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

[akshayxyz]

^ Despite your lengthy and well intentioned explanation' date=' [b']I will stick to my original stance of stupidity. Thanks for the effort in typing up the above though.

:two_thumbs_up: ignorance is bliss.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

You contradicting yourself when you appoint Bradman as the Greatest ever and provide absolute numbers that have to be breached in order for someone today to be considered as a equal to him. The only ideal way of settling this topic would be to find out what modern batsman would do to the likes of Larwood and Co had they encountered them. Since that is not possible we need to find out who are the approximate modern equivalents of such bowlers. But here you are saying that Steyn = Lindwall even though the stats tell me that Steyn's avg is 0.18 away from Lindwalls but the S/R is in a different zone all-together with a whopping 20 point difference. So unless you think the batting standards are woefull today there is no way you can substantiate your claim that Steyn = Lindwall. But then as per that statistical theory you keep quoting you only want current day batsmen to avg 75 instead of more than 99.94. It just doesnt add up. Perhaps you can clarify by stating what your take is on the overall standard of batting, bowling and fielding as they are today in comparison to the 30s and 40s. In my opinion all 3 aspects of the game are significantly superior to what they were in the 30s and 40s.

If the Bradman Brigade understood this they would'nt be calling him the greatest of all time.

[jonas10]

Jesse Owens was the most dominant sprinter of his generation he destroyed competition. Usin Bolt is the best sprinter of his generation but in many cases only marginally faster not as dominant as Owens was in his generation. However, Usin Bolt would destroy Jesse Owens over a 100M race we know this by simply comparing their times. Thats exactly why SRT > Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

[Sachin=GOD]

Jesse Owens was the most dominant sprinter of his generation he destroyed competition. Usin Bolt is the best sprinter of his generation but in many cases only marginally faster not as dominant as Owens was in his generation. However, Usin Bolt would destroy Jesse Owens over a 100M race we know this by simply comparing their times. Thats exactly why SRT > Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

But...but....but....did Jesse Owans or Usain Bolt average 99.94 :hysterical::hysterical:

[The Outsider]

You contradicting yourself when you appoint Bradman as the Greatest ever and provide absolute numbers that have to be breached in order for someone today to be considered as a equal to him. The only ideal way of settling this topic would be to find out what modern batsman would do to the likes of Larwood and Co had they encountered them. Since that is not possible we need to find out who are the approximate modern equivalents of such bowlers.

Wrong. The only way to settle the topic would be for modern batsmen to be born in that era, grow up in the same environment, go through the same coaching, have access to the same facilities, for some of them to go and fight wars and then face Larwood, Lindwall and company. Since that is not possible, the only way to do the comparison is how the said player did in comparison to others who grew up and shaped their game in similar circumstances.

But here you are saying that Steyn = Lindwall even though the stats tell me that Steyn's avg is 0.18 away from Lindwalls but the S/R is in a different zone all-together with a whopping 20 point difference. So unless you think the batting standards are woefull today there is no way you can substantiate your claim that Steyn = Lindwall. But then as per that statistical theory you keep quoting you only want current day batsmen to avg 75 instead of more than 99.94. It just doesnt add up.

Strike rate comparison is a load of bunk because the game has become quicker with time - wickets fall faster, runs are also scored faster. The only sensible parameter to compare is average. Even if you check the strike rates of greats from 70s and 80s they will be equal/worse to decidedly mediocre bowlers of today's time.

Perhaps you can clarify by stating what your take is on the overall standard of batting, bowling and fielding as they are today in comparison to the 30s and 40s. In my opinion all 3 aspects of the game are significantly superior to what they were in the 30s and 40s.

Yeah, all 3 aspects of the game have improved overall and refined over time. New skills have been introduced. That's natural progression of any field. But history has shown us that none of these changes and improvements were radical enough to significantly change the dynamics of the game and all great players were able to modify and evolve their games according to these changes and contributed to the changes themselves.

[akshayxyz]

Jesse Owens was the most dominant sprinter of his generation he destroyed competition. Usin Bolt is the best sprinter of his generation but in many cases only marginally faster not as dominant as Owens was in his generation. However, Usin Bolt would destroy Jesse Owens over a 100M race we know this by simply comparing their times. Thats exactly why SRT > Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

Jesse Owens would have easily adjusted to modern demands and still maintained domination over peers. For Usain Bolt to qualify to be compared alongside Jesse, he must achieve the similar level of domination in terms of number of standard deviations from the mean of his generation. But in anycase, Jesse was not even 5% of sportsman Bradman was - as Bradman demolished his peers by number of standard deviations, never seen before /even-since.

[Sachin=GOD]

Wrong. The only way to settle the topic would be for modern batsmen to be born in that era' date= grow up in the same environment, go through the same coaching, have access to the same facilities, for some of them to go and fight wars and then face Larwood, Lindwall and company. Since that is not possible, the only way to do the comparison is how the said player did in comparison to others who grew up and shaped their game in similar circumstances.

or maybe for the batsmen of the 1930s to be born in the modern era and then instead of playing just 3-4 Tests per year (with lots of practice matches before every tour) play around 10 (or more) Tests along with 20 odd ODIs and a few T20s as well per year against 8-10 teams in many, many more grounds than they played in 1930s while having each and every moment they spend on the field being video taped and analyzed by opponents for any weaknesses. Apart from that they would also have to contend with fielding standards the likes of which they had never even imagined in those times and then on top of all that huge expectations from the public (at least in countries like India, Pak, Bangladesh etc).

[The Outsider]

or maybe for the batsmen of the 1930s to be born in the modern era and then instead of playing just 3-4 Tests per year (with lots of practice matches before every tour) play around 10 (or more) Tests along with 20 odd ODIs and a few T20s as well per year against 8-10 teams in many' date=' many more grounds than they played in 1930s while having each and every moment they spend on the field being video taped and analyzed by opponents for any weaknesses. Apart from that they would also have to contend with fielding standards the likes of which they had never even imagined in those times and then on top of all that huge expectations from the public (at least in countries like India, Pak, Bangladesh etc).[/quote'] Yeah genius, either way would work. Point is that neither are possible in which case the only way to do the comparison is to see how someone did in comparison to his peers.

[CSK Fan]

Yeah genius' date=' either way would work. Point is that neither are possible in which case the only way to do the comparison is to see how someone did in comparison to his peers.[/quote'] Or making no comparison at all and admiting that comparing across eras is not fair

[zen]

Jesse Owens was the most dominant sprinter of his generation he destroyed competition. Usin Bolt is the best sprinter of his generation but in many cases only marginally faster not as dominant as Owens was in his generation. However, Usin Bolt would destroy Jesse Owens over a 100M race we know this by simply comparing their times. Thats exactly why SRT > Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

Arre bhai, in 100mts less time = faster but in cricket lower avg is not better .... Bolt had to clock a faster time than Owens (even marginally) for you to imagine that he would beat Owens, similarly to be better than DBG, a batsman has to avg more than him or at least close to him (considering the different periods) :winky: On one hand, you are saying that Bolt would beat Owens based on Bolt's faster time and on the other, you are picking a batsman with a lower average to out do someone who avg almost twice as much. It's like picking a runner, who runs 100 mts in say 10 sec over someone who ran it in 6 or 7 sec Anyways, thanks for making my day. This thread always throws up something interesting. I hope more and more tendulkar fanboys post here

[The Outsider]

Or making no comparison at all and admit that comparing across eras is not fair

Yeah, that's a fair enough stance. I don't necessarily agree with it, but neither do I disagree strongly with it like the 'Tendulkar is the greatest ever' band baaja.

[yoda]

Just a small FYI, Jesse Owens case has been already discussed in this or other Sachin vs Bradman threads.

[zen]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK_n5le73LE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK_n5le73LE[/ame] ^ Viv Richards .... are those crappy bowlers too? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9QMJ_RkZaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9QMJ_RkZaU[/ame] ^ Bradman [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA[/ame] ^ Sobers That's dominance! :two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

[ame=

[/ame] ^ what a crappy bowler Every batsman, who is not Tendulkar, has played and done well against crappy bowlers :giggle: ..... Fact: Tendulkar, who is suppose to have done well against great bowlers of his era, avg a mere 40 when he faces MCgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar. To put things into perspective: that's like 50% of what the best avg against these bowlers is :P tendulkar fanboys should be probably be one of the last ones to talk abt facing and doing well against good bowlers :hehe:

[CSK Fan]

^ what a crappy bowler Every batsman, who is not Tendulkar, has played and done well against crappy bowlers :giggle: ..... Fact: Tendulkar, who is suppose to have done well against great bowlers of his era, avg a mere 40 when he faces MCgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar. To put things into perspective: that's like 50% of what the best avg against these bowlers is :P tendulkar fanboys should be probably be one of the last ones to talk abt facing and doing well against good bowlers :hehe:

I think this has been explained a 100 times before but just because when you do a cricinfo search you find that Sachin averages less when Akram/Waqar is in the team, DOES NOT MEAN that the low average is caused by the presence of Akram/Waqar . Sachin has been run-out, got outing slogging Saqlain, hit wicket of a spinner etc in those macthes. So common sense would not credit much to those averages. Particularly sicne Waqar and Wasim have only got Sachin out one time, thats right ONLY ONE TIME EACH, in tests. So the way you are interpreting those numbers are wrong

[zen]

I think this has been explained a 100 times before but just because when you do a cricinfo search you find that Sachin averages less when Akram/Waqar is in the team' date=' [b']DOES NOT MEAN that the low average is caused by the presence of Akram/Waqar . Sachin has been run-out, got outing slogging Saqlain, hit wicket of a spinner etc in those macthes. So common sense would not credit much to those averages. Particularly sicne Waqar and Wasim have only got Sachin out one time, thats right ONLY ONE TIME EACH, in tests. So the way you are interpreting those numbers are wrong

Yes, there is always a reason for someone else's success and an excuse for Sachin's failure :P

[zen]

when Murali and Malinga play, it's even hard to find Tendulkar's name LINK :((

[pensionplan]

^ what a crappy bowler Every batsman, who is not Tendulkar, has played and done well against crappy bowlers :giggle:

Got to tell after watching that front foot disposal off Pascoe and many such hits Viv Rcihards is by far the most destructive hitters in the history of the game especially of fast bowlers.

[jonas10]

Jesse Owens would have easily adjusted to modern demands and still maintained domination over peers. For Usain Bolt to qualify to be compared alongside Jesse, he must achieve the similar level of domination in terms of number of standard deviations from the mean of his generation. But in anycase, Jesse was not even 5% of sportsman Bradman was - as Bradman demolished his peers by number of standard deviations, never seen before /even-since.

No its quite a reasonable analogy. Both were dominant athletes close to 100 years ago when both sports were in their infancy. Owens may have been a star cause lots of other countries like Jamaica where Bolt is from had no concept of sprinting, track and field had no marketability and no one was interested in participating til stars like Micheal Johnson and Carl Lewis showed the kind of money that could be made and there was absolutely no technology or training with the methods we have now. Same with Bradman, no competition no great bowlers, no money in the sport, no one analyzing his every stroke from 50 angles putting it in a super computer and then saying do this to beat him. Bolt has to compete with superpowers like the US that have all the money in the world, all the technology in the world and every means to find his weaknesses yet they cannot. Same with SRT who has had his every at bat analyzed since the age 16. As well he has faced vastly superior competition and cricket is a much more international game that has seen such greats as Ponting, Sobers, Richards, Akram. Please tell me the greats that SAW Bradman play in his prime and comment on his superiority.