Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond

[zen]

Why do you even need so many points when a bunch of smilies will work just fine ?

Are you implying that your points are as good as a bunch of smileys? Now that's an honest self assessment :giggle:

[CSK Fan]

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.

Or Maybe he pwned all players from his era because most players in his era were a bunch of part timers and so not very talented? Isnt that a possibilty?

[rkt.india]

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.

This is the point i have in my mind too.. i watch a few video of Bradman and other batsman of that era(30s-50s)...their batting doesn't look convincing...some look like today's Jason Gillespi and Ashish Nehra... I think the game has improved a lot and players' skills as well....look at Mendis...IN first few games, batsman were clueless against him but look where he is now...Batsman have found him out...same thing happened with Yusuf Pathan...he hits only full deliveries from pacers and now they dnt feed full deliveries to him....you cant say what could have happened if Don has played today and if Mendis would have played in that era..imagine how many wickets he could take against Aussies and England batsman who have been known dancers against the quality spinners... But Bradman has a huge lead against his contemporaries...so he might have still been a great player like SRT, Sehwag, Lara, Dravid, Yusuf, Punter, Haydos, Kallis in this era......but I do not think he could have been the Unanimous greatest ever if he plays today...and his closest contemporaries would have certainly been count as Mike Atherton, Nasser Hussain, Damien Martin, Graham thorpe, David gower, or even Cook and Strauss of modern days

[Sachinism]

Or Maybe he pwned all players from his era because most players in his era were a bunch of part timers and so not very talented? Isnt that a possibilty?

Absolutely, but they weren't as pathetic as people are saying. Coming back to they either have it or they don't, you can he how skilled he was to have dominated his peers, so what's to say if he was born in this era that he wouldn't have whooped ass? The guy used to practice by hitting a golf ball with a stump on a curved wall. That takes skill

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

But Bradman has a huge lead against his contemporaries...so he might have still been a great player like SRT' date=' Sehwag, Lara, Dravid, Yusuf, Punter, Haydos, Kallis in this era......but I do not think he could have been the Unanimous greatest ever if he plays today...[/quote'] I think that sums up what most of us are saying

[zen]

What Iam implying is that you are good at smilie spamming. It is pretty easy to figure out when you have been PWNED in a debate given that you just dont have the honesty to acknowedge that you may have been wrong. Throwing insults innuendo and a bunch of smilies is as mature as a bunch of teenagers obsessing on pimples. If you cannot stand being proven wrong in debate why do you even get into debates ? Why not simply troll away . Its not like the Sher-E-Forum has a fatwa against trolling. He will bleddy join you. And to answer your question : Its not what I think about my points ... its that you consider smilies as points in themselves is what Iam talking about. Just post a dozen different smilies and do some back slapping with your comrades. Bravo .

haha, in your world, I guess everyone who thinks ten is not the greatest is pawned. Too bad that those ex-captains, who picked the world X1 don't even realize that they have been pawned. :giggle: :hatsoff: to you for your ability to pawn others. What's interesting is that others don't even realize that I also understand why you rate being sledged so highly, i slightly stepped on your tail and you howl :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Yeah Iam sure you will find Denis Lillee's inclusion very logical given what his opinion was about Asia ( do you even know this ? ) Is that why you are spamming away with the smilies ?

well, i don't see sledging as a determining factor but it's good to see that you are trying hard to stay in the game but as usual w/o much success :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

The determining factor here is your level of understanding (and nothing else)because no where did I say sledging as a "determining factor" nor do you have the moral fortitude to show my post to that effect. I merely stated that there existed no sledging in those days. If you want to contend that Iam wrong provide some sort of article that validates your claim instead of throwing around a bunch of smilies like school girls. ( see I can throw around insults too ).

here :--D

[Clarke]

Rocky 6 all over again, oldie vs newbie to find out who's the best of all time. Except this time, the difference is a grand 65 yrs. SIXTY FIVE YRS!!! :facepalm:

[King Tendulkar]

What about WG Grace?? Everyone keeps discrediting lohmann saying easy to bowl then, well WG grace batted in that era and was best batter. WG Grace is better then Bradman imo

[King Tendulkar]

Ranjitsinghji you freaking legend. He played during the 1890s when all on this baord claim easy to bowl as per Lohmanns average of 10. Well he played during 1890s and averaged over 50 on those minefields against those demon bowlers. Ranjitsinhghji is better then Bradman as no one averaged anywere near his 50 at that time. Not even mentioned in world 11s, more evidence of anti 19th century policy. Lohmanns average discredited as apparently easy to bowl then. Well ranji the master of the leg flick averaged 50!! Some thing has to give, either lohmann has to make it or ranji has to!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

point me to the post # where I said sledging was the determining factor ... all I could find was post # 68 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1206126&postcount=68 where I said : "And as far as sledging is concerned the only guy that sledged in the 30s was Santa Clauss" ... is this the post that made you respond with smilie spamming ?

read post #97 onwards too :P

[Bumper]

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.

Ok, it could be Rod Laver. But yours is hardly a parallel argument. Note that the criteria used to justify Don's greatness is the gulf over his peers. Whoever won 4 grand slams in a row is clearly dominant over his peers. Mind you, winning 4 grand slams in a row is such a rare achievement that none of the modern day greats have ever managed. And i dont understand why this gulf over peers applies only to cricket. Conceptually its applicable to every sport.

[Bumper]

And one more thing: Bigging up Sampras & Federer for their #grand slam victories is not justifiable, given that the #runs/#100s etc are not used to big up Lara or Tendulkar over Bradman. Saying that avg is the only thing that matters makes no sense. If avg is the only thing that mattered, Lohmann will be the greatest bowler ever. And Hussey once had an avg well over 70 consistently for 30 odd tests. There is a reason why statisticans keep track of #100s, #runs, #50s & plenty of other details. If avg is all that is needed, cricket statisticans will be out of job.