Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[ravishingravi]

Also, how the standards of sledging have gone up over the years and the quality of sledging that Tendulkar encounters from Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is equal to what Bradman encountered from England, and this is clearly reflected in Tendulkar's stats against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, which are equal to Bradman's. Also, Tendulkar's lower average against Pakistan can be explained by the fact that they sledge him in Hindi/Urdu rather than English sledges which Bradman had to face. When Tendulkar faces sledges in English against Australia he does much better.

:hysterical::hysterical:

[dial_100]

Of however many innings Bradman played against very very strong oppositions comprising of bowlers of best averages, lot better than contemporary bowlers. Let us see the great bowling line up back then could achive against Australia when Bradman was playing. Opposition could not bowl Aus out in an innings. 1. 74 times in fewer than 90 overs. 2. 68 times in fewer than 100 overs 3. 54 times in fewer than 125 overs 4. 39 times in fewer than 150 overs. Bossy another request please tell me what do you call these bowlers who could not get opposition out in so many overs...almost all the matches that they playes in 30s?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

Just an interesting stat but if we reverse the condition and compare how many times DGB and SRT's teams got out for less than 90 overs or 80 overs or 70, 60, & 50, the numbers are mind boggling. Here it goes guys. Both team got out in less than 1. 90 overs - SRT (88/296 is 30%) DGB - (21/86 is 24%) 2. 80 overs - SRT (70/296 is 24%) DGB - (17/86 is 20%) Like Don's team only got out in less than 50 overs 2 times against, SRT team 15 times . Back then team could not get opposition out in 40-50 overs at all ( I guess barring BL series or something). Here it happens many a times. If this is not a clear sign of better bowling, pitch conditions and better fielding then what is?? Like 5th day pitches are unplayable now a days. Where as Oldies could play on a 8th day pitch and still score individual 200 runs. Do you want to call fair comparison? I dont think so. It is very unfair to compare those folks to current lot. Hard to say who was better. Thats why this OP is asking everyone to find out why there cannot beanother Bradman.

[The Outsider]

Just an interesting stat but if we reverse the condition and compare how many times DGB and SRT's teams got out for less than 90 overs or 80 overs or 70, 60, & 50, the numbers are mind boggling. Here it goes guys. Both team got out in less than 1. 90 overs - SRT (88/296 is 30%) DGB - (21/86 is 24%) 2. 80 overs - SRT (70/296 is 24%) DGB - (17/86 is 20%) Like Don's team only got out in less than 50 overs 2 times against, SRT team 15 times . Back then team could not get opposition out in 40-50 overs at all ( I guess barring BL series or something). Here it happens many a times. If this is not a clear sign of better bowling, pitch conditions and better fielding then what is?? Like 5th day pitches are unplayable now a days. Where as Oldies could play on a 8th day pitch and still score individual 200 runs. Do you want to call fair comparison? I dont think so. It is very unfair to compare those folks to current lot. Hard to say who was better. Thats why this OP is asking everyone to find out why there cannot beanother Bradman.

Cricket is not about batting overs, but scoring runs primarily. During Bradman's time the batting average was 33.39 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=18+Aug+1948;spanmin1=30+Nov+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate During Tendulkar's time it has been 33.25 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate Now comes the really interesting part. Remove Bradman's runs from his time and Tendulkar's from his era and the average in : 1. Bradman's time is 32.14 2. Tendulkar's time is 33.03 Pretty easy to see in whose time run scoring was easier.

[dial_100]

Cricket is not about batting overs, but scoring runs primarily. During Bradman's time the batting average was 33.39 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=18+Aug+1948;spanmin1=30+Nov+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate During Tendulkar's time it has been 33.25 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate Now comes the really interesting part. Remove Bradman's runs from his time and Tendulkar's from his era and the average in : 1. Bradman's time is 32.14 2. Tendulkar's time is 33.03 Pretty easy to see in whose time run scoring was easier.

Wow. that is the conclusion here?? I am very surprised. Anyways. lets see.

Cricket is not about batting overs, but scoring runs primarily.

That exactly is my point my friend. They didn't care if wkts are falling or not as much. They only cared if the runs are scored or not. Bowling/fielding was quite cassual. Well lets take these numbers you have provided and extend them a bit further. (The data is Sourced from the links you have provided.) In those days wickets used to fall @ every 12.3 overs where as in current times at 10.5 overs. I think because of poor bowling/fielding standards. You may not agree and throw some averages at me. But if we just follow the same standard and extrapolate to see what happens. There would have been whopping 3624 less wickets fallen in this period when SRT played. That is freaking 14% less wickets. Going by that ratio.... well let me stop here..I dont want to go to the extend of saying who would have benefitted more because of this. But at least this (Batting average) runs per wkts comparison would go for a toss for sure.

[The Outsider]

^ You've completely missed the point. The main reason for better strike rates in the modern times is that cricket has become more aggressive and batsmen are willing to take many more risks, which also results in batsmen losing their wickets more frequently. The only relative constant in cricket history has been the average. In older days, run rates were lower, strike rates were worse and in modern times run rates are higher and strike rates are better. However, on an average a batsman is still as likely to lose a wicket for the same number of runs today as 60 years back. Take a 80s vs. 00s comparison. In the 80s, the strike rate was around 68. In the 00s the strike rate has been around 63. Batting average in the 80s was 32.6 and in the 00s is 34.2. Can you choose when batting was easier in the 80s or 00s? Anyhow, if even after breaking things down so simply you are not able to grasp the basic constant factor here, which should be the standard of comparison, I won't try after this post. And I am pretty sure it will happen because you think batting average can go for a toss.

[Roshanrocks]

Cricket is not about batting overs, but scoring runs primarily. During Bradman's time the batting average was 33.39 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=18+Aug+1948;spanmin1=30+Nov+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate During Tendulkar's time it has been 33.25 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate Now comes the really interesting part. Remove Bradman's runs from his time and Tendulkar's from his era and the average in : 1. Bradman's time is 32.14 2. Tendulkar's time is 33.03 Pretty easy to see in whose time run scoring was easier.

u are comparing averages of 128 matches verses 847 matches? how do u expect 1 batsman's average to make any difference over 847 matches? :dontknow: now if sachin played in a generation where only 128 matches were played am sure taking out his runs would have made some difference to the overall average also now we have keepers and tailenders also scoring more than their predecessors, am sure that too would have contributed to more runs being scored in this genration that in the bygone eras, which would make it that much harder for sachin individually to change the batting average of an entire generation.

[gloryof83]

Now comes the really interesting part. Remove Bradman's runs from his time and Tendulkar's from his era and the average in : 1. Bradman's time is 32.14 2. Tendulkar's time is 33.03 Pretty easy to see in whose time run scoring was easier.

You are joking.... right

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

More of the great Hobbs batting:hysterical: http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2010/08/jack-hobbs-on-video.html

[King Tendulkar]

Some very interesting videos here. Just a totally different game then, ridiculous to compare these players to modern players, although wont stop wisden readers going down a romantic line that these guys were better then modern day greats:cantstop:

[Ranjha]

I dont know much about Bradman but its certainly impressive that he was hands down the best batsman in his era and no one was even close. This is the only yardstick with which you can evaluate a player. One cant compare Tendulkar and Bradman. Its only stupid.

[King Tendulkar]

I dont know much about Bradman but its certainly impressive that he was hands down the best batsman in his era and no one was even close. This is the only yardstick with which you can evaluate a player. One cant compare Tendulkar and Bradman. Its only stupid.

Big fish in small pond

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

^ Right arm fast:haha: He makes Pathan look like a speed demon. I wonder how Benaud describes him, as everyone is keen to talk about peers accounts:cantstop: videos are a real wake up call for the delsusionists. They need to get their heads out of cricinfo and wisden and get in touch with reality.

[King Tendulkar]

Also in a lot of the videos are covers. What happened to uncovered pitches? The covers seem to cover both ends of wicket, did not bother covering middle of wickets it seems as no one bowled boucers as against spirit of game:winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Iam watching one video after other on that site .... its an absolute goldmine .... trundlers galore ... dsr

Keepers do not stand back to anyone:cantstop: Can you imagine these guys facing Akthar steaming in at 95 mph. Sorry but there would be people dying. Like I have maintained many times Tendulkar would average 200 + back then, maybe more. These fellows great historical figures and piooners, its all great fun and fascinating to watch but they would not get in amateaur 3rd elevens. And like I said previously I think I would average well in to 80s if I batted in the 30s:cantstop:

[King Tendulkar]

Sad thing is still cant find the footage I once saw of hobss doing a forward defensive, its hysterical! My whole club watched it and everyone rolled around laughing! It came to be knows as the hobbs lunge Really stop comparing these oldies to modern players, it just provokes ridicule.