WHY do they say this?

[Teja.]

Now moving away from my previous tradition in this thread of picking out random posts and making one-line criticisms, I'll try responding to the OP.

When critics are rating Tendulkar above Bradman, I do not think for a second that they're actually spending time mentally tallying up Tendulkar's achievements against the Don's. In 90% of the cases they're either sub-consciously or consciously using the term 'better than Bradman' as a superlative to express their deep appreciation for Tendulkar's achievements (This is usually done after Tendy breaks a big record).

In the same way you say 'Best Movie!' right after you see Toy Story 2 as an immediate reaction even though you did not actually think and weigh it up against say, Pulp Fiction or Godfather and your opinion will most likely drastically change if you were made to do a proper movie-rating exercise in a week.

When Hammond was still playing iirc, Some considered him England's match to Bradman. A famous umpire whose name I cannot remember atm made a multiple page comparison between Hobbs and Bradman in his autobiography. Hutton compared Gavaskar to Bradman when the former was in peak form and even Ponting was compared by some to the Don in his days of international murder and rape. None of these arguments exist atm, So it is only logical that it used as a superlative than an objective answer. I firmly believe that the headline 20 years later will read 'Wunderkid better than Bradman?' and not 'Wunderkid better than Tendulkar?'

 

[sledger]

Personally would say Toy Story 2 is better than both Pulp Fiction and the Godfather tbh.

 

[Blaze 18]

Out of interest, how do CWers rate George Lohmann? 112 wickets @ 10.75.

Would you guys say he's the bowling version of Sir Donald Bradman? Is he a class above other all-time great bowlers?

 

[GIMH]

Now moving away from my previous tradition in this thread of picking out random posts and making one-line criticisms, I'll try responding to the OP.

When critics are rating Tendulkar above Bradman, I do not think for a second that they're actually spending time mentally tallying up Tendulkar's achievements against the Don's. In 90% of the cases they're either sub-consciously or consciously using the term 'better than Bradman' as a superlative to express their deep appreciation for Tendulkar's achievements (This is usually done after Tendy breaks a big record).

In the same way you say 'Best Movie!' right after you see Toy Story 2 as an immediate reaction even though you did not actually think and weigh it up against say, Pulp Fiction or Godfather and your opinion will most likely drastically change if you were made to do a proper movie-rating exercise in a week.

When Hammond was still playing iirc, Some considered him England's match to Bradman. A famous umpire whose name I cannot remember atm made a multiple page comparison between Hobbs and Bradman in his autobiography. Hutton compared Gavaskar to Bradman when the former was in peak form and even Ponting was compared by some to the Don in his days of international murder and rape. None of these arguments exist atm, So it is only logical that it used as a superlative than an objective answer. I firmly believe that the headline 20 years later will read 'Wunderkid better than Bradman?' and not 'Wunderkid better than Tendulkar?'

This might just be the best post of the thread. Well done Teja, great post.

 

[sledger]

Out of interest, how do CWers rate George Lohmann? 112 wickets @ 10.75.

Would you guys say he's the bowling version of Sir Donald Bradman? Is he a class above other all-time great bowlers?

Bowled fewer balls than Tendulkar, so probably not as good as him.

 

[Blaze 18]

Was a serious question to be honest.

 

[Teja.]

This might just be the best post of the thread. Well done Teja, great post.

Out of interest, how do CWers rate George Lohmann? 112 wickets @ 10.75.

Would you guys say he's the bowling version of Sir Donald Bradman? Is he a class above other all-time great bowlers?

Personally, Most ratings I do start from 1910-1920 or so. I even hesitate calling Bradman the greatest batsman ever, just call him the greatest batsman since the beginning of the 20th century. It's because only from that point on do I have a rough idea about cricket history. FC cricket was of very high importance in Lohmann's day and arguably a greater test of consistency and endurance as tests were extremely few in number.

Basically, I know sweet ****all about other great bowlers apart from Lohmann from that era so if I rate him as the greatest and fill the other 19 spots in an AT list with bowlers from much different eras, It'd be like putting Marshall on top in an AT list 100 years later and not considering any other contemporary of Marshall's, who certainly are only negligibly worse than him, if that. It will definitely happen as people will only remember who is recognized to be the very best as long periods of time progress and all the Duleeps, Shrewsburys and heck, even the Garners now are slowly forgotten. It's a human flaw which I will do my best not to fall victim to.

Personally would say Toy Story 2 is better than both Pulp Fiction and the Godfather tbh.

You'd say that.

 

[shankar]

The only way you can compare players is by their peers.....and obviously no one thinks there's any argument there.

Imagine a time when cricket was played only in a few English villages. Now, no one would seriously argue that the dominance of the best player from that time is an indication of how good he was compared to best players from the different eras of 20th century cricket. Why? The reason is the strength of the peer field is not the same as in the periods from the 20th century. So, this argument rests on the roughly equivalent strength of the peer-field of the two eras being compared. So for the 'strength amongst peers' argument to be validly applied in Bradman's case, the question to be answered is whether the field of his peers is of comparable strength to later eras.

 

[Furball]

Imagine a time when cricket was played only in a few English villages. Now, no one would seriously argue that the dominance of the best player from that time is an indication of how good he was compared to best players from the different eras of 20th century cricket. Why? The reason is the strength of the peer field is not the same as in the periods from the 20th century. So, this argument rests on the roughly equivalent strength of the peer-field of the two eras being compared. So for the 'strength amongst peers' argument to be validly applied in Bradman's case, the question to be answered is whether the field of his peers is of comparable strength to later eras.

Yeah, guys like Hutton, Hammond, McCabe, Miller...hacks, one and all.

Bowlers weren't much cop either. O'Reilly and Grimmett sound like they belong on a kids cartoon show, ergo they must have been crap.

 

[gvenkat]

There's a debate in other sports because the answer isn't so clear cut.

So are still debating that Federer is the greatest or not? Of course there will be some one who will be better than Fed in the future and the fans will accept that.

Look the idea of not open for debate is bordering on arrogance and little preposterous TBH. I do not care personally who is the best. But you just cannot discount some one who has 99 hundreds and 30K international runs and WC medal just like that

 

[gvenkat]

Now moving away from my previous tradition in this thread of picking out random posts and making one-line criticisms, I'll try responding to the OP.

When critics are rating Tendulkar above Bradman, I do not think for a second that they're actually spending time mentally tallying up Tendulkar's achievements against the Don's. In 90% of the cases they're either sub-consciously or consciously using the term 'better than Bradman' as a superlative to express their deep appreciation for Tendulkar's achievements (This is usually done after Tendy breaks a big record).

In the same way you say 'Best Movie!' right after you see Toy Story 2 as an immediate reaction even though you did not actually think and weigh it up against say, Pulp Fiction or Godfather and your opinion will most likely drastically change if you were made to do a proper movie-rating exercise in a week.

When Hammond was still playing iirc, Some considered him England's match to Bradman. A famous umpire whose name I cannot remember atm made a multiple page comparison between Hobbs and Bradman in his autobiography. Hutton compared Gavaskar to Bradman when the former was in peak form and even Ponting was compared by some to the Don in his days of international murder and rape. None of these arguments exist atm, So it is only logical that it used as a superlative than an objective answer. I firmly believe that the headline 20 years later will read 'Wunderkid better than Bradman?' and not 'Wunderkid better than Tendulkar?'

Thanks for that post however as I said to GFB, not even open for debate is bordering on arrogance and pretty preposterous

 

[gvenkat]

I was going to make a thread comparing the abilities of Andrew Strauss and Saeed Anwar, but thanks to this thread I now recognise that as they never played in throughout the same period that would be an incredibly innapropriate thing to do.

Now Tendy and Bradman played almost 40 years apart and things changed so much. Strauss and Anwar more or less played during the same Era? Not? In fact Anwar retired one year before Strauss made his debut. So sarcasm aside you can still compare those two.

 

[gvenkat]

Also, since the pressure on a player is key to determining his abilities, I would submit that Nasser Hussain >>> Tendulkar. Played through a very turbulant time for English cricket tbh.

Yawn...

 

[Furball]

So are still debating that Federer is the greatest or not? Of course there will be some one who will be better than Fed in the future and the fans will accept that.

Look the idea of not open for debate is bordering on arrogance and little preposterous TBH. I do not care personally who is the best. But you just cannot discount some one who has 99 hundreds and almost 40K international runs and WC medal just like that

99.94

29 hundreds in 80 Test innings.

12 double hundreds in 80 Test innings.

All but 7,000 Test runs in 80 Test innings (no-one else in the history of the game has reached the milestone in less than 131 innings.)

A First Class average of 95.

117 FC hundreds in 338 innings (no-one else has reached the milestone in less than 552 innings; Bradman hit his 100th in his 295th innings)

When someone comes close to emulating the Don's batting achievements, then we'll open up the debate.

 

[gvenkat]

99.94

29 hundreds in 80 Test innings.

12 double hundreds in 80 Test innings.

All but 7,000 Test runs in 80 Test innings (no-one else in the history of the game has reached the milestone in less than 131 innings.)

A First Class average of 95.

117 FC hundreds in 338 innings (no-one else has reached the milestone in less than 552 innings; Bradman hit his 100th in his 295th innings)

When someone comes close to emulating the Don's batting achievements, then we'll open up the debate.

So to you now it's all the numbers that matter?

 

[Furball]

So to you now it's all the numbers that matter?

When the numbers are that ****ing good, then yes.

Anyway, you're the one arguing about Tendulkar's 99 International hundreds and nearly 40,000 runs (which is a massive lie, by the way.)

edit: of course ****ing numbers matter. Batting, and cricket, at the end of the day is about numbers. You win games by scoring a greater number of runs than your opponents.

 

[Howe_zat]

If Tendulkar has nearly 40,000 international runs, I'd like to briefly draw attention to myself having made nearly 7000 international runs.

 

[gvenkat]

I meant to say 30K. Please.. You guys picking me for a typo now.. funny

 

[Furball]

I meant to say 30K. Please.. You guys picking me for a typo now.. funny

No you didn't. You made an exagerrated claim and got called on it.

 

[GIMH]

So to you now it's all the numbers that matter?

The numbers aren't all that matter. But Tendulkar's career average is close to what Bradman averaged in the worst series of his career. There's no getting away from those sort of numbers.