Bradmanesque

[Coronis]

Its quite evident from the recent posts, you guys attack like a pack of dogs and go as far as you can to make others look bad and irrelevant. Old posters(or multis) over here want everyone to come to CricketWeb and blindly agree with them.

This is the reason why more people stick to PlanetCricket which has an authentic and more open-minded user base. Even when it comes to game promotions or related stuff people prefer PlanetCricket.

Not agreeing with me is one thing, but constantly taking jabs and targeting individuals is just not cool.

Feel free to stick to it then

 

[Shri]

Its quite evident from the recent posts, you guys attack like a pack of dogs and go as far as you can to make others look bad and irrelevant. Old posters(or multis) over here want everyone to come to CricketWeb and blindly agree with them.

This is the reason why more people stick to PlanetCricket which has an authentic and more open-minded user base. Even when it comes to game promotions or related stuff people prefer PlanetCricket.

Not agreeing with me is one thing, but constantly taking jabs and targeting individuals is just not cool.

You know where the door is.

 

[Victor Ian]

Woof woof woof woof! Grrrrrrr Woof wooof Woof Snarl Grrrrrrr

 

[karan316]

You know where the door is.

Woof woof woof woof! Grrrrrrr Woof wooof Woof Snarl Grrrrrrr

Typical CW

 

[Shri]

Typical CW

Lol, you should be happy that we let PC.net folks in here. Run along now.

 

[Bijed]

Woof woof woof woof! Grrrrrrr Woof wooof Woof Snarl Grrrrrrr

Was going to ask what type of dog that was, then realised that it would of course be a Border Collie.

 

[Chrish]

Someone should post interesting Bradman anecdotes.. How about posting the opinions of players/ journalists who saw Bradman and some of the modern batsmen in action and then made comparison remarks? Or posting about the duels Bradman had with the bowlers or the instances where he made runs in difficult wicket conditions in tests/ FC games?

Bradman's stats have been discussed to death so instead of usual twice as good as peers argument, non-statically driven debate would be more effective in convincing the doubters I reckon.

 

[Shri]

Was going to ask what type of dog that was, then realised that it would of course be a Border Collie.

 

[Smudge]

Ihave followed these posts with some amusement, some disgust, some dissalusionment but mostly some contempt. I refer back to my post #1, where I calmly mentioned a comparison ; the "esque" is what that means; between Warner and Bradman. I must admit to a "boost' after Warner's effort on the first day of this current Test. I am so surprised at the juvenile diatribe coming from karan316 and jonbrooks in particular. If you read post #1 correctly you would note I have seen Bradman play and the rubbish you have posted is just that. Obviously both of you have NOT ever played serious cricket as you have absolutely NO idea.You obviously have NO knowledge of the history of the game either, hence your inane comment on it's History. I have played the game at First Class,State and represented my country. Among my mentors were Wally Grout, Ken Mackay and Wesley Hall and am good friends with Jeff Thompson who I also played with and against. Should you not know of these gentlemen,learn to read and find out. I'd suggest you both go home to your Mummys and play with your blocks/dolls and leave the serious discussion of this wonderful game to the grownups.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Exactly, people are too obsessed with stats, stats don't tell the entire story.

Rocky Marciano has a boxing record of 49-0, but Muhammad Ali was a bigger star despite of 5 losses, reason - Ali competed with one of the greatest boxers ever while most boxers in Marciano's time were average.

this is why casuals shouldn't be allowed opinions.

 

[Burgey]

The boxing analogy is an interesting one. I'd more think Bradman was Ray Robinson to England's Jake La Motta, with the odd cheap pay day against bums like WI and India. Whereas today you only really have one big fight (the Ashes) and the rest is the bum of the month club where you get to beat up on all these sides who are utterly inept everywhere but their own back yard.

 

[ImpatientLime]

i mean the geezer is writing off archie moore and jersey joe walcott as average.

we can add boxing to the list of sports he knows **** all about.

 

[karan316]

Lol, you should be happy that we let PC.net folks in here. Run along now.

Lol, PlanetCricket is miles ahead of CW, don't be jealous.

 

[Spark]

Its quite evident from the recent posts, you guys attack like a pack of dogs and go as far as you can to make others look bad and irrelevant. Old posters(or multis) over here want everyone to come to CricketWeb and blindly agree with them.

This is the reason why more people stick to PlanetCricket which has an authentic and more open-minded user base. Even when it comes to game promotions or related stuff people prefer PlanetCricket.

Not agreeing with me is one thing, but constantly taking jabs and targeting individuals is just not cool.

This is extremely rich coming from someone who was banned for having a multi.

 

[Coronis]

Lol, PlanetCricket is miles ahead of CW, don't be jealous.

If you think that, why are you here?

 

[karan316]

If you think that, why are you here?

My Wish

 

[karan316]

I would like to apologize if I have been rude to anyone on CW, you guys can continue with your debates. I won't be taking part in any of them further, atleast on stuff related to Bradman, I have my own views, you have you guys have your own views, lets leave it to that. I think Jack Russell and Paul Nixon are two of the greatest WKs ever, I have my reasons and most wouldn't agree, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't want people to take a jab at me for that.

And I am noone to compare PlanetCricket and CricketWeb, both sites are good in their own ways. Some of the guys have worked hard to keep CW going and I appreciate that. My posts were a result of some of the users being too rude in their response, it gets a bit frustrating at times.

 

[Red]

Keep going in circles guys, this is why the number of users are not increasing on CW. A bunch of trolls want everyone to agree with them.

Cross-era comparisons in a sport like cricket are BS, we all know how much the game has changed since Bradman's time. Field placement, fitness, quality of bowling, reverse swing, improvement in spin bowling, fielding, number of quality teams, variety of conditions in which the players have to adapt, amount of cricket played, etc. Everything has changed, but DB has to be the greatest, all other players, despite of the hardwork and talent, are a tier below.

This'll be the last time I'll reply to you in this thread, because in spite of you accusing others of being trolls, I think it's you that's the troll.

FWIW, the game hasn't changed significantly since Bradman's time. But I'll address your points one by one, then not respond to you again unless you have something sensible to add:

Field placement - The science of placing a field hasn't changed dramatically at all since Bradman's time. Good captains knew how to set good fields. What do you think was happening back then? You think modern science has helped field placings? Please.

Fitness - I'd say all players are sort of fitter now than they were in the 60s, but society on a whole is getting less fit. I mean, Larwood worked in a mine and all those guys chopped wood and a lot worked in manual labour. I don't think players are necessarily fitter now tbh.

Quality of bowling - I don't know why you think this has changed dramatically. Why do you think it has?

Reverse swing - well, maybe, but it's not such a big deal and cricketers in the earlier era dealt with uncovered pitches etc

Improvement in spin bowling - Really? I'd say quite possibly it's the opposite. The Warne/Murali era aside, I'd say spin bowling was better in earlier eras than in modern eras.

Fielding - I'll concede this, that modern players are better fielders. But I dispute your earlier suggestions that they just stood and applauded shots as they went past. I mean, that's not true.

Everything has changed, but DB has to be the greatest, all other players, despite of the hardwork and talent, are a tier below

In the end, regardless of what you say gave Bradman an advantage in the earlier eras, he played under the same conditions as all his team mates, and none of them averaged anywhere near what he did. In fact, half what he averaged is considered great. No one else has. Of course he is the greatest. And if you think he isn't, seriously, who is? In your opinion? Otherwise, just concede he is and be done with this silliness.

 

[Burgey]

I would like to apologize if I have been rude to anyone on CW, you guys can continue with your debates. I won't be taking part in any of them further, atleast on stuff related to Bradman, I have my own views, you have you guys have your own views, lets leave it to that. I think Jack Russell and Paul Nixon are two of the greatest WKs ever, I have my reasons and most wouldn't agree, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't want people to take a jab at me for that.

And I am noone to compare PlanetCricket and CricketWeb, both sites are good in their own ways. Some of the guys have worked hard to keep CW going and I appreciate that. My posts were a result of some of the users being too rude in their response, it gets a bit frustrating at times.

I think Russell was one of the finest pure keepers I've seen. I'm interested in your reasons for saying Nixon though. I only ever saw him in an ODI series out here which I think was at the end of the 06/07 Ashes and he was a good age by then iirc, so I can't really comment on him in his prime.

 

[sledger]

Having read this thread, I now feel the need to go to the bathroom to do a Karanesque.