Cricket Player Manager

View Poll Results: Best After the Don

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • Jack Hobbs

    7 7.78%
  • Wally Hammond

    1 1.11%
  • George Headley

    1 1.11%
  • Len Hutton

    2 2.22%
  • Garry Sobers

    13 14.44%
  • Sunil Gavaskar

    1 1.11%
  • Graeme Pollock

    2 2.22%
  • Greg Chappell

    1 1.11%
  • Barry Richards

    1 1.11%
  • Viv Richards

    16 17.78%
  • Sachin Tendulkar

    20 22.22%
  • Brian Lara

    6 6.67%
  • Ricky Ponting

    5 5.56%
  • Jacques Kallis

    8 8.89%
  • W.G. Grace

    4 4.44%
  • Other

    2 2.22%
Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 616 to 630 of 771

Thread: Best After The Don

  1. #616
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by akilana View Post
    Lara did well against Mcgrath and co but two other great attacks - Donald and Pakistanis WWs - of his time kept him quiet. In Australia, he blew hot and cold. He wasn't very successful against India either.

    I keep hearing that he won many matches from improbable positions but can't remember many other than the 153. Just curious.
    80 odd not out chasing almost 200 vs Murali and Co at home
    213 when WI were 37-4 in the same 99 series after WI were humiliated in the prior test
    91 - in '94 vs India. WI one nil down and needed quick runs to set India a challenging target
    96- vs Pakistan '93. After conceding 13 runs WI post 390 off after a match winning partnership between Lara and Haynes


    All in all I dont think Lara played too many "match winning innings" but what he did do was play many great innings under trying circumstances. He also played innings that had he not,WI would have probably been even more humiliated than they were (SL '01).
    Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!

  2. #617
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Statistically it has to be Lara, (along with Sachin) played againts the strongest quality attacks, dominating the two greatest spinners ever and the second greatest ever attack and at home and away. He has the greatest match winning innings. Like Bradman he was capable of massive scores and never played for average. Production wise he is second only to Bradman, where Bradman scored (averaged) 134 runs per match, Lara scored 91.

    The reason he is not my number 2 is because I am not conviced of his batting againts fast short pitched bowling, Mcgrath hit him on the helmet, not sure how he would have feared againt Lillee and Thompson in '75. He was a creative genius and the best batsman of his generation. Brilliant under rated slipper as well, on par with Hooper and just below Richardson in that regard.
    I didn't know that about Lara's run production and its an eyebrow raising stat. I've heard that he was sorted out a few times and seen a couple of egs on youtube. To understate it he won his fair share against short fast bowling too and in a way as domineering as Richards. Would still say that Richards was better handling the short quick stuff but overall favour Lara. I think Lara would have taken wins against Lillee and Thommo. Even without a helmet but definately so with one.

  3. #618
    State 12th Man Flametree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    I didn't know that about Lara's run production and its an eyebrow raising stat.
    The stat merely reflects the fact that for much of his career the Windies were rubbish and so he very often got to bat twice. He played 1.77 innings per match. Viv played 1.5 innings per match, for instance.

    Not trying to say he wasn't brilliant or anything, he was.

  4. #619
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Flametree View Post
    The stat merely reflects the fact that for much of his career the Windies were rubbish and so he very often got to bat twice. He played 1.77 innings per match. Viv played 1.5 innings per match, for instance.

    Not trying to say he wasn't brilliant or anything, he was.
    yeah but being part of a **** team means you also got to bat in **** situations almost everytime.. And having followed almost every game of his since about 96, I have to say that is very true with him more than any batsman I have seen. He was, for 80% of his career, what Clarke was to Australia during this India tour.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed


  5. #620
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,413
    Mike Coward makes some very good points IMO;

    Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

    By Mike Coward

    ...........There are, of course, inherent dangers in making comparisons and judgements across the ages, and ideally this debate should always extend beyond a comparative study of the exploits of Bradman and Tendulkar.

    That said there are issues that must be addressed given Bradman's conviction that the significance of certain figures cannot be avoided if they are produced year after year against every type of opponent and under all conceivable conditions.

    For all his greatness and his mind-numbing average of 99.94, it must be remembered Bradman played his entire 52-Test match career on uncovered pitches at ten grounds in Australia and England, over a 20-year-period ruptured by World War Two. He only toured England - on doctor's advice he was unavailable for the tour of South Africa in 1935-36 - and played at home against England, West Indies, South Africa and India.

    As a point of interest Tendulkar's first ten Tests were played on different grounds outside India and completed four months after his 17th birthday.

    At the time of writing Tendulkar is in his 24th year in the international arena and had played 198 Test matches on 59 Test match grounds in 14 countries, if you respect the sovereignty of the constituents of the West Indies Cricket Board. He has complemented this with 463 one-day internationals and captivated crowds everywhere with 100 international hundreds and an imposing Test average of 53.86.

    These are remarkable statistics that provide some measure of Tendulkar's greatness - figures that would have enthused the Don..........


    The Jury's Out: Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
    Last edited by watson; 08-04-2013 at 07:33 PM.
    Len Hutton - Jack Hobbs - Ted Dexter - Peter May - Walter Hammond - Frank Woolley - Ian Botham - Alan Knott - Hedley Verity - John Snow - Fred Trueman

    Victor Trumper - Bill Lawry - Don Bradman - Greg Chappell - Allan Border - Keith Miller - Adam Gilchrist - Alan Davidson - Shane Warne - Dennis Lillee - Glenn McGrath

  6. #621
    State Vice-Captain Coronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,362
    What could Bradman have done differently? Be born in a different era?

  7. #622
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    What could Bradman have done differently? Be born in a different era?
    Obviously not.

  8. #623
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    in a house
    Posts
    34
    Bradman's average is about 1.67 times better than the next best (I think a few got 60ish)
    So the be as great, based on career length, Tendulkar should play 1.67*168 = 280 odd tests. (I think S.Waugh and Ponting had 168)
    Or have a career year span of 1.67*20=33 odd years. (Didn't a few codgers have 20 year spans? Didn't Hobbs have 40?)

  9. #624
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Mike Coward makes some very good points IMO;


    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Coward
    For all his greatness and his mind-numbing average of 99.94...BLAH BLAH BLAH
    As soon as I read something like that, I tune out. Bradman averaged 100 FFS. Tendulkar averages 54 (which Coward says is "imposing"). BUT BRADMAN AVERAGED 100. Tendulkar didn't. It doesn't matter if Tendulkar played on 5000 different grounds over 80 years and played 1000 tests, his average is NOT really imposing at 54. Hammond, Chappell, Waugh, Weekes, Walcott, Lara, Viv etc etc all average THE SAME AS TENDULKAR.


    Bradman is **** loads better than everyone else. Then you can argue for second. But seriously, I'm so sick of people trying to explain away Bradman's average by saying he only played in Eng and Aust blah blah blah. HE AVERAGED 100!!!!

    And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.


    *sorry about the caps. Got my Danny Katz on.
    Last edited by Red Hill; 09-04-2013 at 12:37 AM. Reason: *played

  10. #625
    International Debutant the big bambino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,308
    I respect Coward's nomination as SRT is definately a contender imo. But thats about as much as I can say I respect about Coward. Frankly I cant shake the suspicion he is a lickspittle and would write a piece praising the humanity of Mao if cricket was run by the Chinese. Quite often you find with people who ask the rest of us to embrace the new world order is to accept its own iniquities without question. In this case SRT's candidature is authentic even though it is put forward by someone who doesn't mind writing to please his master and audience.

  11. #626
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Tendulkar is a very worthy contender for the No.2 spot but that article didn't do a good job of explaining why imo.

  12. #627
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    As soon as I read something like that, I tune out. Bradman averaged 100 FFS. Tendulkar averages 54 (which Coward says is "imposing"). BUT BRADMAN AVERAGED 100. Tendulkar didn't. It doesn't matter if Tendulkar player on 5000 different grounds over 80 years and played 1000 tests, his average is NOT really imposing at 54. Hammond, Chappell, Waugh, Weekes, Walcott, Lara, Viv etc etc all average THE SAME AS TENDULKAR.


    Bradman is **** loads better than everyone else. Then you can argue for second. But seriously, I'm so sick of people trying to explain away Bradman's average by saying he only played in Eng and Aust blah blah blah. HE AVERAGED 100!!!!

    And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.


    *sorry about the caps. Got my Danny Katz on.
    To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman. It's a series of articles to make a case for the second best AFTER bradman. He simply was pointing out Tendulkar's workload in the modern era and variety of opposition and conditions he faced, which is a fair point but not unique to him, as other greats like Lara, Ponting , Kallis faced the same conditions.
    The fact that Tendulkar's resume is almost completely spotless is a very good point imo. He averages 40+ against every country in every country over 24 years, which I find absolutely remarkable. He can attack and defend equally effectively, has played several great counterattacking knocks as well as some great rearguards and superb defensive innings, plus he looks a million bucks while doing it.

  13. #628
    International Regular harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyanash89 View Post
    To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman. It's a series of articles to make a case for the second best AFTER bradman. He simply was pointing out Tendulkar's workload in the modern era and variety of opposition and conditions he faced, which is a fair point but not unique to him, as other greats like Lara, Ponting , Kallis faced the same conditions.
    The fact that Tendulkar's resume is almost completely spotless is a very good point imo. He averages 40+ against every country in every country over 24 years, which I find absolutely remarkable. He can attack and defend equally effectively, has played several great counterattacking knocks as well as some great rearguards and superb defensive innings, plus he looks a million bucks while doing it.
    As much as I hate to be seen as a Sachin fan boy, I completely agree with the above, and have a slight problem with Monk's assertion that Tendulkar is not guaranteed a place in the top 5. If Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, George Headley, Walter Hammond, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards and Brian Lara are considered to be in the top 5, then Sachin has to be there. I am sorry. This is as unflattering as people saying Bradman wasn't all that good. I am pretty sure Bradman wasn't as pretty to look at as Lara or Sobers either. Most accounts of his batting point to that. And it's not because of BCCI (not saying this for monk, just to be clear).
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  14. #629
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.

    Apart from Bradman at No.1, no one is guaranteed a spot

  15. #630
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyanash89 View Post
    To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman.
    I know. However, he did assert that Bradman's 99.94 average is less valuable than it would seem because it was apparently made in less arduous conditions than Tendulkar's "imposing" average of 54. That word (imposing) in Coward's article really ****s me, along with his swipe at Bradman's average..."it must be remember that Bradman played..."

    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    As much as I hate to be seen as a Sachin fan boy, I completely agree with the above, and have a slight problem with Monk's assertion that Tendulkar is not guaranteed a place in the top 5. If Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, George Headley, Walter Hammond, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards and Brian Lara are considered to be in the top 5, then Sachin has to be there. I am sorry.
    Mathematics suggests otherwise. 9 don't fit in to 5.

Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •