WHY do they say this?

[dhillon28]

Foreman was more a one punch KO, stand up fella though. Tyson was a lot faster, threw more combos. Mind you, I thought a factor in greatness was longevity... just saying.

lol....and that is one of the reasons why tyson will never consistently be considered amongst the all time great boxers, or at least not as good as Ali.

 

[GotSpin]

Just read the past seven pages since last night


What the ****kkkkkkkk.

 

[Sanz]

he had many personal issues in his life at the time, like break up with his wife robin givens.. the buster Douglas fight signified the decline of Mike Tyson and despite regaining the world title, never reached the same level as he did in the 80s.

Because he was figured out.

 

[Bun]

Just read the past seven pages since last night


What the ****kkkkkkkk.

AWTA

 

[GotSpin]

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.

Yeah because everybody was so busy working 9-5 they had little time for anything else

 

[smash84]

STFU.. stealing my thunder by explaining what I said in 3 lines in 1 line.. Don't you have no decency?

year 2002 16 matches avg 55.68
year 2003 5 matches avg 17.00
year 2004 10 matches avg 91.50
year 2005 6 matches avg 44.40
year 2006 8 matches avg 24.27
year 2007 9 matches avg 55.48

That is a bit misleading in the sense that the he averages 50+ against Australia and Pakistan only among non-minnow teams. Against NZ, Eng, SA, and SL he averages less than 40. Also averaging 50 against Pakistan during the time that they had one of their worst bowling attacks isn't one of Tendy's crowning achievements but still he did manage 50+. That is only 2 out of 6 major teams and it isn't really a great record (going by Tendy standards or ATG standards)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

So let me get this right. Bradman's average in his worst series when he was specifically targetted by Bodyline was actually within 1 of SRT's career average (an average that includes all games including his 1738 @ 96.56 against the ZimBan combination - incidentally that minnow average is also lower than Bradman's career average)

wow.......that is an interesting stat. Tendy's minnow stats still less than Bradman's career average

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.

Dude I think it is a bit of an overstatement that people were always wondering where their next meal will come from before the 1970s.

However I must say that not all your arguments are crap and yes full mark for keeping up with so many posters.

 

[Bun]

That is a bit misleading in the sense that the he averages 50+ against Australia and Pakistan only among non-minnow teams. Against NZ, Eng, SA, and SL he averages less than 40. Also averaging 50 against Pakistan during the time that they had one of their worst bowling attacks isn't one of Tendy's crowning achievements but still he did manage 50+. That is only 2 out of 6 major teams and it isn't really a great record (going by Tendy standards or ATG standards)

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo



wow.......that is an interesting stat. Tendy's minnow stats still less than Bradman's career average



Dude I think it is a bit of an overstatement that people were always wondering where their next meal will come from before the 1970s.

However I must say that not all your arguments are crap and yes full mark for keeping up with so many posters.

Haha not one of your best posts, smileybhai. Those stats almost conclusively show that while Sachin indeed fell into indifferent form during that period, he was still very much worthy of selection. The so called 4-year terrible form is nothing but a myth.

@ comparing "minnow" stat to Bradman's overall average. Firstly Zimbabwe really could not be considered a minnow during his time, not least in today's sense, otherwise we'd have also to include the kinds of West Indies of today also as one.

 

[Spark]

He was averaging in the low 40s around during that period wasn't he? Not fantastic obviously but not a Mike Hussey trough.

 

[Kylez]

Haha, this discussion is downright pathetic.

If Sachin and Bradman played a single test match against each other, who would you bet on to make more runs in the match? Bradman who averages 100 or the batsmen who averages half of that?

 

[smash84]

Haha not one of your best posts, smileybhai. Those stats almost conclusively show that while Sachin indeed fell into indifferent form during that period, he was still very much worthy of selection. The so called 4-year terrible form is nothing but a myth.

@ comparing "minnow" stat to Bradman's overall average. Firstly Zimbabwe really could not be considered a minnow during his time, not least in today's sense, otherwise we'd have also to include the kinds of West Indies of today also as one.

If you notice my remarks in parenthesis I do add that it is not a great record by Sachin or ATG standards. Where did I say he was "not worthy of selection"?????

Zim was pretty much considered (and still is considered) a minnow. And the minnows combo includes Bangladesh as well. I hope you don't consider Bangladesh as a top notch test team as well

 

[weldone]

I consider 'minnow' as a test nation that should not have gotten test status. Bangladesh has always been a minnow thus far. But Zimbabwe was not a minnow when Andy Flower, Heath Streak etc. played together. Needless to say that they have been a minnow for the last few years (almost coinciding with the time those 2 players stopped playing).

 

[GotSpin]

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?

 

[GIMH]

Just caught up

 

[archie mac]

Gotta say, love how the thread has evolved from the crap it was earlier to a glorious "learn about Bradman" session..

Like when you say "I can't rememer the last time I was sick" just before you cop a bad flu.


This thread should be closed, it is now a disgrace to the great names of Sachin and the Don

I notice they call him "The Don" not too many people have that honour

 

[L Trumper]

What a thread !!
It was really good in the middle..
then suddenly

 

[hang on]

good lord! this thread seems to have had a tendulkaresque second wind.

while i don't, even for a moment, believe that tendulkar (or lara or sobers or richards) are/were as freakishly good as bradman, i certainly subscribe to the belief that the overall standard of cricket in the professional era has gone up so much that bradmanesque outliers would not be possible now.

now, what constitutes the really professional era? well, that's another argument altogether!

 

[marc71178]

I was implying that the original poster was wrong...

I know - I was just fascinated by some of those numbers and did a bit of digging - wasn't a comment about your post, just lead my mind down some different areas I'd not looked at.

 

[sledger]

This dhillon guy is a more eloquent version of aussie, maybe he's taken some elecution lessons and made a dupe. In any case, surely it's sensible for time to be called on this thread?

 

[GotSpin]

good lord! this thread seems to have had a tendulkaresque second wind.

while i don't, even for a moment, believe that tendulkar (or lara or sobers or richards) are/were as freakishly good as bradman, i certainly subscribe to the belief that the overall standard of cricket in the professional era has gone up so much that bradmanesque outliers would not be possible now.

now, what constitutes the really professional era? well, that's another argument altogether!

It's highly irrelevant though. To suggest that the greats of yesterday could not adapt to the modern day is just like saying modern greats couldn't adapt either.

High quality cricketers have certain skill sets, and they're transferable through different eras of the game. I mean, if you wish to knock off 30 runs from Bradman's average, not only is he still far ahead, but I refuse to believe that guys like Hobbs would be reduced to a second XI player that would struggle to make a first class side let alone test

 

[Blaze 18]

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.

What?!

And no, I'm know what I'm talking about mate. The vast majority of the Indians rate Bradman above Tendulkar. Some just use the "can't compare across eras" line of reasoning (which is fair enough), and fewer still rate Tendulkar above Bradman.

See, I am not a fan of statistics at all. There are plenty of cases where I rate a player higher despite an inferior average (KP vs Sangakkara, for instance). However, Don Bradman is an exception. There's really not much you can do to argue against an average of almost a hundred. Yeah that's right - ONE HUNDRED!

If you genuinely feel Tendulkar is better then that's okay. I don't think he is, and I daresay you're in a very small minority, but you're entitled to your opinion.