Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[zen]

This is a simple of question of the order of eras. Bradman's (and a few others from olden times) test average could never be used in the case against Tendulkar since there is no Bradman yet. His status as the best ever would become entrenched in the same way Bradman's is now. Bradman's subsequent career would be seen as pushing Tendulkar close but ultimately most would agree Tendulkar would have averaged the same or higher if he had to face only one or two test playing nations. I imagine Bradman would be considered the most *insert adjective* player ever just like Sehwag or Richards are considered the most destructive. But Tendulkar's status would endure. Sport and greatness therein doesn't happen in a vacuum. Perception is everything. If Bradman's career and era happened after Tendulkar's I imagine the sport itself would be declared dead never mind the batting average comparisons with Tendulkar.

Not really! Let's assume these scenarios: A: Bradman played in 90s-today, while Tendulkar played in 30s-50s. Why wouldn't Bradman be considered the greatest if he avg 100 and others avg around 60s? And Tendulkar avg 56 in 30s. B: Tendulkar played in 90s-20s and Bradman plays in say 2020-2040. Again if Bradman manages to avg 100, while others avg 60 then he would become the greatest For your logic to be correct, people have to claim that the likes of Hobbs, who in his prime played before Bradman, are as great as Bradman. Which is not the case. Or say that Gavaskar is well ahead of tendulkar because he played before Tendulkar. Again this is not the case. Also your point assumes that what Tendulkar has achieved is similar to what Bradman achieved, which is not the case. If you can't score 14k runs after playing 171 games then you probably don't deserve to be in the best batsmen list. I don't think Tendulkar has achieved anything more than what Sobers or Richards achieved. Or what Hobbs achieved in the past. Bradman is in a different league because of what he could achieve. If you are going to transplant Sachin in to 30s then he isn't going to play any different than what a Hammond or what a Headley would. :winky:

[goose]

I disagree with your B scenario. As I implied in my previous post, I believe Bradman's freak average would be explained away by the changes in the sport. The burden of proof would shift from those that wish to place Tendulkar at the top to those that argue for his displacing by Bradman. Unless a convincing argument can be put forward and accepted by ALL, the status quo generally holds. The status quo would favor Tendulkar. Right now it favors Bradman.

[Raghav_12]

On a lighter note, your first para can be summed up with a statement like "so what kind of technological innovation stopped cars from using seat belts, I guess, people did use belts in that period!" :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag Look at the technology involved in invention and manufacturing of Airbag and compare it with the technology imvolved in manufacturing of simple helmets (the one which were used by batsmen initially) :-). About helmets I picked following line from wikipedia - "The oldest known use of helmets was by Assyrian soldiers in 900BC" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmets My last post on nit-picking :--D

[zen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag Look at the technology involved in invention and manufacturing of Airbag and compare it with the technology imvolved in manufacturing of simple helmets (the one which were used by batsmen initially) :-). About helmets I picked following line from wikipedia - "The oldest known use of helmets was by Assyrian soldiers in 900BC" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmets My last post on nit-picking :--D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_%28clothing%29 Belts were available since a long time (just like helmets) but I wonder why they didn't use it as seat belts (like helmets in cricket). I guess, per you, may be there wasn't a need for seat belts because car drove at sub 60 kmph (wonder why we have to wear seat belts even in sub 40 kmph zones) just like helmets weren't needed because the pace bowlers than were as qucik as spinners now (based on the low tech slow motion type videos that shows even a man doing 100mts in 10 sec as slow) :giggle:

[zen]

I disagree with your B scenario. As I implied in my previous post' date=' I believe Bradman's freak average would be explained away by the changes in the sport. The burden of proof would shift from those that wish to place Tendulkar at the top to those that argue for his displacing by Bradman. Unless a convincing argument can be put forward and accepted by ALL, the status quo generally holds. The status quo would favor Tendulkar. Right now it favors Bradman.[/quote'] Not really as Tendulkar hasn't achieved something that makes him stand out from his peers in this era. If he had a SR like Sehwag's and a avg close to 60 then may be I would put him above his peers but that isn't the case too. The thing that works for Tendulkar and against his peers is his consistency but many in the past had that kind of consistency too (from Ind: Gavaskar) You may think about bringing in ODIs, and say he achieved 200* but again it's just 6 runs more than Anwar's 194 which was scored at a time when there were 15 PP overs. And the best ODI inning by an Ind is by Kapil when he hit that 175* to get help Ind in to semis (after Ind were 17/5). And for many, Sir Viv richards is the best ODI batsman. As I said, only thing that goes for Sachin is the consistency in all forms of cricket and that is why he is amongst the great. But that consistency is not enough to make him the greatest and be in the same league as Don's. So if Bradman in future were to avg 100, when his peers avg 60. He would be the greatest. You brought that point forward because you over estimate Sachin's achievements vs those by the likes of Sobers, Richards, Gavaskar, Lara, .... along with the automatic assumption that Sachin would be the greatest if there were no Bradman For your entrenchment theory to be applicable, other greats from the past like Ranjitsinghji, Hobbs, Hammond, Headley, .... etc have to be rated higher than Sobers, Richards, ..... And we know that is not the case. So unless someone delivers an exceptional performance, it is difficult for him entrench his position. Bradman entrenched his position not because he played in the past because he achieved something remarkable which no other batsmen has managed to achieve so far Case closed!

[Raghav_12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_%28clothing%29 Belts were available since a long time (just like helmets) but I wonder why they didn't use it as seat belts (like helmets in cricket). I guess, per you, may be there wasn't a need for seat belts because car drove at sub 60 kmph (wonder why we have to wear seat belts even in sub 40 kmph zones) just like helmets weren't needed because the pace bowlers than were as qucik as spinners now (based on the low tech slow motion type videos that shows even a man doing 100mts in 10 sec as slow) :giggle:

Seat belts were invented by Dorothy Richardson's husband[dubious – discuss] in the late 19th century, though Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York was granted the first patent (U.S. Patent 312,085, on February 10, 1885 for a safety belt).[13] Claghorn was granted United States Patent #312,085 for a Safety-Belt for tourists, described in the patent as "designed to be applied to the person, and provided with hooks and other attachments for securing the person to a fixed object." In 1911, Benjamin Foulois had the cavalry saddle shop fashion a belt for the seat of Wright Flyer Signal Corps 1. He wanted it to hold him firmly in his seat so he could better control his aircraft as he bounded along the rough field used for takeoff and landing. Seatbelts have been in use since 1880's. Before that what speeds of cars would have been? 20 KMPH? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt Anyway end of seat belts and airbags. Whole point I was trying to impress on was that any thing become popular if there is a need for that. Similarly helmets were not used because people did not really need them much ( plus they would come with some discomfort). As soon as people started really fast, it wasn't long before Helmets became popular. Nowhere I am telling they were as slow as spinners but definitely they were not fast enough to warrant regular use of helmets. Few dudes like Larwood did but instead of finding way (like helmets, protective gears etc,) to counter bodyline, cricket authorities sent Larwood to oblivion and then no bowler did try that again for long. Whole point is that myth of "playing without protective gear" is overhyped.

[zen]

Seat belts were invented by Dorothy Richardson's husband[dubious – discuss] in the late 19th century' date= though Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York was granted the first patent (U.S. Patent 312,085, on February 10, 1885 for a safety belt).[13] Claghorn was granted United States Patent #312,085 for a Safety-Belt for tourists, described in the patent as "designed to be applied to the person, and provided with hooks and other attachments for securing the person to a fixed object." In 1911, Benjamin Foulois had the cavalry saddle shop fashion a belt for the seat of Wright Flyer Signal Corps 1. He wanted it to hold him firmly in his seat so he could better control his aircraft as he bounded along the rough field used for takeoff and landing. Seatbelts have been in use since 1880's. Before that what speeds of cars would have been? 20 KMPH? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt Anyway end of seat belts and airbags. Whole point I was trying to impress on was that any thing become popular if there is a need for that. Similarly helmets were not used because people did not really need them much ( plus they would come with some discomfort). As soon as people started really fast, it wasn't long before Helmets became popular. Nowhere I am telling they were as slow as spinners but definitely they were not fast enough to warrant regular use of helmets. Few dudes like Larwood did but instead of finding way (like helmets, protective gears etc,) to counter bodyline, cricket authorities sent Larwood to oblivion and then no bowler did try that again for long. Whole point is that myth of "playing without protective gear" is overhyped.

But I guess the effects of sledging are not :giggle: haha, seat belts weren't used in cars (a generalization here, wide spread use as a standard equipment) in the olden era. Since they weren't used in the past (again generalizing) it doesn't mean that they were not needed. To give you an example, wearing seat belts is now mandatory in India, if I am not wrong, so does that mean that the need to wear seat belts wasn't useful. You get fined if you use your cellphone while driving but when there was no fine the use of cellphone while driving distracting the drivers was over hyped I guess so what's next when someone says men don't go to Moon that often, you would post abt Neil Armstrong landing on the moon :hysterical:

[Raghav_12]

But I guess the effects of sledging are not :giggle: haha, seat belts weren't used in cars (a generalization here, wide spread use as a standard equipment) in the olden era. Since they weren't used in the past (again generalizing) it doesn't mean that they were not needed. To give you an example, wearing seat belts is now mandatory in India, if I am not wrong, so does that mean that the need to wear seat belts wasn't useful. You get fined if you use your cellphone while driving but when there was no fine the use of cellphone while driving distracting the drivers was over hyped I guess so what's next when someone says men don't go to Moon that often, you would post abt Neil Armstrong landing on the moon :hysterical:

Seat belts were there but became popular only when they were needed and beneficial. Helmets were there but became popular in cricket only when they were needed and beneficial. About Moon travel, it is there and will become popular only when it will be required and beneficial.

[King Tendulkar]

Thirdly, if you look at the basics in those videos, they are still pretty sound and all there. Batsmen have the same back and across movement while playing the cut and skip down the track in the same way as today to play a lofted straight drive.

The baics!!! Even 10 year old kids have the basics now. We are talking about greatest ever and you talk about their basics were pretty sound. Watch the videos again, the so called fast bowlers were ridiculous, one with his run up was like a comedy show. Watch the videos and then watch videos of Tendulkar batting now. You are comparing donkeys with horses. Just adds to what I always say, pionners and historocal figures yes but greatest ever compared to modern players, you must be joking or blind!

[King Tendulkar]

Some of the arguments used to justify people like hobbs as great are hilarious, from seat belts to sholay to scientists to Owens :hysterical: Watch the videos chumps, no amount of silly words and stats is gonna fool people. But hey keep clinging to the accounts of benaud and wisden!

[King Tendulkar]

We know that Jesse Owens clocked 10.2 seconds for a 100 meter race. If you just watched him run from the videos of those times, would you think that the guy could complete 100 meters in even 20 seconds? It is a recorded fact that Lindwall ran 100 yards in 10.6 seconds. There is no getting around that. Does he look like someone who can manage that looking at the videos? .

100 yards is different from 100 meteres, thus lindwalls time is not fast at all. 100 yards is only 91.44m, good attempt to con us with that bit of deception. Its similar to the fake accounts of the brilliance of the oldie goldie players that contremparies and peers used. Next you will be telling me that there were no covers back then as well!:--D

[King Tendulkar]

By now it must be clear of that I consider many of "Tendulkar is the greatest" folks to be amongst some of the dumbest people around and such points by you only goes on to vindicate that statement more and more. :

Thats not a nice thing to say about Viv Richards!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Seat belts were there but became popular only when they were needed and beneficial. Helmets were there but became popular in cricket only when they were needed and beneficial. About Moon travel' date=' it is there and will become popular only when it will be required and beneficial.[/quote'] So you didn't get my point after giving so many examples! But I do get your point but disagree

[zen]

*Rett skips other biased and comical posts*

[yoda]

I can see that DSR is still seen parroting the same stuff - oh see the videos, see how they batted then, how can they be great, even a 10 year old today can play better than them? :giggle: I think a new thread is in order - Abdul Razzaq is greater than Don Bradman cause he hits so well that the oldies of those years can only dream of. :hehe:

[The Outsider]

100 yards is different from 100 meteres' date=' thus lindwalls time is not fast at all. 100 yards is only 91.44m, good attempt to con us with that bit of deception. Its similar to the fake accounts of the brilliance of the oldie goldie players that contremparies and peers used. Next you will be telling me that there were no covers back then as well!:--D[/quote'] I know the difference between yards and meters, thank you. The point of my post was that for someone who was not a professional runner to be around 10% of the then 100 meter world record meant that Lindwall was supremely athletic. And if much less athletic bowlers like your favorite Nehra or Munaf can touch the 90 mph mark, why should it be a surprise that extremely fit cricketers of that age like Larwood, Lindwall, or Miller would be able to bowl genuinely quick?

[The Outsider]

I am sold on this "peer theory" propounded by a few here. How far ahead one can be from his peers is the sole determinant. For example, a gold medalist at one of the IITs has got nothing on the VTBCC Memorial Engineering college topper who left his peers in dust. Who can argue against this beautiful logic?

:hysterical::hysterical: The IIT gold medalist and the VTBCC Memorial Engineering topper who left his 'peers' in the dust are also peers - they came through from roughly the same system of education and more than likely the VTBCC guy went to VTBCC because he did not get through IIT. What you are saying would be an apt analogy if people were saying Ajay Sharma is better than Tendulkar because his FC average is better than Tendulkar's test average. Let me help you out. The analogy you are looking for is that you are claiming some IIT topper with 57% marks, when there are lots of others in the 50-55% range is better than an IIT gold medalist who scored 100% 60 years back, when the next best was 60%. That certainly does appear beautiful!

[yoda]

I am sold on this "peer theory" propounded by a few here. How far ahead one can be from his peers is the sole determinant. For example, a gold medalist at one of the IITs has got nothing on the VTBCC Memorial Engineering college topper who left his peers in dust. Who can argue against this beautiful logic?

Wrong comparison. You need different ERA and same/similar competition. So try for example JEE in 1960s and JEE in 2010 (I have given this hypothetical in one of the gazillion threads on this topic).

[yoda]

The analogy is perfect. IIT is more discerning when it comes to deciding who studies there. The quality and competitiveness of peers at the IIT is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than whichever sadakchhap Punjaabi Uni you graduated from. Are you getting this? Bradman belonged to a group of amateurs' date=' like your sadakchhaap Punjaabi Uni. Sachin competes with the very best.[/quote'] I think you are lost. You example is similar to comparing current international players with current ranji (including only international rejects). Try the other example I gave for something which comes closer where different ERA are involved. Without the different ERA business and same sport (international cricket for example), your examples have no meaning.