Jump to content

How good was that batsman?


Recommended Posts

Posted
Your record does not count. the only country the backyard of which is competitive is Australia. Rest all of no use.
So you think Raghav_12 's backyard is equivalent to Test cricket in the 1930s, eh?
Posted
Your record does not count. the only country the backyard of which is competitive is Australia. Rest all of no use.
:hysterical::hysterical: plz most more often :hysterical:
Guest BossBhai
Posted

-- Removed on request of the user --

Posted
So you want me to pretend that these countries are already playing test cricket and have produced a cricketer with 20K test runs while the two oldest Test playing nations haven't come anywhere close to doing so in 135 yrs of cricket ?
Well somebody like Afridi has managed to take 350-400 wkts in odis and has scored 4K runs and the guy is a slogger! He managed to take so many wkts coz of the opportunities afforded him. SRT can continue crawling to 25K runs if he so desires and I doubt he would ever be dropped. The 20K runs is a function of playing more matches than anybody else in the history of the game and you have to mention this fact as well when you talk about 20K runs. Bradman's stat is more about productivity than longevity as Bradman nearly scored a century every time he came out to bat :omg: In a game like cricket where the result is influenced by so many external factors and a batsman is supposed to have done well if he succeeds in 1 out of 4 hits in the middle, Bradman's stat of averaging nearly a 100 is mind boggling. As a simple test of which feat is more difficult, you can set up a poll asking which record is more likely to be broken in the future - 1. Bradman's Test average of 99.94, or 2. SRT's 20K runs (or 100 intl 100s) and you will get your answer. Again, I am not saying SRT's records is an easy feat. I am simply stating between the two what Bradman achieved is much more difficult in cricket.
Posted
Well somebody like Afridi has managed to take 350-400 wkts in odis and has scored 4K runs and the guy is a slogger! He managed to take so many wkts coz of the opportunities afforded him. SRT can continue crawling to 25K runs if he so desires and I doubt he would ever be dropped. The 20K runs is a function of playing more matches than anybody else in the history of the game and you have to mention this fact as well when you talk about 20K runs. Bradman's stat is more about productivity than longevity as Bradman nearly scored a century every time he came out to bat :omg: In a game like cricket where the result is influenced by so many external factors and a batsman is supposed to have done well if he succeeds in 1 out of 4 hits in the middle, Bradman's stat of averaging nearly a 100 is mind boggling. As a simple test of which feat is more difficult, you can set up a poll asking which record is more likely to be broken in the future - 1. Bradman's Test average of 99.94, or 2. SRT's 20K runs (or 100 intl 100s) and you will get your answer. Again, I am not saying SRT's records is an easy feat. I am simply stating between the two what Bradman achieved is much more difficult in cricket.
Alastair Cook looks on course to score a lot of runs in Test cricket that too playing most in England. England is more difficult place to play. It will be interesting to see comparison of Tendulkar versus Alastair Cook at the 80 Test match mark.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...