Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[pensionplan]

The problem is not in the arguments ... the problem is the blocked mind that you have. Because no one in the right mind would consider the bowling "attacks" consisting of Voce, Bowes, Gubby Allen, Larwood , Bedser as worthy of any praise. Dont take my word lookup my old posts and you will find videos of these maharathis .... and I guarantee you will be rolling on the floor splitting your guts out at the "bowling" on display. The hilarious thing is these guys didnt even have soo much common sense as to spread the field and make run scoring hard even when the opposition is 600 runs ahead in the 2nd innings. They have about half a dozen fielders in catching or within 30 yards. Even school cricket isnt played like that anymore. And I totally expect this to not make any difference to you but FWIW .

Actually I have no blocked mind at all. I read all posts and try to get the other posters POV and appreciate that. I have viewed these bits and piece videos even back in the mid 80's on televison. That to me still does not really answer if that was such a run feast and the bowlers are sub-standard then why have others not averaged in the same ball park as Bradman even let us say for a 50 inning span at the time. I think Bradman the player was phenomenal and if his prototype today could be extrapolated back to the day we may see someone better than a Tendulkar or a Lara as we come to know of them today. A bigger run-machine than Tendulkar himself. Again this is all hypothesis but that is my belief. Also I am no huge Bradman fan and my standards only allow me to admire Vishy and VVS more than any other batsman :-)

[Nirvanam]

Spoken like a true srtfanatic to whom everyone else who do not accept him as the best ever is blind or delusional. The funny part is those who claim that they are huge SRT fans do not even realise they are doing the biggest disservice to their master who I am sure would disapprove of some of the ridiculous things his fans say about other great players.

Actually, that argument applies more to the Bradman fanboys...know why? None of these fanbuoys would have seen Bradman batting...none of them would even have a whiff of the kinda bowlers Bradman faced but they accept as gospel truth that his average of 99.94 somehow proves he would be similarly better than modern batsmen. At least the tendulkar fanbuoys have their claims of "I saw him bat", don't ya think?

[pensionplan]

Actually' date=' that argument applies more to the Bradman fanboys...know why? None of these fanbuoys would have seen Bradman batting...none of them would even have a whiff of the kinda bowlers Bradman faced but they accept as gospel truth that his average of 99.94 somehow proves he would be similarly better than modern batsmen. At least the tendulkar fanbuoys have their claims of "I saw him bat", don't ya think?[/quote'] ok. Are you hearing that Bradman Fanboys in the graves. :-)

[Nirvanam]

anything that shows that Tendulkar > Bradman should be universally applicable to other players as well (for it to be true) for e.g. Rameez > Hammond :winky: I think I already replied about the next best batsman query. I don't think there is an undisputed 2nd best just like there isn't undisputed best bowler but if I had to pick one by force (to satisfy curious Georges) then the answer can be found in post #331 (something that was replied to you but you still go around asking the same questions) :P

Initially I thought you would have some meat in your arguments but now I see you are the resident Chandler Bing of the group....o come here and look how funny I am. tch tch tch tch tch... did daddy tell you what to believe about what happened yesterday, or no?

[Nirvanam]

You can consider 55 or 25 or whatever innings limit you think to be reasonable enough or acceptable. Does not mean that has to be acceptable to all. As I said earlier I have not seen anything that caught my eye personally speaking here to change the opinion that Bradman's 99 plus average over a 80 innings stretch is unmatched in the annals of the game.

Sez who? I already showed you one guy who has bettered that over a 15 year career playing the kind of opposition Bradman played (actually not even as lucky as Bradman but still). And I also showed you another player with not as much fortune as Bradman in his opposition scoring at 93 average? Do you wanna wait for the latter to complete another 25 innings?...his Average may increase! Anyway, unless you are willing to analyze for yourself and understand the world around you by interpreting it yourself (and not accept things based on the faith you place in who, where, and how you acquire your knowledge) you will find it difficult to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of all of life experience...context.

While your efforts and statistical analysis are really commendable and I say keep it going it can be a value add if we keep some of this Bradman vs The Rest silliness aside and look into the overall picture of the game and the vast amount of great players that graced this game.

I am more than happy to admire all kinds of cricketers and hold them in high regard. But you can't fault me for getting involved in a discussion which expects you to question fundamental gospel truths taught in cricket school? Pls read the thread header and that should make you realize the context under which I am trying to converse in this thread. Fair enough?

[Nirvanam]

Actually I have no blocked mind at all. I read all posts and try to get the other posters POV and appreciate that. I have viewed these bits and piece videos even back in the mid 80's on televison. That to me still does not really answer if that was such a run feast and the bowlers are sub-standard then why have others not averaged in the same ball park as Bradman even let us say for a 50 inning span at the time.

Idhar pe...bas idher pe maar khaya na yaar? Dude, just coz his peers were not good enough to feast on attacks of pie-chuckers, you don't elevate his status based on that. This is a link for the different types of logical fallacies we make... when you read it you will figure out which logical fallacy your argument is making. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Now, consider this - Jacques Kallis averages around 500 against Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe whereas Rahul Dravid averages less than 50 against the same team at the same venues. Are you now going to argue that Jacques Kallis is way way way way ahead of dravid coz he didn't feast on Zimbabwe? You won't. Why? Because you have first-hand experience of these 2 players in your life time. How much experience do you have of watching Hammond, Sutcliffe, McCabe, Hobbs, Bradman, and Headley? Lemme guess...zero. you have taken it as gospel truth what your fathers and grandfathers have said. You have not applied your own mind to deduce the meaning of those performances within their contexts.

[Nirvanam]

ok. Are you hearing that Bradman Fanboys in the graves. :-)

Didnn't quite understand what you were intending to say

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Sez who? I already showed you one guy who has bettered that over a 15 year career playing the kind of opposition Bradman played (actually not even as lucky as Bradman but still). And I also showed you another player with not as much fortune as Bradman in his opposition scoring at 93 average? Do you wanna wait for the latter to complete another 25 innings?...his Average may increase! Anyway, unless you are willing to analyze for yourself and understand the world around you by interpreting it yourself (and not accept things based on the faith you place in who, where, and how you acquire your knowledge) you will find it difficult to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of all of life experience...context.

That is fine, you are free to interpret numbers that way where you decide to break a player's career and choose an opponent where they might have averaged in the Bradman vicinity and equate that bowling to be better than anything Bradman might have faced. I am simply not in agreement with that line of analysis by a long margin.

[zen]

EVEN IF those in the past played cricket laying down on the pitch with bowlers just rolling the ball to the batsmen, how does that automatically make Sachin the greatest :giggle:

[yoda]

Most importantly if DGB > peers it only means DGB > peers and not DGB > Rest. So what this pretty much tells you is that DGB beat up a bunch of minnows around him. If you drool on such achievements you should likewise drool on modern cricketers who beat up the likes of BD , Zim and the recent WI teams.

That's where you are missing the point. He beat up a bunch of teams who you consider as minnows by today's standards, but they were the standard opponents then. You can't compare performance against the standard opposition then with performance against the real minnows of today even if they are relatively of similar quality. Are you saying you can't appreciate the difference between beating up an opponent of quality X in 1930s vs beating up an opponent of the exact same quality X in the 2000s?

[King Tendulkar]

EVEN IF those in the past played cricket laying down on the pitch with bowlers just rolling the ball to the batsmen' date=' how does that automatically make Sachin the greatest :giggle:[/quote'] :stupid:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

That is fine' date=' you are free to interpret numbers that way where you decide to break a player's career and choose an opponent where they might have averaged in the Bradman vicinity and equate that bowling to be better than anything Bradman might have faced. I am simply not in agreement with that line of analysis by a long margin.[/quote']Choose an opponent based on whether they have averaged in the vicinity of Bradman????? Are you for real, srtfanaticssuck? Do you want to converse properly or no? I made this claim... I said, Bradman played against 3 minnows all at Home 1 decent side Home and Away Totally 8 cities. Can you refute my claim? Now in case you agree that my claim is true, then would you grudge me for trying to analyze a few other players based on the same conditions...as close as possible to those conditions since no modern player seems to have played 3 minnows? If you do, then why? Are you really interested in testing the conviction of your beliefs here or are you interested in parroting whatever has been taught to you? Seriously if you cannot apply your own mind and deduce the context of Bradman's numbers then you are the one living in delusion

[Nirvanam]

EVEN IF those in the past played cricket laying down on the pitch with bowlers just rolling the ball to the batsmen' date=' how does that automatically make Sachin the greatest :giggle:[/quote']Maa kasam Chandler Bing tu bahut bahri hai yaar!!!!! Maan gaye...Chandler Bing! :yay:

[yoda]

This is like walking into a bank today with a bag of fake gold and asking the bank to treat it as gold because 100s of yrs ago someone considered it as gold which we now know was a big mistake .... WTF.

Talk about wrong analogy. :cantstop: Gold purity standards have stayed the same, where as cricket standards have evolved. So let's try to make some sense here, shall we? :giggle: Batting has evolved with bowling. So a batting which could belter a bowling X in the 1930s is superior to a batting which belters the same bowling standard X in the 2000s. Very simple really. :winky:

[Nirvanam]

That's where you are missing the point. He beat up a bunch of teams who you consider as minnows by today's standards, but they were the standard opponents then. You can't compare performance against the standard opposition then with performance against the real minnows of today even if they are relatively of similar quality. Are you saying you can't appreciate the difference between beating up an opponent of quality X in 1930s vs beating up an opponent of the exact same quality X in the 2000s?

I think u are not able to appreciate that context. If you did, you'd never argue that bashing up an English side and 3 minnows of that age is anywhere as difficult as bashing up Zimbabwe and Bangladesh today. Context, Yoda, context. England of 1930 is congruent to New Zealand of 2010 India of 1930s is congruent to Manipur Ranji Team of 2010 WI of 1930s is congruent to Assam Ranji Team of 2010 SA of 1930s is congruent to Andhra Ranji Team of 2010

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

It is actually not even impure gold ... its just fake gold ... they just didnt know it was fake but treated it as the real thing. If you dont like gold use fake currency ... happens all the time in India and its neighbourhood. Do you really expect the banker to treat it as real money because everyone else has been treating it as such ? Pretty much the same thing with DGB exept that the situation is not so serious and it has no impact on real life.

Nice to see that you left out the last paragraph in my post. I take it that you appreciate the difference. :cheer:

[zen]

I think u are not able to appreciate that context. If you did, you'd never argue that bashing up an English side and 3 minnows of that age is anywhere as difficult as bashing up Zimbabwe and Bangladesh today. Context, Yoda, context. England of 1930 is congruent to New Zealand of 2010 India of 1930s is congruent to Manipur Ranji Team of 2010 WI of 1930s is congruent to Assam Ranji Team of 2010 SA of 1930s is congruent to Andhra Ranji Team of 2010

So Sachin Tendulkar must be averaging 100 against NZ and in Ranji :P