Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[robelinda]

Even though it was a good post it will fail to convince the haters. But continue to tell it like it is Burg.

 

[MrIncredible]

Excellent and timely post. As big a Lara fan as I am there's no way he is even remotely in the same

stratosphere as the Don. Same applies, for every other cricketer period!!

 

[smash84]

If people want to do that it's a matter for them, but in doing so the insult isn't actually to Bradman. Bradman has an average roughly 40% better than Tendulkar's, and of course scored a ton in one in three innings he played in at test level. The insult comes to the great players of Bradman's era as well. Because if you want to say Bradman would average roughly what Tendulkar does now (or any other great player now) then you must reduce his output by roughly 40%.
.

No wonder you hate stats. Bradman's average is about 70% better than Tendy not 40%.

 

[tooextracool]

What else do you expect when you go about saying such silly things. Mate..Bradman is not some mythical character that people keep praising out of madness, he is a bloke who averaged almost 100 in a era of uncovered pitches with no fancy protective equipment or bats full of sweet spots like the one's we have today, if you still can't understand why he is and would remain the best batsman ever than their isn't much one can do about that.

The latter half of your post is factually incorrect. If we look at the batting averages by decade, we find that averages in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s were just as high, if not higher than the 1990s and 2000s where we had helmets and better bats. This seems to contradict your post.


Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Im all for Bradman being far superior than any batsman of his time, but quite frankly you have to question the quality of bowling he was facing if players were averaging that high whilst bowlers were bowling to them on uncovered pitches with little protection, no access to fancy equipment or technology and powerful bats. To blindly accept Bradman as God as people do on this forum based on 4 digits, is quite frankly the most ridiculous argument in any form of sport. Quite clearly he is head and shoulders ahead of any cricketer when you do a comparison with their respective peers, but lets stop fantasizing him as untouchable.

 

[MrIncredible]

The latter half of your post is factually incorrect. If we look at the batting averages by decade, we find that averages in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s were just as high, if not higher than the 1990s and 2000s where we had helmets and better bats. This seems to contradict your post.


Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Im all for Bradman being far superior than any batsman of his time, but quite frankly you have to question the quality of bowling he was facing if players were averaging that high whilst bowlers were bowling to them on uncovered pitches with little protection, no access to fancy equipment or technology and powerful bats. To blindly accept Bradman as God as people do on this forum based on 4 digits, is quite frankly the most ridiculous argument in any form of sport. Quite clearly he is head and shoulders ahead of any cricketer when you do a comparison with their respective peers, but lets stop fantasizing him as untouchable.

Corrections, only one player averaged that high, namely Bradman. Y? Because he was

that good. And its not just his average, its his rate of scoring (29 centuries in what 80

innings, 12 doubles in 52 tests, 974 runs in like 7 innings in a series). Those r numbers no

player has come remotely close too nor ever will.

 

[Spark]

FWIW I hate talking about Bradman. Whenever the discussion comes to him, it's either the worst, slanted, half-baked cherry picked intellectually dishonest arguments or just the same old obvious points that everyone with half a brain already knows about and accepts (because there really is nothing to say, it all comes down to "he scored a staggering amount of runs over a long period in a staggeringly small number of innings comparatively")

 

[Burgey]

No wonder you hate stats. Bradman's average is about 70% better than Tendy not 40%.

Haha yes, a fair point. Plainly I've worded that incorrectly.

 

[Blaze 18]

Of course he should be subject to both of those. But as Spark says, the only time I think people get the Tom **** with anything to do with Bradman is when people want to compare Tendulkar, Lara or another contemporary to him.

If people want to do that it's a matter for them, but in doing so the insult isn't actually to Bradman. Bradman has an average roughly 40% better than Tendulkar's, and of course scored a ton in one in three innings he played in at test level. The insult comes to the great players of Bradman's era as well. Because if you want to say Bradman would average roughly what Tendulkar does now (or any other great player now) then you must reduce his output by roughly 40%.

That means you reduce Hammond's by 40%, Hobbs the same. Sutcliffe, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe - all of them.

So if you want to suggest Bradman will average mid-high 50s now, then in order to be consistent you would need to say Hammond would average 35 now; Headley 36; Sutcliffe 36; Ponsford 28(!!!); McCabe 28(!!!).

And that's just tosh. Because great players adapt - they adjust over time to differences in the game to keep their output at or about the same level. That's actually what being great really is all about. Tendulkar himself shows it in having played for 20 or more years. The game has changed - strike rates, bats, overs bowled in a day, variations from bowlers like the doosra being developed, pitches - they've changed. But he's adapted. So would those blokes. Because they were great players.

If you were comparing Tendulkar to one of those other blokes from Bradman'sera, the comparison would be equally as impossible, but would at least make some sense.

Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar (or to anyone else) is crazy, frankly. The bloke beggars belief. I can only imagine what it must be like to watch a bloke who is 40%+ better than Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Pollock bat. In fact, I actually can't imagine it. And I think that's what makes it so very hard to believe.

But he did it. Over 20 years, and with a six year hiatus in the middle for good measure.

I am not saying that Lara and Tendulkar are comparable to Bradman, but that everyone should be allowed to express themselves freely without being called names. Isn't that the whole point of a cricket forum ? If someone genuinely believes that Bradman's average would have taken a hit had he played in this day and age, then that someone must be heard out without being called a fanboy or whatever. That is all.

 

[Burgey]

I am not saying that Lara and Tendulkar are comparable to Bradman, but that everyone should be allowed to express themselves freely without being called names. Isn't that the whole point of a cricket forum ? If someone genuinely believes that Bradman's average would have taken a hit had he played in this day and age, then that someone must be heard out without being called a fanboy or whatever. That is all.

Yes of course they should be, and would be. I'm talking about people who say X >= Bradman, not whether the latter would have averaged less. They're different things entirely.

 

[Migara]

Of course he should be subject to both of those. But as Spark says, the only time I think people get the Tom **** with anything to do with Bradman is when people want to compare Tendulkar, Lara or another contemporary to him.

If people want to do that it's a matter for them, but in doing so the insult isn't actually to Bradman. Bradman has an average roughly 40% better than Tendulkar's, and of course scored a ton in one in three innings he played in at test level. The insult comes to the great players of Bradman's era as well. Because if you want to say Bradman would average roughly what Tendulkar does now (or any other great player now) then you must reduce his output by roughly 40%.

That means you reduce Hammond's by 40%, Hobbs the same. Sutcliffe, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe - all of them.

So if you want to suggest Bradman will average mid-high 50s now, then in order to be consistent you would need to say Hammond would average 35 now; Headley 36; Sutcliffe 36; Ponsford 28(!!!); McCabe 28(!!!).

And that's just tosh. Because great players adapt - they adjust over time to differences in the game to keep their output at or about the same level. That's actually what being great really is all about. Tendulkar himself shows it in having played for 20 or more years. The game has changed - strike rates, bats, overs bowled in a day, variations from bowlers like the doosra being developed, pitches - they've changed. But he's adapted. So would those blokes. Because they were great players.

If you were comparing Tendulkar to one of those other blokes from Bradman'sera, the comparison would be equally as impossible, but would at least make some sense.

Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar (or to anyone else) is crazy, frankly. The bloke beggars belief. I can only imagine what it must be like to watch a bloke who is 40%+ better than Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Pollock bat. In fact, I actually can't imagine it. And I think that's what makes it so very hard to believe.

But he did it. Over 20 years, and with a six year hiatus in the middle for good measure.

That is a can of worms that you have opened up. What we know is Bradman was way better than his colleagues of his era. It does not automatically suggest that Bradman's colleges are of same skills as of today. They may have been superior, or inferior or similar. The cricket played by Bradman and today is so much different from each other, so we would never know what it was. Suggesting that cricket at Hammond's time is equal to now as a God given truth or like a quote from the Gospel / Quran, is nothing short of fanboyism.

 

[Burgey]

That is a can of worms that you have opened up. What we know is Bradman was way better than his colleagues of his era. It does not automatically suggest that Bradman's colleges are of same skills as of today. They may have been superior, or inferior or similar. The cricket played by Bradman and today is so much different from each other, so we would never know what it was. Suggesting that cricket at Hammond's time is equal to now as a God given truth or like a quote from the Gospel / Quran, is nothing short of fanboyism.

I never said any such thing. I simply said great players adapt, and they do. Bradman played over a twenty year span, Tendulkar has done the same.

The game of cricket has changed enormously just in the time I've been watching it. And in the time Tendulkar has been playing. He's grown with it and adapted. It's one of the things that makes him great.

Why you implicitly doubt that players from yesteryear would struggle now but don't wonder how today's players would have gone then is beyond me.

 

[vcs]

Of course he should be subject to both of those. But as Spark says, the only time I think people get the Tom **** with anything to do with Bradman is when people want to compare Tendulkar, Lara or another contemporary to him.

If people want to do that it's a matter for them, but in doing so the insult isn't actually to Bradman. Bradman has an average roughly 40% better than Tendulkar's, and of course scored a ton in one in three innings he played in at test level. The insult comes to the great players of Bradman's era as well. Because if you want to say Bradman would average roughly what Tendulkar does now (or any other great player now) then you must reduce his output by roughly 40%.

That means you reduce Hammond's by 40%, Hobbs the same. Sutcliffe, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe - all of them.

So if you want to suggest Bradman will average mid-high 50s now, then in order to be consistent you would need to say Hammond would average 35 now; Headley 36; Sutcliffe 36; Ponsford 28(!!!); McCabe 28(!!!).

And that's just tosh. Because great players adapt - they adjust over time to differences in the game to keep their output at or about the same level. That's actually what being great really is all about. Tendulkar himself shows it in having played for 20 or more years. The game has changed - strike rates, bats, overs bowled in a day, variations from bowlers like the doosra being developed, pitches - they've changed. But he's adapted. So would those blokes. Because they were great players.

If you were comparing Tendulkar to one of those other blokes from Bradman'sera, the comparison would be equally as impossible, but would at least make some sense.

Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar (or to anyone else) is crazy, frankly. The bloke beggars belief. I can only imagine what it must be like to watch a bloke who is 40%+ better than Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Pollock bat. In fact, I actually can't imagine it. And I think that's what makes it so very hard to believe.

But he did it. Over 20 years, and with a six year hiatus in the middle for good measure.

 

[hang on]

just to add another aspect to it....

at the risk of being cast into the outer darkness as a non believer, i am not sure that bradman would have been anywhere near as dominant now as he was then. the increase in standards/competition across the board would have it so, unfortunately. i subscribe to stephen jay gould's analysss (transposed to the cricketing arena) about how the peaks in the past are not replicable because the quality of play/competition has increased in a sport.

a rather well documented analysis that he, a baseball aficionado, if there ever was one, conducted a decade and a half ago (i think). have read it but don't have a link to it. could anyone oblige with a link or a better synopsis of his argument, please.

my own quotes, but i think that this would be pertinent in this thread, too.

i do, however, think that bradman was freakishly good enough to average more than today's best. by how much? difficult to gauge but i would say around 70 would be his average. (seems like a fair enough number!)

in terms of how much the averages of his peers would also need to be reduced, am not sure that it can quite be done linearly but i don't know the solution. also, am not sure about the very best of that era (barring bradman) adapting as well as the very best of this era (tendulkar or lara, say) but difficult to underscore or justify my objection without getting caught in some circular reasoning regarding the numbers inflating the understanding of the level of talent of say, a hutton or hammond. i will try, later, to explain it.....if i can!

 

[JBH001]

"Fanboy" the new "it" word on CW.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, we overuse the word 'fanboy'. In some cases it could just be strong conviction based on one's appreciation of certain facts. I will argue to death against anyone who tries to compare Tendulkar with Bradman. But am I a Bradman fanboy? Hell no. If I ever put up posters of cricketers in my room, they won't be Bradman's.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, we overuse the word 'fanboy'. In some cases it could just be strong conviction based on one's appreciation of certain facts. I will argue to death against anyone who tries to compare Tendulkar with Bradman. But am I a Bradman fanboy? Hell no. If I ever put up posters of cricketers in my room, they won't be Bradman's.

Yes but you were never labelled a fan-boy were you? One of the more balanced posters on this forum I believe.

 

[hang on]

out of curiosity, it is ok on this forum to label a poster a buffoon, is it? especially if u happen to be a staff member?

have noticed it elsewhere ie on another thread, too.....a person being called a 'tool,' again by a staff member, just for arguing (however (in)competently) his point.

pretty aggressive, i must say, and i am no shrinking violet.

 

[Burgey]

Cryyyyyyyy me a riverrrrrrrrrr
Cryyyyyyyyy me a riverrrrrrrrrrr
I cried a riverrrrrrrrrrrrr
Over youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

[hang on]

that answers my point quite clearly.

ta.

 

[sledger]

out of curiosity, it is ok on this forum to label a poster a buffoon, is it? especially if u happen to be a staff member?

have noticed it elsewhere ie on another thread, too.....a person being called a 'tool,' again by a staff member, just for arguing (however (in)competently) his point.

pretty aggressive, i must say, and i am no shrinking violet.

Tendy is a buffoon.