Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 337
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

  1. #181
    International Coach Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the Georgie Pie super smash
    Posts
    10,060
    Cricket During 1950's_clip0 - Video Dailymotion

    Here's some 1950s action. Benaud looks like he has an awesome action and the shots against him look quality. I will let you judge the medium pacer's actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I got great enjoyment in going to the game and shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowd
    Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.

  2. #182
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,249
    The whole last few pages has been frustrating and confusing as it seems as though everyone disagreeing with each other actually rates Bradman the best but they just have different reasons for rating him that highly.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

    Over 0.2: Putland to Nevill, OUT, no run, full ball swings in late to crash into his pads. Nevill is almost falling over trying to get bat on it but can't. Huge shout for LBW and Umpire Martell eventually raises the finger! P.Nevill - lbw b:Putland 0 (1 ball, 1 minute).

  3. #183
    International Coach Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the Georgie Pie super smash
    Posts
    10,060
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    That's fine Watson. I think its a hard argue otherwise. However people can think whatever of him. That doesn't concern me. What grates with me is the inconsistency of argument. If people think stds then are poor compared to now then I can't see how he can be rated as the best. I can't see the purpose of ATG threads either. Its the content of the argument against him as well as its subjectivity that pisses me off, not the opinion itself.
    Good point

  4. #184
    International Coach Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the Georgie Pie super smash
    Posts
    10,060
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    If standards have gotten gradually better and a Cricketer was astronomically better compared to the rest as Bradman was, its previous obvious how he can be rated as the best.
    You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.


  5. #185
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.
    Well, that's absolutely crazy that you would get all of that out of my comment. I haven't mentioned Sanga at all.

    Sanga would average 0.00 if he was playing in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

  6. #186
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Flametree View Post
    So presumably you believe modern greats like Cook, Sangakkara, Amla, Chanderpaul etc would average 70+ if transported back to the mid 70's? If progress is unidirectional as you suggest, then surely 40 years is long enough. That is halfway between the modern era and Bradman's time after all.

    If not, when exactly did this giant leap forward in cricket standards take place? Do we scorn those who played in the 50's and 60's.... Or is it just a pre-war to 1948 thing?
    No. I don't think progress has been linear. I think by the 70's*** standards of cricket were similar to now. There has been some change since then, but not the more bulk changes that occurred between the early 1900's and post war. The difference I am talking about is a transition from semi-professional to professional standards. To put it another way, I think most cricketers from the 70's could be transported to the present and achieve roughly similar results with minimal adaptation. And vice versa as well. I don't think the greats you mentioned would necessarily average any better at all if playing in the 70's.

    *** This is a rough estimate, because by the nature of gradual progress you can't easily pinpoint a specific time.

  7. #187
    International Coach Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the Georgie Pie super smash
    Posts
    10,060
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Well, that's absolutely crazy that you would get all of that out of my comment. I haven't mentioned Sanga at all.

    Sanga would average 0.00 if he was playing in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.
    I don't think its crazy I got that out of your statement.

    a) Others are saying that in this thread so that is the context of the discussion.
    Yeah, not really much at all for me. I actually think any semi-decent batsman from the modern era, if allowed some small period for adapting to the different conditions, could dominate if transported back to the e.g. 1930's
    b) you said "If standards have gotten gradually better" this infers that if a modern day cricketer could go back in time (if that was possible) he would be more successful than he was today.

    Anyways that is why I took that out of your post. I apologize if you personally don't like to contemplate batsman going forwards or backwards in time which is indeed impossible.

  8. #188
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Robelinda has some excellent footage of late 50's Ashes. Personally still don't think the standards were as good, but definitely well on the way. Some stuff of Benaud bowling in the first one.

    Peter May 113 vs Australia- 2nd Test 1958/59 ASHES Melbourne - YouTube

    Neil Harvey 167 vs England - 2nd test MCG 1958/59 ASHES - YouTube
    Last edited by Ruckus; 23-06-2013 at 05:10 AM.

  9. #189
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I don't think its crazy I got that out of your statement.

    a) Others are saying that in this thread so that is the context of the discussion.


    b) you said "If standards have gotten gradually better" this infers that if a modern day cricketer could go back in time (if that was possible) he would be more successful than he was today.

    Anyways that is why I took that out of your post. I apologize if you personally don't like to contemplate batsman going forwards or backwards in time which is indeed impossible.
    So how did you arrive at the figure of 70 when I said if standards have gotten gradually better? There are so many factors out there that would make it impossible for me to give an average that I would be confident about a player if he could somehow be transported back in time. For starters, what country would he play for? Would he be the countries wicket keeper?

  10. #190
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    You are saying here that standards are only a little bit better than the 1930s so he is still the best and that if Sanga went back in time he would probably avg 70 but not 99.94? This is what I take out of your answer.
    The problem with this is that even if greats of the modern game could average 100 back when Bradman played, they are being transported back there with the benefit of 80 years progress in the sport - i.e. if you believe the standards have improved, then they possess better techniques, have faced tougher competition to hone their skills etc. Bradman averaged 100 without those benefits. Who knows what he could have averaged with the knowledge and resources available to modern players. But, this is all getting a bit silly, as it's very speculative/hypothetical stuff.

  11. #191
    State Regular CricAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    The whole last few pages has been frustrating and confusing as it seems as though everyone disagreeing with each other actually rates Bradman the best but they just have different reasons for rating him that highly.
    Yes I agree.. Also, in the last few posts, I only see that people agree that it is impossible to compare conditions then and now and hence the greats then and now.. Hence, there is no point having this debate and no point having this thread..

  12. #192
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    That's a very nihilistic stand on it though. Just because you can't compare something doesn't mean you can't have interesting discussions on why that is the case. In any event, it seems a lot of people on here do believe you can make comparisons. If you believe there has been no significant progress in cricket over the past century, then naturally you should be able to believe comparisons can be made.

  13. #193
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    He doesn't believe in using old footage as evidence, so even if he gives an answer it can only be reliant upon raw stats and anecdotes.
    He only uses accounts from so called "expert cricket writers" who were never biased and were omnipotent in cricket knowledge.
    Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)

  14. #194
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,829
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    The only thing I didn't like about Grimmett's bowling is that he bowled with a pronounced round-arm action that was relatively low. Consequently the ball didn't appear to get much above eye level, or have much over-spin. So I'm not sure how Grimmett could have beat the batsman 'in-flight'. It seems as though he would need to rely purely on side-spin to beat the batsman
    No dear, lower arm action is much difficult if the bowler flights it. Even the flatter ones tend to go up and then come down. Bowlers with very high arm actions like Chandra and Kumble were not good in deceiving batsmen in flight. ie. their deliveries did not dip alarmingly. So were Qadir and Mushtaq who beat batsmen off the spin off the pitch basically. Round arm spinners, especially finger spinners are notorious for producing dip. That is why many spinners from sub continent develop a round arm variation for their deliveries.

  15. #195
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,744
    Okay, the standard of the last thread went down the toilet very quickly, and for the most part the debate in here has been a lot better.
    Keep it that way.

    But if we start descending into that **** posting, personal attacks and blatant trolling of other posters again, I'm going to be infracting like mad. Everyone's sick of it.
    Coronis, BeeGee and honestbharani like this.

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Why is Bradman the greatest ever?
    By jboss in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 04-12-2012, 05:48 AM
  2. 1920-50 Bradman Cricket's greatest batsman
    By odonis in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 02:45 AM
  3. Ricky Ponting is a better batsman than Don Bradman
    By Prince EWS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 12:16 PM
  4. Top 5 Australian batsman after Bradman.
    By pasag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 05:30 AM
  5. Best batsman to partner Bradman
    By Engle in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 23-11-2007, 06:16 PM

Posting Permissions

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