Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[The Outsider]

Any chance of an answer?

Firstly the question about the quality of the videos has already been addressed : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1203915&postcount=1416 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1203924&postcount=1417 We know that Jesse Owens clocked 10.2 seconds for a 100 meter race. If you just watched him run from the videos of those times, would you think that the guy could complete 100 meters in even 20 seconds? It is a recorded fact that Lindwall ran 100 yards in 10.6 seconds. There is no getting around that. Does he look like someone who can manage that looking at the videos? Secondly, even videos from the 60s and 70s look pretty crap. Lillee looks like a trundler in some of them. If you really believe Lillee was a trundler then there is nothing more for me to say. Thirdly, if you look at the basics in those videos, they are still pretty sound and all there. Batsmen have the same back and across movement while playing the cut and skip down the track in the same way as today to play a lofted straight drive. Finally and most importantly, everything has to be judged in context of the era. It is a fact that bats, training, conditioning etc. have improved over the last 60 years. But there is nothing to suggest that combining the basic skill set of the cricketers of those days with modern training methods and equipment, they would have fared significantly poorly.

[goose]

If Tendulkar's career happened before Bradman, Tendulkar would be regarded as the best batsman of all time by those who currently believe Bradman is the best. Discuss!

[The Outsider]

If Tendulkar's career happened before Bradman' date=' Tendulkar would be regarded as the best batsman of all time by those who currently believe Bradman is the best. Discuss![/quote'] If Tendulkar's career happened before Bradman, he would be the equivalent of Jack Hobbs, which he is now as well, though his career happened 60 years after Bradman.

[zen]

If Tendulkar's career happened before Bradman' date=' Tendulkar would be regarded as the best batsman of all time by those who currently believe Bradman is the best. Discuss![/quote'] Not really because he would probably have been in the same league as someone like Hobbs or Ranjit Singhji, who aren't regarded as being better than Bradman :winky:

[zen]

Tendulkar vs peers 1 Jan 1990 - 1 Jan 2000 1 Jan 2000 to 1 Jan 2010 If you look at 1 Jan 1990 to 1 Jan 2000 period then you will find that Stewart has the most runs. But we know that Tendulkar made the most impact, which is why he is rated as the best of that period (along with Lara for many). The argument that Ten > Don is similar to Stewart > Ten/Waugh. Stewart has more runs because he played more matches much like Tendulkar has over Bradman. But Tendulkar is considered better because he has a higher avg, along with most 100s/tests much like Don has a higher avg and more 100s/test From 1 Jan 2000 to 1 Jan 2010, who the best batsman is isn't even clear. I guess, it is probably Sehwag considering the rate he scores at along with those triples and doubles. I think this should be a good lesson to those who focus mainly on running down Sir Don Bradman to show Tendulkar is the greatest

[goose]

Not really because he would probably have been in the same league as someone like Hobbs or Ranjit Singhji' date=' who aren't regarded as being better than Bradman :winky:[/quote'] circular argument?

[zen]

circular argument?

how? .... appears as if you are confused abt something (like most in the 'Ten is the greatest" brigade) :P

[goose]

If Tendulkar's career happened before Bradman' date=' he would be the equivalent of Jack Hobbs, which he is now as well, though his career happened 60 years after Bradman.[/quote'] If Bradman's career was yet to happen (along with other changes in the sport i.e. reduced number of playing countries and surfaces, extinction of limited overs formats) the concept of a 100 test average would be non-existent. It simply would not feature in the lexicon of cricket. Batting averages would fall into the necessary but not sufficient catergory of criteria in assessing all time greats. Meanwhile, Tendulkar would be hailed as the best ever. Journalists would put forward his numerous records e.g. 16,000 test runs, one-day double hundred, 25 year career. etc to justify his best ever status. Then along comes Bradman. His average would no doubt see him rival Tendulkar but I am confident few if any would declare Bradman as the new number one. For a start, the changes in the way the sport is played would be unpalatable to most that had watched Tendulkar and co previously.

[goose]

how? .... appears as if you are confused abt something (like most in the 'Ten is the greatest" brigade) :P

The question asks you suspend current belief system w.r.t Bradman and engage in thought experiment. You failed to do just that.

[zen]

If Bradman's career was yet to happen (along with other changes in the sport i.e. reduced number of playing countries and surfaces' date=' extinction of limited overs formats) the concept of a 100 test average would be non-existent. It simply would not feature in the lexicon of cricket. Batting averages would fall into the necessary but not sufficient catergory of criteria in assessing all time greats. Meanwhile, Tendulkar would be hailed as the best ever. Journalists would put forward his numerous records e.g. 16,000 test runs, one-day double hundred, 25 year career. etc to justify his best ever status. Then along comes Bradman. His average would no doubt see him rival Tendulkar but I am confident few if any would declare Bradman as the new number one. For a start, the changes in the way the sport is played would be unpalatable to most that had watched Tendulkar and co previously.[/quote'] Obviously, you don't understand what a test avg of 100 is. No matter what the era, it's good to classify you as amongst the greatest, if the next best guys avg in 50s and 60s Your example would have been applicable, if Jack Hobbs was considered to be greater than some of the modern greats based on Hobbs having played in the past! :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Ahhh ! how original . Just awesome way of explaining how DGB has a huge advantage simply because he happened before SRT.

Not really! DGB has a huge advantage because he avg 100 and not because he played in a different era. If playing in the past era gave you an advantage than Hobbs would probably be the greatest or equivalent of Bradman :winky:

[Sachinism]

Old is gold. Nothing is as good as it was in the old days. Ask any old fogey about anything and they'll tell you how it was always better back in their day :P

[zen]

I guess, 3 Idiots is better than Sholay :P SRK / Aamir are better actors than Dilip Kumar / Sanjeev Kumar

[Shakthi]

I guess, 3 Idiots is better than Sholay :P SRK / Aamir are better actors than Dilip Kumar / Sanjeev Kumar

Nothing can touch Sholay aamir is better actor than srk but amitabh is dad of all these actors including DILIP kUMAR.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Not really, as at times innovation are limited due to technological limitations too.

So what kind of technological limitations would have stopped invention of helmets :winky:?? As far as I know initail helmets used by batsmen were simply bike helmets. And humans have been using helmets from the time of start of civilization in one form or other. Going with the trend in thread, I also allowed myself some nit-picking :-) On a serious note what I understood from video clippings or other discussions I can say that earlier (30's era) arrangement was like bowler won't bowl short,fast or dangerous bowling and batsmen won't put on any protective gear and let's have good game where bowlers will try to take wicket and batsmen will try to score runs. Larwood violated this agreement hence all hue and cry. Now a days arrangement is bowler will throw (I mean bowl :-)) whatever they can and batsmen will defend themselves with bat and any protective gears they can think of. If today's bowlers promise that they won't bowl nasty short-pitch stuff (like bowlers of 30's) then batsmen would be happy to throw away helmets. It's not fair to give batsmen of 30's bonus points for playing without protetion but batsmen of 70's definitely deserved these bonus points (in fact video's put on by you sipport my this argument only)

[goose]

This is a simple of question of the order of eras. Bradman's (and a few others from olden times) test average could never be used in the case against Tendulkar since there is no Bradman yet. His status as the best ever would become entrenched in the same way Bradman's is now. Bradman's subsequent career would be seen as pushing Tendulkar close but ultimately most would agree Tendulkar would have averaged the same or higher if he had to face only one or two test playing nations. I imagine Bradman would be considered the most *insert adjective* player ever just like Sehwag or Richards are considered the most destructive. But Tendulkar's status would endure. Sport and greatness therein doesn't happen in a vacuum. Perception is everything. If Bradman's career and era happened after Tendulkar's I imagine the sport itself would be declared dead never mind the batting average comparisons with Tendulkar.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

So what kind of technological limitations would have stopped invention of helmets :winky:?? As far as I know that initailly helmets used by batsmen were simply bike helmets. And humans have been using helmets from the time of civilization in one form or other. Going with the trend in thread, I also allowed myself some nit-picking :-) On a serious note what I understood from video clippings or other discussions I can say that earlier (30's era) arrangement was like bowler won't bowl short,fast or dangerous bowling and batsmen won't put on any protective gear and let's have good game where bowlers will try to take wicket and batsmen will try to score runs. Larwood violated this agreement hence all hue and cry. Now a days arrangement is bowler will throw (I mean bowl :-)) whatever they can and batsmen will defend themselves with bat and any protective gears they can think of. If today's bowlers promise that they won't bowl nasty short-pitch stuff (like bowlers of 30's) then batsmen would be happy to throw away helmets. It's not fair to give batsmen of 30's bonus points for playing without protetion but batsmen of 70's definitely deserved these bonus points (in fact video's put on by you sipport my this argument only)

On a lighter note, your first para can be summed up with a statement like "so what kind of technological innovation stopped cars from using seat belts, I guess, people did use belts in that period!" :P The point is that with protective gear a batman is better equipped (at least mentally) to take on the bowlers as he has more option at his disposal on playing a ball. Ofc, it does not mean that he won't get injured with a helmet on just like wearing a seat belt or having airbags in your car doesn't mean that you won't get injured If you think that those in 30s could do without helmet because bowlers didn't bowl quick then the bowlers did bowl quick. If the amt of pace dictated the use of helmets or other protective gear than why do batsman wear them in domestic games in India and that too on generally good batting or low bounce pitches. And I never said that those who played in 70s shouldn't be given credit too. Moreover, the point stems from a condition where sledging in modern times was said to impact avg in a negative way of modern batsmen but lack of proper protective gear for batsmen in 1930s was ignored. So unless you think that sledging is a factor while a lack of protective gear isn't there is no point in yours typing all these stuff!