If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[carnish]

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

what about A Flintoff???

[zen]

Simple answer - If you had known so much, you would have simply chosen a set of cricketers who has played against all those 6 bowlers. A retard like you doesn't see these simple facts, because he knows not what he is doing.

I can see how you could rate Sourav's 183 as the best :cantstop: If someone wanted to know how a set of similar quality batsmen did against top quality bowling (represented by ATG bowling pairs), I go around looking for batsmen who played all the pairs even if it means leaving out a few quality batsmen who happened to do well against most of those bowling pairs This also means that srt's peers are picked based on not the actual quality or from the grp that is considered of that level but based on who faced all the pairs! So if you haven't played all 3 pairs, you are not his peer :giggle: Can you tell me how playing 10 or more test against 2 of the 3 pairs fails to give an idea to a cricket fan on what they could do? Do you think Anwar not playing Wasim-waqar at competitive test level would show that he cannot play quicks when we can see his perfo against McGrath, pollock and Donald? May be the waughs don't have a spiner to show but we know they are good at that And then you had in you to suggest why McGrath-Lee is not in, missing a simple thing like lee is not an atg bowler and as if that pair would reveal what's already revealed by the selected ATG pairs :hysterial: On top of that, you hv Lara who has played against all three pairs to make a comparison! Or you could hv done your own research to present your own list but .... May be you are just playing the game, where you don't hv Waugh so you say but where is Waugh? So what if he played against 2 out of 3 pairs, playing 2 should be good enough! Do you expect him to bat against his own team for your analysis? Most folks who know abt cricket can make a judgment based on that. But you can't as seen by your argument ....

[Magneto]

Anyway, if Sachin's average against Waqar/Wasim, Ambrose/Walsh and McGrath/Warne would be calculated, it would be 49. Not saying these kind of calculations make any sense, but for the sake of statistical interest.

[Magneto]

I can see how you could rate Sourav's 183 as the best :cantstop: If someone wanted to know how a set of similar quality batsmen did against top quality bowling (represented by ATG bowling pairs), I go around looking for batsmen who played all the pairs even if it means leaving out a few quality batsmen who happened to do well against most of those bowling pairs This also means that srt's peers are picked based on not the actual quality or from the grp that is considered of that level but based on who faced all the pairs! So if you haven't played all 3 pairs, you are not his peer :giggle: Can you tell me how playing 10 or more test against 2 of the 3 pairs fails to give an idea to a cricket fan on what they could do? Do you think Anwar not playing Wasim-waqar at competitive test level would show that he cannot play quicks when we can see his perfo against McGrath, pollock and Donald? May be the waughs don't have a spiner to show but we know they are good at that And then you had in you to suggest why McGrath-Lee is not in, missing a simple thing like lee is not an atg bowler and as if that pair would reveal what's already revealed by the selected ATG pairs :hysterial: On top of that, you hv Lara who has played against all three pairs to make a comparison! Or you could hv done your own research to present your own list but .... May be you are just playing the game, where you don't hv Waugh so you say but where is Waugh? So what if he played against 2 out of 3 pairs, playing 2 should be good enough! Do you expect him to bat against his own team for your analysis? Most folks who know abt cricket can make a judgment based on that. But you can't as seen by your argument ....

You still have to ramble for a thousand words for a simple explanation, eh? (with two and half smileys thrown in). Go correct your stupid table if you have any honesty or genuine interest when you discuss such stuff. People who ignore Ambrose/Walsh and bring in Anwar in a discuss of Test greats need serious help. And it wouldn't help you if you keep swimming in your sea of smileys and manufacture stupid tables and theories. Saying this for the last time, you should have left out the Waughs and the Anwars if you have to create a table of comparitives, when the parameters are not identical. But you wouldn't understand this ever. And will continue with your sense of nonsense

[zen]

You still have to ramble for a thousand words for a simple explanation, eh? (with two and half smileys thrown in). Go correct your stupid table if you have any honesty or genuine interest when you discuss such stuff. People who ignore Ambrose/Walsh and bring in Anwar in a discuss of Test greats need serious help. And it wouldn't help you if you keep swimming in your sea of smileys and manufacture stupid tables and theories. Saying this for the last time, you should have left out the Waughs and the Anwars if you have to create a table of comparitives, when the parameters are not identical. But you wouldn't understand this ever. And will continue with your sense of nonsense

Do you even know how many tests and runs Waugh has against Ambrose and Walsh vs someone like Tendulkar? And to further vindicate your dumbness, you hv it in you to suggest to include Ambrose and Walsh thereby taking even Lara out as per your stupid parameters (or did you even not get that) :hysterical: First you objected to Waugh and Anwar, now we add Ambrose and Walsh so you can say Lara too cannot be included :hehe: .... And if that was not the intention, why object to Waugh and Anwar in the first place Retard, do you even know how your own points apply .... I doubt :--D

[zen]

Anyway, if Sachin's average against Waqar/Wasim, Ambrose/Walsh and McGrath/Warne would be calculated, it would be 49. Not saying these kind of calculations make any sense, but for the sake of statistical interest.

So based on your parameters, who do we compare SRT with? Wasim/waqar ----> Anwar out Ambrose/ Walsh ----> Lara out McGrath/warne ----> waughs out Thanks for leaving pollock/Donald out, SA batsmen would be celebrating to get a chance to be included as Srt 's peers :hysterical: And this guy was talking abt what should constitute as genuine parameters :icflove:

[zen]

Now who is blamed again for Lahori logic by newbie.... :hysterical:

Mishrajee, uski toh band baj gayee .... Even Lahore logic would make sense in front of Sauravs logic :hysterical:

[mishra]

^ Did you miss post 227? Lahori Logic allways wins.....

[Bumper]

Why so much argument on who is the greatest ever? In each and every generation,majority of the people have claimed that the best batsman of their time be acknowledged as the best batsman ever. But only Bradman have stood the test of time. It remains to be seen whether Sachin will be regarded as highly by our future generations, or will be discarded like say Gavaskar(who is in my opinion the greatest test batsman of India considering all the factors).

Fair enough, that's your opinion! Bradman definitely stood the test of time. People still believe he is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings. I wish people are this naive in their real life, i gotta lot of things to sell, you know.

And I pity on those people who think bowlers or batsmen were not upto the standards as compared to another generation! How can they claim that is beyond my understanding. Some of the posters here are ridiculing the bowlers of 30s,that is as stupid as it gets. Larwood, Bedser, Verity, Bowes and Voce were some of the great bowlers of 30s.

I pity you sonny. How many footages of these bowlers have you seen ? Making conclusions on hearsay is perhaps more stupid than challenging conventional wisdom built on nothing but hyperbole.

And for the nth time, If batting in Bradman's era was so easy, then why did no other batsmen at the time get anywhere near his 99.94 batting average? Why does the statistics show that "no other athlete dominated an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket"? And since cricket is a game defined by statistics,what is so wrong in admitting that he is the greatest ever?!

This is the most ludicrous argument of all. You really need to show that you can make more sense to be debate worthy. If Bradman averaged 99 & the rest did not, how does it show that the quality of the bowling in those days were good enough ? Could it be that Bradman was simply light years ahead of the pack when it came to minnow bashing ? Case in point, in modern day cricket, in a league comprising of Pak, WI, BD, Zim (mind you, this league is probably more competitive than the teams of Bradman's times), Moyo averages 101. The next best average is 50+. So why did the rest suck so badly, was Lara poorer than Moyo ? I repeat what i said earlier. How well a batsman bashes minnows is not indicative of his true batting prowess. Some are just more prolific than others when it comes to bashing minnows. And oh, btw, suck on this: 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

[tothepoint]

Guys,stop insulting each other. It only makes matters worse. People on this thread fighting for love of Sachin should back him up with a list of conditions according to which they consider Sachin as unarguably the greatest ever.

[tothepoint]

Fair enough, that's your opinion! Bradman definitely stood the test of time. People still believe he is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings. I wish people are this naive in their real life, i gotta lot of things to sell, you know. I pity you sonny. How many footages of these bowlers have you seen ? Making conclusions on hearsay is perhaps more stupid than challenging conventional wisdom built on nothing but hyperbole. This is the most ludicrous argument of all. You really need to show that you can make more sense to be debate worthy. If Bradman averaged 99 & the rest did not, how does it show that the quality of the bowling in those days were good enough ? Could it be that Bradman was simply light years ahead of the pack when it came to minnow bashing ? Case in point, in modern day cricket, in a league comprising of Pak, WI, BD, Zim (mind you, this league is probably more competitive than the teams of Bradman's times), Moyo averages 101. The next best average is 50+. So why did the rest suck so badly, was Lara poorer than Moyo ? I repeat what i said earlier. How well a batsman bashes minnows is not indicative of his true batting prowess. Some are just more prolific than others when it comes to bashing minnows. And oh, btw, suck on this: 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

May I ask, who are you to judge the English test team of 30s as minnows? How many footages have you seen? If you think a team having Larwood,Hobbs,Hutton,Verity were as good as today's BD and Zimbabawe,then I pity on you son. There is no point in arguing with you.

[tothepoint]

Fair enough, that's your opinion! Bradman definitely stood the test of time. People still believe he is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings. I wish people are this naive in their real life, i gotta lot of things to sell, you know. I pity you sonny. How many footages of these bowlers have you seen ? Making conclusions on hearsay is perhaps more stupid than challenging conventional wisdom built on nothing but hyperbole. This is the most ludicrous argument of all. You really need to show that you can make more sense to be debate worthy. If Bradman averaged 99 & the rest did not, how does it show that the quality of the bowling in those days were good enough ? Could it be that Bradman was simply light years ahead of the pack when it came to minnow bashing ? Case in point, in modern day cricket, in a league comprising of Pak, WI, BD, Zim (mind you, this league is probably more competitive than the teams of Bradman's times), Moyo averages 101. The next best average is 50+. So why did the rest suck so badly, was Lara poorer than Moyo ? I repeat what i said earlier. How well a batsman bashes minnows is not indicative of his true batting prowess. Some are just more prolific than others when it comes to bashing minnows. And oh, btw, suck on this: 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

And yeah,that link you have attached is superb. That clearly goes on to show how Bradman was a minnow-basher and why Sachin should be considered as the greatest ever!

[zen]

I guess, according to some, the BD/zim etc are better than Aus invincibles which is rated as amongst the top teams of all time :giggle:

[Bumper]

May I ask' date=' who are you to judge the English test team of 30s as minnows? How many footages have you seen? If you think a team having Larwood,Hobbs,Hutton,Verity were as good as today's BD and Zimbabawe,then I pity on you son. There is no point in arguing with you.[/quote'] Wait a minute, the burden of proof (that bowling quality of those times were high) is on YOU, as you are the one claiming Bradman is the greatest. The fact that i have not seen the 30s footages means squat for this debate. If you want to proceed that route I'll claim that my grandpa is the greatest batsman of all - have you seen anything to disprove it ? You dont acclaim xyz is the greatest until you have rectal scanned all the possibilities. May be you should see some of those British Pathe footages yourself to convince yourselves of the "high" bowling quality of those times. And stop this condescending tone of "i pity you..". I have been on this board long enough to know, this is a standard tactic losers use when they have nothing logical to advance their argument.

[Bumper]

I guess' date=' according to some, the BD/zim etc are better than Aus invincibles which is rated as amongst the top teams of all time :giggle:[/quote'] Mr. Outlier, I hope your theory has been shredded to bits. But regardless of what you believe about Zim/BD, you should explain why Lara averages 45 points below Moyo against the same opponents. Clearly this shows at least Moyo is better than Lara.

[tothepoint]

Wait a minute, the burden of proof (that bowling quality of those times were high) is on YOU, as you are the one claiming Bradman is the greatest. The fact that i have not seen the 30s footages means squat for this debate. If you want to proceed that route I'll claim that my grandpa is the greatest batsman of all - have you seen anything to disprove it ? You dont acclaim xyz is the greatest until you have rectal scanned all the possibilities. May be you should see some of those British Pathe footages yourself to convince yourselves of the "high" bowling quality of those times. And stop this condescending tone of "i pity you..". I have been on this board long enough to know, this is a standard tactic losers use when they have nothing logical to advance their argument.

What is your problem if I think English side of the 30s were better than today's BD and Zim? What is your problem if I dont think its wrong to compare Bradman with his peers? What is your problem if I find cricket a highly statistic-oriented game where numbers tell you no-one has ever touched Bradman,across all sports? And last but not the least,what are the conditions as per which you are coming to the conclusion that Sachin is the greatest ever?

[zen]

Mr. Outlier, I hope your theory has been shredded to bits. But regardless of what you believe about Zim/BD, you should explain why Lara averages 45 points below Moyo against the same opponents. Clearly this shows at least Moyo is better than Lara.

The question would be similar to someone asking is xyz>Bradman, based on xyz's performances against x team vs Bradman's in that time. It would be like suggesting: is Hobbs>Bradman based on THIS ..... we know Bradman>Hobbs and similarly we know Lara>MoYo The points that you are making fails to see that the word minnow is a relative term, ignores evolution and tries to assume that today's batsmen performing against today's minnow is similar to batsmen in the past playing against the strongest team of the past Despite our conversations in the past, you seem reluctant to let go of your ridiculous theories :P

[Bumper]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

What is your problem if I think English side of the 30s were better than today's BD and Zim? What is your problem if I dont think its wrong to compare Bradman with his peers? What is your problem if I find cricket a highly statistic-oriented game where numbers tell you no-one has ever touched Bradman,across all sports?

Only one problem. You can think whatever you want in your closet. You post your thoughts online, you are gonna invite criticism and ridicule depending on the merit of your posts. If you dont want anyone to crtique your opinions, then why are you posting it here ?

And last but not the least,what are the conditions as per which you are coming to the conclusion that Sachin is the greatest ever?

Oh dear, I just thought till now that you only have a problem thinking, now you are telling me you got a problem reading too. When/where did i claim that Sachin is the greatest ever ? I am just rubbishing claims that Bradman is the greatest ever - which is hardly supportable objectively.

[zen]

What is your problem if I think English side of the 30s were better than today's BD and Zim? What is your problem if I dont think its wrong to compare Bradman with his peers? What is your problem if I find cricket a highly statistic-oriented game where numbers tell you no-one has ever touched Bradman,across all sports? And last but not the least,what are the conditions as per which you are coming to the conclusion that Sachin is the greatest ever?

Let me expand on that, he has created a formula: Two Knowns: A: moyo vs minnows B: moyo vs stronger teams Then we are made to assume that 'B' is 'unknown' and asked is MoYo is the greatest? By asking that, he tries to show that Bradman's performance which is a known should be treated as unknown based moyo's 'A' and assuming 'B' to be unknown (despite it being a known) see how easy it is to prove Sachin is the greatest: rely on assuming a known to be unknown and pretend that minnow is not relative :--D And if you stay here longer, you would discover that many of those who believe Sachin to be greatest have such interesting theories PS add to that his story about Mudaswami (hope I got the name right) .... which is based on ignoring the domestic vs international cricket structure and assuming knowns to be unknowns

[yoda]

Wait a minute' date=' the burden of proof (that bowling quality of those times were high) is on YOU, as you are the one claiming Bradman is the greatest.[/quote'] Greatest of all time doesn't meant the sport stops progressing when that person retires. If tomorrow SRT retires and bowlers start hurling 180 mph deliveries and averages drop down to 40, it doesn't make SRT or Dravid or Lara or Ponting's achievements any less. They performed against the opponents of their time, whoever they may be. The fact that bowlers get better over time or batsmen get better over time, doesn't mean past performers automatically get disqualified as ATG. Today a F1 driver goes 200 mph. 50 years now, let's say an average car does 200 mph and F1 drivers start doing 250 mph, are you going to claim the skill of a F1 driver from today is same as the avg driver 50 years from now?