Could argue that the Windies pace attack of that era never bowled against the best batsman EVER, so they might have had their colours lowered slightly, something they never bowled to before.
Agreed . Malcolm marshall will destroy batting line up of Australia in one spell. And Australia won't be able to do that because Haynes ,Richards and Greenidge were excellent player of pace bowling.
But like i said Bradman never faced the best pace attack in history so how can you be so sure he'd make the difference? plus Lara, Viv and Sobers are a better trio than Bradman, Ponting and Hayden IMO.
This argument, like Redbacks mentioned, works both ways though. That pace attack never faced the best batsmen of all time.
Ponting and hayden are the most over rated batsman in the history of cricket.The fact that Malcolm marshall dismissed Gavaskar many times on the flat tracks of India, Ponting and hayden would have been his bunny.
There's a reason why Sobers is considered the greatest though, because he could win a match on his own with both bat AND ball, so if Sobers didn't make many runs he could make up with it with the ball, that's not an option for Bradman which is why imo Sobers is the better cricketer.
Lol @ you thinking there's no difference between '>' & '>>>>>>' even without a rule bookThere's no rule book that states how many ">" can be used though!!, it doesn't matter, i mean "better than" and i stick by that notion.
Its not as straight cut as that. Its a question of what you prefer, the extra 3 wickets or extra 84 runs.
It could be argued that cricket was a little easier back then!!, but that's another argument i guess!!
, yeah our pace attack never faced him, but he'd have four or five of the best pacers ever coming at him, i'm sure one of them would have made the breakthrough sooner, rather than later.
Granted, Bradman wasn't the greatest bowler, though he still averaged 36. Nevertheless, when considering their worth to a team, Bradman's supremacy as the greatest batsmen in the game outweighs the achievements of another player who does remarkably well in both fields of batting and bowling, but not selectively standing out further than his peers like Bradman did.
Yet you did waste some time passing comment on it regardless, always cracks me up when people do that ..hehe
There's no way we're going down that road because we'll be here until the cows come home!It could be argued that cricket was a little easier back then!!, but that's another argument i guess!!
So why bother posting in it then? i thought this was a place for debates about cricket!!, silly me
.
well done. you just made the worst contribution yet.
I just see a big difference between a great batsman and a great alrounder, Sobers wasn't just "decent" with bat and ball, he was bliming GREAT with bat and ball, plus a cracking fielder, i guess we'll have to disagree on this subject because i'll always say Sobers is the greatest and you'll most likely stick with your opinion too.
It's really a matter of opinion.
