Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond

[vvvslaxman]

Because there is no such thing as lollypop bowling these days ... even the freakin BD team has a bowler or two bowling over 140Ks ...

All i can do is :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Mohammad Sami will need a minute for rebuttal. There are tons of trashy bowling available these days. On top of that look at the pancakes on which they play. No turn, no bounce, nada, zip. Look at the grounds in New zealand lol. They are like over-sized car garage.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[gloryof83]

Because there is no such thing as lollypop bowling these days ... even the freakin BD team has a bowler or two bowling over 140Ks ...

speed is not be all and end all... speed does not matter, you need to know how to use it

[teacup]

: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.

Let it go, BossBhai. You cannot wake up a person who pretends to sleep. People who don't understand that being an undisputed champion in an amateur era is not the same as being a champion in a professional and highly developed era are not worth the time. Almost everyone now believes Federer is the greatest of all time despite not winning a calendar grandslam even once whereas Rod Laver had done it twice in the amateur era but that would fall on deaf ears as well.

[zen]

Let it go' date=' BossBhai. You cannot wake up a person who pretends to sleep. People who don't understand that being an undisputed champion in an amateur era is not the same as being a champion in a professional and highly developed era are not worth the time. Almost everyone now believes Federer is the greatest of all time despite not winning a calendar grandslam even once whereas Rod Laver had done it twice in the amateur era but that would fall on deaf ears as well.[/quote'] So if Don's avg of 100 is not worth what it is then i presume Hammond/Headleys/Compton/etc (who played in Don's era) averages are not worth what they are too, correct? So if that's the case then Rameez Raja (A30, half the average of Hammond) would be comparable to Hammond (A60), isn't it?

[teacup]

So if Don's avg of 100 is not worth what it is then i presume Hammond/Headleys/Compton/etc (who played in Don's era) averages are not worth what they are too' date=' correct? So if that's the case then Rameez Raja (A30, half the average of Hammond) would be comparable to Hammond (A60), isn't it?[/quote'] :hysterical: I guess someone forgot to tell you that this is not a mathematical problem we are tying to solve here.

[vvvslaxman]

as opposed to the 40 yr phasht baller :hysterical:

SO younger the bowler is better the bowling.. i get it :winky: Great logic there. Just put Tendulkar in that era.. without all these professional coaching, heavy bats. chances are he may never have played cricket :hysterical: .

[zen]

:hysterical: I guess someone forgot to tell you that this is not a mathematical problem we are tying to solve here.

Someone would have if it were a math problem :winky:

[The Outsider]

It's a travesty that Hammond has been chosen over Rameez Raja by these so called 'experts' in an all time World XI. They have no understanding of the points in the OP. :((

[dr_tooley]

1. Hammond did not face too many, if any, sub 25 averaging bowlers. Rameez Raja faced the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Bishop, Kapil, McGrath etc. etc. etc etc etc Wally Hammond was 12th Man in Don Bradman's all time XI. I guess he must never have seen Sir Rameez Bat?:haha::haha::haha::haha:

[The Outsider]

Actually, the OP is missing one more point which I learned about recently. The sledging that Hammond faced was nothing compared to what Rameez had to endure during his playing days. Huge factor in determining averages and difficulty of conditions.

[ravishingravi]

:hysterical::hysterical: Needless to say I concur.

[CSK Fan]

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) PS link

You still don't the point do you? It was a handful of part-timers playing in those days and one of them was more talented than the others. So all this talk that he was better than his peers count for nothing. Today the competition for the top spots in the top team is unlike any other era so its more likely that the top averages will be very close.

[zen]

You still don't the point do you? It was a handful of part-timers playing in those days and one of them was more talented than the others. So all this talk that he was better than his peers count for nothing. Today the competition for the top spots in the top team is unlike any other era so its more likely that the top averages will be very close.

Really?! :giggle: Why don't you try to explain that to the ex-captains who just chose the AT world X1 and has included players from the past like Hobbs, Hutton, Don from the top of memory. And the averages of top batsmen has hovered around 50-60 mark throughout the history of the game. That was the case in 1930-1950 too:

Talking about different eras, if there were no Bradman, the top averages in that era would have been similar to what they are now, i.e. 50-60 mark. 1930-1950: Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe, Compton, Hutton 1950-1970: Sobers, Barrington, Pollock, Weekes, Walcott 1970-1990: Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Miandad, Border 1990-2010: Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Sehwag

It doesn't matter if 10 players avg in 50-60 or 5 players avg in 50-60, the quality shown by Bradman's peers is good enough to take things in to perspective :winky:

[The Outsider]

You still don't the point do you? It was a handful of part-timers playing in those days and one of them was more talented than the others. So all this talk that he was better than his peers count for nothing. Today the competition for the top spots in the top team is unlike any other era so its more likely that the top averages will be very close.

Exactly what I was saying in the OP. Rameez Raja is better than Hammond because Hammond just thrashed around a bunch of part timers.

[thongale]

this is ****ing brilliant.

[maniac]

Epic thread:hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

Actually, the OP is missing one more point which I learned about recently. The sledging that Hammond faced was nothing compared to what Rameez had to endure during his playing days. Huge factor in determining averages and difficulty of conditions.

Good to see point #12 added, bossbhai's most lethal argument :--D

[fineleg]

Rameez Raja :haha: Was Rameez better than Mohsin Khan or Mudassar Nazar?