lets make one thing clear.. tendulkar is not great and will never be.. he is just a player playing for his centuries.. so its better to leave him alone. He was never captaincy material and was only happy to play selfishly.
Re: tendulkar nowadays is just media hype
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 02:55 PM
Tendulkar is good but definitely not teh best as he is made out to be. selfish yes.
Your point note Mr. Researcher, why dont we compare the total runs against the number of matches for both the batsment. Tendulkar amassed over 15,000 run in 184 matches he played, where as Sir Bradman socred near to 7000 runs in 52 tests, now the big questions pops up in our minds: how many runs would Bradman have socred if he had played the same number of matches Tendulkar played?? he would have ended up with an astronomical figure of 25,000 runs which is incredible. Remember, unlike Tendulkar Bradman faced toughest bowlers in the history of the game. I dont know how the the so called has concluded that Sachin is above Bradman, I agree the fact Tendulkar is one of best batsmen the game ever had but comparing him with Sir Bradman is absurd.
Re: Interesting
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:17 AM
Your thinking is basically about ifs and buts...The right question shold have been popped is "IS really someone else would have played these many years , these many tests or not..." anyways Read the article again U will find how the rankings by researcher have created..Its written there clearly..So before u jump on ur ifs and buts read it again...Bradman was one of the best batsman teh game ever had...but comparign SRT with anyone is actually absurd...Dotb go just by avgs its an outdated system..
Re: Interesting
by Another Critic on Dec 23, 2011 08:26 AM
Really? Who knows with the amount of cricket played these days, Bradman would have retired after playing 53 tests and 51 ODIs with a pathetic average in both tests and ODIs. Look at Ricky Ponting, how he is playing for the past two, three years
None of your so called toughest bowlers Bradman faced don't feature in the list of highest wicket takers or lower bowling averages.
McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Akram, Waqar, Akhtar, Lee, Murali, Warne...these are called bowlers not some idiot who threw few bodyline deliveries.
Bradman should have scored at least 20,000 more runs to even compare with Mr. Tendulkar.
Re: Re: Interesting
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 08:03 PM
bradman averages more than 95 in 254 first class matches he has palyed. Had he got an oppurtunity to play more test matches his average would have remained more or less the same.
Re: Interesting
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 08:55 AM
Suresh,
1. Harold Larwood was the main one who was very dangerous even to Bradman, others were reasonable but Bradman made them look bad. Larwood in Test matches average was 28.35 and at an economy rate of 2.67 which even by modern standards is very good in tests.
2. Test Cricket was the only form of cricket in which cricket was existed during the era of Don Bradman. The only suited format for him as per his Strike Rate of 29.7 and whereas today's batsmen have to adjust himself for every possible format such as T20/ODIs/Test Cricket.
3. Australians were the best bowlers during the time of Don Bradman and cricket was not so popular so it was not much competition b/w England and Australia due to Mighty Australian Team of the era of Don Bradman.
4. Playing without protective gear was a real brave thing to do in those days (full credit to the Don). But batsmen nowadays have extra weight to carry because of these protective gears. Isnt extra weight an inhibitor to score runs freely?
5. How do you compare someone playing 2 matches per year against the same team to someone playing 50 matches a year against different teams?It makes no sense. You can attribute it to a sentence "This is a part of the game" :)
Re: Re: Interesting
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 08:06 PM
point 5 - 2 matches a year. bradman played 52 matches in 20 years and out of these 20 he did not play for 8 years,so it comes out to be 52 in 12 years, more than 4 matches a year. here u r talking only about international matches if u take into account the first class matches they r more or less the same.
point 2. now a days cricketer has to adjust to all formats including T20. Tendu has only played in one T20 international. here u take into acount teh ipl matches but when it comes to bradman u just ignore the 200 plus first class matches he played.
look at the fist class average of both the players, the difference is enormous and both have palyed more or less the same number of matches. no match.
Re: Interesting
by anand datar on Dec 23, 2011 09:10 AM
Dear Suresh, the quality of fielding in Bradman era and the quality of fielding now a days has huge huge difference !! I doubt if Bradman could have scored runs with an average of 99 !! In addition to that Bradman played mostly against England only ! Whereas Sachin has played against all 8 or 9 cricket playing countries and more varieties of gronds and pitches, must be more than 40 gronds !! So, don't just look at no of matches and runs.
This "researcher" fails to account for a very important factor when comparing Bradman and Tendulkar!
And that factor is circumstances! Bradman's career as a batsman was greatly damaged by WW II interruption!
If Bradman had the opportunity to play like a beast of burden for 22 years, he would have definitely established records this diminutive Man Ooze player from Mumbai could never dream of emulating!
Re: Circumstances
by Rakesh R on Dec 23, 2011 06:47 AM
After posting the above message, you must have felt really good as your urge to lick someone else's asds has been satisfied. Also your urge to pull the leg of your fellow Indian has also been satisfied. One shot two birds...way to go. No wonder we were ruled by outsiders for so long.
Re: Re: Circumstances
by Akshay Kumar on Dec 23, 2011 06:54 AM
Since the first thought that came to your mind was of "licking someone else's asds", I can say of sure you do the same on a regular basis!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Whether I can pull anything of a fellow India like you suggested hardly matters because I was stating a simple fact!
But you are partially right about "ruled by outsiders" part! What you missed is that we are even now ruled by outsiders thanks to Con party not only in the past!
Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 07:04 AM
Bradman's average of 99.94 could have been 100 plus if in that Bodyline series the bowlers bowled the normal dollies like "any other series".
Even Hussey had averages of 80 for the first three years. But unfortunately he did not have to goto war and had to play on and now his avg is 50. Bradman is lucky he just had to play 52 tests not 200.
IF Bradman had the capability to continue as a Beast of Burden for 22 years, you could then comment about who was greater......
Finally, the rankings by the researcher have been created according to a player's career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accumulate over the same number of innings.
I am not at all discrediting Sir Don Bradman, but to compare legends holds no value.
Forget Cong or BJP, first learn to respect your fellow citizen of India instead of calling him names like "diminutive man ooze".....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 07:31 AM
Sir, read my message properly. I said, IF Bradman had the capability to continue as a beast of burden........ His country making him a beast of burden is what you claim. I am not a freelancer for Sachin's fanatic following that I should answer on behalf of them. I have respected each and every person in the game. And poor you, if u though that he is "entertaining his fellow Indians" :). He is playing his game which you Sachin-haters make it an entertainment. You use words like "diminutive man ooze", but blame us for "not respecting" him. Great logic indeed......
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:21 AM
Onkly brain bankrupts call it beast of burden otehrs call it responsible ambassdor of the game and true passion..So keep writing...Eventually ONLY u will agree with urself...
Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by Rakesh R on Dec 23, 2011 07:47 AM
Simple law of averages means, had your white master played for 22 years his average would not have been what it is. Bradman was definitely a great player, but your blind adulation for him does not have to result in insulting your own country's top performer with the kind of words you have used. It can only be classified as your like for licking or ur urge to salute your white master, if you don't like the lick word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 07:50 AM
Rightly said Rakesh.....Akshay started with abusing Sachin, later turned onto Sachin fans saying we dont respect him..... He is OK with him calling Sachin abuses, but when someone abuses him back he gets p155ed off :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Circumstances
by Rakesh R on Dec 23, 2011 08:20 AM
Praveen, I guess we just have to ignore guys like this Akshay. I rate Gavaskar as the greatest test batsman, but that does not mean I have to abuse Tendulkar or some other country's player. Somehow, this characteristic of abusing own country's players is unique to some of our fellow countrymen and it seems like it gives them great pleasure.
Re: Re: Circumstances
by Guest on Dec 23, 2011 09:56 AM
Even people in other countries have more respect for sachin and thats the reason why they are comparing our Sachin with cricketing greats.. But only the people here are making critics
Re: Circumstances
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:19 AM
Ok One more Ifs and buts type ....Bradman wouldnt have lasted for 22 years contineously..WW2 was boon in disguise that he also played for 20 years..there is no writing on his fitness THEN ...becoz of war many players missed career in cricket and many got entension as well..becoz of least wear and tear...
Re: Circumstances
by ameya on Dec 23, 2011 11:15 AM
Mr.Hater..Had Bradman played So Many ODI's his avg would be similar even if you add up his lost years in Tests.
A very simple theory or fact, If batting in Bradman era was easy their should have been another batsman of that era who should have had average of say 70... No one did... Means Bradman was special... For e.g if in exam some scores 100 and the next one is at 50 means the exam is not easy but the man at 100 is special..
Re: Bradman was special
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 06:17 AM
Cletus Gomes:
I think you missed the whole point of the above article... Probably because you failed to read it... :)
"The rankings by the researcher have been created according to a player's career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accumulate over the same number of innings."
Re: Bradman was special
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:24 AM
rating anyone merely on Avg is an outdated system. It doesnt consider many diff facts around the player...So wake up and be in 21st century...
