Best After The Don

[watson]

None of this makes any sense to me.

OK. So we think differently. That will be due to the interaction of genes, culture, and parental nurturing.

 

[Satyanash89]

I think that was his intention actually. Specifically. He pointed out the things that detract from Bradman's legacy, and pointed out the things that boost Tendulkar's legacy.




Saying modern cricketers schedules are "more demanding" is such a load of **** imo. Modern cricketers are pampered beyond belief (dieticians, physics, masseuses, psychologists, personal coaches, massive wages), they play cricket for very few actual days of the year, they fly to their destinations in 1st class planes, they fly out again once the game is done, they stay in 1st class accomodation, they don't have to work "real" jobs.

Cricketers in Bradman's era had to earn a wage outside of cricket, had to travel for months by boat to get to England, away from family and friends for months and months (no Watson little flight home for tanty/baby reasons) had to go to a **** load of social engagements and other crap for free, were paid next to nothing to play cricket, had to play heaps more tour matches, nearly died from appendicitis, etc etc.

Really, the modern cricketers schedule is NOT more gruelling than a cricketer in Bradman's era.

Took all that into account, I know what Bradman went through, and I still think modern cricketers' bodies must go through a lot more wear and tear than the Bradman-era cricketers. The amount of ODI cricket played during the 90s and 2000s was absolutely ridiculous. There were an insane amount of meaningless 7 match ODI tournaments and triangulars.

That being said, I do agree that this post

About the only thing that I can say at this point is that we can be reasonably certain that Bradman could not maintain his 100 average if he had to duplicate Tendulkar's schedule. To do so would be beyond normal human endurance - both physical and mental;



But by the same token, I believe that Hammond could replicate his average of 50 something if he followed in Tendulkar's footsteps. Maintaining an average of 50 is one thing, doubling it, then keeping it there is a completely different thing in the long-haul.

Indeed, it could be that an average of 50-60 is the absolute ceiling in a modern setting no matter how brilliant the batsman. And the only time that anyone is going to get close to Bradman's average ever again is if cricketing conditions return to the 1930s. Then the Tendulkar's, Lara's, and Pontings of this world might have a sporting chance

Makes absolutely no sense to me

 

[Coronis]

Man this thread is hilarious sometimes. Gotta completely agree with Monk's recent posts. For the record, Tendulkar wouldn't be in my ATG Top 5 batsmen, and he in no way has a clear lead on any of the other current greats.

 

[watson]

OK, I'll try again....

Assuming Tendulkar's exact schedule, including ODIs etc (1989-2013);
What would Bradman average? Answer: Much less than 100
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Assuming Bradman's exact schedule (1929-1948);
What would Tendulkar average? Answer: Much more than 54
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Therefore, the actual gap in skill, talent, and application between Bradman and Tendulkar has been misinterpreted and exaggerated by slavish adherence to mere batting averages devoid of any context.

 

[harsh.ag]

Bradman's unusual success came because of an intensely high level of concentration, and his incredible hunger and desire for runs, and not to get out. I think we haven't seen that level of intensity sustained for such a long amount of time before or after him. I am sure most of us would agree to this. Could he have sustained that intensity if during his time, the schedule had been as heavy as it is today in the modern world? I don't know. His FC exploits suggest he could have, but then the level of FC cricket is not as high as international cricket, especially when played on different countries and pitches.

 

[Camo999]

Yep, I'm with Monk to be honest. Would agree Bradman era lifestyles were significantly more demanding than today's players who have fewer committments outside cricket and generally seem to have as many days scheduled for training / preparation / recovery as actually playing.

If Clarke, Chanderpaul and Samuels can all average 85+ in 2012, imagine how the Don would go in an era with super bats, short boundaries and very few world class bowlers.

 

[Red]

OK, I'll try again....

Assuming Tendulkar's exact schedule, including ODIs etc (1989-2013);
What would Bradman average? Answer: Much less than 100
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Assuming Bradman's exact schedule (1929-1948);
What would Tendulkar average? Answer: Much more than 54
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

I completely fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why would Bradman average much less, and Tendulkar average much more, if they swapped eras? And why would Hammond's average remain the same in both eras. I'm lost here, really.

Therefore, the actual gap in skill, talent, and application between Bradman and Tendulkar has been misinterpreted and exaggerated by slavish adherence to mere batting averages devoid of any context.

I don't think there's a significant gap in skill and talent between Bradman and any of the great batsmen. I think in application and knowledge of personal strengths and weaknesses there is a great difference. Bradman was very capable of making big scores that others weren't capable of regularly because Bradman simply had the will, and the ability, not to get out.

Averages mean little, I agree. One of the greatest batsmen of all time imo (Frank Woolley) was finishing his career as Bradman's started. Woolley's test average was 36. Bradman's was nearly triple that. If there's ever a player to apply a "slavish adherence to mere batting averages" to it's Bradman, because they are NOT devoid of context. His average was double that of his contemporaries.

Consider if a batsman made his debut now and in ten years he was maintaining an average of 75-80 (while the best of the rest averaged 50ish). He'd be considered the second best of all time, no doubt, because the best of all time basically average about 50-60. And they have done so for the last seventy or eighty years. He'd be significantly ahead of his peers. Only one other person in history has been significantly ahead of his peers.

 

[Coronis]

OK, I'll try again....

Assuming Tendulkar's exact schedule, including ODIs etc (1989-2013);
What would Bradman average? Answer: Much less than 100
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Assuming Bradman's exact schedule (1929-1948);
What would Tendulkar average? Answer: Much more than 54
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Therefore, the actual gap in skill, talent, and application between Bradman and Tendulkar has been misinterpreted and exaggerated by slavish adherence to mere batting averages devoid of any context.

This is ridiculous again. Slashing Bradman's average but nobody elses.

 

[Satyanash89]

Assuming Tendulkar's exact schedule, including ODIs etc (1989-2013);
What would Bradman average? Answer: Much less than 100
What would Hammond average? Answer: About the same

Not this again.
Either they'd both do worse or both do better... you can't slash Bradman's average and keep Hammond's the same... it makes ZERO sense

 

[watson]

What average would be much more difficult to maintain over nearly 200 Test matches - 50 or 100?

I'm sorry, but surely it is a simple impossibility to maintain an average of 100 for such a large quantity of Test matches?

On-the-other-hand, it has been proven regularly by great batsman that it is not overly difficult to maintain an average of over 50 despite the number of Test matches - 25, 50, 100, or 200. It is pushing the average up over 60 that is the really difficult bit.

Obviously Hammond didn't have the skills during the 1920-30s for what-ever-reason. But this doesn't automatically mean that a batsman like Tendulkar or Lara absolutely couldn't score regular 100-200s during 50 odd Test matches in the 1930s to push their average into the 70s, or even 80s.

What's more, I'm sure they'd love to have a go if given the chance. Larwood would be a handful, but I can't imagine Voce, Allen, Farnes, or even Verity being overly taxing to either the Indian or West Indian.

 

[Coronis]

What average would be much more difficult to maintain over nearly 200 Test matches - 50 or 100?

I'm sorry, but surely it is a simple impossibility to maintain an average of 100 for such a large quantity of Test matches?

On-the-other-hand, it has been proven regularly by great batsman that it is not overly difficult to maintain an average of over 50 despite the number of Test matches - 25, 50, 100, or 200. It is pushing the average up over 60 that is the really difficult bit.

Obviously Hammond didn't have the skills during the 1920-30s for what-ever-reason. But this doesn't automatically mean that a batsman like Tendulkar or Lara absolutely couldn't score regular 100-200s during 50 odd Test matches in the 1930s to push their average into the 70s, or even 80s.

What's more, I'm sure they'd love to have a go if given the chance. Larwood would be a handful, but I can't imagine Voce, Allen, Farnes, or even Verity being overly taxing to either the Indian or West Indian.

Before Bradman, people would've called maintaining an average of 100 over 50 test matches impossible. The facts are, 50 has always been a "great" average, that has stood throughout time. Nobody has been able to average over 60 in a decent amount of tests so far, except Bradman, who averaged 100. You have no idea how any of the batsmen you have mentioned would perform throughout different eras. Bradman could've been just as dominant, if he played today. I would love to see any modern day batsman face Larwood, without a helmet.

Hammond actually did play very well, and I think he's very underrated. If you take out his 8 post war tests, where he scored 2 50's, his average is 61.45.

 

[watson]

And here is Bedser, Voce, and Wright in action in 1947;

THE THIRD TEST - British Pathé

Admittedly Bedser looks tricky, but I'm looking at Voce in particular and thinking cannon-fodder (I like Bradman's one handed hook shot against him). To assume that Tendulkar or Lara couldn't score massive runs on a regular basis over a mere 50 Tests against similar attacks is bordering on silly.

 

[the big bambino]

And here is Bedser, Voce, and Wright in action in 1947;

THE THIRD TEST - British Pathé

Admittedly Bedser looks tricky, but I'm looking at Voce in particular and thinking cannon-fodder (I like Bradman's one handed hook shot against him). To assume that Tendulkar or Lara couldn't score massive runs on a regular basis over a mere 50 Tests against similar attacks is bordering on silly.

Look Coward has used the same old non sequitor that SRT urgers have used. It seems to me that Coward is aware of that silly argument and repeating it to salve the prejudice of the most influential audience in cricket today. Because he's a lickspittle.

However I can't say that he's disingenuous. I'd have my suspicions about anyone who dragged up a film of a bowler closing in on 40, fat and running on 2 injured knees and playing tests after sitting out 6 years of a world war, though. Neither have you any ground to under rate the bowling Bradman faced. Its just the same old turd argument over and over again.

 

[fredfertang]

Bradman wasn't fully fit in 46/47 either was he?

That English side must rank as the worst ever - the Bradman of 10 years previously would have scored more than 1,000 in that series, assuming no one ran him out of course

 

[the big bambino]

Also love the line "Bedser was a bit tricky" Really?! Dja think? Like I said just a turd argument. You reckon people can back themselves without trash talking champions just bcos they want to insist on a stupid point. Think I might drag out a youtube of Hayden smashing an ageing Donald in 2001 just to prove how bad he was. That Ntini looks a bit tricky though.

 

[smash84]

Tendulkar is the best batsman since Bradman - Richie Benaud - YouTube

Richie certainly thinks that Tendy is the best since Bradman and he has seen them all since Bradman

 

[doesitmatter]

If an Indian supports SRT then it is "ah it is an Indian nvm"..if others then it is ***** footing to the large cricket audience or bcci..what a joke..Have Coward or Benaud got anything out of it by saying SRT is the best? I don't think so?....btw Coward was picking his no2 and that means Don is his No1...

 

[the big bambino]

Nah I don't have problems with SRT or Benaud; or Coward picking him either. But I've just heard the Coward line mentioned before in other contexts and lets just say I had a feeling where it was going to end up. Mainly bcos it always gets back to the old antagonisms. I mean I was just waiting for the discussion to go off track and someone to raise the old no one in Bradman's time could bowl crap again. In fact if Robbie Waterhouse was running a book on it I'd have placed a bet. And the poster who was going to say it too.

 

[harsh.ag]

If an Indian supports SRT then it is "ah it is an Indian nvm"..if others then it is ***** footing to the large cricket audience or bcci..what a joke..Have Coward or Benaud got anything out of it by saying SRT is the best? I don't think so?....btw Coward was picking his no2 and that means Don is his No1...

Thank you. It is becoming impossible to be a Tendulkar supporter on this forum without being dragged into something or the other.

I have a request. When you try to make any point about Bradman regarding modern comparisons, please just make it with Lara, Ponting or Kallis. Even bringing SRT's name forward (even if it comes naturally to your mind because you might consider him the foremost modern batsman) results in a barrage of SRT hate (and the thing is, it will only be SRT hate; it will not be Lara or Kallis hate even if their names are mentioned with SRT). Just don't use his name. Its better that way. The debates are healthier, more focussed, and we don't end up insulting a great.

 

[doesitmatter]

Thank you. It is becoming impossible to be a Tendulkar supporter on this forum without being dragged into something or the other.

I have a request. When you try to make any point about Bradman regarding modern comparisons, please just make it with Lara, Ponting or Kallis. Even bringing SRT's name forward (even if it comes naturally to your mind because you might consider him the foremost modern batsman) results in a barrage of SRT hate (and the thing is, it will only be SRT hate; it will not be Lara or Kallis hate even if their names are mentioned with SRT). Just don't use his name. Its better that way. The debates are healthier, more focussed, and we don't end up insulting a great.

Ok done..I have also created some fliers which i am going to distribute from a plane saying that SRT supporters are barred from taking his name in the comparison thread..oh we the fan boys..

btw before the ***** footing post i have made 2 posts in this thread and both were healthy for the discussion albeit favoring SRT