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

[vvvslaxman]

Also' date=' the 1975 World Cup and Viv Richards' fielding in the final was a watershed moment with regards to the development of fielding as a discipline.[/quote'] Collin Bland, Learie constantine, Richie Benaud, Trevor Bailey were doofus with fielding right? Colin bland used to hit the stumps from any part of the ground.. He used to display his accurate throwing skills after the match. Our Ishant sharma can't hit the stumps from 2 feet. In the most recent Pak/Australia series Pakistan dropped as many as 14 catches. Kamran dropped atleast 3 sitters. There are only great fielders. There is nothing like great fielding era. In every era there were good fielders and terrible fielders. Trevor bailey 1950 match. Do you see umpire getting into such positions these days to check?

[King Tendulkar]

Teams like India/Pakistan were a joke till 70s arrived. Windies were a joke till 60s arrived. NZ were a joke till 90s :hysterical: SL a joke til 90s. SA were a joke in 30s. Bangla still a joke. So basically in the 30s all teams were a joke apart from England. So Bradman only had one team to play against and played in only one overseas country. Yet despite this total lack of competitivness a player is hailed as greatest ever from that era. Cricket only truly became a competitive world sport in 70s to be frank. These players from the 30s are nice to talk about and remeber. But to call them greatest ever with only 2 competitive teams in world cricket is a bit of a joke really.

[teacup]

So someone like Gavaskar should have seen a major dip in his average after the mid 70s. He averaged 49 till 1975 and 51 after that. Similar for Chappell(51 and 54), Llyod(40 and 50), Boycott(47 and 47), I Chappell(41 and 47), Viswanath(38 and 43). There was no major change in any batsman's average who played sufficient cricket either side of the mid 70s. If anything, the numbers show a modest increase for most.

Standards don't improve overnight. What we pointed out was only a watershed moment. Take a look at the top batsmen in terms of career average and their career span. You will notice that the top 12 are from pre-1974 era. 4 out of the top 5 are from Bradman's time. Click here for the list.

[King Tendulkar]

The 30 s when Bradman played had to be the most uncompetitive era one could think of. All had to do was play England. Thats only ONE other team. Do well against that one team and then you are called greatest ever!!!!! Also any sportsman from the 30s would not even make semi pro teams in 2010. Thats the harsh reality.

[vvvslaxman]

22 players average over 50 in 2000 decade. (min 500 runs) It is more than any decade lol. This is the most batsman friendly era of all time.

[The Outsider]

Standards don't improve overnight. What we pointed out was only a watershed moment. Take a look at the top batsmen in terms of career average and their career span. You will notice that the top 12 are from pre-1974 era. 4 out of the top 5 are from Bradman's time. Click here for the list.

So, something should have shed after the "watershed" moment, why don't I see it in the averages of batsmen who played across the "watershed" moment? Others in the list are still averaging mid to late 50s, I can discount those many points from Bradman's average if you will.

[King Tendulkar]

I have seen footage of the so called great Hobbs. It was like a comedy show, everyone from my cricket team burst in laughter watching it. Sir Jack Hobbs would struggle to make my clubs 4th team eleven! I kid you not when I say that

[King Tendulkar]

Just imagine if Tendulkar had the chance to play aginst only one other competitive team in his whole carrer. Lets pick Bangladesh for example, he would then avergae 136:hysterical: I tell you if put him in a time machine and let Tendulkar play in 30s test match. He could bat the whole 5 days by himself and chalk up close to 1000 not out. He would keep smashing it for 4 and oppo skipper would still have 2 slips and close in catchers for 5 days.:hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

Just imagine if Tendulkar had the chance to play aginst only one other competitive team in his whole carrer. Lets pick Bangladesh for example, he would then avergae 136:hysterical: I tell you if put him in a time machine and let Tendulkar play in 30s test match. He could bat the whole 5 days by himself and chalk up close to 1000 not out. He would keep smashing it for 4 and oppo skipper would still have 2 slips and close in catchers for 5 days.:hysterical:

With your logic Sehwag will eat Tendulkar alive. He would score 3000 not out :cantstop:

[King Tendulkar]

With your logic Sehwag will eat Tendulkar alive. He would score 3000 not out :cantstop:

Well Veeru may hole out on 800! While Sachin would not give his wicket away and so would get to the magical 4 figures. Veeru could get 350 in a days play in 30s

[teacup]

So' date=' something should have shed after the "watershed" moment, why don't I see it in the averages of batsmen who played across the "watershed" moment? Others in the list are still averaging mid to late 50s, I can discount those many points from Bradman's average if you will.[/quote'] The watershed year is quite evident from the list of of career averages I provided you. What you are doing is basically cherry-picking evidence.

[vvvslaxman]

Well Veeru may hole out on 800! While Sachin would not give his wicket away and so would get to the magical 4 figures. Veeru could get 350 in a days play in 30s

Oh really. 319, 309, 293.. Last time i know it is bigger than 248. Let Sachin beat Viru in this era before thinking of beating him in another era as far as high score is concerned

[King Tendulkar]

If Ronaldo played in a football match in 30s he would score 10 goals minimum. Maybe even 15! Federer would win wimbledon in 30s without dropping a game in whole tournament and that would be even if he was bare footed.

[King Tendulkar]

Oh really. 319' date=' 309, 293.. Last time i know it is bigger than 248. Let Sachin beat Viru in this era before thinking of beating him in another era as far as high score is concerned[/quote'] I truly believe verru would hole out on 800 playing a massive swipe on day 2 just after tea.

[vvvslaxman]

If Ronaldo played in a football match in 30s he would score 10 goals minimum. Maybe even 15! Federer would win wimbledon in 30s without dropping a game in whole tournament and that would be even if he was bare footed.

Yea if you had been in that era you would have invented semi conductor.

[vvvslaxman]

I truly believe verru would hole out on 800 playing a massive swipe on day 2 just after tea.

Tendulkar wouldn't hole out? How come he never crossed 250? Laxman, Dravid have all crossed 250.

[King Tendulkar]

Have you seen sports footage of 30s. Its more like a comedy show

[King Tendulkar]

Tendulkar wouldn't hole out? How come he never crossed 250? Laxman' date=' Dravid have all crossed 250.[/quote'] In the 30s Sachin would not need to take risks. He would just bat for ever. So would laxman and Dravid. All could bat for 5 days in 30s

[vvvslaxman]

In the 30s Sachin would not need to take risks. He would just bat for ever. So would laxman and Dravid. All could bat for 5 days in 30s

Well.. But Veeru will beat Tendulkar hands down. So will Richards. They both score quicker. So will Gilly. Veeru, Richards, Gilly would have become better than Tendulkar :cantstop:

[King Tendulkar]

Tiger Woods would win open by 30 shots in 30s. Klitschiko could win heavyweight crown with one arm tied behind his back in 30s.