Basketball is slightly different in that is has effectively disenfranchised defending by having a rule that (IIRC) you must make a shot on goal within 24 seconds of getting possession.
I think there might be a case to be made (not necessarily a strong one) that master allrounders like (say) Grace, Sobers or Kallis are more useful to a team than a specialist, even a superhuman one, but such is Sir Donald's mastery I'm not personally convinced.
- As featured in The Independent.
"Predictably, the ending of his international career did not end the argument about Pietersen's merits, as an army of informed commentators and Piers Morgan weighed in to defend or attack him."
- The Guardian's Andrew Anthony
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
I'd guess those who demur would be hardly more numerous than those who rank (say) Sobers over Bradman.
Jordan without Nike wouldnt he heralded like he is globally. He would be considered a brilliant basketballer but wouldnt be famous around the world like he is.
Last edited by Goughy; 17-06-2009 at 03:52 AM.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
The lack of understanding of sample size in cricketing debates makes me want to punch someone
EDIT: This isn't at the posts above, just at the thread in general.
RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990 - 15/4/2006
I think most staticians would say stats are only comparible (in terms of sport) in regards to their own eras.
I fell all "ball" sports are hard to compare.
If we're basing who is the best batsman on how dominant he was over his contemporaries then it's obviously Bradman. But if there were to be a strike or something and only England and Bangladesh were left, Pietersen averaged 120 and the rest of our batsmen flopped, would he be better than Bradman?
Or would he have just cashed in on ****e bowling (Bangaldesh have a couple of decent bowlers. Not Larwood level but Larwood wasn't completely owned by Bradman).
I love watching old footage of the Don. He was the ****, but I just don't see such a difference which would put him above the other greats I've seen in footage or live.
* He wasn't bad though....
In terms of dominance, Wilt Chamberlain is by far No.1 (in terms of dominance over an era). Jordan being the best of his era is true, though in terms of complete ass-whooping of his contemporaries, it's Wilt for most people.
I'm not a big basketball fan, and don't agree Jordan is the best ever necessarily.
But take Ice Hockey. Gretzky (who is IMO the best in his sport) played a sport where the majority of the top players from his era are on the alltime points list. The 80's to mid 90's was probably the best for Ice Hockey in terms of quality of player per number and he played in that era.
He averaged 1.92pts/game (And he should've retired in1996 which would've made his ratio even more impressive @ 2.1 over a 16 year span!). Crosby, who many think is the closest contender to Gretzky maybe ever, would have to average his BEST single season total for the next 20.5 seasons to be level with him.
He isn't 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar even if people say he's better than Tendulkar.I think you're making everyone laugh, because Bradman is 40 runs better then Tendulkar. You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that anyone, let alone Tendulkar is close to Bradman.
In no footage of Bradman and Tendulkar is there a difference akin to that of the same between Tendulkar and a No.9.
Tendulkar has near perfect tehcnique including footwork 99% as good as the Don. His range of shots were as good, though in terms of innovation for his time, Bradman is way ahead (that's not to say he would always be an innovator. It doesn't work like that. Normally 1 batsmen sets the trend for a folowing generation and they continue it).
Nope, he wouldn't have destroyed Trueman and Statham since both were better than Larwood (definitely more consitent) and Larwood wasn't completely owned by Don.Bradman would've destroyed Trueman, Statham and Tyson though and he would've probably destroyed any bowler that's ever played the game - Tendulkar probably wouldn't. He got owned by all of the great seam bowlers and cashed in against the spinners.
I find it hilarious that you are calling others bias.
And he certainly wouldn't have "destroyed" Wasim/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh, the fearsome foursome mk I and II, the Indian spin quartet, Imran, Hadlee, Donald/Pollock etc. He may very well have destroyed the lesser bowlers but great bowlers give great batsmen problems. And Bradman wasn't God in human form (as much as you'd like to think he was).
Also, Tendulkar never got "owned" by all the great seamers, it was just a great era for seam. They pretty much gave everyone problems. That's the downside of being a revisionist.
Gretzsky, Ruth, Pele, Chamberlain and Woods were/are all considerably better than their contemporaries actually.No-one has matched Bradman's dominance in another sport. That's what makes him better then any other sportsmen. For someone to replicate Bradman's dominance in cricket, they'd have to play as much cricket as he did and average 10 with the ball or average 60 with the bat and 20 with the ball.
The fact those sports have had more level playing fields in terms of talent is more to do with the lack of a single standout statistical leader.
You don't know India at all man.The media is placed around everywhere in the world these days. Especially on struggling batsman, who are out of form. I suppose batsman who are able to overcome that are equal to Tendulkar?
India (cricket) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rest of the World.
No Indian batsman has had the amount of pressure placed upon him as Tendulkar has. Have you purposely had your eyes shut for all your cricket watching life?Plenty of Indian batsman have debutted in this teens, less then a handful of Australians have debuted in their teens. Debutting at a younger age proves nothing but a countries optomisim. Ponting could've debuted for Australia when he was 15, when he was hooking 90mph bouncers off the bowling machine for fun, but that doesn't make him no Bradman.
What does Ponting playing against a bowling machine have to do with him against real life bowlers?
Sure it gets you used to line, length and speed but not the subtleties a bowler has.
[quote[Tendulkar wasn't carrying the hopes of the Indians, he wasn't under any pressure as a teenager, it wasn't until he become a star in the mid 90's where the pressure started to rise. I've seen Tendulkar bat as a teenager and he was no master and played some shocking shots. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that Tendulkar is close to Bradman, then perfection is needed and Tendulkar just doesn't have that.[/quote]
It was in 1990 actually where he scored 119* @ Old Trafford as a 17 year old. Pretty young to carry the future of your team.
I was aware, and I somewhat doubt they were going all out against a legend of the game and a man in his 60's. Could you imagine English bowlers going all-out against Boycott or even Gower?A failure for Tendulkar is averaging in the 20s, whilst a failure for Bradman is averaging 1 or 2 runs more then Tendulkar's career average. Are you aware that when Bradman was in his 60s, he had a net session with the Australian team at the time, with no protective gear on and he smashed them to all parts? I doubt Tendulkar will be doing the same when his in his 60s.
It's called respect, they can take being smashed in a net session over injuring a legend and looking like a ****.
Bradman in his peak would not smash Brett Lee's fastest and most accurate deliveries. That's just common sense. You need a great eye to smash an express paceman and Bradman had poor eyesight. I don't think anyone would or could "smash" a guy bowling high 90's on a decent bowling wicket. That's nothing to do with talent, but human limitations. It's like expecting Woods to make a chip with an insane and inpredictable wind or Federer to hit a volley when it hits the net straight infront of him.
You haven't said Tendulkar is outright better than Ponting (even though he obviously is). Everytime you sort of admit it, you follow it up with something akin to the first quote in this post.I'm biased? I'm Australian and I've admitted that Tendulkar is a better batsman then Ponting, but assuming you are Indian, you think Tendulkar is better then Bradman? Typical Indian bias and trying to turn the truth the wrong way.
Na. Sachin still (at 36) hits it better than everyone else but in terms of striking there are many batsmen better than Ponting- Pietersen & Sehwag being way above in that respect and many others- even Ian Bell who on form strike the ball more cleaner than "Punter2 could wish to do.I've seen them both play, they both hit the ball better then anyone else in this era. There is a certain class that holds them above all from the rest of the era and not much seperates Ponting & Tendulkar, but none of them compare to Bradman. Not even close.
No, I think they're worse which is why Ponting's 20 against them is shoddy in comparison to Tendulkar's 39 against SA.So you think that the Indians bowlers are better then Donald & Pollock?
Kumble is an all-time great but that's it.
Because England, India, Australia and West Indies are benchmark tours. Nowadays people talk about South Africa but they are a "new" team so to speak.What's history got to do with anything? It's about how good the team was at the present. So if a team with allot of history has a poor attack, you rate the runs against them higher then you would with a team with no history, but a quality attack?
Also, England never had "great" attacks against Bradman. There were generally 1 very good bowler, 1 good and a few crap. He never cashed in on Larwood in 32/33, but the other bowlers.
Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe or Bradman's 102* against us in 1932?
Look at it purely statistically (like you have the Don's stats).
* I realise maintaining an average is a hell of alot harder than a single innings but statistically the Hayden innings in 3.73 times better than Bradman's.
It says nothing about who they faced, what type of fields they faced, the wicket, the quality of bowler etc.
Surely you at least understand what I'm saying to say in regards to not being able to compare cross era?
He had 1 good series followed by 1 bad series until his retirement.
It wasn't just Bradman to blame for Larwood's bad averages in previous Ashes series pre-32/33.
All-Time Test XI:
Gavaskar, Boycott, Tendulkar, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Waqar/Wasim, Lillee, Ambrose.
In fact it wasn't.
I've listed the "support acts" before, and will do so again:
Those weren't makeweights, they were all-time greats in their own right.
And there were some other pretty handy bowlers too:
Doubtless I'm forgetting some others too.
And he did it in Australian conditions, and he did it in English conditions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)