Don Bradman most over rated player in the cricketing history?

[rkt.india]

Arre bhai, aur bhi gham hain zamaane mein. Bradman aur Tendulkar ne mere ghar ka choolha nahin jalaana hai. You made a criticism of my idea, I defended it. People can make up their own minds. What do you want - another meandering 1000+ post thread when all that needs to be said has already been said. As I said, in my post above wait for a few years - once jingoists run out steam normal service will resume. Log back in then and let us know how the campaign to twist history through the prism of jingoism went.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[mishra]

@ relative average =superhero believers DuleeSinghji batting records are way ahead of any (divided/undivided)Indian in his( pre WWII) era... :hatsoff: It doesnt mean that Saurashtrain/Gujratis should have claim that He was the best batsman Indian peninsula could ever produce.... You can extrpolate it more to the attitude of Aussies. Today if you use the term "test cricket" in any cricket enthusiast, He thinks that it is a game played for 5 days and each side tries to get other side out twice. Now lets see what was test in Bradmans era...... He first played tests of four day duration.... After 3 years they thought no.... It should be timeless... next year they made it 4 days again. next series they made it indefinite. Then four days.. thentimeless. Then six days. then four days.... wTF.. Not a single 5 day test match And funnily enough, as a teenage I heard that test cricket games lasted for 15 days and sooo...They never actually lasted for more than four actual days (around 360 overs). Thanks to internet(@ The Outsider) its not just records that are questionable...Even the format of the game was in itself trial and error phase.... @Tiger Since when does Shoulder strength reflect the bowling speed.... Isnt fast bowling a skill thing first and then fitness, coaching,training and strength... Try finding out difference in service speed in wimbledon games. I do not deny his contribution i.e generate cricketing interest among general Aussie and English population... May be CA/ECB needed a hero.... But for FFS dont compare him with any professional cricketer. he hasnt earned that cap

[CSK Fan]

You're right - his nearest competitor sucked. It's been proved by yours truly that Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=213283 Though there are certain arguments on his nearest competitor - could have been Headley or Hutton instead, but the same arguments can be made to junk them all.

Raza better than Hammond. Just like mongia better than Dhoni.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

Rasa better than Hammond. Just like mongia better than Dhoni.

:cantstop:

[Mariyam]

Jermain Defoe > Pele Van Der Vaart > Maradona Haye > Ali Soderling > Sampras

Dunno about that, but welding > soldering

[Sooda]

:headshake:

[zen]

oh boy! what a dumb thread :facepalm: .... sums up the fanaticism I guess, Charlie Chaplin is crap compared to Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

What a dumb post :facepalm: ... I guess Einstien is crap compared to the guy whatshisname who invented the wheel

No wonder, we have so many Einsteins in the cricketing world :P

[carnish]

yeah Braddy is overrated but i still think he was better than most batsman today apart from a few since he averaged 57 in the bodyline series and thats a credit you cant take away from him facing that kind of bowling without helmets is something that can make you go mad out of fear... kudos to him

[mishra]

oh boy! what a dumb thread :facepalm: .... sums up the fanaticism I guess, Charlie Chaplin is crap compared to Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean)

Man, Can you not start on any thread without throwing insult........ :hehe: Mr Chaplin bhakt , Come with some actual reasoning why Braddys Non Pro records should be compared to that of Pros.

[zen]

Man, Can you not start on any thread without throwing insult........ :hehe: Mr Chaplin bhakt , Come with some actual reasoning why Braddys Non Pro records should be compared to that of Pros.

* Rowan shot in color, while Charlie in B&W :hehe: * Rowan had to outshine better actors, while Charlie didn't have that many good actors to compete * Rowan makes more money that Charlie * Rowan crashed his Mclaren, while Charlie could not even dream of seeing such a car * Rowan could speak in films, while Charlie's voice was never heard. And it is difficult to extrapolate that Charlie would have been able to speak well in Rowan's time Based on the above, I conclude that Charlie is over-rated and should not be compared with Rowan

[Magneto]

* Rowan shot in color, while Charlie in B&W :hehe: * Rowan had to outshine better actors, while Charlie didn't have that many good actors to compete * Rowan makes more money that Charlie * Rowan crashed his Mclaren, while Charlie could not even dream of seeing such a car * Rowan could speak in films, while Charlie's voice was never heard. And it is difficult to extrapolate that Charlie would have been able to speak well in Rowan's time Based on the above, I conclude that Charlie is over-rated and should not be compared with Rowan

Talking technically, Charlie had to outshine Buster Keaton and Stan Laurel (who was Charlie's ex-room mate as well), and that was quite a deal. Particularly, many people stilll believe that Buster Keaton was far better than Charlie. Also, the last Chaplin film (A Countess from Hong Kong) was in colour and 'The Great Dictator' was Charlie's first talkie followed by a few other films. Forgot Charlie's rousing speech in 'The Great Dictator'? Also, if inflation rates are adjusted, Charlie would have made much more money than Rowan can ever hope to. :sherlock:

[zen]

Working mostly in the silent era, Charlie had to focus on only one aspect of acting, i.e. acting w/o delivering dialogues, while Rowan had to not only act but also deliver dialogues Based on that it is reasonable to assume that Charlie wouldn't have got going like Rowan in Rowan's time but Rowan would have easily adapted in Charlies' time. Also we cannot extrapolate, based on silent films. Extrapolation is a complex process and we need far more advanced systems to be able to do that. In the absence of such a system, we cannot extrapolate and thus say Charlie would have done as well as Rowan Also I have video footage, trust your own eyes on who is better: MHdmaFJ6W6M qXQSfSu1Y0s PS observe how fast everyone moves in Charlie's time :hehe: and how ppl move normally in Rowan's time .... the quality of video footage also tells who is better :yay:

[zen]

finally: Charlie's car: ^ I am not even sure if this would be street legal now :hysterical: and even in this Kia, Rowan can own Charlie: nEPcIpC_Gvk So let's not even go into Rowan's car collection :--D

[CSK Fan]

Dunno about that, but welding > soldering

+1. Trust Mariyam to always keep things in prespective

[Magneto]

In Charlie's time, the projectors were of 16 fps, so the films were shot on 16 fps. After sound came, the projections became 24 fps (because that equates to one second of sound) so everything was subsequently shot at 24 fps. It seems everyone moves fast in the silent era films because the 16 fps films were later projected at 24 fps, thereby the movement seeming faster. Even today if you shoot something at 16 fps, it will look like fast-forwarded motion. Secondly, the point I am trying to make is - From 'The Great Dictator' onwards, all Chaplin films were talkies, so there is enough evidence to see how Chaplin would have performed with sound.

[zen]

In Charlie's time, the projectors were of 16 fps, so the films were shot on 16 fps. After sound came, the projections became 24 fps (because that equates to one second of sound) so everything was subsequently shot at 24 fps. It seems everyone moves fast in the silent era films because the 16 fps films were later projected at 24 fps, thereby the movement seeming faster. Even today if you shoot something at 16 fps, it will look like fast-forwarded motion. Secondly, the point I am trying to make is - From 'The Great Dictator' onwards, all Chaplin films were talkies, so there is enough evidence to see how Chaplin would have performed with sound.

Thanks for all that but on a joke thread, you are replying to joke posts with seriousness :facepalm: Who in the right mind would say Charlie (like Bradman) is over-rated