Lurker Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 But to answer your question ... that idea is soo entrenched and the brainwashing soo through and complete it now becomes politically incorrect to say anything contrary. Just look at yourself ... you have never even come close to providing straight answers to any of the 10 points in that post#105 and you think that pitches back in the 30s had evil demons in them. Instead of being overly criticial, as you are, why dont you try a different approach?? Lets borrow a leaf out of Richie Benaud's book. When he picked his XI, he actually started with 66 players and ended up picking 3 teams of which the best(in his book) was the 1st one. To me all the 3 are pretty formidable and it also gave a clear idea of why Richie picked whom he did. Why dont you pick your 3 all time XI teams?? It would be great to understand your point of view because often you come across as simply being reactive and dismissive. xxx
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 thats what you have been told ... you have not seen him play nor do you think its necessary to conduct your own due-dilligence. And why are you ignoring Bradmans own comments on SRT ? Its not like the guy was known for making a statement a day like the current crop of experts. Have you seen him play? Why are you ignoring Tendulkar's comments on Bradman
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Best innings of all time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden_100 I don't see Tendulkar's innings there :--D Bradman tops the list!!!
Lurker Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I would most certain;y pick players that I have seen playing over a long period of time so that would be mostly players who played from the late 70s early 80s onwards. That would still be fair enough, it would give an insight of your cricketing leanings rather than the negativity that seems apparent sometime. I say try it sometime. You may like it..you might even find something about you(like you are a DB fan in the end :--D )
Lurker Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Best innings of all time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden_100 I don't see Tendulkar's innings there :--D Bradman tops the list!!! Kapil has mention in Top 100 Test innings, Top 100 ODI innings & Top 100 Test bowling. My work here is done..and my life complete :--D
The Outsider Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 can you show me the post where I say Bowling avg alone is the reason for reduced avgs ? Says the mahashay that never even had the courtesy to clearly answer any of the 10 points that I had put in that post in the other thread. LOL! when a few of those 10 points were debunked - minnows, the imaginary mid 70s watershed in cricket, and 28+ averages - systematically with stats, showing that in similar circumstances Tendulkar averaged much much less than Bradman instead of accepting those things, you were reduced to bumbling "not cut and dry" and jumbling to open your trademark garbage polls like this. At which point, I realized yet again that it is impossible to have a logical, meaningful discussion with someone like you blinded by jingoism. You can't even grasp a simple concept that the averages of the bowlers were high partially due to Bradman himself. I remember asking you some time back for stats of these bowlers in matches with and without Bradman, but your reply was the usual gibberish. You are talking about a batsman whose runs resulted in a change of 1 whole average point over the runs scored in 2 decades of cricket amongst all teams - won't he impact the bowlers he directly faced by at least 2-3 points - nothing more, but basic common sense, but of course it won't register in you. But, let me humor you again - what quantitative effect do you think the change of bowlers have for Bradman. I understand they are not the only factor, but at least be willing to put a number on this factor?
The Outsider Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 1. Your point about the mid 70s providing a marked change in batting becoming difficult : I would say the mid 70s ... some really great fast bowlers appeared on the scene and to add to that reverse swing was unearthed and cricket became a professional sport. So someone like Gavaskar should have seen a major dip in his average after the mid 70s. He averaged 49 till 1975 and 51 after that. Similar for Chappell(51 and 54), Llyod(40 and 50), Boycott(47 and 47), I Chappell(41 and 47), Viswanath(38 and 43). There was no major change in any batsman's average who played sufficient cricket either side of the mid 70s. If anything, the numbers show a modest increase for most. 2. Your point about picking minnows, England, and Sri Lanka in similar number of matches for Tendulkar to average comparable to Bradman : Like i said before its not that cut and dry ... there were always good bowlers in the 50s and 60s as well Truman, Griffith, Wes Hall etc ... and dont discount the spinners too ... there were a bunch of truly great spinners in the 60s and 70s ... we all know that fast bowling alone wont cut it all the time. In Bradmans case there was soo little competition going around given the harsh economic state of the world. I cant believe that people like you find such a simple concept hard to understand. In any case why dont you pick the matches that SRT played against teams that had even a slightly lesser pedigree of bowling attack .. like the Eng team of 90s and early 00s ... or the SL,BD and Zim teams ... that will give you a sufficient sample. Wow - this is really disingenuous. You just said pre mid 70s and post mid 70s was a big difference - nothing in the batting averages who played across those days shows it. Now you are saying batting was not all that easy even in the 50s and 60s, but was half as easy in the 30s and 40s. Bradman played 3 series after the war in the late 40s as well - the result was the same. And he was well into his late 30s by then. So, you are suggesting within a space of Bradman's retirement and the 50s batting became twice as difficult? Even you will have a tough time believing that if you are honest to yourself. You talk about minnows - well Bradman averaged close to 150 and not 100 against the supposed minnows of his times, which still had better bowlers like Mankad, Phadkar, Constantine, Griffith than the Bangla bros. But, let me humor you a bit. Bradman played 15 tests against India, South Africa, and West Indies averaging 140 against them. Tendulkar played 16 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe averaging 96 against them. Bradman played 37 tests against England averaging 90 against them. Taking the first 36 tests(to make 52 for each, with Tendulkar having a one test minnow advantage) against England and Sri Lanka - your designated teams Tendulkar averages 67 against them. Over 52 Bradman tests, he averages 99.94 of course. Over your chosen sample of 52 tests Tendulkar averages, 72.68. Still well well short of Bradman! 3. Your point that if Tendulkar had batted exclusively against average 28+ bowlers, he would have averaged comparable to Bradman : Besides the minnows, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Tendulkar has played the following series - just eyeballing and guessing bowlers' averages from memory - in which all bowlers from the opposition averaged above 28 (the criteria being used to dismiss Bradman's double average) : Varun or Bossbhai can perhaps run a more accurate query. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=309;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=313;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=318;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=330;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=346;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=364;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=371;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=410;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=417;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=458;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=467;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=472;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=474;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=490;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=520;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=2709;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=2872;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=4472;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=4548;template=results;type=batting;view=innings Just approximating from the averages from above, they would be in the 60s, again not even close to the 90 Bradman averaged against England - no minnows. Your arguments are so full of crap that using them one can show Rameez is better than Hammond - that should be a wake up call for anyone except someone completely blinded by jingoism.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 No. But I dont think Iam capable of cheating my own eyes when I see some of the Bradman footage and read thru match reports. (Try reading the almanck reports for the the 1930 series when he made 974 runs in that series ... England used a grand total of 14 bowlers in that series only one guy played the entire series thats how crap they were). And ofcourse the stats just dont simply lie. I showed you the report where Tendu was dropped thrice in one match where he made his highest score of 248. Sure your grandson will put up in another forum and laugh at it.:--D. Stats don't simply lie. That is why 99 > 55. :cantstop: . What about other batsmen? What is the best test series of Sachin so far. Not even 500. He is not comparable with Rahul Dravid in that aspect let alone Bradman. What did you expect him to say .... Iam better than you ? So Bradman says the truth and Sachin is a liar because Sachin says better about Bradman and Bradman says better about Sachin. Good :cantstop: Take that tinted biased glass will you?
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 huh ? So you expected SRT to tell DGB that he was better than him if he thought so ? And care to tell me why you take Benauds words over DGBs ? No i didn't expect. Coz he is not better than him. Just because his fanboys think he is better doesn't mean he doesn't stand next to Bradman.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 55 against truly high class bowling >>>>>> 100 against minnows ... :winky: Dude.. tell me one series where he played against absoulte minnows even remotely came close to Bradman. Even Lachu got 503 runs. Why do you think Tendulkar would have done any different in different era against different bowlers. High class bowling like Rubel hossain, Shaiful islam, Sohdat Hussain, Mohammad Rafique, Grant flower.. :cantstop:
The Outsider Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 There is no ball by ball stats available to remove DGBs runs from each of the bowlers ... I thought you would understand such a simple concept. More sophistry? Where have Tendulkar's ball by ball stats been used? ehhh ? The two decades you talk about produced a grand total of 134 tests of which DGB played in more than half of them compared to a small sum of 820 test between 1990 and today of which SRT only played in not even 20% . Iam sure you have some funky way of telling me that its just as easier to move the avgs in both the scenarios. but just for chuckles sake here is what the overall avg is with and without SRT since 1990 Including SRTs Runs = 30.97 Excluding SRTs Runs = 30.44 A cool difference of 0.53 ... not bad at all. And yet more garbage - I hope if not you then others reading the thread would realize the illogical arguments you present. Firstly, only half of Bradman's runs were removed. And secondly, the issue being discussed is whether it was easier batting in 30s and 40s as opposed to 90s and 00s - the stats showed no significant difference, so can you stuff that argument about batting being easier in Bradman's time for good?
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