Don Bradman vs Garry Sobers

[kyear2]

Don't tiptoe around his question in this fashion.

It's simple: You believe that Sobers is somewhat close to Bradman as a batsman. You also believe somehow Headley and Sachin are close enough to be swapped out, essentially ATG for ATG as you said.

The two positions seems completely incompatible because Headley was 40 runs lower on average in the same era as Bradman. Do you believe then that Headley was almost as good as Bradman too?

I believe that all 4 of them have their arguments to be where they are.
Sachin, the weight of his career numbers and his consistency. His technique and temperament and also the bowlers he faced in his career.
IVA, his peak, his brutality, the bowlers he scored against, his ability to change the complexion of a match.in a session.
Hobbs, his mastery and dominance of the early game.
Sobers, his magic, he was Lara before he existed, again the bowlers he had to face
His 10 year peak once he became a batsman he averaged over 70, while maintaining a ridiculous bowling load that none of the others had as a burden. He had 2 innings that Bradman called the best he'd seen in Australia.

I would try to find the post, but I'm sure you are quite capable. Think we were talking about who we would want to cover up our weaknesses? Think the original thoughts were O'Reilly and Sutcliffe? Really can't recall. In that sort of scenario, saying that Tendulkar is comparable to those two references, wasn't applicable. No one is saying Headley is better.

Now for you to say that Headley and Bradman, despite playing in the same era, had the same experiences would be extremely incorrect as well. Their experiences and overall circumstances couldn't have been more different. But no, I don't think Headley is in the best after Bradman category.

Doesn't mean that I would go out of my way to swap him for Tendulkar, because again, it wasn't a weakness.

Our second opener and spinner were examples of bigger upgrades, despite Gibbs not being exactly terrible either. O'Reilly is just way ahead.

Not tiptoeing, but just find that every thing I say is subject to cross examination, while Bolo literally said batting should factor into even your selection of your no
11 batsman, eliminating such bowlers as Walsh, McGrath and Bumrah, and no one bats an eye.

Curious.

 

[kyear2]

Any question or scenario that follows his train of logic to its logical end he will call 'idiotic'.

Just you.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I believe that all 4 of them have their arguments to be where they are.
Sachin, the weight of his career numbers and his consistency. His technique and temperament and also the bowlers he faced in his career.
IVA, his peak, his brutality, the bowlers he scored against, his ability to change the complexion of a match.in a session.
Hobbs, his mastery and dominance of the early game.
Sobers, his magic, he was Lara before he existed, again the bowlers he had to face
His 10 year peak once he became a batsman he averaged over 70, while maintaining a ridiculous bowling load that none of the others had as a burden. He had 2 innings that Bradman called the best he'd seen in Australia.

I would try to find the post, but I'm sure you are quite capable. Think we were talking about who we would want to cover up our weaknesses? Think the original thoughts were O'Reilly and Sutcliffe? Really can't recall. In that sort of scenario, saying that Tendulkar is comparable to those two references, wasn't applicable. No one is saying Headley is better.

Now for you to say that Headley and Bradman, despite playing in the same era, had the same experiences would be extremely incorrect as well. Their experiences and overall circumstances couldn't have been more different. But no, I don't think Headley is in the best after Bradman category.

Doesn't mean that I would go out of my way to swap him for Tendulkar, because again, it wasn't a weakness.

Our second opener and spinner were examples of bigger upgrades, despite Gibbs not being exactly terrible either. O'Reilly is just way ahead.

Not tiptoeing, but just find that every thing I say is subject to cross examination, while Bolo literally said batting should factor into even your selection of your no
11 batsman, eliminating such bowlers as Walsh, McGrath and Bumrah, and no one bats an eye.

Curious.

Again, THAT wasn't the question really...... The question was if you think the gap between Bradman and Sobers is miniscule and they are in the same tier as batsmen, then how come Sachin and Headley are close enough for Sachin to not be a huge improvement on him as:
1) He and Don played in the same era against the same bowlers mostly and most of his exploits comes against England. Surely he isn't an ATG by averaging 37 vs Australia.
2) He played only 19 matches while Don played 52. And a number of those matches against a B English attack.
3) and he still averages around a Victor Trumper less than Don.

And again, the conversation you're recalling is incorrect. You were the one who made it about improvement by roles. Originally, I said Sachin and Marshall would improve every team to ever come up and Silfer said WI won't improve significant, to which you seemed to agree.

 

[subshakerz]

Now for you to say that Headley and Bradman, despite playing in the same era, had the same experiences would be extremely incorrect as well. Their experiences and overall circumstances couldn't have been more different. But no, I don't think Headley is in the best after Bradman category.

Once again not addressing the point. If you pare down Bradman to get him to near Sobers, then you should commensurately do that with Headley and essentially he isn't an ATG bat anymore.

Just you.

No you called someone else's opinion idiotic as well.

 

[kyear2]

Again, THAT wasn't the question really...... The question was if you think the gap between Bradman and Sobers is miniscule and they are in the same tier as batsmen, then how come Sachin and Headley are close enough for Sachin to not be a huge improvement on him as:
1) He and Don played in the same era against the same bowlers mostly and most of his exploits comes against England. Surely he isn't an ATG by averaging 37 vs Australia.
2) He played only 19 matches while Don played 52. And a number of those matches against a B English attack.
3) and he still averages around a Victor Trumper less than Don.

And again, the conversation you're recalling is incorrect. You were the one who made it about improvement by roles. Originally, I said Sachin and Marshall would improve every team to ever come up and Silfer said WI won't improve significant, to which you seemed to agree.

No one said miniscule, and it's not just Sobers. You're deliberately misrepresenting that I said.

No, they didn't play against the same bowlers mostly. Headley played vs 2 teams, one of which was Bradman's. The one he didn't face and one he initially struggled against.
The problem with the early eras, was that with so few teams, one made a difference. He also didn't play against the only two teams that Bradman averaged over a 100 against.

Who said that Headley was as good as Bradman? Not getting your argument here.

I will rephrase it like this.

If I could replace only one position in the team, it would likely be the 2nd opener, after that it would possibly be the spinner, if we're using one.

If we already have a bullet proof middle order, replacing an ATG middle order batsman isn't the one I would target for improvement.

That's in no way to say that Sachin wasn't better. So let's make it very clear

Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than George Headley, how is this a continuous discussion.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No one said miniscule, and it's not just Sobers. You're deliberately misrepresenting that I said.

No, they didn't play against the same bowlers mostly. Headley played vs 2 teams, one of which was Bradman's. The one he didn't face and one he initially struggled against.
The problem with the early eras, was that with so few teams, one made a difference. He also didn't play against the only two teams that Bradman averaged over a 100 against.

Who said that Headley was as good as Bradman? Not getting your argument here.

I will rephrase it like this.

If I could replace only one position in the team, it would likely be the 2nd opener, after that it would possibly be the spinner, if we're using one.

If we already have a bullet proof middle order, replacing an ATG middle order batsman isn't the one I would target for improvement.

That's in no way to say that Sachin wasn't better. So let's make it very clear

Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than George Headley, how is this a continuous discussion.

Again, not the point. And Headley literally played against India and did very poor (albeit due to age, not counting that). He did okay at best vs Bradman's team, and played plenty matches against an English B team. Let me rephrase it, how the heck is Sobers and Don have a miniscule gap, but Headley is an ATG??

 

[kyear2]

Again, not the point. And Headley literally played against India and did very poor (albeit due to age, not counting that). He did okay at best vs Bradman's team, and played plenty matches against an English B team. Let me rephrase it, how the heck is Sobers and Don have a miniscule gap, but Headley is an ATG??

I never said Sobers has a miniscule gap, that's you.

Also, to factor in that India performance shows you're not arguing honestly and he didn't play SA at all.

Headley and Bradman couldn't have had much more different of circumstances in his career and I've answered that in detail, so like Subz and his bs, I wouldn't responding to this anymore either.

You think Headley isn't an ATG that's fine, I don't think Dev is one, see,. We can have different options and no one dies.

 

[subshakerz]

I wouldn't responding to this anymore either.

Weak. If you can't stand the burn, don't set yourself on fire.

 

[shortpitched713]

Jahangir Khan heavily disagrees. The biggest outlier in men's sports. There is a Aussie lady who sis the same in squash who was even a bigger outlier.

What kind of playerbase (absolute number of players) does squash have, compared to cricket?

 

[shortpitched713]

Imo, in any major sport, the biggest competitor of Don is probably Wayne Gretzky.

He doesn't get there. The next highest points / goals leader is much closer to Gretzky in any given year. And over a career, the next best wouldn't only have like 60% of the points/goals ratio as Gretzky, but this is exactly the situation the Don is in with comparison to any other batsman in history.

Evidence:

 

[Migara]

What kind of playerbase (absolute number of players) does squash have, compared to cricket?

Much more than what Australia and England had in cricket in 1930. India and Pakistan have 1.5 billion people nearly. Even one in 100000 plays squash that is a bloody huge number.

 

[shortpitched713]

Thing is, squash is bourgeoisie as **** in Pakistan at least. You got to be part of a club to play that. Cricket is played by everyone, even in the streets ( I guess 1930s-40s would have been different though, in the main cricket nations of the time.)

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Wilt chamberlain. Guy was a freak, would have put absolute insane numbers in any era. Especially the all- round numbers ( points, reb, blocks etc) Probably the most gifted athelete to have ever walked this planet.

Incredible to think Wilt actually actually shot the ball due to how people treated him rather than acknowledging the fact we may never see a human like him ever again. Born in wrong era really.