vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 You didnt get my point ... lets suppose he thinks he is better than DGB do you expect him to say that in public ? And again why are you ignoring DGBs own comments and prefer Benauds opinion over DGB's own ? Oh.. now you have become a mind reader. How do you know Tendulkar didn't mean it actually. I am not ignoring . Bradman said he reminds me of himself strokewise. But the record shows Bradman is way above Tendulkar.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Read the post again its the 9 other points that you are missing ... and again ... Are the bowlers from 90s onwards of lesser or same quality as that of 30s according to you ? Straight answer please. Yes / No. Same quality.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Because there are about a million batsman that are really pathetic than him and he never says anything bad about them. Always has a good word for his peers. Its called being gracious. The records dont take into account the 10 points I keep telling you about which you keep running away from or respond with some inane stuff like Gubby Allen = Allan Donald and that pitches were demons back then and that current day batsmen would be in the hospital if they played in the 30s yada yada ... you got blown away on each of those counts. Your 10 points are all garbage points. All figment of your imagination. I clearly told how Tendulkar is incapable of dominating even a minnow side in a series like Bradman could do that in his era. Because Tendulkar is not even equal to his peers let alone Bradman. He may be consistently scoring 50 odd in any era. But averaging 100? No way he is going to do that in any era. 1930, 1890 . How come Tendulkar doesn't have 300 even in first class cricket? He sure played few first class matches.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 then why doesnt any expert worth his salt pick even one single one of them in any rankings ? And didnt you say you go by stats alone .... Donald Avg + SR is about 100miles away from any of your bowling heroes from 30s and 40s. So now you want expert opinons.. When 99% experts say bradman is the best you become expert. When i say , you want experts opinion. Okay here you go.. the rankings you asked.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisden_100 Atleast 3 bowling spells are from late 20s and early 30s. They are in the rankings. I have debunked every theory including "bowling at chest height". You still keep coming up with imaginary theories. Another theory of yours is debunked.
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Another poll comming up ... BTW we already saw in the previous poll that no-one really disagrees about fast bowlers Huh .... he avgs 136 against the only true minnows of our times ... What is his tally. You can get average 136 by scoring 50 not out 50 not out and 36 :hysterical:
Lurker Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 then why doesnt any expert worth his salt pick even one single one of them in any rankings ? And didnt you say you go by stats alone .... Donald Avg + SR is about 100miles away from any of your bowling heroes from 30s and 40s. Thats not true at all. When CricInfo compiled its England XI I remember Harold Larwood picked as lead fast bowler alongside Fred Trueman. Unless you suggest that panel did not include any experts I fail to see how you are right. Also in the spinner department Derek Underwood pipped Hedley Verity in the same exercise. Verity could well have made the cut if you ask me. xxx
Rajiv 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!!! besides the argument here, when was that list last updatd :winky: The Test list was released in 2001 and the ODI list was released in 2002.
vvvslaxman Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 besides the argument here, when was that list last updatd :winky: The Test list was released in 2001 and the ODI list was released in 2002. But argument is mainly based on 1990s cricket where we had "demonic" fast bowlers.
vvvslaxman Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Rajiv.. lol don't take it seriously. It is just a debate. Anything goes. Nothing more. Just showing how contradictory and one eyed Boss is.
vvvslaxman Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 you were the one that went by what experts said hence I asked you to judge the bowlers of that era by that same yardstick. Iam happy trusting my own conscience and due-dilligence That is where the problem is :hysterical:
vvvslaxman Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Not bowling performances. Overall career bowling rankings. Even Sunil Joshi found his way in the top 10 performances So overall career batting rankings mean nothing. But overall career bowling rankings mean everything. Great :hysterical:.
The Outsider Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 this topic has been done to death soo many times but FWIW heres the full list of reasons why DGB cant be simply considered beyond question ... 1. Lack of quality strike bowlers (As in sub 25 avg , sub 55-60 strike rate ) Already discussed and debunked in Post #32 of this thread. 2. No real super fast express bowlers who bowl regularly in the 87+ mph category No evidence for it. By all estimates Larwood, Voce, and Bedser were pretty damn quick. Either present evidence or stuff these imaginary "points". 3. Lack of quality spinners Verrity, Grimmett, Mankad, O'Reilly all world class spinners. 4. Never played in India, Pak, SL, SAF,WI (in fact he played in a grand total of 10 grounds in his entire career .... 5 each in Eng & Aus) Tendulkar's averages at 5 home grounds he has played most tests at : Eden Gardens - 10 tests. Average - 50 Kotla - 8 tests. Average - 46 Mohali - 9 tests. Average - 48 Chennai - 9 tests. Average - 88 Wankhede - 8 tests. Average - 52 At 5 away grounds with most tests : SCG - 4 tests. Average - 221 MCG - 4 tests. Average - 43 Adelaide - 4 tests. Average - 36 Lords - 4 tests. Average - 21 Hamilton - 4 tests. Average - 64 Above venues give an average in the 60s much lower than Bradman. 5. Never tested against reverse swing. No significant dip in any major batsman's overall average after introduction of reverse swing. 6. Advantage of lax fielding standards. Worse than Pakis and Bangla bros? 7. Advantage of playing just one format of the game. Works both ways - months and months of rustiness. 8. Advantage of numerous first class tour matches throughout the tour Works both ways - can cause injuries and expose batting to opposition. 9. No taxing travel schedules. Off field disadvantage which were too many for Bradman eg. the war, working in a job, no financial security etc. etc. 10. Batsman friendly lbw law and umpires being very pro-batsman for lbws. Nothing significant. Percentage of leg before in 30s and 40s was around 13%, now it's 16%. Case closed. Perhaps tomorrow, I'll list the disadvantages of being Bradman.
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