Bradman - Hype or Real

[Bongosamaj]

now thts funny....how would u feel if sachin goes out and says " I THINK I AM BETTER THAN BRADMAN..." This board would have more threads than a half knitted woolen sweater....

Please don't play the a$$ with me. There is a difference between saying flat out that you are inferior and trying to be politically correct & modest. Have you EVER heard Tendy say flat out that he is inferior to ANY other batsman when the comparison is placed? You ever seen Tendy say 'no, i am a lesser batsman than Lara/Viv/Gavaskar' etc ? No, he modestly talks about different eras, how they are great too,etc etc. But when it comes to Bradman, he CATEGORICALLY said Bradman is better than him. Much like the way how Lara said Tendy is better than him way back in 1999. Fans i understand, have trouble to accept their hero's limitations, even when the hero himself concedes the point. Much like how Lara fans will ignore Lara's commentary on his own inferiority to Tendulkar, Tendulkar fans calmly ignore Tendulkar's own comment on how bradman was far better than him. Its nothing different.

anyway, with lack of video recording, i dont think even sachin saw enough of the don batting to make a proper analysis of "his batsmanship"...

Sachin doesn't have to. Sachin knows enough about batting on uncovered wickets and how stunning it is to average 100 on them. To those who say that Bradman didn't face the same quality of top-class fast-bowling as Tendy has/does, they are correct. To those who say that Bradman wouldn't be averaging 99 in the modern era but infact lesser are also correct. But they forget that Bradman batted on uncovered pitches, which are FAR harder to bat on than today's designer pitches. So the stakes even out a bit- Tendy has had to deal with better bowling on easier pitches, Bradman had to deal with lesser bowling on harder pitches. And anyone who's played cricket at any decent level should know that uncovered pitches ( which are what most club-cricket patches in India/North-America are) can make even Ajit Agarkar look like Wasim Akram. Bradman is the greatest batsman who's ever lived by any standards. The fact that he dominated his era like no one else before or since ever has lends credibility to his one-of-a-kind genius. Its also worth noting that in Bradman's times, the 'other greats' also averaged in the 50s- Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, etc. were all considered great batsmen and second only to Bradman of that era and they didn't average more than 50s. That goes on to show that batting back them wasn't inordinately easy, or else there would be a few 70-80 averaging batsmen in the mix too.

[sachin_fan]

Abbe poora kiye karaye pe paani pher diya..Was just messing with SF na

i didnt fall for that, i didnt fall for that:aetsch::aetsch:

[Tapioca]

If Only Ashes is the benchmark of Cricketing skills we shouldnt have this debate at all ... But there are other teams that play Test match cricket and dare I say that they play at a equal level if not far better.

1. Australia and England were the top-2 teams in the world for well over half the era of Test cricket. Australia OR England was the top team for something 80% of the time. 2. Anyway we are not talking about Australia and England as benchmark here. Just pointing out if we extend your logic for "Bradman will score no 200s in India", we will get some very illogical results. Hari, Sandham's triple hundred was against (an extremely weak) West Indies.

[Guest HariSampath]

lol' date=' thats different thing.. if tendulkar goes on to say that he is better then brad, then their would be other controversy or debate.. new bulletins would be started on tendulkar on news channels, just to cover that matter.. ppl would say tendulkar has ego and stuff.... hence tendulkar chose to be down to earth..[/quote'] Your point is incorrect totally. I do agree that no bastsman will ever call himself the greatest, but the fact remains they all have been compared with others and don't mind at all. Proof : Whenever sachin is questioned and compared with Vivian Richards, Lara, Gavaskar etc , most of his replies will be non committal or sometimes genuienely praising the other batsman but not really being shocked or suggest that the very comparision is insane. Sachin had been known to say things like " I admire Lara, he plays his way, I have mine:....or " I have greatest admiration for sunny, one of my heroes, I had learnt many things from him" or " Vivian Richards was my bothood hero, its an honor to be compared to him"..... etc...and so does Lara say say similar things about other greats like Sachin etc when compared. The point is even if they don't publicly glorify themselves, when compared to other greats, they quietly accept it as compliments....BUT... ALL this changes the moment one name is mentioned to ant batting great of any era...just say Donald Bradman, and instantly everyone without exception says " thats not even possible, the comparision itself is ridiculous" " please dont even mention our names in the same breath" and to put it simply all former and today's greats unanimously put a firm stop and dismiss ANY sort of even remote comparision. This makes the issue very very clear as to what they all genuinely feel about being compared with greats, and then being compared with the immortal Bradman

[Bongosamaj]

If Only Ashes is the benchmark of Cricketing skills we shouldnt have this debate at all ...

You misunderstood Tapioca. He is giving an example of how limited your 'probability' modelling is in cricket. And yes, Ashes can be considered a good barometer for top quality cricket for the most part. Until mid 1970s, England and Australia were consistently the top two teams in test cricket with West Indies close to challenge them in the late 50s-60s era. Rest all were far inferior teams. So therefore, for almost 100 years, Ashes was very much the competition between two top teams in cricket.

[Guest HariSampath]

>>Hari, Sandham's triple hundred was against (an extremely weak) West Indies.<< Thanks....ya, ok, I wasn't too sure, just rememberd a triple ton from sandham

[Tapioca]

>> G. Playing reverse swing ? If even clowns like Tillekeratne Dilshan and Faisal Iqbal can handle reverse swing reasonably well, what makes anyone think that Bradman could not have made the necessary adjustments ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Tapioca]

Not when I have a 75 year unbroken record to stand by as opposed to a possible best case scenario of 20 yrs (Bradmans career timespan).

What do you mean by unbroken record ? There are only four 250+ scores in India, and you were using it to argue that Bradman was unlikely to score any double hundreds in India. Anyway, it's 12:38 am now. Good night :isalute:

[Bongosamaj]

That was because no other country played cricket the way they do now.

Irrelevant. You said this :

If Only Ashes is the benchmark of Cricketing skills we shouldnt have this debate at all ..

What we are telling you is that Ashes very much was the benchmark of cricketing skills and was so in Bradman's era as well.

Moreover Batting skills are a direct function of pitches and what is indisputable is that the Subcontinetn poses completely different and unique problems to a batsman than a typical English and Aussie pitch.

Any man who's batted and averaged 100+ in uncovered pitches would have little or no problem batting on subcontinental pitches. Simply because, subcontinental pitches are 'remarkably different' because they tend to break up & crumble by the 4th day and make it a spinning paradise. Uncovered pitches started to break-up and crumble after day 2 for the most part. So to batsmen TODAY, who have no experience batting on uncovered pitches at a competetive level, subcontinental pitches are a challenge. But in Bradman's era, when batsmen batted on uncovered pitches all round, subcontinental pitches would've been nothing extraordinary.

Not when I have a 75 year unbroken record to stand by as opposed to a possible best case scenario of 20 yrs (Bradmans career timespan).

Your 74 year old unbroken record is irrelevant, because bradman never played in India. So you are not quoting any record but you are drawing an inference of supposition.

[Guest HariSampath]

You misunderstood Tapioca. He is giving an example of how limited your 'probability' modelling is in cricket. And yes, Ashes can be considered a good barometer for top quality cricket for the most part. Until mid 1970s, England and Australia were consistently the top two teams in test cricket with West Indies close to challenge them in the late 50s-60s era. Rest all were far inferior teams. So therefore, for almost 100 years, Ashes was very much the competition between two top teams in cricket.

The fact of the matter is that Australia has been the strongest cricket side in the world from 1877 till today, and most of us know this. In the first 80-100 years of cricket England was the second strongest team, and had in fact beaten Australia so many times in many series. Only towards the 1960s Australia were challenged by Windies , and later we had champion sides from Windies, India too. The thing is the standard ov aussie England cricket was extremely high. Just to give a top of the head comparision The 1948 Ashes can easily be compared to the 1975 /76 series between Windies and Aus, or the Ashes itself that season, or the India Pakistan series played in the late 1980s, or maybe the India Aus 2002/3 or similar tough high standards with quality of players being similar to the 1948 Ashes or 1933/34 bodyline etc

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

What do you mean by unbroken record ? There are only four 250+ scores in India, and you were using it to argue that Bradman was unlikely to score any double hundreds in India. Anyway, it's 12:38 am now. Good night :isalute:

Come on Tapioca, not THAT early, I am planning to be up till 2 AM at least :D

[Bongosamaj]

how hard would it have been for him to do the same against Larwood Tate & Co ?

On today's pitches Tendulkar would've had them for breakfast. On uncovered pitches of 1930s, Tendulkar would be doing just as he is now - between 55 and 60 average or maybe a couple of points higher. Notice how you focus on mispotraying the truth by always focussing on elements that are in Tendulkar's favour. Your analysis is biassed to the core for while you will bring up the superior bowling cast Tendulkar has faced ad infinium, you never mention the fact that Tendulkar bats on far easier pitches than Bradman did. And anyone who botheres comparing batsmen of different eras and brings up different bowling quality but consistently ignores the 'covered vs uncovered pitch' aspect is a dishonest fact-twister.

[Guest HariSampath]

There are ZERO triple 100s IN INDIA . I gotta run too ... be back in a hour or soo.

Your triple ton theory has been dismissed as false, as I did and you haven't answered how you think this logic is applicable to Bradman who had defied all other forms of cricket logic, and you stillhaven't said a word on how YOU think he would have performed in India

[sachin_fan]

Please don't play the a$$ with me. There is a difference between saying flat out that you are inferior and trying to be politically correct & modest. Have you EVER heard Tendy say flat out that he is inferior to ANY other batsman when the comparison is placed? You ever seen Tendy say 'no, i am a lesser batsman than Lara/Viv/Gavaskar' etc ? No, he modestly talks about different eras, how they are great too,etc etc. But when it comes to Bradman, he CATEGORICALLY said Bradman is better than him. Much like the way how Lara said Tendy is better than him way back in 1999. Fans i understand, have trouble to accept their hero's limitations, even when the hero himself concedes the point. Much like how Lara fans will ignore Lara's commentary on his own inferiority to Tendulkar, Tendulkar fans calmly ignore Tendulkar's own comment on how bradman was far better than him. Its nothing different. Sachin doesn't have to. Sachin knows enough about batting on uncovered wickets and how stunning it is to average 100 on them. To those who say that Bradman didn't face the same quality of top-class fast-bowling as Tendy has/does, they are correct. To those who say that Bradman wouldn't be averaging 99 in the modern era but infact lesser are also correct. But they forget that Bradman batted on uncovered pitches, which are FAR harder to bat on than today's designer pitches. So the stakes even out a bit- Tendy has had to deal with better bowling on easier pitches, Bradman had to deal with lesser bowling on harder pitches. And anyone who's played cricket at any decent level should know that uncovered pitches ( which are what most club-cricket patches in India/North-America are) can make even Ajit Agarkar look like Wasim Akram. Bradman is the greatest batsman who's ever lived by any standards. The fact that he dominated his era like no one else before or since ever has lends credibility to his one-of-a-kind genius. Its also worth noting that in Bradman's times, the 'other greats' also averaged in the 50s- Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, etc. were all considered great batsmen and second only to Bradman of that era and they didn't average more than 50s. That goes on to show that batting back them wasn't inordinately easy, or else there would be a few 70-80 averaging batsmen in the mix too.

got to leave for clas...will reply in detail once that is done...but my point in a nut shell is, dont go about saying the don is / was and will always be the best ever...he is good, one of the all time greats...but not the one and only.....

[Guest HariSampath]

On today's pitches Tendulkar would've had them for breakfast. On uncovered pitches of 1930s, Tendulkar would be doing just as he is now - between 55 and 60 average or maybe a couple of points higher. Notice how you focus on mispotraying the truth by always focussing on elements that are in Tendulkar's favour. Your analysis is biassed to the core for while you will bring up the superior bowling cast Tendulkar has faced ad infinium, you never mention the fact that Tendulkar bats on far easier pitches than Bradman did. And anyone who botheres comparing batsmen of different eras and brings up different bowling quality but consistently ignores the 'covered vs uncovered pitch' aspect is a dishonest fact-twister.

On the subject of pitches. The uncovered wickets used be affected by rain, moisture dew, and then sun alternately every day of the season and game.. A real nightmare to play on. Also a very important point is that without the modern day rolling soppers, mowing facilities, these pitches were not even even 100% and always were imperfectly laid, with minute uneveness, cracks, mounds etc. Today's pitches all over the world are better for bastmen, more importantly batsmen on TV. The word universally used for extremely dicey situations in all walks of life is "sticky wicket"....and so we can imagine what it must have been

[Bongosamaj]

, dont go about saying the don is / was and will always be the best ever

I have extreme distaste in predicting the future, so i will never say that Bradman will always be the best ever. But as it stands now, today, in 2007, Bradman is the best batsman in history of cricket, no ifs, ands or buts to it. He is not just an alltime great, he is the greatest, the one and the only and everyone so far-including Tendulkar- are inferior to Bradman. Tendulkar himself recognizes this and i'd rather take Tendulkar's pronouncement on Bradman (that Bradman was #1 and Tendy is NOT as good as Bradman) over that of fans or jingoistic fools. The world's military today serves as a good example. #1 is America. It is the big dawg today, unquestionably so. Who is #2 ? Russia ? China ? India ? UK ? argue for the next 100 days on who is #2 but #1 is under lock-n-key from US of A. Same with batting. Who is #1 ? Bradman. No if and or buts. The debate for everyone else is 'who is #2 ?' Thats where Tendulkar, Hobbs, Gavaskar, Sobers, Viv, Lara, GregChappell etc. come in. Compare them all you want, rate them in whichever fashion you want but fact remains, Bradman is #1. Period.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --