Bradman and some stuff

[little dasher]

You are srsly deluded if you think a cherry picked vid can explain away Srinath's test ave of 30.5. Especially from an Englishman. What a joke. They were the pushovers of that era. As if Srinath's test ave isn't enough testimony as to how pathetic he was look at it blow out against real class: Versus Australia it is 42! The performance of a change bowler. In Australia it slides to 50. And you have the hide to belittle others. As for Flintoff. Well he was a fine player no doubt. But purely as a bowler he still paid a heavy price for his wkts. Statistics gathered over such a period of time reveal his true worth. And that is he was a bowler who conceded over 30 runs for his wkts. I am amused by your obsession to deride Toshack. Your comments are based on an ignorance of the part he played in the Asutralian side. He was a medium bowler NOT a pace bowler. If you were to draw a (fairly) modern comparison it would be with Underwood in terms of pace. Now I think Derek a better bowler but simply bcos he had more opportunities than Toshack. Toshack's role was to keep the runs down while Lindwall, Miller and Johnston were resting. His partner in this role was off spinner Ian Johnson. Undoubtedly Toshack's figures are considerably flattered by the presence of those other 4 bowlers and he wouldn't have achieved them if he didn't have them as team mates. A little understanding of Toshack's era (apart from a self interested reason to deprecate it) and an understanding of his role would have been able to explain to you why his average was so low.

[little dasher]

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

Perhaps the experts you allude to but fail to name are Indian. Perhaps one is Bossbhai. Perhaps thats all you need to know that Richards was vastly superior to Sachin. I'll check that post on another site about Sachin's record when the great pace bowlers are in the opposition. It doesn't make for flattering reading on the face of it.

[cricketlover]

Sachin, I understand! But Srinath seriously? Sometimes you just cant explain away mediocre stats

[thongale]

Bradman would have been crap against spin as most Aussies are and he wouldnt have made runs in India' date= 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.

LMAO. :hysterical::hysterical: What a genius!

[Sachin=GOD]

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.

Wow!! so much hate.

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.

then why do you rate Bradman so high - is'nt that what he did for most of his career.

For example the WI in the 80s were the std. You rated your record against them separate and above those of all others.

and in the last 20 years Australia have been the standard in Test cricket and here is a list of the highest run scorers against them since 1990 : Link Now see this and tell me how is it that he is top of the list if he has'nt made runs against the best bowlers. How has he made 11 centuries and over 3100 runs if he has'nt been able to score runs against the best bowlers??? how does he average 60+ against the best team of his times is he's no good against quality bowling??? also, see the average of the rest of the batsmen in that list - only 2 players (Lara and Laxman) average more than 50, rest all are in 40s. How is his average 60+ if he's so bad a batsman???

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..

if you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from his records, his average falls down from 57 to 54 - Wow, such a HUGE fall :hatsoff:

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.

so just one single article is enough for you to deduce that he is not good enough but the words of a very large number of current and former cricketer who say that he is the greatest ever is not good enough for you??

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?

Completely right - Gavskar was an expert in "dodging" the WI pacemen of that time. Now tell me how can a player be the highest run scorer against the best team in the world by dodging: Link 13 centuries in 27 tests and being the highest scorer against WI in the history of the game and you say Gavaskar made those by dodging :hatsoff:

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.

Akram got him out once in Test and once in ODIs - if that if being a failure against Akram, the yes he failed against AKram.

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

or maybe its the opposite - it is you, who cannot see an Indian being no1 in anything. You cannot tolerate the fact that an Indian has been the undisputed no1 player of the last 2 decades and slowly but surely people all round the globe (including a large number of reputed current and former cricketers) are acknowledging him as the greatest ever in the history of the game. It is you, who for the last 50+ years have been told again and again and again and again that there can never be anything greater than an average of 99.94 in cricket - well Sir, it is my request, come to India and become a celebrity in any field and then you'll know what expectations are - and here is a man who has to live up to the expectations of over 1 billion people every single day for the last 20 years and he has always lived up to those humungous expectations . Here is a man who has performed consistently well across 2 different formats over a period of 21 years while living up to the expectations of over a billion people. Here is a man who had to single handedly carry the burden of the whole batting line up in the 1990s and even now, when the team has got players of the caliber of Sehwag, Yuvraj, Gambhir, Dhoni etc, he is still the most prized wicket for the opposition. You are hating him not because he's a bad player, you're hating him because he's too good a player and you cannot tolerate someone from India to be such an exceptional player.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --