v2 G.O.A.T The Semi Finals Match 1

First topic message reminder :

The last 8 participants competed on Monday for the final four spots in the v2 GOAT, the first group was dominated by two men; Mohammed Ali and Roger Federer who totalled a combined 84% of the overall vote. It was Ali that takes the advantage into the next round after winning the group by just 1 vote. The second of Mondays match ups was a three horse race between Woods, Bradman and Pele, at COP Pele had the advantage and closed the day as group winner with 25 votes to runner up Bradman’s 21, a valiant effort from Woods who exits the tournament with 16 votes.

The first of today’s semi-finals kicks off with group 1 winner Mohammed Ali taking on Group 2 runner up Don Bradman

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Bradman fished in a very very small pond.

Gretskys is even smaller mate

No Bradmans is about 66% better while Gretzkys is about 55% to be precise, comparing the sporting merits of each sport I think the great one takes it.

mystiroakey wrote:Gretskys is even smaller mate

Really, did Gretsky only play against one team during a time when people were either, dead, , suffering from consumption, employed, conscripted or not of a class capable of being selected?

Must have missed that

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Gretskys is even smaller mate

Really, did Gretsky only play against one team during a time when people were either, dead, , suffering from consumption, employed, conscripted or not of a class capable of being selected?

Neither did Bradman.

As the greatest cricketer of all time how do Bradman's bowling figures stack up?

Union Cane wrote:As the greatest cricketer of all time how do Bradman's bowling figures stack up?

Bit like asking how good Pele was at shot stopping, or whether Gareth Edwards was any good in the line-out.

Union Cane wrote:As the greatest cricketer of all time how do Bradman's bowling figures stack up?

or his fielding?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No Bradmans is about 66% better while Gretzkys is about 55% to be precise, comparing the sporting merits of each sport I think the great one takes it.

Imperial i argued your stat comment. nothing else.

base your argument on facts dude

the 66% better is 66% better than the second best.. on average he is over 100% better, i am sure gretskey is very very good. but that isnt what i was arguing

super_realist wrote:

Union Cane wrote:As the greatest cricketer of all time how do Bradman's bowling figures stack up?

or his fielding?

Bradman was known as ne of the best fielders of his day.
But, again, that's largely immaterial.

mystiroakey wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No Bradmans is about 66% better while Gretzkys is about 55% to be precise, comparing the sporting merits of each sport I think the great one takes it.

Imperial i argued your stat comment. nothing else.

base your argument on facts dude

the 66% better is 66% better than the second best.. on average he is over 100% better, i am sure gretskey is very very good. but that isnt what i was arguing

100% better than what?

It's still only cricket though Oakey.

How old were the people he were playing against?

I bet some were well into their forties in a relatively non professional era so it could hardly have been a truly competitive era.

No doubt Bradman was freakishly talented but I think some of his batting averages were no doubt due to the less than talented opposition.

Than the average batting average in test cricket!!


Now tell me how are Gretskeys stats better than the Dons~?

That's the point it is only cricket and I can't believe a batsmen from the 30's is in the last four, only in the uk.

SR Don isnt my ultimate goat mate. Very good though.

I know it wasnt a truely competitive era.. I allways argue for todays stars due to this.. But in this case I cant due to his freakish average

I would wager that points wise Gretzky is far more than 100% better than the average points. So where you do you get this average of 50 from?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's the point it is only cricket and I can't believe a batsmen from the 30's is in the last four, only in the uk.

try Australia

Like I say, I'm sure he was freakishly talented for the time, no doubt his stats are enhanced by the rubbishness of the era though.

If someone today had an average of 65 plus- I would consider them over Don.

Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I would wager that points wise Gretzky is far more than 100% better than the average points. So where you do you get this average of 50 from?

what the heck are you talking about! (the average test bat average is way under 50 anyway!)


I commented that Brads stats are not worse than Gretskys- Infact better... Do all the research you want. I am not going to waste my time on it. Just forget about it dude, its not worth it. You even came back with your own stats that stated that Bradman is better than Gretskys!!

The only thing that gets mentioned when discussing Bradman is his average, very little emphasise on context.

Cricket clearly cant be on a level with todays quality. It just cant be, there is no chance. And its very hard to work out what a 99 average would be worth today!

However someone mentioned that The Don beat a pro billiards player at billards, was good enough to be a tennis pro and was a scratch golfer...

Crazy Sportsman!!

well to be fair his average is extraordinary...

anyway in response to the strength of era comments. I think no one would argue that Bradman played in the strongest era for bowlers, but equally he faced some very very fine bowlers in his day - Larwood and Verity spring to mind but there were others - and always came out on top. Interestingly as recently as today England captain Cook was talked about by his opposite number McCullum as being "second only to Bradman". I mention this as genuinely for those who don't follow the sport that is the most any cricketer can aspire to being - ie second-best - so far ahead of the rest is Bradman considered to be. I suspect while Ali would be nearly everyone's top heavyweight he isn't their top boxer, and more importantly it isn't inconceivable that a heavyweight could topple him one day. It is with Bradman...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/21768355

Oakey,That was a time when Billiards "World" titles changed hands over a drink and a few games in the Pub.

I think people call Bradman the best in the same way they say The Old Course is the best course. A combination of sycophancy, rose tinted glasses, history and romanticism.

SR if you cant marvel at his acheivements you got to get some anti depressants pal!

manos de piedra wrote:Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

I think it's fair to say that the 1930s, when Bradman played most of his cricket, was one of the friendliest periods for batsmen in terms of both quality of bowling (or lack thereof) and quality of wickets (although they still had to deal with the occasional 'sticky').
However, there are just a couple of points.
1)No-one else who batted in the 1930s managed to get anywhere near Bradman's average, despite a number of them being reckoned among the best batsmen of all-time.
2)There have been other 'batsmen friendly' eras in cricket (from around 2003-present day would be a good example) and still no-one has challenged Bradman's average

The fact remains that, in virtually every period of cricket history, the great batsmen have averaged between 50-60. All except Bradman.

super_realist wrote:Oakey,That was a time when Billiards "World" titles changed hands over a drink and a few games in the Pub.

I think people call Bradman the best in the same way they say The Old Course is the best course. A combination of sycophancy, rose tinted glasses, history and romanticism.

just like pele and many others from the past. But at least in this case there is compelling statisical evidence

mystiroakey wrote:SR if you cant marvel at his acheivements you got to get some anti depressants pal!

I really don't see any inter-war sport as an achievement.

What does it take for you to acknowledge an achievment SR?

Well for a start Oakey, I prefer it to be in an athletic sport, a truly professional era and against a variety of quality opposition.

I've said he was freakishly talented, but after all, it's only Cricket.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

I think it's fair to say that the 1930s, when Bradman played most of his cricket, was one of the friendliest periods for batsmen in terms of both quality of bowling (or lack thereof) and quality of wickets (although they still had to deal with the occasional 'sticky').
However, there are just a couple of points.
1)No-one else who batted in the 1930s managed to get anywhere near Bradman's average, despite a number of them being reckoned among the best batsmen of all-time.
2)There have been other 'batsmen friendly' eras in cricket (from around 2003-present day would be a good example) and still no-one has challenged Bradman's average

The fact remains that, in virtually every period of cricket history, the great batsmen have averaged between 50-60. All except Bradman.

Yes but what was the global competition like? Was it as competitive a field as nowadays? Was the sport as widely played? Was the level of competition as tough? No heavyweight champion has managed to retire undefeated bar Marciano but it doesnt qualify Marciano as the automatic best ever. Superior stats in a weaker era can be trumped by lesser stats in a more competitive one in my opinion. I dont really know enough about cricket to have a say on Bradman but I just get the impression that there is so much emphasis placed on his stats when stats can be misleading or not tell the full story.

Cricket is all about stats, just like baseball.

These are sports were stats can tell 90% of the story.

The problem is comparing them in different eras.

Cricket is a growing sport therefore quality should naturally get better year upon year. However rule changes also effect stats as well- some eras are more beneficial to bowlers' and some more beneficial to batters!

Its a tough job trying to work this out. It is all about opinions.

But one thing you should probably know about cricket is that. It is all about the stats!!

I'm sure the England team the Bradman mostly played against was drawn from a very very small pool of ex-public Schoolboys.

Ok SR, we're almost at the end. So who is your GOAT?

I'm not entirely sure I can pick a definitive GOAT, there's faults that you can pick with every single sports person I think.

manos de piedra wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

I think it's fair to say that the 1930s, when Bradman played most of his cricket, was one of the friendliest periods for batsmen in terms of both quality of bowling (or lack thereof) and quality of wickets (although they still had to deal with the occasional 'sticky').
However, there are just a couple of points.
1)No-one else who batted in the 1930s managed to get anywhere near Bradman's average, despite a number of them being reckoned among the best batsmen of all-time.
2)There have been other 'batsmen friendly' eras in cricket (from around 2003-present day would be a good example) and still no-one has challenged Bradman's average

The fact remains that, in virtually every period of cricket history, the great batsmen have averaged between 50-60. All except Bradman.

Yes but what was the global competition like? Was it as competitive a field as nowadays? Was the sport as widely played? Was the level of competition as tough? No heavyweight champion has managed to retire undefeated bar Marciano but it doesnt qualify Marciano as the automatic best ever. Superior stats in a weaker era can be trumped by lesser stats in a more competitive one in my opinion. I dont really know enough about cricket to have a say on Bradman but I just get the impression that there is so much emphasis placed on his stats when stats can be misleading or not tell the full story.

No, the sport wasn't as widely played, but that has pluses and minuses.
For example, Bradman didn't have to play against India in India, for example, but then he didn't get to fill his boots against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.
As for whether the competition was as tough, I certainly think that that between Australia and England was. It must be remembered that cricket in the 1930s was a much bigger sport (probably the national sport) in both England and Oz.

super_realist wrote:I'm sure the England team the Bradman mostly played against was drawn from a very very small pool of ex-public Schoolboys.

Well you'd be wrong.

I know very little about cricket, so please forgive any ignorance on my behalf. He played most of his test matches against England, so how good were England over that period? Cricket seemed to be, though again I may be wrong, a two horse race at time from what I can gather, would this be a fair assessment? I'm not trying to denigrate his achievements, rather get some sort of understanding of the competition of the era.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm sure the England team the Bradman mostly played against was drawn from a very very small pool of ex-public Schoolboys.

Well you'd be wrong.

Yep I actually think Cricket was played by more social classes back then tbh

6oldenbhoy wrote:I know very little about cricket, so please forgive any ignorance on my behalf. He played most of his test matches against England, so how good were England over that period? Cricket seemed to be, though again I may be wrong, a two horse race at time from what I can gather, would this be a fair assessment? I'm not trying to denigrate his achievements, rather get some sort of understanding of the competition of the era.

that's probably about fair. Bradman also played against South Africa, India and West Indies, but these nations were weaker than England and the vast majority of Bradman's tests were played against England (of 52 tests, 37 were against England, 5 against each of the other nations). His average against England is a little lower (a shade under 90 as opposed to a shade under 100 overall) but that remains an extraordinary average.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned either is Bradman's first class average, which is a shade over 95. One has to recall that in those days the Test players all played first class cricket too, so Bradman would also have faced the very best bowlers in Australia, and evidently his record was equally remarkable against them, thus negating the idea that England were much weaker back then (or at least that this was the main reason for Bradman's record).

manos de piedra wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

I think it's fair to say that the 1930s, when Bradman played most of his cricket, was one of the friendliest periods for batsmen in terms of both quality of bowling (or lack thereof) and quality of wickets (although they still had to deal with the occasional 'sticky').
However, there are just a couple of points.
1)No-one else who batted in the 1930s managed to get anywhere near Bradman's average, despite a number of them being reckoned among the best batsmen of all-time.
2)There have been other 'batsmen friendly' eras in cricket (from around 2003-present day would be a good example) and still no-one has challenged Bradman's average

The fact remains that, in virtually every period of cricket history, the great batsmen have averaged between 50-60. All except Bradman.

Yes but what was the global competition like? Was it as competitive a field as nowadays? Was the sport as widely played? Was the level of competition as tough? No heavyweight champion has managed to retire undefeated bar Marciano but it doesnt qualify Marciano as the automatic best ever. Superior stats in a weaker era can be trumped by lesser stats in a more competitive one in my opinion. I dont really know enough about cricket to have a say on Bradman but I just get the impression that there is so much emphasis placed on his stats when stats can be misleading or not tell the full story.

while you're right in that stats don't tell the whole story (Marciano being a prime example), they do tell us some of the story, and Bradman's stats are really miles ahead of the next best, which is why he's viewed unanimously as the greatest. I'm going to probably say something stupid, but Marciano was unbeaten through slightly more than 40 fights right? now imagine had he been unbeaten through 80 or more? his stock would rise, right?

mystiroakey wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm sure the England team the Bradman mostly played against was drawn from a very very small pool of ex-public Schoolboys.

Well you'd be wrong.

Yep I actually think Cricket was played by more social classes back then tbh

Yeah, because the working class all had three initials and could afford the time to travel by steamship to Australia

Maybe Jardine when he went to Winchester and Oxford they were just state establishments?

you what

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm sure the England team the Bradman mostly played against was drawn from a very very small pool of ex-public Schoolboys.

Well you'd be wrong.

Yep I actually think Cricket was played by more social classes back then tbh

Yeah, because the working class all had three initials and could afford the time to travel by steamship to Australia

Maybe Jardine when he went to Winchester and Oxford they were just state establishments?

Hobbs Sutcliffe Hammond Leyland Paynter Ames(wk)Tate Larwood Verity Voce Bowes

Not a public schoolboy amongst them.

Just had a look at the England Bodyline team, seems most of them were all men of considerable priveledge, very few actually born in England, so it's good to see nothing has changed in terms of where you come from on order to play for England.

So it would appear that it was very much a toffs game.

Toffy Toff Toff yo Tootle pips cucumber sarnies and pimms o clock

However My Grandad played and loved cricket and he certainly was not posh. Infact as a lad he was working full time from the agr of 10!

Saying Bradman was the best batsman due his his stats were like saying Dixie Dean or Hughie Gallagher (Who??????)were the best striker for theirs.

Both in very weak eras.

thats fine SR but you have to give us the other options.

Who is better than The Don?

You need to try and give examples