If batting is so easy in the modern era then how come Tendulkar has only relied on good scores against Bangladesh & Zimbabwe to average over 50 since 2000? By your illogical comparisons, this just proves Tendulkar would've been nothing more then a footnote if he played in the same era as Bradman.
Because Sachin was at his best in the 90's and is 36 now.
Don Bradman wouldn't of averaged higher then 60 during 1975-1998? That's laughable. Are you trying to say that the likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Javed Miandad, Greg Chappell are all on par and are close to Bradman? Bradman would've murdered any bowler between that period. None of the bowlers between 75-98 come close to Bradman's credibility, hell no bowler in history comes close.
You simply do not have a clue about anything to do with cricket and are so hugely biased towards Aussies you cannot form an unbiased opinion.
And BTW- The batsmen you mentioned didn't average 40+ AGAINST those bowlers, they took apart the lesser bowlers like all batsmen do.
Ponting would've only averaged 45 in the 1990s? Funny that, because in his very early 20's (20-23), Ponting averaged 44 and he wasn't anywhere near the batsman that he has been over the past several years. He would've easily averaged over 50 if the majority of his career had've been played in the 90s.
He was always somewhat of an uknown quantity and no he wouldn't have easily averaged 50 in ANY era other than the one he's in.
Once you get found out, your weaknesses discovered it becomes a different ballgame.
Hayden would've averaged over 50 in the 90s aswell, had he been given an extended opportunity. It wasn't until Hayden had cemented his spot in 2001 where he began to make runs allover the world against the best bowlers: Pollock, Donald, Bond, Shoaib, Waqar, Muralitharan, etc. The Ashes '05 is a poor example when judging Hayden's ability against pace bowling because he went into the series in horrible form.
Nope, Hayden would've been detsroyed against better quicks.
Waqar and Donald were past their best in the 00's.
Bond's consistency has always been game to game so it depends when exactly he batted against him.
Shoaib isn't in the same league as the bowlers I mentioned.
Also, I never knew that Muttiah Muralitharan's peak came in the 1990's. Interesting.
His peak (on a graph) would represent more of a hill than a mountain but in the mid to late 90's he was unplayable. The fact stats don't agree means nothing to me.
There is a reason Lohmann averages the way he does. Simply put, Cricket was not near the same sport as it is nowadays or when Bradman played. For example, in Lohmann's era, the average bowler averaged about 19. Compared to Bradman's era of 32 or 90s of 31.5.
Cricket isn't the same sport nowadays compared to when Bradman played.
The difference between the early 20th century and the 1930's is similar to the 1930's and nowadays in terms of the sport as a whole.
From Bradman's era till now, there's been little change. That is why they are much more comparable. The fact that you even bring up Lohmann shows you don't know a whole lot about Cricket's history.
There has been little change because the rate of progression has been the same between ball and bat, there hasn't been.
The fact I brought up Lohmann was to prove statistics mean ****, and it worked judging by your pissy remark.
Stats are never the only thing. One must look at pitches, rules, players, and many other factors. But for the most part, Bradman's era compares with the eras after it, and so it's simply not even near comparable to bring up Lohmann.
If you are trying to say that Bradman's era was so different, like Lohmann's, you have to prove it. Simply saying it's different doesn't get you nearer to the answer. The question is, how different? Yes, everyone will concede that things have changed and players now probably have a few more aces up their sleeves, but whether that would make Tendulkar Bradman's equal, let alone be superior is laughable.
No, you have to prove to me that the bowlers of the 30's were in any way comparible to t hose of eras from the 50's onwards.
You seem to be so in awe of the romance of that era that you aren't able to actually form an opinion.
I don't know whether it's the fact that you weren't around then so you assume it must be better, or whether you really don't have a clue.
If looks were all there was to cricket, then Mark Waugh would be one of the best players ever. But he's not close. Technique is merely a tool. Bradman's batting was not deemed the most technical but 'merely' the most pragmatic.
The fact that you base your entire argument on what you "think" you see and what you "think" you know about technique is not endearing to anyone.
Waugh in terms of TALENT actually is 1 of the best of his era. Statistically it doesn't say so but those who saw him wouldn't disagree he was a man who's talent far outweighed his success.
Bradman's footwork was better because of his accurate anticipation and not that he was especially gifted on the crease.
I've seen Tendulkar do exactly the same thing and you have too unless you closed your eyes during the 90's.
Drivel in what sense?
That Bradman didn't actually do what I said or that your assumption that Tendulkar couldn't/wouldn't at peak do exactly the same thing is complete bull****?
You don't seem to know much about the era and seem to generalise. Ponting's failings in the 90s were ironically against the weaker sides...not the stronger ones. In fact, his record against the best 4 attacks of his time (Pakistan, Australia, S.Africa, W.Indies) in the 90s is better than Tendulkar's.
Ponting averaging 45 in that era was simply because he was green and inconsistent. He was also shuffled throughout the 90s and averaged a solid 50+ at #6 when he did find consistent time.
I grew up watching the era actually.
And batting @ 6 isn't comparible to top order.
Poor point. Hayden the batsman in the 90s and Hayden the batsman in the 2000s is a completely different beast. The irony that Hayden clobbered the likes of McGrath and Warne in domestic cricket and did well against touring sides in the 90s. His handful of failures in the beginning of his career in the 90s can hardly be used against him.
This is the kind of silly reasoning which makes a certain member say Nasser Hussain > Matthew Hayden.
On his own wickets.
It is absolutely no coincedence he filled his boots on flat tracks.
Do you think his tag of flat-track bully isn't justified, because I think it pretty much sums him up.
There are only two other spinners in the history of cricket to compare to Murali and Warne. Guess who they are? That's right, Tiger and Clairrie. Those two are probably just below - think: a breath - and are easily comparable. They are superior to every other spinner in history. How ironic that these are the only two eras with the strongest spinners.
Actually neither of those really compare to Warne or Murali in terms of longevity (which is key to success) and continued wicket taking ability.
I would also say both Qadir and Chandrasekhar are ocmparible to the likes of O'Reilly and Grimmett. Sure they aren't Australian so you may not agree, but Chandrasekhar especially got out great players of spin.
You're reliance on articles, hear'say and statistics is laughable and sad. You are literally incapible of forming your own unbiased opinion. It's pretty pathetic.
"Those" eras had 1 great bowler surrounded by mediocrity. For most of Imran's career that was the case. For pretty much all of Hadlee's career that was the case. For half of Lillee's career, that was the case. Only until the late 70s/into 80s did the West Indies have a formidable line-up. The best India had was Dev. Sri Lanka had nobody. S.Africa didn't exist. Who was so good for most that period?
You need to do more explaining rather than simply typing puff.
1 great bowler surrounded by mediocrity? Lol
You happen to mention 3 bowlers I actually didn't.
I would find it hard to believe anyone would call Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Venkataraghavan mediocre or Holding and co.
The point is "how much", not that it progressed. No one in history will come close to Bradman. Tendulkar included.
That is further proof that you are so dictated to by stats it's not even worth giving your opinion credibility.
You've already closed the door on the next, say, 100 years of cricket.
How close minded.
No, I'd argue that any progression has been much finer than since when the sport first evolved and made big jumps. There's not been anything revolutionary since. Merely evolutionary.
The fact that most batsmen's average stayed the same is a testament to that. Trying to argue that Bradman would drop his average a full 40-50 points is then insulting.
But a 50 in the late 70's/early 80's is better than a 50 nowadays for example so there are differences. In 50 years there could be enough to drop Bradman down to 50.
Then you don't know much about sport.
Again, mostly irrelevant. Even if Gretzky were as domineering as Bradman - which I don't except - then what is your point? Bradman's era was one of the best in Cricketing history. If Gretzky had achieved his feats in the 3rd best era, let's say, would it make him any less domineering? No, it wouldn't.
Actually, yes it would,
It's easier to be the big fish in a small pond than be a big fish in a big pond.
You have no clue about Ice Hockey, that's evident and in fairness you don't claim to do so but Gretzky's acheivement in the best era for the sport means a hell of alot more when the defensemen he faced were equally good for their position compared to Bradman's against a bowling attack who contain 1 good bowler (by general standards), 1 or 2 average bowler s and a couple of hacks.
I would be shocked if anyone put Larwood in the top 25 bowlers of all time and he was by far our best and it's far easier to (for example) average 100 at club level than at test level.
Why is that?
Because of the quality of opposition.
The fact that The Don was so so so ahead of even 2nd best and in one of the toughest eras means regardless of the era (since they are not THAT different) there is no one to even get close. It's acceptable to think that Bradman wouldn't average as high as he did...but so low, to become less than Tendulkar? I think Sachin himself would be embarrassed for your argument.
Toughest?
In whose opinion? Lol
I think it is 1 of the worst eras for the sport. You really need to get over your love affair with the 30's. It'sclouding your judgement.
I'd just like to pursue this point a little further.
Hammond was known for his footwork. Wisden said this about him (you can read the full article, an obit I think (fredfertang will be able to confirm or deny), on cricinfo):
"Even in his cricketing middle-age, his footwork flowed like that of a young man. He would be down the pitch - two, three or four yards - with unhurried ease and, as he reached the length he wanted, the bat moved with languid certainty through the ball, which flew, with that savage force which was the measure of his hitting, to the place he wished."
Have you seen footage which either supports or, more pertinently, disproves Wisden's analysis?
Actually yes.
My grandad worked at the BBC for a couple of decades (it's the reason I know they used to have a big cricket archive which they currently do not make available to the public).
He had a number of (VHS) tapes of footage- not sure how he had it converted from film including Hammond (though miniscule compared to Bradman) but moreso of the eras he watched.
You've probably though it strange there is a decent ammount of footage of Bradman but almost nothing of his contemporaries.
Accounts can't be given creedance IMO. The naivity of relying on other people's opinions to in turn form your own is laughable (not that YOU do this but others in this thread have and probably do).
Sadly there is not a huge amount of decent quality footage of Hammond about so if Rivera can point me in the direction of some I’d be most grateful
Can't, but I know there used ot be footage. Pester the BBC.
What I can do is quote a man who did see a great deal of Hammond from the best possible vantage point
“………………… the most perfect batsman I ever saw”
He saw a fair amount of Bradman too ………………
…….. and no it’s not Neville Cardus or some other such romantic – that quote was from an archetypal Yorkshireman, Sir Leonard Hutton[/QUOTE]
Means nothing except Hutton really liked Hammond.
