Who was the better bowler - Marshall or Tendulkar?

[Jadoo]

Agree with a lot of posters who have already stated that comparisons between players of different generations is pointless. Both Tendulkar and Bradman are amongst the best in their generation, no sane person can argue on one being better than the other. Though, on a personal note, it is quite brilliant to see the creativity used by our very own legends (Outty, BB, Bumper etc) to argue their points. Maybe we should have a thread on which one amongst you guys is the greatest ICF poster....lol, just kidding.

[Ram]

Its one thing to like, even love a player. All of us are entitled to have our own private heroes/role-models. But to completely suspend conscience and common sense in the name of 'objective' comparisons that mostly involves ludicrous assumptions and laughable simplifications, is on an entirely different plane. Even lets say that somehow, using the most sophisticated model, we're able to establish that Sachin or better than Bradman or Bradman is better than Sachin, how does it in anyway impact your love for the game or the adulation you've had for that player? Its ok for 10-12 year kids to to go through the 'No, my car is bigger, yours is smaller..' routine, but to see grown adults clamor for partisen and cheap considerations is sad, to say the least.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

The Bradman debate has since long moved to a video footage based debate. Since then it has become a bit one-sided in terms of objectivity. I mean you know people are talking out of the wrong orifices when they stoutly say they see no wrong in their opinion about the bowling quality and general cricket skills of DGB's peers that are on display in those videos. (Yoda being a rare exception). Anyhow there was no need for any sophisticated model to tell us that Amateur eras should not be compared with Pro eras to begin with. The thing that I have learnt is that there is no cure for ego-bags.

You do realize that I can flip that post of yours 100% in the opposite direction, replace a few nouns and pro-nouns here and there and it would fit your stance on the whole debate, to a T? In your quest to bolster your stance, you make so many oversimplified assumptions that are just downright naïve.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

Can't we end this eternal debate by saying that Bradman was the greatest in the Amateur era and Goddy is the greatest in the Professional era :hmmm:

[Ram]

Yes I know. But that would involve me having to accept words of the Bradman fans say in regards to uncovered pitches which the footage tells us were infact covered. Or that some of the trundlers were infact world beating fast bowlers. Or that some spinners were infact medium pacers or that the batting technique on display is flawless or that there is no wrong in setting a field with 7 closein fielders when the batting team was leading by 600 runs in the 3rd inngs and so on and so forth. Oversimplified ? oh ya.

See you’re just proving my point here. If one of your assertions is that Bradman simply took advantage of the harmlessly non-competitive nature of the game back then when opposing captains would continue to set blissfully ignorant fields irrespective of the match situation, I am afraid you’re just horribly wrong. Bradman played 60 years ago, not 6000 years ago. Trust me, humans back then were as competitive back then, as they were today. Even if we were to take that rather crude assumption to be true, that still wouldn’t explain why he was the ONLY batsmen of his era to take advantage of the same. Were the other batsmen back then just stupid? Btw, I. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me; How many hours of total Bradman’s batting tapes have you seen, in total? If you can come up with a number, can you account for all of them? (eg, Match a – 45 mins, Match b – 30 mins etc..)

[Nirvanam]

I think Bradman is a better bowler than both, because: 1) Bowling in the 1940s when the cricketing era was super competitive was always gonna be difficult. 2) Imagine bowling in an era where the top batsman (which is Bradman himself) averaged 99 - scaaaryy! 3) One word: Bodyline.. Dont ask me why, i dont know. Every time we discuss 1940s, people utter this one word, as if this explains everything. 4) Imagine bowling with those appalling fielders to support you. It couldnt get more challenging than that. 5) Video clips show that all batsmen of the 40s looked like nincompoops playing even the most elegant of cover drives. In no other era, bowlers made batsmen look so ugly. 6) One could argue that Bradman the bowler, never bowled to Bradman the batsman. But this is more of a myth than truth. Since the fastest bowlers of the 40s bowled at 2 miles per hour, many times Bradman bowled to himself & then quickly padded up, wore his gear & was at the other end in no time to promptly hit the ball for a boundary. And what more, historians of the 40s wrote in London times that Bradman is the greatest of the 12 cricketers they've seen. Thats good enough for me.

Aww come on mate, you forgot the qualifications of Jack Hobbs The Master! He was the best there ever was...he taught Braddy boy how to bolw to himself. In my view, Hobbs was the best

[Nirvanam]

No one is spared. Everyone is teared down mind you to prop up that one player. Sometimes it is all these greats from other countries that are ridiculed and if you dare bringing up a Laxman or a Dravid to prove that they are as valuable as Tendulkar then it will their turn to face the humiliation. It never ends though some of these threads often times makes for a good laugh I confess.

Nah! You got that wrong sweetheart! It is when you start big-upping players of thje 1930s as equals of current players and based on that claim Braddy boy is greatest ever that your logic will be exposed. I mean seriously, the only reason anyone can argue Braddy bot is greatest ever is if he believes that Braddy's peers were comparable to today's players...and that myth can very easily be shown up. So what is you basis for claiming Bradman is better than Pawning...leave alone Sachin. Why is Bradman greater than Ricky Ponting?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Can't we end this eternal debate by saying that Bradman was the greatest in the Amateur era and Goddy is the greatest in the Professional era :hmmm:

Sounds kinda reasonable. However, even in the Amateur Era I'd probably have Vivian Richards, Greg Chappell, Sobers, and Gavva as equals if not greater than Bradman.

[dhillon28]

yes it is well documented that the fields never changed with to become defensive with donald bradman on 250-300*, compare this the modern era to graeme smith's tactics of reverting to a defensive field with sehwag on 30* or in ponting's case with sehwag on 0*. Unless bradman was a six hitter, then his flow of runs would have certainly decreased with a change to defensive fields.

[pensionplan]

Nah! You got that wrong sweetheart! It is when you start big-upping players of thje 1930s as equals of current players and based on that claim Braddy boy is greatest ever that your logic will be exposed. I mean seriously, the only reason anyone can argue Braddy bot is greatest ever is if he believes that Braddy's peers were comparable to today's players...and that myth can very easily be shown up.

To this point you were not able to explain the huge average gap between Bradman and the rest excepting pluck some stats and analyze them as to you choose to prop up that one player or looking at some videos and self satisfying that Bradman had it easy and he beat up on some minnows. I mean what have you conclusively proved or presented for people to take a serious note of and acknowledge it.

So what is you basis for claiming Bradman is better than Pawning...leave alone Sachin. Why is Bradman greater than Ricky Ponting?

And what is your basis for claiming Sachin is better than Bradman with a more than 40 point average difference when his average hovers around in the same vicinity as most of his contemporary greats like Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Lara etc and in the same vicinity as a Sobers, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border and a ton of others.

[Ram]

Well then that footage must have been doctored or the field was changed soon after for which footage does not exist. Sorry its a bit futile to argue along those lines. You are free to believe in such things.

Your response has got little to do with what I asked you, but we’ll let that pass.

First of all I have never even tried to question this aspect of DGB being far superior than his peers. That is a given and it only means that he was faar superior compared to his peers. But the moment you try to tell me that since these peers happened to avg in the 50s just like SRT it automatically means DGB > SRT is when I present the video evidence to showcase the footage of bowlers against who the runs were made.

No, but the fact that he was the ONLY one towering head and shoulders above anyone of his time completely destroys your argument that cricket back then was just a harmless game played by fat English dudes who had nothing else better to do on a Saturday afternoon.

Whats your point ? I havent kept track of that. But there is plenty of footage on that site its certainly not a 2min footage here and there like the ones you see on YT.

I am not asking for how many minutes of Bradman’s tapes are there put together, but how much of it have you seen? Of course, the answer to this question has complete relevance to the topic we’re discussing right now.

[Nirvanam]

See you’re just proving my point here. If one of your assertions is that Bradman simply took advantage of the harmlessly non-competitive nature of the game back then when opposing captains would continue to set blissfully ignorant fields irrespective of the match situation, I am afraid you’re just horribly wrong. Bradman played 60 years ago, not 6000 years ago. Trust me, humans back then were as competitive back then, as they were today. Even if we were to take that rather crude assumption to be true, that still wouldn’t explain why he was the ONLY batsmen of his era to take advantage of the same. Were the other batsmen back then just stupid? Btw, I. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me; How many hours of total Bradman’s batting tapes have you seen, in total? If you can come up with a number, can you account for all of them? (eg, Match a – 45 mins, Match b – 30 mins etc..)

You make a fair point regarding Bradman taking advantage while others not. The debate is never about Bradman's greatness vis-a-vis his peers. He was exceptional...he had the bloody skill to take advantage while his peers were found wanting. There is no doubt about that. However, extending it to mean that he would be similarly so ahead of guys today is ludicrous. There's no logical basis to do that. Only way you can is if you believe Bradman's peers were equal in skill and standard of game to today's greats. Now that, I am afraid takes much more than just accepting one's word for it. Agreed the amount of time we saw of theior batting may be limited but in that amount itself it is very clear, even beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, that those fellows would even make their County XI today. A person who has been following cricket thru most of his life does not need to watch every ball faced/bowled by a player to get a picture of his quality...that you must agree

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

To this point you were not able to explain the huge average gap between Bradman and the rest excepting pluck some stats and analyze them as to you choose to prop up that one player or looking at some videos and self satisfying that Bradman had it easy and he beat up on some minnows. I mean what have you conclusively proved or presented for people to take a serious note of and acknowledge it.

What is there to explain over there? I have already said Bradman was ahead of his peers by a great margin. I stop here. I don't continue to then use that dominance over Hobbs and Sutcliffe and Hammond to mean that he would have dominated players since the 70s in the same way.

And what is your basis for claiming Sachin is better than Bradman with a more than 40 point average difference when his average hovers around in the same vicinity as most of his contemporary greats like Ponting' date=' Kallis, Dravid, Lara etc and in the same vicinity as a Sobers, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border and a ton of others.[/quote']I think u misunderstand me. My stance is the following... There are 3 batsmen in the History of Test cricket who are above all else. Comparison between these 3 is meaningless. And even comparing the second tier fellows is also pointless. Some will be better in some things while worser in others. What you can say is that there are 3 who are the very best...no one better than them. Those 3 are Don, Lara, and Sachin. Here I will shamelessly agree that the only reason I have Bradman in that list is because of the 70 year successful propaganda of him being the greatest ever. Similarly the only reason I have guys like the 3 English H's alongside Gavva and Richards and Sobers is the similar propaganda of their greatness. Now, that was my stance. Please do not turn around and question me coz I have already explained to you why I hold Sachin and Lara ahead of the others in an analysis I did. You may agree with it or may not, but if you want to know more about it...pls feel free to visit this webpage - http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html Now, please be kind enough to tell me why is Bradman greater than Ricky Ponting?

[Pioneer]

Look a Pakistani! Turn your attention to him!

[The Outsider]

Why can't you guys ask these questions and discuss moderation through PMs? Is it so out of the world for an admin to warn a poster who has the following history : 1. Was temporarily and then banned permanently on some earlier account for abusing members. 2. Re-registered after some time with this new account. 3. Very soon started racking up infractions and warnings on this one as well by repeatedly abusing other members. 4. Has PMed other members with the sole purpose of abusing them. If you guys think that my warning him gives you a carte blanche to have a go on this website, you are wrong. Whatever be the merits of Tendulkar as a bowler have nothing to do with this. You sympathize with Under_Score and feel he has been unfairly warned (actually banned now for a week), please feel free to PM me. Any subsequent posts trying to create a circus out of ICF will be deleted.

[Guest Gunner]

I can, I am just leaving it open because there are two mods already involved in the debate. The moment it goes further I am going to.