Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[graphic23]

While I'm not one to normally question anyone's claim for Tendulkar's absolute superiority, I do have a few doubts this time. For one, folks like Ranjitsinhji have added new strokes to a batsman's repertoire (sigh, using that word makes me feel like I'm writing one of those cliched CI articles) - like the leg glance. The players of the past have contributed significantly to the development of the batting technique. Can we really brush away their achievements and claim that modern day cricketers would have survived in any era, but they wouldn't have? Sachin, to his credit, has found ways to counter some type of bowling as well, like the limbo cut. But there is a difference between a textbook on batting being established when you start your career versus writing it as you go and counter various types of pitches and bowling. Whether this applies to Bradman, in particular or not isn't something I'm concerned about, but certainly, IMO I wouldn't belittle the batsmen of the past. When Shwetabh, earlier in the thread (or somewhere else) mentioned Newton's achievements, I felt that it wasn't to say that he was smarter or dumber than scientists born later than him, but to say that his contributions to Physics have stood as a strong foundation for several other disciplines within Physics. If we really wanted to compare the scientists, we'd transport all the scientists (from before and after Newton), place them next to the apple tree, and see if they can make the same deductions he made about gravity, force, etc. (The last part might just be following a myth, but for the purposes of this conversation, it doesn't really matter).

[yoda]

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.

Guess you've never heard of Roy Emerson. Look him up and compare him to Laver. BTW, I didn't say peer comparison is applicable only in cricket. The post of yours which I responded to earlier was in the context of ignoring past performances in other sport since all sport have evolved over time. You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave to discount your statement. :winky:

[yoda]

BTW, Jesse Owens is still considered the greatest of all time in track and field for his 4 golds in a single Olympics. Carl Lewis equaled that in 84, although that was a boycotted Olympics. Just because Ussain Bolt now can run faster than Jesse Owens, people don't ask whether Jesse Owens can run today and beat Ussain Bolt. :giggle:

[King Tendulkar]

BTW, Jesse Owens is still considered the greatest of all time in track and field for his 4 golds in a single Olympics. Carl Lewis equaled that in 84, although that was a boycotted Olympics. Just because Ussain Bolt now can run faster than Jesse Owens, people don't ask whether Jesse Owens can run today and beat Ussain Bolt. :giggle:

So you admit no way Bradman could bat in 2010 test match and do well? You feel he was greatest in his era , so that means greatest ever?

[yoda]

So you admit no way Bradman could bat in 2010 test match and do well? You feel he was greatest in his era ' date=' so that means greatest ever?[/quote'] So you think Ussain Bolt is the greatest ever? The the guy who passes him in a few years will then become the greatest ever?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

BTW, Jesse Owens is still considered the greatest of all time in track and field for his 4 golds in a single Olympics. Carl Lewis equaled that in 84, although that was a boycotted Olympics. Just because Ussain Bolt now can run faster than Jesse Owens, people don't ask whether Jesse Owens can run today and beat Ussain Bolt. :giggle:

I have something more to add to that Jesse Owens thing. Owens fastest time to complete 100m race was 10.2 sec (accuracy might not be that great there) in 1936. Current indian record for 100 m race is by some Ajayraj Singh and that too is in 10.2s. Doesn't that mean that Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Jesse Owens? Definitely, Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Owens. But is he as great as owens? well difference must be measured in lightcenturies. Similarly I am fully convinced that batting skillwise Sachin is definitely ahead of Bradman. But question we are or we should be debating here is whether he is as great a batsman as Bradman was. I personally don't think so. PS - 100 m race has been taken just as an example. No way I was thinking of equating characters of that example with the characters we are discussing in this thread.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

What would you call Rameez if he had played 600 balls in a test innings. What would you call the bowlers who let Rameez play for that long. What if some Iqbal Q with Rameez had played 120 overs to score only 260 runs for 3 rd wicket partnership. A Legend. # 3 and #4 together play nearly 1000 balls between them to score 275 runs. Man I dont even know how to read these numbers and how to analyse them. I am speachless. Bossy please help me understand these mate.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

I have something more to add to that Jesse Owens thing. Owens fastest time to complete 100m race was 10.2 sec (accuracy might not be that great there) in 1936. Current indian record for 100 m race is by some Ajayraj Singh and that too is in 10.2s. Doesn't that mean that Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Jesse Owens? Definitely, Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Owens. But is he as great as owens? well difference must be measured in lightcenturies. Similarly I am fully convinced that batting skillwise Sachin is definitely ahead of Bradman. But question we are or we should be debating here is whether he is as great a batsman as Bradman was. I personally don't think so. PS - 100 m race has been taken just as an example. No way I was thinking of equating characters of that example with the characters we are discussing in this thread.

Another :nice:

The problem with this logic is that the first movers in the field get very unfair advantage.

No one is saying first to get the record always wins. If someone from the past has done something amazing, it will stand the test of time, not by being blindly being compared with absolute numbers from the present, rather taking into account other things like how great was that feat then vs how great is the comparable feat now.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Its just simply unfair to measure modern masters from the 99.94 yardstick which is what the DGB bhakts do mindlessly ( unlike what you claim ).

I don' think anyone is saying one needs to score 99.94 today to be compared to DGB unlike you guys who are claiming that DGB needs to perform like modern batsmen if moved through a time machine and dropped today. People understand that times are different and we can only speculate as to what anyone would do if hypothetically moved from one generation to another. BTW when you talk about what a modern batsman would do in those times, you can't take a Ussain Bolt with his modern physical skills and training and drop him with a Jesse Owens from the 1930s. You need to see what a Ussain Bolt would do if he were born in the 1930s which one can only speculate about.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I have something more to add to that Jesse Owens thing. Owens fastest time to complete 100m race was 10.2 sec (accuracy might not be that great there) in 1936. Current indian record for 100 m race is by some Ajayraj Singh and that too is in 10.2s. Doesn't that mean that Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Jesse Owens? Definitely, Ajayraj Singh is as fast as Owens. But is he as great as owens? well difference must be measured in lightcenturies.

We need another thread Ajayraj Singh is greater than Jesse Owens!

[The Outsider]

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.

If you don't think Ranjitsinhji is a legend, then you certainly are a legend! He is considered a great batsmen by every cricket expert. His average in those days was indeed stupendous and so was his overall contribution to cricket. One of the reasons I can think of as to why he missed out on the selections and shortlists is because he did not play too many test matches. And Barry Richards should have been excluded for the same reasons.

[The Outsider]

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.

And did you see the lofted straight drive and flick? Was anything wrong with those? It is just one clip and Sehwag plays those kind of cover drives without moving his feet so many times. I am merely taking the model that 100 of the 30s is 50 of the 00s and extrapolating it to other cricketers. As a quantitative person yourself, you would agree with me that any model should fit an entire data set and not just some isolated data points? When I try to do that I get results like Rameez is greater than Hammond, Chris Lewis is greater than Keith Miller, Ravindra Jadeja is greater than Mankad, Sami is greater than Lindwall, Farhat is greater than Hobbs, and Kaneria is greater than O'Reilly. If you believe these extrapolation results are sensible and that Farhat would have averaged 70+ had he played 60 years back, then I really have no more arguments.

[dial_100]

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.

Very balanced post on this topic so far. I would say best so far. I think either parties should give up here. As you said no basis for any comparisons possible here. At least I am done with this discussion.

[Bumper]

BTW, Jesse Owens is still considered the greatest of all time in track and field for his 4 golds in a single Olympics. Carl Lewis equaled that in 84, although that was a boycotted Olympics. Just because Ussain Bolt now can run faster than Jesse Owens, people don't ask whether Jesse Owens can run today and beat Ussain Bolt. :giggle:

Once again, not a parallel argument Jesse Owens is definitely a great sprinter. No one would argue with that. But you dont call him the greatest ever, do you ? Wasn't Jesse Owens head & shoulders above his peers ? Had Bradman been termed a great, no one would dispute that. Calling him the greatest ever solely based on his averages is where the problem lies.