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

[riya]

Not in the 2000+ time frame

post 2000 Aussies were better because of Warne and Mcgrath.The batting in 90s were much better simply they played better bowlers.Also if u check pontings and haydos average in the 90 u will get it .Their average got better in the 2000s due to lack of quality bowlers.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[riya]

explain how Shoaib still has a good avg against them ? Do you know his SR BTW ? its just 36

His average in post 2000,i agree .Bu twhy would u choose post 2000 alone .Aussie batting line up at their best was in pre 2000 with Mark taylor ,Waughs ,slator etc at their peak .Mark Taylor has a triple ton against Akhtar and Zahid . why u didn't choose that ? As for post 2000, Mathew hayden alraedy proved in 90s that he can't handle great bowlers or even good ones .He was a usual bunny of Akhtar as well. As for Akhtar's strike rate .He usually chooses and bowls the matches as well as overs .He didn't complete both the series in 2002 and 2005 agsinat Australia . If he bowls well in one innings,he make sure to underbowl in the next or compltely out of action in the series.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[fineleg]

Ofcourse ARR is better than Thyagaraja bhagavathar .Simply because there was no work pressure for Thyagaraja swamy .Also swamy's inability to use sophsticated new instruments and key board

where is Macj? Macj kelvikku badhil sollanum riya :D

[riya]

you choose before 2000 then Ambrose comes in .... has even better figures .. even Rafique the great BD bowler has very respectable figures - much better than those of Larwood and Co - i hope you realize the folly of your argument.

So u choose Larwood's whole statistics vs some selective statistics of bowlers of this era .Why don't u choose the whole statistics of each bowler's .That was the folly in my argument :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chandan]

: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 .

Dude, everyone who's read this thread realizes what a joke this is. Some guy making assertions on the superiority/inferiority of a batsmen when he's never actually seen the first batsmen being compared. But somehow you now know about the bowling as well of an entire era based on stats right!!? It's like saying some Aussie idiot twenty years from now says that some 20/20 Aussie cricketer is better than SRT because even though he's NEVER actually seen SRT bat, he has seen a few youtube clips where SRT isn't doing well in T20!! :hysterical: This argument would have to gain a few IQ points to even be considered retarded. But like I said, please continue on the blind circle.

Fontaine, I'll request you to refrain from being personal and the use of foul language even if you do that with stars!

[bharat297]

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. The pitches used to be some of the most patta that are out there ... go read the CI profiles of Oreily Grimmet and others .This is also easily provable by stats.... the batting avg of Aus since 95 is the same as that during DGB's time unless ofcourse you want to now claim that current day pitches (since 1995 ) are as lively as those from 30s and 40s. All other points you mentioned above have been answered in this thread ... your turn to pick from the 2 bowling lists posted in post # 173.

Bradman played in an era of uncovered pitches and no helmets and still averaged 99. No one has even come close to that since ... say what you want about stats ... but the bottom line is there is a gap of nearly 40 between Bradman and the person with the next highest average. It is quite sad to see people put down other greats of the game just to push ours further. It looks cheap ... I can almost guarantee that if Bradman was Indian and not Australian ... this thread would not exist. Thats a bitter pill for many people here to swallow but deep down you know its true.

[Anakin]

You're right, OZs do overrate their legends :winky:

[bharat297]

^ Well thats not what I said ... but can you imagine if an Indian batsman averaged 99 during his career??? Imagine what we'd be calling him. We call Sachin GOD ... What would we call him if he averaged 99???

[Anakin]

^ Well thats not what I said ... but can you imagine if an Indian batsman averaged 99 during his career??? Imagine what we'd be calling him. We call Sachin GOD ... What would we call him if he averaged 99???

Not in amateur cricket, no

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[bharat297]

And reg uncovered pitches .... the pitches in the 30s used to be one of the most batsman friendly and you will find that all experts agree to that. Just read the Cricinfo profiles of cricketers from that era. The sticky wickets that you are probably refering to would usually make Bradman drop himself down the order to buy time so that the pitched eased out. He once even reversed the batting order. Anybody who does that today will be soundly ridiculed

Can you show me an expert that believes that pitches back in that time were better than those today? Since ALL experts agree to that (which I find amazing given that we have seen improvements in curating, the introduction of heavy rollers, pitch covers, and various other pitch care methodologies)

[sangrock]

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest Hiten.]

BUMP for the un-initiated ... I told ya ... ;-)

Kasa kai boss :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[suraj]

BUMP for the un-initiated ... I told ya ... ;-)

Where have you been?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --