WHY do they say this?

[marc71178]

dont speak on behalf of ppl of our nation in this way. they definitely dont think Bradman was better than Sachin. There are only two types of Indians who think that way. 1. ppl with hero mentality who want to show that they are bigger than their fellow indians by being able to be 'objective'..
2. those indians that are still stuck in their mentality of colonial subservience

I can assure you that 99% of indians that dont belong in either one of these two groups think SRT definitely better than Bradman.

Yes, I'm sure you can assure this from your base in Essex

 

[dhillon28]

Yes, I'm sure you can assure this from your base in Essex

yeah I can when i've visted india 2-3 times every year since Ive been born and have tons of friends and family I can speak to, am a member on Indian cricket forums, watched Indian cricket chat shows....

does that assure you enough?

 

[Burgey]

yeah I can when i've visted india 2-3 times every year since Ive been born and have tons of friends and family I can speak to, am a member on Indian cricket forums, watched Indian cricket chat shows....

does that assure you enough?

Now don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are.....

 

[dhillon28]

Leaving aside the fact that Bradman never made 166 against Essex (and in fact only played them once in his career when he was 39 going on 40), I'd love to know what made the Australian administrators dig up all the stands and rebuild them so much further from the pitch so that the grounds are now as big now when they were apparently so small in that era.

Also, I'd like to know if the grounds were so small and conducive to fast run scoring how come nobody else scored so many runs at such an average?

My bad- he made 187, thanks for the ground breaking, make a lot of difference to overall point of the discussion, revelation. I guess you can automatically assume that every thing else I said is absolute rubbish now. When I see trivial points like this amplified and an entire post devoted to it - it just reinforces me that the opposition opinion is just clutching at straws and does not really have much merit to their points.

Bradman may have been going on 40, so what? He made some big scores during 1947,1948 meaning that it was an ample assessment of his merits as a cricketer.

 

[dhillon28]

That must be sarcasm surely seeing as the "truth" has already been shown as being inaccurate.

slip of the keyboard and u cant stop talking about it. Nit picking of the highest order! A sure sign of someone struggling to come up with any logical argument to prove me wrong. Just in case you didnt know, desperation is not a virtuous quality.

 

[dhillon28]

depends on how seriously they follow cricket and more importantly, cricket history, tbh..

no depends on the other factors I mentioned.

 

[dhillon28]

That's interesting mate, because in 1940 Don Bradman enlisted in the Australian Army and wasn't within a bull's roar of Essex, England or indeed the northern hemisphere. For its part, Esaex and the rest of England were a bit worried about seeing off the Hun.

Not as big a challenge as bowling to Sachin, I admit, but having about 120 divisions ofthe German Army wanting to knock on your front door every 25 years or so back then tended to occupy their minds a tad.

lets put ur knowledge of history straight:

Southchurch Park | England | Cricket Grounds | ESPN Cricinfo

btw w/o going into too much detail, did you know WWII ended in 1945 whilst Bradman's career finished in 1948? Bradman's career was interupted by the war, not ended by it like u suggest. Quite ironic that ur statement doesnt take into consideration these two pieces of basic information considering the fact that u had the nerve to question my grasp of history.

 

[marc71178]

slip of the keyboard and u cant stop talking about it. Nit picking of the highest order! A sure sign of someone struggling to come up with any logical argument to prove me wrong. Just in case you didnt know, desperation is not a virtuous quality.

Neither is making up things (such as the whole concept that grounds were smaller then than they are now) - I notice that you haven't at any point responded to the question as to why if things were so easy nobody else did

My bad- he made 187, thanks for the ground breaking, make a lot of difference to overall point of the discussion, revelation. I guess you can automatically assume that every thing else I said is absolute rubbish now.

Well if you continue to post rubbish then expect people to call you over it.

By the way, there's a poster on here who I think is JBMAC - he was fortunate enough to see a lot of Bradman so maybe his view is worth considering (although seeing as his view differs from yours I suspect you'll ignore his testimony)

 

[Spark]

lets put ur knowledge of history straight:

Southchurch Park | England | Cricket Grounds | ESPN Cricinfo

btw w/o going into too much detail, did you know WWII ended in 1945 whilst Bradman's career finished in 1948? Bradman's career was interupted by the war, not ended by it like u suggest. Quite ironic that ur statement doesnt take into consideration these two pieces of basic information considering the fact that u had the nerve to question my grasp of history.

I have the nerve to question your grasp of the English language too. Do you understand what "interrupted" means?

 

[Burgey]

lets put ur knowledge of history straight:

Southchurch Park | England | Cricket Grounds | ESPN Cricinfo

btw w/o going into too much detail, did you know WWII ended in 1945 whilst Bradman's career finished in 1948? Bradman's career was interupted by the war, not ended by it like u suggest. Quite ironic that ur statement doesnt take into consideration these two pieces of basic information considering the fact that u had the nerve to question my grasp of history.

I'm well aware of that fact. I'm just wondering why you said he scored his runs there in 1940. He didn't play there in 1940, which is precisely what you said in the post of yours which I quoted.

I think your grasp of history is poor tbh. That's just an opinion though.

 

[dhillon28]

I have the nerve to question your grasp of the English language too. Do you understand what "interrupted" means?

Yes I do. But do you?

 

[dhillon28]

I'm well aware of that fact. I'm just wondering why you said he scored his runs there in 1940. He didn't play there in 1940, which is precisely what you said in the post of yours which I quoted.

I said in the 1940, which was meant to say in the 1940s. Again, another amplification of a key board slip up (which is quite reasonable I think since I am one person replying to about 50 different ppl on here)- shows how much I must be dealing with ppl on here if they have to talk about petty things like this. I would have thought that one would have had enough common sense to deduce as much for themselves....obviously not.

or in your wise guy language:

I think your grasp of common sense is poor tbh. That's just an opinion though.

 

[Burgey]

I said in the 1940, which was meant to say in the 1940s. Again, another amplification of a key board slip up (which is quite reasonable I think since I am one person replying to about 50 different ppl on here)- shows how much I must be dealing with ppl on here if they have to talk about petty things like this. I would have thought that one would have had enough common sense to deduce as much for themselves....obviously not.

or in your wise guy language:

I think your grasp of common sense is poor tbh. That's just an opinion though.

Well you're probably right.

I should factor in a fair amount of license when you're quoting facts

What is your response to my earlier point, that great players adapt and would be great in any era? I realise your crusade has kept you busy, but do you suggest otherwise?

 

[dhillon28]

Neither is making up things (such as the whole concept that grounds were smaller then than they are now) - I notice that you haven't at any point responded to the question as to why if things were so easy nobody else did

because there were only about 22 players in those days capable of playing top class international cricket. Not such a big deal that one of them was a lot better than the rest- he didnt have that many ppl to compete with. South Africa, West Indies and India were primitive cricketing nations in those days. Bit like getting excited over someone scoring a triple century against the Sri lankan team of 1970.

Well if you continue to post rubbish then expect people to call you over it.

unfortunately this works both ways, expect a lot of replies to ur posts. Esp the ones which concentrate on spelling, punctuation and grammar errors secondary to keyboard slip ups.

 

[archie mac]

tbh honest, im kinda disgusted by the stupid logic being floated around here and some idiots on this forum sitting on a 'self bestowed high horse' claiming that the suggestion that anyone alive is better than bradman is ludicrous. another stupid comment I keep on hearing that sachin's longevity doesnt count for anything.

ok then, if u fools who believe bradman was easily better than because of batting average and because longevity doesnt count for anything. lets see how consistent you fools really are:

using your logic the best bowler of all time is:

Bruce Murray of New Zealand! Even though he was an opening batsmen as he has a bowling average of ZERO runs per wicket and the fact that he only played 13 games shouldn't count against him as it doest count against Bradman.

So clearly we can see that by taking the arguements supporting Bradman over Sachin to the purest extent, we can arrive at some pretty dumb ass conclusions like Bruce Murray is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Glenn Mcgrath, Deniss Lillee etc.
But if we take the arguments supporting Sachin being better than Don Bradman to the purest extent, e.g.most centuries scored, most runs scored, record around the world, then you arrive at players like Lara, Ponting, Border, Gavaskar, Kallis etc which is not too far off the truth. I feel this post shows just why the notion of Sachin being the greatest of all time has so much validity to it.

Time for Sachin fans to sit on a 'high horse"- a well deserved one I might add.

I read all of your posts in this thread; I would like to say the following in rebuttal of your knowledge of cricket:

 

[dhillon28]

Well you're probably right.

I should factor in a fair amount of license when you're quoting facts

What is your response to my earlier point, that great players adapt and would be great in any era? I realise your crusade has kept you busy, but do you suggest otherwise?

Again, not a surprise to see that adding an 's' where appropriate is considered by you as 'fair amount of license'....given the quality of your earlier statements I can see how such a simple operation is highly taxing for someone of your intelligence.

I'm on a crusade? That's why you brought up your minor point about Stanley Matthews twice now. I guess your ability to abstain from hypocrisy is similar to your application of common sense

Anyways, to answer your amazing question... I think great players may be able to adapt and remain competitive across eras. However, I don't think that they would be able to maintain that level of excellence when crossing into another era- especially when they would be entering a far more competitive and professional era where people have all day to devote to their sports as they are getting paid for it. Simply put, Stanley Matthews would not have been as good as Leo Messi, IMO not even close. Again football is a great example of how undeveloped professional sport was in the 1930s. The first world cup was in 1930 and England who were considered best team in the world by many at that time and didnt even send a team to the first two tournaments. Herbert Chapman's England, 8 of which were Arsenal players beat 1934 world champions Italy like 4-1 or something stupid like that and yet they didnt even participate in the tournament. Basically in that era, international cricket and football were a shambles. Nothing to speak of.

You speak of how the war affected Bradman's career. Have you ever stopped to think of what the Great Depression of the 1930s did to prevent aspiring world class cricketers from pursuing their dreams and providing new competition for the Don rather than churning out the same old trundlers year after year.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, If not for the Great Depression, Sir Don would have averaged in 20s.

Get some perspective before insulting Sir Don like that. Nobody in the sporting history of mankind has managed that kind of superiority statistically and it is not because of the Great Depression.

 

[dhillon28]

dOne of the methods used to attest that Sachin is the best ever is total number of runs scored. Using this method, lets see the top ten batsmen this comes up with:

1. tendulkar
2. ponting
3. dravid
4. lara
5. kallis
6. border
7. s waugh
8. gavaskar
9. jayawardene
10. chanderpaul

Now lets see who the top ten batsmen are using the method of average as the marker for perfromance; I also took the liberty of adding in the nationality of the batsmen where appropriate so that one can have at least a 2% chance of actually recognizing who the hell these ppl are.

1. Ganteaume (WI)
2. Bradman
3. Nawaz (SL)
4. Stollymeyer (WI)
5. D Lewis (WI)
6. Redmond (NZ)
7. Barry Richards
8. Darren Bravo
9. H Wood (Eng)
10. Dempster (NZ)

Now asking yourself this question. using the above techniques, which method generates a more credible list of all time batsmen?

 

[Spark]

ffs talk about mangling of statistics.

how do you live you life with such an inability to perceive shades of grey?

 

[dhillon28]

Yes, If not for the Great Depression, Sir Don would have averaged in 20s.

Get some perspective before insulting Sir Don like that. Nobody in the sporting history of mankind has managed that kind of superiority statistically and it is not because of the Great Depression.

Well I'm sorry to offend you, in those days people were wondering where their next meal would come from and so cricket was not very high on the list of priorities of the masses. In India, nearly every player in the national team comes from at least a middle class background. The very poor people of India dont even have time to think about playing cricket; such is the effect of poverty.