How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Dravid_TheWall]

36 posts and no other modern day batsmen apart from Sachin gets mentioned.

I mentioned Lara :hatsoff:

[Laaloo]

I mentioned Lara :hatsoff:

You also mentioned Tindu :hatsoff:

[Dravid_TheWall]

You also mentioned Tindu :hatsoff:

Whoever this Tindu is :bow:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sehwag1830]

If ? havent you read the Atariksh ke moambatti wala thyori where it was proven that he would automatically adjust :poink:

:haha::haha:

[mishra]

If ? havent you read the Antariksh ke moambatti wala thyori where it was proven that he would automatically adjust :poink:

:agree:

[thongale]

If ? havent you read the Antariksh ke moambatti wala thyori where it was proven that he would automatically adjust :poink:

Hikz, that shows SRT woudn't have automatically adjusted to conditions of 30s, right?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

except that even the most dead beat troll including the patent owner of that Moambatti wala thyori agrees that the standards are far higher now(thank lord for the small mercies) ... hence why he embarked on a chain that started from now and went backwards.

I don't know what the bolded mean. But mastring something in the past also is mastery. Now how many of us can chase after a wild boar and kill it with bow and arrow, despite having "better" skills in killing animals? Same applies here. Anyone with an IQ even 2 standard deviations less than the normal would understand primitive skills and highly specialized skills cannot be mastered by only learing one of them.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

Flawed analogy. Cricket hasn't changed so drastically. The objectives are still the same and the length of the pitch is still 22 yards. But if you think facing Shoaib with a helmet is easier than Facing Larwood without a helmet in one series then there is no point in continuing this discussion any further. But going by your thyori of killing wild animals .... feel free to acknowledge that WG was a better player than Bradman. :two_thumbs_up:

Hikz, but 30s cricket was as not as good as grade cricket today. Sounds very hypocritical. I agree that the cricket of 30s must have been of lower quality, but assuming that Hobbs is a worse player than Alec Stewart is bordering on blasphemacy. Having helmet or not having it will not make much change to a top player, because they have very quick reflexes. But for a lesser batsman having a helmet is a plus point. And on whose better, I am not a fan of comparing players across eras. Let's treat them compared to their eras. And on WG Grace, he was so much better than his peers with both bat and ball, would have been a better player than Bradman.

[Dravid_TheWall]

Flawed analogy. Cricket hasn't changed so drastically. The objectives are still the same and the length of the pitch is still 22 yards. But if you think facing Shoaib with a helmet is easier than Facing Larwood without a helmet in one series then there is no point in continuing this discussion any further. But going by your thyori of killing wild animals .... feel free to acknowledge that WG was a better player than Bradman. :two_thumbs_up:

There you go then, Bradman first, then Lara then Tindu. Other players in that era never averaged as much as the don, so it can't have been as easy as you make it out.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

Choose one of the options based on WHAT? his 1930s cricket? This is so absurd. There shouldn't be any effort to bring him to the modern days and compare him with anyone. For me modern day TOP 5 are much better than him, include, BCL, RP, SRT, JK, RD. And modern day cricket is far far ahead of the cricket in 30s. I cannot take my imagination so far back and then decide based on low quality videos that how good the cricketers in 30s were compared with ATG. BCL, SRT, RD, JK, RP, MJ, and many more have very very good foot work. I heard once that Bradman was known to have best footwork compared with his peers. Nobody had that kind of footwork. Why? because that concept was not developed as much. If others had adopted to play their game with little bit better foot work who knows they would have gotten much better averages than 60s. Now a days, many are very good with all the skills that game demand and they are pretty much at par. But rest who lack those skills are behind these top 5.

[Marut]

There you go then' date=' Bradman first, then Lara then Tindu. Other players in that era never averaged as much as the don, so it can't have been as easy as you make it out.[/quote'] That is where Bradman stands tall and as the greatest of all eras. His 99.94 was more than 150% of the nearest rival. Standard of cricket was poorer then, but you can play only with what you have. Ask runners if they do record timings when they run alone or in a competition and they would tell you that without competition there would usually be no motivation to clock record timings. People adapt only when necessary and talented people adapt everywhere. Bradman's skills levels for his era tell us that his adaptation levels were very high, and it is equivalent to a super batsman capable of averaging 100 in today's era. Because the top batsman of today are not much superior or inferior to each other, whatever be the yardstick used to compare them. With Bradman, he wins with every yardstick for his time. He scored a 309 in one test match day against a top side of his times and this record still stands. His ability to score 100s and 200s has not been repeated since. 29 centuries and twelve double centuries in 52 tests is one hell of a stat.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[fuub]

well if a modern day batsman wants to out do bradman then just average double what the next best batsman do over a long career. easy.

[Blackout_]

If Bradman had been privy to the amount of technology and coaching players these days have access do, then I could make my judgement. This however, is not that case and therefore comparison is pointless. The only way one is judged is through performance against their contemporaries, of which Bradman is without peer in the history of cricket.