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

[dial_100]

That is simply not true. The batting/bowling average has remained at around the 30 mark for the last 90 years. During these 90 years the best batsmen of a particular era have averaged around the 50-60 mark and the best bowlers around the 20-25 mark. The only exception to this rule, in batting or bowling, with an average of 100 was Bradman. Prior to 1920, the batting/bowling average was much lower around the 20 mark, and the hallmark of a great batsman was 40-50 and great bowlers around 10-15.

Shwetabh, may be true. It is hard to say anything on that. did you check those videos out...do you want to comment on those...I guess we aren;t talking anything but average here....May be we can find out why part of the puzzle.

[The Outsider]

Shwetabh, may be true. It is hard did you check those videos out...do you want to comment on those...I guess we aren;t talking anything but average here....May be we can find out why part of the puzzle.

Frankly, I did not see anything too awkward in the videos. The cover drive was awkward, but can you tell me what was wrong in the lofted straight drive and the flick? So, from one awkward cover drive we are to conclude everything about those days? You want to ignore all the writings from those times? You want to ignore the opinion of people like Benaud who have actually witnessed cricket first hand very closely in those days and continue to do so till today? All on the basis of an awkward cover drive by Hobbs? The way you and a lot of others are looking at the issue just doesn't make sense. You cannot put Bradman in a time machine and simply put him on a cricket pitch in the modern times, neither can you do that with Tendulkar. The only meaningful way to make a comparison across eras is how good the concerned player was compared to the competition of his era, when players grew up in similar social challenges, with similar equipments, similar coaching, similar medical facilities etc. etc. And Bradman is simply untouchable in that respect. And if for argument's sake I were to accept that Tendulkar would average more than 100 if he played in the 1930s, where does it leave the rest of the cricketers. Would Farhat average 70 as well? Would Sami average 20 with the ball? Whenever you come up with an extrapolation model, you cannot just apply it to one data point as you are doing with Bradman-Tendulkar. All players should fall under the same extrapolation model and using it if I get crazy results like Chris Lewis is a better all rounder than Keith Miller or that Ravindra Jadeja is a better player than Mankad, then I know that the extrapolation model is no good and I would dump it pronto.

[dial_100]

Frankly, I did not see anything too awkward in the videos. The cover drive was awkward, but can you tell me what was wrong in the lofted straight drive and the flick? So, from one awkward cover drive we are to conclude everything about those days? You want to ignore all the writings from those times? You want to ignore the opinion of people like Benaud who have actually witnessed cricket first hand very closely in those days and continue to do so till today? All on the basis of an awkward cover drive by Hobbs? The way you and a lot of others are looking at the issue just doesn't make sense. You cannot put Bradman in a time machine and simply put him on a cricket pitch in the modern times, neither can you do that with Tendulkar. The only meaningful way to make a comparison across eras is how good the concerned player was compared to the competition of his era, when players grew up in similar social challenges, with similar equipments, similar coaching, similar medical facilities etc. etc. And Bradman is simply untouchable in that respect. And if for argument's sake I were to accept that Tendulkar would average more than 100 if he played in the 1930s, where does it leave the rest of the cricketers. Would Farhat average 70 as well? Would Sami average 20 with the ball? Whenever you come up with an extrapolation model, you cannot just apply it to one data point as you are doing with Bradman-Tendulkar. All players should fall under the same extrapolation model and using it if I get crazy results like Chris Lewis is a better all rounder than Keith Miller or that Ravindra Jadeja is a better player than Mankad, then I know that the extrapolation model is no good and I would dump it pronto.

I was referring to Bradman's last innings... Check out the bowler in that video please...does that tell you anything at all?? I aint extrapolating anything....It is you who has concludingly voted that DON is greatest. I have neither agreed with it nor am I denying it...I voted that "Can't say" option....I am just questioning the basis for those who are so sure on either side.

[The Outsider]

^ Not sure what that video tells you? Firstly it's very choppy and it's impossible to even see the ball in the video. Secondly, Hollies wasn't exactly a top notch international bowler. It's like putting up Tendulkar's dismissal to Udal and using the video (without the ball visible) to infer something.

[dial_100]

^ Not sure what that video tells you? Firstly it's very choppy and it's impossible to even see the ball in the video. Secondly' date=' Hollies wasn't exactly a top notch international bowler. It's like putting up Tendulkar's dismissal to Udal and using the video (without the ball visible) to infer something.[/quote'] I am not exactly referring to the way Don got out. I am just talking of standard of bowling there...I aint saying that he was top notch either but of 150 odd overs of that innings, 56 were bowled by him. So that was the standard of the bowling. To me it appeared very lousy incompeten bowling..but to my surprise... that guy bowled 56 overs in that match and also got 5 wickets..

[The Outsider]

^ I am not sure how you can gauge the standard of bowling when you can't even see the ball in that video (or is it old age catching up with me?). In any case, Hollies is hardly a representative of a top level bowler of that time. Miller, Lindwall, Bedser, Laker, Tate, Larwood, Constantine etc. would be some of the top bowlers of Bradman's time.

[Lurker]

did you check those videos out...do you want to comment on those...I guess we aren;t talking anything but average here....May be we can find out why part of the puzzle.

The only good thing that comes out of such mindless exercise is: a) It refreshes your memory about former greats, many of who we would not really talk about usually. Even if sometimes these utterances come from absolute morons who know little better. b) It shows how little knowledge of history, certainly the respect for it, we have even though we have lot more access to it than ever. Of course this point is more philosphical. With that lets go to the clips. Jack Hobbs circa 1914. http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1201886&postcount=69 It is hilarious to see youngsters (who dont know better perhaps?) and oldies(those who have gone senile perhaps?) poking fun at a clip without even putting things into perspective. Specially oldies who should be smart(or maybe I am giving extra credit to them lol) to realize 1914 was the period of Charlie Chaplin and silent cinema. You know the kind where people would move at twice the normal speed and camera would show you 10 million grains on every nose(and eyes). A simple search on YouTube threw a few gems including this one... JBJdikQnpzw Bradman circa 1948 Considering sports broadcast started in 1940s or thereabouts it is hilarious to think people are expecting too much out of that clip. For those of us who started watching cricket in 80s it was a complete headache to see camera from one side of the field. Half the time you saw the batsman's rear end and that was all you had to judge the players. Now jump 40-50 years ago and think of the time. How can one judge the players based on the clips which are completely inept? Here is the clip from 1948 London Olympics. Forget the dress and track etc..just see how difficult it is to gauge how good Blankers-Cohen was! And how can one compare her to modern age Florence Joyners. hEHFYlbtftg Point is how weird it is to use a technology that was very much in its infancy to cast stones over players who are all-time greats? And in doing so do we cast stones at them or at our own stupidity? The only good thing about this exercise is it gives folks like me revisit some past heroes, like Fannie Blankers Cohen, hadnt read about her in a while, now I shall read up some more on her. xxx PS: It was not meant directly to you dial, I know you better :)

[The Outsider]

Look at Jesse Owens here. Looks like someone in a walking race rather than in a 200m sprint : dWE-0ewnBOw&feature=related

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

heres the batting avg of the crap teams from last decade .... which is 29.37 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;opposition=25;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=9;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+2010;spanmin2=01+Jan+2000;spanval2=span;team=25;team=4;team=5;team=7;team=9;template=results;type=batting So they must be in the same league as in the Bradman times ?:--D

^ That number actually closes the debate for you as if you think that standard of those teams is similar to the teams during Bradman's era then Sachin if he is better than or in the same league as Bradman (per you) then he should easily avg 100 against these "crap" teams! a quick math tells me that he has 3449 runs from 52 completed innings against them (1 Jan 2000 to today), giving him a "grand" average of only 66! :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

That is not what I meant ... the point was simply to disprove this notion that since batting avgs have remained the same it means that a run scored in the 30s was as valuable as a run scored now. Take a look at MoYo's batting avg in those matches it is almost 87. If he plays another series against NZ, Zim and BD (which they are scheduled to shortly he will move it higher ) http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=25;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=9;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=31+Dec+2010;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=25;team=4;team=5;team=7;team=9;template=results;type=batting Now Are you going to tell me he is the best since DGB based on that ? Not even the most rabid paaki himself will try to claim that. Now the question is why only this man avgs head and shoulders above the rest ? well because of that lot Pakistan is the only decent team that can cut it to the next level consisting of Aus,Ind,Eng,SAF,SL and he just happened to be in supreme great form and is the best batsman to have come from Pak for sometime. The level of Paki bowling is significantly higher than the rest hence they will always keep the batsmen playing against them in check. Thats all it means. But if you want to stick by your theory yes then Moyo > SRT.

Saying that runs scored in the past isn't as valuable as now is touching the heights of comedy as it's like saying that a win in the past isn't the same as a win now. Just like today, you still have to get those runs and like today the opposition do make it difficult to get those runs. There is no free lunch. If you raced a car in 1930s, you still had to drive well to out do your peers, just like you would now. Ofc the cars would be a bit slower than they are now but then the roads wouldn't be that good as they are now, nor would it be as technologically this advanced as it is now for example the brakes wouldn't be as good as they are now but the level of competitiveness amongst the champions would be similar! They will still have to out do others by making use of what they have. If a guy in 1930s was given a 2010 machine, he would still be able to drive it well enough based on his skills. And that stat that you gave above isn't accurate in terms of what's being discussed because it has batsmen from one of those 5 teams so they only play against other 4 and not all 5. If the assumption is only these 5 teams play against each other then the likes of Tendulkar don't exist! .... Also your point was is that if Tendulkar played against weaker teams, he would avg 100 easily, which is not the case :giggle: GAME OVER for Bossbhai :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

ohh really. Explain 3 slips and a gully when DGB is batting on 100* PS: And I can also type : "Game over for rett"

really? :yikes: were they retarded?

[varun]

Question for people claiming it was easier to score runs in the past: Why was it easier to score runs earlier ? Field settings ? Smaller talent pool of bowlers ? Bowlers too gentlemanly to bowl hard balls to score off ? .. Please list more Question for people claiming it was harder to score runs in the past: Why ? Uncovered pitches ? Older bats ? .. Please list more

[varun]

^^ And after you've answered the above, please apply the same logic to see how Tendulkar might be perceived in the future by someone with the same thought process

[King Tendulkar]

^^ And after you've answered the above' date=' please apply the same logic to see how Tendulkar might be perceived in the future by someone with the same thought process[/quote'] Thats for someone for the future. We live in the present. Sport in last 20 years has reached such a high point in proffesionalism and competition that significant improvements will be small compared to last century when basically world has turned on its head!

[King Tendulkar]

Question for people claiming it was easier to score runs in the past: Why was it easier to score runs earlier ? Field settings ? Smaller talent pool of bowlers ? Bowlers too gentlemanly to bowl hard balls to score off ? .. Please list more Question for people claiming it was harder to score runs in the past: Why ? Uncovered pitches ? Older bats ? .. Please list more

There was no talent pool. Basically only 2 cricket teams, aussies and england. Thats it!!! Bradaman had 1 team to play and that was it. Big fish in VERY SMALL POND

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --