WHY do they say this?

[Cevno]

Let's not make this a dick measuring contest

Just good to see cricket getting attention

Amen.

Just did some serious drinking for the first time in my life today(do not drink at all) and am a bit impulsive right now and a bit high on emotion!!!!!

 

[Daemon]

Thanks

So people who have not seen him can not stick up for him against people who have not seen him but criticise him?

Your first post on Bradman? Might be best to make it your last

Firstly I said in ALL PROBABILITY he was A WHOLE LOT better than Sachin. But I don't like comparing them.

I also never said they can't stick up for him, just that they can't go all ape**** and become condescending (not referring to anyone here in particular) just because someone doesn't think Bradman was as good as 99.94.

The only other point I made in the thread was that theres no point comparing the two

And thanks alot for that snide remark. appreciate it.

 

[Daemon]

bradman played for a country ravaged by the great depression. michael jordan played in an era of great prosperity and success for his native country. tendulkar plays for a nation taking baby steps towards becoming a truly responsible global force while being pulled down by corruption and over population.

the point is, great sportsmen/women, like great artists and writers and filmmakers, work for themselves. they may bask in the love showered by their supporters or agonize over rejection by the same masses. but it doesnt matter who they play for because they do the thing they are very good at and they do it only for themselves.

so.... a billion people expecting tendulkar to perform will not matter to him deep down. he will be more worried about the expectation of the 10 people, his teammates, whose respect is more important for any sportsman playing a team sport. but even deeper down, all that he will want is to play to his potential; meaning he plays cricket only to please himself and himself alone. kurosawa made movies for himself. mozart composed music for himself. bradman batted for himself. what others expect, and how many constitute these others, dont really matter while judging the performance standard of a sportsman.

Here you go - all the batsmen in the history of the game to have scored at least 2,000 runs at an average of 50. I've even thrown in their respective First Class numbers in order to fairly compare the older players when First Class cricket was both more played and more important. I've even thrown in the quickest batsmen in history to 7,000 Test runs, and compared them with Bradman's 6,996.

Can we have a like button enabled here?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

This isn't facebook.

 

[archie mac]

And thanks alot for that snide remark. appreciate it.

My apoligies was having a bad day, my beloved football team was well on the way to the mother of all floggings If you followed North Melbourne you would forgive me for my comments and for following them

Also it is a pet annoyance of mine that people dismiss those who have read a lot about a person such as Bradman, while it is not the same as watching a batsman first hand it still gives a very good understanding imo of the talent and impact of a player

 

[GotSpin]

Also it is a pet annoyance of mine that people dismiss those who have read a lot about a person such as Bradman, while it is not the same as watching a batsman first hand it still gives a very good understanding imo of the talent and impact of a player

Agree with this

 

[GotSpin]

TOP POST!!!


Bradman played more than 100 tests and all over the world.
ok, Yes he didn't have the opportunity to do so but if bradman sort of boundaries (played in 2 countries, few tests etc) were applied to other top cricketers stats, you would get very high averages too.

Yeah I'm sure lots of batsmen would have better averages if they only played the best team over and over again

Also could you please explain his FC average then?

Surely there should be a mandatory IQ test or something before you can post in CC

 

[Borges]

Also it is a pet annoyance of mine that people dismiss those who have read a lot about a person such as Bradman, while it is not the same as watching a batsman first hand it still gives a very good understanding imo of the talent and impact of a player

Agree with this completely.

Though I must admit I just can't comprehend how people can compare batsmen across several generations with so much certainty; compare a current great with one whom they have never seen, not even seen in recorded replays. If we were usurers or shop keepers, we could make arithmetic be the sole criterion of relative greatness, and let statsguru be the ultimate arbiter that ends all arguments.

Was Victor Trumper, who averaged less than forty, who scored a century once in every eleven innings a much poorer batman than Gambhir? Or was he one of the greatest batsmen who walked this earth? One who Clarrie Grimmett rated a better batsman than even the great Bradman. Most people at that time differed with Grimmet on that particular matter. But unlike present-day 'experts' who pontificate on the issue, atleat Grimmet had actually seen both play.

Incidentally, just for the record, and just this once, the greatest batsman that I have ever seen is Barry Richards. And, no, I'm not willing to argue the point with the countless Tendulkar and Lara fans out there who I'm sure have very justifiable reasons to feel thoroughly outraged. Was Bradman a better batsman than Barry? The odds are that he was; but I just don't know for sure; I refuse to debate it; I would prefer to remain in my current state of blissful ignorance.

 

[Teja.]

Mate, Grimmet was a spin bowler, not a batsman.

 

[Borges]

Mate, Grimmet was a spin bowler, not a batsman.

Yes, but does that mean that he was not entitled to have an opinion about the relative batting merits of Trumper and Bradman. After all, was one of the greatest spin bowlers in the game's history; he had actually bowled to both of them.

 

[archie mac]

Agree with this

Agree with this completely.

Thanks boys

Though I must admit I just can't comprehend how people can compare batsmen across several generations with so much certainty; compare a current great with one whom they have never seen, not even seen in recorded replays. If we were usurers or shop keepers, we could make arithmetic be the sole criterion of relative greatness, and let statsguru be the ultimate arbiter that ends all arguments.

Was Victor Trumper, who averaged less than forty, who scored a century once in every eleven innings a much poorer batman than Gambhir? Or was he one of the greatest batsmen who walked this earth? One who Clarrie Grimmett rated a better batsman than even the great Bradman. Most people at that time differed with Grimmet on that particular matter. But unlike present-day 'experts' who pontificate on the issue, atleat Grimmet had actually seen both play.

Incidentally, just for the record, and just this once, the greatest batsman that I have ever seen is Barry Richards. And, no, I'm not willing to argue the point with the countless Tendulkar and Lara fans out there who I'm sure have very justifiable reasons to feel thoroughly outraged. Was Bradman a better batsman than Barry? The odds are that he was; but I just don't know for sure; I refuse to debate it; I would prefer to remain in my current state of blissful ignorance.

Very good post mate. I would argue about Bradman V Barry but any man who scores 300 in a day against my hero DKL was special

Mate, Grimmet was a spin bowler, not a batsman.

Think you may have misread his post tbh

 

[Daemon]

My apoligies was having a bad day, my beloved football team was well on the way to the mother of all floggings If you followed North Melbourne you would forgive me for my comments and for following them

Also it is a pet annoyance of mine that people dismiss those who have read a lot about a person such as Bradman, while it is not the same as watching a batsman first hand it still gives a very good understanding imo of the talent and impact of a player

Ok forgiven, sorry for your football team Anyways, I agree with your last point, but its got nothing to do with the fact its still not right to immediately disregard anyone who says that Bradman wasn't as good as he is made out to be so matter of factly. Still a mile above the rest but you get my point hopefully.

 

[Teja.]

Think you may have misread his post tbh

Haha, yes. In my defense, It's noon and in celebration of India's win, I haven't slept last night. Sorry Borges.

 

[archie mac]

Ok forgiven, sorry for your football team Anyways, I agree with your last point, but its got nothing to do with the fact its still not right to immediately disregard anyone who says that Bradman wasn't as good as he is made out to be so matter of factly. Still a mile above the rest but you get my point hopefully.

I understand the point, but struggle with it tbh. Bradman's record should have been even better in reality. Missing at least four series because of the war (prime years) and also having an un-Bradman like average in one series because of Bodyline.

The only real argument that I can understand was that Bradman was not so good on 'sticky wickets' but even that argument has no merit when it comes to STR as they do not exist now.

Every era has there hurdles for Bradman it was sticky wickets, no protective gear, WW2, weaker bats and larger grounds.

For STR we have lots more cricket burnout, more variety of conditions, more planning and a greater knowledge as passed down from earlier times.

What I think is it all evens out and you have to compare cricketers against their contemporaries (spelling) which means Bradman was at least 40% better than the rest, STR not so far ahead and therefore not the best batsman ever.

 

[Borges]

For STR we have lots more cricket burnout, more variety of conditions, more planning and a greater knowledge as passed down from earlier times.

I don't know how it was in Bradman's days, but compared to when I started watching cricket, these days the umpires are a lot more trigger happy while giving lbw decisions. Of every ten lbw dismissals that I see these days, I get the feeling that Dicky Bird wouldn't have given about four of them.

Also the much higher current standards in fielding.

What I think is it all evens out and you have to compare cricketers against their contemporaries

+1

 

[Daemon]

I understand the point, but struggle with it tbh. Bradman's record should have been even better in reality. Missing at least four series because of the war (prime years) and also having an un-Bradman like average in one series because of Bodyline.

The only real argument that I can understand was that Bradman was not so good on 'sticky wickets' but even that argument has no merit when it comes to STR as they do not exist now.

Every era has there hurdles for Bradman it was sticky wickets, no protective gear, WW2, weaker bats and larger grounds.

For STR we have lots more cricket burnout, more variety of conditions, more planning and a greater knowledge as passed down from earlier times.

What I think is it all evens out and you have to compare cricketers against their contemporaries (spelling) which means Bradman was at least 40% better than the rest, STR not so far ahead and therefore not the best batsman ever.

Good point. Beginning to lean towards your perspective I'm pretty fickle minded/easily convinced I guess, but its good to learn..

Think I need to read up on Bradman a bit more.

 

[archie mac]

I don't know how it was in Bradman's days, but compared to when I started watching cricket, these days the umpires are a lot more trigger happy while giving lbw decisions. Of every ten lbw dismissals that I see these days, I get the feeling that Dicky Bird wouldn't have given about four of them.

Also the much higher current standards in fielding.



+1

Good points, I think S. Waugh said it well about umpires in that they were more likely to give lesser lights out LBW so I am sure lots of pressure for umpires re Bradman and Sachin. But agree lots more LBWs these days, I blame hot spot and hawkeye

What does +1 mean?

 

[archie mac]

Good point. Beginning to lean towards your perspective I'm pretty fickle minded/easily convinced I guess, but its good to learn..

Think I need to read up on Bradman a bit more.

In that case I want you to look it to my avatar's eyes and start supporting North Melbourne

 

[Daemon]

I have this huge craving for a Big Mac right now

 

[Borges]

What does +1 mean?

Count me in as one more person subscribing to that very sentiment. Agree completely with it. It is the sort of thing I would have said myself. etc.

Newsgroup jargon, really; perhaps out of place in a cricket forum.