Re: Sachin is Good but Bradman was a Legend in diff league
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 02:47 AM
And 99.94 could have been 100 plus if in that Bodyline series the bowlers bowled the normal dollies.
Re: Sachin is Good but Bradman was a Legend in diff league
by super hero on Dec 23, 2011 04:43 AM
Yes also Hussey avg 80 for the first three years. But unfortunately he did not have to goto war and hald to play on and now his avg is 50. Bradman is lucky he just had to play 52 tests not 200
Re: Re: Sachin is Good but Bradman was a Legend in diff league
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 03:05 PM
just bcoz husseys average came down to 50 it means that Don' average would also have come down :)
Re: Sachin is Good but Bradman was a Legend in diff league
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:27 AM
In fact becoz of WW2 many players could continue (and many missed as well). It was boon in disguise for them as least wear and tear...They got long vacatio to get fit and pursue cricket again. Having said that many cricket players actually joined military and fought war as well...many of those couldnt come back to cricket..
Lets looks at Tendulkars case 1)How would Sachin like if we say Sri Lanks is the only international team he has to play against 2) He will play mostly in India and SL 3) Mendis is the only spinner he has to target for next 3 years. Similarly some 3-4 fast bowlers 4) And he has to play only 8 tests an year with lot of practice matches.
Remember, Sachin avg 90 in tests for an year, when he did not play any odi's after his 200* against SA Also keep in mind, when Sachin returned from Tennis elbow injury, he went to England and played for a sub-county team and hit 5 centuries in 5 matches. My point is quality of opposition matters
Finally, We can argue,and I too agree Sachin would not have avg 99 if he played in Bradmans era. At the same time, if Bradman has to play 10-12 tests an year, 20-25 odis in an year without much gaps and playing IPL and playing against 10 different teams in 100 different grounds,can you gaurantee that he would make 18,000 @ avg 45 and 15000 @ 56? No one can. We should look at it both ways. Hence we should not rate one above the other.
Both of them are miles ahead of their contemporaries. You cannot compare greats from different eras. Bradmans 99.94 is almost unbreakable. So is Sachins 18,000 and 15,000 runs and 99 centuries.
Consider the following: 1)Bradman Played 37 out of his 52 matches against England. So there is only 1 major team he has to target. Nobody knows how good the Eng team of that era is as there are only two major teams. 2)Mostly played in Aus and Eng 3)Teams like India are new to the game and milked some 800 runs in India's first ever tour in Aus. Its like India playing against Burmuda in India. (Keep in mind, I am not taking anything away from Bradmans greatness) 4)Sure there are no helmets, uncovered picthes, but according to Lara's opinion he rates Sachin higher as the bowling quality in that era is very poor. So its not unanimous that it is extremely difficuly in those days. 5) LBW is introduced half way through his career. That means batsman can play freely on leg side without fear. Another metric to consider. 6) Finally, the most important I think is playing a series leisurely. They used to play 5 test match series in a span of 6 months. With two warm-up matches between almost every test match. We all know, now when India plays an away series, we play poorly first match and we play the best we could by the last match. U can check the stats. That means,having time to adjust to the conditions is a big deal.
Re: Sachin vs Bradman
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 03:08 PM
opposition is same for one and all. then why only Bradman averaged 99 plus. other players were no way near to this average. so what ever b the quality of opposition bradman was way ahead of his contemporaries. o match fo rhim. not sdo the case with tendu.
Re: Sachin vs Bradman
by sharath nb on Dec 23, 2011 05:20 AM
super comment. I like reading your post. Good stats. Like u said, both are really great players. Even rahul, Kallis, Ponting, Lara are few modern greats. But this game has produced some of the finest players.
Both of them are miles ahead of their contemporaries. You cannot compare greats from different eras. Bradmans 99.94 is almost unbreakable. So is Sachins 18,000 and 15,000 runs and 99 centuries.
Consider the following: 1)Bradman Played 37 out of his 52 matches against England. So there is only 1 major team he has to target. Nobody knows how good the Eng team of that era is as there are only two major teams. 2)Mostly played in Aus and Eng 3)Teams like India are new to the game and milked some 800 runs in India's first ever tour in Aus. Its like India playing against Burmuda in India. (Keep in mind, I am not taking anything away from Bradmans greatness) 4)Sure there are no helmets, uncovered picthes, but according to Lara's opinion he rates Sachin higher as the bowling quality in that era is very poor. So its not unanimous that it is extremely difficuly in those days. 5) LBW is introduced half way through his career. That means batsman can play freely on leg side without fear. Another metric to consider. 6) Finally, the most important I think is playing a series leisurely. They used to play 5 test match series in a span of 6 months. With two warm-up matches between almost every test match. We all know, now when India plays an away series, we play poorly first match and we play the best we could by the last match. U can check the stats. That means,having time to adjust to the conditions is a big deal.
its not right to compare. Don played in different environment, no bouncer limit, bodyline bowling, without much protection and people like Jeff Thompson (Same team), Mike Holding, etc used to bowl at speed of 140
This is also one of the reason Sunny Gavaskar is considered one of the greatest opener...
Re: Its not right to compare...
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 02:57 AM
Riyfkm:
You forgot to mention the classic test where Sir Don faced Varun Aaron. :-)
BTW do u think that in the Bodyline series the bowlers should have instead bowled the normal dollies so that Don could have crossed 100 career average?
Re: Its not right to compare...
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:32 AM
Dear..seems soem confusion... jeff thomson, mike holding are after bradman time..u r talkign abt seventies..bradman was already retired by that time...
Let there be no research.Nobody could be compared to Sir Donald Bradman.In those days there was no helmets,safety equipments,wickets used to be not covered,no limit on the bouncers and bodyline theory was designed against Sir Donald Bradman.No camparison pl
Re: Sir Bradman
by Samual Adams on Dec 23, 2011 01:14 AM
you are forgetting something -Bradman did not have to play against Akram, Akhtar, Warne, Muralidharan, Lee or McGrath.
Re: Re: Re: Sir Bradman
by Seenu Subbu on Dec 23, 2011 05:36 AM
@riyfkm,Dude, you just displayed your ignorance. Jeff Thompson was his mother's womb when Don Bradman played. And, let's assume Jeff Thompson did play with Bradman, he was in the SAME team, haha :-) But the point is, other than these greats from West Indies, not too many quality bowlers were around in England, save a one or two Jardines. Please go read the timelines in which these two players played and you will get an idea.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sir Bradman
by cletus gomes on Dec 23, 2011 05:44 AM
Mr Sheenu, Jardine was not a Bowler... He captained England.. Larwood was the famous Bowler.. 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sir Bradman
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 06:18 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."
Since the debate wether Tendulkar is great or Bradman is great had started since Tendulkar completed 10000 runs in both forms of Cricket. If you go by that criteria, even Dravid,Kallis,Ponting and Lara are greater than Bradman since they too have completed more than 10000 runs in both forms of cricket.
Re: Not only Tendulkar but these too.
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:38 AM
AyyaPPa..The basic foundation of your post is utter wrong..It was not staretd since SRT made 10000, It was started Since Sir Don said "I never saw myself playing but i think used to play like SRT"..So further all comment is non sense
Re: Re: Not only Tendulkar but these too.
by RAMKRISHNA AYYAPPA on Dec 23, 2011 12:14 AM
BUT BRADMAN HAS 14 DOUBLE CENTURIES INCLUDING 2 TRIPLE AND ONE SCORE OF 299. TENDULKAR'S HIGHEST SCORE IS JUST 248.
Re: Re: Re: Not only Tendulkar but these too.
by C M on Dec 23, 2011 08:39 AM
Even if u cound Dons all doubles as two and tripple s as three it doesnt even touch 70 even...forget 99...
