Clarke Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 mashallah, gr8 work prof. How about this as an article :haha:
Bumper Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 Shwetabh, Did you see that Jack Hobbs cover drive clip on youtube ? After seeing that do you think cricket as a sport is comparable between 'that' era and now ? Honestly that type of stroke would be shameful even for a tail ender featuring in cartoon cricket today. It is really a waste of time trying to compare players across eras. There is simply no basis for these comparisons. Believing that the Don would continue his dominance of his times even in this era is akin to believing that Hitler would have continued to rule the roost even in this era of nukes - not a chance. How many competitive sports can you think of, where a player who played the sport some 70 years ago is deemed the greatest ever ? In almost all sports, modern day sportsmen are considered the best ever. Cricket is no exception.
yoda Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 How many competitive sports can you think of, where a player who played the sport some 70 years ago is deemed the greatest ever ? In almost all sports, modern day sportsmen are considered the best ever. Cricket is no exception. That's not true. Even today, modern players break old timer's records and are then heralded as better. Some examples are Sampras crossing Roy Emerson's grand slam mark, Barry Bonds and co. crossing Babe Ruth's home record, Tiger (still) chasing Jack Nicklaus, etc. You obviously expect standards to keep improving, that doesn't mean old records are to be discarded as we please.
Bumper Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 That's not true. Even today, modern players break old timer's records and are then heralded as better. Some examples are Sampras crossing Roy Emerson's grand slam mark, Barry Bonds and co. crossing Babe Ruth's home record, Tiger (still) chasing Jack Nicklaus, etc. You obviously expect standards to keep improving, that doesn't mean old records are to be discarded as we please. Bjarne Borg won what 4 grand slams in a year ? Federer never did that, Nadal never did that. So shouldn't Borg be the greatest ever player ? He clearly dominated his peers! Why do people name Federer and Sampras ahead of Borg when asked to nominate their greatest player ever ?
fineleg Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 Bumps, Don - if he was playing today - will be playing with today's technique, coaching etc. So, we cant say for sure he'd be a laggard if he lived in current times?
yoda Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 Bjarne Borg won what 4 grand slams in a year ? Federer never did that' date=' Nadal never did that. So shouldn't Borg be the greatest ever player ? He clearly dominated his peers! Why do people name Federer and Sampras ahead of Borg when asked to nominate their greatest player ever ?[/quote'] Where are you getting your stats from? Borg never won the US open or the Aussie open. You are probably referring to oldie Rod Laver who won all 4 slams in a year. Yes, he was considered great along with others like Roy Emerson who had the slam record for a while. BTW, I wasn't responding to the peer question. I am sure we can continue that route with other examples. You mentioned that oldies' (Borg is not an oldie ofc) game is far behind when compared to the modern game and hence their stats are essentially useless and you even claimed that is the case in other sport and I have you a good number of examples to show that is not the case. Federer and Sampras are on the top of the list in Tennis cause of their record number of slam wins which is the measure of greatness in Tennis. Sampras breaking Roy Emerson's slam record was considered his greatest achievement, although Federer broke it soon after. The yardstick is different in each sport. In NBA MJ wins it hands down due to his winning 10 scoring titles and 6 rings. In test cricket it always been the batting average and bowling average ofc taking into account other factors like quality of bowling, min number of games played etc. Peer business keeps coming up in cricket only because Bradman was so far ahead of his peers. Would be good to see other examples of old timers being waaay ahead of their peers and still considered as cr@p cause they played a loong time ago.
fineleg Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 The guy was a peerless legend of the game, and you come and say that he may not have technique to face a 90k bowler. If Gambhir can play those bowlers, I'm quite sure Don can play them. Whether he would have gone on to surpass everyone as the best in this era, this is the thing - neither you nor I can conclusively prove this, since thats the difficulty with comparing across eras.
King Tendulkar Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 If Hammond's cover drive was as smooth as his compatriot Hobbs' then I'd put Rameez ahead. With a heavy heart. Thats the brutal reality I am afraid. Sorry to burst the bubble of the romantic nostalgists. A player from 70 to 80 years ago would not make amateaur club side 1st elevens, let alone first class cricket teams.
King Tendulkar Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 I am sure if I played in 30s I would average in high 70s!:--D p.s I truly truly believe this. Seen other footage of Hobbs and I am miles better then him!
Asim Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 yeah no doubt Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond EXACTLY like Agarkar was better than Akram...
Sachinism Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 what technology helps a batsman to get bat on ball to a accurate express bowler bowling upwards of 90MPH ( never mind reverse swinging it) ? You either have the skills in you or you dont. So how do you know DGB had these skills when he never faced any such bowlers ? and in b4 the kiddies come back with innuendo and smilies in-lieu of facts and reasoning. ( Or simply vanish like you most certainly will ... now that you have thrown your stones ). This is where I disagree with you. Bradman was obviously talented as he pwned all players in his era, so why do not believe if he had the same coaching the players get in the modern era that he wouldn't have excelled? You say you either have it or you don't, but its pretty obvious he did have it.
Sachinism Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 At the end of the day what does it matter. I didn't see Bradman, he has a great record, thats good for him. I've seen Tendulkar, he's the reason I started watching cricket, the reason why I love cricket. He's the most perfect batsman I have ever seen and thats all that matters
fineleg Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 This is where I disagree with you. Bradman was obviously talented as he pwned all players in his era' date= so why do not believe if he had the same coaching the players get in the modern era that he wouldn't have excelled? You say you either have it or you don't, but its pretty obvious he did have it. Exactly - I am amazed Boss Bhai is not accepting that.
zen Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 blatantly biased views on full display. I guess even the sweat drops dripping from the forehead would be saying Ten is the greatest :giggle:
zen Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 My neighbours kid pwns all comers in his school competitions .... shall I go ahead and assume that he will pwn international players based on that ? Just because the matches in the 30s were considered to be "Test Matches" doesnt mean they had same level of standards as todays Test Matches. We know there has been a dramatic increase in fast bowling standards( and spin bowling and fielding and tactics etc etc ) since the 30s if you believe otherwise and refuse to acknowledge progress has been made in search of higher levels of standards ... then DGB is your man. If you acknowledge standards better then you simply cant assume that DGB would adapt and continue to pwn at the rate of 99.94. Exhibit A - Bodyline series. Avg=56. End of story. Point number 13 :hysterical:
Sachinism Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 My neighbours kid pwns all comers in his school competitions .... shall I go ahead and assume that he will pwn international players based on that ? Just because the matches in the 30s were considered to be "Test Matches" doesnt mean they had same level of standards as todays Test Matches. We know there has been a dramatic increase in fast bowling standards( and spin bowling and fielding and tactics etc etc ) since the 30s if you believe otherwise and refuse to acknowledge progress has been made in search of higher levels of standards ... then DGB is your man. If you acknowledge standards better then you simply cant assume that DGB would adapt and continue to pwn at the rate of 99.94. Exhibit A - Bodyline series. Avg=56. End of story. Agree with that. And I accept if he was brought over in a time machine, he would struggle to average 50. But I believe he was very talented and if he was born in this era he would still have a been a class player. Better than Tendulkar? ...hmmm Thats the thing with these debates, nobody is willing to accept any part of the opposition's arguments, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Seems pointless to go on
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now