Jump to content

A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics

Guest BossBhai

By Guest BossBhai
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

pensionplan Newbie

pensionplan

Posted
Posted
Below is a list of some of the most nonsensical BS that I have had the pleasure of reading and discussing over the yrs on this forum and bukhaar. 1. FC Runs > ODI Runs hence there should be no such thing as "International" 100s 2. Jack Hobbs , Hammond , Hutton = Tendulkar because they have a similar batting avg. 3. Similarly Ernie Toshack, Bill Bowes > Wasim based on Bowling avg 4. Ray Lindwall = Dale Steyn 5. Bradman was single handedly responsible for messing up bowling averages of ALL bowlers in his time. 6. Ray Lindwall > Dennis Lillee 7. The Cosmic Ladder "theory" 8. A Test match in 1976 featuring Michael Holding proves Bodyline = baap of all series 9. In Bradmans time Bowlers could deliver from almost a yard infront of the popping crease. 10. Strike rates of fast bowlers are not all that important. 11. Tyson bowled at 90 MPH with 3 sweaters so just imagine how fast he may have been without wearing any sweaters. 12. Sunny Gavaskar was good at ODI cricket .. good enough to warrant a place in an Indian Alltime ODI XI. 13. Viv Richards averaging 45 over 70% of his career resulting in his avg dropping by 10 points is no big deal. Even if it is one of the worst drop's in averages. 14. If you can run 100 yrds under 11 secs there is a good chance you can bowl very fast. 14. Tendulkar can be rated only 0.5 points above Sobers despite his Test Record being almost twice as Sobers in almost every aspect except for ducks and S/R. 15. Modern TV technology can make trundlers look like world beaters . 16. Tendulkar or anyone post Bradman has never faced Bodyline. 17. The Helmet pretty much removes the fear of a cricket ball from the batsman's mind. 18. Bradman scored at a rate of a run-a-ball and so on and so forth ... but I don't blame the posters here because most of this tripe is fanned by the supposed "Experts". here is a great example : http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2007/jun/08sobers.htm The man has the gall to take a piss at modern cricket when he thinks being sozzled and playing cricket is something that is worthy of praise. You get kicked out of the ground these days if you do that and trust me it is damn faking right. You wouldn't understand though being a "fan" of alcohol. The less said the better about the 22yards crap he is talking about. He is not alone though ... Benaud, Chappell , Manjrekar, Tony Greig etc etc keep coming up with nonsense on a regular basis. This is how cricketing myths get created and propagated wildly by gullible cricket fans. ICF has a good collection of such people. Use your own bleddy eyes and mind people.
Good job of venting. You needed it. Time to close this thread. Merry Christmas!!!
Link to comment
Sachin=GOD Newbie

Sachin=GOD

Posted
Posted
OP do you really think there is a single poster here who is a Bradman fanatic... try thinking about this and reply to me
For most of these Bradman Bhakts it isn't so much a case of being Bradman fanatic as being someone who cannot accept that Goddy can be the best ever. They will start supporting Sir Viv Richards or Sir Gary Sobers or Kallis or anyone else if that player is being compared with Goddy.
Link to comment
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
For most of these Bradman Bhakts it isn't so much a case of being Bradman fanatic as being someone who cannot accept that Goddy can be the best ever. They will start supporting Sir Viv Richards or Sir Gary Sobers or Kallis or anyone else if that player is being compared with Goddy.
whats wrong in that...Isnt it the same logic applied by Sachin fanatics sayin why cant any one question Bradman...same applies here
Link to comment
carnish Newbie

carnish

Posted
Posted
For most of these Bradman Bhakts it isn't so much a case of being Bradman fanatic as being someone who cannot accept that Goddy can be the best ever. They will start supporting Sir Viv Richards or Sir Gary Sobers or Kallis or anyone else if that player is being compared with Goddy.
Exactly what i meant by the question... no one here likes bradman... have a comparision thread between bradman and richards or someone else and see half of those so called bradman fanatics will change their sides
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Beg to differ on the fielding as you will have to dig really deep to find a match where Baasu dropped a catch. Reg wkt taking abilities ... SRT has won matches because of his Bowling (Both Kolkatta and Adelaide would have been draws but for his very crucial wkts of well set batsmen ) and whatever difference that still remains in the bowling dept is taken care of by the humongous gap in terms of batting ability . In other words the Gap between SRT the bowler and Sobers the Bowler is not as wide as SRT the Batsman and Sobers the Batsman. BTW Garrys runs came against far inferior bowling with Truman and Willis being the only express bowlers of any note which is simply no match to the looong list of really high class quality bowlers that Baasu has had to face. This is "THE" key factor. But Sobers gets the hype because of his county cricket and world series cricket exploits. IF you want to include them then I can similarly use SRT's ODI career which will simply blow away anyone and everyone. Whether you like it or not ODI cricket has added that extra dimension on modern players and it is very difficult to shine in both forms of the game like Baasu has. So its not right to simply discard the ODI achievements. The next aspect is Garry being more comfortable closer to home than away as is indicated by the diff in avg at home and away ( minus 16 ). There is no such difference for Baasu and ofcourse there was no SAF or SL in Garrys times. In short Baasu is the greatest thing that stepped on a cricket field.
:hysterical:
Link to comment
Malcolm Merlyn Collaborator

Malcolm Merlyn

Posted
Posted

If batsmen and bowlers are selected from the pre 1950 era just on basis of avg,no post 1950 era player will get a chance in an ATXI For example here is my team based on avgs from pre 1950 era..... AVG(rounded off to nearest whole no.) 1.Hobbs 57 2.Sutcliffe 61 3.Bradman 100 4.Hammond 58 5.Headley 64 6.Morris 60 7.Ames(wk) 44 8.Charlie Turner 17 9. Barnes 16 10. O'Reilley 22.5 11. Lohmann 11 No.1 to 7 show batting avg of the player.No.8 to no.11 show bowling avgs. Minimum batting avg of specialist batsmen:57,Max Avg:100(99.94) Max Bowling avg of specialist bowler:22.5,Min Avg:11 Some amazing stats,avgs here.I hope someone replaces this 11 with a equally good stats 11 from post 1950s players. Else i will have to think that Sobers,Richards Tendulkar,Warne Murali MArshal Mcgrath Akram all were absolutely crap in front of the pre 1950 GREATS BOSS BHAI COMMENTS PUHLEEEEZ

Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted

A few gems: 1. Tendulkar has the most runs and 100s (well, he has played more) 2. Tendulkar played better bowlers (not only him but others did as well)

when in the opposition, you have McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination: 
	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

:winky:

Sachin has just 16 tests out of a whooping 18o odd against those combinations. Someone like Lara has 30 of his 130 tests against these. If facing better bowling attack is a concern, there are batsmen who have done better than SRT 3. 100 100s = an avg of 100 (really?) 4. Adding all runs from all formats to show he is better test batsman than his peers (:haha:) 5. There is not much difference b/w tendulkar and sobers as all-rounders ( :facepalm: ) 6. Everyone who played in Bradman's time is crap. Richards is crap. in fact everyone else is crap 7. Ten is a better 2nd innings player than Laxman 8. an avg of 50 now = an avg of 100 in the past, implying raja > hammond 9. Moyo record based on hypothetica lsub- league is a stimulation of Bradman 10. cavemen = gorillas 11. Bradman 29 100s in 80 innings vs tendulkar's 'who cares' in 'who cares' :doh: keep going .... PS RPT :P Lara 12k runs in 130 tests, rpt 92 Ten 15k runs in 180 tests, rpt 83 So if batsmen of "similar caliber", for e.g. Lara or Gavaskar, had played 180 tests or more, they too would have 15k runs if not more ------------> implying more runs and more 100s doesn't equate to automatically being the greatest. If that were the case, Hammond, Sobers, Gavaskar, Border, etc would automatically been declared the greatest. Similarly azhar would have become the greatest ODI player too when he went past Haynes' most number of runs (and when Haynes himself wasn't rated higher than Richards despite having more runs and 100s) ....
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...