King Tendulkar Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 You guys crack me up in your not wiliing to acclaim Lohmann greatest ever. As statistically easily best ever just like staistically Bradman is. Lohmann clearly dominated his peers big time and Bradman even more. Reason why bradman fans wont recognise Lohmann is simple and a correct one. The guy played cricket 120 years ago:haha: And righlty they are saying cricket was just a totally differnt game then and so cant say somone for 120 years ago can be best, its absurd. Instead the fake intellectuals come out with all kinds of statistical eveidence(i find it hysterical that I am making so called cricket buffs use stats to bring down a player from 120 years agao)to slam him. These same reaons above are why Bradman cant even be compared to the Tendulkar. The guy played cricket 80 years ago. It was a totally different game then not even comparable to modern sport in any shape or form. No player from 30 s would even get anywere near modern day sides, see Hobbs batting and Bradman batting(bowled by pathetic googly) as evidence! Watch football from 30s, its a joke and in fact comedians have doen comedies making a joke of it. Anyway keep using silly stats to show a player form 80 years ago is as good as the one and only Tendulkar.
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 You guys crack me up in your not wiliing to acclaim Lohmann greatest ever. As statistically easily best ever just like staistically Bradman is. Lohmann clearly dominated his peers big time and Bradman even more. Reason why bradman fans wont recognise Lohmann is simple and a correct one. The guy played cricket 120 years agohaha: And righlty they are saying cricket was just a totally differnt game then and so cant say somone for 120 years ago can be best, its absurd. Instead the fake intellectuals come out with all kinds of statistical eveidence(i find it hysterical that I am making so called cricket buffs use stats to bring down a player from 120 years agao)to slam him. These same reaons above are why Bradman cant even be compared to the Tendulkar. The guy played cricket 80 years ago. It was a totally different game then not even comparable to modern sport in any shape or form. No player from 30 s would even get anywere near modern day sides, see Hobbs batting and Bradman batting(bowled by pathetic googly) as evidence! Watch football from 30s, its a joke and in fact comedians have doen comedies making a joke of it. Anyway keep using silly stats to show a player form 80 years ago is as good as the one and only Tendulkar. That's^ amongst the most comical posts that I have read. Have to give it to you for your entertainment value :hatsoff:
yoda Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 You guys crack me up in your not wiliing to acclaim Lohmann greatest ever. As statistically easily best ever just like staistically Bradman is. Lohmann clearly dominated his peers big time and Bradman even more. Reason why bradman fans wont recognise Lohmann is simple and a correct one. The guy played cricket 120 years ago:haha: And righlty they are saying cricket was just a totally differnt game then and so cant say somone for 120 years ago can be best, its absurd. Instead the fake intellectuals come out with all kinds of statistical eveidence(i find it hysterical that I am making so called cricket buffs use stats to bring down a player from 120 years agao)to slam him. These same reaons above are why Bradman cant even be compared to the Tendulkar. The guy played cricket 80 years ago. It was a totally different game then not even comparable to modern sport in any shape or form. No player from 30 s would even get anywere near modern day sides, see Hobbs batting and Bradman batting(bowled by pathetic googly) as evidence! Watch football from 30s, its a joke and in fact comedians have doen comedies making a joke of it. Anyway keep using silly stats to show a player form 80 years ago is as good as the one and only Tendulkar. That line says it all. :giggle:
King Tendulkar Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Rett I am bang on though. I am not claiming some bloke from 80 years ago would step out of a time machine and be best in the world right now based on silly stats! AS romatic as it is that this could happen, it is total bakwaas and silly. The game and world has changed a lot in 80 years. Face it and deal with it.
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 The complete absence of bouncers to the absurd lbw laws or the dew soaked batting beauties' date= none of it matters. While I agree with your general point that dew makes bowling difficult, uncovered pitches are not considered difficult to bat on because of the dew factor. And anyhow, here is a list of cities Bradman played his test cricket in : Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Leeds London Manchester Nottingham Can you please tell me which of these cities have dew effected matches in the modern times? Thanks.
gloryof83 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Rett I am bang on though. I am not claiming some bloke from 80 years ago would step out of a time machine and be best in the world right now based on silly stats! AS romatic as it is that this could happen' date=' it is total bakwaas and silly. The game and world has changed a lot in 80 years. Face it and deal with it.[/quote'] That is where you are wrong KT. Legends from previous generations... if afforded the same facilities, advantages etc of today's standards, they will excel. They may not be as effective today as they were then but it is naive to say that they would be totally crap. They still would have the same talent.
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 That is where you are wrong KT. Legends from previous generations... if afforded the same facilities, advantages etc of today's standards, they will excel. They may not be as effective today as they were then but it is naive to say that they would be totally crap. They still would have the same talent. donot underestimate the burden of publicity, the pressure created when ur each and every action is put to the scanner, when the media is trying to unravel ur past secrets, when the media is splashing ur wife old pics in the papers n websites, when ur fans put incredible pressure on you to win each and every game, when u have to play ODI and T20 in between the tests, when fans camp outside ur house hoping to catch a glimpse of you, when you cannot move outside ur house in fear of being recognised and hounded, when u cannot attend any function/party in fear of being labelled as a party animal, when u attend ur sister's marriage and be accused of being a traitor to ur country, when fans are ready to tear down ur house for a world cup debacle, the embarassment of ur advertisement being shown at the exact same moment as ur dismissal / drop catch... :heat:
gloryof83 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 donot underestimate the burden of publicity, the pressure created when ur each and every action is put to the scanner, when the media is trying to unravel ur past secrets, when the media is splashing ur wife old pics in the papers n websites, when ur fans put incredible pressure on you to win each and every game, when u have to play ODI and T20 in between the tests, when fans camp outside ur house hoping to catch a glimpse of you, when you cannot move outside ur house in fear of being recognised and hounded, when u cannot attend any function/party in fear of being labelled as a party animal, when u attend ur sister's marriage and be accused of being a traitor to ur country, when fans are ready to tear down ur house for a world cup debacle, the embarassment of ur advertisement being shown at the exact same moment as ur dismissal / drop catch... :heat: if the past players are playing in today's world... they will be used to it na....
fineleg Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 If Bradman were to have played today - with all facilities available to Aus cricketers of today - whats to say he would not have outshined to be the #1 batsman? He may have eclipsed SRT or may not have. We have no 100% way of knowing that. He played 1930s style since that was his era!
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 if the past players are playing in today's world... they will be used to it na.... similarily Tendlya, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Inzamam, Sangakkara, Jayawardena wud average 100 in Bradman's era :weights: P.s: its easier to "assume" that modern players would play much better against past weaker bowling attacks rather than past batsmen be able to perform the same way in present conditions.
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 this debate is for a lost cause.... no one will ever budge/accept defeat...but is fun to read :--D
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The problem here is about your OPINION that modern facilities make batting easier being presented as FACT. Fell free to back that up with some reliable facts figures and such things. A simple common sense tells us that Bowlers are also privy to modern facilities and techniques. yea and there is also that minute study of batsman's strength's and weaknesses
dial_100 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 If Bradman were to have played today - with all facilities available to Aus cricketers of today - whats to say he would not have outshined to be the #1 batsman? He may have eclipsed SRT or may not have. We have no 100% way of knowing that. He played 1930s style since that was his era! Thaats why he cannot be termed #1....He is #1 of that era.....No challenge. But no body can say for sure how would he have performed in this era, had he played now...We have seen many examples as the great career starts with average of 70 in first 25 test matches...it appears that this guy is going to be bigger than Ponting, Dravid, Sachin or Kalis....but in next 25 test, the average of this guy drops down below 50..We cannot speculate anything here. Wise people should leave these two eras separate.
gloryof83 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The problem here is about your OPINION that modern facilities make batting easier being presented as FACT. Fell free to back that up with some reliable facts figures and such things. A simple common sense tells us that Bowlers are also privy to modern facilities and techniques. Nobody is saying the DGB would average 99.94 in today's world... but he would still be counted among the top bats of the day.
The Outsider Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 similarily Tendlya, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Inzamam, Sangakkara, Jayawardena wud average 100 in Bradman's era :weights: And how much would Farhat, Butt, Ashraful average in Bradman's era?
King Tendulkar Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 And how much would Farhat' date=' Butt, Ashraful average in Bradman's era?[/quote'] Over 100 minimum , easily! In fact transport me back to the 20s I would average at least 60 imo. And then you would be praising me and singing my praises as well on this very forum:hysterical:
King Tendulkar Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The Bradman/Hobbs fanboys are getting so confused. They should just come out admit the game was totally difeerent 80 years back. That no way they would be any good in modern era as totaly different game(tactics, competition, basic mass evolution). They should just say they were greats in their bygone era. That they were historical figures of cricket and piooners of cricket. But to claim as good as modern cricketers is bannans. You then hear them say well if they have modern training, techniques, time to adapt etc etc blah blah ifs and buts etc etc. Either they are the best or not. Stop all this nonsense!
Sachinism Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 KT do you mean to say DGB was crap? I don't know if he's better than Tendulkar, but he was very good. You can only perform against what is put up against. He has clearly shown he has the talent, who's to say he wouldn't have adapted had he grown up in this era? Some people are naturally talented, give them any circumstances, I'm sure they'll adapt
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