Facts based debate: Questioning assumption of Bradman's greatness vis-a-vis Modern ATG Batsmen

[Nirvanam]

Folks, Let's start a fresh debate based on facts on the following subject: Does Bradman's dominance over his peers necessitate that he is ahead of all other batsmen after him, by a similar margin? Some expectations - No personal attacks on intelligence No ridiculing, with or without the use of smilies Stick to facts and what you infer from the facts Arguments' logical soundness can be verified by oneself here This debate is not to be viewed as ego oneupmanship so please rid ourselves of the concept of 'winning' or 'losing' in this debate I'll start with my first argument. Please provide your rebuttal Donald Bradman's relative dominance and distance from his peers is no indication of his standing when compared to Virtuosos, Sachin and Lara, or other recent vintage ATG batsmen. The context of Bradman's runs are way inferior to the context of Lara's and Sachin's runs. Please feel free to ask for specific data as supporting evidence, in case required.

[achilles]

We are on the same page here, I feel.

[Gunner_Mania]

We are on the same page here' date=' I feel.[/quote'] Obviously. its only the second post, so you will be on the same page. You need atleast 40 posts to go to the next page :vroam:

[vaibhav_delhi]

Obviously. its only the second post' date=' so you will be on the same page. You need atleast 40 posts to go to the next page :vroam:[/quote'] :hysterical:

[punjabi_khota]

Obviously. its only the second post' date=' so you will be on the same page. You need atleast 40 posts to go to the next page :vroam:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

If the purpose of this debate is to deride Sir Don Bradman's achievement to show in the end that Tendulkar is the greatest then it is a non-starter. If that's not the purpose then why pick Bradman vs Sachin's period? Why not first start out by determing the value of runs for 70s-90 vs 90s-10 :P

[vaibhav_delhi]

well in my personal opinion, Sachin is a greater batsman than Bradman coudl ever had been. Becuase the level of cricket and the professionalism in last 35 years was not there in bradman's era Iguess he would have built up that average facing collingwood type bowlers. if bradman faced akhtar, steyn, Lee type bowlers without a helmet and L-guard on uncovered pitches, he would have been dead before a made a single hundred

[yoda]

Don't see anything new here, all been done and dusted in other threads. Honestly, not interested in anymore. I think by now we all know where we stand. Not saying others won't have anything new to add, I don't. Just thought should post that, so that guys like BB don't sneak their sarcastic posts saying people have run away with their tail between their legs, etc.

[pensionplan]

Don't see anything new here, all been done and dusted in other threads. Honestly, not interested in anymore. I think by now we all know where we stand. Not saying others won't have anything new to add, I don't. Just thought should post that, so that guys like BB don't sneak their sarcastic posts saying people have run away with their tail between their legs, etc.

Yes this thread can be merged with the other one and everything can be continued there. No value add for multiple threads to hash out the same things.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vaibhav_delhi]

well imo, no one could possibly bat better than sachin. In his compactness, class, longevity, ability to soak pressure, temperament, strokeplay. Not even anyone from the All time XI names like Sobers, viv or bradman would not have matched upto sachin in terms of pure batsmanship. One of the modern greats Lara has said tht Sachin is ahead of him and that he would want his kid to play like sach. is a testament.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[akshayxyz]

There is no conclusive way to say that X% of peer domination in 1930's would translate to Y% of peer domination in current era of high quality competition or other way round. There are far too many variables to derive any such sensible mapping.

[thongale]

Shall we get started on a Sobers vs Tendulkar or Barrington vs Tendulkar or G.Pollock vs Tendulkar then? All these guys have been through professionals when they played. Barrington would have done more if not for his heart attack.

[vaibhav_delhi]

There is no conclusive way to say that X% of peer domination in 1930's would translate to Y% of peer domination in current era of high quality competition or other way round. There are far too many variables to derive any such sensible mapping.

right. So lets just conclude tht Sachin is the greatest batsman ever to play the game of cricket.

[achilles]

Obviously. its only the second post' date=' so you will be on the same page. You need atleast 40 posts to go to the next page :vroam:[/quote'] How old are you? 4? Duh! :finger:

[Nirvanam]

If the purpose of this debate is to deride Sir Don Bradman's achievement to show in the end that Tendulkar is the greatest then it is a non-starter. If that's not the purpose then why pick Bradman vs Sachin's period? Why not first start out by determing the value of runs for 70s-90 vs 90s-10 :P

I'll request you once more, try and be respectful to everyone here, and to me. If you cannot gather the decency to be respectful of others who don't hold your views, at least don't stoop down to a level of ridiculing them believing that you are being funny...you are not. The purpose of this debate is to question the assumption that Bradman's greatness vis-a-vis modern ATG batsmen. The claim is not to establish Sachin as the best or anyone else as the best...(my personal view is that there are 3 batsmen in the History of Test cricket who can be called Virtuosos (although my own analysis shows there are 4), and comparison between them is pointless. All 3 are Virtuosos and better than the rest.) Again, my claim is the following - Donald Bradman's relative dominance and distance from his peers is no indication of his standing when compared to Virtuosos, Sachin and Lara, or other recent vintage ATG batsmen. The context of Bradman's runs are way inferior to the context of Lara's and Sachin's runs. Notice there is no claim being made about Sachin being the best.

[zen]

I'll request you once more, try and be respectful to everyone here, and to me. If you cannot gather the decency to be respectful of others who don't hold your views, at least don't stoop down to a level of ridiculing them believing that you are being funny...you are not. The purpose of this debate is to question the assumption that Bradman's greatness vis-a-vis modern ATG batsmen. The claim is not to establish Sachin as the best or anyone else as the best...(my personal view is that there are 3 batsmen in the History of Test cricket who can be called Virtuosos (although my own analysis shows there are 4), and comparison between them is pointless. All 3 are Virtuosos and better than the rest.) Again, my claim is the following - Donald Bradman's relative dominance and distance from his peers is no indication of his standing when compared to Virtuosos, Sachin and Lara, or other recent vintage ATG batsmen. The context of Bradman's runs are way inferior to the context of Lara's and Sachin's runs. Notice there is no claim being made about Sachin being the best.

:omg: So you found that post to be ridiculing! bete, soojaa warne rett ayaga :hysterical:

[Nirvanam]

There is no conclusive way to say that X% of peer domination in 1930's would translate to Y% of peer domination in current era of high quality competition or other way round. There are far too many variables to derive any such sensible mapping.

So then, would it necessitate that if a person is way ahead of his peers then he is necessarily ahead of all batsmen of all eras? If the answer is Yes....why? If the answer is No, then what is the logical basis for holding Bradman as the greatest Test bat ever?

[Nirvanam]

Shall we get started on a Sobers vs Tendulkar or Barrington vs Tendulkar or G.Pollock vs Tendulkar then? All these guys have been through professionals when they played. Barrington would have done more if not for his heart attack.

The topic for the debate is different...it ain't Sachin v/s Bradman