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

[The Outsider]

Oh and Australia averaged 39.xx during the Bradman era not 36 or 37.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Ok. The exact figures for batting avgs are 1928-48 = 37.64 (All AUS matches from Bradmans Debut to Last match in 48) 1995-09 = 37.61 (All AUS matches from when they were ranked # 1 ) I had earlier included all Aus matches in the 40s which is why the descrepancy. And if you assume not-outs as outs the avg for both periods is same i.e 32

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/team/2.html?class=1;spanmax1=14+Aug+1948;spanmin1=30+Nov+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I count only runs off the bat ... that stat includes extras

Ok fair enough....so the teams averaged the same with the bat. Now also take into account the following : 1. The average for other teams during the era was in all likelihood lower during Bradman's time making his achievement much more. 2. Why are you shy of posting the stats of the bowlers you mentioned in your list with/without Bradman and in the present era against Australia?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Fontaine]

and you have? infact has anybody here done that ? could you find any articles even from the oldies "that watched DGB Play" that will rate Tate' date=' Larwood and Co alongside Donald, Amby, Walsh,McGrath , Waz , Pollock ?[/quote'] This is priceless. You mean you have never actually seen Bradman bat and yet you're willing to make comparisons against him and other MODEERN day players based on what? Youtube clips? :hysterical::hysterical: Someone go call Prasad and other bowling coaches around the world. I mean who the hell cares about watching a batsmen, given the conditions, bowling attack and the way he's handling pressure compared to detailed break downs of when he's gotten out etc when we've got "pundits" like BossBhai because they've seen a few youtube clips? :haha::hysterical: It's interesting reading these geeky debates on internet forums from guys who've never actually watched these players play, yet feel like they're some sort of authority. At least most of the people here like myself who have any common sense can admit that and move on but there are always some that will continue to talk crap when they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about. Anyways don't let me stop you, please continue with the circle .

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Fontaine]

So Fontaine how many test matches have you watched that featured DGB ?

ZERO Maybe that's why you don't see me making half cocked, half truth statements about him based on a few youtube clips. But you, PLEASE, continue on. Please continue making "expert" opinions about players that you've actually never seen play. I mean, who cares about actual real first hand opinions based on real experiences of watching people play, watching the bowlers, and other batsmen, when you can post a highlight youtube package and gain all the knowledge you need about making a monumental statement that Bradman < Sehwag? Have you actually ever played any competitive level cricket even to be making such judgement calls? If not, then surely you should apply to the BCCI as you seem to have the rare skill of being able to select players based on their talent watching a few youtube clips. I'll tell you what you are. You're just an internet nerd making huge judgement calls based on things you've never experienced or watched first hand but engaging in a debate for the sake of getting your personal opinion across. :hysterical: You're fooling nobody.

[Ram]

I understand that its stupid to make comparisons of players from different eras, but the only thing I’d like say is that I don’t see how a batsman can average close to a 100 in this era of cricket. To me, that’s like saying a sprinter is capable of running a 100m in 6 seconds. No human can ever run a 100m in 6 seconds, whichever era he is born.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ananthd]

Miller and Lindwall played towards the end of DGB's career ... Between Grimmet and Oreilly ... Grimmet averaged 32 against a crappy england team . O'Reilly is the only one that does have a good record but its hard to tell how many matches he played against him in Aus .... If you want to declare DGB as a alltime great because he played against O'Reilly at First Class level what do you say about SRT & Co who have played far more Test Match cricket against far better bowlers ?

Miller's FC span is from 37 and Lindwall's 41. Get your facts straight. The guys didn't plays Tests until 46 because of the war. And no, I don't say DGB is an all time great because he has a great record. I was only making a counter that only a single Test bowler had a test average of under 25. Simply to show that Bradman has played against good bowlers(as per your definition).

In anycase the fun part of playing spin is in India where Bradman played zero cricket.

Is that why India took till 52 to win home Test? why didn't the occidentals succumb sooner to the magic wrists of the orientals? Is that why beer guzzling Denis Compton, admittedly a chump who wouldn't average more than 20 in the modern game(after all he averaged only 50 in Tests), scored an unbeaten 250 in the 44-45 Ranji final when he rarely played regularly for Holkar that season? Heck even another chump from Bradman's own team(a dullard who averaged only a 36 with the bat) Keith Miller had a very successful tour w of India, with the bat, when the Australian services toured in the late 40s. I'm not saying that DGB would average a 100 in today's cricket. But you don't find it amazing that in more than a 100 years of cricket no one who's played long enough has averaged more than 60? Except this guy who averages a 100? You also seem to ignore that Bradman missed out on about 8 years of prime Test cricket? No brownie points for DGB for that? And I just fail to see the reasoning behind Bradman's 300's will be 200's of today, when it is so one-sided: it assumes DGB stays the same(without modern birth, training & technique) while everything else changes around him. A more specious argument I have not heard. I don't see much point in continuing the argument, but it will be interesting to plot the averages of the bowlers you've mentioned against their strongest opposition of their time.(Hint for example, Shane Warne's would be India or SA and most definitely not England).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Anakin]

To the people acting stupid about the factor of watching DGB bat or not, if it's absurd to say DGB was overrated since one hasn't seen him bat, why is it fine to say he's the greatest batsman ever without seeing him bat? Again, don't go quoting 99 avg, numbers must be taken in context. Before, all hell breaks lose again, I have never said that DGB was just a great batsman, he was and always will be a legend and was way ahead of his time, but I don't agree with the greatest batsman ever claim.

[ananthd]

Now can I get a honest answer to my question in Post # 173 ? Do you rate the bowlers of 30s just as highly as those of the 90s and 00's ?

I don't. I think the modern bowlers & batters are better; but not by more than 5 runs average at most either way. And since you've only given the average of the bowlers that DGB faced against Australia, why don't we compare apples to apples; take the averages of the modern bowlers against their best opposition.

The whole argument is DGB vs Modern bowlers ... and when I say modern bowlers I mean from the 70s and and 80s onwards. No cricket expert worth his salt disagrees that the game changed dramatically since the 70s and 80s.

I don't disagree that the game has changed for the better since DGB's time. My whole point, you seem to be transporting DGB in his mortal body of the 30s into the 90s which is incorrect. Would Sachin Tendulkar have averaged more than what he does today if he were playing in the 30s? Very likely.... But he wouldn't have averaged more than 10 runs of what he does(and this I'm giving because he is such a great player) since he wouldn't have add access to modern environment/equipment/coaching/fitness/nutrition whatever. And that would mean he'd probably would have averaged about 65 in DGB's time. You do the math.

[Anakin]

What about the benefits of that era that SRT would've enjoyed? I'm sure he'd have averaged pretty close to DGB. So what's the point of all this? This is quite a pointless discussion, comparing players across so different eras.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ananthd]

Again ... I could simply say he would avg 100 citing the facts that he had exactly the same level of skills if not more and the fact that he had to adjust to playing conditions in only 10 grounds and that he wouldnt have had to worry about ODIs and match practice between and before Tests while on tour and had to negotiate about 4 decent bowlers and so on and so forth. And ofcourse I will also end with a rhetorical unilateral statement saying "You do the math"

No he wouldn't have to worry about ODIs match practice etc, he'd only have had to worry about uncovered wickets, back foot rule, no thigh pads, helmets, elbow guards, arm guards, crappy wooden bats, crappy shoes, crappy clothing, infectious disease etc..... It goes both ways always. I can do the math. I'm giving 10 points to a modern day great(even this I'm being generous, since this modern day great is not so much better than some of his fellow greats).

Point is do you really think equipment/fitness/nutrition makes that much of a difference ? SRT didnt even have the full benefit of such things when he started out way back in 1989 at the ripe old age of 16. Do you really think one needs to have such luxurious to be able to handle the trundlers that are visible in action in that video ? You gotta be kidding me.

Yes I think so. You're missing the point again. Sachin is not a one-off, DGB was. Sachin is almost the same as Lara as SMG as Richards as Chappell etc... And you're talking about trundlers from lossy video from which no unequivocal judgement can be made? I don't buy the argument that chappies in the 30s couldn't bowl fast. They were good enough for 99.99 percent of the batters.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --