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

[fuub]

Are you saying Bolt takes steriods?

no i just said he had access to it.

[King Tendulkar]

Bolt has access to better steroids better protein suppliements etc than Carl Lewis .. sure. Would Carl Lewis run faster than he did in 1988 with all the things developed in the last 20 years in sports science? I think he could. Would Lewis beat Bolt? Im not sure. Considering how much further ahead of the other runners Bolt was and he was celebrating before he crossed the finished line, I doubt it.

Ben Johnson

[fuub]

its not just chemical suppliment, you would be amazed of the advances in sports science. WADA just put a ban on a treatment some sportspeople were using where all the blood in an injured muscle was sucked out then spun around to oxidies it. After that its all reinjected back into the muscle.

[Roshanrocks]

Federer? Bolt? :protest: :offtopic: let the :fight: continue

[zen]

I think this thread is going nowhere. But for me here is the ranking. 1. don 2.sachin,lara 4. VIV RICHARDS 5.PUNTER

That's not a bad list but surprised to see Punter ahead of the likes of Gavaskar and Chappell

[vvvslaxman]

So far Don is leading here in this poll . We need a cut off point. Once that cut off point is reached we can close the thread !!

[S.Bond]

I think this thread is going nowhere. But for me here is the ranking. 1. don 2.sachin,lara 4. VIV RICHARDS 5.PUNTER

I will put Viv in the same category as Sachin and Lara. And i will stop there, because Ponting better batsman than Sobers, etc.... I am not sure...

[The Outsider]

Number of average 40+ bowlers in Bradman's time - 297 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=40;qualval1=bowling_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+1949;spanmin1=01+Jan+1930;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Number of average 40+ bowlers in Tendulkar's time - 592 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=40;qualval1=bowling_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Tendulkar had 200 more crap bowlers to beat up on than Bradman, still averaged half of him Lowering the qualification to 35+ bowlers. Bradman - 326 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=35;qualval1=bowling_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+1949;spanmin1=01+Jan+1930;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Tendulkar - 671 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=35;qualval1=bowling_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Yeah, folks that's 350 more crap bowlers for Tendulkar to beat up on than Bradman got.

[Ram]

Is Shwetabh being deliberately sarcastic, choosing to go the 'stats' route for his argument, or does he really mean what he says? :dontknow: :hmmm:

[vvvslaxman]

Is Shwetabh being deliberately sarcastic' date=' choosing to go the 'stats' route for his argument, or does he really mean what he says? :dontknow: :hmmm:[/quote'] Mullai mullal edukka vendum :cantstop:

[Ram]

Mullai mullal edukka vendum :cantstop:

Thats EXACTLY what I thought too. :D Or you could have said 'ஆடற மாட்ட ஆடி தான் கற்கணும், பாடற மாட்ட பாடி தான் கற்கணும்' :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

the only problem there is there were no strike bowlers to get thru before the lesser bowlers came on .... the entire lot was a freaking trundlers galore back in the 30s

Yeah, it's because of the potent strike bowlers who couldn't take wickets that so many crap bowlers had to be bowled. Captains were just setting themselves up for a nice challenge. :hysterical: How many again let's count - 1...2.....3.......350 more crap bowlers and still averaged half!! :hysterical:

[Lurker]

the only problem there is there were no strike bowlers to get thru before the lesser bowlers came on .... the entire lot was a freaking trundlers galore back in the 30s

Really what are you smoking these days? I can understand your enthusiasm to perch Sachin on top but to suggest fast bowlers were trundlers?? You are embarassing yourself. By the way you never came back on the fact Larwood was indeed picked by experts in CI England all-time XI and Verity was a close nominee(to Underwood). Do you beleive all these experts were sipping bhaang and smoking ganja?

[vvvslaxman]

the only problem there is there were no strike bowlers to get thru before the lesser bowlers came on .... the entire lot was a freaking trundlers galore back in the 30s

Irfan Pathan was a strike bowler too.. (when he played against BD and Zimbabwe). It works two ways. When you have average batsman infront of you anyone can become a strike bowler.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

^ Can you do the same for Bradman now? I'll be surprised if you are left with 20 with the criteria you have used. :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Aisa nahi hai bandhu you havent followed my sehwag threads yet :P

True..I am surprised myself that I have followed this one to be honest.

yaar there is only so many people I can respond to ... and since when did the mahashays at Cricinfo become "experts" at anything ... Read their player profiles they have some very flowery stuff written about folks like Ian Bell. In anycase it aint anything remotely close to DGB going out of his way to acknowledge Tendulkars greatness something that irks your Bradman gang quite badly.

Come on now you are being intellactually dishonest here. The experts at CI are certainly not be-all-end-all but their all-time lists makes for well selected sides(and definitely good reading). Needless to say it is comprised of excellent cricket experts so while you may not agree to it(I surely dont), you can be respectful about their selections and accept those who made the lists were all time greats instead of debunking them, no? xx