Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[zen]

Nobody considers runs-per-test as a benchmark for anything. You cant even find that stat on cricinfo.

sure! :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

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.

I think you have lost yourself in argument. You mentioned Lindwalll capabilities of completing 100 m in 11.71 trying to impress forum that it was supremely athletic so he must be bowling at 90mph or so. While after realizing that 11.71 is not really a good time for the claims of being a super athlete, you turned your argument on it's head and now telling that if Munaf/Nehra/Onions can bowl at 90mph why can't Lindwall, whom you think was more fit then these. So from your claims of supreme fit to you came down to tell that he was better than worst. If at such level, Lindwall can enter in folklores for athletism, you can very well understand level of athletism in that era.

[King Tendulkar]

^ Outsider being intellectually dishonest here, hoped no one would notice Lindalls time was for 100 yards and not metres:haha: Now we all realise that Lindalls 100 yards time was not quick at all!

[King Tendulkar]

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:

Yep look at the videos. It shows you the standard of play was poor compared to top modern players. Thats the reality. Reinforces what I said that pionners and historical figures yes. Great players comparable to modern greats, no way. They played a different game back then. Look at Hobbs batting in the videos which you dont seem to want to discuss. What do you think of his technique and skills? BE HONEST!

[King Tendulkar]

You are saying that only because you think he played in an ERA where according to you the sport wasn't competitive.

Would you accept he played only one developed team in England. The other teams at that time were begginers, novices, joke teams in comparison to england and oz. Thus if you played only one other proper team in your life, would you not say that that is not very competitive and certainly much less competitive then 2010. Big fish in small pond!

[zen]

dont take my word ... go find it on CI if you can.

Not many make lame arguments like you do. Haha, so if something doesn't favor Tendulkar then that's not a standard. I hope you know that cricinfo don't rate players based on sledging or watching slow videos too but that never crossed your mind :giggle: Tendulkar would have been ahead of his peers, if he had hit like 50 100s in 150 tests and scored 15k runs in 150 tests. Lara scores 91 runs per tests so it's not hard to see that if he played 171 tests (40 more than his 131) he would have more test runs than Tendulkar. Ponting scores as many as Tendulkar per test so he would be right up there with him too if he had played 171 tests. Coming back to Lara vs Tendulkar, let look at the difference b/w the two T: 171 tests, 14240 runs @ 83 L: 131 tests, 11953 runs @ 91 so the difference is 2287 runs in 40 tests @ 57 runs per tests. So in 40 more tests, even if Lara only goes at 60 runs per test, he would be ahead of Tendulkar :P Arre bhai, forget about an avg of 100 per inning, let's see first if Tendulkar can avg 100 runs per test :winky:

[Anakin]

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!

You do realize that's retarded by any standard. You know what, forget it. You have proved your stats power, there is no more point.

[Sachinism]

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!

sure! :giggle:

OMG he's actually serious :hysterical::hysterical:

[King Tendulkar]

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!

WTF:hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

You do realize that's retarded by any standard. You know what, forget it. You have proved your stats power, there is no more point.

Sure it is to those who think Tendulkar is the greatest :giggle: What's retarded is to show a guy who has not even managed to score at 100 runs per test to be greater than someone who avg 100 runs per inning! And that too when that guy is doing more or less the same as some of the other top batsmen of his era :icflove: As I said, to be ahead of his peers, Tendulkar would have needed to score like 15k runs in 150 tests (17k by 171) and scored 50 100s in 150 tests or so (he is not even past 50 after 170 odd tests) :--D

[Anakin]

Sure it is to those who think Tendulkar is the greatest :giggle: What's retarded is to show a guy who has not even managed to score at 100 runs per test to be greater than someone who avg 100 runs per inning! And that too when that guy is doing more or less the same as some of the other top batsmen of his era :icflove: As I said, to be ahead of his peers, Tendulkar would have needed to score like 15k runs in 150 tests (17k by 171) and scored 50 100s in 150 tests or so (he is not even past 50 after 170 odd tests) :--D

The simple fact that SRT has better avg than Lara should give you an idea of how retarded that stat was. And, again, I'm not gonna get into that 99 business. Cricket has never been about raw numbers, it's how and under which circumstances you reach those numbers. But to summarize, please do not compare amateurish cricket to current cricket. PS. the way T20 is spreading, test cricket might just become as amateurish, as before, in the next few decades. May be we should talk then too. Till then, bye.

[zen]

The simple fact that SRT has better avg than Lara should give you an idea of how retarded that stat was. And, again, I'm not gonna get into that 99 business. Cricket has never been about raw numbers, it's how and under which circumstances you reach those numbers. But to summarize, please do not compare amateurish cricket to current cricket. PS. the way T20 is spreading, test cricket might just become as amateurish, as before, in the next few decades. May be we should talk then too. Till then, bye.

This only reflects your lack of understanding on how to see "runs per tests" :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Just curious as to how its a good response when the basis of goose's post to which he is responding says that burden of proof would shift to those who swear by the peer business instead of those who swear by overall achievements (Tests+ODIs) of baasu where he is head and shoulders above the next best batsman - Ponting. It gets really commical later on when he uses runs-per-test to show others being ahead of baasu ...( read from post#282 onwards )

I kinda agree with you that Don's 99.94 average is beat up a little too much. Being ahead of peers by a great margin does not necessitate that you will be better than all the others. the typical arguments I see falling in Bradman's favor are - he played in an era of uncovered wickets he played without the need for protective gear. Unless someone can seriously try and bring objectivity to these "uncovered wickets" bogey I'll leave it aside. What does uncovered wickets mean? Imagine a day of Test cricket...in the morning the pitch is damp coz of early morning due on a regular day. The impact of the dew stays for what 1 hour? 2 hours? How often did Bradman play in his career during the first hour of play (when the dew was more than the usual dew percentage)? From accounts I read recently that Headley was way superior to Bradman on wet wickets. Bradman was useless...yes useless in comparison to Headley, Hobbs, and Hammond on "sticky dogs". So that particular bogey can be thrown out of the door. Next comes protective gear. No matter how much protective gear one wears it will not teach him to play the short ball better. It can save the person being hit but it does not teach him better technique...it makes him bold, but does not improve his batting by any great margin. Secondly, how many fast bowlers did Bradman get to play...Larwood? Who else...possibly Tate was a decent 85mph...but who else? How many even good bowlers did he play against? Now compare that with Gavaskar, and Chappell...they played at least 10 fearsomely quick buggers - Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Croft, Clarke, etc in their careers. Compare it to the best bowling decade ever - the 90's - Wasim, Walsh, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, Shoaib, Lee, McDermott, Kumble, Murali, Warne, Saqi, Mushtaq, McGrath, etc...the decade of the 90's alone has at least 30% of the ATG bowlers at their peaks!!! Bradman didn't play bowling of such quality. Guys like Lara, Sachin, Gavaskar, Chappell, Richards, Inzi, and Miandad have played against such class bowlers and come out trumps against them. And doing this not just in Test cricket but in ODI cricket as well. Bradman never played on a dust bowl...he never faced a decent tweaker in his Test career leave alone tour India and play the Quartet. This distance from peers is beaten up a lil too much I think. One of the main reasons of this distance is, as implied by a few from that age, is because Bradman was ruthless at exploiting weakness. In those days cricket was largely a gentlemanly sport where if you came across a not so decent enough player you didn't take him to the cleaners even though you could...the Master Hobbs didn't play it that way but Bradman did. Keith Miller in the opening tour game of the 1948 tour came in at 2 down for 300 odd and what does he do...shoulders arms to a ball headed straight to the middle wicket. Why? The game was against a lowly county side which was demolished by Bradman and another chap...he felt what was the need to rub their noses in the ground? We have scored enough why screw them even more? Bradman was possibly the most efficient run maker of them all. He was ruthless in his cricket and that is possibly the real explanation of his difference from his peers. O by the way this is not to belittle his achievement...pls don't interpret it that way

[zen]

Yes. But you should get ready to apply for Nishaan-E-Pakistan because going by your formula Eunice Khan and MoYo are better batsmen than Baasu ...

I never said who is better than whom. I only presented those number to show that these 3 are on the same level (that too when you said that Ten is way ahead of his peers) .... but yeah the level of understanding that you have shown is remarkable, no wonder you thought sledging effects averages :hysterical: Keep it up, son! In fact this whole page shows the comical side of "Tendulkar the greatest" band :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Keep it up' date=' son! In fact this whole page shows the comical side of "Tendulkar the greatest" band :giggle:[/quote'] If you want some real comedy go check out the videos of Hobbs batting!