Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[The Outsider]

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'] No need to get angry when your stupid analogies are being exposed. :icflove:

[Raghav_12]

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?

I think you have definitely have taken wrong example. 100 yards in 10.6 seconds in anything but impressive to support somebody's claim of being athletic. (It translates into 11.7 seconds for 100 meter) Have you ever checked how fast athletes from other sports are - some fast footballers claim to complete 100 m in around 10 seconds. Some links I could find. http://www.soccerbible.com/news/general/archive/2010/04/06/theo-walcott-s-speed-burst-makes-him-olympic-contender.aspx http://www.castefootball.us/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12748&title=theo-walcott-speed Not that cricketers are required to be as fast as footballers but around 12 seconds for 100 m no big deal at all. People clock those times in school.

[yoda]

You can continue obsessing with ERAs and I'll obsess with the overall quality of the system.

I did not say just ERA, I said ERA is very important in these discussions. It is not a question of our personal obsessions. When talking Bradman and co, vs current players, the main issue is Quality across ERA. If you go down the path of Quality alone without including ERA in your examples, you will be talking International vs Ranji and not 2000s vs 1930s.

[The Outsider]

I think you have definitely have taken wrong example. 100 yards in 10.6 seconds in anything but impressive to support somebody's claim of being athletic. (It translates into 11.7 seconds for 100 meter) Have you ever checked how fast athletes from other sports are - some fast footballers claim to complete 100 m in around 10 seconds. Some links I could find. http://www.soccerbible.com/news/general/archive/2010/04/06/theo-walcott-s-speed-burst-makes-him-olympic-contender.aspx http://www.castefootball.us/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12748&title=theo-walcott-speed Not that cricketers are required to be as fast as footballers but around 12 seconds for 100 m no big deal at all. People clock those times in school.

At a time when the world record was 10.3 seconds for Larwood to run in 11.7 seconds is pretty damn impressive. How many cricketers do you think can complete 100 meters in less than 11 seconds today? Munaf has bowled 90 mph. How fast do you think he can complete 100 meters? Or Nehra? Again, I am not implying that there is a one to one causality between how fast you can run and how fast you can bowl. But in the absence of any other data, I am saying why is it so difficult to believe that fit cricketers like Larwood, Lindwall, and Miller were not genuinely quick as described by others, when we have seen Nehra, Onions, and Munaf touch those speeds in modern times?

[Raghav_12]

At a time when the world record was 10.3 seconds for Larwood to run in 11.7 seconds is pretty damn impressive. How many cricketers do you think can complete 100 meters in less than 11 seconds today? Munaf has bowled 90 mph. How fast do you think he can complete 100 meters? Or Nehra? Again, I am not implying that there is a one to one causality between how fast you can run and how fast you can bowl. But in the absence of any other data, I am saying why is it so difficult to believe that fit cricketers like Larwood, Lindwall, and Miller were not genuinely quick as described by others, when we have seen Nehra, Onions, and Munaf touch those speeds in modern times?

World record was 10.2 seconds and 11.7 is 15% off world record .Not impressive at all. I don't have data to support but I think few cricketers can finish 100 m in sub -11 second time and it will not be made big deal at all. If you think that 11 or 11.5 second is big deal for a person who claim to be a athlete of world level, then you don't follow althletics much. And please don't mention Munaf when we talking about athletism.

[The Outsider]

World record was 10.2 seconds and 11.7 is 15% off world record .Not impressive at all. I don't have data to support but I think few cricketers can finish 100 m in sub -11 second time and it will not be made big deal at all.

What am I expected to say to the above?

If you think that 11 or 11.5 second is big deal for a person who claim to be a athlete of world level, then you don't follow althletics much. And please don't mention Munaf when we talking about athletism.

What I am saying is that if modern cricketers who are quite clearly poorer athletes than being able to run 100 meters in 11.5 seconds can bowl at 90 mph, why is it so unbelievable that at least the really fit bowlers of old did manage those kind of speeds?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

because there is no connection between how fast you can run and how fast you can bowl.

Yeah, Powar is as likely to send down a 90 mph delivery as Steyn. And all the fast bowlers throughout history who have emphasized and worked hard on fitness and physical conditioning are morons.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Yeah wonder why Jonty Rhodes never could bowl much beyond 70-75 MPH whereas Kallis ' date=' Zulu , Gough, Merv, Dougie , Big Bird , Amby , Shoaib etc etc on the other hand could bowl at serious pace. BTW Waz could generate high speeds from a very short runup ... must have been super athletic.[/quote'] Way to miss the point. But not much else can be expected from you, really. Let me try one last time : 1. In modern times we have seen not the most athletic of bowlers like Nehra, Onions, and Munaf touch 90 mph on occasions. 2. It is consensus amongst the best fast bowlers that physical conditioning and fitness has helped them bowl faster and more consistently. 3. It is a fact that the physical fitness and conditioning of Lindwall and Larwood was much much better than Nehra and Munaf. 4. Why is it impossible that Lindwall and Larwood bowled at 90 mph? Crappy videos where Jesse Owens looks like a runner from my school athletic team don't count.

[ZodiaC]

because there is no connection between how fast you can run and how fast you can bowl.

gKWM84pADPE

[yoda]

The analogy is simple – there’s no need to complicate it. The theory that was propounded concerned outperforming your peers. Check the posts above' date=' especially rest or rett’s. The argument went like Sachin, because he has failed to outperform his peers the way Bradman did, cannot be deemed as a batsman of higher class. [b']The whole point of my post was that Bradman never really had to contend with the level of competitiveness and the multitude of extraneous factors that influences a modern sportsman like Sachin. It’s not a like for like comparison.

You are saying that only because you think he played in an ERA where according to you the sport wasn't competitive. So, essentially you are also including ERA in your analysis. So much for saying ERA wasn't part of the equation. :headshake: Now, back to the issue of why Bradman never really had to content with the level of competitiveness, there is no evidence to indicate that he was the only competitive player in that era. For him to have such a huge gap between him and the next guy, you can say that in two different ways. 1. Every one else was cr@p - no evidence to prove that he was the only non cr@ppy player, unless ofc you are saying they were all cr@p, so just ignore them all 2. He just was so much better than the rest - his stats prove that

[yoda]

Don’t fixate yourself on trifles and ascribe things to me I never said. Your comprehension issues aren’t my problem. Go read it again, a word at a time, and I’d pray you’ll understand the essence of my post. Your next paragraph doesn’t make sense at all. You’ve selectively quoted only a part of my post and ignored the bit where I suggested you to have a good look at the Hobbs’ video. I also asked you to note how these celebrated writers spread the canard about uncovered pitches. Do you consider videos to be evidence of the quality of play? Maybe you concern yourself with stats alone. In which case, do me favour and ignore this post. The two “ways” you’re looking at doesn’t really help the point we are discussing. Yes, Bradman was incalculably ahead of his peers. What does that tell us? That he was a great of his era and maybe even an all time great? Yes. Anything beyond that? No. His pre-eminence amongst his peers doesn’t automatically super-impose him ahead of the modern masters of the game. Your second “way” is equally devoid of meaning. Didn’t I ask you to produce me your list of top 25 bowlers and see how many of them come from the Hobbs era? I also asked you to choose between the modern fielding side and a team from the early 19th century.

I will ignore your post not because of the stats reason rather because of it's tone. :cheer:

[Anakin]

Not really, you have to combine the ODIs and tests together to judge anyone from SRT's era. And in that case if anyone thinks that he doesn't trump his peers, then there is no freaking way he/she can be convinced otherwise. And of course, this is assuming that average was same during that era and now, ie, standard of cricket is exactly the same, which goes against all common sense and general fact.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

How many games has Tendulkar played?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

We all know how many ... whats the point you are trying to make ?

Brain Lara: 11953 runs in 131 tests @ 91 runs per test Sachin: 14240 runs in 171 tests @ 83 runs per test Ponting: 12250 runs in 148 tests @ 83 runs per test Enough said!

[pensionplan]

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!

Some very good points made. Without a doubt when SRT's name is brought up names like Lara, Ponting, Border can all be debated and depending on a person's perspective it is not too inconcievable to put any of the names slightly above Tendulkar. Today that may look a little too far fetched given SRT's incredible purple patch over the last 19-20 months and it is natural for people to be awestuck in the present and as things are happening currently. Unless SRT averages in the 90's range over the next 12-14 tests there is always a scope for debate clubbing him with the players mentioned above.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --