Jump to content

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud


Feed

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud  

2 members have voted

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

Did anyone mention..how the Mumbaikar choked everytime he was handed the team's captaincy ? Or are there ready made excuses for that as well ? Needless to say that all the great batsman this Mumbaikar is being compared to have been distinguished captains for their side. Being a captain and the key player of your side has many more pressures than just turning up for the match, worrying about just your game. Even with such a luxury he averaged no better than 47, for over a decade, on the flattest pitches ever.

Link to comment
[B]Bowler                 Avg        SR[/B]
CEL Ambrose         	20.99	54.47
GD McGrath          	21.64	51.86
SE Bond             	22.09	38.68
AA Donald           	22.25	46.94
M Muralitharan      	22.71	55.01
SM Pollock          	23.12	57.73
Mohammad Asif       	23.20	46.96
DW Steyn            	23.52	39.54
Waqar Younis        	23.56	43.39
Wasim Akram         	23.62	54.53
SR Clark            	23.86	54.73
IR Bishop           	24.28	52.13
CA Walsh            	24.45	57.72
SK Warne            	25.42	57.36
Shoaib Akhtar       	25.70	45.62

Pretty good list that. Also instructive that SRT appears at 2nd v Warne and 5th v Ambrose and finishes out of the top 10, even top 20 against all the others. (minimum cut off 5 Tests) A distinct Inzamam kind of record against the best bowlers.
Link to comment
Let your boss atleast be worthy of being compared among his own generation. On the flattest pitches known to cricket he averages 47.XX ( excluding minnows) since Jan 1 2000 and has been bettered by no less than 10 batters' date= both in terms of avg and runs scored. You must have an IQ lower than Afretard to compare him to someone who stands out like a colossus across all eras.
Owned.. Close the thread now.
Link to comment
Are you for real? Calm the ***k down and go over my post again. BB or teacup etc are talking about modern greats in general, including yyour girlfriend Sehwag not Sachin individually.
LOL..who the eff are you to direct the "debate" in the manner you and your sugar daddy want to ? Sachin is not worthy of being a representative because he has been pwned by 10 batsmen of his own generation. If sheer volume of runs is the criteria than Bradman should not even be worthy of comparison.
Link to comment
Pretty good list that. Also instructive that SRT appears at 2nd v Warne and 5th v Ambrose and finishes out of the top 10' date=' even top 20 against all the others. (minimum cut off 5 Tests) A distinct Inzamam kind of record against the best bowlers.[/quote'] LOL...Dhondy...always knew that. BB and company had no answer against SRT's pwnage against the best bowlers of his generation that you and I exposed by player vs player comparison. But someone must be digging out " facts " about how SRT's gourmet chef prevented him from doing better with all those masalas and tadkas in his food. Lucky Bradman had consumed only healthy boiled food all his life.
Link to comment
Now we're well and truly in the territory of the stupid. Citing a random poll (with extreme results ofcourse) to put down the rest. Nevermind the fact, that for every such absurdity, there are 10 other polls with perfectly rational and sane results. For example, look no further than polls on cricinfo itself.
Lol, I expected this volte face. :laugh:. So public polls are credible as long it gives you the results you're looking for, but not so credible when its not the case? And I pointed this example to point out the sheer flaw in the methodologies in public polling, and not to dismiss public polls as a whole. There's hardly anything stupid about saying 'I trust the cricketing opinions of prolific fans who engage in reasoned debates on message boards more than your average Joe whose cricket following is more a hobby than a passion'. In fact, as I said before, its called something else - COMMON SENSE. If I want a medical opinion, I'll ask a Doctor, rather than someone who has interest in the world of medicine. If I want to learn something related science, I am better off asking someone who's professionally qualified, as opposed to someone who isnt. Same with cricket - If I want to know the reasoned side of a cricketing argument, I am better off visiting a cricket board where passionate cricket fans frequent, than go see a public poll on a news site. Much hard to understand? ::winky::icflove:
One of the major plank of your argument on "average clueless dudes" is that they do not participate on MBs -
Now now, I NEVER said they were clueless, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said their understanding of cricket is much less nuanced than the more prolific followers.
I gotta ask, do you include within this subset only those who post or the majority who only lurk around.
Whether I include those who lurk around or not is irrelevant to the debate, coz we're talking about people who make their opinions known on a site like ICF.
Lastly, how did you figure, in your example above, that people who polled do not read and post on blogs and MBs? Another unwarranted assumption I reckon.
They might or might not have, who knows. You assumption that might read MB/post on blogs is as good/bad as mine.
Tolerating others' opinion means agreeing with them?
Precisely. I tolerate the opinion of people who say Sachin is better than Bradman. That is why we have MBs like ICF. I do not subscribe to it, but never said I dont tolerate it.
Why am I even wasting time on you...
Same thoughts mate - Why did i even bother to spend time with someone who thinks an average reader on a public poll has as much a nuanced opinion of the game as say, people who are more prolific in their following.
Link to comment
LOL..who the eff are you to direct the "debate" in the manner you and your sugar daddy want to ? Sachin is not worthy of being a representative because he has been pwned by 10 batsmen of his own generation. If sheer volume of runs is the criteria than Bradman should not even be worthy of comparison.
The 2000 generation is NOT Sachin's generation. 90s is. In fact Sachin has played more matches inh the 90s than some of the ones you quoted has this generation. You are comparing a batsman who has spawned two generations with the ones who are at their peak right now and there lies the fallacy of your argument Now that P:onting is a bit on the wane, would you say that Sangakara, Jayawardene, sehwag etc are much better batsmen than him? That he has been owned by the said batsmen? If you dont understand the significance of Sachin in the 90s, you dont know anythign about test cricket. Its like taking Bradman's last innigns and saying he was not a great batsman
Link to comment
Let your boss atleast be worthy of being compared among his own generation. On the flattest pitches known to cricket he averages 47.XX ( excluding minnows) since Jan 1 2000 and has been bettered by no less than 10 batters' date= both in terms of avg and runs scored. You must have an IQ lower than Afretard to compare him to someone who stands out like a colossus across all eras.
Sorry, you are the one showing an IQ of a moron if you are nitpicking a certain portion of a batsman's career and comparing it with people who have played way less. BTW, Sachin now is above Ponting in average. What does that say? Ponting was once averaging 60. Now he is 55. The same will happen for Sangakara, etc You either have the brains to compare the whole career for everyone or if you compare batsmen whoa re at their peak now, then compare it with Sachin's at his peak Bradman scored 0 on one of the easiest pithces. What a failure he is!!
Link to comment
Pretty good list that. Also instructive that SRT appears at 2nd v Warne and 5th v Ambrose and finishes out of the top 10' date=' even top 20 against all the others. (minimum cut off 5 Tests) A distinct Inzamam kind of record against the best bowlers.[/quote'] Again you put in some random stats without showing any kind of context to prove a non-existant point. What is the context of those numbers/ how do they stack for other batsmen against other bowlers. Can you say some of the other batsmen's numbers are not inflated by one or two freak innings compared to Sahcin's more consistant performance against them? Please add some context and stop making random conlusions i have also added that your stats DOES NOT include isntances when batsmen were not dosmissed by the said bowler. For example if a batsman scores a 100 and get dismiees against Asif, he would have a great average against Asif but if he is dismissed by some other bowler, his avergae doesnt count when you take those numbers against that bowler. You have been deliberately using false stats despite my pointing it out to you before!!
Link to comment
The 2000 generation is NOT Sachin's generation. 90s is. In fact Sachin has played more matches inh the 90s than some of the ones you quoted has this generation. You are comparing a batsman who has spawned two generations with the ones who are at their peak right now and there lies the fallacy of your argument Now that P:onting is a bit on the wane, would you say that Sangakara, Jayawardene, sehwag etc are much better batsmen than him? That he has been owned by the said batsmen? If you dont understand the significance of Sachin in the 90s, you dont know anythign about test cricket. Its like taking Bradman's last innigns and saying he was not a great batsman
Sachin has played well over 50 % of his matches i.e 80 tests ( against non minnows) since 2000. For this period he has been bettered by atleast 10 others, both in terms of avg and runs scored.. His average for such a long time is a mere 47. So are you arguing that someone who has been bettered for over half his career by 10 others and who averages " only " 47, in an age where batting has been easiest - deserves any comparison to the greatest in his game ?? 80 tests and 50 % of playing career is too large a sample and too long a time to dismiss as " not his generation ". If you are arguing that 90's was his generation then Sunny and Viv had the same type of domination in the 70's, Border had the same type of domination in the 80's. But they did not dip as remarkably as SRT in their other decade. Then again even in the 90's he has never, I repeated never dominated a single great bowler apart from Shane Warne - who even got taken apart by the Mumbai Ranji team. He never faced the 2 W's ( bar 1999) , and his average in the matches where Donald, Mcgrath and others played is in the early 30's as was his avg against Pakistan till the 90's. Please prove otherwise.
Link to comment
Sachin has played well over 50 % of his matches i.e 80 tests ( against non minnows) since 2000. For this period he has been bettered by atleast 10 others' date= both in terms of avg and runs scored.. His average for such a long time is a mere 47. So are you arguing that someone who has been bettered for over half his career by 10 others and who averages " only " 47, in an age where batting has been easiest - deserves any comparison to the greatest in his game. 80 tests and 50 % of playing career is too large a sample and too long a time to dismiss as " not his generation ". If you are arguing that 90's was his generation then Sunny and Viv had the same type of domination in the 70's, Border had the same type of domination in the 80's. But they did not dip as remarkably as SRT in their other decade. Then again even in the 90's he has never, I repeated never dominated a single great bowler apart from Shane Warne - who even got taken apart by the Mumbai Ranji team. He never faced the 2 W's ( bar 1999) , and his average in the matches where Donald, Mcgrath and others played is in the early 30's as was his avg against Pakistan till the 90's. Please prove otherwise.
You very well know why his average got so low in the 2000s. He suffered from a career threatening injury and was out of form for the most period. He is back at his best now and dominating the like of Ponting easily Can you tell me how many matches those ten others played? You are counting 1 or 2 peak years of some batsmen with a whole ten year of Sachin. So where are the 10 others now? Where is Ponting? Above or below Sachin? You keep on harping about htese ten others,Hussey and Sangakarra would be way ahead of Ponting if you take some selected period of time. thats not how you compare batsmen Donald himself has said Sahcin is among the best batsmen he has seen and played against. In the 90s there were innings were he felt like applauding the way he atatcked his bowling. So can you tell me which bowlers those mythical others atatcked. waht about Rahul Dravid. Which bowlers did he dominate? There is a reason every expert of the game, every ex player, every current player, even Bradman himself rated Sahcin. Do you think each and eevery one of them are morons who got fooled by an average batsmen? That you and Dhondy are more qualified than any of them? That they are so blind, despite their years and years of experience in following and playing cricket, that thye didnt notice him not dominating batsmen, and got fooled by him? I can understand an average joe getting fooled but everyone including Richard, lara, Pontong Bradman, etc, etc, ect have always rated him above Gavaskar and Vivan Richards. You are only making a fool of yourslef by questioning his greatness BTW, please note i have never siad he is ahead of Bradman
Link to comment

I think it is settled that Bradman is in the league of his own, while Tendulkar is the best amongst the rest But when people get extra greedy and try to show that 56>100, the inevitable happens, i.e. you get folks who think Sachin isn't the best from the rest come in In the end, who suffers because of such comparisions? It's Sachin as first we get to see people who show that he is not in Bradman's league, then you get to see people who try to show that he isn't best from the rest

Link to comment
Again you put in some random stats without showing any kind of context to prove a non-existant point. What is the context of those numbers/ how do they stack for other batsmen against other bowlers. Can you say some of the other batsmen's numbers are not inflated by one or two freak innings compared to Sahcin's more consistant performance against them? Please add some context and stop making random conlusions i have also added that your stats DOES NOT include isntances when batsmen were not dosmissed by the said bowler. For example if a batsman scores a 100 and get dismiees against Asif, he would have a great average against Asif but if he is dismissed by some other bowler, his avergae doesnt count when you take those numbers against that bowler. You have been deliberately using false stats despite my pointing it out to you before!!
MTC, these stats have nothing to do with dismissals. They are taken from Statsguru, by selecting matches featuring a certain bowler. You can then get the averages of all batsmen in matches featuring that bowler, irrespective of who dismissed them. Why don't you try it? Here I have used McGrath, but you can replace him with Donald say, and simply change the opposition to SA. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=2;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=2101;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting The stats are also not random, because they obviously set up a rank order in terms of batting averages and therefore allow batsman v batsman comparisons. I pointed out in the other thread that Lara averages better against both McGrath & Donald than Sachin, for example. I can understand your anger because I am unable to portray Sachin a good light, but I am not lying. I really think his record against the best bowlers, particularly quicks, is quite mediocre. You could say the same for Ponting v spinners, but he, Lara, Steve Waugh and Kallis have fared better than Sachin against the pacemen. You can check this out
Link to comment
MTC, these stats have nothing to do with dismissals. They are taken from Statsguru, by selecting matches featuring a certain bowler. You can then get the averages of all batsmen in matches featuring that bowler, irrespective of who dismissed them. Why don't you try it? Here I have used McGrath, but you can replace him with Donald say, and simply change the opposition to SA. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=2;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=2101;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting The stats are also not random, because they obviously set up a rank order in terms of batting averages and therefore allow batsman v batsman comparisons. I pointed out in the other thread that Lara averages better against both McGrath & Donald than Sachin, for example. I can understand your anger because I am unable to portray Sachin a good light, but I am not lying. I really think his record against the best bowlers, particularly quicks, is quite mediocre.You could say the same for Ponting v spinners, but he, Lara, Steve Waugh and Kallis have fared better than Sachin against the pacemen. You can check this out
With all due respect to your analysis, when you see the likes of Cairns, Parore, Izaj Ahmed, Ramprakesh, S Malik, etc ahead of Tendulkar, one can say straight away that's not a good way to look at things :winky:
Link to comment
You very well know why his average got so low in the 2000s. He suffered from a career threatening injury and was out of form for the most period.
Was he injured for a couple of years or the entire decade. It is funny that everything that he hsa not done gets attributed to poor form, injuries and countless other lame excuses. Lame because you can't use these for an entire effing decade.
Can you tell me how many matches those ten others played? You are counting 1 or 2 peak years of some batsmen with a whole ten year of Sachin. So where are the 10 others now? Where is Ponting? Above or below Sachin? You keep on harping about htese ten others,Hussey and Sangakarra would be way ahead of Ponting if you take some selected period of time. thats not how you compare batsmen
Did you even bother looking at that stat ? Please revisit and then make an argument. Some played more and some played less. The ones who played more even averaged more apart from obvously scoring more runs. The ones who played less, again ended up with more runs scored. For your enlightenment only: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
I can understand an average joe getting fooled but everyone including Richard, lara, Pontong Bradman, etc, etc, ect have always rated him above Gavaskar and Vivan Richards. You are only making a fool of yourslef by questioning his greatness
His greatness is in his longevity and endurance. But alone does not make someone greater. I believe in sheer quality unlike quantity that comes out of playing record matches. Yeah they would have..SRT is a marketing phenomenon like Madonna. Not many former cricketers can accept lucrative assignments in India, unless they sing SRT bhajans. Even after that Multan mauling at the hands of Sehwag, Saqlain said that SRT was a greater fear factor than Sehwag.:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: For nearly 55 % of his career ( 80 tests) SRT has played in a doggedly and submissive manner, neither dominating great attacks ( which he has never done in his entire career ) nor scoring more runs than his peers. He is the ultimate epitome of over ratedness. Please prove otherwise Bradman saw him only at his peak 3-4 years. Was Bradman alive post 2000, when SRT plummeted like an overvalued Z- grade stock ?
BTW, please note i have never siad he is ahead of Bradman
Thank god.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...