Old guy Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 absolutely ... why do you think otherwise ? bcos..bowling was different,pitches were different even bat was different the way u score runs was different there were no odis ..many shots sachin plays like paddle sweep,flicks fro outside off some times those lofted shots those werent that popular u know in that era..
Guest BossBhai Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Guest BossBhai Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Old guy Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 He plays in a conventional manner in Test cricket. And with trundlers galore why is it that hard to believe he would succeed ? when did i say he wont succeed ? i just said he wont play like this in that era. seriously speaking i dont care :--D so leave it im not the one who has any problem with sachin or bradman :cantstop:
Ultimate_Game Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 Its the bowlers he faced and the limited type of surfaces that he played amongst many other things. why don't you tell us some names of fast bowlers that you would rank above these : McGrath' date='Waz,Waq,Imran,Shoaib,Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Bond ?[/quote'] If it was so easy to score runs in that era pray tell me why Bradman was the only one to do so? I mean nowhere else even got close to averaging 100 then or anytime ever. As for "limited type of surfaces" those were the days of uncovered pitches and no field restrictions and no 1 or 2 bouncer rule. There were instances where teams used to get caught on a dog of a pitch, e.g., a game where Eng were bundled out cheaply on a wet pitch and Aus sent its tail in first and were 5 down for 40 and Bradman batted at 6 or so and got a double 100. Surely the pitch wouldn't have eased to such an extent to allow him an easy 200? Maybe you should read my previous post in full.
Guest BossBhai Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
tothepoint Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 If it was so easy to score runs in that era pray tell me why Bradman was the only one to do so? I mean nowhere else even got close to averaging 100 then or anytime ever. Agree and ultimately it comes down to how one rate his contemporaries. Batsmen like Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton and Headley. I and for that matter anyone arguing for Bradman would rate them as better batsmen than modern day bats who average 35-40 and here I am not talking about the technical aspect. If they are rated equal as batsmen averaging 35 these days, that would still give Bradman a respectable average of about 58.3(using simple division,60/35=1.7143,99.94/1.7143=58.3).
Ultimate_Game Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 Dont respond to a question with a question. Pls answer my question I posted in my previous post. Who are those bowlers from the 30s and 40s that YOU are convinced are equal to the current day greats that has made you to compare 99.94 vs 55.44 ? I will get to all of your questions in due course ( I already have done this elsewhere a million times lol ) The one thing I do know is that Bradman outdistanced his peers and other by a huge margin. If it were a 100 m sprint Bradman would have crossed the finishing line when others were 10 m behind. As I said batsmen can't even average 100 over a series whereas Bradman did it throughout his career. Hell, SRT can't even outdistance his peers forget him being anywhere close to Bradman.
Guest BossBhai Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Ultimate_Game Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 I will show you how it can be done the moment you come up with names of fast bowlers from 30s and 40s that were equivalent in skill to the names I posted in post#63. The fact that no one from Bradmans time could manage it only means that he was far better than his peers. It doesnt mean that it is true forever. Please pray enlighten us how averaging 100 can be done and for starters let's go with Larwood, Voce, Bill Bowes and Gubby Allen as 3 of the bowlers in Bradman's era. Maybe Indian team should have you as the batting coach :giggle: Yes Bradman was better than his peers and may well be surpassed by someone in the future. But at this moment and till now nobody's done that and till now Bradman is heads and shoulders above the rest.
Guest BossBhai Posted February 12, 2012 Posted February 12, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Lurker Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 What's this got to do with generation stuff? I have been watching cricket for a really long time. Possibly you have watched much more. Would really appreciate if you can share your opinions on Barnes. Without sounding elitist, or generalist if you will, I do think there is an element of generation here at play. By no means I am suggesting everyone from my generation knew Barnes or that nobody from your generation does, but generally speaking the knowledge seems to be on the downer. Typically how you come to know about past cricketers is rather simple. You either read cricketing books OR you check some past scores/records etc to know how things were in yesteryears OR as every fan delights in doing - check all time greatest XI. Now if you do any of these 3 exercises you will Syd Barnes name pop up right with the greatest of them. Barnes is a regular in All time World XI, Ashes XI and English XI. Now you do have a point that in modern cricket his records may have been different, we just do not know. Which is why often a line is drawn in the sand by seperating players before WWII and after. I am not trying to discourage you to question but perhaps more on questions itself. You end up looking at videos from 1901 to compare players. I am supposing you also watch cinemas that were made in 1901? Or the music composed in 1901?? There is a chance you dont. And for a reason. The techonology, or lack thereof. If it is true in arts and cinema it is true in cricket too. Till late 80s cricket in India was also one-dimensions. Camera were placed at one end and every alternate over you saw the back of the batsmen. Too often bowlers seem to bowl from half their regular run-ups, often seeming pedestrian. If you looked at just that angle and compare to today chances are even Praveen Kumar would look faster than Kapil Dev. and this was only 20 years ago. By the way dont go by highlights. If somebody composed a highlights of the current Aussie trip and then showed it 30 years later SRT would look like an average player at best, Dravid and Laxman would look like a complete joke. xxx
Guest BossBhai Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Guest Dinga Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 What we are going to gain by continuosly discussing who is great or not...its not going to improve anyones knowledge about cricket or give any financial benefits... why cant we just move on and enjoy the game than indulging in such controversial issues....
CG Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 The Biggest Proof that previous generation bowlers were not as quick,{I repeat i am not comparing ability} as current generation bowlers is The - No matter how good you are as a batsman if you have guys like akhtar or lee bowling at 155km/h you will be seriously hurt with out a helmet.When lee came in australia and akhtar even though they were 145km/h ,It was difficult for batsman as they had recently not faced even 145km/h bowling.
rkt.india Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Can someone explain to me in very simple words how the fudge is the camera making a really good fast bowler in that video look like a trundler given that there is million square inches of articles written about him claiming to be a "Fast Bowler" and indeed so does Cricinfo. The relevant footage to comment on is @ around 2:00 http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17059.html Foremost quick bowler:cantstop:
zen Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Naah ... you cant learn much by watching footage ... that too from the Doordarshan broadcast ... if that was the case everybody would play fast bowling with ease. If you havent got the skills to put bat on ball nothing will help. We are talking about adding parts to create a sum. In that respect, video footage does help. If it didn't, then video analysis would not have much meaning .... coaching, evolution, videos, etc all add up to help cricketers prepare better Reg Coaching : Coaching of the sort Tendulkar got has been available for a long long time before the 80s. The best thing Achrekar did was to leave his Technique alone so I don't know what specific benefit he would have gotten by being coached by Achrekar. Out of the literally thousands of aspiring cricketers that were coached by Achrekar only 3 or 4 played for India. That right there tells me that unless you are born with natural abilities there is very little a coach can do to make you a better cricketer. If that's the case then it is moot to discuss based 'quality of cricket' as we can judge Tendulkar's natural abilities even if he played against BD. And as I had said before, he was brought in to national team at 16 because of that Yeah but your analogy is wrong because this doesn't apply to cricket in terms of harm. Unlike in the case of Lindbergh vs Modern Pilots the challenge of putting bat to ball hasn't been made easy by any modern equipment. If you are talking about general technique then yes. The best example is of Ranji .. he figured out the Leg Glance and opened up a new area to score runs. Does that mean we treat him as the best batsman ? No you cant. Nor can we trash Ranji. You admire their contributions and the part they played in crickets evolution. It doesnt necessarily mean that they were the best of ALL Times. Today there are players that play that stroke against faaar better and faster bowlers which requires more skill and it is this aspect of cricket that is being debated here. I am referring to evolution of cricket and in general from a broader perspective but talking about 'harm' protective gear helps too, along with things like better bats ..... if you think today's players play far better, it could be because of evolution (Lindbergh vs modern pilots)
vvvslaxman Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 It is if you are brainwashed by propaganda written by Cardus fingleton Wisden etc ... But now that all the video footage has surfaced its becomming very hard to doggedly argue for the sake of arguing isnt it ? No What if i stick to my opinion. You simply cannot prove my friend. You cannot change me even in million years :) Here you go.. let me track back.. I say atleast 10 batsmen in 1930s era are better than sachin. Prove me wrong . Here is your assignment. :winky:
Guest BossBhai Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Ultimate_Game Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 BUMP. Anybody ? What anybody? It's pretty obvious Bradman was heads and shoulders above anyone else and Tendulkar will struggle to even come on top against Kallis.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now