyline) in the face of his batting power. New Zealand never played against a team including him but given what Hammond did to us (227 and 336* in consecutive innings) one can only imagine. Fear and the skill to back it up is what destroys oppositions and the greats have always generated in abundance. Eventually players and whole teams begin to fear what you might do, as much as what you actually do, so much so they end up letting it happen because of that fear as much as any skill. Great batsmen fail to live up to the fear generated by their records as much as anyone but Bradmans was the least prone to this end. My pick for his successor did naturally fail a little more often than The Don but in terms of generating fear in his opponents, no one has come close Sir. Vivian Richards.
It is true to say that Viv averaged 50, he held the record for most runs in a calendar year for over 30 years, he has the record for the fastest test century (56 balls) and thrilled crowds throughout his career. However as time goes by and his records are beaten for whatever reason (helmets, flat pitches, worse bowlers, etc) it is his presence that remains etched in the mind. The stride, the swagger, the nonchalant chewing of gum and then the blasting of a cricket ball - off any bowler, any length to any part of the ground. He was no slogger lacking of grace, no fair-weather performer lacking of technique, no fool lacking of temperament but a titan of batting that batted no.3 in the finest team in the world for two decades. No one before or since has been able to match his aggression with as much success and it was that match of seemingly antipodean traits that instilled fear in others. To sum up his contempt for bowlers I would point to the batting helmet that became required protection for all batsmen of his era - except Viv who never used one but preferred to hook fast bowlers to the boundary instead.
Donald Bradman secured a position in cricket history as its greatest batsman that may never be truly challenged but if you look back at the career of Vivian Richards you get an idea of what it would take. Viv's tenacity and nerve matched with natural skill and just enough determination fashioned a career second only to The Don's in terms of the fear he generated by simply walking out to take guard. If you were to take that presence and add the skill of Tendulkar, the hunger of Lara, the boldness of Ponting and the consistency of Kallis (in our lifetimes) you would come close to replicating the man but you would still miss one thing - Bradman dreamt it first and that takes something different entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment