Technique of batsman in the video : Is it exquisite or not ?

[akshayxyz]

To be fair to Hobbs, it is unfair to ridicule Hobbs technique from that video evidence, when everyone is used to watching modern level of cricket, which has undoubtedly evolved beyond comparison. He was one of the best in his era, that must have been one of the best ways to play during that era.

[Old guy]

so people who voted yes are Manny_Pacquiao, mcenley, panesarv, Priyanka.rdvk, sabby2013, shibnarayan, SLICKR392, The Outsider, Ultimate_Game, vvvslaxman

[vvvslaxman]

vvs, I have not read all your posts. But i think your counter arguments generally seem to have this theme of exposing Tendulkar's flaws. Not sure how this makes your defense of the Hobbs and the Bradmans any credible. Tendulkar may have a dozen flaws, many would argue that he may not even be the greatest of his generation, but none of this justify celebrating all these oldies (who frankly, look like nincompoops in those videos) as the greatest ever. How does Lara or Tendulkar being a questionable no. 1 of their generation make them inferior to Bradman or Hobbs. I rate both of them higher than any of these oldies i have seen on videos. If Bradman's 50 tests in that era is the equivalent of a modern day 200 test career, then Toshack's 12 tests is probably equivalent to a modern day 50 test career, no ? It took 6 months to navigate continents by ship in those days, so sample size should take that factor into account. Remember Lohmann - he played 18 tests (some 30 years before Bradman) and averages about 10 i think with the ball. Going by peer domination theory, he should be the greatest ever bowler to have stepped on the cricketing field.

In each era players had the advantage of playing against ordinary and good. We have had our share of some rubbish bowlers in this current era. With no protective gears, with no real bowling rules bowlers had more than equal share at getting a batsman out those days. Why do everyone cry these days "rules are bent to benefit batsmen more and more". It all evens out in the end. Infact more batsmen average over 50 in the 2000s than before. There is no way of knowing how these guys would have played in that era .. or how they would have played in this era. Bradman is rated highly over others because he was invincible in his era like nobody is invincible in any era against any attack. Even then i am not comparing..Just leave their legacy untainted.. Not just bradman.. including our own Lala AMarnath, vijay merchant, vijay hazare.. everyone.

[Lurker]

Explain to me why Larwood retired? Because he got CA hero out? And if a white bloke says something he automaticall has precedence to what a Indian says :hehe:

I will be right here dude once you tell me who exactly belongs to this "we" camp. Dont move the goal-post. There was little meat in your post and I am too busy to get caught up in mud-slinging. So back to the question. Help me figure out which notable Englishman belongs to this "we" camp. New Zealaders, Saffers etc are next. You can use the time to prep :)

[Lurker]

vvs, I have not read all your posts. But i think your counter arguments generally seem to have this theme of exposing Tendulkar's flaws. Not sure how this makes your defense of the Hobbs and the Bradmans any credible. Tendulkar may have a dozen flaws, many would argue that he may not even be the greatest of his generation, but none of this justify celebrating all these oldies (who frankly, look like nincompoops in those videos) as the greatest ever. How does Lara or Tendulkar being a questionable no. 1 of their generation make them inferior to Bradman or Hobbs. I rate both of them higher than any of these oldies i have seen on videos. If Bradman's 50 tests in that era is the equivalent of a modern day 200 test career, then Toshack's 12 tests is probably equivalent to a modern day 50 test career, no ? It took 6 months to navigate continents by ship in those days, so sample size should take that factor into account. Remember Lohmann - he played 18 tests (some 30 years before Bradman) and averages about 10 i think with the ball. Going by peer domination theory, he should be the greatest ever bowler to have stepped on the cricketing field.

I have NEVER seen Ernie Toshack used to discuss Bradman, except by some loony right here Bumper. By the by 12 test by Ernie Tosack was played in 2 years. Dont compare with Bradman who played across wars.

[Crookbond]

To be fair to Hobbs' date=' i[b']t is unfair to ridicule Hobbs technique from that video evidence, when everyone is used to watching modern level of cricket, which has undoubtedly evolved beyond comparison. He was one of the best in his era, that must have been one of the best ways to play during that era.

Akshay, It's exactly the point which many of us are making. Nothing more than that. Moreover, the poll used the word "exquisite". I am sure (as I said earlier) a lot of people have confused it with other malignant words. Similarly, it will be a cardinal sin to compare bowlers as well. Some person says Larwood is a Vinay Kumar. I'm not sure how does one comprehend that.

[Bumper]

In each era players had the advantage of playing against ordinary and good. We have had our share of some rubbish bowlers in this current era. With no protective gears' date=' with no real bowling rules bowlers had more than equal share at getting a batsman out those days. Why do everyone cry these days "rules are bent to benefit batsmen more and more". It all evens out in the end. [/quote'] No, it does not even out. At least, that's not a straight forward conclusion, otherwise we wont be debating at length here. Before i am poo-poohed as a Tendulkar Bhakt, pause. I am not a Tendulkar Bhakt, infact i think Lara may be a greater bat than him. But give my Indian origins, I keep living in denial. That aside, my opinion on Tendulkar or Lara for that matter, has nothing to do with my opinion on Bradman and Hobbs. With that disclaimer, let me address your point. It does not even out for me, as we are comparing a Kanga league with international league. There are good and bad bowlers in gully cricket too, so is a successful batsman in gully cricket comparable to an international class bat ? It just amazes me how well many of us have been brainwashed by the media about Bradman and Hobbs, to the extent, we simply refuse to believe our own eyes. In every other walk of life, we dont make decisions like that. We dont even buy a friggin vegetable without testing it for perfection. Yet we all unanimously agree that Bradman is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings and this even after seeing the standard of cricket in those days brought out by the videos (like the ones BossBhai has posted in this thread). Flawed argument. More batsmen average 50 in 2000s than 1940s because there are simply more batsmen playing the game. If you are talking relative to the 90s and 80s, that's a different story. No one is contesting Viv Richard's greatness (who played in the 80s), when the standard of cricket is as good or even better than it is today. That just means he was better than his peers. I urge you to look at videos & trust your own eyes. Not fall for the endless media propaganda about Bradman & the likes. I mentioned about "cognitive dissonance" before. If you grew up believing in X and you later discover evidence to the contrary, your mind will work towards restoring your belief in X. That is how humans are programmed to think. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but majority of the Bradman proponents are simply victims of cognitive dissonace, they have no idea what they are touting.

[Lurker]

Flawed argument. More batsmen average 50 in 2000s than 1940s because there are simply more batsmen playing the game. If you are talking relative to the 90s and 80s' date=' that's a different story. [b']No one is contesting Viv Richard's greatness (who played in the 80s), when the standard of cricket is as good or even better than it is today.

You sure about that? There are enough experts who take potshots on the overrated Viv with his 47 runs average in last x Tests.

[akshayxyz]

No, it does not even out. At least, that's not a straight forward conclusion, otherwise we wont be debating at length here. Before i am poo-poohed as a Tendulkar Bhakt, pause. I am not a Tendulkar Bhakt, infact i think Lara may be a greater bat than him. But my Indian origins, keeps living in denial. That aside, my opinion on Tendulkar or Lara for that matter, has nothing to do with my opinion on Bradman and Hobbs. With that disclaimer, let me address your point. It does not even out for me, as we are comparing a Kanga league with international league. There are good and bad bowlers in gully cricket too, so is a successful batsman in gully cricket comparable to an international class bat ? It just amazes how well many of us have been brainwashed by the media about Bradman and Hobbs, to the extent, we simply refuse to believe our own eyes. In every other walk of life, we dont make decisions like that. We dont even buy a friggin vegetable without testing it for perfection. Yet we all unanimously agree that Bradman is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings and this even after seeing the standard of cricket in those days brought out by the videos (like the ones BossBhai has posted in this thread). Flawed argument. More batsmen average 50 in 2000s than 1940s because there are simply more batsmen playing the game. If you are talking relative to the 90s and 80s, that's a different story. No one is contesting Viv Richard's greatness (who played in the 80s), when the standard of cricket is as good or even better than it is today. That just means he was better than his peers. I urge you to look at videos & trust your own eyes. Not fall for the endless media propaganda about Bradman & the likes. I mentioned about "cognitive dissonance" before. If you grew up believing in X and you later discover evidence to the contrary, your mind will work towards restoring your belief in X. That is how humans are programmed to think. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but majority of the Bradman proponents are simply victims of cognitive dissonace, they have no idea what they touting.

While I do not subscribe to the idea of judging oldies from video footages, when our eyes are used to see much different form/level of cricket today. Here are few examples/points - to show how/why it is possible to find outliers (the key metric that places DGB ahead of everyone else) in not-so-competitive sport and why old era was more of amateurish than professionally competitive. - Indian snooker scene is pretty much isolated from international/professional scene. All of the Indian national snooker players are amateurs. One can clearly see how Pankaj Advani is miles ahead of his peers. And he has no exposure professional snooker, which might have given him unfair advantage. Compare that to professional scene, where it is practically neck to neck. A professional snooker player in world top 20-30, would pwn Advani 95+ times out of 100. - in DGB's era, there were instances in other sports, where some players were miles ahead of their peers. E.g. Walter Lindrum in Billiards, Joe Davis in snooker, Dhyanchand in Hockey. I am sure there are many more examples few other sports from that era. - Back then, it was not common to see players of age 40+ in international scene. What more, there were only two competitive teams.

[pensionplan]

I have NEVER seen Ernie Toshack used to discuss Bradman, except by some loony right here Bumper.

Bossbhai sees a bit of Akram in Toshack and in fact rates him very highly. Thanks to Bossbhai Toshack is discussed more in this era than when he played or lived.

[pensionplan]

Before i am poo-poohed as a Tendulkar Bhakt' date=' pause. I am not a Tendulkar Bhakt, infact i think Lara may be a greater bat than him. [/quote']Actually if one uses Bossbhai's weird ways of analyzing the game Lara has 9 double centuries in Tests and Tendulkar has 5(excluding BD) in many more innings played and hence Lara is greater. So no worries no one will challenge you if you think Lara may be greater. You are nothing in front of a Bossbhai. Do not be hard on yourself.

[vvvslaxman]

No, it does not even out. At least, that's not a straight forward conclusion, otherwise we wont be debating at length here. Before i am poo-poohed as a Tendulkar Bhakt, pause. I am not a Tendulkar Bhakt, infact i think Lara may be a greater bat than him. But give my Indian origins, I keep living in denial. That aside, my opinion on Tendulkar or Lara for that matter, has nothing to do with my opinion on Bradman and Hobbs. With that disclaimer, let me address your point. It does not even out for me, as we are comparing a Kanga league with international league. There are good and bad bowlers in gully cricket too, so is a successful batsman in gully cricket comparable to an international class bat ? It just amazes me how well many of us have been brainwashed by the media about Bradman and Hobbs, to the extent, we simply refuse to believe our own eyes. In every other walk of life, we dont make decisions like that. We dont even buy a friggin vegetable without testing it for perfection. Yet we all unanimously agree that Bradman is the greatest without ever seeing a footage of a complete Bradman innings and this even after seeing the standard of cricket in those days brought out by the videos (like the ones BossBhai has posted in this thread). .

It evens out for me from the sense there are whole lot of evolvement in cricket over the years. You must factor in those things. You cannot directly compare it. That is where you guys fail big time. How many runs sachin has scored without helmet. 0 runs. Say if Tendulkar was born in 1925 and played cricket for India would he have done better than them? You cannot possibly answer this. Same way If Bradman were to be born in 1980 and played now, would have done well.. you cannot answer that either. If bowling was that bad.. there must have been so many centuries, double centuries triple centuries. I don't see that. Only one guy was able to dominate much more than others. It is quiet an achievement itself. How many triple centuries Sachin has got in Ranji trophy let alone international cricket. Big runs are difficult in any era. That is why there are only 25 triple century makers in the entire history of cricket, 10 of which made post 2000.

[akshayxyz]

It evens out for me from the sense there are whole lot of evolvement in cricket over the years. You must factor in those things. You cannot directly compare it. That is where you guys fail big time. How many runs sachin has scored without helmet. 0 runs. Say if Tendulkar was born in 1925 and played cricket for India would he have done better than them? You cannot possibly answer this. Same way If Bradman were to be born in 1980 and played now' date= would have done well.. you cannot answer that either. If bowling was that bad.. there must have been so many centuries, double centuries triple centuries. I don't see that. Only one guy was able to dominate much more than others. It is quiet an achievement itself. How many triple centuries Sachin has got in Ranji trophy let alone international cricket. Big runs are difficult in any era. That is why there are only 25 triple century makers in the entire history of cricket, 10 of which made post 2000.

Unless you are continuing your trolling spree. "Scoring w/o helmet" is another one of the most ridiculous argument ever. It is not about the fearlessness or lack of it. People who bring this point, just do not understand how (modern) top class professional sportsmen play their game. It is about habit, they are finicky about even few grams of difference in their equipment. If you are used to playing with helmet, it takes time to adjust to playing without one. Besides, playing with helmet is a disadvantage many times e.g. imagine playing with helmet and all other protective gears in a Chennai/Ahmedabad/Mumbai kind of weather.

[Lurker]

Bossbhai sees a bit of Akram in Toshack and in fact rates him very highly. Thanks to Bossbhai Toshack is discussed more in this era than when he played or lived.

lol..Even BB would admit that was funny :giggle:

[Lurker]

Unless you are continuing your trolling spree. "Scoring w/o helmet" is another one of the most ridiculous argument ever. It is not about the fearlessness or lack of it. People who bring this point' date=' just do not understand how (modern) top class professional sportsmen play their game. It is about habit, they are finicky about even few grams of difference in their equipment. If you are used to playing with helmet, it takes time to adjust to playing without one. Besides, playing with helmet is a disadvantage many times e.g. imagine playing with helmet and all other protective gears in a Chennai/Ahmedabad/Mumbai kind of weather.[/quote'] bJgixYRmyYU Ek beamer aur poora commentary team se lekar batsman demanding apology from the bowler. Jeez talk of an entitlement generation. Every batsman admits helmet has extended their career and helped them fight a mental block (against pace bowlers). Quit arguing against it Akshay :winky:

[vvvslaxman]

Unless you are continuing your trolling spree. "Scoring w/o helmet" is another one of the most ridiculous argument ever. It is not about the fearlessness or lack of it. People who bring this point' date=' just do not understand how (modern) top class professional sportsmen play their game. It is about habit, they are finicky about even few grams of difference in their equipment. If you are used to playing with helmet, it takes time to adjust to playing without one.[b'] Besides, playing with helmet is a disadvantage many times e.g. imagine playing with helmet and all other protective gears in a Chennai/Ahmedabad/Mumbai kind of weather.

So they wear helmet because they want to play with a disadvantage.. Great [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daXP5u_x9qo]Shoaib Akhter Ball Hit Tendulkar Head - YouTube[/ame]

[akshayxyz]

bJgixYRmyYU[/] Ek beamer aur poora commentary team se lekar batsman demanding apology from the bowler. Jeez talk of an entitlement generation. Every batsman admits helmet has extended their career and helped them fight a mental block (against pace bowlers). Quit arguing against it Akshay :winky:

As I said, you seem to be one of the folks who don't ( or just refuse to) understand how top sportsmen approach their game. Your refusal to accept the fact that top sportsmen do not like changes in their equipment beyond certain margin - does not change the reality. Given your history of senseless trolling arguments I would not waste time elaborating further.

[akshayxyz]

So they wear helmet because they want to play with a disadvantage.. Great

Another one in denial. Your theory is that using helmet gives unfair mental advantage against fast bowlers. I just pointed out, in a Chennai kind of weather same helmet can be a disadvantage, especially when playing against a spinner, when one can 'afford' to play w/o helmet.

[vvvslaxman]

Another one in denial. Your theory is that using helmet gives unfair mental advantage against fast bowlers. I just pointed out, in a Chennai kind of weather same helmet can be a disadvantage, especially when playing against a spinner, when one can 'afford' to play w/o helmet.

why can't you play in chennai with a hat... like this? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTzS6CvSl_A]Sunil Gavaskar 236 vs West Indies 1983 6th test MADRAS - YouTube[/ame]

[akshayxyz]

@both lurker and vvs btw.. hats off at your childish attempt at trolling. The point I made about helmet vs w/o helmet was generic (modern vs 30s). That was pathetic try by cherry picking some random video of Sachin.. Perfectly showcases your low life mentality.