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

[vvvslaxman]

It is other way - you were claiming that wearing helmets gives unfair advantage in the matters of scoring runs. So' date=' tell me again, was SMG thick in the head to not to use some 'obvious' advantage?[/quote'] You need to have balls not to wear helmet and play.

[akshayxyz]

1 batsman may not be a good representative sample. We need to check how many batsmen opted not to use them when available. My guess - very few.

Similarly, may be many others (I am sure at least few did) could also have played w/o helmet w/o significantly affecting their performance. Had playing with helmets given unfair/significant advantage against w/o.. then at least one of the many of SMG's peers who played with helmets - would have significantly outperformed him.

[akshayxyz]

You need to have balls not to wear helmet and play.

Going in a gun war/battle where everyone else is coming with bullet proof vests - is not about bravery or having balls. It is sheer stupidity. And guess why? Because, there it is a difference of life and death - with vs w/o bullet proof vests.

[vvvslaxman]

Going in a gun war/battle where everyone else is coming with bullet proof vests - is not about bravery or having balls. It is sheer stupidity. And guess why? Because' date=' there it is a difference of life and death - with vs w/o bullet proof vests.[/quote'] Now first risk of dying while flying.. Now risk of dying in a war.. wow.. the analogies are simply "great".

[Crookbond]

Similarly' date=' may be many others (I am sure at least few did) could also have played w/o helmet w/o significantly affecting their performance. Had playing with helmets given unfair/significant advantage against w/o.. then at least one of the many of SMG's peers who played with helmets - would have significantly outperformed him.[/quote'] Huh? :hmmmm:

[akshayxyz]

continued state of denial?

Now first risk of dying while flying..Now risk of dying in a war.. wow.. the analogies are simply "great".

If you can't see something, it does not mean there is nothing. Why do not you go ahead and prove, how wearing helmets give unfair advantage over w/o wearing one - especially across eras. And once that is established, kindly enlighten us - why SMG did not choose to wear helmets when he could have cashed on the 'advantage'? Why he gave importance to showcasing size of his balls, when he could have surpassed DGB and established himself as greatest ever - merely by wearing helmet? Why SMG's peers who chose to wear helmets - did not significantly outperform SMG - merely because they chose to wear helmets? Why no one other than SMG was bothered about showcasing size of balls - in cricket, was he lone moron, last standing moron - in cricket? Hint for few of above questions - batting in cricket is not about bravery or having balls. It has always been about scoring runs, batsmen have been doing anything and everything possible to increase/maintain their performance. And these things vary from time to time, and individual to individual. If one chooses cricket as a platform to showcase size of the balls - then he has to be a certified moron - and definitely an amateur in overall matters of 'showcasing size of balls'.

[Bumper]

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.

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.

You are contradicting yourself. Can you answer these qns ? I guess not. Then how come you guys declare Bradman as the greatest ever, without being able to answer how he would have done in the modern era ?

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.

I think you are missing the point here. This is not about bowling or batting being bad. This is about the general amateurish standard of cricket in the 30s and 40s compared to current levels. The cricket of those times, is sub-standard even for club level games of the modern era. So to compare achievements of players in that league with the modern league is just plain wrong. Domination et al makes sense only when the leagues in consideration are comparable. For example, I regard Viv as the greatest ever ODI batsman. He was soo ahead of his peers both in terms of average, strike rate and the way he bludgeoned the bowlers. There was no body like him. In this instance, the "peer domination" theory works, as the bowlers Richards faced are comparable to the modern players. You cannot blindly use peer domination without understanding the level of competition one faced. For the lack of a better analogy, there were many peers in my undergrad who came from little villages topping their districts/schools comfortably, but they struggled to finish even in the top 25 in our class. That's what competition does to you.

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.

See above, competition matters, prolly the only thing that matters. Otherwise Graeme Hick will lord over all other batsmen in the world for his exploits in county cricket. Badrinath, Vikram Rathore and countless other domestic bullies, simply could not scale their skills when the level of competition that they faced went up.

That is why there are only 25 triple century makers in the entire history of cricket, 10 of which made post 2000.

Sehwag was six runs away from being the only player to score three triple hundreds. And your point is ?

How many runs sachin has scored without helmet. 0 runs.

This is prolly the most ludicrous comment of all. So you are saying, if i slay all bowlers in my street without wearing a helmet on a grassy, sticky wicket, I'd be greater than SRT, because by your wierd logic, SRT scored zero runs without a helmet ? Even if i take this comment seriously, you still need to convince me how you consider Bradman who played mickey mouse cricket without helmet is greater than Sunny Gavaskar and Viv Richards who faced some of the greatest fast bowlers of the game without a helmet. Did you consider that people in the 30s and 40s perhaps never needed a helmet given the bowlers they faced ?

[Lurker]

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.

Dude, you need to chill. Kuch ka kuch bakte ho?? You are sounding as if ICC has deemed every batsman to mandatorily wear helmet?? Any modern batsman can walk in the middle with a hat. Why wear helmet? And whats your issue with Chennai weather?? You are sounding as if an Indian batsman, say Sachin, played all his test in Chennai lol. What about going abroad? England, New Zealand, Australia, Saffer etc...Udhar weather accha hota hai, why wear helmet at all lol. Look, this is a prime example of blind worship. Here something you may enjoy

Ian Chappell related to me how he and Ian Healy once sat down to debate which was the better Australian side - Chappell's or Waugh's - by discussing a hypothetical match between the two. "Is this match going to be played with helmets or without helmets?" was the first question Healy raised, because he felt it would have a great bearing on the contest.

Bold, italized aur underline sab kar diya hoon, in case you miss the point. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/515682.html

[Lurker]

continued state of denial? If you can't see something, it does not mean there is nothing. Why do not you go ahead and prove, how wearing helmets give unfair advantage over w/o wearing one - especially across eras. And once that is established, kindly enlighten us - why SMG did not choose to wear helmets when he could have cashed on the 'advantage'? Why he gave importance to showcasing size of his balls, when he could have surpassed DGB and established himself as greatest ever - merely by wearing helmet? Why SMG's peers who chose to wear helmets - did not significantly outperform SMG - merely because they chose to wear helmets? Why no one other than SMG was bothered about showcasing size of balls - in cricket, was he lone moron, last standing moron - in cricket? Hint for few of above questions - batting in cricket is not about bravery or having balls. It has always been about scoring runs, batsmen have been doing anything and everything possible to increase/maintain their performance. And these things vary from time to time, and individual to individual. If one chooses cricket as a platform to showcase size of the balls - then he has to be a certified moron - and definitely an amateur in overall matters of 'showcasing size of balls'.

Phir se... Replying twice because this weird comment deserved this lol Ian Chappell related to me how he and Ian Healy once sat down to debate which was the better Australian side - Chappell's or Waugh's - by discussing a hypothetical match between the two. "Is this match going to be played with helmets or without helmets?" was the first question Healy raised, because he felt it would have a great bearing on the contest. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/515682.html

[Bumper]

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

Lurker, you may be referring to Boss here. But i dont follow every post here to know the context. In my mind, there is no question about Viv's greatness. We have enough data to certify Viv's greatness. Same thing cannot be said about Bradman & the likes.

[Bumper]

Lurker, Haven't you played street cricket without a helmet and scored runs ?

[Old guy]

Lurker, Haven't you played street cricket without a helmet and scored runs ?

tennis ball :D i know im bumping into discussion but i never played quick bowlers without helmet with real ball its just too dangerous :s and im talking abt school level i guess some people can but i cant :p

[Lurker]

Lurker' date=' you may be referring to Boss here. [b']But i dont follow every post here to know the context. In my mind, there is no question about Viv's greatness. We have enough data to certify Viv's greatness. Same thing cannot be said about Bradman & the likes.

Come on Bumper, Viv's greatness is beyond the sphere of context. I am fine with your thoughts on Bradman, we have always disagreed on that...just as we have on Barry Richards :winky:

Lurker, Haven't you played street cricket without a helmet and scored runs ?

yeah. But that was because if anybody had hit me on the head I would have promptly collected my bat and wicket and gone home pronto.:beee:

[Crookbond]

Phir se... Replying twice because this weird comment deserved this lol Ian Chappell related to me how he and Ian Healy once sat down to debate which was the better Australian side - Chappell's or Waugh's - by discussing a hypothetical match between the two. "Is this match going to be played with helmets or without helmets?" was the first question Healy raised, because he felt it would have a great bearing on the contest. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/515682.html

Dude, This Manjrekar has been brain-washed by the English and the Australians. You are so gullible. Here, let me show you a video. Specifically watch, 0:17 to 0:40 RbJsy9MgFVw :hehe:

[The Outsider]

Short on time right now, but quickly wanted to point out how major injuries can have a big impact on a player's career and form. Vengsarkar was the number one batsman in the world, at the peak of his game, and batting on a century when he was knocked out of action in the '87 series by Patterson(?). Anyone with access to stats guru can perhaps check his dismal run following that injury till he was finally dropped after the '91-92 Australia tour. Helmets are not a guarantee against injury but provide a safeguard just like safety belts. It's stupidity and ignorance to suggest they were used only when they were needed in cricket - Trueman, Tyson, Hall were from the 50s and 60s and about as quick as anyone. I am not even including Miller and Lindwall because they've already been branded as trundlers by Bhakt Inc. Obviously, while facing quick bowling I would always be in favor of wearing a helmet just like I would favor people putting their seat belts on. The fan boys seem to be on a rampage today.:hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

I think you are missing the point here. This is not about bowling or batting being bad. This is about the general amateurish standard of cricket in the 30s and 40s compared to current levels. The cricket of those times, is sub-standard even for club level games of the modern era. So to compare achievements of players in that league with the modern league is just plain wrong. Domination et al makes sense only when the leagues in consideration are comparable.

This is my problem. Who are you to say the cricket was amaturish. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWYE86B2uE]First Test Cricket match played in independent India - YouTube[/ame] this is a first class game.. happened in India post independence.. this looks like a club level game to you? Then you are totally biased and one eyed. Look at the fatsos that play cricket in modern era.

[Crookbond]

Just so, this doesn't go the way - batsmen were never hit in the head in earlier eras, here's a nice article to allay such ridiculous thoughts. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/245921.html To add to the "The Outsider"'s point - Nari Contractor is on that list. 1961 - Griffith bouncer, duck, hit on head, blood from nose & eyes, fractured skull, clots in brain, 2 emergency operations to be out of danger. So as to enforce the issue that there's no Anglo-Saxon conspiracy here. But I agree, helmets never gave any other advantage apart from protecting the head. :secret:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Here is the one of Sandeep Patil knocked down by Hogg and Pascoe (11:48). Ecu2A388rqA Yep modern day Maharathis would dare to bare (heads that is) :haha: By the by good clip this, good to see Pascoe, Hogg, Lillee steaming in...Also nice to see helmetless Patil and kapil having a go...

[Lurker]

x

oh hai der scumbag bihari rodent ... looking for a free refill of your regular meds ?

:hehe: So did the poll finally answer all your questions? :nervous: