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

[The Outsider]

Yeah, Bradman wasn't as good as Sehwag and the rest of the bunch like Headley, Hammonds, Weekes, Hobbs, Walcott, Hutton, Harvey etc. were maybe as good as Pathan, Razzaq, Healy, Moin Khan.:hysterical:

[amits]

bradman was a overhyped WBB(weak bowling bully). i cant understand y most indians have the disease of underhyping indian players & downgrading the achievements of indian cricketers. i remember when some former players said that "india has the best bowling attack in the world", earlier this year, many indians didnt agree to the fact, whereas if such a thing had happened in any other country, the fans would have gone crazy & the bowling attack been overhyped. also, some indians even think that the traitor pietersen is a better batsman than sehwag in tests, which happens to be huge insult to sehwag to compare him with a traitor like pietersen as for the sehwag-bradman comparison, bradman has never faced bowlers like steyn, akhtar, muralitharan, warne, some bowlers whom sehwag has faced & also scored runs off at a quick rate. bradman had to face absolutely weak bowling with their bowling avges being 30+. also in bradmans time, fielding standards were poor whereas in sehwags time, fielders dive all around the ground & make sensational stops in the field, something which was unheard of in bradmans time. and the helmet comparision wont affect sehwag as sehwag plays well away from his body, so helmet or no helmet, sehwag would still play the fast bowlers with ease. sehwag rarely plays close to his body and for things like overall avg, avges wont matter in comparing bradman & sehwag. bradman avged 100 in the 1940s & sehwag avges 51 in the 2000s and it can easily be proven by adjusting avges according to different playing conditions that a avg of 51 in 2000s > avg of 100 in 1940s. and as for strike-rates, sehwag scores his runs faster than what bradman used to score. sehwag has a strike-rate of 76 in tests, which is better than the odi strike-rates of most batsmen & his odi strike-rate is almost 100. talking of overall runs, sehwag still has atleast 6-7 more years of test cricket in him & he should end up with >10000 runs

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Such posts/threads do nothing for a website except render it as lacking Quality and dominated by blind fans by one country(Indians). Should strongly be discouraged. I can still see posters like BossBhai's arguments since he will put some arguments behind his assertion and can back that up. On the other hand most other posters in this thread are immature and would not know their Hammond from Headley and will have the gumption to call Bradman as a weak bully. Sehwag, while an all-time great, is not fit enough to be one of the World's top 10 batmen of all time let alone rival number 1 bat of all time.

[Kumar]

Still have to bare in mind that Bradman had no protection what so ever in those days. As well as that he had literally a piece of wood, which made it harder, and most of all, all that pressure on him to preform must have been hard, saying that he never experienced the conditions of the west indies and the sub contenant ie seam, bowlers and the weather.

[Temujin Khaghan]

Bradman didn't have to struggle for place guys... Sehwag is good when he is in form. Another thing, Bradman's success rate is more than that of Babe Ruth (baseball), Jordon (basketball), Martina, Steffe, Federer combined, more than Tiger woods and Shumacher... Hell he has an average of 99.-> Please dont show disrespect to the players of that era, there were bowlers like Tyson who could bowl at 95+ and fielders like Harvey who could put the present South africans to shame...

[amits]

Such posts/threads do nothing for a website except render it as lacking Quality and dominated by blind fans by one country(Indians). Should strongly be discouraged. I can still see posters like BossBhai's arguments since he will put some arguments behind his assertion and can back that up. On the other hand most other posters in this thread are immature and would not know their Hammond from Headley and will have the gumption to call Bradman as a weak bully. Sehwag, while an all-time great, is not fit enough to be one of the World's top 10 batmen of all time let alone rival number 1 bat of all time.

bradman isnt the no.1 batsman of all time. not just sehwag, any player who avges 40+ currently in tests after having played a decent amount of tests, can be called to be as better than bradman

[satishg]

Such posts/threads do nothing for a website except render it as lacking Quality and dominated by blind fans by one country(Indians). Should strongly be discouraged. I can still see posters like BossBhai's arguments since he will put some arguments behind his assertion and can back that up. On the other hand most other posters in this thread are immature and would not know their Hammond from Headley and will have the gumption to call Bradman as a weak bully. Sehwag, while an all-time great, is not fit enough to be one of the World's top 10 batmen of all time let alone rival number 1 bat of all time.

this post sums it all..pls stop this discussion..as Lurker says if some guest user comes and sees this post he/she would have the opinion that ppl here are biased and they dont really know wat they are talking about..BossBhai all ur stats are great but Viru cannot be compared to DGB, its as simple as that..

[SachDan]

PPD and now WBB...amits,the master of abbreaviation!

[amits]

PPD and now WBB...amits' date='the master of abbreaviation![/quote'] SWYP?????????? :mad:

[Laaloo]

seriously, this post is a disgrace to a cricket forum. someone ban this buffoon.

[MundaPakistani]

At first i thought this thread was a joke but apparently not:haha:

It only means they were half as good as DGB ..... doesnt mean that they were just as good as any modern day batsmen which is what you are trying to infer. .

Would you say that the great English batsmen of the time(Hobbs and Hammond) were as good/bad as A Razzaq,S Malik, Farhat etc?

[Predator_05]

bradman isnt the no.1 batsman of all time. not just sehwag' date=' any player who avges 40+ currently in tests after having played a decent amount of tests, can be called to be as better than bradman[/quote'] amit babu, I just got an idea for your next great thread; Thilan Samaraweera OWNS Bradman...in the runs in his century

[Gambit]

seriously' date=' this post is a disgrace to a cricket forum. someone ban this buffoon.[/quote'] While amits might largely be off his rocker, he is a very knowledgable poster and knows more about domestic cricket than almost everyone here.

[amits]

amit babu, I just got an idea for your next great thread; Thilan Samaraweera OWNS Bradman...in the runs in his century

u r right there. thilan samaraweera is better than bradman

[Bumper]

Here is a post I made a while ago. Its relevant to some of the points debated in this thread

I completely agree that Bradman is the best of his era. But how can we extrapolate his greatness beyond his era ? Averaging 1.5x more than the batsmen of his era, tells me that he was waay better than everyone else at that time. But thats where the conclusion must end. How can we stretch that further & proclaim, "since no X, Y, Z has managed that, they cannot be as good as Bradman"? That argument has no basis, IMO and at best, can only be supported subjectively. Cricket has changed so much. The no. of nations & players taking up cricket has increased exponentially, since Bradman's era. The modern day professionalism, intensity and competitiveness, can hardly be matched by players of Bradman's era. And dont forget the amt of cricket that is being played in the modern era. If you concede that fitness plays a key role in sustaining one's performance, the modern day cricket schedules are an acid test for any great batsman. And without an exception, we've seen every modern player injured and/or out of form sooner or later. None of this was true about Bradman's era!! And i havent even mentioned a word on the diversity of pitches, bowling attacks & conditions. Speaking of bullies, (just for the heck of analogy) dont we come across them in high school, who tower over everyone else, but dont appear that extraordinary when they are in a diff league ? Bradman was still a genius to be able to do what he did, but would he have been as extraordinary as he is made out to be, had he played in this era ? We'd never know. I find Tony Grieg's argument hilarious. Whats Bradman's presence in a list got to do with what others have done ? 10K runs is a benchmark of a quality test player. Look at the guys who've gotten there (Sunny, Waugh, Border, Sachin, Dravid & soon to follow Ponting). Each one of these test bats is a Hall of Famer. If its so easy & achievable a milestone, why havent many others gotten there in so many years of cricket ? More cricket does not automatically guarantee you 10K runs. You have to be good enough to play for your country and be fit enough and in form and keep all this going, long enough to get to 10K. Not easily done! All these old farts think alike. They all seem to think their era produced the best players and most competitive cricket, easily underestimating the quality and workload of a modern player.

This was the original thread http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=372133&highlight=Bradman#post372133

[fineleg]

u r right there. thilan samaraweera is better than bradman

Am I reading this right? Lets add Kappugedera while we are at it :haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --