'Tendulkar better than Bradman' : Zaheer Abbas

[King Tendulkar]

What's wrong with the Jack Hobbs's video? That isn't even a game and was shot in 1914! :giggle: .... The high straight drive is very good.

The question that you are asking isn't even a sensible question :P

So you are genuinley impressed by the batting in the video? Or are you just having a giggle?

[zen]

what is wrong with the 3rd video. I dont think he even got an edge on it.

He did glove it. The point is that assuming those are the only videos of Tendulkar available and if someone were to argue in future that how can such a batman who could get out in such manners be considered amongst the best. I am suggesting that Jack Hobbs video that KT keeps posting means little and on top of that asking others to judge Hobbs based on that video is stupid :P

[King Tendulkar]

He did glove it. The point is that assuming those are the only videos of Tendulkar available and if someone were to argue in future that how can such a batman who could get out in such manners be considered amongst the best. I am suggesting that Jack Hobbs video that KT keeps posting means little and on top of that asking others to judge Hobbs based on that video is stupid :P

If you think I am being selective on Hobbs then post the good videos. The videos of Hobbs batting, a lot of them were him shadow batting. For any batter its easy to look good when there is no ball to face, yet he still looks tragic!

[zen]

If you think I am being selective on Hobbs then post the good videos. The videos of Hobbs batting' date=' a lot of them were him shadow batting. For any batter its easy to look good when there is no ball to face, yet he still looks tragic![/quote'] I could only find one on you tube. Moreover the technology used for making videos then isn't as advanced as today's. It's clownish to make a judgment based on those videos. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWJB6Y-3N5o]YouTube - World War I: Battle Of Verdun 1/4[/ame] [ame=

- World War I: Gorlice Tarnow Offensive 1/4[/ame] Btw, in the above video it appears as if someone has marked "Austria" as "Australia" Do you want to giggle at how they fought based on those videos?

[King Tendulkar]

WTF has world war 1 videos got to do with anything, what has charlie chaplin go to do with anything, what has Einstein got do with anything? The videos are there of Hobbs batting and loads of his peers and contemparies. They are very clear in showing standard and techniques. As well as showing there are covers. By you saying videos not showing real picture and using all kinds of smokescreens like world war footage. Then I assume you are not impressed by Videos of Hobbs and his contemparies? Admit it the videos did not live up to the accounts you read in wisden and cricinfo which was the basis of you praising them to the sky? Or were yo mereley going by stats and nothing else? Videos have proved a real reality shock for many!

[zen]

WTF has world war 1 videos got to do with anything, what has charlie chaplin go to do with anything, what has Einstein got do with anything? The videos are there of Hobbs batting and loads of his peers and contemparies. They are very clear in showing standard and techniques. As well as showing there are covers. By you saying videos not showing real picture and using all kinds of smokescreens like world war footage. Then I assume you are not impressed by Videos of Hobbs and his contemparies? Admit it the videos did not live up to the accounts you read in wisden and cricinfo which was the basis of you praising them to the sky?

I already answered your question but appears as if you still don't get it or think that asking the same thing again and again will give you the answer that you want :giggle:

[zen]

I have a better idea! Why don't you start a thread to tell everyone that Sir Jack Hobbs was not a good batsman based on that video and that you can bat better than him. Please do that :yay:

[King Tendulkar]

Any how. Abbas, Viv Richards anbd Nasser Hussain all think Tendulkar is best ever and better then Bradman!

[Gunner_Mania]

Any how. Abbas' date=' Viv Richards anbd Nasser Hussain all think Tendulkar is best ever and better then Bradman![/quote'] Damn. I was expecting this Diwali fire cracker to go on for another 10 pages. That turned out to be a damp squib.

[King Tendulkar]

Well when rett is asked a straight question which he knows he cant answer to his satisfaction. He then puts up smokescreens and attempts to divert the topic! The videos are damming and its clear hobbs loyalists dont want to face up to talking about them. They just want to fall back on stats and wisden accounts rather the commenting on the actual cricket played as per videos

[Shakthi]

Whether people like it or dont the fact is Tendulkar is better batsman than Bradman

[Gunner_Mania]

FeG8hqQw1U8&feature=player_embedded#!

[Nirvanam]

Nice video...listen to the lyrics and see the Convict pride in abundance...lol! Anyway...Bradman's batting looks the closest to the technique of modern batsmen but still his technique against short pitch bowling was not great which is why Jardine used it and the Convicts went to town crying foul. 40 years later they unleashed two of their thugs on the Englishmen and called it aggressive short pitch bowling. Oh well...whoever said that Bodyline changed cricket! OK, the following has no relevance to the topic of the thread itself. However I'd like to share my observation and what I have gleaned from reading about cricket and its history. Lemme know what your thoughts are... I think the evolution of cricket itself has been in phases. There have been long periods of time when certain conventions are followed as the 'right' technique. People who challenged those conventions were frowned upon (as with anything else in life) and people who challenged those conventions successfully altered the game's fundamentals. The changed approach became the new convention. The following are what I think are some of the most important skills developing in the game and what caused them to develop. 1. The early days of cricket was more of underarm bowling. Overarm bowling was frowned upon..."it's not cricket". Then a woman who found it easier to bowl overarm because women wore long skirts introduced the technique of overarm bowling. Soon enough overarm became the most common form because it was a more effective way of bowling...more speed, better turn, more control, etc. 2. Then the bending of the arm rule to get rid of "throws" 3. Until about the late 1890s and early 1900s playing on the leg side was frowned upon..."it isn't cricket!" Essentially no one knew how to play on the leg side effectively. Ranji unleashed the power of the Indian wrist...convention challenged successfully and half of the ground was now opened up for 'legitimate' scoring area option. 4. Until about 1928 there was no short pitch bowling. Why? Because conditions in England where most of cricket used to be played were conducive to swing bowling and for swing bowling you needed to pitch the ball up. Hence if you pitched it short you were a "useless" bowler. Then in a series against the Windies...I think it was Constantine who bowled short and troubled Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Key to note...unlike the Cons the Poms did not complain about it. But no one knew how to counter short pitch bowling...they did not have a technique for such kind of bowling (this doesn't mean upto 1928 no one ever bowled short...they did but usually they thought it was not good bowling and hence it never took off) 5. Then comes the brainwave to Jardine who noticed Bradman quite literally scared, well let's say uncomfortable to keep the Bradman worshipers happy, of a speeding delivery (notice how he gets out in an ungainly manner at around 2:25 - 2:30 in the video...very ungainly). Once Jardine noticed this he just needed a guy who could bowl that kind of bowling accurately. The legend goes Larwood would practice bowling on a coin...land the ball on a coin....he was that accurate! And he was possibly cricket's first 90mph bowler...they talk about Spofforth the Demon but from what I have read I don't think he was not the same as Larwood. Anyway, cricket until that time did not know how to tackle short pitch bowling. The greatest batsman until that point in time Bradman had no answer for it. The convicts cried foul because they were shocked to see their hero shown to be mortal. When the same kinda bowling was bowled to Jardine he scored a hundred later in his career. 6. Until the likes of Gavaskar, Boycott, and those dour crease occupying opposition annoying "bastards" came to the fore no one knew how to play short stuff...for one because no one faced short stuff. In 1975 Ian Chappell unleashed Thommo and Lillee on the poor Englishmen...whatever happened to the COnvict code of spirit of cricket no one knows. He was successful. A season later he did the same to WI and beat them 5-1. That defeat coupled with the toothlessness of Windian attack which allowed a relative minnow like India chase down 400 to win, had Lloyd convinced how he was gonna shape his team. He opened his eyes to see he had speed demons in abundance...we know what happened later. 7. Until the advent of the 80s-90s hitting in the air was frowned upon...not any more. Why because there were mighty effective players like Viv, Kapil, Sachin, Jayasuriya who changed the equation 8. Defensive leg side theory was developed to counter the Buddha (much like short stuff was used to counter Bradman)...but Sachin adapted and scored a hundred and a 90 in 2 consecutive Tests against Giles. 9. The sheer pace of the Saffer attack in 2002 used a different short pitch strategy...not leg side but slightly outside off. The Buddha invents a new technique and teaches it to his Apprentice in his debut Test...both of them end up scoring 100's at Bloemfontein and the art of square cutting over the top of the slips was born as a legitimate technique...until Sachin did it successfully people were frowned on that...even today apart from Sachin and Sehwag who can play it successfully facing the speed of Akthar, Lee, tatu tuta Tait, etc? Give it 5-6 yrs the new kids will have these shots in their arsenal. The bottom line is that technique evolves when successful players use their own mind and their creativity to think beyond the book. Bradman chose not to during Bodyline although I believe he could have had he not been hung up in some stupid moral dilemma about short pitch bowling. Very important is to note this - almost every cricket writer and expert thought Bradman was an ugly player! He was just mighty effective but had no "class" and "grace". Given that Australian cricket is coached based on Bradman's book "Cricket: the Australian Way" you can be rest assured the technique we are seeing today is similar to what Bradman possessed (which is the reason for his phenomenal success, I believe). However, that same technique was thought to be useless by the then greats like Hobbs, etc :-). Their technique was way too ineffective I'd guess.

[Gunner_Mania]

^ Nice post. You should have structured it as an article and posted it in a new post. :nice:

[Mamu]

He is a player who averages 87 against India in tests in 19 matches :--D

Also a player who averages 28 In India, in 8 test matches Most of those averages were in Pakistan (largely under the blessings of then then notoriously infamous Paki Umpires) He was a less than an ordinary batsman when he stepped outside of Pakistan

[Mamu]

Zaheer Abbas great batsman. But even better commnetator' date= his commetary was legendry:--D

Anything but that. He was a mere ordinary batsman outside of Pakistan. He was dubbed as a great, just because he was stylish (but so was Kambli and Kambli still averages more than 50) and most importantly he scored a ton of runs in English County circuit and you know the English Media -- which was all but considered the ultimate decision maker in cricket at that time praised him to sky.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

1. Bradman 2. Daylight 3. Rest .......

[CG]

1. Bradman 2. Daylight 3. Rest .......

1.Tendulkar,bradman 2.rest

[Bublu Bhuyan]

WISDEN, when it rated Tendulkar the second best ever in 2002, said it perfectly. Something along the lines like, "Tendulkar can never be the greatest batsman of all time. That spot has already been taken". The spot for the best batsman ever has already been taken and it doesn't matter even if we have a batsman averaging more than 100 in the future, no one will ever snatch that spot from Bradman. Tendulkar is however a contender for the spot of being the best ever after Bradman. There are lots of other contenders for that spot as well - Gary Sobers, Viv Richards, Jack Hobbs, Wally Hammond, Len Hutton, George Headley, to name a few. If it were up to me, I'd pick one of Sobers, Richards or Hobbs for that honor.

[b555]

WISDEN, when it rated Tendulkar the second best ever in 2002, said it perfectly. Something along the lines like, "Tendulkar can never be the greatest batsman of all time. That spot has already been taken". The spot for the best batsman ever has already been taken and it doesn't matter even if we have a batsman averaging more than 100 in the future, no one will ever snatch that spot from Bradman. Tendulkar is however a contender for the spot of being the best ever after Bradman. There are lots of other contenders for that spot as well - Gary Sobers, Viv Richards, Jack Hobbs, Wally Hammond, Len Hutton, George Headley, to name a few. If it were up to me, I'd pick one of Sobers, Richards or Hobbs for that honor.

what do u mean by spot has already beent aken its sounding as if in indian buses u throw a piece of cloth and say that the seat is yours and no one can ever sit on it as far as bus goes on