Jump to content

A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics

Guest BossBhai

By Guest BossBhai
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted

Bossbhai - You have taken every exposure of your dishonesty and manipulativeness and categorized it as a " potshot" , "insult" ..and then started getting personal and abusive. Please show me where I took any " potshot " at you before you started an abusive rampage. Throughout this topic, you are only person who has abused at the drop of a hat everyone disagreeing with your lies. It is there for everyone to see. Be it, The Outsider, Rett, Lurker, me or others. Regarding this topic per se, no one was probably even born here when Bradman played cricket. So who the hell is anybody to make a qualified judgement on the bowlers of that era ? If you think you are fit enough to make a judgement by running some statistics database and playing some 70 year old black and white videos..then you make further mockery of yourself. Or are you indicating that for 20-30 years or so during his time, all bowlers were average/mediocre trundlers ? You are beyond help, my friend. I hope you are getting paid well by Tendulkar's PR team. For that seems to be your FullTime job.

Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
^ PP dont bring money into picture...have seen whole threads explodes due to such debates
Let the truth be told, Bossbhai's passive expectations from someone who he claims to swear by during the match when our team was in big trouble, exposes agenda and being faithful to your paymaster. Nothing else. Throughout this topic he has been dishonest and abusive at the same time. An ATG no doubt, beyond a record aggregate tally accumulated as a function of playing record games, there is nothing that can prove that SRT was as good in tests as Viv Richards, Sunny, Sobers, Lara..etc. Where objective criteria like ranking are brought in..SRT's expected lower standing viz past greats is throughly exposed . It cannot be that someone who has been made such a monster can top official cricket ratings for only 3-4 out of 22 years. Don is in a separate league all together.
Link to comment
Aussie-r-best Newbie

Aussie-r-best

Posted
Posted
The point was that SRT>DBG because SRT faced better bowling attack and there is no proof that DBG can adjust to modern standards Now when we take Sachin's peers and the bowling attacks most of them faced, we get the above table. (Showing avg against respective teams when two of their best bowlers are playing. If this doesn't count for a strong bowling attack then nothing does) In short: vs Aus: with both McGrath and Warne playing vs Pak: with both Wasim and waqar playing Vs SA: with both Donald and Pollock playing vs SA: with both Murali and Vaas playing vs WI: with both Ambrose and Walsh playing Appears as if no one wants to do the hard work to get those avgs. You can't just get those by selecting bowlers randomly. You have to do it for each combination and work it out on an excel file Ppl are expected to know what that means .... :winky: The case is closed .... No point in discussing further unless you want to get into their mumble jumble
Lets see those players named above play without meaningful protective equipment and then see how confident they are to get on the front foot and attack the way they have done in 'their eras'. The answer has been stated a number of times, simply the players SRT, DGB and BCL are from different eras (while SRT and BCL played in the same time for parts of their carrers). You cannot with any authority, conviction or expectation of validity claim Walsh and Ambrose are better or worse than Jardine and Larwood in the 20s and 30s. The comparison is irrelevant and one that if resolved IMO adds nothing to cricket. BCL, DGB and SRT are absolute greats of the game - FULL STOP. There are other greats but these will stand out in time. Please move on, there is no win here for anyone to prove they have done the best research and have better numbers than the next guy and the rest of the juvinile, ASSININE remarks being made. This debate has gone so far off topic it is unbelievable.
Link to comment
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted

BB you argue that based on any world 11 by neutral fans there are no world class bowlers during 30 and 40's.. But the same Neutral world 11 are have Bradman as first name in the list.. On what basis then they pick Bradman if there are no ATG during that period..isnt they hypocrites for picking Bradman in that 11 when they cant identify single ATG...may be they are not as neutral as u thought..

Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted

The million dollar question still remains unanswered - How come a hyped record holder like falls so low of past greats in the official cricket rankings - when rankings for other players vindicate their utter supremacy during their careers ? Pick ranking chart of any ATG, bowler or batter...SRT shows out to be very mediocre relatively

Link to comment
bunny Newbie

bunny

Posted
Posted

Havent posted here in a long time, but wanted to share my opinions. I think there is a confusion regarding technique vs statistics. In my view, if we are to consider orthodox technique, then any modern batsman would be better than Bradman. In the pre-helmet era, batsmen used to hang in the back foot, and one would like to believe that they would be troubled by swing. At the same time, there have been modern batsmen like S Waugh and Laxman, who tend to hang in the backfoot, and are vulnerable to outswingers, but still made a mountain of runs against very good oppositions. By the way this kind of unorthodox technique is also evident in the defence of a Sobers, Richards and others. Both their feet would be in the crease, and they would just defend very close to their legs. If I am a bowler, I'd be very encouraged by this, but it's unclear whether I will get the wicket. The batsmen of the yore didn't possess really great techniques against spinners either, and I am pretty sure that a Warne or a Mural would have bamboozled them. But techniques against spinners has really evolved with time, as and when great spinners burst on the scene. At the same time, I'd definitely consider SRT's frontfoot technique (along with that of Kallis') to be easily one of the best of all times. And with an adequate backfoot technique, and an excellent technique against spinners (both of which Kallis lacks), he would definitely be in the top 3 of all time wrt technique. But, modern batsmen also tend to be over-aggressive, tend to push a lot, and just the lack of patience does them in. (this also includes the modern greats). In summary, wrt technique, I'd always first prefer the modern greats, and a few players from the 70s/80s if I have to choose an all time XI. That said, technique has evolved with time, and post helmet era batsmen also have had a massive advantage. Coupled this with the fact that mortals like Laxman, Waugh and Sehwag average so high, it's unclear how much orthodox technique matters in deciding the best of all time. Regarding statistics, I am pretty sure, SRT cannot be the best player of all time. If so, there have to be at least 10 other candidates.

Link to comment
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
This is because of the stature and positioning of Bradman. It is sacrilegious to question Bradman and you will get ridiculed called all sorts of names if you question him. This very thread is a live example. He has gotten positioned there for his exploits and then it got etched in stone. The Bradman gang pretty much ran cricket administration for many many yrs and got his legend etched into folklore. Half truths and sometimes lies got propagated and converted into "facts" thru repeated re-telling. Prior to the internet age there was no easy way of cross checking this. A very simple example is Bradmans scoring rate. People used to stoutly beleive that he scored his runs at a rate of near about run a ball because the balls faced used to be omitted in the final scorecard. Come the internet age they re-scored about 80% of his runs and it turns out that his scoring rate was nowhere close to what it was believed to be. The next obvious myth is about Bodyline which I have explained in detail earlier. But such is the extent of brainwashing that it is very very hard to undo. Just look at you ... here even after producing video footage you are stoutly refusing to believe your own eyes.
then why the same Neutral guys are not Brainwashed into make some bowlers from that era to be included in those lists...it should have authenticted it..do you think Bradman and gang didnt thought about that ?
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
This is because of the stature and positioning of Bradman. It is sacrilegious to question Bradman and you will get ridiculed called all sorts of names if you question him. This very thread is a live example. He has gotten positioned there for his exploits and then it got etched in stone. The Bradman gang pretty much ran cricket administration for many many yrs and got his legend etched into folklore. Half truths and sometimes lies got propagated and converted into "facts" thru repeated re-telling.
Yeah .. and you and the " gang " are doing the same for Tendulkar. Ditto. Talk about pot calling the Kettle black. This would be the most blatant example. Atleast Bradman justified it by standing 2 stories above the next best in averages in his era or any era. SRT has struggled to stand apart in his own era, let alone the others. And official rankings just expose SRT so ruthlessly. I hope his records stand for eternity ( built around playing a WC number of games) for that will be his most dominating legacy perhaps only legacy as an ATG. I'll prefer a Brian Lara, Steve Waugh, Viv Richards, Sunny, Sobers ..any day of the week in a test side.
Link to comment
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted

^ BB argument was fine till you brought up Brainwash angle... I dont have data for what you are asking...my point of view is Just pace alone wopnt make much we have to factor all other things which are linked together... Looks like you are simply clinging to one factor and blame others for not providing details.. This is not School exams where you mark the first question and go to the next...we have to consider all factors when debating rather than just what you consider as most important point... By the way i am not Brainwahsed by Bradman niether want to by BB

Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted

^^ Dumdumdigadiga, Don't you see the obvious. Mr Bossbhai, knows no one present here could have watched cricket then but he thinks he actually has the ability to gauge cricket and bowlers in the in the 30's and 40's by virtue of statsguru and expects others to do the same. hehehehe...And when people pop up some of the great bowler names of that era ..he will pop up some black and white 70 yr old videos of their bowling and claim that for 3 decades test cricket had pop gun bowling...hehehehe.... " Brilliant " trap in his book, pity that it has been spat on and mocked by all and sundry.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...