Viv Richards vs. Dennis Lillee

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bongosamaj]

That you lost it even before it began ... ?

Last i checked, most opinions went against YOU, champ. The point that Bradman dominated his era far more than Tendy did his own and that he batted on worse pitches, thus evening the stakes of 'better bowlers in Tendy era' was accepted by most and as usual, you cannot concede because you have never had the balls to admit your error in here. So don't go tooting your own horn when the horn itself is broken, champ.

Playing against really mean fast bowlers with sub 23 avg and Sub 50 SR .

if you actually bothered going to university for statistics, instead of being a total pheku, you'd realize that batting averages and bowling averages in the same era are inversely proportional. If you have a batsman average 99, your bowlers wont average 23 against the same team- that CANNOT be. Its just that simple. Oh and Bradman faced bodyline- far more ferocious bowling than Tendy EVER faced- and he came out averaging 50+. Thats game, set and match right there.

but one rule no pompous and bellicose posts

Apply it to yourself first and stop wrenching your arm outta the socket to pat yourself on the bat with comments like ' that you lost it even before it began'. Hypocrites like you should know better than to preach, especially with people like me around who specialize in hauling hypocrites like you up and exposing them.

[Gaurav]

Some of you should never get married (on both sides)! Poor wife will go crazy :hysterical:

[varun]

Some of you should never get married (on both sides)! Poor wife will go crazy :hysterical:

What if they marry each other :eyedance:

[Bongosamaj]

What if they marry each other :eyedance:

Then i will be guilty of martial homicide. There is only so much i could do with having my guns and boss-bhaga under the same roof. Just a matter of time. :haha::haha:

[Gaurav]

What if they marry each other :eyedance:

Now that is a good idea. Won't DR feel left out though? :hysterical:

[Guest HariSampath]

That you lost it even before it began ... ? If you dont remeber let me refresh your memory ... 1.you started that debate by saying Bradman did everything and more than what current players do ... and I produced a list of things Bradman hadnt done .. prominent among them were playing IN INDIA against quality spinners and Playing against really mean fast bowlers with sub 23 avg and Sub 50 SR ... Unless you want to tell me that those are negligible aspects which you actually even tried to say ... and it was my mistake that I let you go on about it without mentioning this fact ... But yeah if you want to regugitate that same sheet please do so ... but one rule no pompous and bellicose posts ... with the aim of dragging it down to a slanging match .... if that is possible then sure ... else u know the drill. Amongst the Truly great batsmen ... the list is like this 1. Tendulkar 2. Light years of Gap 3. Then all the bakwaas .... and your heor lies at the bottom of that pile. What makes you think ONLY you can make blanket proclamations here ... :hysterical:

The facts are from the points of debate we had agreed upon, you had failed in your very first "against India point". All you could do was clutch at straws attempting to show hypothetically that Bradman may not have scored 300 against India... Go check the thread. You had only two points BOTH of which I had statistically proved you wrong. 1. You said " batsmen on their first tours of India could not be expected to succeed. Proved wrong with the case of Everton Weekes among others ( 4 successive hundreds etc) 2. You said that India in the 1930s/40s never produced high scores Proved wrong when I showed you that teams on first visits routinely scored 450 + 500 + and 600 + scores In contrast ypu couldn't give a single point to justify your ASSUMPTION that Bradman would not have scored very heavily ( while you yourself conceded he would have scored 200 + ) Then you ran away..... anyone can check the "Bradman myth or real" thread Bradman at the bottom of the pile ??? :hysterical::hysterical::haha::hysterical: I think end of debate:two_thumbs_up:

[Guest HariSampath]

??? 2 points; 1) HOW can Bradman stand next to the stumps leaving them exposed "with no batsmen" ? Is he invisible or something, like that guy from the Fantastic Four ? If so, he has my rEzPeKt, 'cos ghosts are super cool...:thumbs_up: 2) Bradman leaves all three stumps exposed ? He must have been a real sh*tty batsman then ? 'cos not even the most brain-dead tailender would ever expose all his stumps in modern day cricket. Tendulkar definitely wouldn't :D

I mean EVEN if Bradman were to stand 4 feet wide of the stumps , behind the stumps etc, his mere presence would make Agarkar miss or even give time for Bradman to hit that yorker anywhere ( after asking Agarkar where he should hit it after he bowls it) :haha:

[Guest HariSampath]

Alternately, even if Bradman is not even at the ground, just marking the crease " Bradman stood here once ", will make agarkar bowl a wide :haha:

[Mr. Wicket]

Alternately' date=' even if Bradman is not even at the ground, just marking the crease " Bradman stood here once ", will make agarkar bowl a wide :haha:[/quote'] Irrelevant. Giving Agarkar a ball and asking him to send down a delivery will make him bowl a wide. Or maybe a half volley on leg stump.

[Guest HariSampath]

2

) Bradman leaves all three stumps exposed ? He must have been a real sh*tty batsman then ? 'cos not even the most brain-dead tailender would ever expose all his stumps in modern day cricket. Tendulkar definitely wouldn't :D

Tendulkar need not leave it exposed.... er.... remember Akthar first ball in 99 eden gardens....Donald etc.... most modern day fast bowlers have clean bowled Tendulkar neck and crop by sheer pace..and as Boycott repeatedly says " no truly great batsman will get bowled by pace and playing the wrong line often"

[Guest HariSampath]

Irrelevant. Giving Agarkar a ball and asking him to send down a delivery will make him bowl a wide. Or maybe a half volley on leg stump.

:hysterical: Agarkar won't even be able to bowl "Geoffry Boycott's Mum" :haha:

[Guest HariSampath]

Bradman anecdote by Michael Henderson >>>Nevertheless, I think I have a beauty. It was told to me by the great Australian batsman, Dean Jones, who positively swore on the head of his daughter it happened, and I have since been told that Merv Hughes also confirms its truth. The scene is set at a Test match between Australia and the West Indies at Adelaide Oval back in February 1989. These were the days when the Windies were the greatest power the cricketing world had ever seen, the days when they used to select 11 fast bowlers in the team and a 12th man who was a fast bowler just to be on the safe side. And it was into just such a furnace that the young bowler Mervyn Hughes walked - with bat in hand. Figuring fortune favoured the brave, Hughes wielded the willow like an axeman his axe, and somehow - after snicking fortutiously, connecting full-bloodedly, and missing entirely - he finished the day's play at 72 not out. The tradition in Test cricket is that the batting side take a few beers into the fielding side's dressing-room afterwards, but not on this evening. Instead, Merv took an ice-box full of bottles, so keen was he to give the men of the Windies the full blow-by-blow account of every run he'd made. So it was that half an hour later, Jones - who himself had contributed 216 - and Hughes and several other Australian players were in the Windies dressing-room, when a sudden hush fell upon the gathering. They looked to the door and there was Sir Donald Bradman himself, being ushered into the room by several South Australian cricket officials. The Don had expressed a desire to meet this mighty team, and now here he was. For the next 15 minutes or so, the great man was introduced to the visiting players, with each West Indian standing up well before Sir Donald got to their position on the bench. Then, when their time came, they warmly shook his hand and had a few words. This all proceeded splendidly until Sir Donald got to the last man on the bench, Patrick Patterson - the fastest bowler in the world at that time. So the story goes, not only did Patterson not stand, he simply squinted quizzically up at the octogenarian. Finally, after some 30 seconds of awkward silence, Patterson stood up, all two metres of pure whip-cord steel of him, and looked down at the diminutive Don. "You, Don Bradman!?!" he snorted. "You, Don Bradman?!?! I kill you, mun! I bowl at you, I kill you! I split you in two!" In reply, Sir Donald, with his hands on his hips, gazed squarely back at Patterson and calmly retorted: "You couldn't even get Merv Hughes out. You'd have no chance against me, mate!"<<

[Gaurav]

Bradman anecdote by Michael Henderson In reply, Sir Donald, with his hands on his hips, gazed squarely back at Patterson and calmly retorted: "You couldn't even get Merv Hughes out. You'd have no chance against me, mate!"<<<

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: nice one :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

10. absolutely faaaar more superior fielding standards of today, and

Have a good time arguing about that...:hysterical: I tried, but gave up.. good to see you have more energy than me :two_thumbs_up: Btw-just a heads up. some still believe that the windies team of yore were a better fielding side compared to the aussies of today:haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

this is where you lost it .... even before we got to the Weekes part ... http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=201488&postcount=4 Look at the statment in bold made by you and my responses Unless ofcourse you are now going to say that those 8 points are all inconsequential in evaluating a players pedigree ... and BTW I did not even add a few other things such as 9. playing in SAF. 10. absolutely faaaar more superior fielding standards of today, and 11. playing against bowlers with sub 50 or even sub 55 strike rate, 12. professional setup vs amateur , 13. very little first class matches for practice in this day and age ... 14. plus a zillion ODIs to go with the Test series and often no time to switch between formats ... So there ... plerase try and convince me that all those are inconsequential aspects of cricket and then we can talk.

BB the rules of engagement were very clear. you couldn't defend your very first point about Don Bradman playing in India, and stonewalled the issue, so debate closed. I didn't even get to the rest of the 8 points. And YES, Bradman had just about everything HUMANLY possible as far as batting was concerned. If you want we can resume it there..:D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

so you are saying those 8+6 points are inconsequential aspects of cricket ? Ohh no he so did NOT (Remember I can also simply type the opposite of what you type ) ... feel free to bump that thread.

But after the very first point was defeated, you ran away saying you wouldn't debate further...and didn't accept your first point was shot down, so how to debate the rest ?