Please rank the following cricketers....

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[OriginalCopy]

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' date=' let's just agree to disagree. There is no answer to something like this. [b']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.

That journalist who saw Don and Tendulkar both was likely suffering from dimensia or imagining things! Assuming that journalist was 25 yr. old when he saw bradman bat first (1930, a couple of years into his career), and assuming he saw Tendulkar in the mid 90's when he was at his 'first' peak. That makes the journalist around 90 years of age where the mind gets slow and memory starts failing oneself ... Not leaning one way or the other, but that doesn't prove anything regarding who was better. And why would you not believe all the other journalist who said Don was better?

[Zero_Unit]

I don't even know half of the players in that list -_-'

[King Tendulkar]

Keith Miller Chris Lewis Vinoo Mankad Ravindra Jadeja Jack Hobbs Imran Farhat Ray Lindwall Mohammad Sami Bill O'Reilly Danish Kaneria Thanks.

Frankly speaking and no doubt they are great players of cricket history/pioneers and should be remebered as such. But someone like Hobbs would not get in to my club sides 5th eleven. Thats the brutal truth. And threads like this heap disrespect on past greats, as they force dteailed analysis of cricket back then which if you really want to compare to 2010 standards was like a comedy show. So yeah if you got a time machine and brought Hobbs in to 2010 he would not get in my club sides 5th eleven!

[Gunner_Mania]

Somebody has been searching for Keith Miller at CI. :hmmm:

[Sachinism]

Probably coz of this - http://www.cricinfo.com/legends-of-cricket/content/site/451900.html

[Anakin]

That journalist who saw Don and Tendulkar both was likely suffering from dimensia or imagining things! Assuming that journalist was 25 yr. old when he saw bradman bat first (1930, a couple of years into his career), and assuming he saw Tendulkar in the mid 90's when he was at his 'first' peak. That makes the journalist around 90 years of age where the mind gets slow and memory starts failing oneself ... Not leaning one way or the other, but that doesn't prove anything regarding who was better. And why would you not believe all the other journalist who said Don was better?

Because he actually saw them both?

[Bumper]

Just curious, how did you come up with the combination of players you did in the OP ? Looks like you short listed the all time greats of one era & the cr@p players of the modern era and compiled an arbitrary list that suits your argument :-) Its not too difficult to come up with a similar list, that asks people to rank McGrath, Akram, Donald, Warney, Murali from the modern era along with Joe Schmoe, Bloe Slow, Jack Sheet of the 40s.:haha: PS: Speaking of Jack Hobbs, i saw one of his cover drives posted by some one on a diff thread. I am shocked that after seeing this footage people still believe that cricket in the 40s is comparable to the modern era.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

Just curious, how did you come up with the combination of players you did in the OP ? Looks like you short listed the all time greats of one era & the cr@p players of the modern era and compiled an arbitrary list that suits your argument :-) Its not too difficult to come up with a similar list, that asks people to rank McGrath, Akram, Donald, Warney, Murali from the modern era along with Joe Schmoe, Bloe Slow, Jack Sheet of the 40s.:haha: PS: Speaking of Jack Hobbs, i saw one of his cover drives posted by some one on a diff thread. I am shocked that after seeing this footage people still believe that cricket in the 40s is comparable to the modern era.

:hysterical:

[Sooda]

For what its worth I think when were doing this rather pointless excercise, we cannot approach it from a 'get into a time machine and come into this era' standpoint. Going by that (to use retts example) Lindbergh would not be a patch on pilots today and that McLaren car would be toasted by modern machines. If they were to come over via time machine, I agree that Bradders (say he jumped over right at the peak of his powers to today to play) would not have averaged as much as 90. I think he may have done well mind you once he was given time to adapt to modern day playing methods. A better way to think about it would be looking at the inherent ability and talent of people like Bradman and Hobbs. Undoubtedly pretty gifted. So if they were born in 1975 and had the fortune of undergoing modern fitness, coaching and training methods to hone that ability they would do very well. But that is futile as there is no way of really knowing of course. Maybe we can take an educated guess but Im not sure. And as Outsider and rett say view it from the context of their era and how good they were then-how much better than their peers

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

I think there is a wave length mismatch between the two camps. :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Just curious' date=' how did you come up with the combination of players you did in the OP ? [/quote'] Surprised that you did not pick it up. It's a great player from the past and a counterpart modern player with around half as worse average like : Miller - Lewis Mankad - Jadeja Hobbs - Farhat O'Reilly - Kaneria Lindwall - Sami Because I've been informed in other threads that a modern average is worth twice as in the old days, so I guess it's only fair to say Farhat would have averaged 70 then? Please do rank these players though. PS : I take exception to calling players like Farhat and Jadeja crap. The would have been greats of the game had they played in the 1930s. It is just their misfortune that they are born in the professional era with all it's handicaps.

[vaibhav_delhi]

if jadeja was born in pakistan, waqar younis wud have said: "I havent seen a batsman like Ravinder in 15 years"

[King Tendulkar]

Surprised that you did not pick it up. It's a great player from the past and a counterpart modern player with around half as worse average like : Miller - Lewis Mankad - Jadeja Hobbs - Farhat O'Reilly - Kaneria Lindwall - Sami Because I've been informed in other threads that a modern average is worth twice as in the old days, so I guess it's only fair to say Farhat would have averaged 70 then? Please do rank these players though. PS : I take exception to calling players like Farhat and Jadeja crap. The would have been greats of the game had they played in the 1930s. It is just their misfortune that they are born in the professional era with all it's handicaps.

Lets be brutally honest. Jadeja if he played in 1920s would average well over 100 with the bat and average 11 with the ball(not as good as lohmann though:--D) Thats the brutal reality. Just like you pick a mediocre footballer from now and put them in 1920s football(90 YEARS AGO FOR GODS SAKE) they would be like a footballl god. Outsider are you actually saying that if you transport Jack Hobbs in a time machine to a match now that he would be a great player?

[Sooda]

^That is true and I think thats the point. And thats what i meant by saying you cant do this as a 'time travelleing excercise' Why the 1920s? Id say if Maradona was time travelled from his 1980's peak to today he would struggle badly. In terms of touch and technique there'd be no one like him for sure, but the pace of the modern football game and vastly superior fitness levels (even from the 80's) would catch him out big time. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg would get absolutely pummelled by the strength of someone like Soderling (let alone Nadal) So does that mean they are not amongst the greatest ever of their sports?

[King Tendulkar]

^That is true and I think thats the point. And thats what i meant by saying you cant do this as a 'time travelleing excercise' Why the 1920s? Id say if Maradona was time travelled from his 1980's peak to today he would struggle badly. In terms of touch and technique there'd be no one like him for sure, but the pace of the modern football game and vastly superior fitness levels (even from the 80's) would catch him out big time. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg would get absolutely pummelled by the strength of someone like Soderling (let alone Nadal) So does that mean they are not amongst the greatest ever of their sports?

No but it must be discussed in that context. Not like some of the loony bradman fanboys. Who belive bradman would rock up and score a double ton in a test match tommorow. 1. Thus its clear Tendulkar is the greatest real time batsman ever. 2. Its a seperate argument who was the greatest in relation to their era. But in regards to pre 1960s players. I truly beleive the game was so different that even in point 2 its impossibel to comare to modern game players, as techniques and tactics were so different and competition levels so different(Bradman had one decent country to play that was england other were pathetic)! Bradman was from a bygone prehistoric era in cricket terms to compare him to modern players is dumb

[jf1gp_1]

Lets be brutally honest. Jadeja if he played in 1920s would average well over 100 with the bat and average 11 with the ball(not as good as lohmann though:--D) Thats the brutal reality.

i disagree. Todays players dont know anything about 20s playing condition, absence of protective gear, umpiring standards, no technology to rely on .. current bunch of players with their physios, diets etc are a spoilt bunch who knows how they would have performed with so many unknowns