If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[8ankitj]

In all fairness, you can either (a) choose not to compare Bradman with a modern day batsman citing that the game is very different today than before or (b) rate Bradman ahead of any modern batsman on the basis of his dominance of his peers. But to choose to compare and put Bradman behind modern batsman (which is infallibly Tendulkar :winky:) is quite devoid of any logic or honesty. I chose second option when it comes to Bradman, and first when it comes to WG Grace.

[mishra]

So you did figured out that despite all good knighthood stories, Even cricinfo isnt blinkered enough to call him best batsman.

[Raghav_12]

In all fairness, you can either (a) choose not to compare Bradman with a modern day batsman citing that the game is very different today than before or (b) rate Bradman ahead of any modern batsman on the basis of his dominance of his peers. But to choose to compare and put Bradman behind modern batsman (which is infallibly Tendulkar :winky:) is quite devoid of any logic or honesty. I chose second option when it comes to Bradman, and first when it comes to WG Grace.

Very sensible post. The point where I differ is that I'll choose same option for Bradman which you did for W G Grace. I feel cricket has changed a lot in last 70 years to comapre players apart by those many years. Bradman may have dominated his peers in his time but to extrapolate that superiority to today's highly competitive professional era makes little sense. Secondly I agree that you can't say that Sachin is better than Bradman but no one else. If you arguing for Sachin's ascendency over Bradman, then basiacally you arguing for any great modern batsmen ascendency over Bradman.

[zen]

THIS.. This list proves, beyond any doubt, fallcy in the argument of people who declare Bradman greatest ever based on some statistical parameters or on the basis of "gap over second best". It is as simple as that numbers of one paradigm would hold any value in other paradigm only if context has been set properly.

You can add your flower > other Zim batsmen theory to it as well :P *Both the theories have been shredded* below is the true stats of the avg if only Zim, BD, Pak and WI were playing ..... Also note that since only these 4 teams play a lot of dymanics change too with guys like Walcot, Weekes, Sobers, Richards, Haynes, Greendige, etc playing a lot more That theory by Bumper was not only faulty but he even created stats for that :hysterical: link

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Given that the bowlers of his time were utterly crap ... Can any of the Bradman fans explain (without using Lahori Logic) how the peer domination theory proves that Bradman could handle modern day bowling greats ?

http://www.rolls-roycemotorcars.com/the_company/history/1930/ :winky:

[mishra]

BossBhai, Biut we can not with absolute certainity say that he wouldnt have improved if given access to modern coaching,training? :nervous:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

This is why it would help to read properly and also understand the context .... the stats that I posted were for current times to tell what would have happened if there were no better teams playing and no benefit of hindsight. We would be hailing Moyo. That said I expect you to not understand any of this and resort back to your tried and tested method of debating .

I can tell you that wouldn't have happened .... because if you take some teams out of equaltion, how the players approach the teams changes too It like saying if this forum was the only place to discuss and rate cricket (whether online or offline), Boss bhai's views would rated highly by everyone in the world. But the truth is that if that were the case, we would have not just the folks who post here but also reputed writers, cricketers, etc come and post here and rate cricketers. Many of these guys simply don't come here because this is not be all and end all place. And thus we cannot assume that if it were the one, those posting on cricket here (current forumers) would automatically become respected authorities on cricket. We cannot pretend that would happen. This is how the dynamics change and which is something your theory fails to take into account :winky:

[mishra]

Got evidence ? Nope. In any case SRT was not exactly covered with goodies during his formative yrs and his coach left his technique alone. He had no benefit of Video analysis or any other modern facilities. Take a look at the photos of Shivaji maidan from the 80s and you will understand the sort of facilities that he grew up with.

Shivaji Maidan was probably same in 1999-2000 too.... Back to the toipic. Havent got any because there can be no evidence. On technique front I am sure you must have seen this video but posting it again..... Watch After 2:10 . I still think that him able to face modern bowlers had he actually played in modern age is grey area..... QmUw9dDa1ys

[yoda]

But this cherry picking is very relevant to understand the whole Bradman number. If WI' date=' Zim, Bangla, etc were the only team Moyo was playing he would average beyond imagination. Similarly the standard of cricket was not very high, and Bradman played only 2-3 teams for only 52 matches.[/quote'] Cherry picking, by definition, is just that, not relevant. Bradman played fewer countries doesn't mean you start searching for cherry picked samples of players vs fewer countries having done better than their peers.

[yoda]

Given that the bowlers of his time were utterly crap ... Can any of the Bradman fans explain (without using Lahori Logic) how the peer domination theory proves that Bradman could handle modern day bowling greats ?

Why does it have to prove that? He played in that era and handled players of his era quite admirably, which is all that can be expected of a player. How is Bradman or anyone else on his behalf going to prove to you now that he can handle modern day bowlers?

[Bumper]

You can add your flower > other Zim batsmen theory to it as well :P *Both the theories have been shredded* below is the true stats of the avg if only Zim, BD, Pak and WI were playing ..... Also note that since only these 4 teams play a lot of dymanics change too with guys like Walcot, Weekes, Sobers, Richards, Haynes, Greendige, etc playing a lot more That theory by Bumper was not only faulty but he even created stats for that :hysterical: link

rett, you sir are a complete idiot. Not only you are an idiot, you dont even know you are one. How is Gary Sobers comparable to Mohd Yusuf ? Did they play in the same era ? The league i pointed out (BD, SL, Zim, WI) is for the modern times - ideally it should be from 90s since BD started playing tests. This way we are comparing players who have played more or less against the same opponents (= same bowling attack). If you dont even understand such simple logic, you should stop wasting people's time. And i can't even be bothered to respond to your other post where you have bellowed something about 'whole', 'part', Hobbs, Moyo, blah, blah - that's one of the most unintelligent piece of garbage i have read on this thread. Feel free to understand the context of the debate a bit and kindly put some thought into your posts. Just turning around sitting on the keyboard and hitting the "submit" button won't get you very far.

[8ankitj]

Given that the bowlers of his time were utterly crap ... Can any of the Bradman fans explain (without using Lahori Logic) how the peer domination theory proves that Bradman could handle modern day bowling greats ?

Yeah, lack of peer domination perhaps would prove ability to handle modern day bowlers. You think Tendulkar would be able to dominate bowlers that play 50 years later? You should. He did not dominate his peers after all, like that hack called Bradman. :hehe:

[CSK Fan]

Cherry picking' date=' by definition, is just that, not relevant. Bradman played fewer countries doesn't mean you start searching for cherry picked samples of players vs fewer countries having done better than their peers.[/quote'] Why not? Its very relevant to the point that if weaker teams are involved there are more chances of outliers being present than when there is an even distribution of strong teams. this also makes more sense than comparing a player when only two country primaly played cricket to mordern era where cricket is played between 4-5 strong countries on all kinds of pitches

[8ankitj]

Why does it have to prove that? He played in that era and handled players of his era quite admirably' date=' which is all that can be expected of a player. How is Bradman or anyone else on his behalf going to prove to you now that he can handle modern day bowlers?[/quote'] Yeah pretty much. That question itself is a non sequitur when it comes to judging Bradman's greatness.

[CSK Fan]

Yeah, lack of peer domination perhaps would prove ability to handle modern day bowlers. You think Tendulkar would be able to dominate bowlers that play 50 years later? You should. He did not dominate his peers after all, like that hack called Bradman. :hehe:

I can also dominate my peers if my peers are a bunch of ameatuers taking up cricket as a side hobby

[mishra]

Yeah, lack of peer domination perhaps would prove ability to handle modern day bowlers. You think Tendulkar would be able to dominate bowlers that play 50 years later? You should. He did not dominate his peers after all, like that hack called Bradman. :hehe:

What do you see in future... :hmmm: What is qualified as peer domination?

[CSK Fan]

Why does it have to prove that? He played in that era and handled players of his era quite admirably' date=' which is all that can be expected of a player. How is Bradman or anyone else on his behalf going to prove to you now that he can handle modern day bowlers?[/quote'] But isnt that what you are claiming when you call him the greatest of all time? That means that you conclusively say that Bradman would definitely dominate Wasim, Waqar, etc. Did you lose track of what we were discussing?