Rank these 5 Test openers in order ( Boycott, Greenidge, Hayden, Sehwag, G Smith )

[Coronis]

I'm not remotely saying discredit them, you're the one who said how can we have top 15 guys who played the same era as he did. I was simply responding to your argument.

Headley has his issues as well which has been extensively litigated.

The era was for all intents and purposes a viable one. It also happened to be the 2000's on steroids, literally the flattest set of pitches ever seen, added to limited viable competition and one of, if not the weakest era for pace bowling in history.

And re Bradman's stats, impressive yes, the man's the GOAT, before the war Headley had 14 tests vs England @ 78 with 8 hundreds and 5 fifties, while being the only test standard batsman in a very weak line up. Not to mention that dispute playing only 22 tests, he played in as many countries as Bradman, 3.

Unlike Bradman however he wasn’t playing B side English teams. But Headley isn’t even the point. You want to downgrade Bradman so much for some reason but then are not consistent with others.

I’ll ask directly, do you think the difference between Bradman and Tendulkar is really less than the difference between Sangakkara and Misbah? Or the difference between Smith and Warner?

 

[kyear2]

I don't think you will like to bring in Headley's India record; not to mention sweeping his mediocre Australian one under the rug OR the small fact that among those 14 matches around half was against the English B team.

You mean his one solitary match vs India he had after the war?

Headley, like Hammond shouldn't have played after the war and was no where what they were before. Come on you know this.

The England record was to show the comparison between his and Bradman's and kinda proves the point I was trying to make. Of the two only good teams, Bradman faced only one, and that was how Headley did vs the one.

The touring team sent to the Caribbean in 1930, while missing Larwood still had Voce, he played normal teams in England and would have to look up the '35 tour.

Also speaks to the game during that period,.don't you think?

 

[kyear2]

I don't think you will like to bring in Headley's India record; not to mention sweeping his mediocre Australian one under the rug OR the small fact that among those 14 matches around half was against the English B team.

Also should be noted I rate Hammond ahead of Headley.

And per the over all discussion, again, not remotely saying Bradman isn't the greatest and best, apparently we're arguing how many tiers Bradman is above Tendulkar?

 

[capt_Luffy]

You mean his one solitary match vs India he had after the war?

Headley, like Hammond shouldn't have played after the war and was no where what they were before. Come on you know this.

The England record was to show the comparison between his and Bradman's and kinda proves the point I was trying to make. Of the two only good teams, Bradman faced only one, and that was how Headley did vs the one.

The touring team sent to the Caribbean in 1930, while missing Larwood still had Voce, he played normal teams in England and would have to look up the '35 tour.

Also speaks to the game during that period,.don't you think?

You were the one saying he played in 3 countries to begin with; I didn't brought that. It speaks of many things. However you put, Headley didn't played the first choice English attack very often.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Also should be noted I rate Hammond ahead of Headley.

And per the over all discussion, again, not remotely saying Bradman isn't the greatest and best, apparently we're arguing how many tiers Bradman is above Tendulkar?

Around as many Tendulkar is above Larry Gomes.

 

[kyear2]

Sobers in the 50s wasn't a world beater though, far from it. He had one massive year off of a massive 365, but overall, his 50s record is just alright. Sobers faced Gupte 2 or 3 times in India and as far as I remember, not much of Mankad or even Ahmed as well. Definitely very poor attack, hardly better than the India Don played. Overall, Sobers did faced a much weaker bowlers than Sachin. Don played against Bedser, Larwood, Verity, Tate, Freeman, Voce, Bowes, Farnes, etc. Many of them like Bowes and Farnes had very short careers, but definitely delivered the goods on that time frame. Also played a pretty good WI pace attack.

Where did I say Sobers had a great time in the 50's. He started in 54 as a bowler, batting at no. 10. He struggles with both bat and ball as a teenager and kept his place due to his slip catching and potential. But he played in the 50's which impacted his overall numbers and he had showings that proved his potential. From around '57 he started to prove his credentials as a batsman.

There's literally no comparison between the bowlers, conditions, travelling requirements and level of competition that Sobers faced vs Bradman. I don't think that you would dispute that either.

Between Sachin and Sobers? I give Sachin the edge, I've mentioned that every single time I've mentioned how I arrange the top tier factoring in the quality of bowlers faced. Of the top tier of batsmen it's Viv and Sachin that have the edge, with Sobers right behind. Sobers did not face much weaker attacks than Sachin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Where did I say Sobers had a great time in the 50's. He started in 54 as a bowler, batting at no. 10. He struggles with both bat and ball as a teenager and kept his place due to his slip catching and potential. But he played in the 50's which impacted his overall numbers and he had showings that proved his potential. From around '57 he started to prove his credentials as a batsman.

There's literally no comparison between the bowlers, conditions, travelling requirements and level of competition that Sobers faced vs Bradman. I don't think that you would dispute that either.

Between Sachin and Sobers? I give Sachin the edge, I've mentioned that every single time I've mentioned how I arrange the top tier factoring in the quality of bowlers faced. Of the top tier of batsmen it's Viv and Sachin that have the edge, with Sobers right behind. Sobers did not face much weaker attacks than Sachin.

Answer me this please- Do you think Sobers' era was closer to Hobbs' or the modern one?

 

[kyear2]

Unlike Bradman however he wasn’t playing B side English teams. But Headley isn’t even the point. You want to downgrade Bradman so much for some reason but then are not consistent with others.

I’ll ask directly, do you think the difference between Bradman and Tendulkar is really less than the difference between Sangakkara and Misbah? Or the difference between Smith and Warner?

To where am I downgrading Bradman? From 1st to slightly less 1st?

The no. 1 factor that impacts batsmen are the quality of bowlers faced.
Sachin and Viv faced magnitudes higher level of bowlers than Bradman ever did, and in magnitudes tougher conditions, and magnitudes greater variety of conditions. Sobers also covers each of those areas and easily at that.

Where is any of that incorrect.

With regards to Headley and Hammond, I have both of them top 20 (with Hammond a fair bit higher than Headley), but not in that best after Bradman tier, they were ATGs but not nearly where my top 8 are.

 

[kyear2]

You were the one saying he played in 3 countries to begin with; I didn't brought that. It speaks of many things. However you put, Headley didn't played the first choice English attack very often.

And I don't have Headley anywhere near the level that we're discussing.

 

[kyear2]

Around as many Tendulkar is above Larry Gomes.

Again I greatly disagree.

 

[Coronis]

To where am I downgrading Bradman? From 1st to slightly less 1st?

The no. 1 factor that impacts batsmen are the quality of bowlers faced.
Sachin and Viv faced magnitudes higher level of bowlers than Bradman ever did, and in magnitudes tougher conditions, and magnitudes greater variety of conditions. Sobers also covers each of those areas and easily at that.

Where is any of that incorrect.

With regards to Headley and Hammond, I have both of them top 20 (with Hammond a fair bit higher than Headley), but not in that best after Bradman tier, they were ATGs but not nearly where my top 8 are.

Yes, by saying the gap between #2 and #108 or whatever it was is greater than the gap between Bradman and #2 you’re definitely downgrading him. And if you were doing it with consistency, someone like Hammond shouldn’t be near your top 20.

Good job not answering the question.

 

[kyear2]

Answer me this please- Do you think Sobers' era was closer to Hobbs' or the modern one?

You mean Garry Sobers who was facing Lillee at the end of his career?

I've said countless times, technique and ability raised mid 30's, definely after the war cricket was comparable to the modern era. From Lindwall and Miller the great pacers began to emerge and made the game and equitable one.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, by saying the gap between #2 and #108 or whatever it was is greater than the gap between Bradman and #2 you’re definitely downgrading him. And if you were doing it with consistency, someone like Hammond shouldn’t be near your top 20.

Good job not answering the question.

Yeah, didn't see the it phrased as a question at the end.

I believe that the difference between numbers is greatly minimized by the difference of conditions, bowlers, traveling and competition.

I've asked this before and most said yes, but I'll ask you two / three.

Do you believe Bradman is averaging even eighties in the 70's / 80's / 90's?

 

[capt_Luffy]

You mean Garry Sobers who was facing Lillee at the end of his career?

I've said countless times, technique and ability raised mid 30's, definely after the war cricket was comparable to the modern era. From Lindwall and Miller the great pacers began to emerge and made the game and equitable one.

Then you are wrong, as Sobers definitely played in an era closer to Hobbs than the later one in which Sachin played, post modernization. There were still many amateurs and the levels of fitness, diet and training hardly were as competitive.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, didn't see the it phrased as a question at the end.

I believe that the difference between numbers is greatly minimized by the difference of conditions, bowlers, traveling and competition.

I've asked this before and most said yes, but I'll ask you two / three.

Do you believe Bradman is averaging even eighties in the 70's / 80's / 90's?

Better question, how much do you think Bradman will average today and how much will do Hammond.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, didn't see the it phrased as a question at the end.

I believe that the difference between numbers is greatly minimized by the difference of conditions, bowlers, traveling and competition.

I've asked this before and most said yes, but I'll ask you two / three.

Do you believe Bradman is averaging even eighties in the 70's / 80's / 90's?

Yes. He’d also probably be glad of getting some covered pitches and a better bat.

I assume you think Stan McCabe and Bill Ponsford would end up like Bevan right?

 

[Bolo.]

Ok, let's take this one point / paragraph at a time.

One, Sobers started off his career in the 50's, which was, outside of the Caribbean one of the roughest batting eras of the game. So yes, in the 50's he had an "easier ride" (not that India has ever been a paradise for pacers either) at home, but what separated him from the 3Ws was how he performed away.
He faced Lindwall and Miller (even as an opener a couple times), Trueman etc. This isn't to mention that he entered the game at a spinner batting I believe at no. 10.

Over the course of his career Sobers faced, Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Lillee, Snow, the Indian quartet, Underwood, Willis, Benaud, Davidson, Fazal, Statham, Laker, Lock and that's just off the top of my head. So to say he only faced quality bowlers as a consequence of facing more bowlers is kinda disingenuous. He faced much better bowlers in his career, period.

With regards to facing the weaker 3, he failed vs NZ, Pakistan has Fazal and India for a decent amount of those matches had a couple members of the quartet.

So yes I rate Sobers, Viv and Tendulkar, not tiers, but the tier below Bradman, and don't see the argument of how Sachin is tiers above Sobers. Sachin also had easier home conditions, and yes while he played in the 90's, like everyone else he filled his coffers during the 2000's as well. No to mention also having his way vs the minnows of his day. Like Sobers he wasn't facing McGrath, Donald and Wasim every match either.

He also faced much worse bowlers in his career, period. It's what playing more matches against more teams will do, as well as playing a high proportion of weak teams.

Nobody is denying that the 50s were rough. But it's a low proportion of his career, and a lower proportion of runs.

He had a similar career trajectory to the guys who debuted in the mid 90s and feasted in the 2000s. Nobody claims they didn't have it easy despite the 90s being rough. They faced better bowlers than the guys you are listing. I'm not saying these guys had it rougher than Sobers, but can you imagine how much flack they would have gotten if they had played 40% of their matches against Zim, NZ and India, while not playing against 2 of the better bowling sides?

 

[shortpitched713]

First off, thanks for clarifying your position, but... There are persons who believe he would have averaged 100 in the modern era , even the 80's and 90's, and that's crazy to me.

If he even averages 65-70 he's still inconceivably far ahead of Tendulkar/Viv etc. The gap in averages in that case is also greater between him and the next tier as compared to the next tier and a tier lower.

And that's not even considering the fact that most people don't have any level of agreement on how good exactly Bradman would perform. The vast majority of people would consider the GOAT by multiple standard deviations guess that I've extrapolated as an underrating of Bradman.

Basically the most productive thing is to just not talk about Bradman, except in a strictly in his time historical sense. It also allows one to be critical of his shortcomings and get a real sense of the player without being accused of hating on him, if it's clear we're not comparing him with modern players.

 

[Coronis]

If he even averages 65-70 he's still inconceivably far ahead of Tendulkar/Viv etc. The gap in averages in that case is also greater between him and the next tier as compared to the next tier and a tier lower.

And that's not even considering the fact that most people don't have any level of agreement on how good exactly Bradman would perform. The vast majority of people would consider the GOAT by multiple standard deviations guess that I've extrapolated as an underrating of Bradman.

Basically the most productive thing is to just not talk about Bradman, except in a strictly in his time historical sense. It also allows one to be critical of his shortcomings and get a real sense of the player without being accused of hating on him, if it's clear we're not comparing him with modern players.

Shortcomings - Wasn’t the best on a sticky, Bodyline tactics could put him on a regular ATG level.

 

[shortpitched713]

Shortcomings - Wasn’t the best on a sticky, Bodyline tactics could put him on a regular ATG level.

I think the short pitched bowling was by far the greater of the two.

He was a bit of a bully and a hypocrite on that front too, as he benefited from the furor against bodyline for most of the rest of his career, but when he had exceptional pace bowling talent available for his own team towards the end of his career as a captain he used short pitched bowling tactics. I think he benefited a lot from the "gentlemanly" image of the game and being the face of the sport, in a way he never could have against say a rampaging WI attack from the 70s/80s/early 90s.