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

[The Dark Horse]

Just curious, if batting got difficult with time why does Jack Hobbs(who was considered greatest before DGB arrived-correct me if i am wrong) average far less than Bradman?

[The Outsider]

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

A cricket run has remained roughly the same over the last 90 years. All the above factors you've listed are valid and more can be added to the list, but they've evened out, more or less. You can look at it in different ways : 1. Prior to World War I, pitches were prepared differently and a cricket run was definitely worth more then, than Post World War I. If you check the batting/bowling average prior to World War I, it would be roughly around the 20 mark. Post World War I, it has remained more or less around the 30 mark (though over the last 5 years it has gone up to 35). The top batsmen post 1920, have had batting averages around the 50-60 mark. The bowlers around the 20-25 mark. Prior to 1920, the top batsmen of the time averaged around 40 with the top bowlers around the 10-15 mark. So quite clearly a run made prior to 1920 was worth more. 2. If you look at batsmen who have had long careers, they have been roughly the same players at the start of their careers as at their end (of course within reasonable parameters and considering factors like picking up the game, declining at the end of their careers etc.) Hammond had a playing career of 20 years(1920s to 1940s) and was roughly the same batsman throughout. Hutton's career overlapped with him(1930s to 1950s) and played at around the same level throughout. Sobers was Hutton's contemporary for a while(1950s to 1970s) and Gavaskar's career(1970s to 1980s) overlapped with Sobers. During all these years if there was a significant opportunity of run scoring becoming radically easier or difficult, it would have reflected in the games and averages of these great players. Yes, there have been periods when the bowling attacks around the world have been better, which has resulted in the number of 50+ batsmen varying, but these variations have still all been within roughly the same limits. If for example, there was any major change in the value of a run in 1960, it would have reflected in the average of someone like Sobers and would have been equally applicable to his contemporaries.

[zen]

ohh really. Explain 3 slips and a gully when DGB is batting on 100* It most certainly is right. Exactly. And you would have said MoYo was the best well atleast next only to DGB. But we know this isnt true. Yes I know. These teams are not as weak as the teams that DGB played against. No one in the right mind will say Pakistani bowling and WI bowling are pushovers. NZ in NZ are always competitive. PS: And I can also type : "Game over for rett"

Is that how you hope to stay in the game :giggle: So what I gather from is that Tendulkar (or any of his peers) has to be in the best of his form (doesn't matter what form Bradman was in), play against the weakest of teams to do as good as Bradman. That itself shows how good Bradman was if Tendulkar can only match Bradman in that type of an environment :winky: I don't know what point are you trying to make about MoYo, as if only those 5 teams played againt each other, it would mean that the likes of Sachin and other teams, don't exist! And if the other teams and Sachin exists the criteria changes. But your point is that Sachin will avg 100 easily if he gets to play against weaker teams, something he doesn't. I don't think he even avgs 100 in Ranji trophy! Game's over for you bossbhai, you are only coming here to get one more nail thrashed in to your web of meaningless stats (the coffin). May be you would have better luck showing Tendulkar (and his peers) are greater than Sir Viv Richards :P

[varun]

http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=214457

Yaar why can't you ever have a balanced view of things. Every argument has an agenda. I read that OP. You have a preconceived idea that u want to prove by asking those questions. That is not what i asked

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Just curious' date=' if batting got difficult with time why does Jack Hobbs(who was considered greatest before DGB arrived-correct me if i am wrong) average far less than Bradman?[/quote'] Prior to World War I, pitches were terrible. It was only after 1920, that pitch preparation changed. And you can clearly see the result of that : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1919;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=01+Jan+1920;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate Almost a difference of 10 runs in the batting/bowling averages. Trumper, Armstrong, and Woolley were amongst his contemporary greats and had averages around the 40 mark or so, while Hobbs was comfortably in the 50s.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[varun]

^^ fair enough.. I didn't realise u were presenting one side. Could be an interesting exercise for u to present arguments for the other side as well :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[varun]

A cricket run has remained roughly the same over the last 90 years. All the above factors you've listed are valid and more can be added to the list, but they've evened out, more or less. You can look at it in different ways : 1. Prior to World War I, pitches were prepared differently and a cricket run was definitely worth more then, than Post World War I. If you check the batting/bowling average prior to World War I, it would be roughly around the 20 mark. Post World War I, it has remained more or less around the 30 mark (though over the last 5 years it has gone up to 35). The top batsmen post 1920, have had batting averages around the 50-60 mark. The bowlers around the 20-25 mark. Prior to 1920, the top batsmen of the time averaged around 40 with the top bowlers around the 10-15 mark. So quite clearly a run made prior to 1920 was worth more.

Agreed.

2. If you look at batsmen who have had long careers, they have been roughly the same players at the start of their careers as at their end (of course within reasonable parameters and considering factors like picking up the game, declining at the end of their careers etc.) Hammond had a playing career of 20 years(1920s to 1940s) and was roughly the same batsman throughout. Hutton's career overlapped with him(1930s to 1950s) and played at around the same level throughout. Sobers was Hutton's contemporary for a while(1950s to 1970s) and Gavaskar's career(1970s to 1980s) overlapped with Sobers. During all these years if there was a significant opportunity of run scoring becoming radically easier or difficult, it would have reflected in the games and averages of these great players. Yes, there have been periods when the bowling attacks around the world have been better, which has resulted in the number of 50+ batsmen varying, but these variations have still all been within roughly the same limits. If for example, there was any major change in the value of a run in 1960, it would have reflected in the average of someone like Sobers and would have been equally applicable to his contemporaries.

Hard to disagree with your points really if you just look at numbers. Someone said numbers don't lie, but of course everyone can have their nuanced subjective view about the game wherein all these arguments that I mentioned come in.

[varun]

Outsider has done that in that gigantic thread IIRC. I have dealt with them time and again. The chief excuses are : 1. Uncovered Pitches. ( stats dont agree ) 2. Bodyline ( was around for a grand total of one series of which DGB missed one test and the pitches in 2 others werent conducive for the kind of pace that Larwood and Co had. ) 3. Better Bowlers ( :D ) 4. Protective gear.

Wasn't asking you to "deal with them". Put yourself in the shoes of an aussie from say the 1970's and if you were to sincerely defend Bradman being the greatest, what points would you put across ? The reason I'm saying this is, that you are a very good debater, and if you pick a side, you can make very compelling arguments for it. So lets see if you can convince KT or someone to believe that Bradman was indeed the greatest

[King Tendulkar]

Wasn't asking you to "deal with them". Put yourself in the shoes of an aussie from say the 1970's and if you were to sincerely defend Bradman being the greatest, what points would you put across ? The reason I'm saying this is, that you are a very good debater, and if you pick a side, you can make very compelling arguments for it. So lets see if you can convince KT or someone to believe that Bradman was indeed the greatest

I am sorry i live in real world and deal with blunt reality. Not in to teary eyed romantic stories of a bygone age. Sport is survival of the fittest and the best. No chance a player 80 years ago can even begin to be compared to modern day players.

[The Outsider]

Hard to disagree with your points really if you just look at numbers. Someone said numbers don't lie, but of course everyone can have their nuanced subjective view about the game wherein all these arguments that I mentioned come in.

True and all those points have some validity, either way. The interesting aspect to note though, is that all top batsmen have lived through these gradual changes and adapted their games either side of that change to maintain roughly the same level of performance. When reverse swing or doosra were introduced in the game, there were batsmen who struggled initially. But gradually, at least the top batsmen were able to counter these things. Reverse swing did not cause Tendulkar's or Lara's average to plummet by 10 points. Similar to the case when protective gear became popular in cricket. It did not result in the top batsmen suddenly starting to average 10 points more. Bowlers were able to reinvent their strategies to keep the balance between bat and ball at roughly the same level. Putting someone in a time travel portal from 1930s to today or the reverse is a different situation and something which does not make too much sense. Would a batsman from 1930s be able to adapt to all these changes in a matter of a few innings or vice versa? Probably not. But history has shown us that the great players, batsmen or bowlers, have been able to adapt to gradual rule changes and maintain roughly the same level of performances. There have not been any major spikes or dips either side of a rule and condition change over the last 90 years. Perhaps, it would be easier to identify with the ODI game, as a lot of us have seen it change radically in our lifetimes, with many rule changes. However, the theme has remained the same. Great ODI players have been able to adapt to these rule changes to retain their performances and greatness. Take the example of Haynes. In his first 119 ODIs he averaged 40.9 with a strike rate of 61. In his last 119 ODIs, he averaged 41.8 with a strike rate of 65 as the game gradually became quicker and higher scoring. Or Azharuddin, who averaged 35.6 at a strike rate of 73 in his first 167 ODIs and 38.0 with a strike rate of 75 in his last 167 ODIs. Not any major differences but trending towards how the game evolved. You would find that to be the case with all great ODI cricketers - adaptation to the changing game. There are certain cricketers who are product of the times as well. For example, Symonds. His game is so reliant on power and bat construction that he would not be able to succeed with the kind of bats used even 30 years back with all his brute strength and larger boundaries. But the true greats of the game have shown remarkable adaptability to maintain their performances across changing conditions and rules, because they have a complete game to fall back upon rather than one or two aspects.

[King Tendulkar]

Putting someone in a time travel portal from 1930s to today or the reverse is a different situation and something which does not make too much sense. Would a batsman from 1930s be able to adapt to all these changes in a matter of a few innings? Probably not. But history has shown us that the great players' date= batsmen or bowlers, have been able to adapt to gradual rule changes and maintain roughly the same level of performances. There have not been any major spikes or dips either side of a rule and condition change over the last 90 years.

So how long do you think it would take Lohmann to adapt from 120 years ago to modern cricket? A week or longer?

[varun]

I am sorry i live in real world and deal with blunt reality. Not in to teary eyed romantic stories of a bygone age. Sport is survival of the fittest and the best. No chance a player 80 years ago can even begin to be compared to modern day players.

Question is, would you say that exact same thing if you were a 70 year old Aussie ? Everyone is convinced of them living in the "real world", but their perception of the world is always different.

[King Tendulkar]

Question is, would you say that exact same thing if you were a 70 year old Aussie ? Everyone is convinced of them living in the "real world", but their perception of the world is always different.

Even a 70 year old will appreciate how the world has changed and how faster, quicker, more competitive and intense cricket/sport is now! Some old timers of course will have nostalgia for the old days and remeber the greats from their era. That does not mean Bradman/Hobbs could compete with a tendulkar or sehwag from 2010, despite what a 70 year old aussie says

[ZodiaC]

So how long do you think it would take Lohmann to adapt from 120 years ago to modern cricket? A week or longer?

Lohmann's sample size is too small bhai. Not that I agree with all the Bradman fanatics, but the analogy is not apt here me thinks.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Lohmann's sample size is too small bhai. Not that I agree with all the Bradman fanatics' date=' but the analogy is not apt here me thinks.[/quote'] Lohmann played for 10 years. A full decade of cricket. Its not his fault they did not play as much cricket, horses are slower then cars and boats were not as quick then. Could not get to grounds as quick or to down under. A decade of cricket is not big enough sample size? Thats not fair on the players from 120 years ago, that they are discarded cos of small sample size, they did not play as much, not Lohmaans fault. I mean Bradman only played against one proper cricket team in England. The other were awful then and he only toured one country England. Surely that sample size of competition is far to small. Look at modern players and the different tems they play, diferent countries toured and pitches they encounter. Bradmans sample size is to small.