'The 10,000-run club is overhyped'- Tony Greig

[Laaloo]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/current/multimedia/344537.html :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: wat happened to this guy?

[DomainK]

Age and ICL....enough to drive anyone crazy. To say that no club that does not have "Bradman" in it should be taken seriously is plain stupid and insane. I didnt know that Tony is into such type of hero worshiping. Bradman was great, but he couldnt have practically done everything. So, Tony, STFU.

[Dravid]

idiot.

[Sachinism]

bradman is over-rated, played most of his cricket against the same bowlers, got used to them and carried on killing them, his schedule wasnt packed with non-stop cricket, he had time to recover

[DomainK]

bradman is over-rated' date=' played most of his cricket against the same bowlers, got used to them and carried on killing them, his schedule wasnt packed with non-stop cricket, he had time to recover[/quote'] Comparing cricketers from two different eras is a very difficult job. But I agree that he has been over hyped. Yes, he played against a limited number of teams. 1. He played only against England, India, South Africa and West Indies. Out of his total 52 matches, he played 37 against England. Five each against SA and WI and India. 2. He played all his matches only in England and Australian. How many modern players get to play in familiar conditions all their careers? But what goes in his favor is that he played in an era when there were not that many rules in favor of the batsman (no-balls etc) and that not so many protective equipments were used those days. But in the end, yes, I believe that Bradman is majorly over hyped.

[THX_1138]

Lets get this right... Tony has a point that not mentioning Bradman as one of the finest batsmen ever if not the very best is not doing justice to the game. However, that does not mean that achieving 10000 test runs is a mundane qualification every other person can stamp on his resume. True, a number of gits have made the list on the basis of the sheer number of games they have played, for instance, jayasuriya, inzi and azhar are amongst the top run scoreres in the shorter version of the game, but that is no was indicative of their brilliance for there is not really any significant brilliant streak to speak of. similarly, while rahul dravid is a deserving candidate, just as Allan Lamb and Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Lara are in the list on the sheer basis of the massive number of games they have played.

[Lurker]

However, that does not mean that achieving 10000 test runs is a mundane qualification every other person can stamp on his resume. True, a number of gits have made the list on the basis of the sheer number of games they have played, for instance, jayasuriya, inzi and azhar are amongst the top run scoreres in the shorter version of the game, but that is no was indicative of their brilliance for there is not really any significant brilliant streak to speak of.

That indeed is the catch. I agree with Tony that 10,000 club doesnt hold any value anymore. I can recall the exact innings when Sunil Gavaskar scored his 10,000th run(was a late cut off Tauseef Ahmad) and how he ran with his bat high in the air. It was a big big achievement back then as he was the first man to go past 10,000 milestone. The second highest scorer then was Boycott with 8800 or so runs. Today of course we have lot more players doing it, and quite routinely as well. This is no different than bowling where Fred Trueman had famously said that "Whoever takes 300 wickets would be bloody tired". Today players have gone past twice that number with ease. That said it never makes to make one smile at how jingoistic a lot of cricket fans can become if someone just puts things into perspective(let alone criticize an Indian great).

[Desi Cartman]

Arey Tony sabka April fool bana raha hai ... in reality he respects Dravid for 10000 runs

[CC1981]

bradman is over-rated' date=' played most of his cricket against the same bowlers, got used to them and carried on killing them, his schedule wasnt packed with non-stop cricket, he had time to recover[/quote'] 1. Have you EVER played competetive sport at any level ? Bradman spent 3 months in ship travelling from Australia to England everytime the Aussies visited them - that sort of time not playing at all is enough for ANYONE to be rusty and international sportsmen HATE going 3 months without any sort of practice. 2. Bradman batted in the days of uncovered pitches and pitches that wern't rolled every morning- MUCH MUCH harder to bat on than the batsmen-friendly pitches today. Sure, he didn't have to face a plethora of GREAT bowlers, but on the type of pitches he batted and DOMINATED on, even a mediocre trundler like Sreenath would seem like Imran Khan bowling at you. 3. Bradman made most of his runs against England and played over 50% of his matches against them- the BEST team of his time. This is equivalent to Sachin or Lara playing 50-60 tests versus Australia and still having the average they do. I am sure you'd appreciate that if you are averaging 55 after 120 tests, with 50-60 against Australia, it counts for a helluva lot more than 55 average after 120 tests, with 20 against australia. 4. Sachin is the BEST batsman i've seen and the greatest amongst him,Viv, Lara, etc. And even HE said flat out that Bradman was better- i trust Sachin's judgement on batting than a jingoistic fan's. 5. Bradman averaged a time and half more than ANYONE ELSE in his era- he averaged 99, the next best was Hammond with 57-58 average. I don't care if the pitches were flat, bowlers were trundlers etc.- how do you explain a player having more than 1.5x the performance of the SECOND BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD AT THE TIME ?? If your point was to be true, there should've been atleast one or two batsmen also in the 75-80 average range. But no, there is not a person- and NOBODY has dominated his own era like Bradman has. The gap between #1(Bradman) and #2(Hammond) in his era is like the gap between Sachin and Jaffer, if not more. That he dominated his era to such an extent blows apart your point and it quite simply, proves that Bradman is the greatest batsman of alltime, without a shadow of doubt.

[Bumper]

Am gonna play devil's advocate, here. 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.

[The Outsider]

True, a number of gits have made the list on the basis of the sheer number of games they have played, for instance, jayasuriya, inzi and azhar are amongst the top run scoreres in the shorter version of the game, but that is no was indicative of their brilliance for there is not really any significant brilliant streak to speak of.

Yeah, the man who changed ODI batting forever and two of the best finishers ODIs have seen are not brilliant. You want to see brilliant streaks of any of the 3 cricketers you have named above and I can recount them. No one scores 10,000 runs in international cricket in any format of the game without being brilliant. PS: This is not a comparison with Bradman, but to demean cricketing feats just because Bradman did not get to them is rubbish. I suppose from Lurker's comments above that Gilchrist's magnificent six hitting percentage should also not be counted because we are jingoistic and Bradman deserves to top all batting accolades.

[Mr. Wicket]

I wonder what Greig thought when AB hit the mark.

[King]

Tony's comments are as dumb as it can get. How can he not take batsmen that have an average of over 50 in test cricket and over 10,000 runs seriously? It's not their mistake Don played less number of test matches in an era when sports was not a profession.

[CC1981]

But how can we extrapolate his greatness beyond his era ?

I agree it is hard to compare eras, but it is not that ambiguous as well- for eg, do you really think Dravid would be averaging 50+ if he played in the 70s/80s with fearsome fast bowlers ? or Ganguly averaging 40+ ? In Bradman's case, it is easier than in most cases, simply because how far ahead of his era he was- the kind of dominance he had, it is rather lame to suggest he might not be the best ever.

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.

Yes, but not all the changes in our era is for the harder- for one, cricket was played just as much as in Bradman's era as this- just not as much INTERNATIONAL cricket- and if you really think that playing FC cricket isnt taxing on your body- you must be kidding yourself. How the hell is bowling 50 overs in Ranji trophy any different on your body than bowling 50 overs in a test ? How the hell is batting for 5 hrs different-be it at FC level or Test ?? And there were injuries in Bradman's era too- Bradman himself missed several tests/underperformed in a few tests like any other due to injury. And lastly, diversity of bowlers may not have been as great, but diversity of pitches ? Are you kidding me ??!? Bradman batted on the kind of pitches that would be considered 'unbattable/nightmare' by today's standards because the pitches were UNCOVERED- which means they are totally at the mercy of the elements and not rolled over each morning- it is well known fact- that even Indian cricketers of the uncovered pitch era will tell you-that you dont know how the pitch is going to be from day to day since one night of dew/slightly frosty night or a very hot night = totally different pitch the next day! Pitches were NOWHERE as predictable as they are today or as easy to bat on- this alone makes up for any 'lack of great bowlers with impressive numbers' in Bradman's era. And your logic about not having great bowlers is circular- bowling averages are directly tied to the opposition's batting average- if you have a batsman averaging 100 runs, how can NOT your bowling average suffer in turn ? a 25 average bowler will be at 27-28 after facing a team with a 50+ average batter and a 100 average batter! DUH!!

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.

If you are making this argument, then you must also concede that we will never know if Tendulkar would've been a great or a failure batting on uncovered pitches with 2-3 months at a time without picking up a bat every second year!

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

10K is not a very high benchmark these days and i agree- this is because ANY great/decent batsman who has a 10-12 year career these days will approach 10K, due to sheer volume of the cricket played. Not simply because they are 'greats'. As per those who havn't made 10K, many were restricted by the less amount of cricket they played-do you really think Ponting is a better bat than Greg Chappel, Viv or that Dravid is better than Sobers ? Hell no! Yet these gents miss out due to far less amount of cricket they've played than the 10-12 tests/year schedule these days.

[Gambit]

Lurker, I swear you've become such an 'why back in my day', 'those were the days' type old fogey.

[beetle]

Joker....

[Laaloo]

hmm ponting crosses 10000 runs now too Lets see what good old tony says