The stats do not do him justice!

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

But if Sachin was anywhere near as good as what Bradman is/was (which is what you've been saying) then by your logic Sachin would've averaged over 100 in Test Cricket over the past 10 years because you've been saying that the 30s and the 2000's have been easily the easiest eras for batting. However, Sachin has been incapable of showing any immortality like what the Don did. Don't bring age into it, either... Bradman was 40 years old and was averaging 106 in Test Cricket and that just furthermore illustrates that Tendulkar isn't anywhere near Bradman.

Bradman was 40 years old but the bowlers he faced were also either old and past it or young and upcoming (and nowhere near the bowlers they blossomed into) and it's far easier to bat at an old age compared to bowling.

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.

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.

Because he is past his best.

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.

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?

Na, you've always followed it up with "Ponting is arguably better".

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.

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'.

He as a batsman was an unknown quantity, regardless of all the hype around him until people bowled against him and worked him over.

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.

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.

Shoaib is a hack compared to Waqar and Wasim even at peak he wasn't very good against Australia (not just Hayden).

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.

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.

Key word = Success.

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.

Originally Posted by zaremba

I think you mean hearsay. Hear'say was a synthetic pop group with an embarrassingly mis-spelled name.

I never even noticed that.

I think I've been outed as a Hear'say fan.

Originally Posted by zaremba

So you're saying you saw enough clips to support or disprove Wisden's account. Which was it, and why?

Sorry to press this, but I will if I may return to my original question to ask once again (a) how many clips of Hammond you actually saw, and (b) whether they in truth enabled you to make an informed judgment on his shot selection?

If (as I suspect) you may have seen half a dozen, or maybe even a dozen, strokes, that frankly is not a reliable foundation for an informed opinion on a player. You may as well go down the wfdu_ben91 line of trying to judge players from isolated YouTube clips.

It's fine, press away. Lol

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.

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.

My Grandad died some time ago so about 13 years ago.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

I just spent an hour looking throw youtube clips of the West Indies and I'm confident in saying that apart from Malcolm Marshall, the Australian batsman would have no problem handling Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Joel Garner. It seems that they feasted on batsman with loose techniques and who in truth, weren't really that good. Allot of their wickets that I've seen (apart from Marshall's) have come from a bunch of minor errors that a modern batsman would have covered and wickets would come allot harder for them.

Infact I'd go as far as to say that the bowling attack of Pollock, Ntini and Nel would rival Holding, Roberts and Garner based on what I've seen. All of which, are very similar bowlers, if you compare by footage.

I do however stand corrected on anything I've ever said wrong about Malcolm Marshall. The gap between him and Garner, Holding and Roberts is allot larger then what I originally thought. I imagine that he carried the West Indies and has obviously decieved allot of people into thinking that Garner, Holding and Roberts were allot better then what they really were. But anyways, here's what I came up with:

YouTube - Michael Holding wickets vs England

1st wicket of David Gower - Would get easily dispatched by any Australian left-handed batsman down the legside for four.
2nd wicket of Allan Lamb - Would most likely be hit through the on-side for four by any modern-day batsman.
4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.
5th wicket of Chris Broad - Absolutely shocking, got himself into an awful position, wouldn't expect cheap wickets like that against Australia.
7th wicket of D Steele - Poor execution - Would've been put into the grandstand by Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden.

YouTube - Andy Roberts clips

1st wicket - What was the batsman trying to do? Modern-Day batsman would've gotten out the way of that.
2nd wicket - A perfect example of how batting techniques have gotten allot better over time.
3rd wicket - Another example of poor technique. Unless you are bowling to tailenders, you wouldn't expect a decent modern-day batsman to get out to that.
5th wicket - Appauling, probably a tailender.

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

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.

Ironic, really.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Bradman was 40 years old but the bowlers he faced were also either old and past it or young and upcoming (and nowhere near the bowlers they blossomed into) and it's far easier to bat at an old age compared to bowling.

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.

Bradman didn't just average 100 though, he actually made his runs faster then anybody else from that era. He dominated bowlers and was facing bowlers who were averaging in the 20's nearly everytime he went onto to bat whilst I'd imagine there has been a fair chunk of Tendulkar's career where he hasn't faced bowlers averaging under 30.

You make it sound like Tendulkar dominated all of the bowlers of the 90s, but that just wasn't the cause. Barring the West Indies, Tendulkar didn't exactly set the world alight against the rest of those bowlers who basically got the better of him.

If you only count the matches where McGrath played against India then Tendulkar averages only 36 with 2 hundreds against Australia.
If you only count the matches where Donald played against India then Tendulkar averages only 32 with 2 hundreds against South Africa.
If you only count the matches where Pollock played against India then Tendulkar averages only 39 with 2 hundreds against South Africa.
If you only count the matches where Wasim Akram played against India then Tendulkar averages only 32 with 1 hundred against Pakistan.
If you only count the matches where Waqar Younis played against India then Tendulkar averages only 39 with 1 hundred against Pakistan.

Even if Bradman would've averaged only 60 between 75-98 (which is what you originally said) then he still would've been twice as good as Tendulkar, who averaged in the 30's against the quality pace bowlers of the 1990's.

Because he is past his best.

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.

From watch footage I've seen, Neil McKenzie resembles a half-decent batsman from 1975-1998. It's no coiciendence aswell that a batsman averaging 38 in the modern-era looks much-like a batsman averaging 40 from another era. You can't use the converison rate excuse either, it would be much harder as a 40 year old to convert 100's at that age then it would be at 36. Bradman would've encountered the same problem but overcome it a hell of allot better then what Bradman. With the body wearing on you, it becomes harder to convert, especially at International level.

Na, you've always followed it up with "Ponting is arguably better".

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.

"I think"... you think that I'm making up this assumption just to make myself look good? I actually did used to think that Ponting was a better batsman then Tendulkar until I saw him bat against Australia a few summers ago. Tendulkar looks classier when he makes runs and has a near perfect technique, but when it comes to making a shear amount of runs, nothing seperates them. As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference to how either batsman would fare against a variety of bowlers. The only thing that seperates Ponting and Tendulkar is that Tendulkar is a better player of spin. I'm not making it up and if I was making it up, I wouldn't be choosing an Indian as a decoy to make myself look better. Ask anyone from Planetcricket who has seen me post and they'll tell you why.

He as a batsman was an unknown quantity, regardless of all the hype around him until people bowled against him and worked him over.

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.

Nonsense. In the 1990's, Ponting averaged 63 against Pakistan, 40 against West Indies and 50 against South Africa during that 1990's and that was when Ponting was in his very early 20's and wasn't anywhere near his prime. You can only imagine that he would've improved on those stats had he played more against them in his prime.

Shoaib is a hack compared to Waqar and Wasim even at peak he wasn't very good against Australia (not just Hayden).

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.

At peak, Shoaib was probably the best bowler that I've ever played the game. Bowling 155kph tracer bullets that were swinging. Watch these, arguably some of the best delieveries that have ever been bowled. My dad, who was a great fan of Lillee and Thompson and who is in his mid 50's believes that Shoaib Akhtar in 2002 vs Australia was the best piece of bowling that his seen. He hates Shoaib aswell, because he believes that his a bit've showponey. Compare this clip to the ones I posted of Holding, Garner and Roberts and Shoaib Akhtar looks about 20kph faster and a hell lot better.

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar Vs Gilchrist [ The Perfect yorker ]

Originally Posted by andyc

Ironic, really.

It's not my fault that you either 1) can't face the reality and believe what you are seeing on youtube or 2) Your PC is to slow to load the clips.

[Migara]

@ wdfu_ben91
Some more stats on great bowlers against Tendulkar
Tendulkar averages 65 against Walsh
Tendulkar averages 57.8 against Ambrose, and 64.3 when both are playing as well.

And great Matthew Hayden averages 36.8 when Walsh is playing and 13 when Ambrose or both of them playing. BOOM!

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by Migara

@ wdfu_ben91
Some more stats on great bowlers against Tendulkar
Tendulkar averages 65 against Walsh
Tendulkar averages 57.8 against Ambrose, and 64.3 when both are playing as well.

And great Matthew Hayden averages 36.8 when Walsh is playing and 13 when Ambrose or both of them playing. BOOM!

I do believe I said barring the West Indies.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Cricket isn't the same sport nowadays compared to when Bradman played.

The difference between the early 20th century and the 1930's is similar to the 1930's and nowadays in terms of the sport as a whole.

Do tell. How is it as different? An explanation would be nice...for once.

There has been little change because the rate of progression has been the same between ball and bat, there hasn't been.

The fact I brought up Lohmann was to prove statistics mean ****, and it worked judging by your pissy remark.

And are you going to prove that?

You brought up Lohmann to show that he has a low average, hence he must be the best bowler by that account. Yet your cricketing knowledge fails you. Cricket in the 1880s was played in a different manner, on different pitches, with differing variables. Low scores were common, and hence low bowler's averages. That's why the average bowler averaged 19 in Lohmann's time.

Of course, you didn't know this, and hence your point was a poor one.

No, you have to prove to me that the bowlers of the 30's were in any way comparible to t hose of eras from the 50's onwards.

You seem to be so in awe of the romance of that era that you aren't able to actually form an opinion.

I don't know whether it's the fact that you weren't around then so you assume it must be better, or whether you really don't have a clue.

I have brought proof: stats and the generation by generation comparison of bowlers with regards to how they were rated by their peers. You have brought puff - nothing; excess, no proof.

The irony is you think I am in awe of the past where I am more in favour of modern cricketers and only 1-2 would make my all-time XI.

Waugh in terms of TALENT actually is 1 of the best of his era. Statistically it doesn't say so but those who saw him wouldn't disagree he was a man who's talent far outweighed his success.

Hilarious. His "talent"? Talent doesn't mean anything in cricket unless it is converted into scores. Mark Waugh was not one of the best of his era. Was one of the better batsmen, but certainly not in the top tier. However, using your shoddy reasoning he is even better than Bradman!

I've seen Tendulkar do exactly the same thing and you have too unless you closed your eyes during the 90's.

Tendulkar is a fine batsman. But not fit to be in the same breath as The Don.

Drivel in what sense?

That Bradman didn't actually do what I said or that your assumption that Tendulkar couldn't/wouldn't at peak do exactly the same thing is complete bull****?

Drivel in the sense that your whole argument is based on footwork and technical stroke-play and not what really happened. Drivel in the sense that there is not much footage at all of the past and how you seem to generalise all this to suit your argument.

I grew up watching the era actually.

And batting @ 6 isn't comparible to top order.

LOL! So Sobers, Waugh (S), aren't comparable to Tendulkar or Lara because they batted at 6?

It's become obvious that I am wasting my time arguing with a noob.

On his own wickets.

It is absolutely no coincedence he filled his boots on flat tracks.

Do you think his tag of flat-track bully isn't justified, because I think it pretty much sums him up.

We've already done analysis on hardest countries to bat in...Australia is one of the hardest. Especially, in domestic Cricket, where Australia's state sides are comparable, or even better, than most Test sides.

Actually neither of those really compare to Warne or Murali in terms of longevity (which is key to success) and continued wicket taking ability.

I would also say both Qadir and Chandrasekhar are ocmparible to the likes of O'Reilly and Grimmett. Sure they aren't Australian so you may not agree, but Chandrasekhar especially got out great players of spin.

You're reliance on articles, hear'say and statistics is laughable and sad. You are literally incapible of forming your own unbiased opinion. It's pretty pathetic.

Their careers spanned 11-12 years, what are you talking about? Qadir and Chandra are not near O'Reilly and Clarrie.

I use stats, facts, opinions on them by contemporaries and historians...and that is wrong? How else do you form an opinion about them?

You can't have seen them. And any footage would be minimal.

What's really pathetic is how little you know about Cricket's history, yet have the temerity to question Bradman. Not just a regular great...but the greatest by a country mile! Absolutely astonishing.

1 great bowler surrounded by mediocrity? Lol

You happen to mention 3 bowlers I actually didn't.

I would find it hard to believe anyone would call Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Venkataraghavan mediocre or Holding and co.

LOL, that is EXACTLY what they were. They were absolutely abysmal away and only decent at home. India was one of the weakest teams during that period - batting and bowling. And as I said, West Indies were only a force towards the late 70s and 80s.

Of course, even putting them aside, who else? LOL, this is silly.

That is further proof that you are so dictated to by stats it's not even worth giving your opinion credibility.

You've already closed the door on the next, say, 100 years of cricket.

How close minded.

Still waiting on you to prove any of your assertions. "I saw Bradman on some youtube clips and I have seen Tendulkar, so Tendulkar is better" is not an argument.

Quick son, proof.

But a 50 in the late 70's/early 80's is better than a 50 nowadays for example so there are differences. In 50 years there could be enough to drop Bradman down to 50.

Yes, because it was harder to achieve for several reasons. It can also be argued that it wasn't, but let's concede it was. A 50 then and a 50 now sure. A 99.94 then and a 55 now?

Actually, yes it would,

It's easier to be the big fish in a small pond than be a big fish in a big pond.

You have no clue about Ice Hockey, that's evident and in fairness you don't claim to do so but Gretzky's acheivement in the best era for the sport means a hell of alot more when the defensemen he faced were equally good for their position compared to Bradman's against a bowling attack who contain 1 good bowler (by general standards), 1 or 2 average bowler s and a couple of hacks.

I would be shocked if anyone put Larwood in the top 25 bowlers of all time and he was by far our best and it's far easier to (for example) average 100 at club level than at test level.

Why is that?

Because of the quality of opposition.

LOL, it seems you have no inkling for proportion.

Bradman was not playing in the toughest era possible. Ok, we can concede that. Still, he was playing in a tough era. If Bradman had averaged 60, I could see your point. A 60 then and a 55 now, alright. But not 99.94. Bradman's era was not that weak. And if you are trying to say it was...prove it.

You see, I've already done a decade by decade comparison of batting and bowling. You haven't. And until you do, you won't understand that Bradman's era was still very difficult. So let's see you prove it .

Toughest?

In whose opinion? Lol

I think it is 1 of the worst eras for the sport. You really need to get over your love affair with the 30's. It'sclouding your judgement.

Prove it. Some facts and figures would be nice. How was it one of the worst eras for the sport? I already showed you the average batsman's score through the 70s-now; the average bowler's score is little different.

---

As an afterthought, I've come to appreciate this forum and it's more in-depth analysis of cricket. These shoddy arguments, like rivera's, are a dime a dozen on other sites.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

I do believe I said barring the West Indies.

Why ? Let me guess because it suits your agenda ?

[Migara]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

I do believe I said barring the West Indies.

Why bar the best new ball pair in 1990s?

[aussie]

Originally Posted by MrIncredible

Yes they were pitches were just flatter and they hardly had ne quality pace bowlers to test them.

Thats true, but you can't blame the batsmen for having to face quality pace attacks in their careers. But what you can do is the few times/circumstances they did have to face quality pace in tests, use that as a guide to guage how they would have feared againts quality pace attacks.

For example:

The Waugh brothers, Taylor & Slater all made runs againts the top attacks of the 90s, so now quesions about them.

Langer & Martyn like Hayden, although they had their difficulties in the 90s. The few times they where tested againts quality pace in the 2000s, they were solid as well. Plus Katich's recent performances vs SA, have vanquished his ghost of Ashes 2005

Only Gilchrist, Lehmann & Clarke have genuiene question over them againts their ability to handle consistent, quality pace.


Ponting I could let slide cause he made a few centuries against Walsh and Ambrose while they were still in their prime (as he also did vs WW )

Originally Posted by MrIncredible

but Hayden was at sea against quality pace and no performance post 2000 will ever convince me otherwise.

Its never good to have ideological gridlock on any matter. Since Hayden did make runs againts quality pace attack in test conditions post 2000, after his FTB days. Those innings would be his Oval hundred & his performances vs SA 05/06 (home & away)

[MrIncredible]

South Africa bowling<< RSA b4 2001. As are the WI, Pakistan etc. Ne way I probably should stop picking on Hayden tbh because its not as if he was the only one who struggled against quality pace. As ben has reminded me tendulkar and Lara both had their issues with Donald, WW, and McWarne (together). And to correct Migara, Tendulkar averaged 67 at home to Walsh in 94 when Walsh had Cuffy and Benjamin in tow, hardly a formidable attack. He did well to average 56 against Walsh and Ambrose (and Bishop) in 96 but thats about it for Tendy's notable performances in a series vs a very good/great pace attack

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Why ? Let me guess because it suits your agenda ?

Obviously, I was trying to provide examples as to why Tendulkar wasn't all conquering in the 1990s which ineviatably led back to my point that he wasn't anywhere near close to Bradman because he failed against the majority of the quality bowlers of the 90s.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Obviously, I was trying to provide examples as to why Tendulkar wasn't all conquering in the 1990s which ineviatably led back to my point that he wasn't anywhere near close to Bradman because he failed against the majority of the quality bowlers of the 90s.

Ok tell us the quality bowling Donald played other than English attack?

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Migara

Ok tell us the quality bowling Donald played other than English attack?

None really, and it's something that always needs to be taken into account. Though as I mentioned in an earlier post it works both ways - England were by far the strongest opposition attack Bradman could play against, and he played 75% of his Test cricket against them.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by Migara

Ok tell us the quality bowling Donald played other than English attack?

3rd Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Jan 16-20, 1931 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
223 vs. West Indies, 1931
Notable Bowlers: Baron Constantine, Herman Griffith, George Francis

4th Test: Australia v West Indies at Melbourne, Feb 13-14, 1931 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
152 vs. West Indies, 1931
Notable Bowlers: Baron Constantine, Herman Griffith, George Francis

1st Test: Australia v South Africa at Brisbane, Nov 27-Dec 3, 1931 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
226 vs. South Africa, 1931
Notable Bowlers: Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell, Neville Quinn, Quintin McMillan

2nd Test: Australia v South Africa at Sydney, Dec 18-21, 1931 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
112 vs. South Africa, 1931
Notable Bowlers: Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell, Neville Quinn

3rd Test: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Dec 31, 1931 - Jan 6, 1932 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
167 vs. South Africa, 1931
Notable Bowlers: Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell, Neville Quinn, Quintin McMillan

4th Test: Australia v South Africa at Adelaide, Jan 29-Feb 2, 1932 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
299* vs. South Africa, 1932
Notable Bowlers: Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell, Neville Quinn, Quintin McMillan

1st Test: Australia v India at Brisbane, Nov 28-Dec 4, 1947 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
185 vs. India, 1947
Notable Bowlers: Lala Amarnath, Vinoo Mankad

3rd Test: Australia v India at Melbourne, Jan 1-5, 1948 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
132 & 127* vs India, 1948
Notable Bowlers: Lala Amarnath, Vinoo Mankad

4th Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Jan 23-28, 1948 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
201 vs. India, 1948
Notable Bowlers: Lala Amarnath, Vinoo Mankad

[aussie]

Haa...OMG wfdu sir, you are absolutely wrong there...