Best After The Don

[kyear2]

Ok, missed the Murali part, that would have been awesome to witness.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ok, missed the Murali part, that would have been awesome to witness.

Dude, how did you miss that. Sachin launched two boundaries, one a classic straight loft over Murali's head, and one lofted over mid-wicket. It was awesome. It was brilliant to watch them together. Only if Sachin hadn't stupidly gotten run-out...

Although at times, it felt surreal. I agree, if Warne had been there as well, I would have flipped out. Anyway, this was most definitely my 'will-not-say-a-bad-thing-about-IPL-2013' moment.

#Sachin and Ponting - The best limited overs opening combo ever

 

[Goughy]

I tend to think along these lines as well. Of course the game has evolved over time and the challenges faced by modern cricketers are different in a lot of ways to those faced by players 25 / 50 / 100 years ago.

And yet, for all that, Bradman's career overlapped with Hutton's for a decade, Hutton overlapped with Sobers, Sobers overlapped with Gavaskar, Gavaskar overlapped with Border for a decade, Border overlapped with Tendulkar and Tendulkar is still playing.

The game has evolved but but the sport hasn't changed, and all these players through history have overlapped and played against each other enough for us to see that the average levels of performance since WWI, both on the whole and for those at the very top, has remained pretty consistent from generation to generation.

Except for Bradman.

Bradman retired from Tests the year before Brian Close debuted. Close was still playing test cricket when Gooch debuted and Gooch played against Tendulkar.

At the end of the day, it is just cricket. Things come and things go. People are good and they would be at anytime. People in the 90s thought those in the 50s were ****. Those in the 2000s didn't care fore the 60s and now we hear people doubting people like Lillee.

Two things are clear. Doubting the past is natural and it is also flawed.

 

[BeeGee]

Then why no one else at that time did what Don did?

Yep.

This.

AWTA.

 

[honestbharani]

Dude, how did you miss that. Sachin launched two boundaries, one a classic straight loft over Murali's head, and one lofted over mid-wicket. It was awesome. It was brilliant to watch them together. Only if Sachin hadn't stupidly gotten run-out...

Although at times, it felt surreal. I agree, if Warne had been there as well, I would have flipped out. Anyway, this was most definitely my 'will-not-say-a-bad-thing-about-IPL-2013' moment.

#Sachin and Ponting - The best limited overs opening combo ever

I always had Lara/Sachin open for my dream ODI All Time XI.. I think it was Marc or TEC who got me into that idea with their posts... Such an awesome combo it would be..

 

[smash84]

Bradman retired from Tests the year before Brian Close debuted. Close was still playing test cricket when Gooch debuted and Gooch played against Tendulkar.

At the end of the day, it is just cricket. Things come and things go. People are good and they would be at anytime. People in the 90s thought those in the 50s were ****. Those in the 2000s didn't care fore the 60s and now we hear people doubting people like Lillee.

Two things are clear. Doubting the past is natural and it is also flawed.

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks. It brings out the obvious bleeding hole in Bradman's record, that is lack of oppositions and playing conditions. He kept bashing the same old attack of England, which was the only good attack at that time. There was no other good attack where he could be tested. Obviously Bradman has no wrong in that he had to bash the same attack, neither he gets credit that most of his innigs were against the same opposition, where others were deprived of proper cricket due to no wrong of theirs.

Had he played more vs Martindale and Constantine, the Bradman effect would have dimnished, so, would have been hsi average. If someone suggests Martindale and Constantine are better than Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Croft, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh, there's no point discussing further.

And yet Australia were the clearly best side of the 090s and 00s. Atleast the 30s had 2 good sides eh? Besides your arguement has so diminished that you have taken to the tactic of deliberately missing the point to avoid its sharp point. I was talking about the DECADAL average which takes into account all the bowlers of the era: Not just England's.

The fact is a great bat from that era will distort the decadal ave much more than a modern batsmen would a modern era. That is why Hammond, averaging 59, inflated the 30s ave by almost 4 times compared to SRT's impact on the 90s, where he averaged 58. Reason? Bcos he batted almost 4 times as much, percentage wise, than did SRT.

Without a doubt the 30s decadal ave was uniquely inflated by both DGB's average and the proportion of his innings as a ratio to the whole. Percentage wise he batted twice as often as SRT. Therefore taking his stats out is fair if you want to make an absolute comparison with other decades. That comparison shows the 30s a competitive decade for bowling: Not just England. Even when I give DGB and Hammond the same proportion of innings SRT played in the 90s the 30s still remains the 2nd lowest decade for bowling averages.

Ironically you have opened my eyes to the misleading nature of overall averages for teams and inviduals even though you remain blind to the deception. Moreso than a measure of competence they are a simple reflection of how often a team or player plays a stronger or weaker opponent as a ratio of the total. Greater importance should be placed on averages achieved against each individual team which I'll explain later.

Either way it shows that DGB played the strongest opponent of his era to a much greater proportion than a modern player. Notice how your argument changes in light of that fact from Bradman the minnow basher to Bradman the one trick pony? It is a scurrilous way to argue a point just to save yourself admitting you are wrong.

Btw DGB never played Martindale. A point I have to keep repeating for the ignorant. His so called failure against the WI was relative. He still averaged 74. You can't make any assumptions abt that performance anymore than you can abt IVA Richards averaging 28 against Pakistan in 76/77.

Also Murali would have made a better baseballer than cricketer.

 

[Geoffboycott]

The best defenceive batsman since the don is Rahul dravid. The best attacking batsman since the don is vivian Richards. But the best batsman overall is Sachin tendulkar.
Why isn't dravid even been made an option on the poll?

 

[the big bambino]

I'm not sure. But if it was then surely he would fair even worse if having to play on 3 continents (Tests and ODIs) in the same year like Chappell, Waugh, or Clarke.

If you look at Bradman's list of matches then it is apparent that he had it relatively easy. Unlike Bill Lawry or Ian Chappell he wasn't coping with Bedi, barren pitches, and riots in India one day, then Mike Procter at Newlands the next. Whoever dreamt up that itinery must have been a sadist.
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

However, having said all that, the effect of modern scheduling wouldn't have sent his average crashing. We are looking at a minor/moderate readjustment only.

Touche. The tours to Aus and Eng were very gruelling and I think O'Reilly missed a domestic season or 2 immediately after touring. Some players also lost form the domestic season after a tour. However Grimmett just marched on and on...

So I think fatigue would be an issue. No doubt the hurly burly of modern schedules would have an impact. The extent can only be guessed at.

Btw your comment abt Richards in comparison is interesting. I tend to trust the stats. They are a culmination of a man's work. I don't think DGB was twice as good as Viv especially if by good you mean brilliant. But his stats show he was that much more consistent. Thats the difference imo. There is no way for eg, that DGB was twice as good as even Clarke in his purple patch last year. They would be abt the same. However over the breadth of his career he will suffer corrections that DGB largely avoided.

 

[Coronis]

Touche. The tours to Aus and Eng were very gruelling and I think O'Reilly missed a domestic season or 2 immediately after touring. Some players also lost form the domestic season after a tour. However Grimmett just marched on and on...

So I think fatigue would be an issue. No doubt the hurly burly of modern schedules would have an impact. The extent can only be guessed at.

Btw your comment abt Richards in comparison is interesting. I tend to trust the stats. They are a culmination of a man's work. I don't think DGB was twice as good as Viv especially if by good you mean brilliant. But his stats show he was that much more consistent. Thats the difference imo. There is no way for eg, that DGB was twice as good as even Clarke in his purple patch last year. They would be abt the same. However over the breadth of his career he will suffer corrections that DGB largely avoided.

Plus he kept getting better with age. WAG

 

[the big bambino]

oh , I didn't say England's attack from 98-2009 was weak ....I was being sarcastic there .....

1) the only problem with your "isolation" aspect is that the Indian/SL/NZ ( & england ) attacks, the relatively weaker bowling attacks are still significantly better than the batting of WI, NZ and India in 27-39 .... the only comparable one is Zimbabwe ...

My argument was consistent and has always been :

2)Aus, WI, Pak and SA attacks in the 90s were clearly better than that of the England attack from 27-39 ......

the top 2 of each : mcgrath/warne, ambrose/walsh, wasim/waqar, donald/pollock are clearly better than anyone England had in that time-frame including larwood/verity ....

their support cast including

fleming, gillespie,reiffel, kasprowicz
bishop, rose , benjamin, patterson
saqlain , mushtaq ahmed
de villiers, mcmillan, klusener

etc were also pretty good

3) of course , the records of the modern teams vs the better attacks will go down more because Aus/WI/Pak/SA attacks were that good

and like I showed, even with filtering against those attacks, except for zimbabwe , all the other teams come up with better averages than that of NZ, WI and India from 27-39 ......

oh and I'm still waiting for the answer ....who else did WI batting have apart from headley in that period : 27-40 ?

1) Still having problems mounting a consistent argument I see. 1st it was your isolation problem, not mine. Then you compare the bowling attacks of one era to the batting of another. I mean how can anyone respond to that? Present something atleast comparable please. Look let me do it for you: You isolated Eng's weaker opponents, like the Wi from 27-39. They only played their 2 strongest opponents. A fair comparsion would rate the WI of the 90s v SA and Aus. Ave about 26.5. There you go. You now have a consistent argument. Pity it contradicts the point you are attempting to make.

2) That is an assumption and its not correct or as clear cut as you think. The stats show otherwise. The Eng attack of 27-39 was statistically superior to the modern Eng attack in every respect and the Pak and SA attacks in crucial respects. In those areas where the modern attacks are superior the difference is negligible. These outcomes are based on figures before DGB's uniquely distorting impact is deducted. When it is the old Eng attack is distinctly superior statistically than modern Eng, Pak and SA and comparable to modern Australia.

3) The final point alludes to the proportion of games opponents play against stronger teams as opposed to weaker ones. Take no comfort from that. In each comparsion the Eng team of 27-39 played a much greater ratio of their games against a strong opponent than did any of the modern XIs.

 

[the big bambino]

first of all, bradman is the best batsman by some distance and would be in any era ..

what is amusing is that the when people post that bradman would average somewhat lesser in any other era, bradman apologists , the big bambino, in this case , brings up comparisons of the England attack from 27-39 to that of the attacks of WI from 75--2000, Pak in the 90s, SA in the 90s and 2000s and Aus from 90s till 2007ish .....

Thats the Pak attack from 88-2000, Aus from the same range, SA from 93-2004 and Eng from 98-2009. I believe I mentioned that so you don't have to go around inventing time frames.

I never mentioned the WI let alone 75-2000. I mean how ridiculous. You assert things I never said and over time frames I never considered. Why would I compare a 12 year era with one lasting a 1/4 of a century? The range of cricketers available to the latter time frame are greater making them the winner of any comparison generally speaking.

What i find amusing is the Bradman revisionists talking down his achievements, you in this case, without actually checking your revision against the stats.

 

[the big bambino]

I have love hate feelings for Chappelli over many many issues. Can't disagree with him here giving Sobers the silver. Though I still have visions of Lara smashing champion attacks, making huge scores in almost no time and winning matches from impossible positions. More than one memory too and in both forms of the game available for him to play in. Ok I know some are getting cheesed off with the way this thread is going. Sorry abt that but. All I can say is that is that I reacted to provocation. I should get some spare time at work tomorrow and update my DGB effect thread with the comparsions I promised.

 

[harsh.ag]

The best defenceive batsman since the don is Rahul dravid. The best attacking batsman since the don is vivian Richards. But the best batsman overall is Sachin tendulkar.
Why isn't dravid even been made an option on the poll?

This doesn't make sense because Bradman was not a defensive batsman. If you mean Dravid is the best defensive batsman since Bradman's era, then I think Len Hutton has that prize safely locked away in some cupboard somewhere in Yorkshire. If you think Hutton wasn't that defensive, then Ken Barrington is the next in line to get that award. If you include the whole of 20th century test history, then Herbert Sutcliffe would offer a massive challenge to Ken Barrington as well (assuming still that Hutton doesn't qualify).

Dravid is not an option because Barrington and Sutcliffe are not an option (which I think they should be). There is the 'Other' option for you, if you prefer.

 

[Geoffboycott]

i didnt say bradman was defensive. dravid has faced more balls in test cricket then any other player in history.he has the best defensive technique ever.better then hutton and barrington.look how many games hes saved over the years.hutton and barrington never did that.they were attacking batsmen.

 

[harsh.ag]

i didnt say bradman was defensive. dravid has faced more balls in test cricket then any other player in history.he has the best defensive technique ever.better then hutton and barrington.look how many games hes saved over the years.

I don't agree with you that Dravid has the best defensive technique. Personally, just taking about the modern era, I would have Kallis ahead of him on that front.

hutton and barrington never did that.they were attacking batsmen.

This is just factually inaccurate.

 

[harsh.ag]

Goddammit, CW is making an Indian argue against an Englishman that Hutton and Barrington were better defensively than Dravid. This is not right. Some Englishman take this fight off my hand.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Geoff Dravid has nowt on blokes like Barrington and Sutcliffe in terms of defensive technique, the reason he has runs is because his technique is solid and that he's played a lot more tests.

 

[Satyanash89]

Geoff Dravid has nowt on blokes like Barrington and Sutcliffe in terms of defensive technique, the reason he has runs is because his technique is solid and that he's played a lot more tests.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it seems you're selling Dravid a little short here... I don't think it's ridiculous to say he's a better batsman than Barrington... maybe Barrington was better, i don't know, but the gap between them can't be so big as to negate any comparison. A class below Hutton and Sutcliffe maybe, which is why he doesn't feature in the poll, but Dravid is at the high end of the tier below them in my opinion.

 

[kyear2]

I have love hate feelings for Chappelli over many many issues. Can't disagree with him here giving Sobers the silver. Though I still have visions of Lara smashing champion attacks, making huge scores in almost no time and winning matches from impossible positions. More than one memory too and in both forms of the game available for him to play in. Ok I know some are getting cheesed off with the way this thread is going. Sorry abt that but. All I can say is that is that I reacted to provocation. I should get some spare time at work tomorrow and update my DGB effect thread with the comparsions I promised.

Statistically it has to be Lara, (along with Sachin) played againts the strongest quality attacks, dominating the two greatest spinners ever and the second greatest ever attack and at home and away. He has the greatest match winning innings. Like Bradman he was capable of massive scores and never played for average. Production wise he is second only to Bradman, where Bradman scored (averaged) 134 runs per match, Lara scored 91.

The reason he is not my number 2 is because I am not conviced of his batting againts fast short pitched bowling, Mcgrath hit him on the helmet, not sure how he would have feared againt Lillee and Thompson in '75. He was a creative genius and the best batsman of his generation. Brilliant under rated slipper as well, on par with Hooper and just below Richardson in that regard.