Re: Re: What could have been the speed of Larwood ?
by sanjay on Dec 23, 2011 06:49 PM
Larwood took 65 % of his wickets either bowled LBW or caught behind even similar in bodyline series check this for todays fast bowlers ...
Had Bradman played today 190 tests that is 380 innings minus some iinnings wins and assuming 350 innings played means 35000.More than that he wud have scored more 200 centuries.Bradman the greatest
Re: 3 5 0 0 0 Test Runs and 150 centuris
by Just Fun on Dec 23, 2011 12:26 PM
forgot Kumbles bowling average wud be x overs,x maidens 219 wickets at an average of 149 runs per wicket
Re: Re: Re: 3 5 0 0 0 Test Runs and 150 centuris
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 12:40 PM
IF ONLY DON BRADMAN HAD THE CAPABILITY TO PLAY 190 TESTS :)......
Re: Re: 3 5 0 0 0 Test Runs and 150 centuris
by Just Fun on Dec 23, 2011 01:07 PM
tendulkar has played 184 tests.So I gave equal chance to poor Bradman
Re: Re: Re: 3 5 0 0 0 Test Runs and 150 centuris
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 01:20 PM
But ONLY 35000 runs? My imagination says it should be at least 134,332 runs. ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 5 0 0 0 Test Runs and 150 centuris
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 01:53 PM
IMAGINATION my dear. Just imagine his average would have been 345.33 or 556.45 or whatever... ;-) You need to learn a lot!! ;-)
Re: Re: f
by RAMKRISHNA AYYAPPA on Dec 23, 2011 12:23 PM
AND JAVED NEED NOT GO FAR FOR FIXING. HE HAS A RELATIVE WHO IS NOW 2ND MOST WANTED IN AMERICA'S LIST AND MOST WANTED IN INDIA'S LIST.
Bradman's batting in his 52 tests has won more matches for Australia than Sachin's batting in his 184 tests for India. Bradman did score a double century(232) in the body line series.
Re: SachinVs Bradman
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 12:01 PM
1. Don played mostly against England (37 of 52), 2. Australians were the best bowlers during the time of Don Bradman, so naturally Australia used to win those matches :) 3. Even Hussey had averages of 80 for the first three years. Now his avg is 50. 4. 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.
1. Bradman had no peer in his time, unlike Sachin who is comparable with Lara, dravid, Sanga, Sehwag, Kallis, Ponting. Hammond, Headley, Hobbs, Ponsford, Harvey did not come close to Bradman. Noone with 2000 test runs has a batting average of 62. Bradman retired with 99.94. It's like running 100 meters in 7 seconds. Bradman's ICC rating never dropped below 930, once he got there, till the last day. People like Hutton or Viv Richards have touched the 900 mark only briefly. Barring a 4 week period, Bradman never lost ICC ranking of 1 till his last playing day. This is impossible to achieve, as no other great sportsman has retired as no.1. Ali, Federer, Schumacher, Carl Lewis, Maradona, Hartono, Vasily Alexyv, Kasparov, Edwin Moses, Navratilova, Carl Lewis, Nadia Komanesi have all looked Mortal when they retired. So the question "Was Bradman the greatest Batsman ?" is superflous. The real question is "Was he the greatest sportsperson ever ?" The only person who might give him a run for his money, is another Aussie, SarahFitzgerald. I will be patriotic and say that Major Dhyanchand and Gama were on par with him, in that they were all far ahead of their peers till the last day they played. This is not true of Sachin.
Re: Bradman far greater
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 01:04 PM
Bradman FAR ahead of his peers? Then kindly explain how he is behind in the method described in above article..
Re: Re: Re: Bradman far greater
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 05:48 PM
Ok. Something wrong. But kindly explain what would Bradmans average have been if he faced REAL bowlers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bradman far greater
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 07:39 PM
me cant tell. and u want me to answer that IF question, m i reading it correctly the IF question :)
Re: Bradman far greater
by Just Fun on Dec 23, 2011 11:27 AM
Appreciate you for your aquaintence with the speciality and level of achievement of other sports personalty other than cricket.Ceraintly there is point in what you say
No of runs scored is the parameter Sachin is great But comparing Bradman is sacrilage whose ave is phenominal 99.4% Comparisons are odious I do appreciate Sachins longivity bt that is it Bradman lost best part of his playing life due war.
Re: No of runs
by Praveen Only on Dec 23, 2011 10:35 AM
True, but how do you compare someone playing 2 test matches per year against the same team to someone playing 50 matches a year against different teams (T20/Test/ODI)? Frankly it makes no sense. We just need to accept that "This is a part of the game" :)
Re: No of runs
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 12:48 PM
Swarup:
Also consider that for a whole series Bradman had to face Bodyline. If that series was also with ghd gentle dolly bowlers he was used to, then his average would have crossed 100..
Re: Re: Re: No of runs
by Against Pseudos on Dec 23, 2011 05:00 PM
:-)... Which proves that Bradman was only used to Dollies. If every series was professionally fought by REAL bowlers, his career average would have come down in 50s. :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: No of runs
by rocky on Dec 23, 2011 07:42 PM
yep u r correct. His average may have dropped drastically but so the average of other cricketers of his era. so, again there wud have been a difference :)
