Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[yoda]

People don't have an open mind from both sides. But anyways it wasn't expected that we'll reach to a conclusion at end of this thread. Points to be considered by Bradman Bhakts -

• 1. It has been proven beyond doubt that quality of cricket was definitely poor in Bradman's time. Batting wasn't that difficult and bowlers were not supposed to threaten batsmen. Overall cricket had an ameteurish look. Purely batting skill-wise it's hard to argue that batsmen of that era were greater than this era (though that is natural course of evolution). 2. Lack of competitiveness, comfort of tons of tour matches, few quality bowlers, sub-standard fielding, relatively poor strategies would definitely have helped Bradman to achieve thta iconic average number. There is no point in looking at 99.94 as an absolute number while comparing with averages of current players. It is a known fact that batsmen from that era are the one who occupy most of the highest positions in pecking order of batting averages. That can't be just a coincidence.

Points to be considered by Sachin Bhakts (Me being one of them) -

• 1. We can create a case for 99.94 of that era being equal to current 56.97. But problem with that argument is that it would relegate every single batsmen (other that Bradman) of that era as being s**t. And it is hard to believe that one whole generation barring one person can be crappy. God doesn't do things in that manner.While we make a case for Sachin being better than Bradman then indirectly we are making case for all modern mediocre-greats being greater than super-greats of that era. 2. While we can laugh at batting techniques of cricketers from that era, but there is more to batting then just technique. Batsman's temperament, powers of concentration, courage and hunger to excel play equally important role. And if some person had these in abundance in that era then that person would have had same in this era.

Personally I would very much like to see Tendulkar being considered as greatest of all time but somehow that clinching argument is missing. But good thing is whispers are getting louder, tide is turning and to say that Sachin is at par with Bradman or even better is not considered a sacrilege any more.

Nice summary. :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

why is this so hard to believe ? I mean England have NOT produced a single batsman who avgs above 50 in more than 40 yrs ... thats more than twice in terms of no.of yrs and if you take No.of test matches I think it is about 10 times the size as the time period during DGB's time. Such periods of lull are very common in cricket. India have never ever produced a single bowler who avgs below 25

I know you can spot diffrences in the level of best performers across countries particularly if you take one minnow and other strong nation. But Bradman was very clear of his own countrymen as well. Instance having combination of margin both across countries and within country I could not locate. Though I just thought of one example. If tomorrow Zim becomes a strong test nation. Then how Andy flower will be looked at. Taking this example 'coz Andy Flower had same sort of clear margin over his peer Zim batsmen that Bradman had over his peers.

[Sachinism]

Link please

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1213534&postcount=1461

[pensionplan]

These have been answered like a million times ... literally. Heres the gist .. 1. Amateur status of the sport. 2. Only 2 Nations playing. 3. Krap quality of overall cricket (Batting , Bowling ,fielding and tactics ) 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. The usual response from the DGB fanatics is to arbitrarily raise DGB's peers as being great cricketers. Afterall there is no shortage of column inches written on the Hobbs and Hammonds and Huttons and Gubby Allens and Verity's and Lindwalls and so on . This is where the videos come in. The videos also bust the uncovered pitches myth. Turns out the art of coering pitches was known to man back in the 30s itself. This is where innuendo , insults ad-hominem , smilie spamming and one sided proclamations come in very handy for the DGB fanatics. Like i said there is no shortage of evidence. The problem is elsewhere. Never underestimate the power of what systematic brainwashing can achieve combined with repeating a lies and half truths a million times.

I would have bought into your amateur theory if there were only a handful of players who had played at the time or either there were others who has gotten close to Bradman's 100 average giving credence to the argument that averaging 100 was not a big deal then. Consider this there were almost 300-400 players that are batsmen that have played reasonable amount of FC cricket from say 1880-1945 around the world. Even if I keep the Tests aside and consider runs scored by each player that is a batsman at FC level still I do not see even one player that has 75 average. So are we willing to say that each one of the player that includes a Hobbs or a Hutton who played in that span to be a dud and Bradman was one player that somehow figured to be that much ahead of his time and better than everyone. Then are we are not saying this guy is superhuman for that times. Whichever way I look at it there is no way to decisively extrapolate cricket from the 30's or 40's and earlier and just conclude that Bradman's close to 100 Test average is some kind of a hogwash that beat up on minnows. I have heard of no urban legend's either where any team who did not concede Bradman 'X' number of runs will be executed. The point is 99 plus average is that good of an accomplishment which is off the charts that is something which is too good to be true and also Bradman overall had a FC average of 95 plus. Like I said earlier I am not in agreement with the arguments presented thus far on why a Tendulkar or a Lara whose average clubs them with a group of tens of batsman that played in their era to be considered the best ever when there is already someone in history whose 40 point average difference played over an 80 inning career is not even neared at the time or anyother time thereafter. There has to be a better cricketing arguments than saying he is a minnow basher or he played versus 2-3 teams or the game was amateurish back then.

[King Tendulkar]

actually I am more impressed by your comment that you are better than Hobbs cause he won't even make your club's 5th level team. :winky:

110% stand by that. I am definitley miles better then Hobbs from what I saw in the video:--D And I tell you another thing, I am sure there are a fair few posters who play decent standard of cricket on this forum, who will also think/know they are miles better then Hobbs! I wish I was born in the 1890s. As I would have averaged astrnomical figures back then and you would have been saying I was an all time great:dance: See the videos , please comment on Hobbs technique. Were you impressed? No smoke screens and answer the question:winky: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74654 Check out some of the bowlers Hobbs would have faced, I would have smashed them all over the park! http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74531

[King Tendulkar]

Link please

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212051

[Nirvanam]

110% stand by that. I am definitley miles better then Hobbs from what I saw in the video:--D And I tell you another thing, I am sure there are a fair few posters who play decent standard of cricket on this forum, who will also think/know they are miles better then Hobbs! I wish I was born in the 1890s. As I would have averaged astrnomical figures back then and you would have been saying I was an all time great:dance: See the videos , please comment on Hobbs technique. Were you impressed? No smoke screens and answer the question:winky: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74654 Check out some of the bowlers Hobbs would have faced, I would have smashed them all over the park! http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74531

With you...I think many of us here would bat better than those fellows...seriously, no kidding. By the way watch the second clip when Arthur Mailey comes up....the bugger is tampering the ball...check it out guys

[zen]

EJMLWhXQA_4 ^ Charlie Chaplin. Look at the quality of video, I can make better movies with my handycam. Look at how they walk in the video, people walk much better in videos now therefore I conclude that I can make better videos than that Chaplin film and that I can walk much better than how those walk in the video O3I7G-w3hTY The video quality of mr bean is much better (ppl also clap in the background in it) so I conclude that Mr Bean > Charlie Chaplin :giggle:

[Nirvanam]

^ Charlie Chaplin. Look at the quality of video, I can make better movies with my handycam. Look at how they walk in the video, people walk much better in videos now therefore I conclude that I can make better videos than that Chaplin film and that I can walk much better than how those walk in the video The video quality of mr bean is much better (ppl also clap in the background in it) so I conclude that Mr Bean > Charlie Chaplin :giggle:

:yay: :two_thumbs_up: :yay: You are too good yaar...sahi!! :--D

[zen]

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' date=' or no?[/quote'] oh ok, it's nice to know that you think too :giggle:

[zen]

is that why you started shifting the goal post when confronted to point out that imaginary statement where you twisted my post on sledging ? :hysterical:

Yes, I guess everyone imagined when you implied that what Bradman's avg was in the series that you thought he was sledged :giggle: All these manipulations that you do to show that Sir Don Bradman's achievements are not what they appear to be just to put forward your agenda to make Tendulkar the greatest on the internet has blinded you in to thinking that you could flip around any time you want. What sort of a cricket fan would focus on deriding someone who has achieved the holy grail of batting, i.e. a career test avg of 100 after 50 tests is something for you to ponder on :winky:

[goose]

has anyone done analysis of the statistical distribution of scores around the average i.e. consistency of the greats?

[yoda]

With you...I think many of us here would bat better than those fellows...seriously, no kidding.

Seriously, no kidding. Imagine yourself born in that era, growing up in India or Australia or wherever and be exposed to cricket as it was played then, and see if you would have batted better than those fellows, seriously imagine that. :cheer:

[zen]

110% stand by that. I am definitley miles better then Hobbs from what I saw in the video:--D And I tell you another thing, I am sure there are a fair few posters who play decent standard of cricket on this forum, who will also think/know they are miles better then Hobbs! I wish I was born in the 1890s. As I would have averaged astrnomical figures back then and you would have been saying I was an all time great:dance: See the videos , please comment on Hobbs technique. Were you impressed? No smoke screens and answer the question:winky: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74654 Check out some of the bowlers Hobbs would have faced, I would have smashed them all over the park! http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74531

you are better than Hobbs just like Tendulkar is better than Bradman :P In fact, try posting your video here and may be we can all try to show that you are probably as good as Tendulkar

[zen]

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.

Point #13 :hatsoff:

[dial_100]

Seriously' date=' no kidding. Imagine yourself born in that era, growing up in India or Australia or wherever and be exposed to cricket as it was played then, and see if you would have batted better than those fellows, seriously imagine that. :cheer:[/quote'] Yoda. I think I understand your point. Now please try to get into the new generation cricket. To me, Ganguly's off side game is unmatchable, second to none. I can even say better than Bradman. But why could he even get in 50s?? Because he had weakness that was exploited by one and all including minnows. But teams like Aussies, SA and Eng, almost everytime successfully have restricted SG from scoring runs as they would only attack him high on his rib cage. Not that he wouldn't survive that but not always. Much vulnerable. took a deep in his average. Now Ganguly in that era (born with the ability to play (not same but) similar off-side strokes) could have been bit sloppy, not so tidy and fit (as you are asking us to imagin), but still would have done lot better than what he had now. Would you agree with that. To me ganguly is unbelievable in as many as 75% of the strokes that a best batsman should have played. We can simply say that batsmen around Bradman were not as good as him. But that does not change the fact that standard of the cricket was not as competitive. Of course for everyone who played back then, but surprisingly, not everyone were as good as DGB. He was a stand- out but in that era. Cannot bring him in this era and compare with today's best. For me, DGB could best until 60s. and then GS could be best until 80-90s and then SRT,RP,BCL are the best in the current lot. It is hard to compare eras, let alone 30s, and 2010. I dont want to compare even 70-90s era to the current one.

[The Outsider]

has anyone done analysis of the statistical distribution of scores around the average i.e. consistency of the greats?

It has been done. The conclusion was that to be a statistical outlier at the level of Bradman, a batsman would have to average around the 75-80 range given the increase in number of players. Forget cricket, Bradman is the greatest statistical outlier in any sport from any era : http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/usain-bolt-its-just-not-normal/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/k88p321t7v431h27/

[yoda]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k88p321t7v431h27/

Interesting comment from that paper:

Longevity, as a top sportsman, was an important factor in the great performances of Nicklaus and Campese and, to a lesser degree, Gretzky. However, longevity was not an important factor in Bradman's career. Hence it was concluded that Bradman's performances were more extraordinary than any other sportsman and that it can be strongly argued that he, was the greatest ever sportsman.

This is in direct contrast to some of the opinion in this and other related threads regarding longevity and why it contributes to one's greatness. Guess they are saying that the fact that some of these greats (including Tendulkar, I might add) played for a long time contributed to their stats unlike in the case of Bradman.

[Roshanrocks]

Why cant there be another bradman? Theory 1. there can be, anything's possible. If a meteor hits earth and only india and bangladesh survive and perhaps Nepal, Bhutan decide to play cricket, then may be a Bradman just might emerge in India , perhaps Bangladesh, or maybe not. anything's possible Theory 2. There cannot be another Bradman. Because he was alien cricketer , from another planet who was dropped onto this planet to study the level of cricket played here. Unfortunately the level of cricket now on that alien planet is similar to ours and so this Bradman if sent again in this present time will not really make much of an impression compared to present greats such as Ponting and Lara. Theory 3 There cannot be. Due to his superhuman batting performances, Bradman's soul attained Nirvana and now has been enlisted by heaven to play in their XI against Hell. SInce nobody from either team retires nor dies, there is no chance for Bradman's soul to return back to earth.

where are the other 7 points you told me about :hitler: