If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[8ankitj]

Just to clarify, I am not a Bradman lover or a Bradman worshiper. I have no affection for Bradman in a personal manner. I swear I love Tendulkar more than Bradman, and Dhoni more than both :winky: But that doesn't have to be the order in which I should rate them.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[mishra]

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.

First uderstand difference between term "great batsman" and "better/best batsman".....

[CSK Fan]

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.

You sort of 'guessed' that he will average 80. Some of us sort of 'guess' (not me) that he will average only 50. Your facts are as cooked up as theirs

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).

The fact that Bradman scored runs at a rate no one did in his days and many in Sachin's era did on par with Sachin, proves nothing. Bradman's competitors were not the same as Sachin so the comparison doesnt hold water. Bradman outscored his peers but IMO his peers were much inferior to Sachin's peers

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 :)

How about the fact that even in that series he was facing the same bowlers he faced before and not an Akhtar or a Steyn. How about the fact that mostly he played in the pitches of two countries, pitches very similar to where he was born and played all his life. How about the fact that the number of total international cricketers who played world wide were much less than the pool of cricketers playing domestic cricket in India? How about the fact that since Sachin debuted as a 16 year old, he didnt get to play much domestic cricket? How is your argument not jignostic or agenda driven when you do not start from a neutral ground and have your own bias vis a' vis Bradman? At least Sachin fans accept their bias up front. There is no problem with you siding with Bradman, whom I put above Sachin, but please do not pretend to be neutral or holier than thou. Bradman supporters here (except Outsider IMO) have their own biases and fandom. Their 'fanaticsm' might not be to the player himself but to the idea and opinion which is a result of something they grew up believing. It will be so much easier if they can accept this upfront and argue like fans instead of the pretence they make of taking the neutral ground

[zen]

First of all that difference is not 44 it is about 35ish. Because Bradman only played one real team ( i.e if we are generous enough to consider the England teams of those times as being non-minnows ) . Against Eng he averages 89. SRT averages 54 minus BD. ( Zim teams of the 90s and early 2000s weren't minnows ) Secondly have a look at Batting averages of Modern batsmen against lesser teams like BD Zim ( post 2002 ) and even WI to some extent ... you will find a few batsmen avging in 3 digits. It means absolutely nothing to have such a avg beating up poor bowlers. Want to see footage of that demonic bowler that bowled him for duck in that "Bodyline" test series ? It will shed some serious light on the topic of "cooking". Don't be so naive to believe all that is written about Bradman.

Thats as bad an example of cherry picking that one can find :haha: Look at bradmans avg against minnows too :facepalm: Minnow is a relative term to the stronger team of your time

[zen]

First uderstand difference between term "great batsman" and "better/best batsman".....

So Mankad is better than the pros despite being an amateur or having played in an amateur era ... So I guess the era doesn't count then :hehe:

[mishra]

So Mankad is better than the pros despite being an amateur or having played in an amateur era ... So I guess the era doesn't count then :hehe:

:clap: I was just referring to your frequent use of the terms interchangeably... Hope you got who are definitely better cricketers now. Its time you start arguing based on greatness of the player.

[zen]

You sort of 'guessed' that he will average 80. Some of us sort of 'guess' (not me) that he will average only 50. Your facts are as cooked up as theirs The fact that Bradman scored runs at a rate no one did in his days and many in Sachin's era did on par with Sachin, proves nothing. Bradman's competitors were not the same as Sachin so the comparison doesnt hold water. Bradman outscored his peers but IMO his peers were much inferior to Sachin's peers How about the fact that even in that series he was facing the same bowlers he faced before and not an Akhtar or a Steyn. How about the fact that mostly he played in the pitches of two countries, pitches very similar to where he was born and played all his life. How about the fact that the number of total international cricketers who played world wide were much less than the pool of cricketers playing domestic cricket in India? How about the fact that since Sachin debuted as a 16 year old, he didnt get to play much domestic cricket? How is your argument not jignostic or agenda driven when you do not start from a neutral ground and have your own bias vis a' vis Bradman? At least Sachin fans accept their bias up front. There is no problem with you siding with Bradman, whom I put above Sachin, but please do not pretend to be neutral or holier than thou. Bradman supporters here (except Outsider IMO) have their own biases and fandom. Their 'fanaticsm' might not be to the player himself but to the idea and opinion which is a result of something they grew up believing. It will be so much easier if they can accept this upfront and argue like fans instead of the pretence they make of taking the neutral ground

hmmm, so SRT would be avg 100 in ranjis :--D Dude, , stop making blank statements .... Has it even occurred to you that those who think SRT is not the greatest bat may be loving him more than you .... There is a reason why ppl want fair judges, police, jury, etc

[8ankitj]

Guys, I can't be bothered to get into a laborious argument here. I have had enough of those in both real and cyber life. As for footage that look odd to the modern day eye, remember that those batsmen played in wickets with uneven bounce. Hence they had to make adjustments. They tended to play late. And if I were to go by how a player appears to the naked eye, I would rate Manjeraker better than Chanderpaul. And I feel like saying it again, if Bradman was born Indian, we will not question his supremacy among all batsmen. :dontmentionit:

[zen]

Guys, I can't be bothered to get into a laborious argument here. I have had enough of those in both real and cyber life. As for footage that look odd to the modern day eye, remember that those batsmen played in wickets with uneven bounce. Hence they had to make adjustments. They tended to play late. And if I were to go by how a player appears to the naked eye, I would rate Manjeraker better than Chanderpaul. And I feel like saying it again, if Bradman was born Indian, we will not question his supremacy among all batsmen. :dontmentionit:

How some ppl jumped on you reminds me of my first day on a forum where I said SRT > inzi Here that happens when you say abc>SRT What's the diff b/w these to grps, ESP when some of these folks look to take a higher moral ground when debating against folks of one particular nation

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Magneto]

In short you have no real evidence to back up your "opinions" but will continue to make posts to the effect that people are cooking facts. Brilliant. Ok how do you explain timeless tests and innings lasting 100+ overs on these supposedly dodgy pitches ? And to make matters worse for you Bradman by his own acknowledgment was not a good player on dodgy wickets. Like I have said before many many times ... the moment we start to set aside emotions and look at the bare facts the Bradman fan brigade will resort to the time tested tactics of running down the discussion by hurling smilies and making proclamations. You will do the same things in due course. You have no leg to stand on this debate and since saving face is a big deal for most people even on a stupid anonymous forum you will follow in the footsteps of posters like rett and The Outsider here. Atleast thats what happens to most Bradman fans who jump into these debates fuming and ridiculing those who question his greatness. But if by any rare chance you are actually truly interested in a honest discussion PM me and we can take it offline as online debates tend to get tedious because of the usual suspects running down the discussion and reducing it to a slanging match in no time.

Good post!

[zen]

So what facts have you come up with so far in this debate to prove your point ? Just to recap you jumped into this debate by producing a quote by some random dude on some site as evidence of "dynamite" batting and "reflexes". I went ahead and showed a video clip of the exact same match this dude was talking about . Are you still adamant that the video clip is proving YOUR point ? A simple Yes/No answer please.

cold hard facts: * avg of 100 in 52 tests, played over 2 decades * 29 test 100s in 80 innings * amazing records like 300 in a day, 100 in 3 overs * 50+ avg when the next guy avg was in 40s in probably the toughest series played of all time, the bodyline * likes of wisdon rating Bradman inning of 270 at the top, along with his some other innings * likes of cricinfo choosing players of pre 1970s era * Aus 'invincibles' rated amongst the top 3 teams of all time, along with WI of late 70s and 80s and Aus of 1999-2007 and there is no point in forming an opinion based on a few seconds clip .... if you did I don't know what to say

[zen]

attempts to show srt>bradman is an exercise in'cherry picking' and probably equates to attempts like the one below and thus could be described as 'making up facts' as mentioned by one of the posters I37YPGltHhM

[8ankitj]

The simple fact is that Bradman's average was a huge outlier compared to his contemporaries. If they were all amateurish bowlers, what prevented others from averaging within 30 runs of what Bradman did? The game may have changed a lot since his times (which doesn't necessarily mean it has become harder for batsmen), but outperforming others so freakishly only tells you that he was a freakish athlete and would have done well no matter what era he was born in. Just as Tendulkar would have adjusted to Bradman's era and would have averaged in the same range that Hammond or Suttcliffe did. And nah, much less interested in having a one-on-one debate on this. I only came in to say one thing in this thread - if Bradman was born Indian, we will not question his supremacy among all batsmen.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

So the post where you came up with the names of bowlers comparable to the Ws ' date=' the Donalds, the McGraths the Shoaibs the Lee's the Warnes the Mumu's etc etc that Bradman faced is where exactly ... Facts my *****[/quote'] First let's see how much Sachin avg when the below combination is playing vs his peers: McGrath-Warne Wasim-Waqar Donald-Pollock And if Sachin doesn't come on top, would you be willing to accept that someone like Lara or Waugh would be better than SRT? Yes or No (I will post the stats in a few minutes, no ifs and buts)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --