If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[Old guy]

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.

amla,devilliers,bell,cook all have potential and are technically good would have very good records by the time they retire and bowlers there have been some really good bowlers but they are just not lasting for long time ...like flintoff for 4-5 years was one of the best,bond earlier now morkel potentially is good its just that people arent lasting like mcgrath did for so long now we are seeing anderson bowling really well (any one who can bowl against tendulkar and dominate him is a good bowler his record in sub continent is iffy but not many bowlers perform here) imo quality of cricket is still same..compared two last 2 decades

[The Outsider]

Oh, I see since Tendulkar's retirement time is coming closer, the groundwork for the decline in quality of cricket after his retirement is already under way. So, when there is someone in the future who does better than Tendulkar you can just say that the quality of cricket was crap, just like it was in Bradman's and Sobers' time. Your armyman talks more sense than you, Mishraji. :hysterical:

[mishra]

Nope, Exactly opposite i m saying. Infact Relative difference and cricketing life criteria had to be further relaxed in future

[8ankitj]

Outsider, rett, srtfanaticssuck and dumdumdigadiga totally winning it on the last page. :two_thumbs_up: That post that Outsider linked on Tendulkar vs Sobers is pure gold. Even if you think Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time *, how could any one in his right mind give him 9.9? The guy never scored a 250, never crossed the 900 ICC rating point barrier, never played an inning that can be classed among the 25 or so greatest of all time (refer Wisden 100). This is not a slight on Tendulkar (he has beyond doubt achieved staggering feats in Cricket), but an observation about Tendulkar fanatics who turn a blind eye to things that contemporary batsmen have achieved and their idol hasn't. * You cannot say that with any claim to honesty because as I mentioned in earlier post one can justifiably either refuse to compare across eras or rate Bradman better than Tendulkar.

[The Outsider]

Nope' date=' Exactly opposite i m saying. Infact Relative difference and cricketing life criteria had to be further relaxed in future[/quote'] So, Morkel is greater than Ambrose because he is playing in a more competitive era?:hatsoff:

[The Outsider]

amla' date=devilliers,bell,cook all have potential and are technically good would have very good records by the time they retire

None of them even average 50 in this era of mediocre bowlers and patta wickets after having played 60-70 test matches. I'll be really surprised if any of them goes on to be mentioned in the same league as Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid etc.

and bowlers there have been some really good bowlers but they are just not lasting for long time ...like flintoff for 4-5 years was one of the best,bond earlier now morkel potentially is good its just that people arent lasting like mcgrath did for so long now we are seeing anderson bowling really well (any one who can bowl against tendulkar and dominate him is a good bowler his record in sub continent is iffy but not many bowlers perform here) imo quality of cricket is still same..compared two last 2 decades

Again, I would be very surprised if any of these bowlers like Anderson, Morkel etc. finishes as an all time great like McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. I think the quality of cricket has declined, but let's say it has remained the same wasn't it supposed to go up like a rocket over the last 20 years going by the increased competition theory?

[mishra]

@8Ankit In the information age do people really need Wisden to tell them who are best. Where does Murali stands as spinner in their list? Go check that?

[mishra]

So' date=' Morkel is greater than Ambrose because he is playing in a more competitive era?:hatsoff:[/quote'] I would rather do some research before making such sweeping statement I dont feel a need to do that comparison..... If people feel there is a need and they need to recognise Ambrose or change the packing order they can find facts... My interest lies in Bradmans era :D

[8ankitj]

@8Ankit In the information age do people really need Wisden to tell them who are best. Where does Murali stands as spinner in their list? Go check that?

I am talking about the Wisden 100 best innings list. Tendulkar didn't feature in that. Murali features in that list btw, even though the list was published when Murali had just started his ascendancy towards greatness. Do you give Tendulkar 9.9/10? What room does it leave for others in future who might excel at a time Cricket further evolves? Or all evolution turns into devolution post-Tendulkar?

[mishra]

I am talking about the Wisden 100 best innings list. Tendulkar didn't feature in that. Murali features in that list btw, even though the list was published when Murali had just started his ascendancy towards greatness. Do you give Tendulkar 9.9/10? What room does it leave for others in future who might excel at a time Cricket further evolves? Or all evolution turns into devolution post-Tendulkar?

I am talking about all time great list....Find where he stands there... Find out why he stands there??? I will accept your and any other Wisden claim.

[Old guy]

None of them even average 50 in this era of mediocre bowlers and patta wickets after having played 60-70 test matches. I'll be really surprised if any of them goes on to be mentioned in the same league as Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid etc. Again, I would be very surprised if any of these bowlers like Anderson, Morkel etc. finishes as an all time great like McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. I think the quality of cricket has declined, but let's say it has remained the same wasn't it supposed to go up like a rocket over the last 20 years going by the increased competition theory?

i get wht ur saying but im not talking abt how people will finish there careers mcgrath is atg ... and tbh i really dont see many bowlers (fast) playing 100 matches nay more but wht im saying is teams like england,south africa ,and now australia are producing fast bowlers england attack is really good they have players like finn waiting as an attack earlier australia doninated now south africa does but overall level is same but yes bowlers arent lasting for enough years well this is getting of topic sorry if im not clear enough dont have much time ...exams lol

[tothepoint]

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.

How could I miss out on something so GOOD? :hysterical: And all this while everyone thought of Sobers as a batting-allrounder. How wrong they were! Sobers was at best a mediocre bowling-allrounder. Reason being : Poor chap got a 7 for his bowling from the world-renowned ICF expert Bossbhai. Next I am expecting something along these lines. As everybody has accepted these ratings, Sachin The All Rounder(with 13.9 points) > Sobers-The mediocre All Rounder(13 points). These guys can actually rewrite the whole history of cricket.

[Old guy]

None of them even average 50 in this era of mediocre bowlers and patta wickets after having played 60-70 test matches. I'll be really surprised if any of them goes on to be mentioned in the same league as Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid etc. Again, I would be very surprised if any of these bowlers like Anderson, Morkel etc. finishes as an all time great like McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. I think the quality of cricket has declined, but let's say it has remained the same wasn't it supposed to go up like a rocket over the last 20 years going by the increased competition theory?

and abt batsmen i chose these 4 only bcos of this reason they normally dont play on pattas and there record is good on testing tracks an amla in particular looks like complete player and can get 30 odd hundreds! his last 2 hudreds against australia showed his class chasing target on that track was really good effort he is like next dravid :D

[The Outsider]

How could I miss out on something so GOOD? :hysterical: And all this while everyone thought of Sobers as a batting-allrounder. How wrong they were! Sobers was at best a mediocre bowling-allrounder. Reason being : Poor chap got a 7 for his bowling from the world-renowned ICF expert Bossbhai. Next I am expecting something along these lines. As everybody has accepted these ratings, Sachin The All Rounder(with 13.9 points) > Sobers-The mediocre All Rounder(13 points). These guys can actually rewrite the whole history of cricket.

Sorry, you are late. Been there, done that : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

In other words the Gap between SRT the bowler and Sobers the Bowler is not as wide as SRT the Batsman and Sobers the Batsman.

[Raghav_12]

Yeah' date=' if you look at that kind of continuity, you see that cricket wasn't exactly third rate in Bradman's time. Those who had the privilege to watch Bradman to Sobers to Viv to Tendulkar have never expressed any such view. Take Richie Benaud for example.[/quote'] The way this logic of continuity has been applied doesn't prove anything and it's application has been forced fit to come up with pre-determined. Using this kinda logic I can prove that 9.93 equal to 9.58. Calvin Smith held record for 100m dash at start of 80's with 9.93 seconds. But he competed with Ben Johnson and Ben Johnson in turn competed with Carl Lewis and Carl Lewis had one healthy rivalry with Leroy Burrell for long. These guys used to compete with Fredricks who in turn competed with the next champion Donovan Bailley. Donovan Bailley competed with next set of champions like Maurice Green and Tim Montgomery. Later on these guys competed with likes of Gatlin and Asfa Powell. And now Asfa Powell competes with Tyson Gay and Bolt. And we all know that Bolt can run 9.58. So by applied logic of continuity 9.93 = 9.58. Statements of likes of Richie Benaud though hold some value but are full with romanticism towards past. It is as unlikely to hear from Richie Benaud that quality of cricket was poor in Bradman's time as to hear from a rural old man that nowadays guys are stronger than his times. Do you think any journalist who has covered both Lewis and Bolt would say that Lewis was crap?? And if you go by individual statements of experts than I would quote Vivian Richards who told clearly that Sachin is greatest ever. I am sure that when Richards emerged there were people around who had closely followed Bradman and would have passed on to Richards how great Bradman was. And why so much noise around some random statement of Sobers that he found Miller and Lindwall most difficult? Sachin has spoken in Media that he found Cronje most difficult? So 30-40 years down the line somebody would argue that Cronje was better than Donald as Sachin did tell so.

[Old guy]

Sorry, you are late. Been there, done that : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

:cantstop:

[The Outsider]

LMAO! Now Lindwall is like Cronje after Agarkar and Prabhakar! You can't make this up!:hysterical:

[Raghav_12]

If people keep basing their argument for supremacy of Bradman around his average of 99.94, than they actually putting a self-defeating argument without realizing it. In any sport any performance measure has to improve over a period of time. In athletics, sprinters keep reducing their times which is their performance measure. Jumpers keep increasing length or heights of their jumps. Weighlifters keep increasing weight which is their performance measure. Now if in any sport performance measure is not getting improved over a long period of time, that means either that performance measure is not true measure sporting skills of person or that performance measure is more reflection of other factors which defined sports in that era. If it is first case, than it is absurd to say that Bradman was greatest ever because he holds best average ever, and if it is second case then his average holds no relevance in other eras. One serious question to all the posters here who have managed to keep an open mind on this debate. How many think that Batting Average is reflection of batting skills? Second point, I believe all of us would agree that batting skills have improved continuously through out history of cricket, though some may say to very little extent and some would say to very great extent. Now logically speaking, if Batting skills are improving and batting averages are reflection of batting skills, then should not best batting average be increasing continuously like any other record in sport? If that is not the happening then we are judging batting greatness on basis of some absurd number.

[The Outsider]

Oh my, this keeps getting better. Comparing a sport in which batsmen and bowlers are competing against each other directly to sprinting and weightlifting! I don't see 200 points being scored in a game of Basketball by a team yet, so points scored in Basketball has no relevance. :hysterical:

[tothepoint]

Sorry, you are late. Been there, done that : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

:hysterical: Now that makes me jealous. Should have joined ICF long time back. How I wish I could turn back time!