Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Feed

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

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

1 member has voted

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

Let me know if you want to take the discussion down the path of hurling one-liner inanities ... I most certainly can play that game ....
Noa. i don't want to be involved in an elaborat discussion as neither of us can convince each other for the rest of our lives. So no point :winky:.

Share this post


Link to post
Good so lets continue throwing one liners ... thats sounds very mature :two_thumbs_up:
Naa.. i don't take this discussion seriously. Hence one liners. It is like patriot's other thread where he was coming up with stats to prove Veeru is better than Sachin.

Share this post


Link to post
but I tried to make something out of it in the last 2-3 pages .... and are you saying that this is the first time you have done thread spamming ?
Nope you didn't really try to make anything out of it. You just tried to shove down your speculative theories on our throat. We just made fun of it. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no point comparing Bradman with anyone else. 99.9 international and 95 fc average shows that that guy was light years ahead of everyone else who ever grabbed a cricket bat. Lara is someone who can be better matched with Sachin. They both are the same in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
How about bouncer restrictions ' date=' protective gears, covered wickets, bat with edges that look like another bat , superb coaching facilities, bowling machines, so many bowlers to bowl at you all day for practice, immense amount of former cricketers to sort out problems, wealth of money pouring in to keep your motivation going on, not living in a depressive world war era, not having a whole think tank trying to kill you with bodyline tactic....[/quote'] Not having to work a full time job whenever you weren't playing cricket, having the advantage of physios to keep you healthy, personal trainers for fitness, personal dietitians to optimise performance.

Share this post


Link to post
More like you and your ilk were making speculative theories that went along the lines of if he could beat up the likes of Sir Allen and Co he could easily beat up modern day bowlers ... hence DGB = Alltime great.
Nope. Bradman can score off only what was put up infront of him. He showed there was a huge difference between him and rest. Well Sachin has not done that. And also Bradman played cricket between 19 and 29. Then during world war cricket he didn't play for 9 years.30 is an age where batsmen usually peak. Most of the batsmen. He missed cricket between 30 and 38. Then he came back and averaged 100 in the 15 remaining tests. You gotta be someone special to do that. Unless we can conclusively prove Tendulkar way way ahead of everyone of his peers we cannot compare with Don who was way ahead of his peers.

Share this post


Link to post
the discussion is on whether DGB = Alltime great and for this you are using his better record against his peers conveniently overlooking the fact that those runs came against minnows. Then you try to compare 99 vs 55 and proclaim victory. My point is you cannot simply do that because run making is far more difficult in the modern era.and the chief reason is the huge difference in class between tween the likes of Gubby Allen and Allan Donald. And to make matters worse there are literally a dozen other bowlers in the last 20 yrs who are just as potent. If you cannot understand this simple fact then there is nothing I will say that will make any difference. Yes others werent able to score ar 99 in his times. But doesnt mean that SRT would also not be able to. Infact if we pick the easy series that he has played you will find that his avg also gets in that range even though Zim and Eng of 90s arent exactly minnows. But the reverse is not true for DGB. The one time there was some thought and strategy put into curtailing his run scoring his avg came down to the mid 50s.
Instead of Donald why don't you compare Sohdat Hussain and Larwood? Dude are you seriously saying run making is difficult. What aboust Samaraweeras, Younis Khans who are making mince meat of bowlers on these flat pitches. Forget about Donald. He got out 6 times Hansie cronje. He struggled against Ray price. So you don't know for sure whether Tendulkar would master Gubby ALlen or his uncle Bubby allen. Didn't he struggle against debutant Paul Harris when India had excellent chance to win the test and blew it eventually? You cannot assume he would do well against bowlers in that era. If only it is that simple every goddamn guy who just faced one ball form Donald will be better than Bradman. Seriously i am 100% sure Tendulkar would not average remotely close to 100 in those era even against the worst of the worst bowling attack. Because Tendulkar is yet to make a 300 even against the weakest side in the world. He is yet to score 500 runs in a series even against poorest teams. Dravid has already scored 600 plus twice in his career. Tendulkar is prolific. But nowhere close to prolific run getting ability of Bradman. He is yet to get a 100 in Zimbabwe. He is consistent. He is prolific. But definitely far from Bradman's class in terms of run accumulating. You need to be extremely prolific in your career to reach that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Will do so the moment you show me the Donalds and Wasims and Waqars and Ambys and Wash and McGrath and Mumu and the Warnes and the Steyns and the Pollocks and the Morkels and Ntinis and the Gillespies and the Akthars and the Asifs and the Brett Lees and the Mitchell Johnsons and Stuart Clarke and so on and so forth from DGB's era. .
Those bowlers looked good because batsmen are poorer than DGB. :hysterical: Works two ways. Padosis often says their domestic bowlers are better than our domestic bowlers. Actual fact is their batsman are crappy enough to make all bowlers look good Slightly exaggerated logic. But why can't you look at it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Was DGB the only guy that batted from both ends ?
Who said others were not good. They were good. Not as good as Bradman. You need tremendous amount of concentration reel of one big score after other. Concentration level don't change depending on bowlers. I have seen Tendulkar losing concentration so many times and giving his wicket away. It is not just about who you face. You think tendulkar has never faced absolutely rubbish attack on dead tracks? He has faced. But he never crossed 248. Assuming every bowler is absolutely crap in that era and Tendulkar , Lara, Sehwag play in that era. Sehwag and Lara will leave Tendulkar way way behind.

Share this post


Link to post
but they avged same (if not less ) than the modern day batsmen Its much difficult to score a triple batting at number 4 unless you are allowed to play forever till you reach a milestone like Lara did .... do you really think anybody even looked like getting SRT out in SCG or Mulatn ? And dont forget that in Bradmans time they used to bowl on an avg of 30-35 overs per day more than today.
Well There are lot of times India lost early wickets. Why couldn't he score then like Viru? Fact is he lacks concentration powers to last longer. I have followed his entire career. So many times he gifted his wicket away in the 90s where he could have gone on to make bigger scores. Jayawardane made 374 at no.4. against South Africa. They won that test. How about this score.card http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62582.html Must be a cakewalk huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Pls read the previous posts for details .... List-1=Bowlers from DGB's time and List-2=Bowlers from SRT's time ... which is a easier set of bowlers to score against ? The lists are in Post#192
For me both are tough. For bradman second will be easier. . :winky: Because he will have heavier more solid bat. He won't have more than 2 bouncers. He would probably average infinite without ever being dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Sample this tidbit from the Match report : What that match report doesnt tell you is that in that series Eng had 14 bowlers ... only one man played in all 5 tests. Thats how crap they were ... and the less said the better about fielding.
................... An unbeaten 159, his 34th hundred, was not the toughest test of his career, yet he was dropped three times - two of them sitters - before he reached 50. ................... http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/238094.html You know who this article is talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
How the hell are people expected to know who the better bowlers are? Was anyone on this forum alive in the 30's?
lol After 50 years someone like Boss would say You know how crappy fielding was in those days citing the piece i posted :haha:

Share this post


Link to post

both are best of there eras, bradman played on uncovered pitches where the ball did a lot,but the bowlers had less pace compared to todays bowlers ,if you watch his videos his technique is made for that those pitches, he averaged around 60 in bodyline series where there were real fast bowlers from england and used shortball well. tendulkar has played in the era 1988-2000 when fastbowling was at its peak and pitches were helpful.but he has also played 2000- where picthes have become flat . so if i had to put my money on someone it has to be tendulkar for his longeviety,playing on different surfaces all round the world and sucess in different forms of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Spoken like a true cricket ignorant (and it is hilarious to see people joining the chorus). Speaks wonders about common sense , cricketing history, knowledge etc etc. And no I dont mean to be patronizing. For those who are joining the chorus two words should suffice - Derek Underwood. The man was impossible to play on the kind of wickets we hear about in 30s. The wet wickets. And on these wet wickets the "seam is not up and straigh" (:haha: ) but the ball stops and is unplayable. Look up 1968 Oval match between Australia and England where a draw changed into a decision game based on shower, and subsequent mopped up ground. Underwood knocked off 4 wickets in 5 overs and won England the game. Feel free to read Wisden's description as well. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63027.html xxxx
I don't understand how your argument is relevant to this discussion on Bradman. Are you saying that damp pitches were the norm in Bradman's days? Or are you trying to indicate that pitches don't become damp at all in the covered era? Have you heard of "sweating" in the context of covering a pitch and to counter the sweating the covers are taken off during the day when the sun is out for a couple of days before a test match begins? If uncovered pitches are generally as unplayable as you make it out to be then how come the numbers tell us a different story? And, how come you or the others with a similar argument on uncovered pitches, do not bring up the comment in the Almanac about Bradman's failure on "sticky dog" wickets? After all, that is the whole point of this argument, right?

Share this post


Link to post
For me both are tough. For bradman second will be easier. . :winky: Because he will have heavier more solid bat. He won't have more than 2 bouncers. He would probably average infinite without ever being dismissed.
...and he would walk on water! This is as stupid as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
There is no point continuing this discussion when you refuse to simply accept match reports that are available in black and white ... Cheers :hatsoff:
Until i see the match report where Donalds, Ambroses, Pollocks, Muralitharans dominated Bradman i am also not ready to agree. So let us leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post

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
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×