Had Don batted against the next crop of quicks at peak or even against Laker at peak- both of which he didn't then I'd think "wow, a 40-year old destroying our best bowlers!" but I really odn't rate Larwood as highly as others. He was the best English bowler of his time but I think he is some way away from the Trueman's, Bedser's, Statham's of the world.
Statham's lack of pace may have made him a target for Bradman but I don't think the Don, as great as he was, would jump all over Trueman and Bedser quite so easily.
If Tendulkar's opponents were the bowlers he faced in the 90's and faced them NOW, the difference would be moreso than when he faced them in the 90's.
Warne, Kumble, Murali still have it since you don't really lose your ability as such but McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Gillespie, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh bowling against Sachin today would be embrassing.
Because he is past his best.See, you're flawed arguements are being found out right now, just like a batsman on a dodgy wicket with a poor technique and you are being found out to be a flat-track bully who's average has gone from over 50 to the low 30's.
The fact he was/is considered by the huge majority to be the best batsman of his era is enough and the fact he averaged 56.08 against arguably the best team EVER shows his class.
And btw, although he only averaged 38 against us in 2007, he should've had 2 centuries and possibly including a NO would've put his average @ 51. He was far from being a 38 average batsman like Neil McKenzie who is just not up to it at test level even on today's wickets.
The real difference between Tendulkar of today and when he was at peak is the conversion of late 40's to 50's and 80+ to 100's.
He still averaged 70.43 against Australia IN Australia in 2007/08 and even last winter, although he averaged 56.57 against you with 1 century, he should've had 2 as well as 2 x 50's.
I know would/should/could of's don't mean much but the picture you're painting is though he's a hack now- which isn't the case.
His talent deserves, IMHU-bO (new internet word, copyrighted!) a lifetime average of 60+ with 50+ test hundreds, he should really be on 50 test centuries IAH but the conversion is the 1 thing he has lost.
Na, you've always followed it up with "Ponting is arguably better".I cannot form an unbiased opinion yet I've said countless amounts of time that Sachin (who is Indian) is better then Ponting and Hayden (who are Australian). How many times do I have to comprehensively outargue you until it finally sticks in your head?
I think in your heart of hearts you think Ponting is better and Hayden just as good. I've seen it in a number of threads that if in doubt an Aussie >>> Player from rest of the world.
It's great you're so proud of your players, I would be too, but it was a great TEAM during the mid 90's to mid 00's, not necessarily the XI greatest players in the world.
He as a batsman was an unknown quantity, regardless of all the hype around him until people bowled against him and worked him over.Unknown quantity? So averaging mid 40's in an era which you claim is bowler-friendly is unknown quantity? Ponting was taunted as the next great Australian batsman when he was 14 years old. He was hardly an 'unknown quantity'.
Phil Hughes is still somewhat of an unknown quantity for us even thoughhis meteroic rise has been well documented.
Our bowlers have no clue whether he'll struggle against swing and average 20 throughout the series or feast on swing and average in the late 70's.
Ponting is vulnerable against RH offies, especially early in the innings. No-one really found that out until 3 years into his test carer. The series in 96 can easily be put down to inexperience but if a batsmen continually flops in a certain condition or against a certain type of bowler then that's a weakness.
You can also bet his average against South Africa, West Indies, Pakistan would be much lower than it is atm had he been a batsman of the 90's.
To argue he would've kept the same average against better bowlers at peak (Donald and Pollock, Ambrose and Walsh, Waqar and Wasim) doesn't make any logical sense.
I'm not saying averaging, say, 30 against those is necessarily bad but his stats against those 3 teams would come down by at least half, probably much more in the case of Pakistan.
Shoaib is a hack compared to Waqar and Wasim even at peak he wasn't very good against Australia (not just Hayden).You have no earthly idea what you are talking. Bond was always at his best against Australia... why do you think they highlight it so much when talking about Bond? Shoaib was at his peak during 2002 when Pakistan played Australia and Hayden averaged over 60 in that series and slaughtered Shoaib, Wasim and Waqar. Hayden played several Tests against Donald (most in the 90s) and Donald only got Hayden out once. All of those bowlers that I mentioned were as good as Donald, Waqar, etc at there peak... the difference was that Donald, Waqar, etc had a peak over a long period of time. Bond could've easily been up there or even of been better then any of those bowlers had he played more cricket.
Donald was past it when he faced Hayden and his decline is known as 1 of the most dramatic and severe in cricket history.
Bond was at his best in the ODI's, I'm not talking about Hayden the slogging ODI opener, I'm talking about proper cricket. Yuvraj Singh is a great ODI batsman but a poor test one.
Key word = Success.That's why all of his success came against better batsman in the mid 2000's... anyone who knows anything about cricket would concur. The same being with how Sachin is only half as good the Don, but then again you don't really know what you are talking about when it's cricket related.
I've said throughout this thread, stats are a measure of success not talent.
In the 2000's, he's bowled against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who are hopeless, Us who are always poor against him and will continue to collapse to his bowling when he's 80 years old, Australia who are generally poor against spin and loads of tests at home on tailor made wickets.
He hasn't bowled poorly by any means, but in the 90's up to the early 00's (ca 1997-2001), he bowled like a genius in places such as the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan against good batting line-ups and not always on wickets which suited him.
Now, he doesn't bowl anywhere near as well as he used to (barring maybe the series in India in 2005) but his stats disagre simply because he's played some ****e opposition or played at home.
I think I've been outed as a Hear'say fan.
I cannot estimate how many clips I saw of Wally. My grandad didn't have, for example a "Hammond highlights" vid or anything. It was usually clips from (what I assume to be) the same test and his 30's vids didn't compare to vids of later eras.
Once he left the BBC to start up his own company, he couldn't get his hands on anything else IIRC.
There were enough clips to judge that from Wisden's account of his basically being akin to Bradman are wide of the mark. Although his footwork was good, it's pretty much standard now.
He wasn't a hack, and I liked watching the clips- I can see why he was so liked but Bradman he wasn't and you can see the difference between the 2.
My Grandad died some time ago so about 13 years ago.Finally, can I ask when it was that you last watched these clips? From your description of them it seems that neither you nor your grandad still has them. And I doubt that you would have allowed them to be lost or destroyed in the last few years now that you have a keen awareness of their value. Which makes me think you may have seen them many years ago. I may be completely wrong, but that's my guess.
Though I have to say I was even more of a cricket fan back then, made shot selection charts of balls pitched on a certain line/length, angle/trajectory of delivery so it wasn't that it all went over my head, I was a real nerd.
I knew about batting technique (and contrary to belief, I don't necessarily rate the most aesthetically pleasing batmen as the best technicians).
I wasn't a super analysist by any means, Simon Hughes' job is safe, but I knew what to look for.
That's a fair point, but when I originally signed up I thought I would talk with a bunch of cricket fans who were free thinking. I've got Wisden annuals, I (obviously) have the internet so I can go on CricInfo when I like but I thought I'd have cricketing debate with people who also have their own opinions.Well that rather begs the question of why you spend so much time on a cricket chat forum, where a large part of the whole point is to exchange opinions. There's not a lot of point in exchanging opinions unless you're prepared to allow them to influence your own.
For instance, why bother offering us the opinion that, based on your viewings of your grandad's old clips, you thought such-and-such about Hammond or Bradman? Are we to give your account "credence"? Are you the only one whose accounts and opinions are worth listening to?
You don't have to believe or disbelieve my opinions on Hammond, or Bradman, or Tendulkar etc but if you've seen clips yourself we can at least talk about them and not rely on biased journalism to make our minds up for us.
1- I don't think my account is the full story by any means, but from what little (in comparison to the Don) I saw of him, there's no way he would suddenly turn into a fleet-of foot batsmen Bradman was considering Hammond had what is now considered standard footwork.Some might take things a few stages further and say that when faced with (1) your account of Hammond's ability based on watching a few archive clips, and (2) Len Hutton's and (3) Wisden's analysis of him, they would only feel comfortable dismissing as unreliable one of those three opinions.
2- So many people on here are anti-Botham or Hussain when they give THEIR accounts/opinions on batsmen so why not the same with Hutton? I think you've either got to go down the route of treating every ex-player's account as equally important or dismiss them all and find your own opinion.
3- Wisden, while a great thing for cricket, can buff up mediocre batsmen as good, good batsmen as great and great batsmen as gods. An unbiased account from a professional journalist doesn't exist IMHO.
Because the majority of this thread has been other people arguing that statistics DO in fact tell the whole story and have argued that Bradman is better than Tendulkar not based on their own unbiased opinions but statistics.The final point I want to make is linked to what I've just said. Having created this thread (which is a classic example of an opinion-exchange thread), you've then gone on to attempt to ridicule or dismiss the opinions held by others. You might want to be a little less dismissive because it gives a strong impression of misplaced arrogance.
I don't mind anyone saying they think Bradman or Barry Richards or Graeme Pollock is better than Tendulkar if that's their OWN opinion. If you personally think Tendulkar is a lesser batsman than Pollock then that's cool, we can discuss why. Since both are in the top tier for me, I have no problem but the key is it's your OWN opinion, not a journo on Wisden or statistics or anything.
As I said before, my Grandad had his opinions (and I'm almost certain he would've seen Bradman and Hammond live in the late 30's in London) but they are his and I have my own. He is more reliable to me than anyone who's written for Wisden, but I still don't treat what he said as gospel.