Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Roshanrocks]

the videos are also fast fowwarded to make the bowlers look phast

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

I simply have no words to describe the batting

[Roshanrocks]

I simply have no words to describe the batting

gully cricket? :hmmm:

[Sachinism]

ohh some damning evidence KT. Need to watch more of these clips when I get home

[ZodiaC]

:omg: Hobbs technique :(( Katie

[putrevus]

I have a question if anyone can answer on DGB and his greatness, we know due to body line series they changed the law of not having more than two fielders on leg side. Question is when DGB was scoring heavily were there any tactics employed by bowling outside the leg stump to bore him and having deep fielders on both sides of wickets to prevent boundaries. Now we see the moment Sehwag starts hitting early in his innings fielders are scattered to prevent boundaries ,he has to counter so many negative tactics from opposing captain and he still has that great SR and great Avg. Sehwag Avg of 69.20 in first innings of match is next only to Bradman's Avg of 97.85 who is say he would not have avg that additional 28 if opposing captains did not have so defensive fields for him and ask their bowlers to bowl negatively just to bore him. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=4000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

Bossy. I had already seen all of these videos a week ago. I guess people have waited far too long for SRT to fail so that all those funny accussations could start. Thankfully, SRT did a fine job in past 2-3 years, some stupendous achievements...People aren't happy about it I guess. Well eventually they will be out as soon as you see couple failures.....and then again you will be busy like hell...

[yoda]

You guys still don't get it do you? They played that way cause that is the way the game was played then. If SRT had played then that is the way he also would have played. I am sure this doesn't make sense to some of you, but just thought will try anyways. :winky:

[TumTum]

I have a question if anyone can answer on DGB and his greatness, we know due to body line series they changed the law of not having more than two fielders on leg side. Question is when DGB was scoring heavily were there any tactics employed by bowling outside the leg stump to bore him and having deep fielders on both sides of wickets to prevent boundaries. Now we see the moment Sehwag starts hitting early in his innings fielders are scattered to prevent boundaries ,he has to counter so many negative tactics from opposing captain and he still has that great SR and great Avg. Sehwag Avg of 69.20 in first innings of match is next only to Bradman's Avg of 97.85 who is say he would not have avg that additional 28 if opposing captains did not have so defensive fields for him and ask their bowlers to bowl negatively just to bore him. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=4000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

lol Bradman will just pick of the easy runs. He believed in keeping the ball down.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

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:

Wow, so you KT if you were born in the 30s would average in the 80s. Great to know that. :giggle:

Heres the thing that you don't understand .... those sort of standards are laughed at now if you try to play that way ... No one will even come and watch. So there exists no need to drool over achievements of players playing under such standards let alone rank them as all time greats and use their yardsticks to measure current day players who have no choice but to perform in standards that are at a much much higher level . Yes I appreciate the part they played in making cricket what it is today ... yes I recognize that times were hard back then. For that they have my sincerest gratitude. But if you put the emotions aside and go purely on cricketing skills they would be simply no match to the current batting gods. Those video clips are damning evidence to that regard.

You are still not getting get. All sport evolve, much like all other walk of life. That in itself is nothing great, it is just a natural progression. Current players aren't any greater than those players simply because current standards are better. A current player is great only because of what he has accomplished NOW. Similarly a past player is great simply because of what he accomplished THEN. You and I aren't any better than our forefathers simple because we got a better education or ate better or are driving better cars or have access to the Internet. It is just a by product of the times and there is nothing to gloat over. I feel like I am just repeating myself. Anyways I am done with this topic, at least till I read another dumb post from KT which I feel like having a need to respond to. :hehe:

[fineleg]

Boss bhai, You cannot compare DGB as he played in 1930 with today's game. One can only imagine if DGB played the game in 2000, then he would have had the requisite skills to play the 2000s-cricket very well. Times are different, so people adapt with time. I will conclude with - it is impossible to say if both SRT and DGB had played in the same era - who would have done better? How can I or you for that matter Bossbhai or dsr - conclude that?

[dial_100]

You guys still don't get it do you? They played that way cause that is the way the game was played then. If SRT had played then that is the way he also would have played. I am sure this doesn't make sense to some of you, but just thought will try anyways. :winky:

Exactly my point and purpose of this thread. There cannot be averages of 99 possible in the current format. It is so commercial now. It is so different. So those numbers cannot be held up and compared against today's numbers. I wont say that the runs scored back then are devalued or something. Just that it was different all together. No easy way of bringing it in the today age, and be compared with the current lot. Some people are only defending SRT but I am defending all the top players including Kallis, Dravid, Ricky, Waugh and so on.

[yoda]

Exactly my point and purpose of this thread. There cannot be averages of 99 possible in the current format. It is so commercial now. It is so different. So those numbers cannot be held up and compared against today's numbers. I wont say that the runs scored back then are devalued or something. Just that it was different all together. No easy way of bringing it in the today age, and be compared with the current lot. Some people are only defending SRT but I am defending all the top players including Kallis, Dravid, Ricky, Waugh and so on.

The way you guys keep posting and referring and laughing at these old videos says just the opposite. Now I am done. :--D

[angel99]

DGB was great of his era and SRT is great of the present time... why is it so hard to accept this?

[Raghav_12]

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

I don't think if it is right way to do this analysis. Bradman was part of around 50% of test matches for the first sample size that you have taken. So if you take out top scorer from almost 50% of the matches (assuming Bradman top scored in match each time he played), batting averages would take a big dip. Now Tendulkar was part of only some 12% of the test matches those were played in your second sample size. And because of competitiveness around he would have top-scored in only around 50% of the matches he played in. So by removing Sachin you are removing top scorers runs only from 6% of the matches. So in one case you removing top-scorer from 50% of the sample size and in other you removing top scorer just from 6% of the matches. You need not to be Einstien to figure out in which case averages would take greater hit :--D Not that I believe that Sachin is greater than Bradman, but was pointing out flaw in your logic.

[The Outsider]

^ It was tongue in cheek. A more intuitive and accurate analysis would be to take out the runs of the top 6 batsmen with the highest average, since the sample of Tendulkar's era is about 6 times the number of matches in Bradman's time.

[fineleg]

tdigi or ludh - can we get DGB on one end, and SRT on the other end of the icf banner this week? (Before updating the Ind-NZ banner) In commemoration of the longest running debate :P