Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond

[zen]

On the same token' date=' Hammond must be greater than Tendulkar, Lara, Gavaskar and Viv Richards.[/quote'] In the context of this thread, the opposite is likely to be true :winky: .... In reality, I won't be surprised if they are in the same league

[teacup]

In the context of this thread' date=' the opposite is likely to be true :winky: .... In reality, I won't be surprised if they are in the same league[/quote'] Really! How is that possible? Hammond averages close to 59 and Gavaskar and Richards are a lowly 51?

[zen]

Really! How is that possible? Hammond averages close to 59 and Gavaskar and Richards are a lowly 51?

Depends up on what you consider as the league :winky: Considering the challenges of different eras, many would club them in to those averaging 50-65 in to one league. (and there is bound to be some over lapping too). And how members of a league rank in a particular league is a different debate. For example, Sachin and Lara are in the same league but how would you rate Sachin and Lara in that league is a different debate

[teacup]

Depends up on what you consider as the league :winky: Considering the challenges of different eras, many would club them in to those averaging 50-65 in to one league. (and there is bound to be some over lapping too). And how members of a league rank in a particular league is a different debate. For example, Sachin and Lara are in the same league but how would you rate Sachin and Lara in that league is a different debate

So if I understand your statement correctly, a batsman who had played in the '30s averaging 65 = an avg of 50 in the modern era? By "challenges of different eras", do you mean better bowling, better fielding, playing in more than 2 countries or a combination of all these factors, I suppose?

[zen]

So if I understand your statement correctly' date=' a batsman who had played in the '30s averaging 65 = an avg of 50 in the modern era? By "challenges of different eras", do you mean better bowling, better fielding, playing in more than 2 countries or a combination of all these factors, I suppose?[/quote'] Nope, that's not what I literally meant. Let me expand on that: according to me, speaking on a general basis, I would consider players averaging 50-65 in one league, esp when talking about batsmen across the history. This also implies that someone averaging 65 in this era could be comparable to someone averaging 50 in the other era and visa versa. Whether they are literally equal is another issue and depends up on a lot of factors (which is another debate) The idea of this thread is not about making fun of the points listed but the use those points to compare and show who is better amongst players of different leagues because when comparing players of different leagues such points become irrelevant Based on these points, just like you can't say that Rameez (avg 30) is better than Hammond (avg 60), you can't say someone (tendulkar/lara/gavaskar/richards/sobers) avg (50s) is better than somene like Bradman (avg 100) as that's comparing players of different leagues. And saying that many of those points are irrelevant when comparing players of different league does not mean that they become irrelavant when comparing players of the same league I hope things are clear.

[teacup]

Nope, that's not what I literally meant. Let me expand on that: according to me, speaking on a general basis, I would consider players averaging 50-65 in one league, esp when talking about batsmen across the history. This also implies that someone averaging 65 in this era could be comparable to someone averaging 50 in the other era and visa versa. Whether they are literally equal is another issue and depends up on a lot of factors (which is another debate) The idea of this thread is not about making fun of the points listed but the use those points to compare and show who is better amongst players of different leagues because when comparing players of different leagues such points become irrelevant Based on these points, just like you can't say that Rameez (avg 30) is better than Hammond (avg 60), you can't say someone (tendulkar/lara/gavaskar/richards/sobers) avg (50s) is better than somene like Bradman (avg 100) as that's comparing players of different leagues. And saying that many of those points are irrelevant when comparing players of different league does not mean that they become irrelavant when comparing players of the same league I hope things are clear.

How would you explain the fact that in a list of batsmen having the highest career avgs, 4 out of the top 5 are from Bradman's era and all of the top 12 batsmen had played their cricket before ODIs (and with it better fielding and restrictive field placings) came into the picture? Highest career batting average Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 DG Bradman (Aus)1928-1948 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94 29 13 7 RG Pollock (SA) 1963-1970 23 41 4 2256 274 60.97 7 11 1 GA Headley (WI) 1930-1954 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 10 5 2 H Sutcliffe (Eng) 1924-1935 54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 16 23 2 E Paynter (Eng) 1931-1939 20 31 5 1540 243 59.23 4 7 3 KF Barrington (Eng)1955-1968 82 131 15 6806 256 58.67 20 35 5 ED Weekes (WI) 1948-1958 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61 15 19 6 WR Hammond (Eng) 1927-1947 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45 22 24 4 GS Sobers (WI) 1954-1974 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 26 30 12 JB Hobbs (Eng) 1908-1930 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 15 28 4 CL Walcott (WI) 1948-1960 44 74 7 3798 220 56.68 15 14 1 L Hutton (Eng) 1937-1955 79 138 15 6971 364 56.67 19 33 5 Well, statistics like the one above don't lie. What they tell you, if you are willing to listen, is that batting during Bradman's time was the most productive for a good batsman and batting after 1975 has been the least productive for good batsmen.

[vvvslaxman]

That means top 10 bowlers must be from post 1975 era. well. They are not even in top 15 !!!

[teacup]

That means top 10 bowlers must be from post 1975 era. well. They are not even in top 15 !!!

Err...no. The quality of the lower order batsmen has improved over the years and that would impact the bowling averages.

[vvvslaxman]

Err...no. The quality of the lower order batsmen has improved over the years and that would impact the bowling averages.

If your "top" order is good enough why do you need "lower order" :--D . So you admit modern batsmen require the services of Harbhajans, Gillespies..

[zen]

How would you explain the fact that in a list of batsmen having the highest career avgs, 4 out of the top 5 are from Bradman's era and all of the top 12 batsmen had played their cricket before ODIs (and with it better fielding and restrictive field placings) came into the picture? Highest career batting average Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 DG Bradman (Aus)1928-1948 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94 29 13 7 RG Pollock (SA) 1963-1970 23 41 4 2256 274 60.97 7 11 1 GA Headley (WI) 1930-1954 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 10 5 2 H Sutcliffe (Eng) 1924-1935 54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 16 23 2 E Paynter (Eng) 1931-1939 20 31 5 1540 243 59.23 4 7 3 KF Barrington (Eng)1955-1968 82 131 15 6806 256 58.67 20 35 5 ED Weekes (WI) 1948-1958 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61 15 19 6 WR Hammond (Eng) 1927-1947 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45 22 24 4 GS Sobers (WI) 1954-1974 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 26 30 12 JB Hobbs (Eng) 1908-1930 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 15 28 4 CL Walcott (WI) 1948-1960 44 74 7 3798 220 56.68 15 14 1 L Hutton (Eng) 1937-1955 79 138 15 6971 364 56.67 19 33 5 Well, statistics like the one above don't lie. What they tell you, if you are willing to listen, is that batting during Bradman's time was the most productive for a good batsman and batting after 1975 has been the least productive for good batsmen.

There is nothing to explain as the range that I gave in my earlier post is self-explainatory :winky: To liiustrate, below is a sample list of top batsmen of different era: 30s-50s Bradman - Avg 100 Compton, Hammond, Headley - Avg 60s 70s-90s Gavaskar, Richards, Chappell, Sobers - Avg 50s 90s-10 Tendulkar, Lara - Avg 50s So if I am creating groups: Grp A: Bradman Grp B: Compton, Hammond, Headley, Gavaskar, Richards, Chappell, Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, .... For Grp A vs Grp B, those point don't count as despite everything considered (pros and cons of each era), Bradman is still ahead For X from Grp B vs Y from Grp B, you could considier many of those factors when rating these guys with in Grp B, so you can say for example that even though Headley averages 65, he is in the same league of Lara (avg 50s) or Richards (Avg 50s). By the same account, even though Gavaskar who has done the best against arguably the best bowling attack of all time is still in the same league as say Tendulkar who has benefitted from playing in 2000s

[Sir john]

never seen him playing cricket,so no idea

[vvvslaxman]

never seen him playing cricket' date='so no idea[/quote'] He was a dasher. In one dayers Pakistan used his power-hitting ability to full effect.

[teacup]

There is nothing to explain as the range that I gave in my earlier post is self-explainatory :winky: To liiustrate, below is a sample list of top batsmen of different era: 30s-50s Bradman - Avg 100 Compton, Hammond, Headley - Avg 60s 70s-90s Gavaskar, Richards, Chappell, Sobers - Avg 50s 90s-10 Tendulkar, Lara - Avg 50s So if I am creating groups: Grp A: Bradman Grp B: Compton, Hammond, Headley, Gavaskar, Richards, Chappell, Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, .... For Grp A vs Grp B, those point don't count as despite everything considered (pros and cons of each era), Bradman is still ahead For X from Grp B vs Y from Grp B, you could considier many of those factors when rating these guys with in Grp B, so you can say for example that even though Headley averages 65, he is in the same league of Lara (avg 50s) or Richards (Avg 50s). By the same account, even though Gavaskar who has done the best against arguably the best bowling attack of all time is still in the same league as say Tendulkar who has benefitted from playing in 2000s

The point about the 30's being the most productive for good batsmen is only one part of the argument when comparing Bradman and Tendulkar. I hope you don't have any doubts on that fact anymore. Another part is the role coaching and coaching facilities play in the modern era in evening out the field for the "merely" great vs genius. It is much more difficult for a self-taught genius to outperform the very good batsman in this day and age when coaching techniques and practice facilities are so good that everything a genius batsman learns by himself is taught and incorporated in the very good batsman. Still, in the 90's, of the three batsmen who averaged over 50 Tendulkar was ahead by more than 6 runs and the next best batsman was Lara who is a genius himself. This is not to indicate that Tendulkar is the greatest of all time as some including Nasser Hussain have said recently but it has come to a stage when comparisons can be made with The Don.

[zen]

The point about the 30's being the most productive for good batsmen is only one part of the argument when comparing Bradman and Tendulkar. I hope you don't have any doubts on that fact anymore. Another part is the role coaching and coaching facilities play in the modern era in evening out the field for the "merely" great vs genius. It is much more difficult for a self-taught genius to outperform the very good batsman in this day and age when coaching techniques and practice facilities are so good that everything a genius batsman learns by himself is taught and incorporated in the very good batsman. Still' date=' in the 90's, of the three batsmen who averaged over 50 Tendulkar was ahead by more than 6 runs and the next best batsman was Lara who is a genius himself. This is not to indicate that Tendulkar is the greatest of all time as some including Nasser Hussain have said recently but it has come to a stage when comparisons can be made with The Don.[/quote'] I said in one of the threads that it's credit to Sachin that he has been able to bring out such comparisions with Don, just like it's credit to Sehwag that he has been able to bring out a comparision with Tendulkar But the fact is that Don is in the league of his own. Unless someone is good enough to average at least 20 runs above the next best guy(s) in his era, any such comparisions with Don are pointless

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chalks]

Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Richard Hammond

Fixed. :P But the Hamster is a far better tv presenter than Pameez.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

:banghead: I dont understand how many times (and how many different ways) this has to be told to the Bradman bhakts that .... there was hardly any competition to him. Cricket was not even a professional sport back then which is illustrated by the fact that even guys in mid 40s would play Test Cricket. They would often opt out of overseas tours as they couldnt afford to be away from their day jobs/business and families. DGB himself had to move to Adelaide for a job as a stock broker and was lucky that the company allowed him time off to play. And if that wasnt enough ... there was really only one other major team that played the sport in those days.

I am more for a Sachin fan than Don's And how many times do people have to tell you that in the same environment no one else could be in his league. What you said might be considered if either others were averaging close to Don (near 100) or Don was averaging close to others (in 60s) Besides that Don made a huge impact in the games that he played in and he did that in almost every game. Which is something no one is able to do at that level which is why there isn't any competition to him There was an incidence when the great WI team was visiting Australia. Don went to see the players in the dressing room. A WI player asked how much would he average against this side? Don said probably 75-80. The WI player asked so do you think we are that good that you can only average 75-80 against us. To which Don replied 'Don't forget how old I am now.' That sums up the spirit of Don And this is what Tendulkar himself said:

MUMBAI: Cricketer Sachin Tendulkar on Tuesday said statements elevating him to the top of the world’s all-time cricket greats was a bit off the mark. In a press conference in Mumbai, Sachin said that despite his achievements, Sir Don Bradman remains the best batsman in the annals of world cricket. Among those who paid him compliments was former England captain Nasir Hussain, who was quoted to have said that Sachin was greater than Bradman. Sachin said he disagreed. “Even though the records in test cricket and one day matches stands in my name, still I cannot definitely be compared with the great Sir Don Bradman,” he said. “The period during the time when Sir Bradman batted against world famous bowlers at that time was different and indeed very remarkable. No doubt he was a great cricketer. In present time test and one day matches are played in large numbers and therefore runs are being scored in plenty. During the time of Sir Bradman, the frequency of test matches was limited, and hence the records he created in those times, were bigger than mine,” he added.

PS link

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Read my previous post (again) .. for why DBG could do it. Read my million other posts on how SRT has also avged very high against popgun bowling attacks.

Your posts have been answered a million times and this thread is a take on your points too and still if you don't get it then you are free to live in your delusional world :hysterical:

And this is what DBG himself said about SRT This guy bats just like me .....

^ Nah, he said that Sachin is someone nearest to him in the modern era. And even Sachin said that Sehwag is nearest to him so .... link :orderorder: