Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[zen]

let's take a look at the different eras: 1930-1950 - Headley, Hammond, Hutton, .... 1950-1970 - Sobers, Pollock, .... 1970-1990 - Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, .... 1990-2010 - Tendulkar, Lara, Sehwag, .... Since the debate is b/w Bradman and Tendulkar, one can assume that Bradman has successfully managed to pass the 1950-1970 and 1970-1990 eras. Only struggling to clear the 1990-2010 era. Based on the modern batsmen being better theory, a batsman of the new era would be better than the old one so why has Bradman cleared other eras? So does this mean that the standard of bowling was the same from 1930 to 1990 and it only picked up suddenly when Tendulkar came on the scene? Most of the pro-modern batsmen arguments can be applied to 1970-1990 era vs 1930-1950 but somehow that seems to have no effect on Bradman's standing but only for the 1990-2010 :P And since only Tendulkar is being picked over Bradman, could we assume that Bradman is better than the likes of Lara, Tendulkar's peer? If that's the case then how can Tendulkar be better than Bradman but if Lara is also greater than Bradman then how come the WI fans don't say that? If today's best batsmen are better than Bradman, then why isn't Ponting not greater than Bradman per experts?! If you ask these question, then it starts to become clear that it's only the biased Tendulkar fans that want to see Tendulkar as the greatest (an obvious conclusion). And if Tendulkar wasn't as good as Lara, there probably wouldn't have been a Tendulkar vs Bradman debate! I find it hard to believe that the bias Tendukar fans would bother to show Lara/Ponting > Bradman. And that probably also shows why this debate is a non-starter in the first place. Case closed!

[zen]

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

the debate was over probably a long time ago, it's only that comical factors like sledging having an effect on batting on avg are being thrown in to try to stay in the game :winky:

[zen]

here take a look at this footage from 1948 Oval Test and decide for yourselves .... the batting techniques are just lulz. http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=83789 The bowler shown in that clip is Ray Lindwall who is rated as Right arm fast on CI .... see and decide for yourselves.

I think that was some pretty good batting considering: 1. the bats were pretty basic compared to today's standards 2. the uneven bounce on the pitch, esp compared to today 3. Hardly any protective gear Also the game was played 2-3 years after the WW2 so it was good to see a lively atmosphere in the stadium!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

More words and stats from the delusionists. Just look at the videos, they render any posts promoting greatness of oldies meaningless. Different game back then, all sport was just different then as sports only startting out then. Pionners and historical figures to be admired, YES! Actual great players comparable to modern greats, well see the videos! And yes it is hard to admire a player like Hobbs and to compare him to a modern players, when looking at the vidoes I feel I am a far better batsman myself then him. I tell you there will be loads of posters watching these oldies play thinking exactly the same thing, that I am better then them!

[King Tendulkar]

The argument that DGB would have adapted to times is flawed because there exists no evidence that he could handle that quality of bowling. In fact the only reason he is in any contention now is because of the hype machine that put him on a lofty pedestal and in order to sustain this hype simply elevated all the bowlers and "peers" to a lofty pedestal . Just look at how Cardus describes the aussie fast bowler Ray Lindwall as the " most hostile and artistic fast bowlers he had ever seen" ... is this a joke ?

Exactly that is the big BS spin peddled. Even Ramprakash and Hick could not adjust to test cricket, let alone grab some fella from 90 years ago and ask him to adjust. And whats all this nonsense if they were born at same time as sachin they could have been a great blah bla. The speculation , exaggeration, ifs and buts, could have ,maybe blah bah is nuts. Really is a case of adding 2 + 2 = 2089. The guys played a totally different game then, if you dont believe me see the VIDEOS AGAIN! It renders stats and words meanigless. It renders a 99 average meaningless. Call them pre developed greats if you want and rank the old greats amongst themsleves but dont compare them to a 2010 perfection of tendulkar etc it just makes such comparisons nuts!

[King Tendulkar]

I think that was some pretty good batting considering: 1. the bats were pretty basic compared to today's standards 2. the uneven bounce on the pitch, esp compared to today 3. Hardly any protective gear

:hysterical::hysterical:From the all time greats better then sachin and co to PRETTY GOOD BATTING CONSIDERING:hysterical::hysterical: Go see the videos again! If you play cricket admit it, looking at them play dont you think that deep down you are better then these guys?:--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

:hysterical::hysterical:From the all time greats better then sachin and co to PRETTY GOOD BATTING CONSIDERING:hysterical::hysterical: Go see the videos again! If you play cricket admit it, looking at them play dont you think that deep down you are better then these guys?:--D

ah ha, so you assumed that everyone batting in that clip is an AT great :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

Even Ramprakash and Hick could not adjust to test cricket' date=' let alone grab some fella from 90 years ago and ask him to adjust. [/quote'] I nominate this for POTW. What chance does Bradman have, when Hick and Ramprakash failed.

[zen]

May be a thread on Jadeja/Pathan > Vinoo Mankad would be fun, esp with video clips of Mankad :haha:

[yoda]

We need to go back to the basic definition of what constitutes an "All Time Great" ... In my opinion an All time great would have the skills to compete with the best of any era.

Isn't that an unfair expectation? Which is why it is flawed and why most on the all time XI panel have rejected that definition, otherwise no one from pre Richards or Sunny days can make it to an all time XI, cause they are all cr@p compared to today's standards. I am not saying you guys need to agree with them, just realize that your opinions are directly in contrast to some of the great players themselves like Lloyd and Wadekar and Tony Greig and probably the majority of people who can see the different era and appreciate them for what they are. If you are only referring to "All time great" and not to general term of "Greats", then we can discuss further.

[dial_100]

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

That is what I have been saying as well. Do not impose on us that one of them is better than the other. Thats all. That is not so difficult. In my view both parties are equally fanatic. Why just blame SRT fans.

[King Tendulkar]

I nominate this for POTW. What chance does Bradman have, when Hick and Ramprakash failed.

Any comments on the video clips of the great players you hyped up? What do you think of their technique and standard of cricket in the videos?

[King Tendulkar]

ah ha' date=' so you assumed that everyone batting in that clip is an AT great :hysterical:[/quote'] No was quoting you in calling them previously all time greats to greatest ever, and how you have down graded them to pretty good cricket.

[King Tendulkar]

Isn't that an unfair expectation? Which is why it is flawed and why most on the all time XI panel have rejected that definition, otherwise no one from pre Richards or Sunny days can make it to an all time XI, cause they are all cr@p compared to today's standards. I am not saying you guys need to agree with them, just realize that your opinions are directly in contrast to some of the great players themselves like Lloyd and Wadekar and Tony Greig and probably the majority of people who can see the different era and appreciate them for what they are. If you are only referring to "All time great" and not to general term of "Greats", then we can discuss further.

But the bradmans and hobbs played so long ago in a bygone era. In an era were sport and cricket was just begginnnig, such basic tactics and techniques were only just starting and being discovered. It was a totally different game, played in totally different way, by totally different people and by such few countries. To even begin to compare these fellas to modern players is nuts and this is what has got peoples goats up. Throwing around flashy averages from guys who played in this ancient era means jack. Call them greats of their bygone non developed era, thats fine. But dont start throwing numbers or arguments to say they are better then a Tendulkar and co. Look at the videos again, then look at videos of Tenulkar. It makes comparisons seem foolish and even more fooolish those claimed that they would need time to adjust but they would soon adapt, what utter tosh that is. I repeat again. Pionners and historical figures of cricket yes. But comparable to players from post developed era in ultra competitive enviroment, you have to be kidding. Tendulkar is the greatest ever, despite what wisden , cricinfo and some stats from fellas from decades back come up with. And if you dont believe me see the VIDEOS again!

[pensionplan]

When I read this thread all I can say is my moniker is kept in tact and every bit worth it. Proud to be wearing the monikier.:hatsoff:

[pensionplan]

And by the way how can people claim Tendulkar to be the greatest(blanket statements are easy to make and I am not interested in them). For example how much of a gap there is between SRT himself and say someone like a Lara, Richards, Border and Miandad whose of which career's I had the pleasure of following real closely just as Tendulkar's and those gentlemen are as good in any conditions as any and I can pick each one of them and feel comfortable. And if I had someone play for my life I would even prefer a Border or a Miandad over the flamboyance of a Lara, Tendulkar or Richards. And IMO Border and Miandad played the prime of their career's when the bowling was at its most menacing best than any other time in history post-packer say 1981 to say about 1992 or so personally speaking. After that I see a decline in the overall quality of the bowling with more tailored pitches since the advent and promotion of ODI's at their peak in the 90's going forward. All this is not to say that Tendulkar is not the best but I do not think it is inarguable. Personally on Cricinfo's all-time team I have voted for Bradman, Tendulkar and Graeme Pollock as my choices in the middle order over Lara and Richards so I do hold Tendulkar in a very high esteem.

[zen]

No was quoting you in calling them previously all time greats to greatest ever' date=' and how you have down graded them to pretty good cricket.[/quote'] :hmmmm2:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --