Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud

[vvvslaxman]

CAn you pls pick one list from Post 192 ?

Pick what list? 192?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Pls read the previous posts for details .... List-1=Bowlers from DGB's time and List-2=Bowlers from SRT's time ... which is a easier set of bowlers to score against ? The lists are in Post#192

For me both are tough. For bradman second will be easier. . :winky: Because he will have heavier more solid bat. He won't have more than 2 bouncers. He would probably average infinite without ever being dismissed.

[vvvslaxman]

Sample this tidbit from the Match report : What that match report doesnt tell you is that in that series Eng had 14 bowlers ... only one man played in all 5 tests. Thats how crap they were ... and the less said the better about fielding.

................... An unbeaten 159, his 34th hundred, was not the toughest test of his career, yet he was dropped three times - two of them sitters - before he reached 50. ................... http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/238094.html You know who this article is talking about?

[99.94]

How the hell are people expected to know who the better bowlers are? Was anyone on this forum alive in the 30's?

[vvvslaxman]

How the hell are people expected to know who the better bowlers are? Was anyone on this forum alive in the 30's?

lol After 50 years someone like Boss would say You know how crappy fielding was in those days citing the piece i posted :haha:

[CG]

both are best of there eras, bradman played on uncovered pitches where the ball did a lot,but the bowlers had less pace compared to todays bowlers ,if you watch his videos his technique is made for that those pitches, he averaged around 60 in bodyline series where there were real fast bowlers from england and used shortball well. tendulkar has played in the era 1988-2000 when fastbowling was at its peak and pitches were helpful.but he has also played 2000- where picthes have become flat . so if i had to put my money on someone it has to be tendulkar for his longeviety,playing on different surfaces all round the world and sucess in different forms of the game.

[teacup]

Spoken like a true cricket ignorant (and it is hilarious to see people joining the chorus). Speaks wonders about common sense , cricketing history, knowledge etc etc. And no I dont mean to be patronizing. For those who are joining the chorus two words should suffice - Derek Underwood. The man was impossible to play on the kind of wickets we hear about in 30s. The wet wickets. And on these wet wickets the "seam is not up and straigh" (:haha: ) but the ball stops and is unplayable. Look up 1968 Oval match between Australia and England where a draw changed into a decision game based on shower, and subsequent mopped up ground. Underwood knocked off 4 wickets in 5 overs and won England the game. Feel free to read Wisden's description as well. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63027.html xxxx

I don't understand how your argument is relevant to this discussion on Bradman. Are you saying that damp pitches were the norm in Bradman's days? Or are you trying to indicate that pitches don't become damp at all in the covered era? Have you heard of "sweating" in the context of covering a pitch and to counter the sweating the covers are taken off during the day when the sun is out for a couple of days before a test match begins? If uncovered pitches are generally as unplayable as you make it out to be then how come the numbers tell us a different story? And, how come you or the others with a similar argument on uncovered pitches, do not bring up the comment in the Almanac about Bradman's failure on "sticky dog" wickets? After all, that is the whole point of this argument, right?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[teacup]

For me both are tough. For bradman second will be easier. . :winky: Because he will have heavier more solid bat. He won't have more than 2 bouncers. He would probably average infinite without ever being dismissed.

...and he would walk on water! This is as stupid as it gets.

[vvvslaxman]

...and he would walk on water! This is as stupid as it gets.

Dude.. you cannot disprove my statement.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

yes but he also avgs 136 against them ....

No point is.. you suggest as if only Bradman had lives in his innings Tendulkar's each and every innings was pristine and chanceless. You use that as a point to make your case.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

There is no point continuing this discussion when you refuse to simply accept match reports that are available in black and white ... Cheers :hatsoff:

Until i see the match report where Donalds, Ambroses, Pollocks, Muralitharans dominated Bradman i am also not ready to agree. So let us leave it at that.

[vvvslaxman]

Could you show me where I said that ? I said fielding was crap which it was unless you are now going to make another proclamation to the controry since nobody can bring out footage to prove it. (I doubt you would accept it even if there was some footage but thats another story)

I saw atleast in one of your post saying Bradman was dropped twice to downplay his innings. Again you have mentioned about fielding those days.

[CG]

Until i see the match report where Donalds' date=' Ambroses, Pollocks, Muralitharans dominated Bradman i am also not ready to agree. So let us leave it at that.[/quote'] If they bowled on those pitches then he could have averaged less than 60 as he averaged when real fast bowlers bolwed during bodyline series not mediumpacers.