Pak_Forever Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 This thread is still going on? You don't have to feel offended when someone says Don is ahead of Sachin. Its an absolute fact which noone should ever argue about. Sachin is great but Don is light years ahead of all other batsmen.
fuub Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 sachin didnt face much of Steyn,Murli,Warne,Stuart,Clark,BLee,Johnson,Gillespie blah blah in first class competition either so why isnt his average better than bradmans there
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 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 OMG. You are so fkn frustrating. Do you expect someone who was born in the fkn 1800s to have as perfect a technique as a modern day player? Don Bradman said himself he never had a coach, things were different back then. YOUR LOGIC IS ****ED. :dash1:
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Seriously, crap on about how terrible the standard was back then, but people still can't answer why Bradman was miles ahead of everyone else, who had the exact same conditions.
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 He was far ahead of his times ... I have said that long back. But to use that and proclaim that he would continue to avg 100 in the modern era is requires a fertile mind. No one claims that he would. But you can only judge a sportsman on the era he played in (obviously), and therefore he is the best.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 see the previous stat on batting avgs for the 30s and 40s Yea.. what is the difference. Hardly any difference. But we are talking about difference of 44 between Tendulkar and Bradman. At SCG'04 ... Not only did SRT play for long but he totally shunned the cover drive ... and may I remind you that he also had to make sure that he wasnt rapped on the pads as Mr Bucknor and Bowden were around. How long we are going to harp on that innings. He has played innings like that out of 300 innings. Lara, Sehwag have played so many such innings. Where will it put them. Much higher class than Tendulkar. yeah but I thought ypu said 90s were all pattas and 30s were all juiced up ... I thought You said 90s were all full demons and devils bowling but 30s were full of pie chuckers. No I havent. They are all included in that stat. And in 69% of DGB's Test matches where he made a 100 someone else from his team also scored a 100 in the same inngs. for SRT its 74% but in the 90s it was much lesser at 63% 63% > 55. Only difference is your stat proves nothing other than India had crappy batsmen in the line up other than Sachin. There must be few obscure guys who might have better percentage than 63%. it doesn't prove anything. That too you are talking about a specific decade not the entire career. You can prove any the best using selective filters like this.
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Overall averages for batting positions 1 - 6 by decade. Click here. Overall figures Decade Players Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 1940s 103 45 917 74 36423 234 43.20 99 171 57 2000s 375 464 9749 689 358295 400* 39.54 864 1677 766 1930s 192 89 1802 133 65332 364 39.14 151 291 136 1920s 116 51 1025 69 36511 251 38.19 89 184 73 1960s 220 186 3971 282 140215 311 38.00 284 723 279 1970s 221 198 4195 307 147274 302 37.87 338 719 301 1980s 249 266 5344 425 181033 280* 36.80 405 861 406 1990s 300 347 7179 528 243234 375 36.57 510 1244 611 1950s 222 164 3399 223 107699 365* 33.91 224 496 293 1910s 62 29 601 27 18482 214* 32.19 33 95 60 1890s 96 32 693 35 19323 201 29.36 35 95 65 1900s 75 41 908 51 24214 287 28.25 37 120 94 1880s 81 29 612 33 12664 211 21.87 16 46 66 1870s 26 3 68 3 1262 165* 19.41 1 4 6 You can see the above statistics are quite revealing. The 30s, 40s and 2000s are the top 3 decades for top and middle order batsmen. It is no coincidence that these three decades had poor fast bowling stocks. It just puts SRT's near 60 average in the 90's in perspective compared to the Pontings, Laras, Kallis, Dravid etc.
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 which is why it helps to read the posts of Bradman gang ....:--D yeah but its some sort of sin here to question the Alltime great tag that is bestowed upon him .... Who said he would have averaged 99 if he had played during the 90's and 00's? You make yourself look at bit stupid when you try to argue against Bradman, because he is just so much better than the next best.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Overall averages for batting positions 1 - 6 by decade. Click here. 2000 is still above 1930!! And the difference between 1930 and 1990 is 4. But we are talking about mammoth average difference of 44. Not 3 or 4.
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 i read this thread from the first post... i am exhausted... no one from either camp is gonna budge whatever the argument / proof / evidence is offered... the only thing happening here consistently is belittling of both the greats. :( i m feeling sad
satyam1729 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I think we should stop this debate. Bradman would remain a puzzle. However as far as fact is concerned he did not face any of the top 15 bowlers of all time.It took a couple of bad series to bring the average of hussey from 80 to 50. Who knows it would have taken 2 Malcolm marshall or Ambrose or Muralitharan to bring the average of Bradman down from 99 to 59.
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I think we should stop this debate. Bradman would remain a puzzle. However as far as fact is concerned he did not face any of the top 15 bowlers of all time.It took a couple of bad series to bring the average of hussey from 80 to 50. Who knows it would have taken 2 Malcolm marshall or Ambrose or Muralitharan to bring the average of Bradman down from 99 to 59. You are funny...One line u r writing this has to stop..Afterwards u r writing 10 lines saying how bradman's avg should have come down :hysterical:
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 lol ... do you know what it means when a huge sample ( 2.5 times larger than the Bradman era sample ) has more than 2 points difference ? Doesn't matter how many sample you take. An inning is going to consists of just 11 batsmen. That would make what 28 approx difference in total. How would that "huge" sample will prove that Tendulkar's 55 in this era equal to Bradman's 99.94 in his era. Explain to me. You wanted an example I gave you one .. and I have said before that Lara and Sehwag would also perform better than DGB if they had the oppurtunity to bat in those standards. That is the only example you got lol.So you admit Veeru, Lara are far better than Tendulkar as they are capable of reeling of much bigger scores than Tendulkar? this is what you said : It is impossible to have flatter pitches in any era compared to current era. and the stats prove that you were wrong. MY state proved that bowling is not all the difficult in this era which is what you have been claiming all along. Look at the test records in history for team. Look at the partnership record. Tell me which decade has more records? http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/254836.html Except for 5th wicket (1946) and 7th wicket (1955) every other record for other wickets came after 1990s. You said every TDH is also scoring centuries on the supposedly flat pitches now ... the same was true for DGB. Ya.. but their average was remotely close to bradman where there are so many batsmen hover around 50 mark.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Top 15 totals in history. 10 of them have come after 1997
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Top 15 totals in history. 10 of them have come after 1997 Except for that one match in Sri Lanka in '97 and a couple of 1950s the others are from the 2000s (post-2003 to be specific) and the 1930s. That 2000s have been productive for top batsmen is no-brainer and it is a fact that was well published in the recent Cricinfo decade review feature. If Tendulkar had not suffered a series of injuries post 2003, he would be averaging closer to 65 by now. The 1930s and 40s being two of the 3 best decades for batting is often overlooked.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now