Jump to content

Why cant there be another Bradman again??


dial_100

Recommended Posts

Did he score like nearly 70% more than the next best guy in those 10 yrs (Iam not sure but correct me if wrong) ? Bradman not only avgd higher than his peers but he did so by a huge margin series after series.
The criteria is different in basketball. You can't score so much more cause ball is constantly being passed around. So while he didn't tower over his peers in sheer average differential, he towered over them in terms of leading the pack 10/12 (may be 13) years he played. But while he played, there wasn't even an argument as to who was the best player. And since he has retired which was like 8 years ago, no one has even come close.
Link to comment
1. There aren't only 2 teams in the entire world playing cricket. 2. You can't keep plundering runs against weak oppositions all the time. 3. Not every team can boast of a minnow-basher par excellence.
I would say by most definitions Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are minnows and weak teams. How man players average more than 100 against them over substantial no. of test matches, including tendlya.
Link to comment
I would say by most definitions Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are minnows and weak teams. How man players average more than 100 against them over substantial no. of test matches' date=' including tendlya.[/quote'] The point was Bradman scored his runs against a less-competitive English side and he was pretty much playing them all the time.
Link to comment
there were hardly a bunch of peers that he had to play with. Secondly if you construct a league out of Pak' date='BD,WI,Zim ... MoYo will have Bradmanesque avg. This is what happened in those days. DGB just happened to be that great player amongst a bunch of minnows. How do we know this ? Well look at the 10 points I made and all the hilarious stories from those times ( like players playing till late 40s , bowling 120+ overs when DGB made 300 runs in a day , the OTT reaction to Short pitch bowling and extracting promises that Eng wouldnt do that ever again ) ... even club cricket isnt played like that anymore.[/quote'] With the type of arguments that you make, is it a surprise that only people you have managed to convince that Tendulkar > Bradman are the ones who want to hear that. I find it hard to see many (if any) neutrals being convinced by the arguments that you make. Let's talk about your opening statement: "there were hardly a bunch of peers that he had to play with." In the final analysis, does it really matter if Bradman played with 20 Hammonds and Headleys or 10 as the likes of Hammond and Headley (with the quality they represent) is enough to make a judgment. Moreover even today, the comparisons are amongst the top 3-4 batsmen despite a lot of them playing today Your 2nd statement: "Secondly if you construct a league out of Pak,BD,WI,Zim ... MoYo will have Bradmanesque avg. This is what happened in those days. " That's again a poor analogy as a construction of such a league depends up on the following: 1. BD, Zim, Pak, NZ and WI are the only test playing nations. So that itself is the test standard. And if that's the test standard, it is not a secondary league as other test playing countries like Ind, Aus, SA, etc don't exist. So in that case, without being able to compare, you wouldn't be able to deduce it's poor! 2. It is a secondary league - This itself takes away from the performances. Much like performances in domestic leagues suffer in comparison to those at test level If the point is that the standard of such a league is similar to what Bradman played against then that's a hilarious conclusion coming from your imagination going wild, much like you pulled out an avg of 56 in BL being equivalent to an avg Bradman could manage in today's era. It won't be surprising to find that Tendulkar avg 56 now (which is probably why you pulled out that number). And this goes against your own point of trying to run down umpiring, pitches or whatever of that era because here you are saying that in a way playing in BL would be similar to playing today so you must have taken the umpiring, pitches, etc as a constant! If the standard of that league can be compared to the playing Bradman's era then the standard of many domestic leagues would be below that and we don't see a career avg of 100 in domestic either :P In short, the blatantly biased PoV that you have is only good for the trash bin. But yeah have to give it to you for its entertainment value though :giggle:
Link to comment
Right ... and likewise there isnt any doubt as to who is the best cricketer today by current standards especially if you consider All formats of the game. (Unless you pay too much attention and give credit to trolls and idiots ). And cricket is faaar more complex than baseball.
Michael Jordan played Basketball, not Baseball. :poink: :D
Link to comment
So how the hell can you claim bradman is better then sachin?
This has been explained a gazillion times over several threads. One such: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=244634 You don't compare their outfits, or their batting techniques, you compare their achievements for which you also have to take the period they accomplished into consideration. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but it is ok. :--D
Link to comment
Right ... and likewise there isnt any doubt as to who is the best cricketer today by current standards especially if you consider All formats of the game. (Unless you pay too much attention and give credit to trolls and idiots ). And cricket is faaar more complex than baseball.
In all formats put together yes, but in test cricket alone no. Even in all formats put together, he hasn't been MJ like for many reasons which is why his detractors keep putting tendulkar down. In MJ's case, he left no stone unturned, be it winning multiple championships, or scoring titles, defense, shooting percentage (accuracy) or whatever. I agree these are team games and MJ also didn't win anything till he got a decent team around him, but unfortunately it helps when a great player gets a chance to win a bunch of championships and plays a crucuial role in the wins mainly in the finals (read WC, overseas test series wins, etc). So if we win the 2011 WC and if SRT plays a stellar role in the finals, his greatness will be sealed even more.
:(( :sorry:
That's ok, you got the point.:two_thumbs_up:
Link to comment

Let me give you the best Analogy here.....Just to understand the term competition here in the modern days. In the last century, there were many businesses who had 80% or 90% or even 99% market share for their products. But slowly competition started to pick up and now almost every single business has steep competition in all of their product line. Do you expect anyone to change that trend now. I wont fool myself by saying that... May be for few years you could be Mike Hussey with average of 70 in 25 test. But eventually, it came down to 50. That is how I understand the modern cricket. For me, SRT, Lara, Ponting, Border have achieved is going to be so tough to achieve in the fore seeable future @55 let alone 70 or 100. There so much awareness about Cricket in all these countries. Competition will be more and not less.

Link to comment
Let me give you the best Analogy here.....Just to understand the term competition here in the modern days. In the last century, there were many businesses who had 80% or 90% or even 99% market share for their products. But slowly competition started to pick up and now almost every single business has steep competition in all of their product line. Do you expect anyone to change that trend now. I wont fool myself by saying that... May be for few years you could be Mike Hussey with average of 70 in 25 test. But eventually, it came down to 50. That is how I understand the modern cricket. For me, SRT, Lara, Ponting, Border have achieved is going to be so tough to achieve in the fore seeable future @55 let alone 70 or 100. There so much awareness about Cricket in all these countries. Competition will be more and not less.
In business, 100% represents the total size of the market w/ companies trying to get a pie of it. Scoring runs is not like market share as, theoretically, you can avg as much as anyone! It's not like they are only 100 runs available and every batsmen is trying to get a pie of those 100 runs Talking about different eras, if there were no Bradman, the top averages in that era would have been similar to what they are now, i.e. 50-60 mark. 1930-1950: Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe, Compton, Hutton 1950-1970: Sobers, Barrington, Pollock, Weekes, Walcott 1970-1990: Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Miandad, Border 1990-2010: Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sehwag The Hussey example only shows what's been true for most throughout the history of cricket that it is easier to avg high for a period of time (purple patch) but very difficult to sustain a 70+ avg for an extended period of time, let alone end up with a career avg like that after 50 tests!
Link to comment

Here difference in market share...is compared with difference between averages of peers. Point was there is a substantial difference because of lack of competition. In competition, performance of 1 player motivates others to go at that level as well. That motivation was completly lacking in 1930 well of course there was a question of capability of the players as well. But here bowlers really fight for every wicket. They take huge pride in taking SRT, Pointing or RD's wicket.

Link to comment
Here difference in market share...is compared with difference between averages of peers. Point was there is a substantial difference because of lack of competition. In competition, performance of 1 player motivates others to go at that level as well. That motivation was completly lacking in 1930 well of course there was a question of capability of the players as well. But here bowlers really fight for every wicket. They take huge pride in taking SRT, Pointing or RD's wicket.
Arre bhai, as mentioned in my previous post, if you take Bradman out of equation then the avg of best batsmen of various periods has hovered in the 50-60 mark! So it's hard to deduce that there is a lack of competition. The entire bodyline tactics were devised to stop Bradman's invincible and here we hear that motivation was completely lacking and bowlers didn't fight to pick up wkts. :giggle:
Link to comment
Arre bhai, as mentioned in my previous post, if you take Bradman out of equation then the avg of best batsmen of various periods has hovered in the 50-60 mark! So it's hard to deduce that there is a lack of competition. The entire bodyline tactics were devised to stop Bradman's invincible and here we hear that motivation was completely lacking and bowlers didn't fight to pick up wkts.
So far all I am hering is Bradman was way above his peers. And which is convincingly proved and accepted by everyone. At me. But OP is asking why there can't be another Bradman. If he did it then it should be possible. Lot of posters have contributed towards that. Do you have anything to add??? As for Bodyline crap, I see that happen in themodern cricket in every game. On bouncy tracks, it becomes a huge factor as one reason why there can;t be anyone who can consistently score at higher average.
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...