one of your pieces?
Nice read, enjoyed that. Love Nasser.
Now, back in the real world.
How is it not even possible that the best batsman of the modern era be also the best of all time?
And is it not possible that the Lara's, Ponting's, Kallis' of the world aren't actually better than the other batsmen in Bradman's era.
I've seen as much of the Don as all of you have I estimate, but I think some of you are guilty of being revisionists and speaking from stats and ignorance as opposed to as a result of unbiased comparisons between Bradman and other batsmen.
@ Burgey- I'm not talking about in Bradman's time, but nowadays. Sorry, but he wouldn't be out there for as long as he was in his time. That's just common sense. Especially in Australia with Hayden and Langer as openers, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much time in the middle as he did in his day.
I don't dispute Bradman was easily the best of HIS era, but the lack of bowling quality allround helped with that.
It's also impossible to equate the pressure Bradman was under to the ridiculous amount of expectation which was put upon Tendulkar since he was only 16. You can't say Bradman was under anywhere near that pressure. India is completely different to every other country in the world. Worse than the US and pressure takes it's toll on even the best.
Also, just take a look at the techniques of the 2 players. There is absolutely nothing that Bradman did better than Tendulkar. And his eyes (by Bradman's own admission) weren't great either.
It's similar to the "Babe Ruth is the best hitter of all-time" in baseball argument. If you look at stats then sure, but the fact he didn't face any black pitchers, that the quality of pitchers weren't great past the star in each team and he was never walked compared to Barry Bonds (steroid allegations aside) who batted in a more level era.
I think it's easy to ook at Bradman's average and say "He's the greatest ever bar none", but then, as I said previously, there are so many other factors which contribute to a player's average.
Is it fair to compare a batsman who basically only played his career in 2 countries (and 2 conditions) to 1 who's had to bat in 7 countries for 16 tests or more?Important to note that averages aren't a measure of how good someone is, that's much too abstract to assign a number to. They're a measure of how many runs he scores for every time he gets out. Against good teams, against bad teams, in easy conditions or hard conditions, his average is the mathematical sum of all of his performances. I don't really see how it can fail to do him justice.
Surely a batsman who only plays at home and in 1 other country would get used to conditions?
All-Time Test XI:
Gavaskar, Boycott, Tendulkar, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Waqar/Wasim, Lillee, Ambrose.
How come no one else averaged 100 if the bowling was so weak?
He's by far the best in his era but the lack of any other 99.94 average batsmen doesn't mean the bowling was good.
There's no comparison with what Bradman was under to Tendulkar. Get real.
The point of this thread is players that deserve an average better than they have.
Ponting isn't a 50 average player. He has nowhere near the range of shots, timing ability or adaptability Tendulkar (or even Lara) has/had.
And as I said earlier, the quality of batsmen is much closer together than it was in the 30's. The same with baseball.
People are always going to take the view that there is no better batsman than Bradman, no better footballer than Pele, no better baseball hitter than Ruth, no better pitcher than CY, no better hockey player than Gretzsky and no better basketball player than Jordan simply because of the romance.
How the hell did this article 'prove' anything?
Tomorrow I'm gonna be writing an article proving that Stuart Broad is better than Bradman. It will then be indisputable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)