How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Whats this got to do with anything ? Badman was better than his peers implies that he was better than his peers ONLY . It does not automatically translate into him being better than all comers from future generations. If you want to insist that all other "great" batsmen from his time were just as good as todays greats going by averages and the long list of embellishments then atleast be consistent and say that Bill Bowes was just as good as Allan Donald using the same logic.

I haven't said anything different than that. By the same consistent logic, Tendulkar is better than his peers and his peers ONLY. It's exactly the thing I have said since 2 months now.

[Crookbond]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Pot calling kettle Black. When likes of Benaud,Waugh,Wisden and espn are allready there openly taking sides you blame Indians of double standards. :hatsoff: let me know if you find another indian who doesnt regard Bradman as cricketing great?

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: I don't understand your posts.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zep1706]

Don't know.

[Laaloo]

The only cricketing forum in the world where people try to pull down the legs of Bradman are some indian forums! Do you know why?:winky: Nobody else seems to have any doubts regarding Don.

waah kya logic hai bhai? just because everyone else "worships" him doesnt mean we shouldn't. Every player in the world who has played will get "pulled" down. So what? Why are you so worked up? Anyways, you still haven't answered my previous post? How much of footage have you watched of Bradman that you came up with that conclusion?

[mishra]

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: I don't understand your posts.

I made the point and I know you understood it very well unless all your posts till date were sarcasm.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

What you are missing is the huge difference in standards and overall skills that are reqd to succeed today. The skills from Bradmans time (especially the Bowling ones) are obsolete today. No bowler can hope to bowl like Bill Bowes or a Toshack and hope to get into a FC team let alone play test cricket and avg And probably what you are missing is today's skills are not necessarily better than skills required back then. They are just different. Therefore, comparing era's just make sense. Just like average of 25 doesn't happen, no helmets/bad medical facilities/bad travel facilities doesn't happen now.

[Crookbond]

You should try comparing SRT with Bradman on a Aussie phorum and see how soon you get banned. :--D

It seems you are experienced. :winky:

Yep the problem is with the self loathing mentality of most Indians. You know there is a big problem when there is no shortage of people having trouble recognizing and acknowledging a absolute champion (even when he is still playing forget 40 yrs from now) and instead go to sad extreemes to pull down the Great man. But the same lot have no qualms blindly bigging up Bradman without ever having watched him bat and leave no stone unturned in making it known that questioning Bradman's career is like some sort of crime whereas indulging in rectal scans on SRT's career is a exercise in Righteousness and ofcourse "balanced" criticism.

I of course have issues with blindly criticizing SRT. You must have obviously seen that in my posts.

[Crookbond]

I made the point and I know you understood it very well unless all your posts till date were sarcasm.

Nope, I sometimes seriously don't understand your posts and this was one of the. So rather than playing Mr. Psychologist, can you explicate your statement?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

These are all just mere red herrings .... if you think a bowler like Bill Bowes can avg 22 and trouble SRT like how Allan Donald could - with everything else reverted to the 30s - then perhaps our understanding of fast bowling is just diametrically opposite.

You call my points "red herrings". I call your point "frivolous". So, lets stop calling names. You're offended by doing so and hence, you shouldn't do it to others. I am never suggesting what player would have average what in any era. I never did that and have never said anything to that effect.

PS : the No-Helmet thingy does not apply to Tendulkar. It also is irrelevant to this discussion because no bowler in the 30s was capable of hurting the batsmen nor was it a acceptable practice. This is the reason why Larwood copped unreal scathing criticism for contravening the spirit of the game.

:facepalm: If you think, no bowler was capable of bowling bouncers you should read up more about Lindwall and Tyson duel in the 1950s. Wonder why both of them never copped criticism but Larwood. Obviously, there was a fine difference between them and Larwood and I will leave it to you to figure out since you "claim" to understand the nitty-gritty of the game. Unfortunately, it does. Even though Tendulkar played in an era of bouncers there was just 1 bouncer rule prevalent since 1991 to 2004. So it even things out.

[Crookbond]

Not to the extent you go in criticizing those who question Bradman.

Same can be said about you too, the other way round. Now, you will say - "I didn't start it. They did". Edit - Btw, name the place and the thread where there is unwarranted criticism on Tendulkar (not the Bangladesh innings please!) and I will make sure I get my point in.

[Marut]

Moving the goalpost again ? Why don't you tell me how the no.of sub 200 totals is virtually the same today when you are so damn convinced that it is a flat track era instead of beating around the bush ?

A significant number of sub 200 totals happen in the 4th innings so I don't think comparing these values across eras makes sense. Do it for the first and second innings and perhaps the third as well. It has been difficult to score 200 in the 4th innings in all eras ( including today) and so I am not surprised to see that sub 200 totals are comparable. Let us see: 2000-2012 Total innings (excluding 4th innings) = 1651 sub 200 innings in first three innings = 367 = 22% 1930-1950 Total innings (excluding 4th innings) = 396 sub 200 innings in first three innings = 108 = 27% It is indeed much easier to score over 200 today when we take into account only the first three innings. The 5th day wicket ( and sometimes the 4th day also so excluding the 3rd innings may throw more light on the matter) has always been challenging to bat in all eras and hence I have excluded them here.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Has nothing to do with Bradman. it is that farcical leg theory where more than 2 fielders are now allowed on the legside behind square post BL. The thing is that going round the wkt and bowling short with a shortlleg silly point gully is far more dangerous - something that Larwood never did - and has nothing to do with leg theory or how many fielders there are behind square.

The dangers of a ball are not from where they are bowled, they are from what they do. So, irrespective of where the bowlers bowled from a lethal delivery is lethal.

And tendulkar has been playing FC cricket waay before 1991. BTW there is no restriction on how many short deliveries you can bowl to a batsman as long as they don't go above shoulder level. It was the same sort of bowling that Larwood did ... there is no comparison however with pace. Modern bowlers are just faar more lethal. But if bravado is the deal clincher for you then Viv Richards and SMG are the best. But the truth is cricket is not about Bravado. This is as per none other than Bradman himself. Cricket was not meant to be played in that manner.

It's not bravado. It's when the bowler is so fast that you have to think about survival (physically) and score runs. It's all aggravated when you don't have technical videos, equipment (not just helmets even pads, gloves and bats), sub standard travel facilities, sub standard medical facilities. Bradman played with influenze, fibrositis and god knows with what since medical science was hardly advanced then. It evens out mate -- we just can't know how difficult it was back then, simple.

[Marut]

What you are missing is the huge difference in standards and overall skills that are reqd to succeed today. The skills from Bradmans time (especially the Bowling ones) are obsolete today. No bowler can hope to bowl like Bill Bowes or a Toshack and hope to get into a FC team let alone play test cricket and avg < 25. It just ain't happening. And untill Bradman fans recognize this cold hard truth we will continue to indulge in circular discussions throwing all sorts of red herrings to defend Bradmans case.

If according to you the bowlers were crap, why no one else except Bradman had that exceptional average. BTW, Bowes would be an asset to the Trundlindian team even today. We have not had a sub 28 bowler in history, you know. Unlike certain sports like sprints, game like cricket has not changed much when it comes to records. It has surely evolved but only slightly in comparison to some other games. A good player of the older era can successfully face today's bowlers, and for a player of the stature of Bradman, it will not be difficult.