99.94 Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 Not really true. That Bradman was the greatest player ever or that it's hard to compare players?
vvvslaxman Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 Why did Atherton write this piece? My own possible reasons 1) "Andrew Symonds" syndrome. He probably got pissed off at the way Indian media went ga ga over Tendulkar's 20th year in international cricket. He richly deserved it. 2) He generally doesn't like Indian fans. So he just wanted to make some inflammatory comments to piss them off. Who better target than Sachin in his 20th year. 3) He is a jackass.
Anakin Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 That Bradman was the greatest player ever Yes, not quite correct
99.94 Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Yes' date=' not quite correct[/quote'] Who is/was then?
King Tendulkar Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 More vile anti tendulkar, anti india garbage from english media. The jealousy towards Tendulkar and India grows and grows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From The Sunday Times November 22, 2009 The pitch battle that must be wonSimon Wilde Earlier this year, the International Cricket Council (ICC) announced an additional criterion by which a match referee could judge a pitch. He could mark it as poor or below average if it displayed “limited carry, low bounce, and no seam movement, or turn, at any stage in the match, thereby not only depriving the bowler of a fair contest between bat and ball but also due to the lack of carry and bounce not being conducive to good shot-making either”. In other words, to be a bad pitch, a surface need not be green or damp and so help the bowlers unduly. It can also be bad if it is so devoid of life that it ruins the match as a spectacle and fails to deteriorate on the fourth and fifth days, preventing spinners playing a useful role in the later stages. This change was made because administrators (or some of them) finally acknowledged what some critics had been telling them for years, that the game, specifically Test matches, had become hopelessly skewed in favour of the bat. Runs have become far too cheap in the modern game. Pitches are not the only reason. Bowling strategies have also been neutered by protective equipment and legislation restricting the number of bouncers. There is no chance of helmets being outlawed — that would destroy many an inflated reputation and also many a cranium — so the only thing left to change is the pitches. What administrators have been slow to grasp is that while spectators may be entertained by fours and sixes, they want to see a decent contest. In one-day cricket this can happen even if few wickets fall, although such games lack variety, but Test cricket requires one side to take 20 wickets for a win. Too many international pitches prevent this being a real possibility. Many are to be found in Asia but Johannesburg, Cape Town and Centurion, all of which are due to stage England Tests this winter, are also high-scoring grounds. Centurion, where today’s second ODI takes place, has seen more 50-over scores of 300 this decade than any top ground barKarachi. England is no better. Lord’s has become notorious for the unyielding nature of its surfaces. If the MCC wants to attract spectators and sponsors, it might ensure more Tests are worth watching. In recent years, Lord’s and The Oval have been, with Antigua’s Recreation ground and Adelaide, among the best places in the world to bat, but there are few venues that leave batsmen in a cold sweat. Test cricket might not be at risk from one-dimensional Twenty20 if it was allowed to present more interesting contests, but who is seriously fighting its corner any more? The Indian board treats it with contempt. The Ahmedabad Test was the first in India since England’s tour last year and seemed to be used solely to deny Sri Lanka a first away win against India. By refusing to let umpires use extra technology, the Indian board made a positive result harder to achieve. Television plays its part in the deception by maintaining for as long as possible that a meaningful outcome might be achieved and, by using super slo-mo replays, creating the impression that the bowlers are doing something with the ball, however slight. Cricket’s modern age has been all about the cult of the great batsman — whether it be Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Mohammad Yousuf, Graeme Smith, inset, or Andrew Strauss. They all amass centuries at a rate earlier generations could only have dreamt of. In India, Tendulkar is regarded like a bank, too big to be allowed to fail. Admirable though the ICC’s new instruction to match referees is, it is unlikely to be enough to force radical change. The will may not be there. Batsmen dominate cricket’s corridors of power just as they dominate the game in the middle. Of MCC’s 19-man world cricket committee, only three of them are former bowlers.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 ^^^^They cant win anything.......are rubbish so are dishing out rubbish......
CG Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 bradman faced up to medium fast and fast medium bolwers and when england had 2 fast medium bowlers they did well in the bodyline series.
99.94 Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 SRT Have fun trying to convince anyone of that.
Guest Gunner Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Have fun trying to convince anyone of that. He doesn't have to convince anyone of that pal, it quite simply is true.
99.94 Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 He doesn't have to convince anyone of that pal' date=' it quite simply is true.[/quote'] Yet Bradman averaged 45 more runs than him..?
Guest Gunner Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Yet Bradman averaged 45 more runs than him..? Bradman just kept playing against England and occasionally against SA. Never faced quality spin, didn't play in the subcontinent, the list just keeps going on. If you play any opposition repeatedly your probable success rate can only increase. And playing just 5 games a year definitely helps doesn't it. Finally the field tactics in that era was incomparable to today. Bradman was a great player of his time and circumstance, he wouldn't average 99,94 today but Tendulkar would still have over 40 centuries.
The Outsider Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 If you play any opposition repeatedly your probable success rate can only increase. And playing just 5 games a year definitely helps doesn't it. Finally the field tactics in that era was incomparable to today. Bradman was a great player of his time and circumstance, he wouldn't average 99,94 today but Tendulkar would still have over 40 centuries. So if playing the same opposition repeatedly breeds success why weren't the bowlers Bradman faced average in the teens? I agree that Bradman would not have averaged 99.94 today but would still have been clearly the best batsman even today, perhaps averaging in the 70s.
Guest Gunner Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 So if playing the same opposition repeatedly breeds success why weren't the bowlers Bradman faced average in the teens? Poor tactics and poorer fielding on the overall. There are many fielding positions which are used now which would never have been considered back then. Ex: Sweeper. I agree that Bradman would not have averaged 99.94 today but would still have been clearly the best batsman even today' date=' perhaps averaging in the 70s.[/quote'] I am not going to pick a number but I am quite confident he wouldn't averaged anything like 99,94. I find it very hard to believe that we would just blindly accept he is better than Viv Richards or SRT but OTOH we would shred and analyse SRT to pieces. The logic baffles. I simply can't agree that Bradman is a better bat than Viv or SRT, he never had to face that quality of bowlers except in patches like Harold Larwood, Trueman or Tyson.
vvvslaxman Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Stop comparing players from one era with another era.
Guest Gunner Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Stop comparing players from one era with another era. Why not? Each era is progressively better than the previous one. Its evolution.
The Outsider Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Poor tactics and poorer fielding on the overall. There are many fielding positions which are used now which would never have been considered back then. Ex: Sweeper. That is a rubbish argument - you initially said that Bradman's high average is because of his familiarity with the opposition and when I questioned why the bowlers did not benefit from the familiarity you bring along fielding positions - how many catches does a sweeper take in Tests anyways? And even if I accept your argument are you trying to imply that guys like Hutton and Hammond were as good as Agarkar and Harbhajan with the bat, because obviously we would have to deduct the same degree from their performance as from Bradman's?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now