Bradman and some stuff

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

I did. And this happened when I produced evidence in the form of videos which has tons of trundlers plying their trade in full glory. You are yet to come up with a straightforward answer backed up by conventional cricketing logic to explain how Ernie Toshack is the owner of a FC record that has eluded the likes of Flintoff, Kapil Dev, Srinath etc. Talk to me the day you can summon enough moral fortitude to justify your ludicrous cricketing gyaan that tries to tell me that you see nothing wrong with that sort of bowling. You are nothing but a pathetic liar. If you cant accept such bleedingly obvious facts why do you get into these debates ? Atleast develop some conscience before you get into these debates.

Does not cut it for me. I have explained to you in great detail in various posts in that thread on why the video evidence alone from what I saw is good enough to dismiss the vast gap between Bradman and the rest. He was way ahead of his times and simply the best without a debate. Contrast that to Tendulkar era. Though with longevity he has all of the records never during from the time he started till now was he a cut above the other greats of his time that he was beyond debate the best. There is always a Lara or a Ponting or a Gavaskar or a Richards he can always be compared to favorably. So what you presented via videos is only a part of the story and there is nothing that is bleedingly obvious at least for me to just discredit Bradman's stunning Test average. Trust me being a Tendulkar fan myself nothing gives me more pleasure than being convinced in my conscience based on what was presented that what Bradman has accomplished is indeed diluted to a point that now we can start discounting some of his deeds. At least not for me. While I give you credit for your efforts and POV it does not mean because I have a slightly differing opinion it makes one of us any less than the other.

You are nothing but a pathetic liar.

These are the things you said stay away from. Does not take much for others to turn around and accuse you of the same.

Damn you are really serious about that ehhh ! WTF ... let me bump up one of those old threads where Proff dissected this Lara > SRT BS. Check out the cricket talk forum in a little while.

Will do.

And you are covering the SRT fans with glory by your posts ehhh ? Look at 90% of your posts ... all they do is take sarcastic jibes at SRT fans (But hey what else is expected from someone who has that monicker).... I have no issues with people questioning SRTs greatness just dont try too peddle your holier than thou attitude and pretend that you are some true cricket lover who is also a fair and balanced and what not. You try to take pot shots you will get back your own meds in return every single day. But if you want to talk based on facts and logic I have more than enough patience to talk to you. Dont expect me to shut up and buy your theories just as I dont expect you to buy mine. But if you want a sensible discussion I can most certainly indulge in one but the moment you try to get clever you will get owned.

LOL. That is your opinion about my posts. You are entitled to it. Besides I never claimed here not once I am some kind of a fair and balanced poster. It is for others to judge and quite frankly that does not bother me. I reply to posts as I see deem fit just as I expect others to do the same and have some fun in the process. I never complained the way people respond back to me. As long as one is not breaching the forum rules they are fine. I say live and let live and move on.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Lol you would say that wouldnt you. I mean phokat mein proclaim karney mei kya jaata hai ... so heres my own proclamation which is worth more than yours because I have videos to go with it : It tells me everything I want to know about that Mickey Mouse Era where absolute trundlers like Toshack where considered to be great bowlers. No wonder he avged 99. Lineup such maharathis and anyone would avg 100 today which they indeed do if you look at how WI and ZIm get owned. The fact that only Bradman could avg that much further confirms the overall amateur status of the sport back then. Too bad for Bradman that he didnt get an oppurtunity to show his talents against the true professionals. And ?

Your videos do not answer why is one man so much ahead of his contemporaries while we know excepting for that one piece of statistic through the ages in all of sports none has as wide a gap between the first best and the next best. Tennis, Basketball, Baseball you name it. So while you can proclaim players from today could average as much as Bradman did if they played then I can turn around and say if these players existed back then may be they would have been one of the other 400 FC batsman who would be holding no candle to Bradman. All I am saying is nothing you gave from a cricketing reason (amateur theory is not reason enough to explain the vast discrepancy) thus far conclusively sways my opinion regards to the 99 average.

Before we go into the same nonsense again and again .... do you see Ernie Toshack as a bowler on par with Kapil, Flintoff , Srinath , Gul, Shoaib etc etc etc .... straight answer please. And the reason why I keep asking this question is because if you are going to keep harping about that average of 99 then by the same yardstick you should appoint Ernie Toshack as a better bowler than Flintoff, Srinath, Kapil , Gul Etc etc etc. So any chance you might be able to muster enough moral fortitude to answer that question CLEARLY without the usual lying thru the teeth BS ?

For one last time Toshack does not hold the key here if not I would have focused on it as needed for the reasons I explained above and also in my last post. So you need to give up on that singular obsession of yours at this point in time.

And I reply to your moronic potshots the way I deem is suitable ... if you want to be treated respectfully ... then changing your idiotic monicker would be a good start ... otherwise don't start howling and crying when I start dealing with you. Clear ?

LOL.

PS: The search has been disabled so cant find that Lara thread. Will let you know when the search is enabled again.

No problems.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

LoL ... video footage doesnt explain but your copious balder dash explains everything ehhh ? ... and then you have the cheek to take pot shots at SRT fans for being un realistic and what not. But I can play this game of one sided proclamations too ... And ? keep moving you aint got enough moral fortitude to accept some cold hard facts that get in the way of your blind hero worshipping.

No. You have not read carefully what I said or you do not like what I said . You need to look outside of just the video evidence to deduce that one players vast superiority has a reason to it and it was indeed not a big deal. The only way you can do that is to prove that at the time rest of the players are simply not good batsman excepting Bradman. And how will you do that? Because there are clearly players who averaged in the 50's at the time which is the norm even today for the best batsman. So that 50-60 average metric stayed the same through out the history and the entire evolution of the game excepting one person who rose above and beyond through a 325 odd FC innings where his average stands at an astronomical 95 plus.

He is just one example. I have footage of all the maharathis from back then. Something tells me you aint interested in looking at it ... I wonder why ... ohh wait I know why .... why bother looking at evidence when spewing balder-dash and blatantly lying thru your teeth is soo much easier to keep your big fat ego well massaged .... way to go Mr.sarcastic moniker.

Actually I have looked quite a few of those videos your rants here notwithstanding which has little to do with what we are trying to establish.

Try it one more time if you want a sample dosage ... :winky:

I pretend to have not read that. :-)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Because they are illogical and devoid of any cricketing logic or otherwise. .

As you see it. Let us move on.

FFS how many times does this have to be explained ? Is there a number of attempts that need to be exceeded before it enters into your brain ? Heres one more time very very very slowly :

Nothing much here either. Let us keep going.

What you are trying to tell me is that run making has remained essentially just as hard as it was back in the 30s and 40s because you are using the same metric ( of batting avg ) to arrive at DGB > SRT. Well I got news for you. There is absolutely NOBODY - including even some of the resident Bradman fanatics - that believe in that theory. This is simply because of these main factors : Bowling quality, Variety of Surfaces over 10 countries , Fielding and strategy, No practice matches. It is called evolution. Things get better with time. The advent of professsional sports tends to do that. So there is no point trying to pretend that things were just as good back in the 30s. That incongruency is clearly visible when you look at Toshack bowling in that video and then look at his stats. They make no sense. IF they make sense to you then you are trying to tell me that he was better bowler than Kapil and Srinath. This is simply hilarious. It is about time you got out of that timewarp and the brainwashing and move on. Understand ?

We have gone through this stuff before (bowling quality, conditions, pitches etc etc). Through the evolution you still could not explain why one player's average of 95 plus in 325 games has never been neared during his time or after. Assuming that run making was easy back then why couldn't other players manage to average in the 80's or thereabouts unless you claim that every other batsman excepting Bradman was bad at the time which will be hard for anyone to buy into and makes no sense. I do not think you have any cricketing explanation here excepting to concede that Bradman was way ahead of the game for his times like no player in history thus far. Simple as that.

In anycase i expect you to continue your ego massaging by blatantly trying to pretend otherwise and keep bleating about 99.94 > rest. Good luck in that case.

As in your case continue with your SRT worship.

Quite naturally because you simply just don't understand the logic ... not that you are willing to let facts get in your way to begin with.

Hmm..okay.

your choice ... makes no difference to me. You try your smart alecy bakwas and potshots once again you will get dealt with

Hey I am not the one complaining about the posts being moved. I will continue to respond to posts as always the way I see deem fit with in the forum rules. You do what you got to do and let us see what happens.

[Ramzz]

Oh Bradman V SRT has started again. Sigh

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

@srtfanaticssuck why don't you understand the simple fact that Bradman had an average of 99 and others in that era were way behind simply because Bradman was the best of his times - thats it!! Now trying to extrapolate that to say that he would've been as good in modern times is utter bullsh!t. Another thing, while you keep on harping about the difference in Bradman's average of 99 and the next best in those times (around 55-60), why not see the difference in the number of runs/100s between Goddy and the next in the list (Ponting) - difference of 30 centuries and over 6700 runs between the best player and the 2nd on the list in today's times - if that is not enough evidence for you then nothing can ever convince you. Why is the Average considered to be the only criteria in judging a batsman's greatness - is it because most others records (number of runs or number of 100s etc) are held by that one man you love to hate?? Your entire opinion of Don Bradman's greatness is based on just ONE factor - average of 99.94 - thats it. Nothing else that any other batsman in the history of the game has done matters because Don Bradman had an average of 99.94 - even if you've actually never seen his batting or only seen a few videos of an hour or two, its enough for you to say that he was the best ever. You, Sir , are a Stasguru expert and that is how you can say with absolute certainty that Don Bradman was the best batsman to have played the game.

[pensionplan]

@srtfanaticssuck why don't you understand the simple fact that Bradman had an average of 99 and others in that era were way behind simply because Bradman was the best of his times - thats it!! Now trying to extrapolate that to say that he would've been as good in modern times is utter bullsh!t.

Now wait a minute. I think you are the one extrapolating here and jumping the gun and concluding things. Thanks for concluding on my behalf.

Another thing, while you keep on harping about the difference in Bradman's average of 99 and the next best in those times (around 55-60), why not see the difference in the number of runs/100s between Goddy and the next in the list (Ponting) - difference of 30 centuries and over 6700 runs between the best player and the 2nd on the list in today's times - if that is not enough evidence for you then nothing can ever convince you. Why is the Average considered to be the only criteria in judging a batsman's greatness - is it because most others records (number of runs or number of 100s etc) are held by that one man you love to hate?? .

I think the 100's are included in the total number of runs. So talk about one thing or the other without double dipping. Plus SRT also played 100 innings more than Ponting to get his runs. While his longevity is amazing he was always a 55-60 average player in Tests never separating himself from other greats in his era as Bradman did by quite a margin I might add when he played. So it helps sometimes to put things in proper perspective. So it is not 'the player I love to hate' as much as it is your Sachin=GOD approach to things that is blinding you from looking at the other persons POV.

Your entire opinion of Don Bradman's greatness is based on just ONE factor - average of 99.94 - thats it. Nothing else that any other batsman in the history of the game has done matters because Don Bradman had an average of 99.94 - even if you've actually never seen his batting or only seen a few videos of an hour or two, its enough for you to say that he was the best ever.

You are talking about it as if it is a metric running rampant back in the day. Like I said there is no explanation you can give cricketing reasons wise to the questions I asked and the points I have raised as to why one player can be so much ahead of his times never seen in the history of any team sport perhaps.

You, Sir , are a Stasguru expert and that is how you can say with absolute certainty that Don Bradman was the best batsman to have played the game

And you? A mere Sachin=GOD believer that conveniently uses Statsguru to dance to your tunes.

[The Outsider]

@srtfanaticssuck why don't you understand the simple fact that Bradman had an average of 99 and others in that era were way behind simply because Bradman was the best of his times - thats it!! Now trying to extrapolate that to say that he would've been as good in modern times is utter bullsh!t. Another thing, while you keep on harping about the difference in Bradman's average of 99 and the next best in those times (around 55-60), why not see the difference in the number of runs/100s between Goddy and the next in the list (Ponting) - difference of 30 centuries and over 6700 runs between the best player and the 2nd on the list in today's times - if that is not enough evidence for you then nothing can ever convince you. Why is the Average considered to be the only criteria in judging a batsman's greatness - is it because most others records (number of runs or number of 100s etc) are held by that one man you love to hate?? Your entire opinion of Don Bradman's greatness is based on just ONE factor - average of 99.94 - thats it. Nothing else that any other batsman in the history of the game has done matters because Don Bradman had an average of 99.94 - even if you've actually never seen his batting or only seen a few videos of an hour or two, its enough for you to say that he was the best ever. You, Sir , are a Stasguru expert and that is how you can say with absolute certainty that Don Bradman was the best batsman to have played the game.

Weren't you pimping Dhyan Chand as the greatest ever hockey player? And apply different standards to Bradman because he is not Indian or not God? http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1370124&postcount=721

[Sachin=GOD]

Weren't you pimping Dhyan Chand as the greatest ever hockey player? And apply different standards to Bradman because he is not Indian or not God? http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1370124&postcount=721

and in reply to that comment, this is what you had to say:

But he was from an amateur era when the standard of hockey was crap. Not too many people even took the sport seriously. He was just much better than his peers. If you put him in the Astroturf power game of hockey today he would be exposed and shown to be the ordinary player he really was. You're counting beating up minnows like East Africa and New Zealand as some sort of achievement?

If the bold part is true for Major Dhyan Chand then surely it will also apply to Sir Don Bradman?

[pensionplan]

This proves DGB > Rest how exactly keeping in mind that you are now allowing the fact that run making was easier back then to finally get in your way ? Next take a look at SRTs avg against bowlers from the minnow teams it is far more than DGBs ... so there . If you want to make a apples to apples comparison you need to first point me to the exact equivalents of Steyns and Donalds and Akhtars and McGraths of that era. There aint anybody. Which is why almost all fictional XI are full of bowlers from modern era. Learn to live with that fact.

No it proves Bradman was way ahead of his peers which Tendulkar or for that matter any other player in the history are not in comparison to their peers during their times your futile attempts at videos being the be all end all means of concluding notwithstanding.

All that is proving is that DGB was far better than his contemporaries who avged in the 50s ....

Which Tendulkar is not since he averages in the same vicinity as that of a plethora of other batsman though his longevity and amazing consistency though puts him ahead of any other modern batsman IMO. But that in itself does not necessarily mean other batsman of his time have not excelled equally or thrived in conditions that Tendulkar has.

if you want to prove that the Hammonds and Hobbs and Huttons were just as good as the modern Players based on the moronic comparison thru batting averages then you need to show me the bowlers of the class and speed as Steyn, Ambrose,Walsh,Akhtar,Ws, Pollock,Donald etc etc. Lets see some names and videos instead of the hot air. Blowing hot air is quite easy to do . It Means Jack sh!t. And the thing is you are still harping away as though facing bowlers such as Ambrose to Steyn is of the same magnitude in difficulty as Gubby Allen, Larwood , Voce and Co. But anyhow feel free to muster some moral fortitude to answer my question about Toshack ... i.e whether he is better than Flintoff, Kapil and Co. instead of making proclamations on a anonymous message board.

We have beaten this to death. Just going in circles.

[The Outsider]

and in reply to that comment, this is what you had to say: If the bold part is true for Major Dhyan Chand then surely it will also apply to Sir Don Bradman?

That was a sarcastic post, which you seem to have missed in your attempts to justify your logical inconsistencies. :hysterical: I don't have any problems in acknowledging Dhyan Chand as the greatest ever Hockey player, just because he played in a different era and surface. The question is can you accord the same to Bradman or at least be consistent and accept Shahbaz Ahmed as the greatest ever Hockey player?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sooda]

Boss if you were to draw up a list of the greatest batsmen in test history, would Bradman feature at all? And does this principle go over to other sports too then. Should apply really... Pele or Maradona are not the greatest players ever because even a good-but-not-great footballer nowadays would be better (superior training, fitness etc etc) and even Sampras (let alone Borg and McEnroe) would get overpowered by even people like Soderling and Berdych at Tennis ...making them far from the amongst the greatest...

[pensionplan]

And How many times does this have to be answered for it to sink into your brain ? Once again ... ALL it proves is Bradman > His Peers ... if you want to extrapolate that greatness to todays times I want to see Bradmans numbers in 9 other countries and against the likes of the Ambroses and Steyns.

Not just greater than his peers *astronomically greater which cannot be said of any other era or in any other sport in man to man comparison. Same cannot be said of Tendulkar or any other contemporary greats where one is astronomically that much better than his peers. There in lies the difference and which is why I have been pointing out that just looking at the videos will not explain why one player could average 95 plus in 325 innings while the next best of that time are in the 50's facing the same kind of the bowling. So unless one can come up some sure shot method to show that a clone of Bradman if existed today will not be able to beat out his peers by that kind of a margin or take each and every player from the Tendulkar era that have been averaging in the 50's and clone them down to players of that time and prove that each one of them starting with SRT to BCL to RP to RD to Kallis to Sangakarra to Jayawardane to Samaraweera would be averaging in the 90's there is nothing much for you to further your argument IMO.

Beating up trundlers in a grand total of 2 countries means jack sh!t to me. Understand ?

Well there were 400 other FC players too that were batsman who played in the Bradman era that had the same bowlers at their disposal but not even one managed to get to 80 or 70 or even 63 -64 average. So you mean to say that each one of them sucked or did not have the sense of scoring which will be hard for me to believe or buy into. I think you are fighting an uphill battle here to establish something that is not possible IMO.

Which is because of the intense competition that there is in playing cricket these days... its called professional era. Why would anybody in Bradmans time want to be a cricketer when it could not even put food on the table le alone other luxuries ? Ohh and I totally expect you to come back and regurgitate that : " Still doesnt cut it for me " .... well your baseless proclamations dont cut it for me either. See its pretty easy to play the game of proclamations.

Well while people in Bradman's era may not have wanted to play cricket as a chosen profession still there were quite a few players that played then as was the case with rest of the sports(Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Tennis etc). So that does not totally explain it either nor did Tendulkar or some other great who played in the recent 35-40 years were that much better than others of their times to identify themselves even with a 70 average over a 80-100 innings stretch be it in Tests/ODI's or even at the FC level where we point to that player as the most unique.

LoL ... By never giving a straight answer to my simple question despite numerous requests ? A case of trial by one-sided proclamations and beating around the bush. I guess its a case of taking blind worshiping of Bradman to new levels.

I answered things patiently that is relevant to Bradman which is not to your liking obviously and hence these inane comments.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --