If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[The Outsider]

Quoting myself :P Can anybody explain this?

Don't worry. The troll in chief, BossBhai, will come and say even Sobers was crap as he has done in the past. He even rates Sobers' batting and bowling as roughly the same, never mind the fact that he averaged 58 with the bat and 35 with the ball in the same era. Which is not surprising because if you spin a web of lies to justify an agenda you will invariably come up with crazy conclusions. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1259773&postcount=112

[mishra]

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?

Name of the book please? I think that much you must remember? So there is no chance that we can have another physicist greater than Aryabhatta in current Indian education system? If i value your words, I assume you are better physicist

[CG]

It adds to the overall quality of the video and viewing experience otherwise why is it used so commonly? 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. 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. 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? You brought up the analogy and are now backing away when it's not suiting your agenda? LOL! Busted what? Making arbitrary sub leagues is myth busting? Can you please provide some scientific evidence to back that up? So, no modern sport should see outliers? Yet I have quoted multiple instances of such outliers in modern sport in this thread. 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. 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.

So you must believe Thompson when he says his deliveries were clocked at 160km/h at the batsman end.Cricketing Myths have always existed and will always be passed on to next generations ,Commentators Commonly reference chaminda vaas,pollock and host of others were quick bowlers when they started and became trundlers at the end where as if you compare speeds they were much the same at the begining and at end.All in all its difficult to compare cricketers 10 years apart let alone comparing eras bradman was greatest batsman of his Time and sobers greatest allrounder and thats it.

[The Outsider]

Name of the book please? I think that much you must remember? So there is no chance that we can have another physicist greater than Aryabhatta in current Indian education system? If i value your words, I assume you are better physicist

Think it was Fourth Innings with Cardus or the History of Australian Cricket. How did you conclude that from what I have written? Or better yet, what's your IQ?

[tothepoint]

Don't worry. The troll in chief, BossBhai, will come and say even Sobers was crap as he has done in the past. He even rates Sobers' batting and bowling as roughly the same, never mind the fact that he averaged 58 with the bat and 35 with the ball in the same era. Which is not surprising because if you spin a web of lies to justify an agenda you will invariably come up with crazy conclusions. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1259773&postcount=112

Damn it,Tendulkar got a 9.9 and Sobers a measly 6! Bossbhai,where have you done your graduation from? Sachin Institute of Ideology. Waha koi relative grading ka hisaab kitaab hai ki nahi? And how much to Richards? 6.5? Fast forward to 1989,kaboooom,everything changes. On a serious note, that post was too funny.:haha:

[mishra]

Think it was Fourth Innings with Cardus or the History of Australian Cricket. How did you conclude that from what I have written? Or better yet, what's your IQ?

Cheers.... Will go through them... Exactly... It is possible to get someone not just better but greater as well. if competitive environment is there difference between best and second best be too that large. Arent we arguing that here? Dont worry about my IQ... It can earn good enough bread.. Also It got flexibility to accept the facts....

[bulbul]

Cheers.... Will go through them... Exactly... It is possible to get someone not just better but greater as well. if competitive environment is there difference between best and second best be too that large. Arent we arguing that here? Dont worry about my IQ... It can earn good enough bread.. Also It got flexibility to accept the facts....

Only Bread ? no butter ? :giggle:

[zen]

Sachin brand ki ekdum fresh bread :--D PS no butter, only desi ghee and makhan :P

[The Outsider]

So you must believe Thompson when he says his deliveries were clocked at 160km/h at the batsman end.Cricketing Myths have always existed and will always be passed on to next generations ' date='Commentators Commonly reference chaminda vaas,pollock and host of others were quick bowlers when they started and became trundlers at the end where as if you compare speeds they were much the same at the begining and at end.All in all its difficult to compare cricketers 10 years apart let alone comparing eras bradman was greatest batsman of his Time and sobers greatest allrounder and thats it.[/quote'] Every single person who has played with or against Lindwall or seen him bowl and then seen later fast bowlers ranks him right up there in terms of skill and speed. But, bro, everyone is lying, bro saari yahoodiyon, amreekiyon, aur hinduon ki saazish hai ye.

[The Outsider]

On a serious note, that post was too funny.:haha:

Don't miss out on the part about Tendulkar's bowling being 4 with a bowling average of 55 and Sobers' batting being 6 after a batting average of 58. Just wanted to give you a heads up on the level of lunacy you are dealing with here.

[mishra]

Every single person who has played with or against Lindwall or seen him bowl and then seen later fast bowlers ranks him right up there in terms of skill and speed. But' date=' bro, everyone is lying, bro saari yahoodiyon, amreekiyon, aur hinduon ki saazish hai ye.[/quote'] Yes, And that greatess bowler used to bowl, Inswinger, Outswinger, leg cutter, reverse swing and cntribution of bowlers like Imran, Waqar is useless. English boys allready knew when what was happening, when they saw old ball swinging against Pakiz.... They also knew effect of bottle caps on movement of balls.. When Shoaib hit the grills of Lara, Lara needed medical attention.. Lindwall just let all batsman hit boundries and didnt get any testerone saying him send this batsman back to hospital.... He was gentleman way more than Walsh... You are telling people that every batsman was superhuman in that era too.... As far as Richie Benaud and his picks... Ask Gavaskar , he will say Tendulkar should play for atleast 10 more years..... Now use your brilliant Physicist IQ to figure out why you read what was in the books. Sab yahaan Alibaug se aaye hai...

[zen]

:--D PS the grapgh is courtesy of 'Sachin's Institute of Cricketology'

[bulbul]

:--D

:hysterical: one mistake there the line has to go completely below after Sach retires :giggle: is it 9 or 9.9 ? chk again or else we will get a thesis for that

[zen]

:hysterical: one mistake there the line has to go completely below after Sach retires :giggle: is it 9 or 9.9 ? chk again or else we will get a thesis for that

:giggle: my bad, i was being a little optimistic

[The Outsider]

The funny bit is that ever since Warne and McGrath retired the quality of bowling around the world has been absolutely mediocre. Except Steyn, there is no great bowler in the entire world and we are supposed to believe all these "theories" that increasing competition in cricket has led to some dramatic increase in skills. Where are all these skillful bowlers? Even in batting, how many batsmen has this super competitive environment produced over the last decade who can command a place as all time greats? After the period in which Ponting, Dravid, Sangakkara, and Kallis debuted who is the next all time great batsman the modern day competition has produced? If we are to believe this competition has led to a dramatic increase in the quality of cricket hypothesis, current world cricket should be crawling with all time greats because cricket has never been more popular than it is today.

[pensionplan]

Dont worry about my IQ...

Sachin's age at debut?

[zen]

At SIC (Sachin's Institute of Crickotology), you are taught: * to judge bowlers speed based on videos * theory of evolution is replaced by 'latest is the greatest' * caveman = gorilla * how randomly selecting a stats in a few clicks creates a simulation of Bradman's time * Sachin played all his tests against the great bowling pairs of his time

[bulbul]

The funny bit is that ever since Warne and McGrath retired the quality of bowling around the world has been absolutely mediocre. Except Steyn, there is no great bowler in the entire world and we are supposed to believe all these "theories" that increasing competition in cricket has led to some dramatic increase in skills. Where are all these skillful bowlers? Even in batting, how many batsmen has this super competitive environment produced over the last decade who can command a place as all time greats? After the period in which Ponting, Dravid, Sangakkara, and Kallis debuted who is the next all time great batsman the modern day competition has produced? If we are to believe this competition has led to a dramatic increase in the quality of cricket hypothesis, current world cricket should be crawling with all time greats because cricket has never been more popular than it is today.

Umar Akmal Mohd. Ashrafool T Dilshan B Mccullum Y singh (Tests only ) P Hughes (even better than Bradman one time) K Pollard J Duminy how many you need ?

[pensionplan]

Poor SRT fanatics getting buried here.

[mishra]

The funny bit is that ever since Warne and McGrath retired the quality of bowling around the world has been absolutely mediocre. Except Steyn, there is no great bowler in the entire world and we are supposed to believe all these "theories" that increasing competition in cricket has led to some dramatic increase in skills. Where are all these skillful bowlers? Even in batting, how many batsmen has this super competitive environment produced over the last decade who can command a place as all time greats? After the period in which Ponting, Dravid, Sangakkara, and Kallis debuted who is the next all time great batsman the modern day competition has produced? If we are to believe this competition has led to a dramatic increase in the quality of cricket hypothesis, current world cricket should be crawling with all time greats because cricket has never been more popular than it is today.

What you find funny, I find logical. Just for sake of argument you are ignoring impact of IPL/T20 on rest of world cricket. I expect some degree of honesty in argument... How far ahead is Steyn or pick any best bowler with rest of the pack? This will also mean that cricketing life expectancy of new player will be lesser too.... Fact: World record created in sports arent from 1930.. And world records arent broken every day. Finally it still doesnt justify how Bradman era cricket is qualitative. You still havent answered what kind of master bowler Lindwall was (new Ball, Old Ball or line length,Swing, Super Phast,)? PS: For those jumping up and down in the thread, Lindwall started playing For Australia (Not against Bradman @end of Bradmans Career).