Super Smith's stats.

[K]

^^^ Hmmm.... I haven't checked, but surely the one real stat where he has Bradman covered is his bowling??

[Donny]

Checked for ?

No-one is saying he is better, in ANY facet, than The Don.

[K]

See post below.
DB: career 2/72, ave. 36, econ. 2.70, SR 80; 32 catches.
SS: so far 17/924, ave. 54.35, econ. 4.27, SR 76.2; 89 catches.

[K]

^ I was just replying to P4S's joke about ODIs (i.e. an ODI player has a better record than someone who lived before the advent of ODIs) on the previous page. "Check" meant check that Bradman didn't take a bunch of Test wickets that I've not been aware of. I assume, given his history, Smith has at least a few. Without thus checking, I'm pretty sure Smith is the better bowler. He may or may not be a better fielder, too. (I haven't heard about Bradman's fielding.)
The captaincy skills of both may be less than what I'd consider ideal. Certainly, Bradman's problematic relationship with O'Reilly and other teammates has been much discussed. Again, I haven't heard a substantial analysis of his tactical skills.

I guess I'm thus inclined to the view that there have been many, many cricketers who have been better than either at bowling, captaincy, and fielding.

[Pies4shaw]

I accept that I posted in haste - Smith was certainly a better bowler. Probably a more rounded cricketer than the Don.

[K]

Smith wins AB Medal (246 votes).
Warner (162).
Lyon (156).

This award unfortunately suffers annually from a lack of viable candidate winners. It seems far worse in this regard than (say) the Copeland.

[ronrat]

^ I was just replying to P4S's joke about ODIs (i.e. an ODI player has a better record than someone who lived before the advent of ODIs) on the previous page. "Check" meant check that Bradman didn't take a bunch of Test wickets that I've not been aware of. I assume, given his history, Smith has at least a few. Without thus checking, I'm pretty sure Smith is the better bowler. He may or may not be a better fielder, too. (I haven't heard about Bradman's fielding.)
The captaincy skills of both may be less than what I'd consider ideal. Certainly, Bradman's problematic relationship with O'Reilly and other teammates has been much discussed. Again, I haven't heard a substantial analysis of his tactical skills.

I guess I'm thus inclined to the view that there have been many, many cricketers who have been better than either at bowling, captaincy, and fielding.

Bradman was acknowledged as an outstanding fielder. Throwing and catching. If you ever see the ABC documentary about the invincibles Sam Loxton tals of Bradman moving a fielder to an unthodox position and the next ball the batsman was caught without the fieldsman moving an inch.

Bradmans problem with Fingleton and O reilly where founded mainly because
Fingleton was a journalist and resented Bradman being allowed to write copy for newpapers. It was said Fingleton blamed Bradman for leaks he himself had orchestrated. The most famous was the Woodful "I don't want to talk to you Mr Warner. There are 2 sides out there. One of them is trying to play cricket"

O 'Reilly was a rival of Bradman from very early days when Bradman was in Bowral. Bradman spanked him around in a local representative game and O Reilly was dropped and took longer than it should have to make the grade. Bradman was a big fan of his and took to him as a means of survival.

The question was asked of Benaud whether Bradman would have been any good at ODI cricket. Benaud said if Bradman had of played with the field restrictions he would have opened and made a 100 before the field could be changed. His estimation was he would have averaged 200.

[K]

^^^
I don't recall seeing that documentary. I wonder if it's available on the ABC's site. I do recall the documentary on WSC, where Ian Chappell was full of loathing for Bradman (who it would seem helped precipitate WSC by being so incredibly tight-fisted regarding ACB payments to players).

[As for Smith, his (lack of) man management is discussed in the Maxwell thread.]