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

[zen]

okaaaay ... lets take item 1 on that list .... feel free to tell me the names of those non-imaginary bowlers who in your mind bowled to DGB .... :hmmm:

Appears as if you didn't even understand what I wrote (including getting the relation) b/w moot points and imaginary world!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

this is what I understood .... DGB was pounding minnows .

If that's what you understood then it's not much :P It's a moot point. As so what if he was pounding the minnows. If he was pounding the minnows then others in that era were pounding minnows to but they didn't average 100! And it's hard to imply that if Tendulkar (or one of his peers) were playing in 30s, they would have averaged 100 too. If you say that Tendulkar would have averaged 100 then may be Lara would have too, and if Lara would have then why not Richards. And Gavaskar did well against one of the all time best bowling attacks, against whom many struggled, so if he could do that against them then the Q is how much he would have averaged in 30s. And if doing well against good bowling attack(s) is the key criteria then why not consider Gavaskar to be the best? And if doing best against a good attack shows you can bash minnows then why isn't his record better against many of the other teams compared with his record against WI What about Greg Chappell. He averages 50+ too. May be he would have averaged 100 too and instead of being arguably Australia's 2nd best batsmen, he would have been the first Now since everyone averaging over 50 is shown to be averaging like 100 (to be in Bradsman league) then it casts a serious shadow on the batting calibre of those batting in those era in which some of the all time batting legends like Hammond (avg 59) and Headley (60 odd) played in. Why would anyone want to put a Q mark over the calibre of greats of yester years just to show that Tendulkar is comparable or in the same league of Bradman In the end, if your point is that Don did well against minnows, it means little in overall scheme of things. Which is why it's a moot point :winky:

Shall we go to the next point then ? :hmmm:

2nd point looks to far away at this point :asleep:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - instead of trying to keep on answering this same question how about we do that comparison? Sent you a PM.

[zen]

then lets see that list of super mean bowlers then ... which means he was better than his peers.

I wrote the whole post to show that why who bowled is a moot point. After that if you still have to ask me to list super mean bowlers then it only shows why picking out lines is not a good idea and why it's important to understand the central idea of a post For the 2nd line, the paras following it tells you why it's not easy to average 100 or imply others (from different era) could have done that. Implying the need to stress on being objective duh

probably but SRT has done it for the longest time and so many other things ... Iam sure you are aware of all that.

This is where things get subjective and lose value. Which is why your points are non-starters

Slow down here .... before I answer that do you agree that Modern day batsman are at a huge disadvantage as compared to those of 30s ?

I don't know how many times have I made it clear that it's a moot point for me. My points are more in the lines of "If you think 'that' then let's assume 'that' as despite 'that' it means little". I am not discussing whether your points are right or wrong (which is what you are trying to do) but I am saying that they are irrelevant

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

we will figure out whats moot or not after we have arrived at who played against a higher standard. So if you dont mind could you kindly tell us (without using the word moot and not beating around the bush) who faced tougher bowlers DGB or SRT ?

Why would who batted against a higher standard matter? If you think that Ten played against a higher standards then it doesn't mean he would have averaged 100 in Don era. Similarly even if Don had played against comparitively lower standards, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't be able to be in a league of his own In short, If you think that Ten played against a higher standards and would have averaged 100 too in Don era then why not show us at least from the point of comic relief. And also show us that based on those criteria why wouldn't Lara, Richards and company have averaged 100, if Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton, Hammond, Headley, etc.

[vvvslaxman]

Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton' date=' Hammond, Headley, etc.[/quote'] Now Bangla fans will say Tamim Iqbal > Hammond. Because he faced tougher bowling. So 30 average now is better than 58 average then :hysterical: Roqibul > Stan mcab.

[zen]

Now Bangla fans will say Tamim Iqbal > Hammond. Because he faced tougher bowling. So 30 average now is better than 58 average then :hysterical: Roqibul > Stan mcab.

:hysterical: Adjusted averages according to 1930s standards: average X 2 Afridi 37.4(2)= approx 75 B->

[teacup]

The one thing that is obvious about Bradman is that his approach to batting was several decades ahead of his time on which count he scores over everyone who has ever picked up a bat including Tendulkar. However, to take that fact and make wild-**** guesses that the Don would average 70-80 runs even today (as some in this forum have) is pure speculation and has no merit. Another argument that has no merit is the supposed disadvantage of batting on an uncovered wicket. If that were the case, the batting average would have been significantly lesser compared to other eras and more matches would have yielded results. Statistics show that the batting average (33+) is the same as any other era except the 2000s and the percentage of result matches (60%) is less than the current era. In any case, Batsman, according to the Wisden Almanac (already referenced by BossBhai), was never successful on "sticky dog" wickets.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).

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

[vvvslaxman]

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. xxxx

Totally concur. H.Verity was another bowler in bradman's era . Not quiet quick like underwood. But he was a master in those conditions.

[zen]

Why would who batted against a higher standard matter?

erm ... probably because its much easier to score against weaker attacks ... but Iam sure its "moot" and Iam sure you will tell me by the end of this decade the reason.

Now why would anyone want to say that when the answer was provided by me in the very same para (see below) which you split up

If you think that Ten played against a higher standards then it doesn't mean he would have averaged 100 in Don era. Similarly even if Don had played against comparitively lower standards' date=' it doesn't mean that he wouldn't be able to be in a league of his own [/quote'] Doesn't that answer your first question? Or isn't it clear that I am providing an answer to the question I am asking

you know this how ? BTW I can quite simply type the exact opposite of what you wrote ... And ?

Which is what the point is. It's subjective, which is what you are treading on! That's why I stressed the need to be objective duh

Well there are no such teams anmore ... the closest are BD and Zim and he avges 97 against the minnows. Heck he avged 76 against Eng till 2002 and 80 against SL in the 90s.

So it tells us that it cannot be shown, which is what the point is. And once again why you have to be objective. And unlike in Don's era, there are others too who avg like that against some of those teams so again your point gets diluted

Whats that got anything to do with SRT ? There was only one otherr "strong" team (if you can call it that ) during 30s ... today there are atleast 6 .. so the odds of someone not being better are much more favourable for DGB.

I said this: "And also show us that based on those criteria why wouldn't Lara, Richards and company have averaged 100, if Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton, Hammond, Headley, etc. " In simple English, a law to judge a player should be universally applicable. It has to be true in most cases. You also have to understand that if you are undermining Don's average then you are doing that for others of that era too. Based on whatever criteria you chose to show for example Ten > or = Don, one should be able to discuss say Tamim Iqbal vs Hammond too. You should be able to rate most batsmen equally on a sytem that same for everyone. It should involve key players from different era. It's the system that should show who stands where and not meaningless points. If your system can't do that then its pointless. If you are designing a system that exclusuve to the point that you are making then you are not creditable Enough said!

[Lurker]

Totally concur. H.Verity was another bowler in bradman's era . Not quiet quick like underwood. But he was a master in those conditions.

Verity was a great bowler and if I am not mistaken Bradman ranked him higher than O Reilley. My memory beats me, and I wont be able to find a link to support it, but Don had said something like - I could never command Verity, he had loads of patience and there was no breaking point with him (I paraphrase). There is a chance many cricket fans today would look Verity up on statsguru, check the numbers and shrug the shoulders wondering whats the big deal, but for cricket historians Verity is one of the all time greats. (and I have not talked about his domestic career or his military services for that matter)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

How about bouncer restrictions , 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....

[Lurker]

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'] *Cynic hat on* Irrelevant! Thats all babble emanating from the gora journalists who took poetic license. Lets translate that into numbers to be subjective Bouncer restriction in modern era = extra 0.15 runs per innings. Protective gears = less 0.176 runs per innings(have you seen the weight of those??) covered wickets = less 55 runs per innings (ball is at decent height with seam up so extra runs) Bat with edges = less 15 runs (you have to have bigger forearms now). Continue this cycle till the modern era genius's stat reaches 99.94. *Cynic hat off*

[zen]

err ... I just did ... those stats give SRT a avg of 85 over 4500 runs ... quite similar to what DGB did against Eng ... the best of his times..

what you did was you cherry picked, which doesn't count :winky:

quite right which is why I put up those 10 points in post # 105 which dont apply to DGB ... unless you think things like facing super fast bowlers, alltime great spinners ( not one but two) and have to adjust to about 50+ diferent Test grounds with little practice matches (never mind the umpiring and lbw laws) doesnt affect the batting average negatively then perhaps you shouldnt even be discussing this topic

Appears as if still you haven't realized that subjectivity doesn't work. You are still struggling to even show that your first point has any kind of relevance. Forget abt 10 points :--D