Why cant there be another Bradman again??

yoda · October 29, 2010

So the bottom line is if you have any honesty ... acknowledge that the standard of cricket was abysmal back then. Else all this talk about DGB > Rest is just hollow. Now as far as you are concerned do you still believe DGB > Rest after seeing those clips ?

:omg: After all the examples about Jesse Owens and the Indian sprinter, etc, etc, etc, you guys still keep asking the same question. I give up. Just remember that you are all in a very small minority which doesn't include the cricketing greats themselves (past and present) including Tendulkar.

King Tendulkar · October 29, 2010

:omg: After all the examples about Jesse Owens and the Indian sprinter, etc, etc, etc, you guys still keep asking the same question. I give up. Just remember that you are all in a very small minority which doesn't include the cricketing greats themselves (past and present) including Tendulkar.

Would you agree the competition in 30s was much less then now? As back then only 2 countries that actually played cricket in Aus and England! Thus if the competiton was much less would you not agree that much easier to dominate then in 2010

Raghav_12 · October 29, 2010

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!

This is one more myth which cricket romantics keep falling on that Batsmen of old era had to go without any protective gear. Just want to know if there was any rule to stop players in that era from wearing protective gear? If there was no such rule then I'll assume that players of pre-70's era did not wear protective gear because they did not need one. Above video clipping has further confirmed this notion. As soon as real fast bowling arrived in 70's, batsmen quickly resorted to protective gears like helmets. So if you really want to give pat on the back of batsmen for standing up to fast bowling without helmets, then deserving candidates are likes of Richards, Gavaskar, Chappells only, not batsmen from pre-70 era. At times, I wonder why bodyline was such a big issue in that time. Looks like at that time underlying assumption simply was you can not/should not get a wicket through intimidatory tactics even if it is within rules of book. Compare this with current era's fast bowlers for whom intimidation seems to be their first weapon and then come swing and seam. I am inclined to think that if bodyline had occured in today's era, it would not have raised eyebrows any deeper than what Ashley Giles negative bowling outside leg stump or Dhoni's 8-1 field placement do. Coming back to video posted here, are you guys sure that bowler in that video is Lindwall only? I always thought him to be very-very fast (just the way his name sounds also) and it was unbelievable that wicketkeeper would stand upto stumps on his bowling (which is case as per this video). Not that I am switching sides, gulf between Bradman and his peers was simply too high to be filled by these arguments, but now I definitely believe that difference between Bradman and Sachin (or any other bastmen of current era) in not that high as I used to believe:hmmm:

yoda · October 29, 2010

Would you agree the competition in 30s was much less then now? As back then only 2 countries that actually played cricket in Aus and England! Thus if the competiton was much less would you not agree that much easier to dominate then in 2010

Aree yaar, competition is always more intense as the world population increases and more people take up certain sport. Standards also keep going up. As explained a gazillion times, that is a natural evolution. It doesn't mean you throw away everything what people did then and start laughing at them now like you seem to like to do. You show respect for different era for what they were and use other criteria to come up with your interpretation of how they rank across era, which I agree is a difficult and personal choice. You don't say X from 1930s isn't as fast as Y from 2010 so X < Y or X from 1930s held his bat differently and had poor technique when compared to a Y from 2010, so X < Y or X from 1930 played against only 2 countries where as Y from 2010 got to play against 10 countries, so X < Y. You use some common sense and try to see how they did then against the competition that was offered to them using the gear they had then, etc. And now if you see just ONE guy who outshone everyone then, you don't throw his performance out claiming: 1. Oh he was so good only because I KNOW that everyone was very very bad then 2. Oh he was so good only because, well, hmmmm, it was soooo easy to bat those days, but only for him you see, cause, hmmm I KNOW that everyone else was an amateur then EXCEPT HIM, you see 3. Oh he wasn't really good at all cause you see, if you see the videos of all of them, they aren't even holding the bat like we have learnt to do today, LOL

King Tendulkar · October 29, 2010

:omg: After all the examples about Jesse Owens and the Indian sprinter, etc, etc, etc, you guys still keep asking the same question. I give up. Just remember that you are all in a very small minority which doesn't include the cricketing greats themselves (past and present) including Tendulkar.

p.s i talked about jessie owens in other thread and dealt with it. No one took me on, as debate that was sure to lose for anyone going against what I said

yoda · October 29, 2010

p.s i talked about jessie owens in other thread and dealt with it. No one took me on' date=' as debate that was sure to lose for anyone going against what I said[/quote'] No one took you up cause you keep parroting the same thing. X is faster today than Y yesterday, so X is greater. So by that token, that Ajay Singh or whoever is the current Indian 100m fastest guy is greater than Jesse Owens for you and you might be the only one in this world who believes that. :hehe:

October 29, 2010