Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Red]

comparing sobers and kallis as bowlers is worser than comparing botham and s.pollock as batsmen

So fascinated at why you think Bradman is "overrated" in your sig. How is it possible to overrate a guy who is without doubt the most dominant sportsperson in the history or sport?

 

[Coronis]

So fascinated at why you think Bradman is "overrated" in your sig. How is it possible to overrate a guy who is without doubt the most dominant sportsperson in the history or sport?

"He would've averaged 50 in any other time. And so would Wally Hammond"

 

[Red]

*of!

 

[the big bambino]

Well Hammond averaged 50 in his time too. But Bradman averaged double that so I'm not getting the logic.

 

[Coronis]

Well Hammond averaged 50 in his time too. But Bradman averaged double that so I'm not getting the logic.

You'd have to ask sobers no. 1

 

[sobers no:1]

Well Hammond averaged 50 in his time too. But Bradman averaged double that so I'm not getting the logic.

increase competitiveness 5%
difference in differences (btwn players) wil b reduced by 50%
thats how it works

otherwise

dhyanchandh = greatest field hockey player / most dominant sports person (along wth don and w.g)
SFB = greatest bowler
W.G = bradman = greatest batsman/player
headley = best after w.g and don
hobbs at 42-48 = ATG (27tests avg-58 , 8 tons )

 

[fredfertang]

increase competitiveness 5%
difference in differences (btwn players) wil b reduced by 50%
thats how it works

otherwise

dhyanchandh = greatest field hockey player / most dominant sports person (along wth don and w.g)
SFB = greatest bowler
W.G = bradman = greatest batsman/player
headley = best after w.g and don
hobbs at 42-48 = ATG (27tests avg-58 , 8 tons )

I'm sure there's an interesting point or three in there, albeit I suspect they're ones that have already been done to death at least a dozen times here, but I'd certainly appreciate an explanation

 

[Red]

increase competitiveness 5%
difference in differences (btwn players) wil b reduced by 50%
thats how it works

otherwise

dhyanchandh = greatest field hockey player / most dominant sports person (along wth don and w.g)
SFB = greatest bowler
W.G = bradman = greatest batsman/player
headley = best after w.g and don
hobbs at 42-48 = ATG (27tests avg-58 , 8 tons )

I have no idea what you're even talking about. The first paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

Plenty of Grace's contemporaries could be considered as his equal or his better as a batsman. Can you name some of Bradman's contemporaries that could be considered his equal, or his better?

 

[the big bambino]

increase competitiveness 5%
difference in differences (btwn players) wil b reduced by 50%
thats how it works

otherwise

dhyanchandh = greatest field hockey player / most dominant sports person (along wth don and w.g)
SFB = greatest bowler
W.G = bradman = greatest batsman/player
headley = best after w.g and don
hobbs at 42-48 = ATG (27tests avg-58 , 8 tons )

Can you translate from the gibberish please?

 

[Red]

increase competitiveness 5%
difference in differences (btwn players) wil b reduced by 50%
thats how it works

otherwise

dhyanchandh = greatest field hockey player / most dominant sports person (along wth don and w.g)
SFB = greatest bowler
W.G = bradman = greatest batsman/player
headley = best after w.g and don
hobbs at 42-48 = ATG (27tests avg-58 , 8 tons )

I don't speak or read Spanish at all. But I put what you wrote in to Google translate, and changed it to Spanish. Here is the outcome...

aumentar la competitividad del 5%
diferencia en las diferencias (jugadores btwn) wil b redujo en un 50%
eso es lo que funciona

de otra manera

dhyanchandh = mayor campo de hockey jugador / deportista más dominante (junto wth don y wg)
SFB = mayor jugador de bolos
W.G = Bradman = mayor bateador / reproductor
headley = mejor después w.g y don
hobbs en 42-48 = ATG (27tests promedio-58, 8 toneladas)

It still makes the same amount of sense to me as it did in English.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe you should have tried Swedish coz I think he's a muppet.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think, he's trying to argue that the difference in standards back then would be much smaller now, because they weren't as competitive back then.

 

[marc71178]

Plenty of Grace's contemporaries could be considered as his equal or his better as a batsman.

Really? Such as who?

 

[sobers no:1]

I don't speak or read Spanish at all. But I put what you wrote in to Google translate, and changed it to Spanish. Here is the outcome...



It still makes the same amount of sense to me as it did in English.

i cnt see the smiley

 

[sobers no:1]

I think, he's trying to argue that the difference in standards back then would be much smaller now, because they weren't as competitive back then.

exactly

thnk u

 

[sobers no:1]

I have no idea what you're even talking about. The first paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

Plenty of Grace's contemporaries could be considered as his equal or his better as a batsman. Can you name some of Bradman's contemporaries that could be considered his equal, or his better?

headley.

1930s ( v eng)
don - 33 matches 19 centuries , avg.102.77
headley - 14 , 8 , 78.21
its like averaging 52 and 40 . isnt it ?
consider other factors- sticky wickets , team strength..etc

they r comparable

 

[kyear2]

While I do not go as far as Sobers1 and I do acknowledge that Bradman is the best batsman in the history of the great game, I do support that Headley was his cloest comtemporary and rival. Their averages againts England are comparable, especially if one excludes his matches after the war which was inadvisable at best, with Bradman having an approximate 10 run advantage. Where the significant difference in their averages comes in where as the other team that Headley faced was a strong Australia team away from home, Bradman faced only minnows and all at home. He averaged over 200 and 178 vs South Africa and India with very weak attacks. Had he had to face his own team instead of the minnows of his time and Headley got to face N.Z, India or S.A. the numbers may well have been reversed. Let me repeat that I do consider the Don to be the best, but the difference between the two are not double as some proport.

 

[Ikki]

But 60s are comparatively weaker in bowling compared to the decade before or after. And Sobers was a regular top 10 (top 5 even) bowler at that time. He is better than average at the time he was playing. Sobers actually bowled roughly 2000 more balls while playing less than 80 tests compared to Kallis. He was actually a proper bowler in the side. His record may not be brilliant, but he makes his team on his bowling alone. Hell there were times in mid 60s when he would make a world XI on his bowling alone. That is not something that can be completely dismissed.

You're wrong, Sobers was worse than the average of his era (his career). I've already calculated all this. For a few years he was a proper front-line bowler, in a pretty disappointing era. But on the whole his record was still below average for his time.

 

[Ikki]

Here are his figures, and I put the spinner figures in case you think they hurt his figures. That he bowled pace for the majority of the 60s still can't offset that he isn't even as good as the average spinner in his time.

[B]Overall              AVG       SR
[/B]Sobers:             34.03     91.9
World avg:          31.18     79.8
Spinner avg:        32.71     88.9

If we go by his peak years 61-68 where he bowled as a pacer:

[B]Peak                 AVG       SR
[/B]Sobers:             27.93     76.3
World avg:          32.84     81.9
Pacer avg:          30.80     72.6

And even then, they're not that impressive for a peak. He is actually a few notches cheaper but conversely a few slower than the average pacer of his peak.

 

[kyear2]

But Ikki you are missing the point, he is the fifth bowler, he would be there to give relief and keep things tight and even sneak ot a wicket, all things he and Kallos was capable of doing. They aee not there as strike bowlers or to bowl out the side.