Lohmann from 1890s is the greatest bowler ever

[Bumper]

Appears as if you didn't get the point. It doesn't matter if it places Lohmann as the greatest cricketer as who knows he may well be one. You have to read that article when it comes out to know the reasoning behind that The point being made here is (to simplify) - Some folks thought Bradman isn't the greatest batsman - They picked Lohmann to mock the points where someone from the past is shown to be the greatest - In trying to mock them, they argued for him - A magazine publishes an article determining Lohmann as the greatest player (pre 1950) - The same article hails Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time (not just pre 1950 as the article uses the word 'all time') - So even though the article vindicates them (in a sense as they are saying that Lohmann is the greatest based on his stats), it also states that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time (the main point of the debate which they are debating against, i.e. they think Sachin is the best) - By Lohmann being declared the greatest, they win the battle but lose the war as they same article declares Bradman as the greatest batsman of all-time Which is the comedy I am pointing at and the point I made in the post you replied to last *spoon feeding ends*

Arre, thanks for feeding me. But you need to some 'sarcasm' detector implanted, pronto. You are the one missing the point (need i say losing the war!). If an article can sell a totally nonsensical claim (that Lohmann is the greatest of all bowlers) based on stats of the yore, doesnt that tell you a thing or two about what numbers of those times mean ? It is articles like these that have successfully propagated myths about players of that era. No one here in their right mind believes that Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time. I am just doing it to point out how it is possible to make nonsensical conclusions by banking on stats from the early 1900s, when the game was totally different from what it is today. To summarize, my point is simple. Both the claims (about Lohmann & Bradman) made in the articles are ridiculous. If you think one of them is ridiculous and the other is genuine, that is selective interpretation. Thats also called hypocrisy. **spoon feed ends*** LOL!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Arre, thanks for feeding me. But you need to some 'sarcasm' detector implanted, pronto. You are the one missing the point (need i say losing the war!). If an article can sell a totally nonsensical claim (that Lohmann is the greatest of all bowlers) based on stats of the yore, doesnt that tell you a thing or two about what numbers of those times mean ? It is articles like these that have successfully propagated myths about players of that era. No one here in their right mind believes that Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time. I am just doing it to point out how it is possible to make nonsensical conclusions by banking on stats from the early 1900s, when the game was totally different from what it is today. To summarize, my point is simple. Both the claims (about Lohmann & Bradman) made in the articles are ridiculous. If you think one of them is ridiculous and the other is genuine, that is selective interpretation. Thats also called hypocrisy. **spoon feed ends*** LOL!

You missed the point again i.e. Lohmann is said to be the greatest player of pre-1950 periodl and NOT all-time, while Bradman is said to be the greatest batsman of all-time :winky: 2ndly, the article was posted after the points were made (not before). The sarcasm of trying to use a bowler who most don't even know abt but has good stats failed as the bowler gets proclaimed as the greatest of pre-1950 period by a magazine (the comedy I pointed towards) *spoon feeding ends*

[Mr Eintstein]

Arre, thanks for feeding me. But you need to some 'sarcasm' detector implanted, pronto. You are the one missing the point (need i say losing the war!). If an article can sell a totally nonsensical claim (that Lohmann is the greatest of all bowlers) based on stats of the yore, doesnt that tell you a thing or two about what numbers of those times mean ? It is articles like these that have successfully propagated myths about players of that era. No one here in their right mind believes that Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time. I am just doing it to point out how it is possible to make nonsensical conclusions by banking on stats from the early 1900s, when the game was totally different from what it is today. To summarize, my point is simple. Both the claims (about Lohmann & Bradman) made in the articles are ridiculous. If you think one of them is ridiculous and the other is genuine, that is selective interpretation. Thats also called hypocrisy. **spoon feed ends*** LOL!

well done for ignoring the key word that goes in bradmans favour- CONSISTENCY. bradman played 51 tests, maintaining an average of 99. no one else playing a decent amount of time (30 tests at least?) in his era, or throughout the whole of cricketing history, has got within even 40 of this number. You won't get anyone to agree to your rather extreme point of view. stop trying to force it down our throats.

[yoda]

Why is it ridiculous to believe that someone from the past era might have been good, I mean really really good? Are we so cocky to assume that only the current gen can be good at anything? Going by that logic you must accept that 100 years from now people are entitled to laugh/ridicule at the modern day greats as well.

[Bumper]

Why is it ridiculous to believe that someone from the past era might have been good, I mean really really good? Are we so cocky to assume that only the current gen can be good at anything? Going by that logic you must accept that 100 years from now people are entitled to laugh/ridicule at the modern day greats as well.

Thats hardly the point though. The claim is not that the oldies are good. They definitely are. Rather that they are the greatest ever based on what they achieved 70 years back. The central theme of this conclusion is "numbers". Every sport has evolved to a point where what used to be a benchmark for greatness has become a min qualifier now. Common sense tells us that competition gets more and more intense & sportsmen keep getting better & better. Taking nothing away from Bradman, he was the best of his era. But thats where the conclusion must stop. For all we know Bradman could have averaged 100 even in this era or simply folded up like a tent in the subcontinental heat & dust or could have succumbed to injuries due to an overcrowded itinery & stress. There is no way you can tell. Even the great Viv who brutalized top fast bowlers could not read a no namer Hirwani's leg spin. We know how Sachin found it tough to navigate Hansie Cronje & Abdul Razzaq of all people. Bradman could have found his bogeymen had he played in the modern era. The extrapolations on Bradman totally ignore the possibility that the 1940s could have witnessed a Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Ireland type league where one guy who is head & shoulders above the rest could have towered over the rest!

[zen]

Even the great Viv who brutalized top fast bowlers could not read a no namer Hirwani's leg spin. We know how Sachin found it tough to navigate Hansie Cronje & Abdul Razzaq of all people. Bradman could have found his bogeymen had he played in the modern era. The extrapolations on Bradman totally ignore the possibility that the 1940s could have witnessed a Bangladesh-Zimbabwe-Ireland type league where one guy who is head & shoulders above the rest could have towered over the rest!

the above^ ignores the possibilities that Bradman could have mastered such 'Bogeymen' .... and assumes that being good enough to not go down to such bogeymen means there weren't any bogeymen

[vvvslaxman]

More imaginary theories. Keep them coming. I am waiting for someone to say "Modern day underwears don't allow them to average above 60"

[SRT PWNS]

I can't believe you people are even talking about assumptions and imaginary theories in defense for Bradman. You all support Bradman on that very basis, you imagine and assume that Bradman would be as good as SRT if he played as much or that he would even be good at all in the current era. Still nothing else to back it up? How can you even lecture others on assumptions and imaginary theories when your entire argument is the biggest one out there? SRT has the runs and hundreds to show... and is still going, Don simply doesn't.

[vvvslaxman]

I can't believe you people are even talking about assumptions and imaginary theories in defense for Bradman. You all support Bradman on that very basis' date=' you imagine and assume that Bradman would be as good as SRT if he played as much or that he would even be good at all in the current era. Still nothing else to back it up? How can you even lecture others on assumptions and imaginary theories when your entire argument is the biggest one out there? SRT has the runs and hundreds to show... and is still going, Don simply doesn't.[/quote'] Because Bradman has it. Tendulkar doesn't have it. Tendulkar never exhibited the skill of dominating a side even in a single series let alone entire career like Bradman did. Atleast Lara scored 688 runs in 3 tests in SL. So how would you equate Tendulkar to Bradman. Bradman's lowest series average is better than Tendulkar's career average. Go figure.

[Roshanrocks]

This is great comedy, you have a thread that's using a player to mock others but that player gets declared as the greatest by a magazine!

that clearly proves that the person writing the article read the first post of this thread :adore:

[SRT PWNS]

Because Bradman has it. Tendulkar doesn't have it. Tendulkar never exhibited the skill of dominating a side even in a single series let alone entire career like Bradman did. Atleast Lara scored 688 runs in 3 tests in SL. So how would you equate Tendulkar to Bradman. Bradman's lowest series average is better than Tendulkar's career average. Go figure.

Too many factors to go with the comparison across eras, it still doesn't draw a solid point, but I still have the larger numbers... proven numbers. This argument isn't going to go anywhere because we will never no for sure. Both sides will just keep going back and forth, it is unfortunate that we can't simulate them side by side in identical conditions.

[Roshanrocks]

anyways.... sachin came to be known as GOD in India primarily due to his exploits in ODI's. Sachin was adored by cricket connoisuers for his style n stance when they used to see him bat in tests, but masses were never much crazy about him, the real phenomenon started when he first opened the innings against NZ, its from there that the name n fame became huge n to what it is now.

[King Tendulkar]

In marketing parlance there is a term - brand value bank account. Essentially what it means is a brand builds value over years and when things dont go the way of the company they dip into this vault and supplement their goodwill in the market. Toyota is currently doing this. With retarded threads as this it is only a matter of time before this website becomes a laughing stock amongst the serious cricketer followers. No matter of brand value bank account will save it. It is one thing to not beleive in people you have not seen, completely different to be an arrogant and dismissive preeck. By all accounts Lohmann was a great bowler. To run him down, or to mock him, is something that only modern-day-ignorant-Indian-loonies are capable of. xxx

What has the brand value of the site got to do with anything? You got shares in the site:hysterical: Trust me nothing brings the value of this site down then your boring posts with their pro pakistan propoganda and anti Indian views. Come on unveil your pak passport once and for all! And yes I will mock someone who played in 1890s. Get a sense of humour! And I love your last para when you say by all accounts Lohmann is a great bowler:hysterical: The facts are you never heard of him until I named him:--D

[King Tendulkar]

Really why is that such a big surprise to some of you? I would dare to say most cricketing historians know ample enough about Lohmann and his greatness. Was he the greatest ever? Noone can settle that. Heck we can not settle who was the greatest fielder, or the greatest skipper, or the greatest wicket keeper, or the greatest captain who could also double as the keeper, so how are you going to settle who was the greatest bowler? Easily a much harder subject to deal with. I for one see no real surprise as George Lohmann being nominated as the greatest bowler ever, or for that matter greatest player. Do I think Lohmann was greatest ever? Of course not but why is to so hard to respect a past great and laugh ignorantly at that assertion??? xxx

So you believe an 1890s players was one of greatest ever:hysterical: ALL HAIL LOHMANN:crazy4:

[Mr Eintstein]

inzi>sachin. you can't guarantee that if he somehow came back into international cricket he wouldn't average higher than sach. my logic is bulletproof.

[King Tendulkar]

Arre, thanks for feeding me. But you need to some 'sarcasm' detector implanted, pronto. You are the one missing the point (need i say losing the war!). If an article can sell a totally nonsensical claim (that Lohmann is the greatest of all bowlers) based on stats of the yore, doesnt that tell you a thing or two about what numbers of those times mean ? It is articles like these that have successfully propagated myths about players of that era. No one here in their right mind believes that Lohmann is the greatest bowler of all time. I am just doing it to point out how it is possible to make nonsensical conclusions by banking on stats from the early 1900s, when the game was totally different from what it is today. To summarize, my point is simple. Both the claims (about Lohmann & Bradman) made in the articles are ridiculous. If you think one of them is ridiculous and the other is genuine, that is selective interpretation. Thats also called hypocrisy. **spoon feed ends*** LOL!

Quality:eyedance:

[King Tendulkar]

More imaginary theories. Keep them coming. I am waiting for someone to say "Modern day underwears don't allow them to average above 60"

You stated in another thread that if 30s Bradman was put in time machine and played now he would still be best batsman in the world. Applying the same logic(if you can call it logic:--D), do you think if the great LOHMANN was put in a time machine and played now, would he also still be the best bowler in the world?:--D

[King Tendulkar]

Why is it ridiculous to believe that someone from the past era might have been good, I mean really really good? Are we so cocky to assume that only the current gen can be good at anything? Going by that logic you must accept that 100 years from now people are entitled to laugh/ridicule at the modern day greats as well.

So you also believe LOHMANN is as good as modern day bowlers:--D Lohmann is getting quite a fan club here.:yay: All thanks to me Mr Lohmann:dance:

[King Tendulkar]

^ You're late' date=' Bumper. Post #23 has already refuted the notion. :winky:[/quote'] Your post of 23 did no such thing. The stats prove Lohmann was miles ahead of his peers and his stats are MONSTER. Your post 23 was an insult to the greatest bowler of all time in LOHMANN! LOHMANN STATISTICALLY PROVEN AS THE GREATEST BOWLER EVER! p.s who cares no one has seen him play and it was the 19th Century. He is numero uno. Thus all world 11s must now be adjusted to include this moustached magician!