Bradman and some stuff

[zen]

Reading some of the pro-Tendulkar arguments makes me wonder if the use of Lahori-Logic is limited to our friends across the border :giggle: Just like you leave the friends across the border to dwell in their own world, you leave the Tendulkar is the greatest brigade aka comedy bridage to dwell in their own world too :P

[Tapioca]

Cricket is a faaar more complex game than these two and has changed dramatically since the 30s so this discussion is a non starter. And honestly I know very little about these sports ( compared to cricket ) but I usually favor the modern day sportsman.

You don't need to know much tennis. Just look at Sania Mirza and videos of old maids like Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills Moody and you'll realise that Sania would have won five or six Grand Slams (GS - not GS titles) if she played in the 1920s and 1930s.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Mods .... if it means using ma behen to drive out this rat ... then that is what will be done.

LOL. Did you not use 'Lahori logic' on others quite a few times when you did not agree with them. I say take things with a pinch of salt and move on. This is a public forum. Not every handle will post things to one's liking. If you want to use Ma behen then you will be the one breaching the forum rules. Isn't it?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Btw, talking the facing the better bowler point, I did a search to find out how do the batsmen fare when playing against both: - McGrath and Warne LINK - Wasim and Waqar LINK - Donald and Pollock LINK - Ambrose and Walsh LINK IF people want to argue that xyz from modern era is greatest vs Bradman because xyz faced better bowlers then we also need to see who in modern era actually did the best against those good bowlers .... The point of facing better bowlers and actually doing well against them, imo, even opens up the debate of who the best batsman of modern era is. And this point may not actually favor Tendulkar's case of being the best of his era :winky: And if Tendulkar is portrayed as the best test batsman despite NOT doing the best against best bowlers of his era, what right do we have to use that argument against Bradman! Once again ----> CASE CLOSED

[yoda]

You don't need to know much tennis. Just look at Sania Mirza and videos of old maids like Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills Moody and you'll realise that Sania would have won five or six Grand Slams (GS - not GS titles) if she played in the 1920s and 1930s.

This post pretty much summarizes the flaws in the logic of guys like BB, KT and co.

[zen]

Btw, just did some number crunching, to see Tendulkar's numbers when McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock have played together: 16T, 31I, 1257R @ 40.54 w/ 4 100s :winky: I couldn't see his name on the Ambrose-Walsh combo (min criteria was 200 runs) I guess, that performance would be equaled or bettered by some (if not many) so if facing better bowlers is a criteria then he shouldn't be at the top of the pile and if he is for some reason then I don't see a point in listing bowlers who played during Bradman's era :P

[Prakat]

Is this really still about Bradman and Tendulkar?

[cricketlover]

If Bradman was playing in modern day then : 1) He would have better bats, pads and helmets 2)More coaching 3) Played on flat tracks on which Sachin played 75 % of his matches 4) Not played on uncovered green wickets for most of his career. 5) Played against mickey mouse test teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh So no doubt he would have been greater than Tendulkar Even in modern day the one thing Tendulkar has over others is the sheer amount of matches he has played and the fact that he has been relatively consistent over his career If Bradman has it so easy then atleast a couple of toehr batsmen would have been somewhere close to him in terms aof average

[zen]

Trying to deride Bradman is like opening a can of worms and inviting everyone to take a dig at Tendulkar. Let not do this disservice to one of the greatest cricketers of all-time, esp. as we know our friends from across the border are here for the Ind-Pak game. And we know many of them are eager to show how poor Tendulkar is vs other greats of his time :winky: Thread :fail: .... deserves to be closed!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[NareshK]

If Bradman was playing in modern day then : 1) He would have better bats, pads and helmets 2)More coaching 3) Played on flat tracks on which Sachin played 75 % of his matches 4) Not played on uncovered green wickets for most of his career. 5) Played against mickey mouse test teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh So no doubt he would have been greater than Tendulkar Even in modern day the one thing Tendulkar has over others is the sheer amount of matches he has played and the fact that he has been relatively consistent over his career If Bradman has it so easy then atleast a couple of toehr batsmen would have been somewhere close to him in terms aof average

Bradman would have been crap against spin as most Aussies are and he wouldnt have made runs in India, thats for sure. He played throughout his life only in England and Australia. How tough would it be to get used to a limited set of bowlers and conditions ? Tendulkar has scored runs everywhere and against everyone. Though I think we honestly cant compare batsmen from different eras. Both are great.

[zen]

Evevrytime he starts this Bradman threads, he gets pawned .... and then like a sore loser, he starts another one to get back at those who pawned him .... he gets pawned again and the cycle continues :hysterical:

[kirkutfan]

Hi- I realize I am very late to this debate, so if the point has been made my apologies. But am inserting my chaar anna's worth anyway. :-) I don't think you can look at the bowling that Bradman faced in his time and say that because the bowling in the modern era is better, Bradman would not have made it today. If Bradman grew up in the modern era, he would have had access to the best of today's training methods, nutrition etc. He would have had the benefit of specialized coaching, physios, technology incl. videos of the opposition that would have been analyzed in many different ways. He would probably wear the helmet and have the benefit of batting in covered wickets. He would have also been exposed to higher levels of competition from school days onwards. Who is to say that with that mental toughness coupled with today's resources he would not have been able to be a champion player in today's setting? Similarly, you would also have to take a guess on what SRT might have done if he grew up in Bradman's era- where the resources were less, traveling and accomodations at various cricket playing centers were far less luxurious than they were today, and being an amateur era- he would have probably had to have worked for living (instead of devoting full time to the game), he would have had to play on uncovered wickets minus a helmet etc. How would he have done against Larwood or Toshack under those circumstances? Would SRT's record compare with Bradman's under those circumstances? At this point, the only conclusion we can make is the obvious- Bradman dominated his own era in much more emphatic fashion than SRT dominated his. But directly comparing the two, I don't know if I could do it because of the difficulty with addressing assumptions above.

[rainy day]

Hi- I realize I am very late to this debate, so if the point has been made my apologies. But am inserting my chaar anna's worth anyway. :-) I don't think you can look at the bowling that Bradman faced in his time and say that because the bowling in the modern era is better, Bradman would not have made it today. If Bradman grew up in the modern era, he would have had access to the best of today's training methods, nutrition etc. He would have had the benefit of specialized coaching, physios, technology incl. videos of the opposition that would have been analyzed in many different ways. He would probably wear the helmet and have the benefit of batting in covered wickets. He would have also been exposed to higher levels of competition from school days onwards. Who is to say that with that mental toughness coupled with today's resources he would not have been able to be a champion player in today's setting? Similarly, you would also have to take a guess on what SRT might have done if he grew up in Bradman's era- where the resources were less, traveling and accomodations at various cricket playing centers were far less luxurious than they were today, and being an amateur era- he would have probably had to have worked for living (instead of devoting full time to the game), he would have had to play on uncovered wickets minus a helmet etc. How would he have done against Larwood or Toshack under those circumstances? Would SRT's record compare with Bradman's under those circumstances? At this point, the only conclusion we can make is the obvious- Bradman dominated his own era in much more emphatic fashion than SRT dominated his. But directly comparing the two, I don't know if I could do it because of the difficulty with addressing assumptions above.

Wonderful Post..should be quoted in any future Bradman/Tendulkar discussions.

[zen]

If the point is that Tendulkar is the greatest because he faces and does well against better bowlers than Bradman then can anyone tell me if Tendulkar really stood above his peers when facing good bowlers? Please see the post below:

Btw, just did some number crunching, to see Tendulkar's numbers when McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock have played together: 16T, 31I, 1257R @ 40.54 w/ 4 100s :winky: I couldn't see his name on the Ambrose-Walsh combo (min criteria was 200 runs) I guess, that performance would be equaled or bettered by some (if not many) so if facing better bowlers is a criteria then he shouldn't be at the top of the pile and if he is for some reason then I don't see a point in listing bowlers who played during Bradman's era :P

If not then we need to determine, who from Tendulkar's era has done the best against "superior" bowlers so we can hail him as the greatest at least from the current era :giggle: .... If Tendulkar hasn't done the best and is considered best despite that then why use that argument against Bradman :hmmmm2: More:

Btw, talking the facing the better bowler point, I did a search to find out how do the batsmen fare when playing against both: - McGrath and Warne LINK - Wasim and Waqar LINK - Donald and Pollock LINK - Ambrose and Walsh LINK IF people want to argue that xyz from modern era is greatest vs Bradman because xyz faced better bowlers then we also need to see who in modern era actually did the best against those good bowlers .... The point of facing better bowlers and actually doing well against them, imo, even opens up the debate of who the best batsman of modern era is. And this point may not actually favor Tendulkar's case of being the best of his era :winky: And if Tendulkar is portrayed as the best test batsman despite NOT doing the best against best bowlers of his era, what right do we have to use that argument against Bradman! Once again ----> CASE CLOSED

[zen]

Drawing parallels similar to what our friends draw, let's compare Tendulkar's performance against good bowlers vs Bradman's in bodyline series: :P Tendulkar vs Bradman 41 (rounded up) vs 57 (from the top of my head) Have I managed to prove something, do we need a serious debate to discuss the above

[ganeshran]

It is simply too difficult and inconclusive to extrapolate performances of older players and trying to determine how they would have played in the modern era. There are too many variables and too little information. However, the names of the stars of yesteryears like Bradman and the scary average of 99.94 has been so repeatedly drilled into our heads that the image of Bradman comes with a halo around him, and some of us take him to be the absolute pinnacle of batting which no modern cricketer can ever hope to achieve (which is untrue). To further complicate matters, the name of Bradman has become a rallying point for Tendulkar haters and jealous fans who use the age old technique of hying and playing up one cricketer to put down another. I dont find it hard to comprehend that Sachin could bat better than Bradman if they played together, but then again thats my own opinion and in absence of any irrefutable proof, it remains an opinion. Till we have some sort of definitive information proving otherwise, most of the arguments in this thread will only run around in circles