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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[patriot]

Do you know that there used to be one or two guys before DGB's times that batted without any gloves ? Going by your theory shall we nominate them as better batsmen than DGB ?

Seriously your retarded arguments and logic is so nauseating. How much did those " one or two guys " that you saw, average ? How many matches did they play ? Do your effing even understand the meaning of scoring a 100 each time you walk out to bat ? You probably have truckloads of time, but for most are an utter utter waste of time. Please don't bother replying as I do not wish to engage in debate with you.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[graphic23]

Patriot, dude, this isn't the first time. Please dont insult other posters when they're not even provoking you. I've followed almost all of this thread, and Boss has no where insulted another poster. He's been making his comments based on his perception and his knowledge. If you want to argue the points he's making do so without insulting him personally. Boss, I've edited his earlier post, and have warned him - and edited yours in response.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

but last time I checked you categorically proclaimed that all of the 10pts did not affect batting negatively : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1003508&postcount=366

I know your devious question. So i said no. You should give the background for your poll before starting one. What you did was cheating.

[thevortex]

Well if there is something else ( apart from what is listed above) , that can be quantified. Let us know. There are far bigger holes, that you and a whole bunch refuse to acknowledge and cannot prove otherwise. SRT can never dream to match Lara's sheer match winning streak when he get gets going like that 153 and 277 against Aus. He can't even play with a quarter the utter destructiveness with which Sehwag has played test cricket. Nor has he ever seemed like an inpenetrable shield like a Dravid or Gavsakar. Nor has he shown a consistent tendency to counter attack and succeed when the chips are down like Ponting. SRT has NEVER dominated a great fast bowler. That is a big big hole. If he has, please prove likewise.

I can only say this. You are missing the woods for the trees - with all due respect. Tendulkar has different strengths than Lara or Gavaskar or Dravid. And not for nothing do all these names mentioned acknowledge with humility and appreciation that Tendulkar is the master. Consider that, if you will.

[thevortex]

Outsider - to actually be able to explode the numbers of Don Bradman we need a 90 year old who has been an avid cricket watcher. Preferably English or even an unbiased Australian if such a person exists. There is, I repeat, no substitute for watching the actual action through one's own eyes. I certainly doubt whether Bradman's technique of altering his grip while playing backwards of square on the legside would have worked in today's cricket. You decide that for yourself. A pity then that M F Hussain does not know too much about cricket :)! [For all I know, he could be a cricket enthusiast :)]

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[SRT PWNS]

Seriously your retarded arguments and logic is so nauseating. How much did those " one or two guys " that you saw, average ? How many matches did they play ? Do your effing even understand the meaning of scoring a 100 each time you walk out to bat ? You probably have truckloads of time, but for most are an utter utter waste of time. Please don't bother replying as I do not wish to engage in debate with you.

You are failing so badly. It doesn't matter how much Don averaged when the gap in the amount of matches played between him and SRT is so great. There is nothing to suggest that Don would have maintained an average high enough to surpass SRT even if he lasted long enough to play as much. Don has nothing else backing him except one big assumption that his average would be maintained for as long as he played. This is the biggest load of illogical mess you and the others ride on. SRT has the solid numbers, Don only has the imaginary predictions. SRT > Don.

[vvvslaxman]

No you didn't. You said Larwood's balls would not even come to chest height. I showed you it fractured someone's skull. You had no answer to that I posted a piece about how cricket bats post 90s dramatically improved performance of batsmen. You absolutely had no answer to that. I asked about how he could not have a prolific Test series (500 runs in a series) you had no answer I questioned your theory of bowled/legbefore ratio of a player is close to 1 with an example you added a clause to your theory (good batsman) as if bad batsmen would only get bowled not leg before. You didn't have answer there I questioned about how Tendulkar's average is well below his career average when the so called "demonic' bowlers played you had no answer. Someone asked if you take out all the performances against those bowlers Tendulkar still averages only 64 which is way below 99. You had no answer there. You said post 1975 era is the best fast bowling era but when i talked about Adcock as an example in reference to Larwood's serious pace bowlng you said Bradman did not face Adcock. Basically that in itself is a contradiction. You also used Nari contractor as your example who played outside your "fast bowling" era.

[vvvslaxman]

You still want me to go on? You have not provided any evidence that Tendulkar would have dominated in 1930s like Bradman. All you say is.. Tendulkar is only half as good as Bradman because bowlers are better. It is like Rohit sharma saying "Oh i don't play as good as Sobers. Coz bowlers are better these days compared to Sobers played". Even i can say that.. "I am not as good as Bradman coz street bowlers are not as good as the street bowlers in bradman's era. Do you see how lame that sounds.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Lets take these one at a time 1. Larwood and bodily injury. I pointed out that Larwood used the intimidation tactics in about 3 tests out of which DGB missed one. Are you claiming DGB to be better than modern batsmen based on the harm caused by Larwood in those handfull tests? Or are you saying that is equivalent to or better than the intimidation caused by modern day bowlers.

No it still doesn't prove your unsubstantiated claim of Larwood's bouncers were only chest high. You :fail: there. Obviously you had a biased view there. An Indian fan with Tendulkar as avatar is giving fair and balanced opinion about Tendulkar vs Bradman argument. We all know how "unbiased" it can be. :cantstop:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

back again to trolling , putdowns and smilies in about 2 posts ? the point was to see what the big deal was about Bodyline before we began to get into the mechanics of the bodily harm. I explained all that previously too ... and I can bet that it met with the usual oneliners and smilies. Dont think there is any point wasting time explaining anything to you. You are here simply to troll and do a regression test of the smilies. You cross the line again by hurling put downs and insults you will get the same treatment as patriot got earlier.

Big deal about bodyline is because it was a dangerous tactic devised in an era where there were no protective equipments just to neutralize one batsman. What kind of a bodyline Tendulkar faced? Do you see fielders crowding behind the leg stump and him batting with out protective equipments on an uncovered pitch? The thing is if you have something you can prove that you have it by showing it. But if you don't have something you cannot prove that you have it by saying i was robbed when i brought in. :hysterical: That is exactly what you are doing here. Bradman has it. He has 99.94 average. Tendulkar doesn't have it. It doesn't matter he was robbed in the subway fact is he doesn't have it. You can go any length to provide imaginative theories. I summarily dimiss them. Because we have proved it statistically. There was one article posted by Vortex that accounted for bowling quality and came up with a new number. Even in that list Tendulkar was 47. Bradman was 90. Even if you leave out the great bowlers that you mentioned Tendulkar still averages only 65 or something which is also well below 99. So every single theory you came up with was quashed. If you are still going to say "You have to take my word because i am sachin fan".. I cannot help you. And again.. you have been trollnig right thorugh this thread. Just an FYI.

[SRT PWNS]

Big deal about bodyline is because it was a dangerous tactic devised in an era where there were no protective equipments just to neutralize one batsman. What kind of a bodyline Tendulkar faced? Do you see fielders crowding behind the leg stump and him batting with out protective equipments on an uncovered pitch? The thing is if you have something you can prove that you have it by showing it. But if you don't have something you cannot prove that you have it by saying i was robbed when i brought in. :hysterical: That is exactly what you are doing here. Bradman has it. He has 99.94 average. Tendulkar doesn't have it. It doesn't matter he was robbed in the subway fact is he doesn't have it. You can go any length to provide imaginative theories. I summarily dimiss them. Because we have proved it statistically. There was one article posted by Vortex that accounted for bowling quality and came up with a new number. Even in that list Tendulkar was 47. Bradman was 90. Even if you leave out the great bowlers that you mentioned Tendulkar still averages only 65 or something which is also well below 99. So every single theory you came up with was quashed. If you are still going to say "You have to take my word because i am sachin fan".. I cannot help you. And again.. you have been trollnig right thorugh this thread. Just an FYI.

Your point is moot, SRT has more runs and 100's, Don doesn't. I'll say it again. Don has nothing else backing him except one big assumption that his average would be maintained for as long as he played. This is the biggest load of illogical mess you and the others ride on. SRT has the solid numbers, Don only has the imaginary predictions. So you need to quit trolling man, don't accuse others.

[vvvslaxman]

Your point is moot, SRT has more runs and 100's, Don doesn't. I'll say it again. Don has nothing else backing him except one big assumption that his average would be maintained for as long as he played. This is the biggest load of illogical mess you and the others ride on. SRT has the solid numbers, Don only has the imaginary predictions. So you need to quit trolling man, don't accuse others.

Take the first 53 tests and see where Sachin stands.. 53 tests 80 innings 3617 runs avge 50.23!! Bradman 52 tests 80 innings 6996 runs 99.94!! Gap actually widens. Almost double the average.!

[SRT PWNS]

Take the first 53 tests and see where Sachin stands.. 53 tests 80 innings 3617 runs avge 50.23!! Bradman 52 tests 80 innings 6996 runs 99.94!! Gap actually widens. Almost double the average.!

Don't cut into the middle of SRT's career and pull numbers. The end result is what matters, SRT has more test runs than anyone else in history - FACT 1. You can no way prove that Bradman would have been able to keep his average that high for the amount of matches SRT has played - FACT 2. So how can you come to a certain conclusion that Don > SRT? The gap in the amount of matches they played is too big to assume Don would average enough to surpass SRT even without taking into consideration all the other factors that come into play by comparing players across eras with pro/con on both sides. It comes down to hard numbers, I can show you that SRT has more runs and 100's than Don and everyone else, you can't show me the opposite though. All you can do is make a prediction based on the average, but in the end Don has nothing else to show, SRT does.