Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Not one single discerning cricket fan will say that the bowling and fielding standards of 30s are anywhere close to those of the 80s and 90s. This is why all of the Bradman Bhakths run away with their tails promptly inbetween their leg when I put up the entire list of bowlers faced by DGB to the list faced by SRT.

Like they have the past 10 pages. :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ranjha]

question: why can't there be another Bradman? answer: its because you are only born once......

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Yoda what do you think of the cricket being played here in terms of technique and standard? http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74654 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74531

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

heres what I said : And as far as sledging is concerned the only guy that sledged in the 30s was Santa Clauss. It means nobody indulged in sledging during those times. How your fertile imagination twisted it to "determining factor" and what not is something only your brain will know. Again I cant do much about your reading and comprehension ... I have clearly stated many times that BCL,VS,RP and even RD would have been just as good as DGB had they played in that era. The sort that knows to make his own opinions based on hard evidence and not by trusting notorious versions of writers who never even had the oppurtunity to watch cricket at its current standards. Not one single discerning cricket fan will say that the bowling and fielding standards of 30s are anywhere close to those of the 80s and 90s. This is why all of the Bradman Bhakths run away with their tails promptly inbetween their legs when I put up the entire list of bowlers faced by DGB to the list faced by SRT. And ever since the video showing how wickets were covered then was put up the DGB bhakts have quietly avoided mentioning that. What sort of cricket fan would want to prop up someone based on lies and half truth ?

When someone remarked that Bradman was sledged during Bodyline (probably called the little bastard), you asked him to see what Bradman's avg was in that series to highlight the effects of sledging :giggle: The point is you don't merely judge things based on current standards, but you also consider the environment that someone played in. When Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic, it was a great achievement that opened up new avenues for aviation but now it is something that 1000s of people do everyday! No matter what era you watch Gone with the winds or Sholay in, it will always be great! If bowlers faced is also your criteria then why is Gavaskar, who probably has done the best against the most feared attack of all time isn't the best. Why would he not be the first pick over the likes of Tendulkar or Lara. And talking abt benchmarking everything to one standard, someone just said that for a batsman to be as good as Bradman, he has to avg 75-80 (when his peers are averaging what they are now). So hardly anyone is saying that you have to avg like 100 to be considered as good as Bradman! But since your fav Tendulkar can't do that you have to resort to deriding what Bradman has achieved to the level where you want to imply that 57>100, but for that to be true your logic should be universally applicable, which is not the case. And for Tendulkar to be the greatest, the gulf b/w 57 and say 55, 53 or 51 is as wide as the gulf b/w 100 and 60, how believable! .... So if Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and company are all ahead of Bradman, where do we slot the greats like Hammond, Hutton, or even Sobers. The entire generation that played cricket is crap just because someone wants to show that Tendulkar is the greatest!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[goose]

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/

I meant the distribution of a single player's own scores around his average. I'm no statistician but there must be some mathematical measure of a players consistency i.e. what impact does a players highest and lowest scores have on his average?

[Nirvanam]

I dont have to say or do anything ... the videos speak for themselves ... why do you think most of the Bradman Bhakths have gone silent and are avoiding making any comments on the quality of bowling that is evident from those videos other than throwing red herrings , smilies and inane BS ? Unless you are being utterly dishonest there is no way in hell you can say with a straight face that those bowlers look anything more than trundlers. Moreover absolutely none of those bowlers will ever get into the top 10 best bowlers from all times. Now I dont recall you ever answering that question .. so here is your chance to provide a straight answer as which lineup of bowlers is of far better quality : The ones that bowledt o DGB or the Ones that Bowled to SRT , BCL , VS ? Straight answer without beating around the bush.

Maybe this extract can help him understand - Bowler Challenge Index (BCI) The Bowler Challenge Index evaluates the survival of these batsmen against the best bowlers of their time. BCI is calculated as the ratio of the Peak ICC Ratings of the Top 10 Bowlers the batsman faced to the Dismissals per Match that these bowlers were able to inflict on the batsman. Only bowlers who have played more than five Tests against the batsman are chosen. Therefore, it is measuring the quality of bowlers faced by the batsman during his career and his survival against these bowlers. The theory that the bowlers of the 90’s were the best that Test cricket ever witnessed is confirmed here. Notice that the legends of the 90’s Inzamam, Lara, and Sachin along with Rahul Dravid are way ahead of the rest. Obviously when you face bowlers of the caliber of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Anil Kumble, and Muthiah Muralitharan at their very best, you would top this parameter. The high value for Javed Miandad is due to the fact that he was rarely dismissed by the top bowlers of his time. Whereas Sunil Gavaskar although faced a lot of the top bowlers at their very best, he was dismissed by them often and hence scores less compared to the others. Also notice the very low numbers for the English greats. This is primarily because of the relative strength of the bowlers during their time. It would be fair to say that Inzamam, Lara, and Sachin faced the toughest bowlers in Test cricket history while these bowlers were at their peaks. Although the West Indies Pace Quartet, Indian Spin Quartet, the Aussie speed demons, and the 4 Great All-Rounders operated during the 70s and 80s their peaks did not coincide for long periods because of which not many batsmen of the time faced all groups at their very best for extended periods. Name : Bowler Rating Score : DpM : BCI = BRS / DpM Barrington : 1672.8 : 0.40 : 4215.46 Chappell : 1692.9 : 0.4 : 4232.25 Dravid : 2437.8 : 0.43 : 5723.53 Gavaskar : 2072.8 : 0.52 : 3962.71 Hammond : 943.3 : 0.46 : 2043.82 Hobbs : 1037.5 : 0.39 : 2658.59 Hutton : 1186.1 : 0.36 : 3261.78 Inzamam : 2474.3 : 0.41 : 5974.53 Kallis : 1866.7 : 0.43 : 4340.8 Lara : 2356.2 : 0.41 : 5690.45 Miandad : 1772.8 : 0.30 : 5875.57 Pawning : 1789.8 : 0.45 : 4000.73 Viv : 1967.3 : 0.40 : 4898.18 Sobers : 1305.8 : 0.34 : 3798.69 Sachin : 2437.8 : 0.43 : 5688.20 Bradman : 669.1 : 0.41 : 1639.3 Inzi has faced the toughest bowling ever, and the bowlers he, Sachin, Lara, and Dravid faced were almost 4 times (2400 v/s 600) that of Bradman. Compare Bradman to his peers...Hobbs : Bradman :: 1037 : 669 Hammond : Bradman :: 943 : 669 Now, Inzi : Bradman :: 2474 : 669 Sachin : Bradman : 2437 : 669 Lara : Bradman : 2356 : 669

[yoda]

He has already acknowledged that standards were krap back then. Its just that since that was the gold standard back then he expects us to take it at face value :--D

WOW Finally, someone is helping me not repeat the same set of answers over and over again. :eyedance: BTW, here is another of my takes on the whole Bradman vs Sachin specifically. The reason why Sachin hasn't towered over his peers is simply because he hasn't done full justice to his talents. Yes, he has amassed massive number of runs and tons over a very impressive and long career, but to be in the same league as many of his peers in terms of average/innings, given the clear gap in talent between him and the others, tells me that he has underachieved. Yes it may sound funny, calling Sachin as underachieved, but I think he could have been in the 65 range if he had played to his potential and then even the so called Bradman Bhakthas would have no choice but to acknowledge that he is indeed the greatest or at a minimum on par with Mr 99.94. Remember RD was close to 60 at one point, so a 65 average over one's career isn't entirely out of question for one of the modern players.

[zen]

what you are refering to has been answered here before --> http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1206493&postcount=100 and it was followed by the usual inane smilies and innuendo. Why ? Who made this Arbitrary rule ? DGB fans by chance ? Simple common sense says that you pick someone who has performed under higher standards. If SRT can score at 97 for a year under far more gruelling conditions (and keeping in mind some of his other achievements ) there is no reason to doubt he would do that over 80 inngs under far more leisurely conditions. Flawed analogy. These fields have nothing in common with sports. Absolutely ..... when I nominated BCL,SRT,RP & RD it was in reference to the current day players . If you want to go to the previous gen then IVAR and SMG would be the next best picks. They most certainly would have done as well as DGB over a short span of 80-100 inngs. How did you arrive at the number ? Arbitrary by any chance ? Its quite easy to pull arbitrary numbers out of nowhere. I can play that game too. I dont have to say or do anything ... the videos speak for themselves ... why do you think most of the Bradman Bhakths have gone silent and are avoiding making any comments on the quality of bowling that is evident from those videos other than throwing red herrings , smilies and inane BS ? Unless you are being utterly dishonest there is no way in hell you can say with a straight face that those bowlers look anything more than trundlers. Moreover absolutely none of those bowlers will ever get into the top 10 best bowlers from all times. Now I dont recall you ever answering that question .. so here is your chance to provide a straight answer as which lineup of bowlers is of far better quality : The ones that bowledt o DGB or the Ones that Bowled to SRT , BCL , VS ? Straight answer without beating around the bush. Again ... how many times does someone has to tell you to look beyond just plain averages ? goose tried to explain and then gave up ? You just simply dont understand do you ?. In current times the yardstick has changed. A avg of 50 is just the starting point ... beyond that people look for how you perform on different types of pitches, different bowling attacks and their quality , opposition quality , longevity , how you perform in different formats of the game, 100s etc etc . This is why although Sanga has the same avg as SRT he will never be called as a Great . Simply belabouring on the avg is just lame.

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1206473&postcount=97 ^ that shows who is implying what about sledging :P .... after being found out, you can come up with any answer/stats you like but we know what you though Btw, I am not a Bradman fan in particular so I don't think there is a need to classify this a Bradman fan vs Sachin fan. In fact I am more of a Sachin fan. This is more about those who try to see things with a neutral perspective and those who are biased (Sachin is the greatest) But if Sachin can score at 100 then because he scored at 100 this year then everyone playing now would score more than what they have in such a way that Rameez > Hammond. For your logic to be true, it has to be universally applicable, which is not. And for many, it's the 70s-90s period that had some great bowlers bowling and in their prime too. So if your logic is applied to 70s-90s batsmen then they would probably score more than they did then in 2000s, probably even more than Sachin. Someone did give an avg of what Sachin's avg is when the likes of McGrath and Warne, Donald (iirc) are playing If I am picking a batsman to play an attack comprising of 3 from Donald/McGrath/Akram/Ambrose/Lillee/Marshall/Holding and 1 from Warne/Murali, why would I pick Sachin over Gavaskar or Richards or Sobers (leaving Bradman out of the equation). If you want to argue based on facing (and doing well against) better bowlers than why not Lara And why would you assume that people are just looking at averages. If that's the case then there are cricketers who avg more than Sachin. We are taking avg with respect to the environment and context. And we feel that Bradman's performances (reflected in his avg) are good enough to term him as the greatest batsman of AT Problem with you is that the batsman you want to show as the greatest doesn't really stand taller than his peers. Most of the argument that you use is likely to use against Bradman will go against Sachin too Since this is an Indian forum and most of those who think Sachin is not the greatest are still likely to be big Sachin fans too. So while you go around deriding Bradman's era, others won't do the same to Sachin's because their point is not to deride any cricketer and that too an Indian great but to show from a neutral perspective as to where the batsmen stand

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1206473&postcount=97 ^ that shows who is implying what about sledging :P .... after being found out, you can come up with any answer/stats you like but we know what you though Btw, I am not a Bradman fan in particular so I don't think there is a need to classify this a Bradman fan vs Sachin fan. In fact I am more of a Sachin fan. This is more about those who try to see things with a neutral perspective and those who are biased (Sachin is the greatest) But if Sachin can score at 100 then because he scored at 100 this year then everyone playing now would score more than what they have in such a way that Rameez > Hammond. For your logic to be true, it has to be universally applicable, which is not. And for many, it's the 70s-90s period that had some great bowlers bowling and in their prime too. So if your logic is applied to 70s-90s batsmen then they would probably score more than they did then in 2000s, probably even more than Sachin. Someone did give an avg of what Sachin's avg is when the likes of McGrath and Warne, Donald (iirc) are playing If I am picking a batsman to play an attack comprising of 3 from Donald/McGrath/Akram/Ambrose/Lillee/Marshall/Holding and 1 from Warne/Murali, why would I pick Sachin over Gavaskar or Richards or Sobers (leaving Bradman out of the equation). If you want to argue based on facing (and doing well against) better bowlers than why not Lara And why would you assume that people are just looking at averages. If that's the case then there are cricketers who avg more than Sachin. We are taking avg with respect to the environment and context. And we feel that Bradman's performances (reflected in his avg) are good enough to term him as the greatest batsman of AT Problem with you is that the batsman you want to show as the greatest doesn't really stand taller than his peers. Most of the argument that you use is likely to use against Bradman will go against Sachin too Since this is an Indian forum and most of those who think Sachin is not the greatest are still likely to be big Sachin fans too. So while you go around deriding Bradman's era, others won't do the same to Sachin's because their point is not to deride any cricketer and that too an Indian great but to show from a neutral perspective as to where the batsmen stand

Nicely summed up. Echo's some of my thoughts and what I have said earlier on this thread. The problem I have seen here on this DG by some of the hardcore Sachin fan(atic)s is anyone who do not accept that he is the best ever is some how a Sachin hater. Now think about that for a second. And everyone and anyone that is brought up to be discussed are ridiculed and derided as if Sachin is the only cricketer that ever knows how to bat. This us against the world mentality is doing a great disservice to the man himself for no fault of his.

[pensionplan]

The difference between him avging 65 and 57ish that he is avging right now ... is the two periods in his career. The initial 20-25 tests where he was too young and ran into some of the best bowlers ever and the 2004-2007 phase where he was suffering from injury. But for those 2 periods he would have been in the 60s. But his record as is nothing short of awe-inspiring .... I mean the man will most definitely end up scoring as many runs as Inzi + Miandad in far less tests ... he already has more 100s than the 2 together .... Another combo that he will surpass is the SMG + GRV combo ... just think about the magnitude of that for a moment.

Yes nice "if"s' and "but" 's. Any period during his career that Sachin had a lean peak it is not him or his batting but something else. Some cool justifications. May be the ICC should look into it and adjust SRT's average to 65 or 70 or 75 whatever pleases his fanatics and at the same time adjust Bradman's average to close to zero since he did not play during the Tendulkar times and declare even a Akash Chopra and McGrath to be better batsman than him since they have batted in the present times. And by the way if a player is not 100% should they be not sitting out. To me that is indirectly accusing a player of being selfish and advancing their self goals at the cost of affecting the team by appering in games being less than 100%. So sometimes we need to be careful about what we wish for.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

I don't understand one thing about you guys, Rett and Srtfanaticssuck (what a name...says more about you than about the purported srt fanatics). Why do you guys keep avoiding discussions when facts are presented? Why are you not concentrating on the facts? Why are you continuously clinging on to the bogey theory that if A >> B then A is also >> C? Especially Rett...you are unnecessarily ridiculing people with your stupid smilies. Why not have the balls to talk in factual terms instead of ridiculing others with your stupid smilies, man? Are you incapable of such a thing or what? Srtfanaticssuck, I think at least you will have better judgment than this Rett fellow. How about first acknowledging that it is not logical to assume that if A >> his peer B then he is necessarily >> C who is 60 yrs later? I seriously wanna debate you with facts. And you naming others who dare to challenge the norm as fanatics is no good...come to the table without that bias in your mind please. Would you want others to view you with a bias that 'you are incapable of rationalizing yourself and instead rely on what is taught to you that Bradman is the greatest'? That you are a Bradman fanatic? I'd assume you wouldn't. So why not you debate me proper...with facts. You start with your argument, first and I'll provide the rebuttal or if you are comfortable with me starting then I'll do it...I can start a new thread for the two of us to debate this with as much facts as possible ps: I ain't no fanatic here and I'd like you to respect me thus. I'll reciprocate the same way

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --