WHY do they say this?

[dhillon28]

ffs talk about mangling of statistics.

how do you live you life with such an inability to perceive shades of grey?

in the same way that u manage to live life failing to perceive shades of grey such as: reverse swing, doosras, ferocious pace, professional standards, exponential increase in potential cricket playing population etc. that demonstrate that playing in the 1930s was not as tough as it is today.

If you think that Bodyline was a good tactic, what about reverse swing? Reverse swing had the power to undo one of the all time best batting lineups in the 2005 ashes. The nucleus of that team set the world record for most consecutive test wins in the history of the sport, TWICE. Along came reverse swing and enormously deflated the batting averages of Hayden, Gilly, Martyn, Ponting, Clarke when compared to their career averages. Are you telling me that Bradman would be able to play Imran, Wasim and Waqar with the same ease? I personally cannot believe that.

 

[Spark]

in the same way u manage to live life failing to perceive shades of grey such as reverse swing, doosras, ferocious pace, professional standards, exponential increase in potential cricket playing population etc. that show that playing in the 1930s was not as tough as it was today.

If you think that Bodyline was a good tactic, what about reverse swing? Reverse swing had the power to undo one of the all time best batting lineups in the 2005 ashes. The nucleus of that team set the world record for most consecutive test wins in the history of the sport, TWICE. Along came reverse swing and enormously deflated the batting averages of Hayden, Gilly, Martyn, Ponting, Clarke when compared to their career averages. Are you telling me that Bradman would be able to play Imran, Wasim and Waqar with the same ease? I personally cannot believe that.

Well you cannot believe that because you have a personal vendetta against the man and insist on making the most appalling denigrations of him, to the point where no sound member of this forum agrees with you.

Not to mention your highly offensive characterisation of people who disagree with you in your post above.

Go to ICF or PC, and leave us be.

 

[Howsie]

Now asking yourself this question. using the above techniques, which method generates a more credible list of all time batsmen?

Ah, neither. One list supports longevity while the other supports a relatively short playing career. In other words they're both useless.

 

[Burgey]

Again, not a surprise to see that adding an 's' where appropriate is considered by you as 'fair amount of license'....given the quality of your earlier statements I can see how such a simple operation is highly taxing for someone of your intelligence.

I'm on a crusade? That's why you brought up your minor point about Stanley Matthews twice now. I guess your ability to abstain from hypocrisy is similar to your application of common sense

Anyways, to answer your amazing question... I think great players may be able to adapt and remain competitive across eras. However, I don't think that they would be able to maintain that level of excellence when crossing into another era- especially when they would be entering a far more competitive and professional era where people have all day to devote to their sports as they are getting paid for it. Simply put, Stanley Matthews would not have been as good as Leo Messi, IMO not even close. Again football is a great example of how undeveloped professional sport was in the 1930s. The first world cup was in 1930 and England who were considered best team in the world by many at that time and didnt even send a team to the first two tournaments. Herbert Chapman's England, 8 of which were Arsenal players beat 1934 world champions Italy like 4-1 or something stupid like that and yet they didnt even participate in the tournament. Basically in that era, international cricket and football were a shambles. Nothing to speak of.

You speak of how the war affected Bradman's career. Have you ever stopped to think of what the Great Depression of the 1930s did to prevent aspiring world class cricketers from pursuing their dreams and providing new competition for the Don rather than churning out the same old trundlers year after year.

When Tendulkar started playing Odis, a decent score was considered around 220 (give or take). Now it's more commonly 280-300. Yet he still excels. He's adapted. Why wouldn't others be the same?

As for aggregate of runs being an indicator, it is an indicator yes. Same with wickets. Courtney Walsh took a lot more wickets though, than say Dennis Lillee. Does that make him a better bowler? I would say not (you may disagree of course). All I'm saying is you can't look at Bradman's average and want to put some context on it yet not do so for the amount of runs/ wickets taken in the modern era.

If you want to downgrade Bradman's average to factor in for modern conditions, you've got to do it for everyone who played in that era. So do you say Hammond, Headley, Hobbs, Sutcliffe etc would average in the 20s or 30s now? I don't think you can realistically say that.

Also, you're kind of ignoring here that players' careers can transcend eras. Tendulkar being an example. Many consider the 90s a great era for bowling, the 00s an era dominated by batsmen. Yet he's played well in both. Principally because he's a great player. Likewise Bradman played pre-and-post war (the latter only a short while of course and in his dotage) yet dominated both. Again, because he's a great player.

 

[dhillon28]

Well you cannot believe that because you have a personal vendetta against the man and insist on making the most appalling denigrations of him, to the point where no sound member of this forum agrees with you.

Don't have a personal vendetta against him at all; in fact I quite like the guy because I often quote one of his interviews where he states that he doesn't smoke as its bad for your health. I always use this as proof against my pro smoking friends who don't believe that knowledge of smoking being bad for health existed long before the clinical trials of the 50s and 60s. And I also like him for the way that he supported Murali, during a time when the whole of Australia gunned him.

My only issue with him is regarding him being the all time undisputed best. I will argue this point as heavily as I will Mike Tyson in his prime > Mohammed Ali in his prime, Stanley Matthews being better than Lionel Messi, Jesse Owens > Usain Bolt etc. Nothing more, nothing less.

If people told me that they thought that Lara was better than Tendulkar, then I would not be so forthright with a differing opinion.

 

[Sanz]

Well I'm sorry to offend you, in those days people were wondering where their next meal would come from and so cricket was not very high on the list of priorities of the masses. In India, nearly every player in the national team comes from at least a middle class background. The very poor people of India dont even have time to think about playing cricket.

If you read the history books, you will find that during the tough times, more people turn to sports.

 

[Burgey]

Don't have a personal vendetta against him at all; in fact I quite like the guy because I often quote one of his interviews where he states that he doesn't smoke as its bad for your health. I always use this as proof against my pro smoking friends who don't believe that knowledge of smoking being bad for health existed long before the clinical trials of the 50s and 60s. And I also like him for the way that he supported Murali, during a time when the whole of Australia gunned him.

My only issue with him is regarding him being the all time undisputed best. I will argue this point as heavily as I will Mike Tyson in his prime > Mohammed Ali in his prime, Stanley Matthews being better than Lionel Messi, Jesse Owens > Usain Bolt etc. Nothing more, nothing less.

If people told me that they thought that Lara was better than Tendulkar, then I would not be so forthright with a differing opinion.

Do you think Mike Tyson was better than Muhammad Ali?

 

[dhillon28]

Not to mention your highly offensive characterisation of people who disagree with you in your post above.

Go to ICF or PC, and leave us be.

That's really fair isn't it? I've had to contend with sarcastic comment and wise crack left, right and center on this thread and yet you say nothing against that but the moment I respond with a similar comment you try and categorize me as some sort of offensive loud mouth. Go to ICF? I thought this was a cricket forum meant for cricket discussion and differing opinions? This forum is cricket web, not Aussie Cricket Forum and so it is only fair that the views of Indian fans are also represented. Is India not part of the international cricket community?

 

[dhillon28]

Do you think Mike Tyson was better than Muhammad Ali?

Yeah on the basis of a superior punching power and impeccable defensive technique (when in his prime).

 

[Sanz]

Is India not part of the international cricket community?

NO. They are part of International Cricket Council.

 

[dhillon28]

If you read the history books, you will find that during the tough times, more people turn to sports.

for comfort and passing time, not as a means to a full time career. Look at the effort Matty Hayden's parents had to put in to him becoming a professional player, who would invest that time and effort during the great depression?

 

[bagapath]

fair enough, point taken, but please be consistent and offer me the same level of protection when others post, because I feel a lot of ppl are out of hand against me as well- and just for the sake of it.

take extra precautions, mate. it could very well be the erstwhile KGB out to get smart guys like you.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah on the basis of a superior punching power and impeccable defensive technique (when in his prime).

An Old Ali KOed George Foreman, didn't he ? And from what I remember Foreman had as good punching power as Tyson, if not more.

 

[dhillon28]

An Old Ali KOed George Foreman, didn't he ? And from what I remember Foreman had as good punching power as Tyson, if not more.

Please just look at mike tyson's defense, the most underrated in Boxing history. His trainer and mentor Cus d'amato taught him how to defend before he taught him anything else. Cus's motto was: "if you dont get hit, you can't lose- simple as that"

 

[Sanz]

for comfort and passing time, not as a means to a full time career. Look at the effort Matty Hayden's parents had to put in to him becoming a professional player, who would invest that time and effort during the great depression?

But the Game of Cricket wasn't a profession back in those days, was it ?

 

[Burgey]

An Old Ali KOed George Foreman, didn't he ? And from what I remember Foreman had as good punching power as Tyson, if not more.

Foreman was more a one punch KO, stand up fella though. Tyson was a lot faster, threw more combos. Mind you, I thought a factor in greatness was longevity... just saying.

 

[Sanz]

Please just look at mike tyson's defense, the most underrated in Boxing history. His trainer and mentor Cus d'amato taught him how to defend before he taught him anything else. Cus's motto was: "if you dont get hit, you can't lose- simple as that"

What was his defense against Buster Douglus, a much inferior fighter.

 

[honestbharani]

So let me get this right. Bradman's average in his worst series when he was specifically targetted by Bodyline was actually within 1 of SRT's career average (an average that includes all games including his 1738 @ 96.56 against the ZimBan combination - incidentally that minnow average is also lower than Bradman's career average)

I was implying that the original poster was wrong...

 

[dhillon28]

What was his defense against Buster Douglus, a much inferior fighter.

he had many personal issues in his life at the time, like break up with his wife robin givens.. the buster Douglas fight signified the decline of Mike Tyson and despite regaining the world title, never reached the same level as he did in the 80s.

 

[honestbharani]

no need to look at history books for this one, a basic knowledge of international cricket would suffice-Yuvraj has played just a little bit more than just ONE test after the Chennai game.

against England?? I don't think so...