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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Hindustani]

yeah you really expected him to say he is better than DGB ? I mean he will say the same sort of thing even if it was Inzi that he was being compared with. The only thing relevant in this comparison business by experts is what DGB himself said.

Aaah, so you are BossBhai, Bahut suna tha aapke baare main, aaj dekh bhi liya :hatsoff:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Before you re-locate to a emotion based goal post allow me to remind you that you were the one that challenged me to prove SRT > DGB based on stats .... Now that the cold numbers are out and you have no answers to them ... it was quite natural that you hang on to emotions. But I will take you on in that regard as well .... DGB was very gracious to acknowledge that SRT bats just like him ... especially when you factor in the fact that he was a very private person who rarely spoke in public. For such a man to have gone out and said in no uncertain terms that SRT reminded him of himself is where the matter ends. Because at that time SRTs avg was around 56ish and it didnt change DGB's opinion. I suggest you move on and live with that fact.

I can see the 'cold' numbers. Though I don't remember what you pulled out in the past but the latest thing that you pulled was quite entertaining, i.e. Don not having played a test in SA, Asia and WI, while modern batsmen like Tendulkar have. How about Hayden being ranked higher than Gavaskar because the later didn't play in a test SA and Zim. May be Waugh is better than Richards too! IMO, the difference b/w a Hayden and a Gavaskar, a Waugh and a Richards, is the similar to the difference b/w Don and others (thus Don is in the league of his own) .... Coming back to Gavaskar and Richards, how many would say that they would not have done well in SA? I guess, if Sachin hadn't played in SA or WI, you would have argued that pitches now a days in many countries offer enough variety to judge a batsman :--D .... Aus and Eng provide a good variety to judge the capabilities of batsmen. Talking about Aus: Perth for a long time was considered amongst the fastest pitch in the world, Sydney is favored by the spinners. And weren't the pitches uncovered in Don's era, also the protective gear wasn't of the same standards as of today. So every period has its own challenges. We have to see how a batsman performs in the circumstances available to him and to take things in to perspective one has to see how his peers are doing in the similar environment. And, even I am said that Sachin (in his high scoring years including the current one) reminds us of what Don could have done. That doesn't mean Sachin > Don though :winky: .... In fact Lara's performance in SL to get his avg back to 50+ was Bradmanisque too Open your eyes! :P

[dial_100]

Bossy, why even bother that troll. check this out. I was just browsing the cricket played during Bradman's time. I came across some stats. In those days even Duleepsingh also scored 9 100s while Don scored 10 in that season. That tells what kind of bowling, fielding standards they had. Look at the overall averages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_English_cricket_season It is useless to compare these two great batsman of totally different era. I won't be surprised to say if SRT was playing those days he would have scored @120 in even 100 matches.

[The Outsider]

Bossy, why even bother that troll. check this out. I was just browsing the cricket played during Bradman's time. I came across some stats. In those days even Duleepsingh also scored 9 100s while Don scored 10 in that season. That tells what kind of bowling, fielding standards they had. Look at the overall averages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_English_cricket_season It is useless to compare these two great batsman of totally different era. I won't be surprised to say if SRT was playing those days he would have scored @120 in even 100 matches.

Huh? Duleep and Ranji are both considered great batsmen of their times, specially Ranji.

[Guest Gunner]

Huh? Duleep and Ranji are both considered great batsmen of their times' date=' specially Ranji.[/quote'] Indeed. Both of them are credited as one of the best batsmen of their times and in the case of Ranji probably the best. Immaculate pedigree.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

No where near as the Hobbs ' date=' the Hammonds and the Sutcliffes ... But i think this belongs in the Bradman thread :D[/quote'] Sorry, can't agree. Ranji is considered a pioneer and a great batsman in any annals. Duleep maybe not as much, but that's because he was not a very compliant character and missed out on a lot of test matches due to it.

[dial_100]

Huh? Duleep and Ranji are both considered great batsmen of their times' date=' specially Ranji.[/quote'] Then we should be talking about tendulkar being #4 or 5. :hysterical:

[Sachinism]

Then we should be talking about tendulkar being #4 or 5. :hysterical:

Saying they are great, doesn't mean they're greater than Sachin

[The Outsider]

Then we should be talking about tendulkar being #4 or 5. :hysterical:

Double huh?

[dial_100]

Here is 1931 season. Herbert Sutcliffe topped the averages with 3006 runs @ 96.96. Boy if you can score 3000 runs @97 that means this guy was also damn good. SRT was never this good in scoring 3000 runs.

[The Outsider]

Here is 1931 season. Herbert Sutcliffe topped the averages with 3006 runs @ 96.96. Boy if you can score 3000 runs @97 that means this guy was also damn good. SRT was never this good in scoring 3000 runs.

Are you saying no one in modern cricket has scored at a comparable average over a FC season?

[dial_100]

So consistently averages of 100 plus? Hell no. It is not like 500 or 1000 runs. 3000 runs @100 is just ridiculous if you know what I mean Shwetabh. and check out the seasons after 1960. All averages have dropped from 80s, 90s to 70s and 60s. Take all the names, Colin Cowdreys, Bill Lawry, Boycott, Sobers, Butcher, all of them are in at the most 60s??? What do you read from that? The standard of cricket has gone up. Scoring got difficult.

[The Outsider]

^ I am pretty sure Ramprakash and Hick have done it over 2000-3000 runs or so. EDIT : From Ramprakash's cricinfo profile :

When England gave up on him, he became even more prolific for Surrey: in 2006, his 20th county season, he was Bradmanesque, scoring 2,278 runs and averaging over 100.

[dial_100]

^ I am pretty sure Ramprakash and Hick have done it over 2000-3000 runs or so. EDIT : From Ramprakash's cricinfo profile :

That is my point. Bradman has not score like 300 in county games and 100 in the regular test matches. He was also same 85 to 115 kind of average in county and 100 in test matches. So it is comparable standard in those days. In these days, if Ramprakash and Hick scored 100+ in county could not even manage average of 50 in test cricket. Am I making sense or not. My point is we do not know for sure, what was the standard of cricket in Bradman's days??

[The Outsider]

That is my point. Bradman has not score like 300 in county games and 100 in the regular test matches. He was also same 85 to 115 kind of average in county and 100 in test matches. So it is comparable standard in those days. In these days, if Ramprakash and Hick scored 100+ in county could not even manage average of 50 in test cricket. Am I making sense or not. My point is we do not know for sure, what was the standard of cricket in Bradman's days??

So, why couldn't anyone else score remotely close to 100 in test matches in Bradman's 20 year career span? And even Tendulkar does not average remotely close to 100 in FC cricket - around the 60 mark.

[Bradman99]

Here is 1931 season. Herbert Sutcliffe topped the averages with 3006 runs @ 96.96. Boy if you can score 3000 runs @97 that means this guy was also damn good. SRT was never this good in scoring 3000 runs.

You know Hussey's average was 86 right? That was after 2 years in tests.