Please rank the following cricketers....

[The Outsider]

So basically you think SRT is like Jadeja's standard (or worse) when compared to Bradman.

I am not saying anything. I am using the same logic being used to ascertain Tendulkar is better than Bradman, and extending it to a handful of other cricketers.

[Anakin]

Not really, you're twisting it quite a lot and you know it.

[The Outsider]

Not really' date=' you're twisting it quite a lot and you know it.[/quote'] No, I'm not. When you claim that someone who averages half in the modern era is better than someone from the old era, the metric has to be applicable for all cricketers. As I said above, a kg to pound conversion will remain the same whether for aaloo or pyaaz. You cannot say 1 kg aaloo = 1.2 pounds aaloo and 1 kg pyaaz = 3.2 pounds pyaaz.

[Anakin]

What about the bowlers of different eras? You should take the average with a pinch of salt like so many things in cricket. But anyways, let's just agree to disagree. There is no answer to something like this. I'd rather take the words of some journalist who saw Bradman bat and who said a 19 yr old SRT was better than Bradman. PS: I mean no dis-respect to DGB, but I think that avg would've been much lower if he had played now.

[Anakin]

BTW, the kg/pound analogy is really a bad one in this case. Cricket simply doesn't work like that, purely based on numbers. Anyways, as I said, this is an endless debate. So, let's just agree to disagree.

[The Outsider]

BTW, the kg/pound analogy is really a bad one in this case. Cricket simply doesn't work like that, purely based on numbers. Anyways, as I said, this is an endless debate. So, let's just agree to disagree.

As I said, I did not come up with that analogy. There are many on this board claiming Tendulkar would have averaged more than 100 comfortably playing in the times of Bradman. Well, in that case why would not Imran Farhat average 70 or why would not Sami pick up wickets at an average of 25 in Bradman's era making them comfortably better than Hobbs and Lindwall.

[coffee_rules]

:hysterical::cantstop:

[sudheer kumar]

No need rank these players all are worst

[Raghav_12]

As I said, I did not come up with that analogy. There are many on this board claiming Tendulkar would have averaged more than 100 comfortably playing in the times of Bradman. Well, in that case why would not Imran Farhat average 70 or why would not Sami pick up wickets at an average of 25 in Bradman's era making them comfortably better than Hobbs and Lindwall.

:regular_smile: I guess there were relatively easier ways to drive your point home. But I agree mostly with your point. There is no way you can extrapolate things like this just by using a multiplier. While people claim that Sachin would have scored @ 100 per innings if he was in Bradman's era, I think that could have been the case, ceteris paribus. But it is funny to believe that if any of these legends from that era had played in current age, they would not have adapted to modern standards of fielding, athletism and overall professionalism or they would have been incapable of. Simple logic is if they were greater than most of others at that time, they would have been greater than most of others at this time. I know, for an example, it is almost unbelieveable to imagine Ranji, an indian prince, doing rigourous exercise to keep himself in top fitness at that time. But if he was here in today's time, would he have done what is required? Of course, he would have. He was no chump. While I may agree on Tendulkar being more skillful in batting than Bradman (Bradman would not have had range of shots which Sachin has) and may be on him being better batsmen than Bradman, but no way he is greater batsman than Bradman. Just to draw an analogy, I can not claim about being more intelligent than Newton just because I knew theory of gravitation at a younger age than him :regular_smile:.

[zen]

Rameez Raja > Wally Hammond. Rameez (career avg: 32 in tests) would probably avg double in Hammond's era, i.e. 64 (Hammond avg 58) :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[acharya]

bossbhai - there is no comparison between list 1 and 2 - list 2 is awesome - also in wisden top 100 these idiots put bradman at 1 - but very few bowlers from his era is in the list

[The Outsider]

Time to drive the Bradman fanboi's helter skelter .... Proff' date=' Remember this : [url']http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=995844&postcount=176 ? So which list has better bowlers LIST-1 or LIST-2 ?

Please don't derail the thread. It's about appreciating, analyzing, and comparing the players in the OP. If you have something to say on the topic, please do so.

[King Tendulkar]

So rank these 3 outsider. Lohmann , ZK and Marshall?

[ensd2]

But I would say they are still better players than the oldies listed there. Because even though the oldies have about twice as better bowling and batting averages compared to the modern players in the list, they played in an amateur era and the modern game is so much more evolved. Just look at the fielding standards for example. If Jadeja was bowling or batting in the 1930s I am pretty confident he would average close to 70-80 with the bat and around 15-20 with the ball, for example.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

So rank these 3 outsider. Lohmann ' date=' ZK and Marshall?[/quote'] Sure. I will rank them in a different thread after you rank the players mentioned in the OP. The players in OP are the topic of the thread, not Lohmann, Zaheer, and Marshall. Please feel free to discuss their strengths, weaknesses, and comparisons.

[The Outsider]

Coming back to the topic - what a relishing prospect a face off between Keith Miller and Sami sounds like. With his deadly pace, unheard of during the days of Miller, the sight of the Miller's stumps being splayed and being in disarray would be a tonic for the souls. And to top it all, Sami would be good enough to be a genuine all rounder if he played in the 1930s and would polish off his rivalry, if you can call it that, with Miller with a few meaty blows to mid wicket off the trundling Miller.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

All Iam saying is you need to widen the scope of this exercise ... as was first suggested by me 2 yrs ago ... after which you quitely hit the exit ... Iam hoping the same will happen again but hey maybe the third time's charm :woot: So whats it going to be list - 1 or list - 2 ?

Is it too much to ask to not derail the topic of the thread? This thread is not about any lists you put up. It is about eulogizing and appreciating the talents and abilities of Jadeja vs. Mankad, Farhat vs. Hobbs etc. All those questions you are asking have already been addressed in other threads. Please rank the cricketers mentioned in OP and contribute positively to the thread.