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

[Fontaine]

Greateness isn't measured by how you compare men across different decades in a completely changed sport. Greateness is measured by what a cricketer does in his era against his peers. And in that regard both Sehwag and Bradman are great. Let's not continue this fool's arguement any more.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Tapioca]

Greateness is measured by what a cricketer does in his era against his peers.

Sad, isn't it ? If Agarkar had played in the 1950s or 1960s instead of now, he would have appeared in every Test match that India played. We would have called him the greatest Indian fast bowler in the fifty years between Mohammad Nissar and Kapil Dev. He would have been the fastest bowler in the subcontinent between Nissar and Imran Khan.

[Predator_05]

Sad' date=' isn't it ? If Agarkar had played in the 1950s or 1960s instead of now, he would have appeared in every Test match that India played. We would have called him the greatest Indian fast bowler in the fifty years between Mohammad Nissar and Kapil Dev. He would have been the fastest bowler in the subcontinent between Nissar and Imran Khan.[/quote'] Are you trying to say that Agarkar is NOT a good bowler ?

[Tapioca]

Are you trying to say that Agarkar is NOT a good bowler ?

No, just that some people (not me) tend to underestimate his greatness because he was born in the wrong era.

[Predator_05]

No' date=' just that some people (not me) tend to underestimate his greatness because he was born in the wrong era.[/quote'] Fair enough. But his greatness was evident in this era as well. He was a better ODI cricketer than Akram, you know.

[Fontaine]

Sad' date=' isn't it ? If Agarkar had played in the 1950s or 1960s instead of now, he would have appeared in every Test match that India played. We would have called him the greatest Indian fast bowler in the fifty years between Mohammad Nissar and Kapil Dev. He would have been the fastest bowler in the subcontinent between Nissar and Imran Khan.[/quote'] Maybe, but he would have had to win a place in the side over this guy: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/india/content/player/26228.html "There is no better bowler in the world today than Amar Singh,'' said Len Hutton in an informal chat with pressmen at Madras in 1970. It was 34 years since the legendary England opening batsman had faced the Indian medium pace bowler while playing for Yorkshire. And it is the perfect tribute to Amar Singh that Hutton still remembered the hard time that the Indian, then a member of the 1936 Indian team, gave him. Another England great Wally Hammond described Amar Singh's bowling as "he came off the pitch like the crack of doom".

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Fontaine]

Bingo ... and vice-versa for DGB ... unless ofcourse your logic isnt allowedt o cut both ways ..... Why not pick one of the lists from here instead of indulging in sarcastic digs : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/sho...6&postcount=33 I see all the Bradman bhakts have avoided that post like the plague ? Inconvenient facts perhaps ?

Have you actually watched Bradman bat through various tests? Or does your knowledge only extend to stats and youtube clips?

[Anakin]

Go Veeru :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Predator_05]

Bingo ... and vice-versa for DGB ... unless ofcourse your logic isnt allowedt o cut both ways ..... Why not pick one of the lists from here instead of indulging in sarcastic digs : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/sho...6&postcount=33 I see all the Bradman bhakts have avoided that post like the plague ? Inconvenient facts perhaps ?

ಬಾಸ್ ಭೈ, ಆಪ್ಕ ಲಿಂಕ್ ಕಾಂ ನಹಿ ಕರ್ ರಹ ಹಾಯ್ !!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

BB, why don't you examine the causality of your argument - did Bradman have a high average because the bowlers were crap or did the bowlers have a poorer average because they were bowling to Bradman? Just a simple exercise, pull up the averages of these bowlers in matches against Bradman as opposed to matches in which they bowled to a line up without him and I can bet the sophistry of your argument will be exposed. Bradman had a 90+ average in pretty much all situations but I can bet these bowlers have better averages when they were not bowling to him - which will clearly show that their poor average is a result of playing against Bradman and not that Bradman's average is because of them being poor.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

One batsman cannot affect the stats of bowlers. Let me know if you want me to prove this. There exist atleast half a dozen batsmen averaging about 50 and over today and yet there isnt a shortage of sub 25 averaging bowlers.

Yes he can.....and it's easy to see. If you take the average score in an innings to be 300 with a normal batting team, the bowling average is 30. Now you add Bradman to the team in place of a batsman averaging 50 and the average score goes up to 350, resulting in a bowling average of 35. A difference of 5 points.

[The Outsider]

that would be a very small dataset due to the fact the Eng and Aus where the only ones playing regular cricket.

Not looking forward to the results? BTW, the matches will also include England-Australia matches in which Bradman did not play applicable for players who started before Bradman and ended after him.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

correction ... there are about dozen players with a avg of 50 and above (and i didnt even inlcude the Michael Clarkes and Gautam Gambhirs and the recently retired players ) ... Are you saying the combination of a Dozen 50+ averaging batsman doesnt affect the bowlers avg adversly but a single player averaging 100 does ?

If the bowlers play most of their matches against a team which has an extra 50 runs, isn't it obvious?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --