Cook can go past Tendulkar says Peitersen

[maniac]

Too bad Cricket is not between India and Pak only,Kamran AKmal would have plundered runs and have given a stiff competition to Bradman :((

[maniac]

So out of the 15 games Braddy played against Ind(minnows back in the day),WI(Not as competitive that they became in later decades) and SA he played all 15 at home ...HTB :woot: and averaged 140

[maniac]

Put Bradman in his prime in dustbowls against SIR Jaddu and see him dance to the "snakecharmer" tunes

[Bumper]

CAnt believe that you still keep peddling this "Cosmic distance" theory after it being debunked many times .... here is one : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1719692&postcount=41 How is the search for a EQUAL Candle that can be compared to Tendulkar comming up ? How about using the combined stats of the Waugh brothers who between them have the same no.of intl runs as Tendulkar ? Regarding Sobers : He started in 1954 and did nothing noteworthy ( 672 runs at 30 ) untill he came up against Paki's and India in 1958 where he plundered runs at will against the modest bowling attacks of Ind and Pak. So thats about 10 yrs since Bradmans last inngs ... with absolutely no common bowler faced by the two where the both scored runs against. So whats the point of that comparison ? Regarding 254 vs Lillee : Prior to that Match in 1972 Lille had a grand total of 1 Single Test experience. If you think Sobers spanked Lillee the finished article then there can be no honest discussion. This is like saying Shastri Spanked Shane Warne implying that he made runs against a rampant Warnie in his prime. The less said the better of the rest of the bowlers in that Aussie XI team that Sobers made 254 against.

Boss, great job debunking all those myths as usual. To me, there is at least some visual evidence of Sobers flaying bowlers who look credible. I still don't think the intensity of cricket in Sobers' times was nearly as good as the modern times, but at least I can entertain the thought of Sobers possibly being the greatest ever batsman. But in Bradman's time, cricket was a joke of a sport from all visual evidences we have. From the British pathe clips, i'd say, even modern day no-namers like Tino Best look faster and more menacing than the supposedly great Larwood. And if you throw in the video of that old fark (that you shared a while ago) who had a technique that would put cricketers who starred in Lagan to shame, the discussion becomes moot. To me, cricket picked up intensity in the late 70s and 80s and evolved into a greater sport in the 90s when we saw the emergence of a diversity of skills (reverse swing, doosras, great leg spinners, flourishing of ODI skills, increasing no. of competitive teams etc). In other sports, such as tennis, we don't see the greatest ever tags attributed to old foggies such as Bjorn Borg just because of peer dominance. Cricket history was scribed by the English and the Aussies, am sure Bradman's unquestionable #1 spot is a product of years of brainwashing and marketing, so much so we don't even care for visuals anymore.

[The Outsider]

Boss, great job debunking all those myths as usual. To me, there is at least some visual evidence of Sobers flaying bowlers who look credible. I still don't think the intensity of cricket in Sobers' times was nearly as good as the modern times, but at least I can entertain the thought of Sobers possibly being the greatest ever batsman. But in Bradman's time, cricket was a joke of a sport from all visual evidences we have. From the British pathe clips, i'd say, even modern day no-namers like Tino Best look faster and more menacing than the supposedly great Larwood. And if you throw in the video of that old fark (that you shared a while ago) who had a technique that would put cricketers who starred in Lagan to shame, the discussion becomes moot. To me, cricket picked up intensity in the late 70s and 80s and evolved into a greater sport in the 90s when we saw the emergence of a diversity of skills (reverse swing, doosras, great leg spinners, flourishing of ODI skills, increasing no. of competitive teams etc). In other sports, such as tennis, we don't see the greatest ever tags attributed to old foggies such as Bjorn Borg just because of peer dominance. Cricket history was scribed by the English and the Aussies, am sure Bradman's unquestionable #1 spot is a product of years of brainwashing and marketing, so much so we don't even care for visuals anymore.

LOL! Yeah all the evolution happened in 70s to 90s and then stopped. How does one even begin to refute that kind of reasoning. Anyhow I've written enough on the topic in the past, to bother rehashing the same arguments. The topic bores the hell out of me these days anyway.

[Crookbond]

Boss, great job debunking all those myths as usual. To me, there is at least some visual evidence of Sobers flaying bowlers who look credible. I still don't think the intensity of cricket in Sobers' times was nearly as good as the modern times, but at least I can entertain the thought of Sobers possibly being the greatest ever batsman. But in Bradman's time, cricket was a joke of a sport from all visual evidences we have. From the British pathe clips, i'd say, even modern day no-namers like Tino Best look faster and more menacing than the supposedly great Larwood. And if you throw in the video of that old fark (that you shared a while ago) who had a technique that would put cricketers who starred in Lagan to shame, the discussion becomes moot. To me, cricket picked up intensity in the late 70s and 80s and evolved into a greater sport in the 90s when we saw the emergence of a diversity of skills (reverse swing, doosras, great leg spinners, flourishing of ODI skills, increasing no. of competitive teams etc). In other sports, such as tennis, we don't see the greatest ever tags attributed to old foggies such as Bjorn Borg just because of peer dominance. Cricket history was scribed by the English and the Aussies, am sure Bradman's unquestionable #1 spot is a product of years of brainwashing and marketing, so much so we don't even care for visuals anymore.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Look at the footages. The game that they played hardly resemble the game we see today. There is no point in talking about Bradman's record while discussing about today's cricket. Then bowlers were used just to get the game going. Somebody tried to trouble to batsmen a bit by few bouncers, batsmen decided to take stumps and go home.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

that would be Sir Jack Hobbs. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/jack-hobbs-the-world-famous-cricketer/query/Jack+Hobbs http://www.britishpathe.com/video/bravo-jack-hobbs/query/Jack+Hobbs but this one here is pure gold : http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-life-of-jack-hobbs-reel-1 watch at about 5:50 where he shows how to drive in slow motion .... at one point both his feet are in the air trying to lunge/jump to get out of his crease ... all that jumping got his back foot 6 inches further and at one point his front foot is about a feet or two above ground at 45 degrees with the back foot :haha: . You cant possibly make up such comical batting "technique" .... try practicing that shot and see for yourself if you can stop laughing your ass off ...

LOL! Thanks for the links, Boss. This is a laugh riot. In your "pure gold" link, at 7:00 Sir Hobbs demonstrates how to execute a beautiful cut shot - just that he was a bit off balance and almost fell off his crease:haha:. I have a hard time believing he can replace any of the batsmen in the "Lagaan" team. I don't know why we need to debate something that could be simply settled over video clips. All those who fell for the Bradman hype must watch these clips at least to know what they are arguing about.

[b555]

That's the problem Bumper, they dont do

[div]

Great video Afridi must be a fan of this guy

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

That's the problem Bumper' date=' they dont do[/quote'] Oh they certainly do. Many of them have watched these videos but they've been believing in the "Bradman Legend" for so long and have argued so vociferously for him for so many years that they just can't bring themselves to admit that they were wrong. Naak neechi ho jaayegi. From whatever footage is available from those times, it is pretty clear that that was the amateur era of cricket and at best we can say that Bradman was the best of his era. Nothing more, nothing less.

[velu]

Cook can go past Tendulkar says Peitersen Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Muloghonto]

Boss, great job debunking all those myths as usual. To me, there is at least some visual evidence of Sobers flaying bowlers who look credible. I still don't think the intensity of cricket in Sobers' times was nearly as good as the modern times, but at least I can entertain the thought of Sobers possibly being the greatest ever batsman. But in Bradman's time, cricket was a joke of a sport from all visual evidences we have. From the British pathe clips, i'd say, even modern day no-namers like Tino Best look faster and more menacing than the supposedly great Larwood. And if you throw in the video of that old fark (that you shared a while ago) who had a technique that would put cricketers who starred in Lagan to shame, the discussion becomes moot.

It is completely unscientific to try and deduce speed of a bowler from tv footages without using a baseline camera angle. A bowler looks completely different speed if viewed side on, back on, from 10th row up camera angle or on top of the stadium. What they looked like, is largely irrelevant. We have less than 2 hours of footages of ANY bowler from the 1930s, which represents less than 0.00000000001% of the sample space that is their playing career, therefore any inference is statistical absurdity. What i do know, is that even Vinay Kumar would be as troublesome as Steyn is he only had to plonk is back foot behind the line. As i said, Tendulkar easily outclasses Bradman if we consider the quality of opposition and various conditions played in. But Bradman easily outclasses Tendulkar in degree of playing conditions and its challenges: he played on uncovered pitches, which are WAY harder to bat on than 99.999% of the pitches Tendulkar has batted on. he also batted when bowlers like Vinay Kumar or Chaminda Vaas would've been considered express, because they could bowl from another 2-3 feet closer to the batsman (no front foot noball rule). So its even IMO on that score. Tendy faced more variety and higher quality of bowlers, Bradman batted in tougher conditions and at a time when every 80mph pacer was comparable to 90mph bowlers today due to bowling from 2-3 feet closer to the batsman.

In other sports, such as tennis, we don't see the greatest ever tags attributed to old foggies such as Bjorn Borg just because of peer dominance. Cricket history was scribed by the English and the Aussies, am sure Bradman's unquestionable #1 spot is a product of years of brainwashing and marketing, so much so we don't even care for visuals anymore.

Err, till Federer came around, the best ever tag in Tennis was reserved for Rod Laver, a guy who was even older than Borg and unanimously so. Even today, Laver is usually rated #2 alltime behind Federer and Borg makes it to top 5. Besides, Tennis is harder to compare through generations because the very equipment used to play the sport has changed so much. Bradman is the unquestiond #1 batsman ever, not because of an evil Anglo conspiracy but because he is a statistical freak who's numbers will never be surpassed or hell, no one will come within 70% of his numbers. The same applies to other sports too: Babe Ruth is considered the best slugger in history, Gretsky is considered the best hockey forward in history, etc. because they are statistical freaks first and foremost.

[vvvslaxman]

Top 3 from current era :fishing:

[Muloghonto]

Few reasons : 1. Almost 70% of All Test cricket has happened since 1970 2. 100% of All ODI cricket happened since 1970 which has had a huge impact on Test cricket. 3. The Packer series happened in the 70s which was a watershed moment that transformed cricket. 4. Ind , Pak , SL, NZ, WI, SAF have all played their best cricket since 70s 5. The Very Best of bowlers to EVER play cricket are from the 70s onward ... nobody in their right mind can name any of the pre-70s bowlers that can replace any of the top 10 bowlers from the 70s onwards ... if the Bradman era produced just as good cricket as any era who would be the bowlers from that era that can replace any of these top bowlers from the 70s era onwards ? 1. Holding 2. Marshall 3. Ambrose 4. Steyn 5. Walsh 6. Donald 7. Wasim 8. McGrath 9. Warne 10. Murali Keep in mind those who missed out :haha: : Lillee Imran Hadlee Botham Roberts Garner Pollock Shoaib Waqar Kumble Saqlain Bishop

The only bowlers from Bradman's era who would've played for their respective teams(opposition) in the modern era would be the likes of Vinoo Mankad & Ghulam Ahmed. But then again, bowlers effectively bowled from 2-3 feet closer to the batsmen back then, so almost no pace bowler will make it and barely any spinners at all. Because bowling from 2-3 feet closer to the batsman makes bowling easier. But its unfair to the batsman to say that they didnt face good bowlers because the 'effect' is essentially the same. Like i said, if i had to bowl from 5 yards closer, i could kill any batsman with the ball in hand. If i could bowl a person's length closer I could've killed Viv Richards too. That doesnt put me in Mohammed Sami class, nevermind the actual international competent one. But that does not mean just because its lalloo aira gaira bowling from 2-3 feet closer, its any easier for the batsman. And as i said, dont forget, bradman batted in the era of uncovered pitches. That makes batting on every single day -including the first day-harder than in modern cricket. So pitch-wise, Bradman has tendulkar covered- not for variety but definitely for the average difficulty posed by the pitch to the batsman.

[CG]

And as i said, dont forget, bradman batted in the era of uncovered pitches. That makes batting on every single day -including the first day-harder than in modern cricket. So pitch-wise, Bradman has tendulkar covered- not for variety but definitely for the average difficulty posed by the pitch to the batsman.

I remember reading somewhere players said it was difficult to score on uncovered pitches if there were rain overnight but it was also so slow it was difficult to get out.May be spinners would have been more dangerous.

[Muloghonto]

I remember reading somewhere players said it was difficult to score on uncovered pitches if there were rain overnight but it was also so slow it was difficult to get out.May be spinners would have been more dangerous.

If you mean wickets that are rained on would be slow, you are correct. Surface dampness in the soil (ie, below the grass) causes the soil to be more plastic, therefore absorbing more of the impact momentum of the ball, instead of reflecting the normal amount of force away. But because the ball is losing a lot more momentum in the pitch due to the extended 'contact period', caused by the plasticity in the soil, it also means that the ball grips more and deviates a lot more. True sticky wickets were a nightmare to bat on but mostly, leaving the wicket uncovered(in absence of rain) would result in a slower wicket with more lateral deviation after pitching. Bear in mind,batting in the 4th & 5th days in test matches prior to the late 1950s was a lot harder, as the pitches were not rolled back then. Thus, the pitch was a lot more uneven in the 2nd innings, which affected bowling strategy. When you combine the element of slightly more lateral deviation with variable bounce (due to the pitch not being rolled & thus being more uneven), it more than makes up for the slightly slower nature of the surface- i would still like to bat on WACA today than WACA 70 years ago and I am a limited batsman. PS: Spinners were more dangerous. This is why the bowlers from early 1900s to the 60s were mostly spinners or true medium pacers. Yes,a few fast men operated- the likes of Nissar, Valentine, Voce, Spofforth, Larwood & Trueman were frighteningly fast, with solid fast-medium bowlers like Amar Singh, Statham, Miller, Lindwall & Besder proliferating but the era was still very much that of the spinners & medium pacers. Clarie Grimmett, Ironmonger, Lock, Laker, O'Reiley, Barnes, Gubby Allen,Mankad etc. were still the most successful ones of their time as well as the most common variety of bowlers- the slow, slow medium and spin bowlers.