WHY do they say this?

[dhillon28]

Again.. scoring 6996 runs is not the same as whatever wickes Haynes took..


And what you are using is not logic at all, coz the test matches played back then were less frequent and people had to travel in ships to even reach destinations.. And for the rest of your post, you would do well to read up on what all this meant in Bradman's time before you start comparing him with Yuvraj...

Yes I agree whatever wickets Haynes got is not equivalent to the 6996 runs Bradman made- and hence 6996 runs is not the same as 14692 test runs, let alone the further 18,000 runs SRT made in ODIs.This is why I have little respect for Fanatical Bradmanites, because they will be all about averages and how that sets the Don apart from his contemporaries, and will then suddenly attest that total runs scored is a significant indicator as soon as it suits their argument i.e. the very parameter that shows Sachin is the the greatest. Yes I agree, total number of runs scored has more merit than playing averages and that, in addition to sheer level of skill (something that the most fanatical of Bradmanites cannot testify to unless they are about 132 years old), is what I think separates Sachin from the rest.

On test matches being less frequent in those days.....I cannot disagree with that and that is another one of my issues with Bradman being the best- that era was so far drawn from the professional standards and hence demands of 1970s onwards that it is not even worth comparing players from then to now. So what if they had to travel on ships- they only had one country to travel to, that too a country that speaks the same language and has a very similar culture- they didnt have to go to Joburg, Kingston, Kolkata or Multan.

 

[GIMH]

Yes I agree whatever wickets Haynes got is not equivalent to the 6996 runs Bradman made- and hence 6996 runs is not the same as 14692 test runs, let alone the further 18,000 runs SRT made in ODIs.This is why I have little respect for Fanatical Bradmanites, because they will be all about averages and how that sets the Don apart from his contemporaries, and will then suddenly attest that total runs scored is a significant indicator as soon as it suits their argument i.e. the very parameter that shows Sachin is the the greatest. Yes I agree, total number of runs scored has more merit than playing averages and that, in addition to sheer level of skill (something that the most fanatical of Bradmanites cannot testify to unless they are about 132 years old), is what I think separates Sachin from the rest.

On test matches being less frequent in those days.....I cannot disagree with that and that is another one of my issues with Bradman being the best- that era was so far drawn from the professional standards and hence demands of 1970s onwards that it is not even worth comparing players from then to now. So what if they had to travel on ships- they only had one country to travel to, that too a country that speaks the same language and has a very similar culture- they didnt have to go to Joburg, Kingston, Kolkata or Multan.

I hope someone like Got Spin, Ikki or archie can be arsed to give this piece of crap of a post the proper treatment coz I cbf but here are some brief points:

Average is not a raw indicator of who is better but when the nearest competitor in 150 years averages 30-40 per cent less than you do, then that is much more indicative than number of runs. To try and compare it to a bowler with a handful of wickets is nothing more than illogical.

And although we may not have seen much footage of Bradman, there are millions of words written about him, primary evidence exists. People seem happy to accept Hitler existed and was evil so why would you question every contemporary of Bradman who speaks of his immense skill?

 

[honestbharani]

Yes I agree whatever wickets Haynes got is not equivalent to the 6996 runs Bradman made- and hence 6996 runs is not the same as 14692 test runs, let alone the further 18,000 runs SRT made in ODIs.This is why I have little respect for Fanatical Bradmanites, because they will be all about averages and how that sets the Don apart from his contemporaries, and will then suddenly attest that total runs scored is a significant indicator as soon as it suits their argument i.e. the very parameter that shows Sachin is the the greatest. Yes I agree, total number of runs scored has more merit than playing averages and that, in addition to sheer level of skill (something that the most fanatical of Bradmanites cannot testify to unless they are about 132 years old), is what I think separates Sachin from the rest.

On test matches being less frequent in those days.....I cannot disagree with that and that is another one of my issues with Bradman being the best- that era was so far drawn from the professional standards and hence demands of 1970s onwards that it is not even worth comparing players from then to now. So what if they had to travel on ships- they only had one country to travel to, that too a country that speaks the same language and has a very similar culture- they didnt have to go to Joburg, Kingston, Kolkata or Multan.

Look mate, trying to sound as respectful as I can be.. If concluding Bradman >>> Sachin without having seen Bradman bat was flawed, it is even more flawed to conclude Sachin >> Bradman without having seen Bradman bat too.. I mean, imagine Sachin doing duty in Kargil War and then coming back and playing cricket.. You gotta understand, there was no guarantee that Bradman and other cricketers would be alive after the WW II and he lost his BEST years to that.. Mark that, BEST. The only feasible way to draw a comparison would be to see how much ahead of competition each one was and Bradman was just way, way, way ahead there.. I have personally said earlier in the thread that there is a point in saying Sachin has achieved more than Bradman, in fact, I tend to think he has.. But that is not the same as saying Sachin is a better batsman than Bradman.. There is no way to say that and it has been proven in this thread.. All this jack about professionalism is juz BS coz for argument's sake if another player makes 20K TEST runs in 200 games in the next two decades, would you consider him >>>> Sachin??? I mean, natural progression dictates that each sport gets more professional and tougher to play as you go on.. So this hypothetical player would have done it when he had to concentrate, and excel, in 3 formats of the game than just the two that Sachin had to... It is all so very hypothetical that it really is stupid. As I have remarked in another post, even though it is cricket, the cricket that Bradman played was just so so different to the cricket that Sachin plays. Heck, the cricket Sachin played in the 90s is just so different to the cricket played by Sachin in the noughties.. Easiest way to compare across eras, for me, is to see how dominant they were in THEIR era and assume that they would show similar dominance in any era.. In that manner, Bradman is well ahead. End of.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes I agree whatever wickets Haynes got is not equivalent to the 6996 runs Bradman made- and hence 6996 runs is not the same as 14692 test runs, let alone the further 18,000 runs SRT made in ODIs.This is why I have little respect for Fanatical Bradmanites, because they will be all about averages and how that sets the Don apart from his contemporaries, and will then suddenly attest that total runs scored is a significant indicator as soon as it suits their argument i.e. the very parameter that shows Sachin is the the greatest. Yes I agree, total number of runs scored has more merit than playing averages and that, in addition to sheer level of skill (something that the most fanatical of Bradmanites cannot testify to unless they are about 132 years old), is what I think separates Sachin from the rest.

On test matches being less frequent in those days.....I cannot disagree with that and that is another one of my issues with Bradman being the best- that era was so far drawn from the professional standards and hence demands of 1970s onwards that it is not even worth comparing players from then to now. So what if they had to travel on ships- they only had one country to travel to, that too a country that speaks the same language and has a very similar culture- they didnt have to go to Joburg, Kingston, Kolkata or Multan.

And juz a correction, Bradman did play in most of the places you mentioned and with immense successs, I might add.. Reading up on history helps, seriously.

 

[centurymaker]

The minnow non-minnow break up around that time would be interesting..

year 2002 16 matches avg 55.68
year 2003 5 matches avg 17.00
year 2004 8 matches avg 70.11
year 2005 6 matches avg 44.40
year 2006 8 matches avg 24.27
year 2007 7 matches avg 43.50

 

[dhillon28]

Ignoring the rest of your illogical rambling, how do you account for Bradman's first class average then?

By acknowledging that Sheffield Shield Cricket was more competitive than international cricket in those days. Mark Ramprakash's career stats are a reflection of the disparity that should exist between International and first class cricket, when a playing era is professional and competitive.

Btw, don't look too much into Bradman's first class career. I live in Essex, England and I've spoken personally to a man who saw Bradman make 166 vs Essex in the 1940, and he told me that during that time that the bowlers were trundlers, the fielders were lethargic and the ground sizes were so small and very conducive to fast run accumulation.

 

[honestbharani]

By acknowledging that Sheffield Shield Cricket was more competitive than international cricket in those days. Mark Ramprakash's career stats are a reflection of the disparity that should exist between International and first class cricket, when a playing era is professional and competitive.

Btw, don't look too much into Bradman's first class career. I live in Essex, England and I've spoken personally to a man who saw Bradman make 166 vs Essex in the 1940, and he told me that during that time that the bowlers were trundlers, the fielders were lethargic and the ground sizes were so small and very conducive to fast run accumulation.

And we got the opposite from about a 100 of the people who have watched not just ONE innings but almost the entire career of Bradman.. I know whom I would trust.

 

[sledger]

I've spoken personally to a man who saw Bradman make 166 vs Essex in the 1940, and he told me that during that time that the bowlers were trundlers, the fielders were lethargic and the ground sizes were so small and very conducive to fast run accumulation.

Ah yes, some dodgy looking guy I met in the pub told me this as well. It set my mind totally at ease tbh.

 

[dhillon28]

New number one. This is totally arbitrary and entirely subjective so entirely inappropriate to graph.

What would make sense to graph would be the ICC batsman ranking points over time.

whilst it was compiled subjectively, it illustrates beautifully what I have often wanted to say,but have failed to describe in words alone. Sachin's career is the some total of about 2 all time great batsmen put together.

 

[centurymaker]

Yep, of all the things in that thread THAT is flawed. Not the graph with the randomly drawn lines or a bunch of clowns arguing that Tendulkar is on Bradman's level

Oh here's one for you Tendy fans - there are a couple of poor years there for him - what was Bradman's lowest ever average for a calendar year?

Other flawed things are too obvious

 

[honestbharani]

whilst it was compiled subjectively, it illustrates beautifully what I have often wanted to say,but have failed to describe in words alone. Sachin's career is the some total of about 2 all time great batsmen put together.

you know.. what you have said in this post is completely true.. But that is really not reason enough to say Sachin > Bradman as a test batsman..

 

[PhoenixFire]

Btw, don't look too much into Bradman's first class career. I live in Essex, England and I've spoken personally to a man who saw Bradman make 166 vs Essex in the 1940, and he told me that during that time that the bowlers were trundlers, the fielders were lethargic and the ground sizes were so small and very conducive to fast run accumulation.

Sorry but is that meant to be a serious point?

Anecdotal 'evidence' ftw.

 

[sledger]

you know.. what you have said in this post is completely true.. But that is really not reason enough to say Sachin > Bradman as a test batsman..

He's just said that Sach is pretty much twice as good as anyone who has ever batted anywhere ever, there is no way in hell that is true. Bradman not withstanding.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Thats what i meant but it's flawed
what if a player starts a year with a rating of 750 and then sustains a rating of 800-850 from march to november and then dips off to 750 by the end of december? The graph will plot that as 750!!!
It's basically only taking into accout a player's rating after the last test he played each year.

Then he shouldn't have made six single-figure scores in December.

If you want to make a graph with day-by-day results off every single Test, be my guest.

 

[dhillon28]

Fair cop, RTQ. Still, I'd take issue that Yuvraj has barely played for India. Yuvraj has played plenty of Test cricket for the world to have worked out that he's really not very good at it.

But obviously not enough games for England to work out how to take his wicket and stop him from scoring a match winning 85* in what was the fourth highest successful 4th innings run chase of all time on wicket that was turning square on day 5 in Chennai 2008. And also not enough games for England to figure out how to contain him during that series and prevent him from averaging 70 on his come back series into test cricket after two years in the cold- despite Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood and Harmision specifically targeting him. Bradman however had played enough for England to figure out how to reduce his 99 average to 56 when the targeted him in the body line series.

So be careful and make sure you have a grasp of all the facts before you dismiss someone entirely.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair cop, RTQ. Still, I'd take issue that Yuvraj has barely played for India. Yuvraj has played plenty of Test cricket for the world to have worked out that he's really not very good at it.

But obviously not enough games for England to work out how to take his wicket and stop him from scoring a match winning 85* in what was the fourth highest successful 4th innings run chase of all time on wicket that was turning square on day 5 in Chennai 2008. And also not enough games for England to figure out how to contain him during that series and prevent him from averaging 70 on his come back series into test cricket after two years in the cold- despite Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood and Harmision specifically targeting him. Bradman however had played enough for England to figure out how to reduce his 99 average to 56 when the targeted him in the body line series.

So be careful and make sure you have a grasp of all the facts before you dismiss someone entirely.

lol.. Yuvraj has played precisely ONE test after the Chennai game against England.. And Bradman averaged 56 (his lowest) in a series where the next best was?????????????

 

[sledger]

....so Yuvraj is also better than Bradman now...ITSTL.

 

[GIMH]

Fair cop, RTQ. Still, I'd take issue that Yuvraj has barely played for India. Yuvraj has played plenty of Test cricket for the world to have worked out that he's really not very good at it.

But obviously not enough games for England to work out how to take his wicket and stop him from scoring a match winning 85* in what was the fourth highest successful 4th innings run chase of all time on wicket that was turning square on day 5 in Chennai 2008. And also not enough games for England to figure out how to contain him during that series and prevent him from averaging 70 on his come back series into test cricket after two years in the cold- despite Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood and Harmision specifically targeting him. Bradman however had played enough for England to figure out how to reduce his 99 average to 56 when the targeted him in the body line series.

So be careful and make sure you have a grasp of all the facts before you dismiss someone entirely.

Please please please tell me you're trolling and don't believe this ****?????

 

[Blaze 18]

I'm all for letting everyone express their opinions, but is Bradman vs Tendulkar really worth discussing? I assure you guys that most of the Indian fans rate Bradman much higher than Tendulkar (even if internet forums seem to suggest otherwise).

Don Bradman>>>>>>>>>Brian Lara>>Sachin Tendulkar>>>>every batsman post Viv Richards (IMO).

 

[GIMH]

I'm all for letting everyone express their opinions, but is Bradman vs Tendulkar really worth discussing? I assure you guys that most of the Indian fans rate Bradman much higher than Tendulkar (even if internet forums seem to suggest otherwise).

Don Bradman>>>>>>>>>Brian Lara>>Sachin Tendulkar>>>>every batsman post Viv Richards (IMO).

Cheers Blaze - I did suggest earlier in the thread that most India fans were of sound mind on this one