Jump to content

If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

CSK Fan

By CSK Fan
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted
Fair Enough Mr.Mishra. And why should you? You are man of your own. If you are a fan of X' date= support him no matter what anyone says.
A certain set of people are forcing their view that compare the records created in 1930 cricket to that of current generation and using argument of relative average as criteria for GREATEST BATSMAN. And thats where we start looking into facts.....
Link to comment
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
A certain set of people are forcing their view that compare the records created in 1930 cricket to that of current generation and using argument of relative average as criteria for GREATEST BATSMAN. And thats where we start looking into facts.....
isnt this applicable to you also... Even if 'Force' people kept quiete you start a thread and again these nonsense starts.... Better just state your opinions rather than blame others for these kind of threads..
Link to comment
tothepoint Newbie

tothepoint

Posted
Posted
A certain set of people are forcing their view that compare the records created in 1930 cricket to that of current generation and using argument of relative average as criteria for GREATEST BATSMAN. And thats where we start looking into facts.....
Who cares? No matter how much they force you,you are not going to give up. You dont find the relative average point valid? Then leave it,but if you will insist that certain set of people to agree to your point of view,then you are expecting too much. As for me, I find it valid and I think sportsmen should be compared with their peers so I dont think we have an argument here.
Link to comment
Magneto Newbie

Magneto

Posted
Posted
Conspired by srtfanatics of the world. I doubt whether these voters are serious about their choice.
More like the case of Pontingfanatics. Was checking the names of people who have voted for him, a HUGE majority of them are from the subcontinent (including Pakistan and Bangladesh). Not surprised, knowing the padosi's love for Ponting. I guess most Facebook voters don't care for history or anything, and would want to go by what they have seen.
Link to comment
8ankitj Newbie

8ankitj

Posted
Posted
I know that. It was mentioned earlier as well. But somebody would be scoring 100 in 24 balls only if bowling standards are extremely abysmal. In IPL, all big hitters of world, with their highly modern bats and with poor bowlers to play with, could hardly go anywhere near to 40 ball century and here we are talking about 24 ball century.
It was in a domestic tournament and by all accounts it was a very, very ordinary bowling attack. Obviously, no one can score a 24-ball 100 against Marshall-Garner-Holding. Not even Don. That 100 is not the reason for Bradman's supremacy anyway. It's just an interesting anecdote like Shastri's six sixes in one over perhaps.
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
This table has a basic problem - How are we comparing performances of five batsmen against 3 pairs of bowlers, when 3 of those batsmen have not even played against one of these pairs (since that pair belongs to their own country)? Mark Waugh or Steve Waugh's performance here may be against Donald-Pollock and Wasim-Waqar, but how can Warne-Mcgrath be included in the equation? So, Sachin's performance here are being compared against 6 bowlers, and the two Waugh's performance against 4 bowlers, and still they are being put against each other in a head-to-head format? Ditto for Anwar's.
^ :hysterical: .... do you think ppl don't know that^! It is "understood" that Anwar and the Waughs would not play against their own teams so we have to take their record against the two pairs :doh: On the other hand, Lara and Tendulkar have played against all 3 attacks. What's imp is the number they have put pu against these attacks in the amount of cricket they have played .... and unfortunately, SRT doesn't shine Another point for the table is to show that if we are taking playing and doing well against these type of bowlers then first we must see if SRT himself qualifies as the greatest based on that, if not then you pull out such names on one hand against Bradman and don't consider it as a factor in SRT vs his peers If someone said that Lara is the best as he has done well and played so many tests (a larger percentage of his overall tests) against these type of bowlers than it is understandable
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
  • This is not the first time you ignored another lethal pair of that time - Walsh-Ambrose from your numbers, just because Sachin averaged 50+ against that pair.
  • Why take numbers of Warne only when McGrath is with him? If you have to assess his performance against good bowlers like Warne, why not include numbers for all the matches when Warne was there, with or without McGrath?
  • Why you not mentioning the fact for all the tests Sachin played against Donald, Donald could take him only as many times as Cronje did, even Cronje would have had just one third number of attempts to get Sachin then what Donald did. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=dis_dismissals;player_involve=2011;template=results;type=batting;view=bowler_summary So Sachin's relatively worse average is because of Cronje, not because of Donald or Pollock as you are trying to make it out to.
  • Why don't include the numbers Sachin raked up against pair of Akhtar and Saqlain or Steyn and Morkel?

^ cut off = min 200 runs vs a pair in the opposition If he is getting out to Cronje then it is even sad :((
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...