If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[8ankitj]

+1 As cricket fans, it is better to put jingoism aside when judging cricketers ..... We forget at times that no one is actually paying us to toot their horns so why not give a fair opinion If SRT were not an Indian, I doubt many here would even bother arguing his case .... He would be another Lara, Ponting, kallis, ....

:agree: and the funny thing is that Bradman is the not the only cricketer that trumps Tendulkar. If a fair list of greatest cricketers of all time is made, likes of Sobers, Imran, Murali, Hadlee etc should come ahead. Viv, Marshall, Hobbs, Barnes, Miller etc will have a fair case to be rated higher too. We really need to grow up.

[8ankitj]

Lots of poeople on this thread have spent time debating facts and arguing. You jump into this thread' date=' most probably without reading any of the posts and make the above statement. to you it might look cool, to others you just seem a 12 year old trying too hard[/quote'] I don't see why I have to read all the posts when I did not specifically say anything about the posts in the thread. I know for a fact that there are tons of Tendulkar fans out there (YouTube and Cricinfo comments) who just cannot stand the fact that Bradman is regarded the greatest batsman and my post is directed at them. You think if Bradman was born Indian all these discussions would happen?

[Magneto]

:agree: and the funny thing is that Bradman is the not the only cricketer that trumps Tendulkar. If a fair list of greatest cricketers of all time is made' date= likes of Sobers, Imran, Murali, Hadlee etc should come ahead. Viv, Marshall, Hobbs, Barnes, Miller etc will have a fair case to be rated higher too. We really need to grow up.

You forgot Yusuf Pathan.

[zen]

Thats why most experts of the game' date=' Wisden, commentators, current players, ex players, critics, all place him above all the players you mentioned. But hey, they are all wrong and Rett is right because he invented RPT[/quote'] To me most of these guys are in the same league, but they can be ranked in the league, no?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Lots of poeople on this thread have spent time debating facts and arguing. You jump into this thread' date=' most probably without reading any of the posts and make the above statement. to you it might look cool, to others you just seem a 12 year old trying too hard[/quote'] It appears as if it's you who is jumping on to him :hysterical:

[zen]

:agree: and the funny thing is that Bradman is the not the only cricketer that trumps Tendulkar. If a fair list of greatest cricketers of all time is made' date= likes of Sobers, Imran, Murali, Hadlee etc should come ahead. Viv, Marshall, Hobbs, Barnes, Miller etc will have a fair case to be rated higher too. We really need to grow up.

Absolutely

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Are you saying that the full video contains footage that is comparable in standards to the bowling greats of SRT's time ? If so who are these bowlers ? You got any names ? Every time I ask this question you quietly side step that question. I wonder why. How would you know this ? Are you clairvoyant ?

*the iPad's browser keeps crashing, having to rewrite* Whether the bowlers bowl at 90 or 100 mph has nothing to do with measuring the reflexes, which can be judged in the nets too, or someone rating that knock highly. In the same way, I would know that tend could do well facing 180 kmph bowler without him actually facing one .... Ppl like u term it as clairvoyance :winky:

[akshayxyz]

So you going to enlighten us by listing all those "cooked up" facts anytime soon or is it just going to be another case of you ranting and raving ?

any and almost every thing but RPT. RPT is in same league as universal constants like Pi, e, G...etc.

[8ankitj]

So you going to enlighten us by listing all those "cooked up" facts anytime soon or is it just going to be another case of you ranting and raving ?

Another case? I am not even a day old, and I already have a reputation. Chill out mate :) As for cooked up facts, all this talk of Bradman playing amateurish bowlers gets to my nerves. Guess what, I do agree that the attacks he faced were poorer than what Tendulkar and others have faced in the more recent era. But that cannot obliterate the >40 point difference between their averages. I think (and that's sort of just a guess) Bradman would have averaged about 80 odd, if he played today. Born in his day, Bradman's job was to score runs in his times. Born in his day, Tendulkar's job was to score runs in his times. While Bradman did it to an extent that no one else in his times came even close to, Tendulkar averages below a few batsmen of his time (which is not necessarily to say that those batsmen are better than him). How about the fact that Bradman's average in his worst series (the infamous bodyline) is similar to Tendulkar's career average? How about the fact that Bradman's average in tests is better than Tendulkar's in domestic first class? Let's just give it up. There's no credibility to our agenda driven, jingoistic arguments :)

[yoda]

Lots of poeople on this thread have spent time debating facts and arguing. You jump into this thread' date=' most probably without reading any of the posts and make the above statement. to you it might look cool, to others you just seem a 12 year old trying too hard[/quote'] Which is exactly what the OP did while creating this thread, ignoring all the previous threads on the topic of Bradman.

[zen]

Another case? I am not even a day old, and I already have a reputation. Chill out mate :) As for cooked up facts, all this talk of Bradman playing amateurish bowlers gets to my nerves. Guess what, I do agree that the attacks he faced were poorer than what Tendulkar and others have faced in the more recent era. But that cannot obliterate the >40 point difference between their averages. I think (and that's sort of just a guess) Bradman would have faced about 80 odd, if he played today. Born in his day, Bradman's job was to score runs in his times. Born in his day, Tendulkar's job was to score runs in his times. While Bradman did it to an extent that no one else in his times came even close to, Tendulkar averages below a few batsmen of his time (which is not necessarily to say that those batsmen are better than him). How about the fact that Bradman's average in his worst series (the infamous bodyline) is better than Tendulkar's career average? How about the fact that Bradman's average in tests is better than Tendulkar's in domestic first class? Let's just give it up. There's no credibility to our agenda driven, jingoistic arguments :)

Nice post!

[yoda]

Another case? I am not even a day old, and I already have a reputation. Chill out mate :) As for cooked up facts, all this talk of Bradman playing amateurish bowlers gets to my nerves. Guess what, I do agree that the attacks he faced were poorer than what Tendulkar and others have faced in the more recent era. But that cannot obliterate the >40 point difference between their averages. I think (and that's sort of just a guess) Bradman would have faced about 80 odd, if he played today. Born in his day, Bradman's job was to score runs in his times. Born in his day, Tendulkar's job was to score runs in his times. While Bradman did it to an extent that no one else in his times came even close to, Tendulkar averages below a few batsmen of his time (which is not necessarily to say that those batsmen are better than him). How about the fact that Bradman's average in his worst series (the infamous bodyline) is better than Tendulkar's career average? How about the fact that Bradman's average in tests is better than Tendulkar's in domestic first class? Let's just give it up. There's no credibility to our agenda driven, jingoistic arguments :)

Welcome to ICF!

[mishra]

My brain still cant understand one thing. How can a very small set of elite people who work in day time for a living and play cricket on weekend or after work or during a series timecan be better than someone who is playing professional cricket with access to gym, coaches and ;large pool of competetiors. Do people here really understand what PROFESSIONAL sports versus a non professional sports means. Can someone enlighten me please.

[zen]

My brain still cant understand one thing. How can a very small set of elite people who work in day time for a living and play cricket on weekend or after work or during a series timecan be better than someone who is playing professional cricket with access to gym, coaches and ;large pool of competetiors. Do people here really understand what PROFESSIONAL sports versus a non professional sports means. Can someone enlighten me please.

So jadeja/shastri> mankad? If i m not wrong, mankad used to sleep outside cricket stadiums. And in its early yrs, ind was able to compete becoz of players like him.

[mishra]

Another case? I am not even a day old, and I already have a reputation. Chill out mate :) As for cooked up facts, all this talk of Bradman playing amateurish bowlers gets to my nerves. Guess what, I do agree that the attacks he faced were poorer than what Tendulkar and others have faced in the more recent era. But that cannot obliterate the >40 point difference between their averages. I think (and that's sort of just a guess) Bradman would have averaged about 80 odd, if he played today. Born in his day, Bradman's job was to score runs in his times. Born in his day, Tendulkar's job was to score runs in his times. While Bradman did it to an extent that no one else in his times came even close to, Tendulkar averages below a few batsmen of his time (which is not necessarily to say that those batsmen are better than him). How about the fact that Bradman's average in his worst series (the infamous bodyline) is similar to Tendulkar's career average? How about the fact that Bradman's average in tests is better than Tendulkar's in domestic first class? Let's just give it up. There's no credibility to our agenda driven, jingoistic arguments :)

I was really surprised at the lack of common sense when someone compares 500-1000 elite cricket enthusiats (Not Cricketers) to that population of Holland :(( .... P(1)= X truth hence if P(K) = X truth P (K+1)= X truth Hence P(infinity)= X truth {or atleast over 1.5 billion} Problem with that interpretation of Bradman lover is K should be considered to be any number , And not a small subset where integer between 1-10,000. The anomaly resulting in truth is because number is subset. If someone is claiming that Skill,Training,Physical strength, stamina, commitment, professionalism,spotting is similar to that of modern day standard is just complete crap. I am not saying that Bradman wouldnt have played as professional cricketer in modern era. What I am trying to say is "lack of above qualities in 1930s cricket isnt Bradmans fault" can not be used as EXCUSE to compare his records witjh professional cricket. So Statement that Bradman was best bat ever (even when made by International cricketers) is just either ignorance or a lie or ganging up or just utter crap. Undoubtebly He is best batsman of 1930s. He did won Ashes several times.:winky: I have already admitted CA/MCC needed a hero to develop cricket in 30s and post world war era. Should that give me right to be greatest batsman? I seriously doubt it

So why did Bradmans era achieved different result. Because function was not P(X) But it was P'(X). Also its not cooked up facts. Its cooked up myths

[CSK Fan]

Which is exactly what the OP did while creating this thread' date=' ignoring all the previous threads on the topic of Bradman.[/quote'] The OP was a completely satarical piece and similar articles have been done by me on many Indian cricketers too. Surely you could see that it was meant to be funny? Havent you read any of my thread before? There was no protests when I made fun of Bhajji, rohit Sharma, Sachin, but suddenly just because this thread mentions Bradman his 'worshippers' have objections? Yes, its time to call them 'worshippers' because the fact that they would they a fictional article seriously puts them into the realms of fanatics IMO

[yoda]

The OP was a completely satarical piece and similar articles have been done by me on many Indian cricketers too. Surely you could see that it was meant to be funny? Havent you read any of my thread before? There was no protests when I made fun of Bhajji' date=' rohit Sharma, Sachin, but suddenly just because this thread mentions Bradman his 'worshippers' have objections? Yes, its time to call them 'worshippers' because the fact that they would they a fictional article seriously puts them into the realms of fanatics IMO[/quote'] My bad, I mistook this thread to be mishathegreat's thread about Bradman being overrated. Once these threads digress from the OP and then diverge to the common theme of demeaning Bradman and trivializing his performance, they all feel the same.

[carnish]

Another case? I am not even a day old, and I already have a reputation. Chill out mate :) As for cooked up facts, all this talk of Bradman playing amateurish bowlers gets to my nerves. Guess what, I do agree that the attacks he faced were poorer than what Tendulkar and others have faced in the more recent era. But that cannot obliterate the >40 point difference between their averages. I think (and that's sort of just a guess) Bradman would have averaged about 80 odd, if he played today. Born in his day, Bradman's job was to score runs in his times. Born in his day, Tendulkar's job was to score runs in his times. While Bradman did it to an extent that no one else in his times came even close to, Tendulkar averages below a few batsmen of his time (which is not necessarily to say that those batsmen are better than him). How about the fact that Bradman's average in his worst series (the infamous bodyline) is similar to Tendulkar's career average? How about the fact that Bradman's average in tests is better than Tendulkar's in domestic first class? Let's just give it up. There's no credibility to our agenda driven, jingoistic arguments :)

Nice work!!!