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

[vvvslaxman]

Yep dont like the discussion or dont care about it so lets spam the heck out of the thread ... brilliant idea :two_thumbs_up:

If you seriously analyze entire thread is a spam except the first post.

[zen]

which is based on GOB Allen > Donald

if that makes you feel any better :hehe:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Pak_Forever]

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.

[99.94]

Didn't they play in the same team?

International cricket: yes. Domestic: no.

[99.94]

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.

[vvvslaxman]

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.

[zen]

What's hilarious is that bossbhai came with a 10 points plan but he couldn't even get past his first point :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --