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

[zen]

Lohmanns bowling average is miles better then anyone. Unparalled. He has the holy grail bowling average of 10!!! So you agree Lohmann is best bowler ever?

Really?! When did the avg of 10 become the holy grail for bowling! bowling averages Appears as if you don't even know what the holy grail for bowling is :P

[King Tendulkar]

Really?! When did the avg of 10 become the holy grail for bowling! bowling averages Appears as if you don't even know what the holy grail for bowling is :P

Being silly now.:finger: Have to have a minimum match qualification.

[zen]

Being silly now.:finger: Have to have a minimum match qualification.

Yes, you will have to create different scenarios for Lohmann just like you guys create for Tendulkar :P Your point got thrown out in no time :giggle:

[King Tendulkar]

Thats the point. The same points you use to throw Lohmann out are same as to throw Bradman out. You dont quite get it

[zen]

Thats the point. The same points you use to throw Lohmann out are same as to throw Bradman out. You dont quite get it

Not really! Because unlike your points, it's tough to argue that a batting average of 100 in tests is not the holy grail of batting and someone doing that for over 50 tests playing for many decades (considerably length of time) hasn't been in the league of his own And your thinking that points used to throw Lohmann out are the same that could throw Bradman out shows the general ignorance of Tendulkar fanboys :winky: .... It hilarious that you would think that's the case but again not surprised at that though :P

[King Tendulkar]

Not really! Because unlike your points, its tough to argue that a bowling average of 10 in tests is not only the holy grail of bowling and someone doing that for a decade ( considerable length of time) hasn't been in the league of his own!

[zen]

Not really! Because unlike your points' date=' its tough to argue that a bowling average of 10 in tests is not only the holy grail of bowling and someone doing that for a decade ( considerable length of time) hasn't been in the league of his own![/quote'] So an avg of 10 is the holy grail of bowling, what's next :haha: And you said that there should be some minimum qualification so what if someone raises that minimum to 50 tests? I like the way you make your points and keep posting because it reflect the standard of many of those who think Tendulkar > Bradman :P

[The Outsider]

So you agree Lohmann is the best bowler ever?

Certainly, one of the best. But his peer domination was not at the level of Bradman, and this has already been addressed by SJS as well as me in the Lohmann thread. But there is no tax on trolling, so carry on.:hatsoff:

[zen]

Let's talk about this myth: If Tendulkar is transported back to Don's time, Tendulkar would avg 100 easily too: As a Tendulkar fan, I would love to see this to be true but realistically, it difficult. First of all, the guys then mostly played on uncovered pitches, the LBW law was different and ofc the protection level was not up to today's standards. If I am not wrong Tendulkar has been out the most number of times LBWs in test cricket, now I don't know well how would he fare in an era where you could be given out LBW even if the ball pitched outside the line of leg stump. I can see that Tendulkar would do pretty well but I am not sure (like some folks here) whether he would easily average 100! Also when we see the likes of Hammond and Headley average in 50s-60s, it further throws questions on Tendulkar (or any other batsman from his generation) to be able to avg 100 easily! Moreover if you look at the performance in domestic cricket, where the bowling attacks and fielding is realtively poor (on top of the advantage of playing on batting tracks in India), it still hard to see anyone having a career domestic avg of 100 after playing considerable amount of games.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

I dealt with the uncovered pitches nonsense in the other thread by this LBW law thingy is just simply hilariously wrong .... heres the LBW LAW after it got modified in 1937 : http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/LAWS_1884_CODE/LAWS_1937_CODE.html Law 24 Or, if with any part of his person (except his hand) which is between wicket and wicket he intercept a ball, which in the opinion of the umpire at the bowlers wicket shall have been pitched in a straight line from the bowler's wicket to the striker's wicket or shall have been pitched on the off-side of the striker's wicket and would have hit it The part in RED was not in existance before 1937 ... meaning the bowler had to pitch the ball on the tram lines AND ofcourse it should have gone on to hit the stumps in the umpires opinion to get a LBW .... so there is no question of any LBW for balls pitching even outside off stump let alone outside leg stump. So Bradman played for nearly 10 yrs with that rule ... even after the 1937 modification (it obviously never allowed pitching outside leg ) a batsman could not be given out even if was deliberately padding outside off. This change was made in the 80s IIRC.

Thanks for the details on the LBW law, so I guess in the dreamland that would show that Tendulkar would avg 100 easily in tests if he played in that era (ignoring some of the other factors) :P *will take a look at the law in detail later* PS I saw the link and it basically has just what you posted about LBW in 1937 (I assumed that the link would just be about LBW laws and their revisions throughout the history). It doesn't tell much tough and I have seen people given LBW even now when the ball pitched outside the leg (which is why many our advocating use of technology *cough cough*) so I can only imagine what the situation would be then.

[King Tendulkar]

If sachin played in 30s he would average past 200. If Ronaldo played football in 30s he would average around 6 goals a game. If Nadal played tennis in 30s he would lose around 2 points a match. Its a different world now folks. Things are just bigger and better, deal with it!

[zen]

If sachin played in 30s he would average past 200. If Ronaldo played football in 30s he would average around 6 goals a game. If Nadal played tennis in 30s he would lose around 2 points a match. Its a different world now folks. Things are just bigger and better, deal with it!

It's like saying if I went with a AK-47 in 1500 AD, I would be the biggest warrior. The point is in 1500 AD, you would never have a AK-47 so you would have to do with bows, arrows and swords. You don't automatically become the greatest warrior of 1500 AD, if you use AK-47 now :winky:

[King Tendulkar]

It's like saying if I went with a AK-47 in 1500 AD' date=' I would be the biggest warrior. The point is in 1500 AD, you would never have a AK-47 so you would have to do with bows, arrows and swords. You don't automatically become the greatest warrior of 1500 AD, if you use AK-47 now :winky:[/quote'] Good anlogy. Sachin is like an AK 47 while Bradman is like a bow and arrow. Sums it up really:two_thumbs_up:

[King Tendulkar]

Certainly, one of the best. But his peer domination was not at the level of Bradman, and this has already been addressed by SJS as well as me in the Lohmann thread. But there is no tax on trolling, so carry on.:hatsoff:

Yes Bradman did dominate his peers more then Lohmann. That does not mean that Lohmann did not dominte his peers big time as I proved. Comparison was who dominated peers more but that both dominated peers big time. Thus applying that logic through you must feel Lohmann is best bowler ever. You say Lohmann is one of the best. Where would you rank him in all timers list?:giggle: I assume you feel he is better then ZK and Marshall for example. As his average is 3 ytmes better then ZK and twice as good as Marshall. Blimey that means he is 3 times better then ZK and twice as good as Marshall, blimey Lohmann was one hell of a bowler:nervous:

[zen]

Good anlogy. Sachin is like an AK 47 while Bradman is like a bow and arrow. Sums it up really:two_thumbs_up:

Really?! :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

erm ... you were the one that was rudely yanked out of your dream world where Bradman played on souped up pitches and MEAN lbw laws .... I dunno what you are trying to say here because SRT has played exactly 3 test matches out of 171 where Technology was used for lbw. As for the laws you can find full texts of all major revisions here : http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/LAWS/

Yes, I guess I was in the world where Ten>Don :P Now let's come back to reality. So what is your point? I can understand you clarifying the law but I wouldn't suppose that you would think that since the LBW law said that the ball should be pitched in line, Tendulkar would have easily averaged a 100. In fact, I won't be surprised to see if batsmen were given out more often LBW to balls that pitched outside the leg then they do now. Such errors do happen in this age despite the presense of the elite panel and the way to study the decsions. Which is why many ask for technology to be used to assist the umpires :winky: And I don't even know what your take is on uncovered pitced expect that you wrote something on some thread! Also you ignored the comment below:

Also when we see the likes of Hammond and Headley average in 50s-60s, it further throws questions on Tendulkar (or any other batsman from his generation) to be able to avg 100 easily! Moreover if you look at the performance in domestic cricket, where the bowling attacks and fielding is realtively poor (on top of the advantage of playing on batting tracks in India), it still hard to see anyone having a career domestic avg of 100 after playing considerable amount of games.

[acharya]

lbw laws in old days were very lenient - you stride your leg forward and basically given not out - bradman in his career - how many lbw's did he have?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --