The new Bradman

[Jono]

This is textbook trolling and its working hook, line and sinker.

The guy posted a link to an article from January 2010 ffs.

 

[uvelocity]

nah ****, textbook trolling gets people angry

 

[Jono]

As if you've ever read a textbook.

 

[uvelocity]

 

[ViruTheBest]

My immediate reaction was Kohli as well. Equally ****-ish.

"Surely he can't think Sehwag is comparable to Bradman."

This is Ian Chappell's article and his title. I think he knows a fair bit about the game compared to us arm chair fans

 

[ViruTheBest]

Your other points also don't make any sense because India clearly haven't been the best team in the world except for a short period very recently, and even then they were not so dominating (or dominating at all) that you could argue that it wasn't necessary to pay attention to fitness. You can't say the great WI or Australian teams had less skill with the bat or ball than the Indian teams - that's an absolutely ludicrous statement. They had much more skill and they were much fitter.

I never compared India to the past WI and Aus teams.

Everyone knows the extent to which they dominated but India dominated too for some time although not to that level.

Also saying Indian people don't have access to a gym early on hence why lack of emphasis on fitness is rubbish. Once you are cricketer you have the money in India to do what you want-get all sorts of coaches and trainers. It's more a cultural thing then lack of access. Also our players are so talented they haven't really had to work at something so much.

I still maintain gym fitness is different to match fitness as Gavasker once pointed out too. I would rather have Indian players catching safely and spending many hours in the nets than working directly on fitness. If we had a limited talent pool then the Andy Flower approch would be crucial.

 

[ViruTheBest]

This is textbook trolling and its working hook, line and sinker.

The guy posted a link to an article from January 2010 ffs.

Did I hide the date? As you can see it's mentioned in the article I quoted so your discovery is not groundbreaking. The point still stands.

 

[Jono]

No your point is ****. Sehwag is not Bradman.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Spark]

oh dear god

 

[Daemon]

top_cat. but tbf it was a different poster.

 

[Ruckus]

Jesus I'm having a seizure here

 

[ViruTheBest]

Who knows what Viru would have averaged in that era. Pie throwing old bowlers, no video analysis, pitches were easier e.t.c. Either way you cannot say Viru is Bradman or rather Bradman is Viru.

 

[silentstriker]

I still maintain gym fitness is different to match fitness as Gavasker once pointed out too. I would rather have Indian players catching safely and spending many hours in the nets than working directly on fitness. If we had a limited talent pool then the Andy Flower approch would be crucial.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. Even professional athletes don't hit the gym for more than a few hours per day. There's diminishing returns.

 

[Dan]

**** it, I'm biting.

Also saying Indian people don't have access to a gym early on hence why lack of emphasis on fitness is rubbish. Once you are cricketer you have the money in India to do what you want-get all sorts of coaches and trainers. It's more a cultural thing then lack of access. Also our players are so talented they haven't really had to work at something so much.

I still maintain gym fitness is different to match fitness as Gavasker once pointed out too. I would rather have Indian players catching safely and spending many hours in the nets than working directly on fitness. If we had a limited talent pool then the Andy Flower approch would be crucial.

Seems a little backwards - Indian players are so naturally talented that they need to work on the skills, whereas English guys are so naturally **** that they shouldn't bother to train?

Surely if India is blessed with such talent, they'd need less time in the nets to get the same effect as the Poms, and therefore have more time to devote to fitness. And similarly, if England was crippled by a lack of talent, they'd surely be training rather than working purely on fitness.

Your point is illogical and fallacious.

Who knows what Viru would have averaged in that era. Pie throwing old bowlers, no video analysis, pitches were easier e.t.c. Either way you cannot say Viru is Bradman or rather Bradman is Viru.

Quit the trolling, eh?

 

[benchmark00]

If we're being honest, Sehwag is probably better than Bradman.

Sehwag has had to play on much bigger outfields than Bradman, and although Bradman played the first half of his career under the 'one hand/one bounce' rule, Sehwag also had to deal with a much more bowler friendly LBW law.

 

[Spikey]

tie me to the mast

 

[Viscount Tom]

Week ban minimum for Skidmark

 

[Kohli_fan]

Tony Greig always says that “match fitness it what counts” I could not agree more in the case of Sehwag he is an immensely gifted cricketer with some of the best hand eye coordination the game has ever seen, if you can strike a ball like he can or be as safe in the slips like he is then who cares about how many push ups you can do? It becomes irrelevant once you have the ability to execute better than the rest.

Also we should not lose sight of exactly what Viru has achieved in Test Match Cricket, it is not as though he is some glorified slogger in the mould of say Luke Wright, Viru is one of only 4 men, Bradman included to make 2 Test triple hundreds and he was just a few runs away from making a 3rd.

 

[marc71178]

Tony Greig always says that “match fitness it what counts” I could not agree more in the case of Sehwag he is an immensely gifted cricketer with some of the best hand eye coordination the game has ever seen, if you can strike a ball like he can or be as safe in the slips like he is then who cares about how many push ups you can do? It becomes irrelevant once you have the ability to execute better than the rest.

So when he's failing or repeatedly injured so that he can't play (as in the last 2 years) I assume you agree that such things become much more relevant.