Best After The Don

[kyear2]

You've missed the point. If Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) were to 'walk in Bradman's shoes' and replicate his Test matches in order to try and achieve an average in the 70s, or even 80s, then they would face that exact same attack on the video I showed - an ageng England attack out of form. And presumerably they would score a bucket-load of runs.

It appears that most people are making the assumption that Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) could not possibly achieve an extremely high average if they re-played Bradman's 52 Tests from 1929-1948. I think that this is a pessimistic piece of dogma, and no more believable than an optimistic position that says, "yes they could"'.

(But I've crapped on enough.....)

Just give up Watson, never going to change anyone's mind on here, it's a lost cause.

Back on actual topic though, The reason why I consider IVA to be the best after Bradman is that solely in the period from '75 through WSC I consider his batting un parrelled in the history of the game, and for that period he was IMO the best ever.

 

[the big bambino]

Look just to clarify I would expect SRT to be a nominee for this type of discussion. No problems, completely justified and if he gets it no problems from me though I'd pick Sobers or Lara.

I've read what people here say about Coward. Ok fair enough - he's a seasoned writer and observer. I don't mean to junk him just to say I personally don't like him for the reasons I suspect. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

There are just better ways to frame SRT's case. Many many better ways than relying on the old reasons that start all the fights in a comparison with DGB which I'm sure both would (or would have) found distasteful. How about mentioning SRT's skill and courage in any no. of innings he played as a representative example and base your case on that unarguable ground?

 

[the big bambino]

You've missed the point. If Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) were to 'walk in Bradman's shoes' and replicate his Test matches in order to try and achieve an average in the 70s, or even 80s, then they would face that exact same attack on the video I showed - an ageng England attack out of form. And presumerably they would score a bucket-load of runs.

It appears that most people are making the assumption that Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) could not possibly achieve an extremely high average if they re-played Bradman's 52 Tests from 1929-1948. I think that this is a pessimistic piece of dogma, and no more believable than an optimistic position that says, "yes they could"'.

(But I've crapped on enough.....)

You see that is selective. Everyone faces easy games but its not fair to imply what DGB faced in that game or series is representative of his career. Its like saying look at Hussey's record v SL and saying everyone could average a billion in this era.

Look I've been following but not understanding. You quote Coward. He lists stats that are factual but irrelevant imo. Why? Bcos when a batsmen plays the least relevant aspect of his success is the location of the city he is playing. More relevant is the strength of the opponent and the condition of the pitch. I think Coward should have framed his argument like that.

After highlighting Coward's factual but irrelevant stats you then say something contradictory like stats aren't everything; if I recall correctly. Ok I think...They aren't everything but they are more substantial than opinions. Bcos they are evidence.

You stick to this for a while. You say modern schedules would bring down batting averages. You say that can't measured. Fine I think. Can't be proven but a reasonable assumption.

Amazingly you then make a claim that makes no sense and begins to resemble science fiction. You transport DGB and Hammond into the modern era, leave the lesser batsman's ave in tact while almost halving the better batsmen's ave. I'm now thinking that you do believe in stats after all but only those you make up. There is no evidence explaining why you can do that. Bcos there isn't any as you admitted in the paragraph above.

Incredibly you then put modern batsmen back in the time machine and credit them with Bradman like averages. Again figures are plucked out of the sky fairy's butt and are given an alice in wonderland like authourity. They are what I say them to be...

But hang on: Didn't you previously teleport Hammond and give him a modern test ave of 50? Well then it stands to Carollian reason that when he's a passenger on the same time machine with Sobers, Lara, SRT, Ponting, whomever - he too should average 80 or 90 or whatever you said.

But he didn't did he? He averaged 50! So you wonder why I collapsed a lung laughing at the sheer fairytale like absurdity of it all.

Then it degenerated as I was waiting for it to do. To the most tedious claim in cricket; Ian Chappell banging on abt the no ball rule notwithstanding: All DGB's opponents were crap and no better than injured 40 yr olds with 6 years of ring rust on them. Yet no one in a serious position in cricket believes that. Only loons on cricket forums. And we can take it from the source that opinion comes from how ridiculous it is.

 

[watson]

OK.

But I will say that the line - 'plucked out of the sky fairy's butt' - is a very excellent one.

 

[honestbharani]

Probably missing the point here. He didn't say the imposing and difficult schedule is exclusive to Tendulkar. All modern batsmen have that problem. I don't think he was trying to "denigrate" Bradman and "boost" Tendulkar at all. Just adding a bit of perspective by saying modern cricketers' schedules are more demanding, and they are... that's just a fact. Hell, I picked Bradman as the greatest cricketer in that poll and have defended his record against people who won't admit he was far ahead of the rest of the pack... but schedule wise, players of old certainly had it a tad easier.
That doesn't change the fact that Bradman was the greatest by a country mile.

dude, try travelling for 8 days on a ship and then play cricket the next day.. It is just different types of strain on very different types of bodies, given the improvements in fitness and conditioning from those times. As I said, the amount of cricket the Don played and his schedules were the most taxing amongst his generation, just like Sachin's is today. It is no fact that he has had more challenging schedules. People just have no idea how rough weeks on the sea can actually be because we are so used to air travel being the only choice.

 

[Flametree]

Look at the tour schedule from the 1948 tour : Australia had 3 day matches starting on :

April 28
May 1
May 5
May 8
May 12
May 15
May 19
May 22
May 26
May 29
June 2
June 5

before finally getting their first two-day rest period before the first test on the 10th June.

Some of the three day-matches had rest days in them. So after completing a game, they pretty much always hopped on a bus or train to go somewhere else, in order to start a new game the next day.

After the first test finished on the 15th June (including a rest day), they started against Nothants the next day on the 16th, then when that finished on the 18th, they started another match on the 19th against Yorkshire... etc etc


Now Bradman played only about 2/3 of the matches, as did most of the squad, but if injuries took over then players would have had to play more. At least half the side finished the first test and played a three day match beginning the very next day.

How do you think modern players would cope with that schedule ?

 

[Red]

Look at the tour schedule from the 1948 tour : Australia had 3 day matches starting on :

April 28
May 1
May 5
May 8
May 12
May 15
May 19
May 22
May 26
May 29
June 2
June 5

before finally getting their first two-day rest period before the first test on the 10th June.

Some of the three day-matches had rest days in them. So after completing a game, they pretty much always hopped on a bus or train to go somewhere else, in order to start a new game the next day.

After the first test finished on the 15th June (including a rest day), they started against Nothants the next day on the 16th, then when that finished on the 18th, they started another match on the 19th against Yorkshire... etc etc


Now Bradman played only about 2/3 of the matches, as did most of the squad, but if injuries took over then players would have had to play more. At least half the side finished the first test and played a three day match beginning the very next day.

How do you think modern players would cope with that schedule ?

Spot on. Anyone who says modern day player's schedules are more demanding is kidding themselves. Modern Australia would need to take 50 cricketers to complete that schedule with rotations and to allow players to sit out for niggling injuries.

 

[the big bambino]

I suggest some people have a look at cricketarchive. Pick a random season from about 1930 to 1965. Go to the English county championship and look at the clogged schedule. When teams weren't playing they were travelling to get to the next game. Look at the averages and note the no. of balls bowlers bowled and innings batsmen played.

If you are still interested check out a few anecdotes from players of time about the mad rush to get from one game to the next. Personally I think a player from the older generations would look at the 1st class plane travel and stays at fine hotels today and conclude "thats my kind of suffering".

 

[Satyanash89]

dude, try travelling for 8 days on a ship and then play cricket the next day.. It is just different types of strain on very different types of bodies, given the improvements in fitness and conditioning from those times. As I said, the amount of cricket the Don played and his schedules were the most taxing amongst his generation, just like Sachin's is today. It is no fact that he has had more challenging schedules. People just have no idea how rough weeks on the sea can actually be because we are so used to air travel being the only choice.

Yeah i knew that... players in those days had to travel not just 8 days but often months on end for tours overseas... that must have been taxing. Have also read in many places that tours had an absolute ton of first-class games... what I didn't know was that some of those schedules were this crazy:

Look at the tour schedule from the 1948 tour : Australia had 3 day matches starting on :

April 28
May 1
May 5
May 8
May 12
May 15
May 19
May 22
May 26
May 29
June 2
June 5

before finally getting their first two-day rest period before the first test on the 10th June.

Some of the three day-matches had rest days in them. So after completing a game, they pretty much always hopped on a bus or train to go somewhere else, in order to start a new game the next day.

This is just

I may have underestimated the workload of players in the 30s and 40s just a tad, admittedly, but just think people here are doing the same for modern players. Tendulkar, for example has played 550 (!) List-A games in addition to 300+ FC matches.

 

[Coronis]

However one dayers are generally less taxing than a full on FC or test match.

Just a little comparison I wanted to make:

Don Bradman
52 Tests over 13 years (not gonna include the war years as cricket years)
234 First Class matches over 15 years (not sure if he played any between 39-45)

Sachin Tendulkar
198 Tests over 23 years
307 First Class matches over 24 years

First of all, we see that Tendulkar has had a much heavier test load, on average, 8.6 tests a year, to Bradman's 4. However, his load of first class matches has been considerably lighter, especially considering that Tendulkar has played some county cricket, whilst Bradman remains the only player to score 100 centuries without playing county cricket. Excluding tests, Sachin has only played 4.5 other first class matches a year, while Bradman is playing 12. Of course, Sachin has played many ODI's and List A's, which may slightly put him in the lead in terms of longevity, but he still has barely managed to average half of what Bradman did. Not to mention Bradman has 3 times the (non test) first class centuries Tendulkar has, despite playing less than twice the matches. Against much stronger competition.

People seem to forget about all the first class matches... Take someone like Hobbs for example, who played 783 non test first class matches over his career. 20-30 matches a year, for a a similar amount of time.

 

[karan316]

Cross era comparisons are impossible!!
People who haven't even seen Bradman play are commenting on him and assuming things to prove their points.

And this whole thing of Bradman being well ahead of players of his time as a criteria to rate him higher than others is rubbish. If a guy plays in an era where he doesnt have much competition, and the game hasn't even developed that much, then I don't think he would be any better compared to players in the other era who face much more difficulties. Bradman was a great player in his time, that's it, really cant rate him higher than others who played in much more difficult times.

Modern cricket is much more demanding, it requires a higher level of fitness, higher skill and its much tougher.
When it comes to bowling, its extremely difficult to judge which era had the best bowlers, but I would rate the batsmen of 80s higher than batsmen of any other era if cross era comparisons are to be made as they played in the most hostile conditions(with no helmets) and the bowlers of that time were really nasty, neither the modern batsmen, nor the batsmen of Bradman's time have played in such difficult conditions.

 

[Spark]

Cross era comparisons are impossible!!

<makes entire post comparing across eras in an extremely slanted manner>

 

[the big bambino]

Plus he got Ian Botham to talk out of his arse for him. What was Botham's "science" in placing his field to Richards? Standard 3 slips and a gully for the 1st few others then spread em all on the boundary thereafter?

Freakin Einstein that Botham.

 

[the big bambino]

Because Botham is a bear of very little brain I can muster the sympathy to moderate the disgust I'd otherwise have for him to a patronising contempt. You'd think that if he was going to comment about the game he'd know about its history.

Is Botham aware of a series in the game's past that almost led to a diplomatic breakdown between the 2 countries participating? Why is he hearing crickets when everyone can hear the elephant trumpeting in the room?

Bodyline.

There it is. In bold and on its own so it can't be missed. The discerning feature of which was the meticulous planning in the placement of the field that was so expertly executed it halved DGB's career average and forced legislators to ban it. A little more science than Botham's own feeble attempts at captaincy.

 

[kyear2]

Your condescending behavour to any and everyone who disagrees with you is becoming overbearing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Your condescending behavour to any and everyone who disagrees with you is becoming overbearing.

..

 

[watson]

Your condescending behavour to any and everyone who disagrees with you is becoming overbearing.

You're quite a rarity kyear as it's unusal to find a SNAG who is also analytical. Normally these attributes are mutually exclusive.

 

[the big bambino]

Dear me kyear. This is what happens when your argument disintegrates. You then fulminate about manners. My mistake for using language to which you could respond when you otherwise couldn't. Wont let it happen again so as to not allow you to get away with it again.

As it happens I'm still writing up the myths about DGB and his era. They are so numerous and fallacious that I was up to 10 pages before I reasoned that I'll have to edit them just to make it palatable to a forum format. So I'd like people to stop "contributing" now. But I will have to add back in the little beauty from Professor Botham talking about science. Not that I'm confident it'll do any good. Mainly bcos I'm also concluding that the revision of the Bradman era is so irrational that it might even classify as a psychopathology and better diagnosed and treated rather than reasoned with.

 

[kyear2]

I don't have a problem with your arguments, and I am not responding to any response to my arguments as I have stopped engaging you for some time now. But when you disagree with some one you always have to insult them. The word turd and some reference to pulling something out of some things behind, was previously alluded to, now Botham doesn't have a brain. You can disagree with some one with out demeaning them.
All I was saying. But it seems to be playing well here, so continue on your merry way.

 

[watson]

There is a theme beginning to develop in the ESPN Cricinfo series;

Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?
We all know who the greatest batsman of them all is, but who's second in line?

By Suresh Menon

All things considered - longevity, domination in more than one format, stamp on more grounds in more countries around the world, pressures of travel and media - there is an argument for placing Sachin Tendulkar above Don Bradman in the pantheon. Bradman played 52 international matches over 20 years, at an average of 2.6 matches per year. Tendulkar's combined total of 662 international matches in 25 years means he has played an average of 26.5 matches annually. While Bradman played on just ten grounds in two countries, Tendulkar has played on 105 grounds in 16 countries. As CLR James said in another context, "You need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them."...........

Bradman retired in 1948. Sixty-five years later, the game has changed so much that it is difficult to believe a single player can dominate it to quite the extent he did. Yet, Tendulkar, in a career spanning nearly a quarter of a century has done exactly that. He is the don of the post-Bradman era.

The Jury's Out: Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo