If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[zen]

This is a SRT vs DGB debate .... I don't care about SRT vs Peers . You can keep pretending all you want that they are somehow connected. For the record I have stated in the past that that RD' date='Sehwag,SMG,BCL,Ponting and Viv would have been just as good as DGB if not better. Goodluck :nice:[/quote'] That's fine that you think everyone is ahead of Don but since you are talking abt 'having faced and doing well against better bowlers as an imp criteria', you should judge SRT based on that too vs his peers, otherwise it's like you make up the criterias that suits you!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

below is the performance against McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

Morally, SRT fanatics have no right to be suggesting that Bradman did not play against McGrath, Wasim, Donald, etc, when SRT himself hasn't played much compared to some of his peers (but they want to hail him as the greatest based on this :hysterical: ) .... What's interesting is that he has only 16 tests against these combinations out of a mammoth 180+ tests! .... And the icing on the cake is that he isn't even the top performer (based on the above, do we have a bigger minnow basher? There is no advantage of picking SRT over some of his peers when the bowling gets tough) case closed PS when ppl post moot clips, ask for list of bowlers, etc, then pls post the above table .... thanks!

[zen]

For ref, below is how Australia's batting did in the bodyline series which is rated by many as the toughest:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
Bradman	4	8	1	396	56.57
SJMcCab	5	10	1	385	42.78
Woodful	5	10	1	305	33.89

Interestingly, the 2nd highest avg is similar to the ones in table below: performance against McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

the above is anything but not as mean as the bodyline

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

The simple fact is that Bradman's average was a huge outlier compared to his contemporaries. If they were all amateurish bowlers, what prevented others from averaging within 30 runs of what Bradman did? The game may have changed a lot since his times (which doesn't necessarily mean it has become harder for batsmen), but outperforming others so freakishly only tells you that he was a freakish athlete and would have done well no matter what era he was born in. Just as Tendulkar would have adjusted to Bradman's era and would have averaged in the same range that Hammond or Suttcliffe did. And nah, much less interested in having a one-on-one debate on this. I only came in to say one thing in this thread - if Bradman was born Indian, we will not question his supremacy among all batsmen.

Because cricket was not as large then, was limited to the upper class and the talent pool was very very small. Just like the bowlers were amateurish, the batsmen were too. And believe ne there will be many Indians like you who would question bradman's supremacy in the name if being neutral and non fanatic if he was an Indian.

[CSK Fan]

My bad' date=' I mistook this thread to be mishathegreat's thread about Bradman being overrated. Once these threads digress from the OP and then diverge to the common theme of demeaning Bradman and trivializing his performance, they all feel the same.[/quote'] Oh ok, then

[CSK Fan]

1. The data needed to do this sort of H2H stats doesnt exist. Pretty sure your stats are bogus 2. Who are the bowlers from Bradmans time that are anywhere close to the names you used for SRT ? There aint nobody isnt it? (Hence the need to divert the thread to something else).

And the spinners of the caliber if warne and murali and not even mentioned

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

1. The data needed to do this sort of H2H stats doesnt exist. Pretty sure your stats are bogus 2. Who are the bowlers from Bradmans time that are anywhere close to the names you used for SRT ? There aint nobody isnt it? (Hence the need to divert the thread to something else).

It's is when the bowlers mentioned are playing :winky: Who cares who the bowlers were when SRT himself doesn't shine when we hv the above mentioned combination playing

[zen]

and thats not it either ... because the list is truly long ... take a look at this : CEL Ambrose CA Walsh IR Bishop RJ Hadlee BA Reid GP Swann CJ McDermott WPUJC Vaas MG Hughes DW Steyn Shabbir Ahmed CL Cairns M Ntini KCG Benjamin HH Streak M Morkel SCG MacGill SR Watson Mohammad Asif PS de Villiers Saqlain Mushtaq Shoaib Akhtar SR Clark SP Jones SE Bond DW Fleming JN Gillespie Imran Khan AR Caddick and Iam pretty sure its still missing a few very good bowlers

Panic attack .... Now the likes of Watson are being listed :hysterical: There is no point in tooting for the likes of SRT as in 2 decades ppl will be tooting for another name vs Bradman With that I leave the fanatics in their little and delusional world

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

The simple fact is that Bradman's average was a huge outlier compared to his contemporaries. If they were all amateurish bowlers, what prevented others from averaging within 30 runs of what Bradman did? The game may have changed a lot since his times (which doesn't necessarily mean it has become harder for batsmen), but outperforming others so freakishly only tells you that he was a freakish athlete and would have done well no matter what era he was born in. Just as Tendulkar would have adjusted to Bradman's era and would have averaged in the same range that Hammond or Suttcliffe did.

LOL, its the same old debate again: same theories, new posters. 8ankitj, welcome to the forum, but am afraid your argument makes little sense. I dont know why people are so fascinated by outliers. The "outlier" argument makes sense only when the reference frames are comparable (across eras). When you have no data on the reference frame the only conclusion you can draw is that Bradman was the best of his era. Just a hypothetical example: Let's say in today's world, only Pakistan, WI, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are playing cricket (assume for a second, no other teams are playing today). In this league, Mohd Yousuf averages close to 100, the rest are not even close to him. He is 40% better than his contemporaries, leaving the likes of Lara, Aloo miah, Younis Khan in the shade. Clearly Yousuf is an outlier in this league. So based on this is it fair to conclude that Mohd Yousuf is the greatest batsman ever ? But common sense tells us that Lara was a better batsman, isn't it? Bottom line: Some batsman are just more prolific when it comes to bashing minnows and how well a batsman slays minnows does not accurartely reflect the quality of his batsmanship. I'm not thick, i get the outlier argument. You can apply that to someone like Viv (who faced comparable bowling quality as SRT) to claim how far ahead he was as a ODI batsman compared to his contemporaries (and therefore make a genuine case for why he was the greatest ODI batsman of all time). But the argument makes little sense for Bradman because he did not quite face enough competition.

[Magneto]

below is the performance against McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

Morally, SRT fanatics have no right to be suggesting that Bradman did not play against McGrath, Wasim, Donald, etc, when SRT himself hasn't played much compared to some of his peers (but they want to hail him as the greatest based on this :hysterical: ) .... What's interesting is that he has only 16 tests against these combinations out of a mammoth 180+ tests! .... And the icing on the cake is that he isn't even the top performer (based on the above, do we have a bigger minnow basher? There is no advantage of picking SRT over some of his peers when the bowling gets tough) case closed PS when ppl post moot clips, ask for list of bowlers, etc, then pls post the above table .... thanks!

This table has a basic problem - How are we comparing performances of five batsmen against 3 pairs of bowlers, when 3 of those batsmen have not even played against one of these pairs (since that pair belongs to their own country)? Mark Waugh or Steve Waugh's performance here may be against Donald-Pollock and Wasim-Waqar, but how can Warne-Mcgrath be included in the equation? So, Sachin's performance here are being compared against 6 bowlers, and the two Waugh's performance against 4 bowlers, and still they are being put against each other in a head-to-head format? Ditto for Anwar's.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=25;opposition=4;opposition=7;opposition=9;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;team=25;team=4;team=7;team=9;template=results;type=batting Moyo = Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

Hahaha, hopefully this puts an end to all the nonsensical debates on Bradman. Its really Moyo who is the greatest of all time.

       Player  	              Span 	Mat 	Inns 	NO 	Runs 	HS 	AveDescending 	100 	50 	0 	
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 	1998-2006 	19 	30 	7 	2333 	204* 	101.43 	11 	10 	2 	investigate this query
BC Lara (WI) 	1990-2006 	16 	28 	0 	1568 	216 	56.00 	6 	4 	2 	investigate this query
Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak) 	1993-2006 	32 	51 	7 	2300 	177 	52.27 	8 	9 	2 	investigate this query
A Flower (Zim) 	1993-2002 	20 	33 	6 	1363 	156 	50.48 	4 	7 	2 	investigate this query
CL Hooper (WI) 	1988-2002 	16 	29 	5 	1186 	178* 	49.41 	4 	4 	5 	investigate this query
Younis Khan (Pak) 	2000-2011 	18 	29 	3 	1256 	200* 	48.30 	4 	6 	4 	investigate this query
Taufeeq Umar (Pak) 	2001-2011 	14 	23 	2 	1011 	135 	48.14 	3 	5 	1 	investigate this query
WW Hinds (WI) 	2000-2005 	13 	23 	1 	1024 	165 	46.54 	1 	8 	0 	investigate this query
RR Sarwan (WI) 	2000-2011 	16 	28 	5 	1043 	261* 	45.34 	2 	5 	2 	investigate this query
IVA Richards (WI) 	1975-1988 	16 	27 	1 	1091 	123 	41.96 	2 	7 	2 	investigate this query
Habibul Bashar (Ban) 	2001-2005 	18 	35 	1 	1416 	113 	41.64 	3 	13 	6 	investigate this query
S Chanderpaul (WI) 	1997-2011 	26 	43 	6 	1518 	153* 	41.02 	2 	8 	3 	investigate this query
CH Gayle (WI) 	2000-2006 	18 	30 	2 	1139 	175 	40.67 	2 	7 	2 	investigate this query
GW Flower (Zim) 	1993-2004 	24 	42 	5 	1263 	201* 	34.13 	3 	4 	5 	investigate this query

[yoda]

Same old BS in every thread. 1. Bradman may have been >>>> than his peers, but his peers were such bozos, the peer theory needs to be discarded. 2. Many modern day bats have Bradmanesque averages against minnows, which were same level as Bradman's competition, so all these modern day bats are >>>> Bradman (now this is about as stupid as it gets). If a little common sense is used, it will be obvious that players across era need to be evaluated wrt to their performances against players of their own era. You can't ask how a Jesse Owens would have run against Carl Lewis or how Wilt Chamberlain would have scored against NBA teams of the 90s or how Rod Laver would have performed against Federrer/Sampras or how Ali would have performed against Tyson or Hollyfield or how Nicklaus would have performed against Woods. All the records of the respective individuals/teams in their era are against the competition of their times and they are respected in all sport despite the obvious evolving of all sport in terms of speed, athleticism, level of play, professionalism, opponent caliber, increased pressure, etc . If you are going to laugh at Bradman and the bowling he faced, please also laugh at Wilt Chamberlain, Rod Laver, Mohammad Ali, Jesse Owens and Jack Nicklaus. Bottom line, Bradman's 99.94 was made against the competition of his times. Many other bats of his time had a chance to get close to it, they did not come anywhere near. This cannot be twisted no matter how hard some of you try. Tendulkar could have separated himself from the pack with a 65+ average for example, given his immense talent. He did not. If he had, then this discussion becomes more interesting. Is a 65+ vs 55+ as good or better than a 99.94 vs a 65 given all the issues with tighter competition, etc? Given that he is amongst the pack, there is nothing much to compare. In terms of things being so competitive in the modern world that no one can be so much better than the peers, that theory has been debunked with several other examples in other sport. Anyways, since these threads keep coming up every fecking month, some of us have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. :wall: :wall: :wall:

[Sachinism]

You don't have to. Some people just choose to

[bulbul]

This table has a basic problem - How are we comparing performances of five batsmen against 3 pairs of bowlers, when 3 of those batsmen have not even played against one of these pairs (since that pair belongs to their own country)? Mark Waugh or Steve Waugh's performance here may be against Donald-Pollock and Wasim-Waqar, but how can Warne-Mcgrath be included in the equation? So, Sachin's performance here are being compared against 6 bowlers, and the two Waugh's performance against 4 bowlers, and still they are being put against each other in a head-to-head format? Ditto for Anwar's.

again you pick stats what you want... What if you leave Waugh brothers and Anwar still it only proves Sachin is second best when facing these bowlers...but more importtantly it also debunks the theory that he is Great against these bowlers...it just sjhows he is only good when facing some of the greats of the era... Also for people who says Bradman era is full of minnows...after 1994 only Oz is best team all others are not in the same stanndard of oz...only 3/4 good teams in whole world....

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --