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

[Bradman99]

I never said that 55 > 99' date=' you people need to stop making stuff up just like what you are doing with Bradman. I'm not making anything up when I say Sachin has the most runs and hundreds.[/quote'] And we are not making things up when we say 99>55

[Bradman99]

I repeat, as no Bradman fan wants to answer. Bradman fans please state when you have seen Bradman bat? Give specifics on any live games you have seen or any TV footage you have seen of him?

Does that mean then that in 50 years time when there is a new batsman averagin 40 odd can say He>Tendulkar ? Because which of them has seen Tendulkar bat ?

[King Tendulkar]

Does that mean then that in 50 years time when there is a new batsman averagin 40 odd can say He>Tendulkar ? Because which of them has seen Tendulkar bat ?

All of then can see clearly Tendulkar play in 200 years time. As its all recorded. Thus they can all see the recorded footage of the master! When have you seen Bradman bat in recordings? Please specify match etc

[Roshanrocks]

When have you seen Bradman bat in recordings? Please specify match etc

there are some footages.... but the speed of the footage is .... faster than normal i think

[King Tendulkar]

I have seen Bradman get bowled all ends up moin khan style by a googly. And some footage practicing some shots with no ball. I have seen Hobbs practicing and frankly it was a comedy show!

[99.94]

KT, you're like a bloody broken record.

[King Tendulkar]

^ Just answer my question in post 1081. Lets look at his actual game rather then just number crunching!

[99.94]

We've been over this before.

[bunny]

Just so you know' date=' Bill O'Reilly was picked the Cricinfo All Time Australian XI, and played against Bradman.[/quote'] Yup I've read a lot about him. That's what I was alluding to. It cant be that there werent any great bowlers in the 30s and 40s.

[Roshanrocks]

the greatest bowlers in the world were all in the 1890 : ((((kidding...now dont debate this ))))

[rabinjackman]

after reading this thread i have come to a conclusion that this debate will never be resolved as neither side will willing to budge even though the opposite side may be making some interesting points. but please donot try to belittle bradman. the average of 99.94 has been accumulated after lots of matches spanning many number of years, the consistency was amazing. no batsman in any kind of cricket , facing any kind of bowling has managed to score an average comparable to that after playing an equal number of test matches or playing for such a long span of time. wether bradman would play the same way now we can never know, wether the present generation of batmsen would be able to emulate bradmans record, we wouldnt know. flat batting tracks or not, poor bowling attacks or not. Bradman's record is unique in all kinds of sports. please respect it.

[King Tendulkar]

flat batting tracks or not, poor bowling attacks or not. Bradman's record is unique in all kinds of sports. please respect it.

Wrong LOHMANN the great is also on par. In fact even better as he tops averages and strike rate.

[rabinjackman]

i would try to come up with an analogy in this regard. u have seen the battle between virus and medicine havent you? you would have noticed that whenever humans have invented a medicine for a virus, the virus mutates and becomes immune to that medicine. then humans have to work harder to find another medicine, by that time another disease has come forth and humans have to work hard yet again to come up with better medicine, so here we see both, diseases as well as medicine evolving with time, both becoming stronger and better, so couldnt cricket evolve the same way? as the bowler became stronger new strokes were invented by batmsen to counter this top class bowling. SImilarly when the batsman became stronger, new kinds of bowling emerged. what i am trying to say is , with time the standards or the toughness of the cricket played will always increase. so comparing a batmsna like bradman of the past with a present batsman is ridiculos as batsmen have evolved with time. if u equate batsmen to viruses and bowlers to medicine, you will know that comparing a virus of 1800's to a virus of now will be nonsensical. a dangerous virus then, which had no cure will have lots n lots of medicines now to counter it. but you would still remember the dangerous virus called small pox which killed lots of people in olden days, which wouldnt be so dangerous now. SImilarily if u put bradman in a time machine , i am sure he wont play as well as the present batmsen would. as he wont be able to suddenly play against the new "evolved" bowlers. also the present bowlers would surely be better than the bowlers at that time. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ am very sorry i am not very good at pouring out my thoughts and coming out with an article, i hope this doesnt sound like some mumbo jumbo and people can make some sense out of it. I tried to explain something and i tried by best. i know its not good enough but still... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ########################################################

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

i would try to come up with an analogy in this regard. u have seen the battle between virus and medicine havent you? you would have noticed that whenever humans have invented a medicine for a virus, the virus mutates and becomes immune to that medicine. then humans have to work harder to find another medicine, by that time another disease has come forth and humans have to work hard yet again to come up with better medicine, so here we see both, diseases as well as medicine evolving with time, both becoming stronger and better, so couldnt cricket evolve the same way? as the bowler became stronger new strokes were invented by batmsen to counter this top class bowling. SImilarly when the batsman became stronger, new kinds of bowling emerged. what i am trying to say is , with time the standards or the toughness of the cricket played will always increase. so comparing a batmsna like bradman of the past with a present batsman is ridiculos as batsmen have evolved with time. if u equate batsmen to viruses and bowlers to medicine, you will know that comparing a virus of 1800's to a virus of now will be nonsensical. a dangerous virus then, which had no cure will have lots n lots of medicines now to counter it. but you would still remember the dangerous virus called small pox which killed lots of people in olden days, which wouldnt be so dangerous now. SImilarily if u put bradman in a time machine , i am sure he wont play as well as the present batmsen would. as he wont be able to suddenly play against the new "evolved" bowlers. also the present bowlers would surely be better than the bowlers at that time. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ am very sorry i am not very good at pouring out my thoughts and coming out with an article, i hope this doesnt sound like some mumbo jumbo and people can make some sense out of it. I tried to explain something and i tried by best. i know its not good enough but still... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ########################################################

Now if I were to ask you which was the deadliest or most difficult virus to overcome? Would it be a virus which killed 100 people a century back and took medicine 10 years to find a cure to? Or would it be a virus which killed 50 people today and took medicine 5 years to find a cure to? No one who is claiming that Bradman was the greatest batsman in history is conducting this exercise of putting players in time machines. This moronic exercise is being done by the Tendulkar fanboys here. Bradman is the greatest because his dominance over his peers is unparalleled, not only in cricket, but any other sport for that matter. Who knows what would happen if you put players in time machines - it's just a guessing game. Greatness needs to be measured in the context of the circumstances it was achieved in and the level of separation a person could achieve from other competitors. Bradman is simply peerless in that regard.

[Roshanrocks]

looks like the debate is ending

[vvvslaxman]

i SImilarily if u put bradman in a time machine , i am sure he wont play as well as the present batmsen would. as he wont be able to suddenly play against the new "evolved" bowlers. also the present bowlers would surely be better than the bowlers at that time.

Why don't you put Tendulkar in a time machine and see how he does in that era. :cantstop:. You really think he would average 100?Zero chance. Because he never dominated a team in a single series like the way Bradman dominated let alone his career.

[rabinjackman]

Now if I were to ask you which was the deadliest or most difficult virus to overcome? Would it be a virus which killed 100 people a century back and took medicine 10 years to find a cure to? Or would it be a virus which killed 50 people today and took medicine 5 years to find a cure to? No one who is claiming that Bradman was the greatest batsman in history is conducting this exercise of putting players in time machines. This moronic exercise is being done by the Tendulkar fanboys here. Bradman is the greatest because his dominance over his peers is unparalleled, not only in cricket, but any other sport for that matter. Who knows what would happen if you put players in time machines - it's just a guessing game. Greatness needs to be measured in the context of the circumstances it was achieved in and the level of separation a person could achieve from other competitors. Bradman is simply peerless in that regard.

you put in very well in words exactly what i was trying to explain. What he achieved with what was put forward in front of him , in conditions that were available to him was phenomenal and should not be ridiculed. Even batsmen of that very generation were not able to do that. What it proves is that he was ahead of his times by that much, and believe me that is what a genius is defined by.. being ahead of his times. a newton who discovered gravity if born today may not be as knowledgable or smart as the avergae person now, but in his time he was ahead of his times. =========================================================== i hope this ends the ceaseless excercise to discredit the great batsman. i am not taking away tendulkar's genius, fo believ me he hols his own place in the ODI hall of greatness. But in test cricket Bradman is a notch above. ============================================================= well, thats just my opnion n not absolute science of course. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. thanks for reading my thoughts ============================================================

[rabinjackman]

Why don't you put Tendulkar in a time machine and see how he does in that era. . You really think he would average 100?Zero chance. Because he never dominated a team in a single series like the way Bradman dominated let alone his career.

tendulkar could average that much, but i would fear Sehwag's average, with that kind of fielding and that era's bowling speeds , sehwag would score 400 in a day

[Roshanrocks]

the debate has stopped here and has spilled over to another thread.....