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

[vvvslaxman]

Finally someone gets it. So can we all stop this SRT Vs. x' date=' y, z etc...[/quote'] Really what else one can say to someone with the ID SRT PWNS and call him GOD every next sentence. It is like asking Glenn beck to convert to Liberal. :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

not finished yet... VVS laxman is defending bradman..... one man still left

No.. i joined this thread to finish the thread. If you look at it i only joined half way. But seems like some continue to live in denial. So let us see how far they can push it. Only way this thread is going to end is , Mods locking it. Otherwise this thread will run for next 10 years!!

[Roshanrocks]

No.. i joined this thread to finish the thread. If you look at it i only joined half way. But seems like some continue to live in denial. So let us see how far they can push it. Only way this thread is going to end is , Mods locking it. Otherwise this thread will run for next 10 years!!

o ma GAWD!!!!!!

[Sachinism]

"What is so amazing is that he has achieved a certain mythology without benefit of our fevered imaginations. Everything he has done is on tape ... none of it has been dreamed or exaggerated."

[SRT PWNS]

He has also played 3 times as many matches as Bradman. Bradman dominated for years and years, went off to war, came back and kept on destroying people. What makes you think he couldn't have kept up such an average? It may have even gotten higher (as someone said earlier, he averaged well over 100 after the war). Imaginary predictions? Haha, is 7000 runs not enough? You talk about him like he's Albert Trott - like he played a dozen tests at an average of 100. He scored 29 fkn hundreds and 12 double centuries (that's 8 more than Tendulkar), and played for 20 years. Still not good enough for you?

Show me hard numbers! Where are the runs and 100's? Sachin has more, I don't see Bradman with crap to show but 99 average. You can imagine and whine all you want, Sachin has the numbers to show, Bradman doesn't.

Really what else one can say to someone with the ID SRT PWNS and call him GOD every next sentence. It is like asking Glenn beck to convert to Liberal. :hysterical:

Lol Glenn Back isn't a terrorist last time I checked, don't expect any good human to convert to evil. Instead of actually showing the numbers on how Bradman is better, all you are doing is hurling out useless comments. Obama and his followers are the biggest fools in the world, don't try to follow suit. SRT has the most runs and 100's to show, Bradman is a joke in comparison, the only thing you people can do is assume and predict, which is also just a big joke. SRT > Don.

[yoda]

Show me hard numbers! Where are the runs and 100's? Sachin has more, I don't see Bradman with crap to show but 99 average. You can imagine and whine all you want, Sachin has the numbers to show, Bradman doesn't.

Bradman doesn't have the numbers. Now this thread has it all. :hysterical:

[SRT PWNS]

Bradman doesn't have the numbers. Now this thread has it all. :hysterical:

He doesn't. Sachin has more runs and 100's than Don. What does Don have? 99 avg? What else? Show me something else to back it up? You people are in dreamland believing that Don would score more. Don hasn't scored more, so get over it. SRT > Don.

[King Tendulkar]

Yoda what are his numbers on subcontinent, windies and SA? What are his numbers in odis?

[King Tendulkar]

For the Bradman fans. Please clarify when you have seen him bat? Also what TV footage have you seen of him batting?

[SRT PWNS]

King Tendulkar, don't expect them to give you a real answer. There minds are stuck in dreamland with 99 > 55. Don doesn't have anything else to show... NOTHING at all. What a big joke!

[yoda]

Yoda what are his numbers on subcontinent, windies and SA? What are his numbers in odis?

You forgot T-20s. :winky:

[King Tendulkar]

You forgot T-20s. :winky:

But serioulsy what are his numbers on subcontinent, windies and SA?

[King Tendulkar]

The stats thing is crazy. Marciano went through his whole carrer as unbeaten heavy weight champ of the world. So that means he is greatest boxer ever!! Hell no Lennox lewis would have knocked him out in 30 seconds flat!

[The Outsider]

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. :)! [For all I know, he could be a cricket enthusiast :)]

Benaud is still alive and has seen a lot of cricket and is universally acknowledged to have a very good understanding of the game. Regarding, Bradman's technique all great batsmen have been able to make technical adjustments to suit the situation and bowler. Bradman, in fact, is renowned to be one of the masters of it. There is nothing to suggest he would not have been able to make whatever changes were required. Anyhow, I'll just summarize the points addressed in this and many other parallel threads and hopefully hit the exit button : 1. Batting was easier during Bradman's time : Factually incorrect. The batting/bowling averages from the 30s/40s are not significantly different from 90s/00s. 2. Bradman did not face any sub 28 average bowlers : Bradman did in fact face bowlers averaging below that like Tate, Bedser, and Verity and dominated all of them. Moreover : a. Around the top 10 bowlers who bowled to Bradman, had their averages spoiled by him. Removing the matches in which Bradman featured brings down their averages significantly, some of them into the early 20s range. b. If Tendulkar's series are taken into account where he did not face any bowler averaging below 28, he still averages in the 60s, much lower than Bradman 3. Bradman benefited from playing only minnows and one other team : Teams like West Indies and India still had some pretty good players in them, but ignore that fact. When Tendulkar's averages against the minnows and England and Sri Lanka are taken into consideration over a similar number of matches, his average is still in the 60s, much lower than Bradman. Nothing in Tendulkar's first class record suggests an average remotely close to 100 either. 4. Bradman was much better than his peers but not as good as modern day batsmen : Any model making this claim should be able to account for discrepancies which will arise from the above assertion and will put the likes of Rameez, Hick, and Butcher at par with Hammond, Hutton, and Sutcliffe. 5. Bradman would fail if put in a time machine and made to bad today : A sportsman greatness is measured by how he conquered the challenges and peers he was confronted with, not by putting him into a hypothetical time machine. a. Bradman's dominance is not only unparalleled in cricket, but any other sport. Here is statistical proof of it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#World_sport_context b. It is as good or bad as an assertion to say that Tendulkar would average 10 if he was transported into the 30s. 6. Bradman benefited from playing only on a small number of grounds : Bradman played on 10 grounds - 5 home, 5 away. Taking a similar criteria for Tendulkar ie. 5 home grounds where he played the most and 5 away grounds where he played the most, Tendulkar averages in the 50s-60s, no where close to Bradman. The only ground at which Tendulkar averages higher than Bradman's career average is the SCG. 7. Bradman benefited from lax LBW laws : Doing a simple calculation taking into account the percentage of LBWs given in the 30s/40s and comparing it to the percentage in 90s/00s, Bradman would have been dismissed twice more LBW. Assuming those two dismissals to be ducks, he would still have averaged 97.xx if modern day LBW guidelines are applied. 8. Bradman failed in Bodyline which is similar to conditions faced by batsmen today : Factually incorrect. Intimidatory bowling was outlawed a couple of seasons after Bodyline and fielding restriction changes were also implemented. a. Bradman averaged 40% more than the nearest Australian in the series and as much as the English top scorers likes of Hammond and Sutcliffe, who were not facing Bodyline, in similar match conditions. b. The only time something close to Bodyline was implemented in the modern game, a batting line up consisting the likes of Gavaskar and Viswanath, which had chased down a world record score in the previous game was hospitalized and basically forfeited the match. c. Bodyline did not have any restrictions on the number of bouncers, fielders, and the batsmen did not have any protective gear. 9. Bradman did not face express bowlers : No facts to support the assertion. The likes of Larwood and Bedser have been described as genuinely quick in literature and there are no speed gun ratings to dispute that claim. 10. Bradman did not face top quality spinners : At test level, Bradman faced and did well against Verity who has a bowling average better than Warne and Kumble. At first class level he was successful against Grimmett and O'Reily, all acknowledged as world class spinners. 11. Bradman did not face reverse swing : None of the modern greats have had their averages dip significantly after reverse swing has been introduced in the game. There is no logical basis to assume that Bradman's average would have suffered greatly, if at all. 12. Bradman had the "advantage" of off field factors like less traveling, playing one format of the game, and lots of First Class matches between tests : Again, there is no evidence to show that any of the greats have had their batting averages drastically reduced by any of these factors. Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell etc. also enjoyed these "advantages" but still average in the 50s. Moreover, playing lots of First Class matches can open up your game to the opposition and can work either way. Bradman also faced serious disadvantages compared to the modern cricketer : 1. There was no protective equipment at his time. 2. Cricket bats have a lot more power in them today than earlier. 3. Shorter boundaries in the modern day game. 4. Pitches were not covered during Bradman's time. 5. The modern day fitness, training, and analysis equipments and techniques were not available to Bradman. 6. He had to spend time trying to earn a living through means other than cricket, while some of his English opponents were professionals dedicated to full time cricket. 7. Bradman experienced a gap of 8 years in his cricketing career due to the war in which he also briefly served in the army and played little to no cricket. 8. Medical facilities available to cricketers today are exponentially better - Bradman almost died during an appendicitis operation.

[King Tendulkar]

^ What a write up. Lets keep this simple. When have you seen him bat? What footage have you seen of him batting?

[King Tendulkar]

There is nothing to suggest he would not have been able to make whatever changes were required.

So lets get this straight. You are suggesting that if 1930s(black and white tv bradman) was put in a time machine and played test matches now he would be best batsman in the world in 2010, as well as 180 years ago when he originally played?

[riya]

I really hope all these guys who would become grandfathers would get the opportunity to hear their grandchildren insulting mocking Sachin's record by comparing with other young one at their time.Really!

[Sachinism]

So lets get this straight. You are suggesting that if 1930s(black and white tv bradman) was put in a time machine and played test matches now he would be best batsman in the world in 2010' date=' as well as 180 years ago when he originally played?[/quote'] Its not that simple. Its been shown he was far better than all of his peers, it shows he was a quick learner, who had great skill. Given time, he would have adapted, why not? Its the same reason I don't like people using equipment as an excuse for Bradman being better.

[SRT PWNS]

Big write up, but still no hard numbers. It means nothing if Bradman doesn't have anything else to show. Sachin still has far more runs and hundreds than Don.

[Sachinism]

Big write up' date=' but still no hard numbers. It means nothing if Bradman doesn't have anything else to show. Sachin still has far more runs and hundreds than Don.[/quote'] Mate numbers on their own don't mean much, the way you're going on its like saying Player A has 1000 runs in 100 matches Player B has 500 run in 3 matches Player A has 1000 and therefore is far superior