mishra Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 ^ Only argument of Bradmans greatness is his average being allmost double the rest of pack of his era... What is conveniently ignored is following indicators 1. A fielder used to sit on the field at bowling changes, even between the overs. 2. It was collonial era. 3. Allmost no one except elite/aristrocartic white (Not even English population) played cricket. 4. Add few nawabs , jamidars, land lords to the list of players. 5. Mostly of the players had a job, job was generally to preside a war or run the country If cricket wasnt same then how can you compare it and tell the world that he is better than any modern day/professional cricketing great. Just on pressure thing... Probably only time during his career he was under pressure was to make a average of perfect 100..... And he did handled it very well :hehe:
mishra Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Just a trivia... during 1920-1940....... Number of college grads in Britain per year 1900 Assuming they all had 6 brother and they were all from distinct families.... Numer of male population to be considered for elite enough to play 1900X6... Now consider a cricketer palyed cricket from the 20-40 hence Number of cricketing candidates 1900x6X20 Now considering cricket popularity (around 3-5 percent white boyz interested) 1900X6X20X0.05=9600 = max number of cricket enthusiast who could have played against Bradman Now I am not saying that hypothetically its not possible to have Shoiab akhtar, Richards,Sobers,Imran,Wasim,Murali cant them all be born among 9600 people. But I seriously doubt it
Raghav_12 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Just a trivia... during 1920-1940....... Number of college grads in Britain per year 1900 Assuming they all had 6 brother and they were all from distinct families.... Numer of male population to be considered for elite enough to play 1900X6... Now consider a cricketer palyed cricket from the 20-40 hence Number of cricketing candidates 1900x6X20 Now considering cricket popularity (around 3-5 percent white boyz interested) 1900X6X20X0.05=9600 = max number of cricket enthusiast who could have played against Bradman Now I am not saying that hypothetically its not possible to have Shoiab akhtar, Richards,Sobers,Imran,Wasim,Murali cant them all be born among 9600 people. But I seriously doubt it That is some analysis :hatsoff:. I may not completely agree with the conclusion but liked your line of thought. On serious discussion front, I don't think there would ever be a time when majority of people think that any one of the current player, say Sachin for an example, is greater than Bradman. Numbers like 99.9 and 60-70% more than the nearest rival will always be used so show that Bradman was better than any of the cricketers of this age. However, as time goes by, more and more ppl will acknowledge the fact that cricket has changed considerably, mostly for betterment, and let's not compare him with players of this generation. He may been greatest in his time but let's talk about the game that we play nowadays.
Mariyam Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I agree with Mishraji. :hatsoff: to his approach at computing the populations & his line of thought. (Sir) Donald Baldman played cricket when only a small section of the population even in those countries where it was played were into the game. In terms of competition, it was nowhere as close to as it is today. All these factors have to counted for in an all time great mathematical model. As an analogy, it would be easier to get rank 1-10 for the AAIMS entrance test in 1950 than it is today. Simply because the competition was negligible as compared to today. Literacy at that time would be 6% and its at 65% today. Those appearing for the exam would be only 2000 then, as against 4 lakhs appear today. These numbers are, of course, arbitrary. But the logic behind them is what I'm trying to highlight.
Mariyam Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 some indians are just jealous that he is rated higher than sachin If you look into a mirror and say "Bradman is the greatest batsman ever" three times, the mirror will crack.
panther Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 If you look into a mirror and say "Bradman is the greatest batsman ever" three times' date= the mirror will crack. :beee::beee::beee:
ganeshran Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Bradman was the greatest player of his era by a country mile. Whether or not he would replicated the same success in the modern era is a subjective debate and has been done to death in previous Bradman threads.
Ultimate_Game Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Gary Sobers I would prefer Bradman. Bradman was the greatest player of his era by a country mile. Whether or not he would replicated the same success in the modern era is a subjective debate and has been done to death in previous Bradman threads. Spot on. Nobody in the history of cricket has been so much better than his peers - be it bowling or batting. I mean the greatness of Bradman's achievement can be seen from the bodyline series - England/Jardine went with his leg side theory in an era of no helmets and with no "1 or 2 bouncers per over" rule with bowlers like Larwood and Voce at his disposal. Even in that series Bradman managed to average 54!!! Just imagine if today we ask a batsman to play in Australia (bouncy pitches) without helmet and bat against fast bowlers who can bowl 6 bouncers an over if they wished with the field where majority of fielders are on the leg side and behind square (not just 2 which is the current rule). How many batsmen would you think would average 50+? I can't think of even one who would even average 40+ in today's era.
BeautifulGame Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I would prefer Bradman. As a cricketer Sobers is greater than Bradman or Sachin.His numbers speaks for itselt.
Ultimate_Game Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 As a cricketer Sobers is greater than Bradman or Sachin.His numbers speaks for itselt. I simply can't get away from the fact that the guy scored a 100 every completed innings!!!
Mariyam Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I would prefer Bradman. I prefer Bradman when high, Gary when sober.
Raghav_12 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I simply can't get away from the fact that the guy scored a 100 every completed innings!!! I think, you regerring to the fact that he averaged nearly 100 for a completed innings. I think if you had looked for factual correctness i.e. he averaged 99.94 only, then your statement should have read like: I can't give any thing to a batsman who never scored a century, even for a completed innings.
Laaloo Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I prefer Bradman when high' date=' Gary when sober.[/quote'] :--D
mishra Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Prior to Larwood the argument of six bouncer an over is simply joke..... If they could have bowled six bouncer per over they would have bowled it..... Bowlers lacked both technique and stamina to bowl bouncers at will.. 309 runs scored by Bradman in a single day..... Just goes to show ow mediocore was English bowling Statement doesnt match with score card... Unless i can not understand espncricinfo quote ======== he did desire his 309 not out on the first day of the Headingley Test of 1930 as a nice bit of practice for tomorrow, he could easily have meant it. Actual score card ====== DG Bradman c †Duckworth b Tate 334 383 448 46 0 74.55
BeautifulGame Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I simply can't get away from the fact that the guy scored a 100 every completed innings!!! Sobers not only averaged nearly 60 with the bat in a lot more competitive era and took 235 wickets.Also one of the finest fielders ever in which aspect Bradman cant come close. Cricket isnt just about batting.
mishra Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 ^Exactly.... That was time when bouncer started to become bouncers... Fast bowler started bowling fast. And swing bowlers started to work on technique.... Spinners started to understand that they are just as effective bowlers... Professionality entered into the game..... Cricketing Bodies started realising that may be, More protective gears are needed then just pad and gloves.... Prior to that... I seriously doubt it....
fineleg Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 mishragreat trying to re-open this already discussed topic. This thread is a lame attempt at trivializing one of the all time cricketing greats in history. And he is an all time great - not just due to 'media hype' - but due to cricketing genius. 'Nuff said. Bossbhai - while you may have different ideas abt DGB vs SRT - thats not the topic here, are you even dismissing the idea that DGB is part of the all time greats of the game? That's shocking if you are gonna say so.
bulbul Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 mishragreat trying to re-open this already discussed topic. This thread is a lame attempt at trivializing one of the all time cricketing greats in history. And he is an all time great - not just due to 'media hype' - but due to cricketing genius. 'Nuff said. Bossbhai - while you may have different ideas abt DGB vs SRT - thats not the topic here, are you even dismissing the idea that DGB is part of the all time greats of the game? That's shocking if you are gonna say so. Boss bhai is very very agressive when comes to SRT.... ready to bring down any other Greats :winky: i think both Bradman and Sachin are Overhyped :winky:
mishra Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 mishragreat trying to re-open this already discussed topic. This thread is a lame attempt at trivializing one of the all time cricketing greats in history. And he is an all time great - not just due to 'media hype' - but due to cricketing genius. 'Nuff said. Bossbhai - while you may have different ideas abt DGB vs SRT - thats not the topic here, are you even dismissing the idea that DGB is part of the all time greats of the game? That's shocking if you are gonna say so. Nice to see you fineleg... Finally for the first time someone realising the open agenda of the thread.. :D :hatsoff:
bulbul Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Nice to see you fineleg... Finally for the first time someone realising the open agenda of the thread.. :D :hatsoff: unfortunately for you had to wait till 78 posts , when u expected it from 2nd post :hysterical:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now