I don’t know who has ever suggested. Strange if they did. 52 Tests over 20 years is more than enough. Just look at the frequency of his centuries - one every three innings. Though should really only focus on matches vs England. All the other teams were very weak in that era.

@@anonymous.7244 then u leave the ball

@@anonymous.7244 then just don’t edge it

@@anonymous.7244 it is in the batters hands however to play that shot. If he play a different shot it’s a different outcome and therefore not edging the ball and so the ball is not in the air

Play as late as you can if there is swing or seam especially if the ball is 150km per hour out of bowlers hand.

Yeah, but viv richards loved hitting the ball in the air and he was no poor batsman.

GOAT lol. Bradman was a massively over-rated flat track bully. He benefited from biased home umpiring in Australia, and after 1933 nobody was allowed to bowl a bouncer at him because the Aussies never stopped whining about Bodyline.

@@freemanv4056 you have absolutely no clue

​@@freemanv4056flat tracks didn't exist back then

​@@freemanv4056 He averaged more away from home. If batting was that easy why didn't all batmen have high averages? I'm a kiwi, so no skin in the game. You can only play against your contemporaries, not some mythical team from the present.

well it doesn't work quite like that... This isn't an exact science and I'm just being very rough, but it is more like this: the difference between the top and the median in the 100m final is 0.13s, so we can assume that 0.13s is one standard deviation. In cricket, the difference between the top and the median for elite batting is about 15 (Smith average of 60 vs an average of 45), so we can assume a Standard Deviation of average of about 15 . So Bradman was likely about 2.5 SDs ahead of Smith, and about 3.5 SDs ahead of other elite performers. So that would be more like someone running a 9.43; 2.5 SDs ahead of the 2021 Olympic Gold Medallist. For reference Bolt ran 9.58 But this is all very roughly done but you get the idea. I'm sure someone else will come along and correct my maths for me.

@@davedavy5406 r/didthemath

@@davedavy5406 I think that Bradman would have been an outlier. He was so exceptional that I think his results would be discarded when calculating SD.

@@davedavy5406 This is as good an effort to quantify it as any, although Smith will be unlikely to retire with an average of 60 unfortunately.

How about gretzky for ice hockey?

There can only be one Don 👍

the GOAT sportsman of all time! no one dominated ANY sport like THE Don

​@@user-ht7qh6oo7xdon't say like that even heard about pele in footballa nd Ali in boxing

I'm confused 1930s there would hardly be any top class competition to play against. read carefully "`1930s"!!

Ali is not even top 5 boxers of all times. He lost to a guy with only 7 fights

not at all. dont say all time, its only his time and era. you cant compare two players of two different era. sachin is best of his era and virat is best basman of his era undoubtedly and unarguably. ​@user-ht7qh6oo7x

Lol u forgot about Michael Jordan and other sports huh

Nobody will ever come close to his average, and nobody has ever dominated their chosen sport like the Don.

@@raymondqiu8202 yeah he is from the sport where only abnormally tall people play . Not like cricket and football where people from 5'4" to 7'0" play . Secondly no one evem comes close to don bradman's dominance

@Prateek Vasisht he is lol. No one was even close to being as dominant

@@raymondqiu8202 He is, all the stats where done in the US years ago & he was rated the number one sportsperson of all time purely on the stats & day light was second no one came close to his records in any sport !!

No he wouldn't

I would say he would be a gun. However, not a 100 average batsmen. It's impossible to be that good nowadays, with their packed schedules.

And a modern bat.

@@user-yi5mt2df5q cricket hasn't got easier or harder over time. Players are now fitter and professional however safety equipment and pitches have got better so it all balances out. Even in Bradman's time the greats were averaging 50 whilst he was averaging 100 and there was no Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to pad your stats. There will never be another Bradman not because of schedules but simply because he was a freak.

@@parthsavyasachi9348 Bats are far, far, far better. Pitches are also. And balls, so less variable bounce. But still, I'd have to agree it is difficult to imagine such feats today

I mean the fuckn guy bats 99😂 even if someone bets 99 they aint better

Eddie Gilbert only played Don Bradman three times, dismissing him once for a duck, caught behind from a top edge. The ball before this dismissal was also short, hitting The Don in the lower stomach and forcing him to drop his bat. Bradman describe Eddie as unhesitatingly faster than anything seen from Larwood or anyone else. Although as he added in his autobiography, Bradman thought Gilbert's action was 'decidedly suspect'. Only two players dismissed The Don for ducks on multiple occasions, Englishmen Gubby Allen and Alec Bedser twice each. The first team to tour England was an Indigenous team in 1868, a few years before the invincibles indeed. Of the 47 games they played, they won 14, lost 14 and drew 19. A result well beyond expectations and largely put down to the exceptional athleticism of the players. I don't believe that Eddie Gilbert was ever knighted, but he was honored with a statue outside Allen Border Field in 2007 and Queenslands best Indigenous cricketer is awarded the Eddie Gilbert Medal.

@@kelumac6864 you just absolutely alpha'd him

Thanks I didn't know that

It's funny, Neil Harvey is still alive, and a few years ago he said Bradman was head and shoulders better than anyone he's seen. Lucky him to have played in an Australian team captained by Bradman. You would think Harvey would know his cricket, having competed at the highest level and also at one time been an Australian selector. No doubt he would be well familiar with all the candidates people put forward, Lara, Tendulkar etc.

@@marknorris1381 Harvey was a real legend, an underrated one unfortunately. He played at a time when batting was the most difficult it had ever been, and scored runs in clutch moments regularly. He, along with Peter May, is forgotten while greats of cricket are discussed due to their raw stats which don't show context.

Don't underestimate the players back then. I saw a special on iview where they used the wonders of modern technology to analyse Larwood's bowling, and it was 139-149 kpm and dead accurate. I'd also be interested in how the modern player would go on uncovered pitches and less protection against Bodyline.

Cricket was a lot harder to play back in his day. No science, massages or ice baths or technology to analyze every detail of the game. He certainly was a polarizing character that's for sure, but his dominance of the game is undeniable. Its staggering to be honest.

@@BM-wf9uf I'd guess he didn't care if he upset a few snowflakes - the polarizing aspect. There are people that despised him and badmouthed him, particularly after he died. As far as I know he kept his opinions on others to himself.

@@marknorris1381 Bradman was a highly disciplined individual, a teetotaler and a very decent person. People complained because they were jealous of his success and genius. No sportsman in history had such domination vs his peers as Bradman. Quite simply the best sportsman of all time. Salute to the Legend!

@@BM-wf9uf Hammond hated him with a passion, even some of his teammates weren't too fond of him. But did he respond? Never, he let his bat do the talking.

What about religious difference. Please explain . Aren't all Australians Christians at that time. Or were there Atheists.

We are talking cricket, not bowling

@@snyder_fine_art 🤦

@@sahtarwars8386 🙄

Yeah, it was so easy everybody averaged 100 back then.

The greatest batters averaged between 50 and 62 and he averaged 100. No one will ever come close to his standards.

amazing

He did hit 6 sixes

Ask the modern players how many 6s they would have hit if they were using Bradman's bat and the boundary was the fence. If you look at how many batsman in that era had as many 6s as Nathan Lyon (13 in tests) it wouldn't be too many (I initially wanted to put Mitchell Starc's stats but he's got 46 which is heaps by modern standards) . Partly it is down to aggression but the quality of the bats and the length of the boundary matters.

He hit plenty of 6's at first class level, he only hit 6 6's at test level

@dhirdhar-xe1vm This is a video about Don Bradman that has nothing whatsoever to do with Bangladesh or the 2015 ODI world cup. Calm down with the rabid, groundless nationalism. Are you drunk?

@@hyena131 England has been playing professional cricket since 19th century. They are a great cricketing nation and that’s why it was a great achievement for Bangladesh to beat them in Australian conditions. Bangladesh got their independence just 50 years ago. This was the message in my comment. You have to be wise enough to understand it and need to learn appropriating other team’s performances. Take a nap.

@@dhirdhar-xe1vm Ha! Once more (sigh...), this is a video about Don Bradman and has *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do whatsoever with Bangladesh, their independence or the 2015 ODI world cup. Relax down with the hysterical nationalism. The biggest giveaway was that "Bangladesh team 🇧🇩❤❤❤" crap. *LOOOL!!!!* Only clowns from the sub-continent type this. Sober up, dear. It's a cricket video and not a platform for your absurd nationalist agenda. Go away. You're a bore.

@dhirdhar-xe1vm You babbling random, unrelated gibberish *(LOOOL!!!!)* on a Don Bradman video: "After watching this video I’m more proud that Bangladesh 🇧🇩 knocked out a cricketing nation like England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 in the 2015 ODI World Cup in Australian pitches. It was such a great achievement for the Bangladesh team 🇧🇩❤❤❤" And: "Bangladesh got their independence just 50 years ago." Now I know they have meds for ADD, but do they have meds for insane, illiterate sub-continent nationalism:) Hee! Hee!

they should do a test where they all speak like that for the whole 5 days

Helmets were not used until the 70's

Viv Richards had fantastic hand eye coordination too. He faced the best fast bowlers of his time without helmets his whole career, when everyone else was using head protection of some sort; because he was so confident in his timing.

well who could avoid a nice roast?

What's the notable exception?

Australian captains being role models? Bloody hope not

Disagree. If you put a decent clever division A batsmen against grade cricketers, he will average higher too. Thar Era cricket was unsophisticated in tactics and execution. The intensity of the game was paltry at best. Imagine mitch starc steaming in 150s for 10 over (6 ball/over and not 8) against this guy with his loose stance and sketchy technique. He will not survive at all. How are you declaring he is great of all time. He was great of his time acceptable. But it's a joke to compare Jim to present day and presume he will survive with same average. Sorry it's BS.

@@motichoorladdu So unsophisticated in tactics and execution they had to change the rules of the game after Bodyline. The guy averaged over 30 per innings more (playing on uncovered pitches) than any other player. It doesn't get more clear than that.

@@ajo3085 do you have any stats to prove he faced sustained fast bowling (145+) quality spin? Body line is aberration. Not denying he was a great of his time. But blanket statements like he is the best of all time is a load of crap. He might have faced couple of fast really good fast bowlers. Are you saying the fast bowlers of that age are as good as Thompson, Lillie, starc, Anderson. Bumrah, broad, steyn? These guys run in and bowl 145s as their warm up balls. I am not even mentioning 70s West Indian greats here. This guy would be in hospital with that kind of sustained bowling. He had the most lenient low for most of his career. Hasn't played much spin. God know if he was truthful enough to walk away when he nicked. The umpire decision overturn rate is 20% today. Just apply that. He would have been out 20% frequently just with that factor alone now combine that with lenient low rule and now combine that with pedestrian fielding and then combine that with average speeds of fast bowling, quality of spin, keeper standing up 80% of the time and playing half trackers. No brainer, he is good or ever far exceeding in talent for his Era. He wouldn't survive a series in current Aussie team.

@@motichoorladdu Talk about "load of crap blanket statements", you seem to have mastered the art. The simple fact of the matter is that you are trotting out your opinion as though it's fact while all I've said is that given his test average, he deserves to be considered the greatest ever, which the vast majority of the cricket world agrees with. Any sensible person knows that trying to compare eras is a fool's errand and even within every era the "who is better" debate rages. Root?, Smith?, Kohli?, Williamson? I'd never select Murali ahead of Warne for instance for my team, despite the fact no one will probably take more wickets than Murali did. Even with questions over the legitimacy of his action aside, nearly 200 of his wickets came against the minnows of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe while Warne only took around a dozen wickets against those teams and barely bowled on the spin friendly subcontinental pitches, so who was the greatest there? Were the Steve Waugh era Australians the greatest team ever, or were they just a very good side at a time when most other countries were poor? Were the West Indies of the 70's and 80's the greatest bowling attack of all time, and if so, which quartet was the best? You can debate pretty much anything about cricket until you run out of breath but it's a poor person that tries to pass Bradman off than less than he was. All the best to you.

@@motichoorladdu he played on uncovered pitches and he battered with primitive protective gear. If it was easier to bat then the stats would reflect that however the greats have always averaged 50 throughout every Era whereas Bradman averaged nearly double that. Lastly I don't believe you have looked at the bowlers of the past and you are ignorant of the quality or the methods they used. The greatest bowler of all time wasn't from the 1970's onwards but was a guy named SF Barnes who bowled medium pace spin which is an artform that disappeared. Modern bowlers are quicker but they lack the skills of the old school bowlers.

@FinbarCharlesBarton0 Yes!! And Ricky Gervais is keeping wicket.

They played completely within the rules at the time. It was just very unsportsmanlike

@@joshuaarmitt5401 Thankfully they did play like that at the time they did, so the rules could be amended to establish a more sportsmanlike code of conduct. Who knows when the body line tactic would have been first popularised had the Don not been so dominant at that era.

@@joshuaarmitt5401 Nothing unsportsmanlike about hitting the batsman. I consider that part of the game.

@@hoothoot5753 pretty easy to consider it part of the game when we have modern protection. Still possible for a batsman to be killed though.

If that's the case why was he the only one piling all the runs together. Obviously he was ahead of his time and a great player.

Bradman retired in 1948.He was the main person due to which the lbw law was changed.Bradman was out only 3 after that rule was changed in 42 innings.Dont say anything without knowing.Bradman averaged 102 after the lbw rule changed.

We can very easily compare how good Bradman was compared to other batsmen of his era. The other great ones averaged 50-60. Every era has their own lbw changes. Nowadays umpires seem more willing to give lbw decisions but just about no batsman gets given out incorrectly now (lbw if he hit it or caught if he didn't). Other changes are far more impactful like the bats and balls and covered pitches.

As does Smith. Something in that.

Sorry Dan, he's well beyond Laver. The difference is the gap between Bradman and the rest. Not so for Laver. Someone commented on Heather McKay, she's a worthy comparison in terms of how she dominated her sport for so long.

@@marknorris1381 Bradman only dominated the poms. Laver dominated the world in his sport. Winning the grand slam would be like a batting average of 100, Laver won 2 grand slams. Sorry, the Don is 2nd.

@@dansmith9724 whatever you say Dan, very subjective statements there, considering 4 other players also completed the calendar grand slam sweep, Steffi Graf, Margaret Court, Donald Budge and Maureen Connolly. I somehow doubt considering 5 people did it that such an achievement in one year equates to finishing a test career spanning around 20 years with a 99.94 average, which is so far in front of everyone else it is not funny. Yes granted Laver did the sweep twice which to date is unique, however Graf actually went close two other times, she did it in 1988, and won 3 of the 4 tournaments in 1989 & 1996 missing out at the French Open in '89 & the Australian Open in '96. As did Margaret Court, taking the clean sweep in 1970 but winning 3 of the 4 in 1969. So in reality Laver wasn't really that far in front of at least Graf and Court, about both it could be said they won 7 of 8 grand slam tournaments in 2 consecutive years, something that Laver did not do. It's also no certainty that Laver is actually the greatest Australian tennis player when you throw Court in there, considering she is still tops the list all time for grand slam singles titles for all players, completed a grand slam clean sweep herself in a year and her record overall. In so far as 'only dominating the poms', yes he did play the majority of his test cricket against them, but what do you mean with that? Are you saying as human beings they are inferior to human beings in some other country?

@@dansmith9724 false and also incorrect and with a touch of being completely wrong.

@@marknorris1381 I didn't see this one. You've done some research. Now look up how many players have won 2 calender Grand Slams. Also Laver wasn't allowed to play Grand Slams between 1963 and 1967, so he probably would have won more Slams but instead turned professional so excluded from Slams until 1968 when Slams became open. 1969 he won his 2nd calendar Grand slam. Yet to be replicated by another player internationally, not just England.

Greatest is Sachin Tendulkar and bradman himslef said that so did Richie , Kara with test avg if 33 in India is a failure nothing in India like warne who failed in India

Bradman was best of his era , with bodyliine he got exposed , English took pity on him before

@@Manishnishad007 Bradman averaged almost 60 in the Bodyline series so to say he was "exposed" is as laughable as it is absurd.

@@Manishnishad007 Bradman towers above all other cricketers and all other sportsman. No-one in sport has dominated the way he did. Let me take a wild guess, princess - you're indian, right? Hee! Hee!

@@hyena131 60 is miles behind 100

Bouncers were bowled a lot in that era, especially during the bodyline series. I knew people that played in that era and they told me you were going to get bouncers if you had talent. Bouncers were not bowled at tail enders.

Bradman was quick between wickets and often scored well timed singles and two's to build an innings . An Englishman who saw Bradman play once told me that when he batted you would only have to take your eye off the scoreboard for 20 minutes, then look up and see that the Don had already accumulated 20 + runs , (on his way to a big tally ) that you hadn't noticed .

@@shaneb315 yeah his strike rate verifies this. The great Wally Hammond also scored run a ball (career strike rate over 96). Not to mention Don scored a triple in a single day's play!

@@AAAAAA-gj2di mind you the poor Poms bowled over 100 8 ball overs that day unlike today they can hardly get the required 90 6 ball overs

He would still dominate

Javed miandad is not a great batter. He is good. And Gavaskar was more good at defence. I don't know much about Hanif. So Sceptical..Others are Ok.

Exactly my point. This dude played against pedestrian standards. The intensity of the game was paltry. Lots of mis fields. Not so fit individuals with second or third jobs playing in national side. It's absolute joke to compare his dude to today's professional cricketers. He wouldn't survive 5 overs of jetf Thomson or mitch starc, give him all the body gear, I wouldn't be surprised if loses couple of ribs.

@@motichoorladdu Yeah the bowling’s slower, but they played on uncovered pitches that were exposed to weather, foot traffic etc. and could end up way worse over a test than modern pitches wrapped in cotton wool the second after a single rain drop touches it. This means the ball could literally go anywhere for no reason other than hitting the uneven surface. Add to that the bats were thinner & lighter, no such thing as a heavy Kaboom bat to provide more inertia, watch how hard he has to hit the thing to reach the boundary. Lastly, if it were so easy to make runs like he did, why didn’t anyone else do it? Maybe Hobbs could get a mention, but out of hundreds of others, nobody even came close 🤷‍♂️

@@motichoorladdu try batting on uncovered pitches with no helmet and primitive protection. Bowlers have gotten quicker but they aren't better. Batting averages weren't any higher than now which proves it wasn't easier back then.

@@almac9203 why are you hung up on the conditions being tough back then. It is established fact that Don is a step ahead compared to other batsmen of his Era. Problem arises when people like you put blanket statements like his is the great of ALL time. If so Don should survive 150+ Bowling for sustained period of time. Play 200+ test matches. And then declare this statement.

@@motichoorladdu all eras had the same degree of difficulty. Bowling and batting averages stay about the same over time. Bradman averaged close to double the amount of the other greats of any Era. Your point would be valid if batting or bowling statistics drastically changed over time but they haven't. A batting average of 50 was considered great in the 1930s and it is still considered great today and a bowling average of 21 is still considered great as it was in 1920. Comparing players from one Era to another is difficult but it becomes easy when one player is statistically so far ahead of every competitor. I can't say if Steve Smith is better or Kallis or Tendulkar or Lara because the statistics are so close but I can say Bradman easily is the greatest.

and being an inspiration to millions during the Great Depression and Second World War! (I share your disdain for hitting balls but I respect what don meant to people...we will never see it again)

@@wma-ze8ot Not disdain. I like cricket. I think perspective is a better word.