If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[pensionplan]

The caveman prolly had the intelligence of a gorilla. With that kinda brain cells, learning how to produce fire and then learning how to use it productively is no mean achievement. How many gorillas know how to produce fire and use them constructively ?

Harbhajan and Symonds combination readily comes to mind with Sreesanth looking in from outside for support if needed.

[zen]

I didn't read the long posts but now caveman = gorilla in terms of intelligence :hysterical: Bumper, keep posting

[zen]

from moyo = bradman to = :hysterical:

[tothepoint]

from moyo = bradman to = :hysterical:

Was :stoned: Is :hysterical: Thanks for this masterpiece. :cantstop:

[tothepoint]

Some other things that are BUMPING around :- 1. 1930s-40s Aus and Eng were as bad as modern day's BD and Zim. Non-competitive,inferior quality,part-timers are some of the terms reserved for them. 2. MoYo was as good as Bradman based on his record against BD,Zim and WI. So according to that Outlier theory->shredded to bits. 3. Agarkar and Prabhakar > Miller and Lindwall. Sobers who? Wait,is he the same guy who once said Gavaskar>Sachin so "he has no idea what he is talking about". Being from a small island doesnt help his case either. 4. From the clips of Bradman ,can conclude Bradman=walking wicket for modern-day greats. 5. Cricket in 1960s,well it was miles ahead of 1940s. So bowling and batting averages of those days,my foot. 6. All the cricketers from 1930s-40s were utter crap. 7. Comments requested on Hobbs,Hammond,Headley,Hutton = blah blah blah. 8. Sanjay Manjarekar,Rameez Raza,Mike Atherton etc are professional greats and its an insult to them(not an honor,mind it). 9. Nobel laureates in Physics in 2011 > Einstein. Newton? Less said,the better. 10. That poor caveman who discovered fire,unnecesarily getting ridiculed. Must be cursing himself in his grave. All this to prove, Someone>Bradman. Kudos! PS : I have one simple question,as Bradman retired in '48 and Sobers debuted in '54(a gap of merely 6 years), how come cricket improved so much in so little time? :wizard:

[yoda]

To provide some context to how historic achievement is regarded in other sport.

Owens's greatest achievement came in a span of 45 minutes on May 25, 1935 at the Big Ten meet in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he set three world records and tied a fourth. He equaled the world record for the 100-yard (91 m) sprint (9.4 seconds); and set world records in the long jump (26 feet 8ŽÂ¼ inches (8.13 m), a world record that would last 25 years); 220-yard (201.2 m) sprint (20.3 seconds); and 220-yard (201.2m) low hurdles (22.6 seconds, becoming the first to break 23 seconds).[4] In 2005, NBC sports announcer Bob Costas and University of Central Florida professor of sports history Richard C. Crepeau both chose these wins on one day as the most impressive athletic achievement since 1850.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens

[mishra]

why should Bradman give any vibe of fearsomeness about Miller...Bradman is superior batsman so he may not feel miller is phast...

Look at post 340 from outsider. He has claimed that Sobers thought Lindwall Miler pair was as tough as it can get. which in turn goes to imply that quality of bowling was competent. I havent started arguing yet. I am just trying to validate his statement. @Outsider I am still waiting.... Why someone who had played so much cricket, will say Lindwal/Miler as best..... I want to know source of it, I want to know the context of it too.....

[bulbul]

To provide some context to how historic achievement is regarded in other sport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens

but Cricket is started in professional level only after 1989 :dontknow: Dont you know how difficult for legend to practice in a school ground before that...no International facilities...no mike...no camera....no third umpire etc etc

[bulbul]

Look at post 340 from outsider. He has claimed that Sobers thought Lindwall Miler pair was as tough as it can get. which in turn goes to imply that quality of bowling was competent. I havent started arguing yet. I am just trying to validate his statement. @Outsider I am still waiting.... Why someone who had played so much cricket, will say Lindwal/Miler as best..... I want to know source of it, I want to know the context of it too.....

you didnt understood my point...my post is Bradman is very superior Bat unlike Sobers he dont feel miller as a great bowler for himself...but when Sobers praises Miller you have to admit becuase soberse also a legend eventhough below Bradman... Did u see Sachin praising any bowlers....what that means they are average :winky:

[mishra]

you didnt understood my point...my post is Bradman is very superior Bat unlike Sobers he dont feel miller as a great bowler for himself...but when Sobers praises Miller you have to admit becuase soberse also a legend eventhough below Bradman... Did u see Sachin praising any bowlers....what that means they are average :winky:

:hysterical: PS. Unlike some I do feel that forum has enough talent. There is no harm in absorbing some knowledge..

[bulbul]

:hysterical: PS. Unlike some I do feel that forum has enough talent. There is no harm in absorbing some knowledge..

we are here to share our knowledges and Improve the universe...thanks for aknowledgment..it will give even more motivation to improve..this is a great learning curve

[mishra]

we are here to share our knowledges and Improve the universe...thanks for aknowledgment..it will give even more motivation to improve..this is a great learning curve

:hmmm: what are you here for?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Which is why I said if you want to do this comparison you must first come up with a level playing field. The only way is to see what Modern batsmen do against lesser bowlers. The fact that such achievements are routinely scoffed at by all as "minnow bashing" tells its own story.

It is level playing field if you consider evolution of cricketers .... For e.g. a RR was rated as one of the best in 1930s and today it is too. In the 1930s, it was competing with fewer marques and now despite more competition and new technology, it has evolved to match the time and still be one of the best Your point is like today's S-class (Tendulkar, Lara, etc) is better in terms of quality and refinement than 1930s RR (Bradman), let alone the S-classes, even today's Accords (other quality players but not ATGs) are better so how can we say that 1930s RR would have done well today against S-classes and Accords? .... For that you have to see how the s-calsses and accords were then, you have to see how the RR could have evolved to match today's time. Fortunately, you can see how the RR has evolved. If someone posts a video of 1930s RR racing and today's accord racing and says 'oh, I find it hard to see why that 1930s RR could do well' then that someone is missing the context. PS below is a list of all time Japanese cars by ask man and you will find cars from 70s on the list ahead of today's 'more efficient' cars: Link

[The Outsider]

Slow motion can make the bowler look phhast and deadly ?

It adds to the overall quality of the video and viewing experience otherwise why is it used so commonly?

The point is not whether bodyline is legal or illegal. Its about Bradman's showing in possibly the only competitive cricket that may be comparable to the degree of difficulty faced by modern batsmen pitting against the likes of Akhtar, Ambrose, Donald & co.

That's the only point, in fact. How can you say how modern batsmen would have fared against Bodyline when none of them have faced Bodyline? The only time something similar was used by West Indies against India, a batting line up with the likes of Gavaskar, Amarnath, and Viswanath forfeited the test match.

Mohammad Sami was phaast, so your point is ? :--DThere is nothing in that video to suggest Lindwall was lethal. Infact why focus on one bowler who did not even bowl to Bradman in test cricket. What about the other mediocre trundlers in the clip ?

Because there was an argument being made earlier that all bowlers were trundlers during the old days. The idea is not to show who bowled to Bradman and who did not, but the quality of cricket which you and others are trying to discredit despite each and every expert who has lived through the eras vouching for the quality.

Naah, I think you are conveniently twisting the argument here. This is like comparing me, Mohd Yusuf & then observing Yusuf as the superior achiever and based on that declaring Yusuf as the greatest ever. Yeah, relative to you, Newton may have achieved more. But relative to Einstein, Edison & others, it's not a slam dunk. Why do so many in the scientific community still believe Einstein is the greatest scientist ?

You've lost it - you can't even keep track of your own analogy. I'll try to explain again - you said that Bradman cannot be called the greatest because in terms of absolute skills he was inferior to batsmen today (which itself is debatable, but let me tow the line). Now, in terms of absolute skill thousands of people know more Physics than Newton ever did - this is a fact. Newton had no clue about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, things which are taught in undergraduate Physics. So, Newton cannot be called greater than the thousands of people today who are ahead of him in terms of absolute skill in Physics. Clearer?

Regardless science and cricket are not apples to apples. In science you build on each other's work. So one could logically argue that Newton is the greatest scientist. In cricket you depend on your own skills, what other cricketers achieved counts for nothing to you - a key difference.

You brought up the analogy and are now backing away when it's not suiting your agenda?

Once again, a very convenient twist. How did you conclude that Tendulkar achieved any less than Bradman ? I have already busted the myth about how being an outlier is not tantamount to a bigger achiever.

LOL! Busted what? Making arbitrary sub leagues is myth busting?

The caveman prolly had the intelligence of a gorilla. With that kinda brain cells, learning how to produce fire and then learning how to use it productively is no mean achievement. How many gorillas know how to produce fire and use them constructively ?

Can you please provide some scientific evidence to back that up?

Sports just evolve with time. There are many factors: many more (than before) take up sport early on in their lives, they have access to coaching, superior gear etc. With so many taking up the sport, ultimately it comes down to survival of the fittest.

So, no modern sport should see outliers? Yet I have quoted multiple instances of such outliers in modern sport in this thread.

As for cricket, the same effect applies. So many kids play the sport from a very young age at a competitive level (and the limited spots with large rewards, further increases competition). Sooner or later the "survival of the fittest" kicks in and the only way you survive is by learning some new skills.

More people play cricket in India than perhaps even 10 Australias - we should be kicking Australia's butt day in and out. An island of 100 square miles and a population equal to Chandni Chowk has produced more great cricketers than India - they are not even rich for them to have some extraordinary coaching available.

You agree that Mohd Sami was phaaasht ? And what would be the point of proving to me that Lindwall was able to bowl at a lesser pace than Sami ? I won't even embarrass you by asking how did you figure out from naked eye he was bowling 145 and more importantly, how did you deduce based on a handful of deliveries that Lindwall bowled like this for a major part of his career.:--D

I did not figure out that Lindwall was a great bowler by watching some crappy videos in which it's barely possible to see the ball. On the contrary you are using it as evidence to compare him with Agarkar. For me, the word of people who have actually played with and against him, played across eras, and watched more cricket than all of ICF put together like Benaud and Sobers is good enough to know that Lindwall was one of the greatest bowlers cricket has produced. Benaud, for example, has seen Lillee, Thompson, and a host of other fast bowlers and ranks Lindwall right up there with them both in terms of speed and skill. Sorry, if I trust him more than your "expert analysis" of a video.

[mishra]

@ Outrsider I am still waiting for evidence on post 340. I just want to understand how factual are your argumement. Because I dont see you adding anymore than making quality claims

Because there was an argument being made earlier that all bowlers were trundlers during the old days. The idea is not to show who bowled to Bradman and who did not, but the quality of cricket which you and others are trying to discredit despite each and every expert who has lived through the eras vouching for the quality.

As for as ur Newton Theory, Find me few great phjysicist prior to Renasaince?

[tothepoint]

PS : I have one simple question,as Bradman retired in '48 and Sobers debuted in '54(a gap of merely 6 years), how come cricket improved so much in so little time? :wizard:

Quoting myself :P Can anybody explain this?

[The Outsider]

@ Outrsider I am still waiting for evidence on post 340. I just want to understand how factual are your argumement. Because I dont see you adding anymore than making quality claims As for as ur Newton Theory, Find me few great phjysicist prior to Renasaince?

I only reply selectively to trolls like you and BossBhai, but since you are being so persistent, I read it in some book. There is a life beyond google and the web. Now if you expect me to spend time searching for it, scan the relevant part and post it here, don't. It makes little difference to me whether you believe the claim or not. What do you think about Aryabhata?

[Old guy]

I only reply selectively to trolls like you and BossBhai, but since you are being so persistent, I read it in some book. There is a life beyond google and the web. Now if you expect me to spend time searching for it, scan the relevant part and post it here, don't. It makes little difference to me whether you believe the claim or not. What do you think about Aryabhata?

+1