Bradman and some stuff

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[cricketlover]

First of all please comment in your own words what you make of the quality of cricket on display. I will then tell you where the fault lies. Ill admit that its pretty rubbish bowling and even at under 19 level you see better bowlers. But it isnt like Bradman is playing glorious shots or anything too from what Ive seen in toher videos. So its a level playing field. 50 years from now we might have faster bowlers and unbelievable spinners. Would that diminish Tendulkar's achievements??? This proves he is better than every player that came after him exactly how ? All it is telling me is that he was far and above better than his peers. But that means something right! He was a special talent Absolutely VS, Ponting, BCL would have all done very well against that sort of bowling. I dont see them just getting out. Then why has no one ever talked about them in the same breath as Bradman. Only tendulkar comes. I mean whenever anyone talks about the pinnacle of batting the same name of bradman crops up

[kirkutfan]

Boss Bhai, I wanted to thank you for finding those old videos. Fantastic stuff. Now, after accepting your argument that the caliber of cricket is less than today- the question is how far along would SRT have been had he played in that era? Don't assume the SRT of today would have been playing those guys. Had he played then, he would have been exposed to that standard of cricket. And he would have been subject to the same limitations as the guys around him (see my earlier post). I will try and put this another way. I am pretty sure the guys who make the i phone aren't sitting around saying that Alexander Graham Bell was one stupid guy. His first telephone could only go to the fellow in the next room. Without Bell's concept of telephony, there would be no i phone. So, if the i phone fellows were around in Bell's era, would they be sitting around BSing about how to make the best cellullar phone? They would have had to be geniuses of the highest level. Also, even if they were geniuses, the infrastructure like satellites were not there then. Now, how would they have compared with Bell? They would be making pretty basic stuff too. Cricket wise, you would have to make similar time adjustments for SRT to figure out how he would compare with Bradman in his time. Working part time, dealing with world wars etc., a lesser degree of specialization in the game-- we would have to conclude that SRT would have dealt with that back then and averaged more than a hundred. Maybe he could've done it, maybe not. But it definitely is not an automatic. The one argument in his favor is that when he was a kid he grew up in conditions where the std of living was not that different than what Bradman had to work with. He was a child prodigy and didn't need big time coaching to begin with. That would support the idea that he would have done just fine back then. On the other hand, his brother Ajit would have to work his a__ off for SRT to pursue cricket full time. However, the matches he would have played in would not have exposed him to the short pitched ball or other quality play he would have experienced in the era he grew up in the maidans in the 1980s. His coaches would have known a lot less than Achrekar. And then, he wouldn't be able to work with coaches and players to make "plans" for the bodyline attack. Compare that with his preparations for Warne before the guy showed up on Indian soil in 1998. Then as he became a full fledged adult and a family guy- he would have probably worked for a company or the army- he would have even lesser time to work on his game. Clearly, if SRT went back to the future. He would have been a lesser player than what we saw in the last couple of decades. He could have still been damn good for that era. 100 plus average good? I don't know.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

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..

Ulta Chor Kotwal ko Daante - You are the one saying that Bradman could have been as great (if not greater) in the modern times and then you have the audacity to say that I'm extrapolating :headshake:

I think the 100's are included in the total number of runs. So talk about one thing or the other without double dipping.

thats simpl;y absurd.

Plus SRT also played 100 innings more than Ponting to get his runs.

So, do you think Ponting will be able to make 6700+ runs and 30 centuries in the next 100 innings - Yes or No - I want a straight answer!!

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.

Its not just longevity but along with that there's also the small fact that he's been the best player out there for such a long time and even now, 21 years after he started playing and when we've got players of the caliber of Viru, Yuvi, Kohli, Gambhir, Dhoni etc he still remains the most prized wicket for the opposition.

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.

or is it your "srtfanaticssuck" approach thats preventing you to look at someone else's POV :hmmm:

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.

Simply because he was the best of his times - how many times do I have to tell you this!!

[Sachin=GOD]

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: 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:

I think Australia have been the undisputed no1 team in World Cricket in both Test and ODIs in the last 20 years and he has scored over 6000 runs and 20 centuries against them - so he HAS BEEN the best batsman in the world against the best Team in the World in his time.

[Prakat]

@BossBhai you've made some very keen points that are spread over the course of this thread. If you put them together in one article I'm sure you'd make a pretty compelling case. The 'SLA average' is a fine observation.

[Sachin=GOD]

@BossBhai you've made some very keen points that are spread over the course of this thread. If you put them together in one article I'm sure you'd make a pretty compelling case. The 'SLA average' is a fine observation.

see this link for many, many more such posts by BB on this topic: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212051

[little dasher]

They say that empty vessels make the loudest noise. From that saying we can deduce that bossbhai is particularly loud. It is an incongruity of the modern age that technology which is the stuff of genius makes it so much easier for ignorance such as his to be broadcast around the world. A number of corrections need to be made. When you adjust for the runs Bradman scored off them and equalise matches played against minnow nations, the English bowlers Bradman faced were statistically similar (in most cases superior) to the English bowlers of the 50s. The stand out exception is Jim Laker. But this isn't relevant because Bradman faced and dominated his bowling. When you consider that Eng had men like Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bedser, Bailey, Lock, Appleyard and Wardle in addition to Laker in the 50s we can see that Bradman faced bowlers of similar quality. Unless of course the all knowing bossbhai wants to tell us Trueman can't bowl either... Neither is it important that sachin played in places like BD or NZ. Frankly who cares if a man can score runs against inferior opponents in their countries. For example the WI in the 80s were the std. You rated your record against them separate and above those of all others. There is no doubt that Bradman would have dominated other nations if he played them more often and in their conditions. In fact his average would have been even higher as sachin's would be lower if you deducted his runs against inferior opponents both home and away. It is also irrelevant to advance the fact that sachin played in the modern era as an excuse to claim he was superior. That is an unfair comparison that effectively discriminates against a person for their year of birth. For example it is only recently your enlightened country has granted women a semblance of education. Such opportunities wouldn't have been available to a woman who was born 60 yrs ago. That doesn't mean she is inferior. She would be just as talented but didn't have the opportunity. The fair comparison therefore is to rate both players as if they had the same birthdate. If Sachin was born in 1908 and played in the 30s he would have played to the standard of the time. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Even now he is an exceptional player but he isn't ahead of his time. Bradman however was. He was averaging twice his contemporaries. If anything the comparison proves Bradman is superior because he was ahead of his time. Sachin is not. In fact Sachin isn't even the 2nd best player ever. He is a shadow compared to Richards, Lara, Sobers, Pollock and Barry Richards. Greg Chappell is his master. There are many others. In fact I have seen an article that shows Sachin is a poor batsman against quality pace bowlers. Nowhere near as fraudulent as that poser Gavaskar who made his name dodging the WI and Aust pacemen of his era and never being made to account for it. This is ironical isn't it? Bossbhai makes much of Sachin playing againt and Donald & Akram. Yet its not much of an argument when sachin has failed against them now is it? But that is the sort of stupid thing bossbhai has to rely on when he tries to explain why an ave of 99 is somehow inferior to one of 55. Or why he regards Flintoff and Kapil as good bowlers when they averaged near or over 30 while Toshack is a poor bowler because he averaged 21! What a joke your argument has to be when you argue against the facts. I suspect bossbhai's motivation is racial or nationalistic. He wants an Indian as the best bat ever. When the stats don't back it up we see all the irrelvancies and silliness he has posted to justify it. And for the record; Toshack was a much better bowler than Flintoff and Srinath. The stats prove it. In fact Srinath is a complete joke. No better than a club bowler.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

In fact Sachin isn't even the 2nd best player ever. He is a shadow compared to Richards' date= Lara, Sobers, Pollock and Barry Richards. Greg Chappell is his master. There are many others. Bossbhai makes much of Sachin playing againt and Donald & Akram. Yet its not much of an argument when sachin has failed against them now is it? .

With that couple of lines you have lost all credibilty if you ever had in the first place. Yes thats why every damn expert of cricket ever, eveery current and past players of the game put Sachin above all the ones you named. But hey each one of them are wrong and only little dasher is correct. And how did Sachin fail against Akram, pray tell? The same Akram who only got him out only once in tests and once in ODIs?

[little dasher]

Oh don't worry bossbhai. I have plenty of memories watching Srinath bowl on film. I thank him for the many laughs his weak and inept bowling has given me. Srinath better than Toshack? Now tell me the truth. You are the one who is friggin kidding me. Honestly Srinath should have opened up a pastry shop with all the pies he served. In fact if memory serves he didn't play with a duke or a kookaburra ball. I think the name on the ball he used was "hit me".

[CSK Fan]

Oh don't worry bossbhai. I have plenty of memories watching Srinath bowl on film. I thank him for the many laughs his weak and inept bowling has given me. Srinath better than Toshack? Now tell me the truth. You are the one who is friggin kidding me. Honestly Srinath should have opened up a pastry shop with all the pies he served. In fact if memory serves he didn't play with a duke or a kookaburra ball. I think the name on the ball he used was "hit me".

Read this and weep http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/111878.html

[little dasher]

With that couple of lines you have lost all credibilty if you ever had in the first place. Yes thats why every damn expert of cricket ever, eveery current and past players of the game put Sachin above all the ones you named. But hey each one of them are wrong and only little dasher is correct. And how did Sachin fail against Akram, pray tell? The same Akram who only got him out only once in tests and once in ODIs?

Some do. Not all. The "science isn't settled" as it were. There wouldn't be any player who faced Richards who would place him below Sachin. And those who do have to explain why Richards managed to cane Aust's great pacemen while Sachin has failed against his bete noirs. You simply wish Sachin was greater then them. But that doesn't make you or the sachin lovers "credible". When you deconstruct his record as you have done with others in an effort to talk them down in a comparison with sachin you see the little master has feet of clay too. Surely you can take your own medicine?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

Some do. Not all. The "science isn't settled" as it were. There wouldn't be any player who faced Richards who would place him below Sachin. And those who do have to explain why Richards managed to cane Aust's great pacemen while Sachin has failed against his bete noirs. You simply wish Sachin was greater then them. But that doesn't make you or the sachin lovers "credible". When you deconstruct his record as you have done with others in an effort to talk them down in a comparison with sachin you see the little master has feet of clay too. Surely you can take your own medicine?

Check every best XI in history made by anyone from Bradman to Warne. Sachin is always above Richards and in many Richards isnt even there. And yes, there are many who did face Richard. You keep on saying Sachin failed against Aussie pacement but its a lie. His average is great against the Aussies for a reason. Every crickeitng expert(and I did say every), Wisden, any best test XI in history or current, every current and ex-player(again everry), all put Sachin a sa better batsmen than all you named

[CSK Fan]

enjoy the "weak and inept bowling" ... just like how the english batsmen are in this video as the saying goes a video is worth a gazillion words.

He was really beating batsmen for pace, wasnt he?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --