yoda Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Bradman should be excluded from all these polls. It should be like who is the greatest Indian other than MKG.
Marut Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Bradman played less than 15 yrs of Actual Test cricket because of WWII . These days they play 52 tests in about 5-6 yrs. But don't let these things get in your way .... :nice: He played a lot of first class matches (338 innings) - how do you explain his 95 avg there? Why hasn't he been emulated in the FC circles if playing less was the reason in tests? Playing less has its pros and cons. The international trips, I understand then, were several days long ( in ships) and this is hardly the best way to get into form or shape.
Lurker Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Bradman played less than 15 yrs of Actual Test cricket because of WWII . These days they play 52 tests in about 5-6 yrs. But don't let these things get in your way .... :nice: lol.. Yes because had he played those 15 years the attack of England, South Africa and Australia would have undergone immense transformation :giggle: Amazing how you argue against Bradman that the bowling attack he faced was the same, and toothless, and then complain how he didnt play more against the same toothless bowlers :giggle: By the way who was better than Akram as a lefti? I have forgotten it but am sure you havent :desiman:
Lurker Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 After seeing the poll... a) BossBhai does not have a number 3 in his All time XI. Seedha 4 down batsman aayega after an opener, read Sehwag, flops lol. b) Dilliwallahs, read SJ and Ramu Kaka are head over heel in love with Ponting...
Marut Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 I can. And after exchanging 3 or 4 posts you will run away just like you did after you ran into a dead-end trying to defend the "Pitches were tough to bat on back then" topic in the other thread. I did not "run" away. I can defend that argument. Some pitches were quite flat back then but generally more difficult to bat - this is well known. As you may have noticed, I am not a frequent poster here - I come here once in a while, usually on Sundays. I have a busy schedule and I dont have endless time for arguments running in circles. Yeah so sailing on a cruise ship for a month and then playing practice matches against the exact same bowlers that would feature in Tests on the exact same pitches is worse than playing ODI series followed by a Test series because we have jet planes to travel on ? Just look at the sort of ridiculous arguments you put up. So name some other batsmen who averaged in the 90s or 100s even against minnows over a say 25 inning sequence. You have no idea of the immense difficulty in averaging like Bradman, regardless of pitch/bowler conditions, or his feat would be common place. FC in India does not feature too many great bowlers, so why don't Indian boys emulate him? Average of 95 over 338 innings is nothing short of genuis, which you can't admit due to misplaced addiction for certain cricketers and can't appreciate any other, not even Bradman whom the whole world admires. Facing the same bowlers does not make it easier to bat. What makes you think familiarity gives an edge only to the batsman, and not the bowler? Good Bowlers also study and probe the batsman weakness and in the final scheme of things, everything evens out. Let India tour Bangladesh or Banglaesh come to India for a 15 test series, let us see which of our famed batsmen come up with a 100+ average. If you can't do this against Bangla, then how could Bradman do it against England, which is the equivalent of SA/Eng today. (in that it was one of the best teams of Bradman's era) Bradman was properly evaluated in this beautiful piece from Mr.Ananta on Cricinfo - http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2012/06/what_made_bradman_click.php Bradman had an uncanny ability to make sure, that if he was not dismissed early, you won't be able to dismiss him before 150. He made it count every time he got his eye in. That is what that made him great and not the pitches, era or bowlers he faced. Bradman himself said that there were other talented batsman who were even better than him, but they failed to accumulate like him because he possessed such a high level of concentration and motivation to score runs.
Sidhoni Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Dravid has got twice the number of votes as Richards. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Even Dravid would laugh at that. :giggle: Thats maybe because Viv will also feature in the middle order poll.
rkt.india Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Dravid has got twice the number of votes as Richards. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Even Dravid would laugh at that. :giggle: Yeah 36 test century holder Dravid will laugh at this statement. :--D
Mariyam Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Why isn't Tendulkar a part of this poll? WHY? I demand 771 answers. :mad:
Sidhoni Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Why isn't Tendulkar a part of this poll? WHY? I demand 771 answers. :mad: Because he is not a no.3 batsman..
Crookbond Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 I did not "run" away. I can defend that argument. Some pitches were quite flat back then but generally more difficult to bat - this is well known. As you may have noticed, I am not a frequent poster here - I come here once in a while, usually on Sundays. I have a busy schedule and I dont have endless time for arguments running in circles. Marut - Leave it man. Soon you will be attacked personally. If you've not noticed here's how to choose sides according to convenience. Scenario 1 - Batsmen can't be rated looking at statistics and you need to look at videos. Scenario 2 - Pitches however can be proved good or bad based on statistics. See the Najafgarh Logic? Now, there will be an aggressive response and run of the mill Ravi Shastri statements - "You can't keep a straight face", "Arguing for the sake of arguing", "Look at the videos". Old wine in a new bottle.
Shunya Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 so basically the thread is going in the direction everyone had already expected...
Roshanrocks Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Bradman :nice: If he fails, i will select Dravid next series
Raghav_12 Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 But no batsman who played for 20 years averaged 99.94 against any attack ( not even in FC there is a precedent for this)' date=' toothless or otherwise. Take Bradman out, you struggle to get 70+ even in FC cricket. What Bradman did was something like sprinting 100m in 7 or 8 seconds.[/quote'] No, that is very wrong analogy. You can't compare these two stats - time taken to complete 100 m with batting average. Time taken to complete 100m is an unambiguos representation of level of athlete for that particular discipline. An athlete who completes 100 m in 9.8 sec has to better than an athlete who complete same distance in 10 sec. You need not to look whethere these times are achieved at ckub level, international level or national level. On the other side, batting averages don't represent batting skills either uniquely or sufficiently. In fact batting averages are function of batting skills, bowling and fielding skills, pitch conditions, boundary distance and so many other things. So a person having batting average of 80 may not be as good as a person having batting average of 60, if first batting average has been achieved against domestic bowlers while secon one against international bowlers. I am not against Bradman here (in fact I have chosen Bradman in this poll) but highlighting fallacy in your analogy.
Marut Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 No, that is very wrong analogy. You can't compare these two stats - time taken to complete 100 m with batting average. Time taken to complete 100m is an unambiguos representation of level of athlete for that particular discipline. An athlete who completes 100 m in 9.8 sec has to better than an athlete who complete same distance in 10 sec. You need not to look whethere these times are achieved at ckub level, international level or national level. On the other side, batting averages don't represent batting skills either uniquely or sufficiently. In fact batting averages are function of batting skills, bowling and fielding skills, pitch conditions, boundary distance and so many other things. So a person having batting average of 80 may not be as good as a person having batting average of 60, if first batting average has been achieved against domestic bowlers while secon one against international bowlers. I am not against Bradman here (in fact I have chosen Bradman in this poll) but highlighting fallacy in your analogy. What do you think are the wind factors in running? Tail wind, head wind and so on. In 100 m, wind can considerable affect the performances of sprinters. So every 9.8 sec run is not better than every other 10.2 sec run. That analogy was not intended to be used in the way you have interpreted. I was just saying that Bradman was so ahead of his peers, like in the 100 m race.
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