Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[Burgey]

That was not my initial statement. Don't put word in my mouth. I said he should not immune from criticism and you tend to differ. So must be as perfect as the creator if there's one.

So you won't state a criticism of him. I'm talking as a cricketer here, because "why would we discuss cricketer's social lives"?

So, don't you have any criticisms of him as a cricketer? I want to hear them if you do. If you don't, it follows, doesn't it, that in your eyes he is in fact beyond criticism as a cricketer? By the way, why do you think I believe he's beyond criticism? You're actually the one putting words in my mouth here.

Come on, tell us.

 

[Spark]

That was not my initial statement. Don't put word in my mouth. I said he should not immune from criticism and you tend to differ. So must be as perfect as the creator if there's one.

Do you harbor aspirations for becoming a politician?

 

[Burgey]

I won't be voting for him.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, hypothetical argument that can't be backed up. What a surprise!!!

 

[honestbharani]

That was not my initial statement. Don't put word in my mouth. I said he should not immune from criticism and you tend to differ. So must be as perfect as the creator if there's one.

Find it pretty hard to believe that someone can criticize him without even having lived during his era.. I am just talking about criticizing him as a player here...

 

[honestbharani]

For stats to be used we have to make sure that the conditions are the same or at least similar. That is the very thing we don't know. Failing to accept that the game Bradman played was different to today's, and thiniking that Bradman has a god given right not to be criticized is borderline fan-boyism in my honest opinion.

As I said, "similar" doesn't quite cut it in cricket as an excuse to treat stats as gospel... I have seen the same batsman against the same bowling attack making 0 and 150+ in "similar" conditions.. And everyone's definition of "similar" is, rather ironically, NOT similar..

 

[Ikki]

Think whether you want to argue that pitches were flatter or the bowling was worse, the bottom line is that scoring runs was at least as easy if not more so than scoring runs in the last 2 decades. It cant merely be coincidence that some of the highest batting averaging players happened to be playing in that era. In fact, in the top 10 highest averaging players of all time (who have played more than 20 tests), 9 of them (Bradman, Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe, Paynter, Barrington, Weekes, Hammond and Sobers) all played in the era of uncovered pitches and no helmets.

Does it not strike you as slightly ironic that whilst they were playing on uncovered pitches and against batsmen that didnt have half as much protection as they have today that batsmen happened to have comparable averages to the current era? Could it be that perhaps the bowling wasnt as good as people like to think it was? Its certainly a valid argument. I simply cant agree with the flip side though, suggesting that it was more difficult to bat back then while a bloke was averaging 99.94 and another handful averaging nearly 60 is just ridiculous.

I think generally in those years there was essentially two groups of teams - one very strong, where the better players came from - and one very weak ones. It took time for the India, Pakistan, NZ's, and WIndies of the world to become somewhat competitive. This is an educated guess, but I'd say the reason most of those averages are that high would have to do with performances against these teams.

I agree with the second part of your post - if I understood it properly. Even if we concede that it was somewhat easier...it is still far from satisfactory as an explanation as to why Bradman averaged almost 100.

 

[Furball]

For stats to be used we have to make sure that the conditions are the same or at least similar. That is the very thing we don't know. Failing to accept that the game Bradman played was different to today's, and thiniking that Bradman has a god given right not to be criticized is borderline fan-boyism in my honest opinion.

Bull****. Complete, unadulterated bull****.

Batsman            Runs     Ave    100    Inns/100    FC 100   Inns/100

[B]DG Bradman         6996    99.94    29        2.76       117       2.89[/B]
RG Pollock         2256    60.97     7        5.86        64       6.83
GA Headley         2190    60.73    10        4.00        33       4.97
H Sutcliffe        4555    60.73    16        5.25       151       7.27
KF Barrington      6806    58.67    20        6.55        76      10.93
ED Weekes          4455    58.61    15        5.40        36       6.69
WR Hammond         7249    58.45    22        6.36       167       6.02
GS Sobers          8032    57.78    26        6.15        86       7.08
JH Kallis         11947    57.43    40        6.15        57       6.77
KC Sangakkara      8244    57.25    24        6.50        32       8.90
JB Hobbs           5410    56.94    15        6.80       199       6.66
SR Tendulkar      14692    56.94    51        5.69        78       5.67
CL Walcott         3798    56.68    15        4.93        40       5.95
L Hutton           6971    56.67    19        7.26       129       6.31
TT Samaraweera     4395    54.25    12        8.17        33       9.33
GS Chappell        7110    53.86    24        6.29        74       7.32
DPMD Jayawardene   9527    53.82    28        6.79        45       6.96
AD Nourse          2960    53.81     9        6.89        41       6.56
RT Ponting        12363    53.51    39        6.64        73       5.97
V Sehwag           7694    53.43    22        6.81        36       6.97
BC Lara           11953    52.88    34        6.82        65       6.77
Javed Miandad      8832    52.57    23        8.22        80       7.90
R Dravid          12063    52.44    31        8.35        62       7.53
Mohammad Yousuf    7530    52.29    24        6.50        29       7.86
A Flower           4794    51.54    12        9.33        49       7.59
G Gambhir          3234    51.33     9        7.56        32       6.47
SM Gavaskar       10122    51.12    34        6.29        81       6.95
MEK Hussey         4650    51.09    13        7.92        55       7.93
SR Waugh          10927    51.06    32        8.12        79       6.97
ML Hayden          8625    50.73    30        6.13        79       6.52
Younis Khan        5617    50.60    17        7.00        35       7.20
AR Border         11174    50.56    27        9.81        70       8.93
IVA Richards       8540    50.23    24        7.58       114       6.98
DCS Compton        5807    50.06    17        7.71       123       6.82

Look at his stats ffs. A lot of great batsmen from various eras actually perform remarkably similarly. Most batsmen average between 52 and 57, most batsmen score a century roughly every 5.5 to 7.5 innings (13-18% of the time). Those are numbers that have been remarkably consistent throughout the last 90 years. Bradman on the other hand, average a kick in the arse off 100, and scores a century 36% of the time he comes to the crease. **** me, Bradman scores a double century every 6.67 innings - at a better rate than many great batsmen have scored their centuries!

The game might have been different in Bradman's era, but that difference doesn't really show up when you compare numbers from across eras. Of course Bradman is pretty much exempt from criticism - his numbers are just that ****ing good.

Fastest to 6,996 runs

Batsman         No. of Innings
DG Bradman            79
WR Hammond           131
V Sehwag             134
SR Tendulkar         136
GS Sobers            138
KC Sangakkara        138
Mohammad Yousuf      139
SM Gavaskar          140
IVA Richards         140
R Dravid             141

 

[robelinda]

I dont think i know of words that exist that could downplay Bradman's record.

 

[Burgey]

I dont think i know of words that exist that could downplay Bradman's record.

We await Migara.

 

[fredfertang]

I dont think i know of words that exist that could downplay Bradman's record.

Ganteaume is one

 

[Bun]

Ganteaume is one

**** english bowlers another

 

[GIMH]

**** english bowlers another

 

[Migara]

Bull****. Complete, unadulterated bull****.

Batsman            Runs     Ave    100    Inns/100    FC 100   Inns/100

[B]DG Bradman         6996    99.94    29        2.76       117       2.89[/B]
RG Pollock         2256    60.97     7        5.86        64       6.83
GA Headley         2190    60.73    10        4.00        33       4.97
H Sutcliffe        4555    60.73    16        5.25       151       7.27
KF Barrington      6806    58.67    20        6.55        76      10.93
ED Weekes          4455    58.61    15        5.40        36       6.69
WR Hammond         7249    58.45    22        6.36       167       6.02
GS Sobers          8032    57.78    26        6.15        86       7.08
JH Kallis         11947    57.43    40        6.15        57       6.77
KC Sangakkara      8244    57.25    24        6.50        32       8.90
JB Hobbs           5410    56.94    15        6.80       199       6.66
SR Tendulkar      14692    56.94    51        5.69        78       5.67
CL Walcott         3798    56.68    15        4.93        40       5.95
L Hutton           6971    56.67    19        7.26       129       6.31
TT Samaraweera     4395    54.25    12        8.17        33       9.33
GS Chappell        7110    53.86    24        6.29        74       7.32
DPMD Jayawardene   9527    53.82    28        6.79        45       6.96
AD Nourse          2960    53.81     9        6.89        41       6.56
RT Ponting        12363    53.51    39        6.64        73       5.97
V Sehwag           7694    53.43    22        6.81        36       6.97
BC Lara           11953    52.88    34        6.82        65       6.77
Javed Miandad      8832    52.57    23        8.22        80       7.90
R Dravid          12063    52.44    31        8.35        62       7.53
Mohammad Yousuf    7530    52.29    24        6.50        29       7.86
A Flower           4794    51.54    12        9.33        49       7.59
G Gambhir          3234    51.33     9        7.56        32       6.47
SM Gavaskar       10122    51.12    34        6.29        81       6.95
MEK Hussey         4650    51.09    13        7.92        55       7.93
SR Waugh          10927    51.06    32        8.12        79       6.97
ML Hayden          8625    50.73    30        6.13        79       6.52
Younis Khan        5617    50.60    17        7.00        35       7.20
AR Border         11174    50.56    27        9.81        70       8.93
IVA Richards       8540    50.23    24        7.58       114       6.98
DCS Compton        5807    50.06    17        7.71       123       6.82

Look at his stats ffs. A lot of great batsmen from various eras actually perform remarkably similarly. Most batsmen average between 52 and 57, most batsmen score a century roughly every 5.5 to 7.5 innings (13-18% of the time). Those are numbers that have been remarkably consistent throughout the last 90 years. Bradman on the other hand, average a kick in the arse off 100, and scores a century 36% of the time he comes to the crease. **** me, Bradman scores a double century every 6.67 innings - at a better rate than many great batsmen have scored their centuries!

The game might have been different in Bradman's era, but that difference doesn't really show up when you compare numbers from across eras. Of course Bradman is pretty much exempt from criticism - his numbers are just that ****ing good.

Fastest to 6,996 runs

Batsman         No. of Innings
DG Bradman            79
WR Hammond           131
V Sehwag             134
SR Tendulkar         136
GS Sobers            138
KC Sangakkara        138
Mohammad Yousuf      139
SM Gavaskar          140
IVA Richards         140
R Dravid             141

So what you have done is to post a pile of numbers which assumes that conditions faced by the above players were same. Simply, we have no means to decide whether Hammond's average of 50 or that of Richards' is superior. From what you have posted I get the feeling that you have a zero understanding on statistics.

 

[Migara]

I dont think i know of words that exist that could downplay Bradman's record.

Bradman is the GOD.

 

[Migara]

As I said, "similar" doesn't quite cut it in cricket as an excuse to treat stats as gospel... I have seen the same batsman against the same bowling attack making 0 and 150+ in "similar" conditions.. And everyone's definition of "similar" is, rather ironically, NOT similar..

Similar here means a broader sense. It includes pitches, techniques, approach, tactics etc. That even includes rules changes.

 

[Burgey]

So what you have done is to post a pile of numbers which assumes that conditions faced by the above players were same. Simply, we have no means to decide whether Hammond's average of 50 or that of Richards' is superior. From what you have posted I get the feeling that you have a zero understanding on statistics.

Bradman is the GOD.

So that's your criticism of Bradman's record?

Compelling.

 

[Migara]

So that's your criticism of Bradman's record?

Compelling.

Could you please show me where did I criticize Bradman? My criticism is on people who think that Bradman has a God-given-right not to be criticized. Now could you point to the post where I said I want to criticize Bradman?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Surely the pros and cons from back then to now even themselves up.

The argument about the fielding being so much better is often used against Bradman but the pitches/ roads that modern guys bat on are so much easier to play on than some of the puddings that Bradman would have encountered back then.

I just can't see why people who support Tendulkar want to pick holes in Bradman all the time when there is clearly no way they can win the argument with anybody of sound mind.

 

[Migara]

Surely the pros and cons from back then to now even themselves up.

The argument about the fielding being so much better is often used against Bradman but the pitches/ roads that modern guys bat on are so much easier to play on than some of the puddings that Bradman would have encountered back then.

I just can't see why people who support Tendulkar want to pick holes in Bradman all the time when there is clearly no way they can win the argument with anybody of sound mind.

Mot of the people (including me) would agree that Bradman is the greatest of batsmen. But my feeling is that if Bradman to play today, would not have averaged 99, but still would be the best batsman my a significanrt margin. The case is more on whether Hammonds and Huttons were better than Laras and Tendulkars. The real comparison lies there. For me I cannot decide, because the game was so different back by then.