Jump to content

Sehwag OWNS Bradman...in the runs in his century.

amits

By amits
in Cricket Talk

Sehwag OWNS Bradman...in the runs in his century.  

  1. 1.


Recommended Posts

ananthd Newbie

ananthd

Posted
Posted

There were plenty of players averaging near 50(Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Barnes, Harvey)..... And why are you taking only the Test bowlers he faced? What about Tiger O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller etc? Bradman only averaged 95 facing chumps of this sort? So now all those domestic bowlers of Australia are useless(yet you seem to regard the "Indian domestic cricket standard was always high") I simply don't understand how you can extrapolate based on the stats of modern bowlers when you fail to give credence to the stats of Bradman(or you undermine them severely).... SRT was not coached but Bradman was? Bradman was a country boy from Bowral; SRT only hails from the mecca of Indian cricket. Bradman has the most unorthodox technique(if you can call it that). If there was a genius who had batting nous it was Bradman who mostly turned the coaching book inside out(that's one of the reasons for his success I think) It's fine you think DGB would have sucked in the modern world; that's your opinion. But trying to prove it with stats is not correct, since there's no way of how the modern bowlers would have done against Bradman. For me the biggest thing about Bradman is how far off the norm he was in his day. Do you know of anybody in any field with a similar record? Lot's of people still feel Rod Laver was the best tennis ever(even after Sampras & Federer); we can call that subjective; but the fact is that Rod didn't outdistance his peers by that much(Emerson won 12 majors, more than Laver).... Bradman's dominance is akin to someone having won 30 majors in tennis or 35 in golf.... What you are asserting is that all Bradman's peers had skills/talent less than Bradman and that Bradman's record is a mirage. What I'm saying is that most of Bradman's fellow cricketers were normal and this guy was not. Sachin Tendulkar is a much better player than his peers. So was Brian Lara. So is Virender Sehwag. But they DON'T blow away the competition like this guy did. And that's the point. There's a qualitative difference between a Wally Hammond & a Len Hutton and Don Bradman. I think that precisely is the difference between Bradman & guys like Tendulkar & Lara. There's no qualitative difference between SRT & Lara; it's a pick'em basically.

Link to comment
ananthd Newbie

ananthd

Posted
Posted
Does the video posted in previous pages not play correctly on your PC or do the bowlers who are seen bowling there appear comparable to modern day greats ? How hard is it to accept that ?
What now a video with crappy frame rate is what we're banking on? Since you are so obsessed with the stats of the bowlers. Why aren't you answering how Bradman averaged 95 against Grimmet, O'Reilly, Miller & Lindwall all of whom averaged less than 24 in Tests? (Bradman played for a large part for his native South Australia and then for New South Wales....)
Link to comment
bharat297 Newbie

bharat297

Posted
Posted

Disgusting thread ... Its a shame that we have to build up our greats by putting other countries greats down. BRADMAN IS THE GREATEST EVER BATSMAN TO HAVE PLAYED THE GAME OF CRICKET. No questions asked. Period. You mention biased umpiring , without any proof. What about * No helmet * Crappy pitches * Bodyline * Crappy bat * Poor outfields In fact, don't even bother answering those. This thread is not even worth debating over and its an absolute shame that people are insulting a legend (particularly one that has passed) like this.

Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
you do the opposite by embelishing DGB's acheivements and conveniently blocking incovenient facts to bring down your own. Instead of blowing hot air why not participate in the debate ? I will even crunch stats for you if you have a particular scenario that you feel might prove your point.
Oh yeah? Let's get the numbers out for the bowlers you mentioned against Bradman and without him.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
Ok shwetabh heres the stat that will answer your doubts about one player affecting bowling averages ... Since 1995 Australia has been the no 1 test team and during this time they have averaged 37.61 while batting ... almost same as during Bradmans time (36.9) between 1928 and 48 But during this time ( 95 till date) there were no less than 6 bowlers who averaged below 25 (Jones and Amby topping with about 22 each ) ... During Bradmans time it was only one guy Bowes who avged 24.7 Larwood avg is 34. And Rafique the Bangla bowler avgs 27.7 against Aus ... :-D
Because bowlers today have the luxury of padding up their averages by playing teams other than Australia. Pull up the stats of the same bowlers against Australia - I know a certain Murali averages 35 against them.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
Australia batting avg in the 30s = 35.29 Australia batting avg in the 2000s = 40.88 :giggle:
And? Firstly, I don't care about 30s...let's talk about the tests in which Bradman played. Secondly, pull up the averages of your elite list of bowlers against Australia in the 2000s....I can bet my bottom dollar they'll be significantly worse off.
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...