Bradman or Sobers

[zen]

You are the only one bringing SRT in most of your post, so get over it. And again, your giggling didn't answer the question of 70. But, please mention SRT again in your next post and giggle twice. Just so you know, DGB was joking about averaging 75, at least he had the intelligence and humor to do that, unlike you.

Why are you so fascinated with what would Bradman avg 'now' on a thread that's asking to pick one from Bradman and Sobers based on their stats

[Anakin]

Why are you so fascinated with what would Bradman avg 'now' on a thread that's asking to pick one from Bradman and Sobers based on their stats

I am not fascinated at all, since I have a pretty good idea how much it would be now. I just asked how you got that 70 number. Of course, I should've known where it came from, so excuse me for asking.

[zen]

I am not fascinated at all' date=' since I have a pretty good idea how much it would be now. I just asked how you got that 70 number. Of course, I should've known where it came from, so excuse me for asking.[/quote']

[Anakin]

I can see how you are trying to show how DBG's avg wouldn't be the same in this era for some 'unknown' reasons :P .... And I love the fact how trolls like you have to take trouble to classify the era Bradman played him as 'amateur' Ah ha, it must be hurting a lot to see someone else avg so high :giggle:

I joined within a week of this site, and I am a troll, thanks for displaying your immense power of logic. You are almost Bradmanesque in that regard, but be aware of vaibhav bhai, your worthy competition. BTW, I have very high opinion of DGB and 99 doesn't bother me at all. Because it was the man himself(DGB btw) who said they were amateur cricketers in one of the ICC dvds. Wish I had the dvd myself, but I saw it too long ago to remember the title. It was a dvd about cricket legends, btw, that included SRT even then :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: And don't bother, I already know about your logical power. So shove it.

[zen]

I joined within a week of this site, and I am a troll, thanks for displaying your immense power of logic. You are almost Bradmanesque in that regard, but be aware of vaibhav bhai, your worthy competition. BTW, I have very high opinion of DGB and 99 doesn't bother me at all. Because it was the man himself(DGB btw) who said they were amateur cricketers in one of the ICC dvds. Wish I had the dvd myself, but I saw it too long ago to remember the title. It was a dvd about cricket legends, btw, that included SRT even then :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: And don't bother, I already know about your logical power. So shove it.

Ok, if you join with a week of this site, you are not a troll, cool logic on display here since you are talking abt it :hysterical: .... I still remember how you blatantly lied in one of our earlier 'discussions'. That tells me how 'genuine' you are And then you watched some dvds too, great :P If there weren't trolls from the neighboring countries, fanboys like you would take the cake :hatsoff: Btw, the point was you are trying to discredit DBG's avg by trying to imply that was because of the era, he played in. It's good to see how you are trying divert this into how Bradman said he played in an amateur era as if it is some kind of a point. Anyways, dumb asses like are good for comedy so carry on .... So DBG himself said that he played in an amateur era so you were only mentioning that and you had no intention of implying that DBG's avg had nothing to do with the era he played in. It was a mere coincidence that you mentioned the era he played in to a post where someone said a champion in one era is a champion in any era (to that order) .... What's next: in some dvd you found DBG to avg less than SRT :hysterical:

[Anakin]

You really are a kid, really really funny, please continue.