Worlds greatest team

[WindieWeathers]

I listed 10 bowlers of top quality. Most were from England. Its not like they were spread to one per team.

All I'm hearing is that you haven't bothered to read anything at all honestly.

Really? well i do remember you admitting that "you haven't got a clue about the fielding" which is something that can actually effect a bowlers efforts to take a wicket can it not? but as it doesn't suit your argument i guess i shouldn't be surprised with your comment .

 

[Johnners]

no. for ****s sake this guy has spammed several threads with his troll posts and nothing is done. they're deliberately made to antagonise

Yes, we're aware of the situation. This however does not give you the right to go around carrying on like twit and abusing people, regardless of their posting nature. Anymore posts on the topic will be deleted.

 

[satyam]

Great respect You just referred to them as cheaters. If you had a valid opinion I might not think of you as a troll...but here we are.

Any body who has seen all the Gavaskar-Border Trophy matches will agree with me.It is my opinion.

 

[WindieWeathers]

This is clearly all speculation with little proof or evidence

Yeah just like the standard of the opposition Bradman faced!! .

 

[Ikki]

Erm maybe the quality improved after Bradman retired?!! maybe players actually took the game a lot more seriously as the sport developed?!! and you can harp on about the bowlers all day but a question mark about the fielding remains and clearly you haven't got a clue about how the standard was back then,

I'll repeat what i said in my last post because it seems to have slipped your attention, thinking Bradman wasn't the best IS NOT A CRIME!!, it's simply MY OPINION.

It just improved out of sight over night? For what reason? You don't seem to understand: you can argue that it improved...but just by how much do you think it could possibly improve to stop a batsman averaging almost 100 just a few years prior? If it happened...prove it. Such a thing should be glaring and easy to prove.

Just as it's your right to have an opinion, it's my right to come here and rip it to shreds. This is a forum afterall. If you didn't want your "opinion" to be criticised you shouldn't have posted it.

As an aside: many things in cricket are debatable, there are few clear-cuts. Is Sobers better or is Tendulkar? Is Miller better or is Imran? Is Warne better or Murali? These can be argued and even those that are much lesser than them are not that far apart. But if there is one thing you just can't argue, beyond any sane argument (as yet heard), it is that Bradman is the greatest talent of all time. In terms of Aus v WIndies all-time teams; it's like Aus has an extra all-time great 50+ batsman in their team. That is a big advantage.

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah just like the standard of the opposition Bradman faced!! .

There is countless proof through match reports, articles and so forth.

 

[Spark]

In any case, there is the other glaring issue - something such as mediocre bowling or fielding should affect more than Bradman, it should affect all the players consistently. It is a huge logical fallacy to claim ONE's player's stats was affected by something that should have affected the whole team. Or did Bradman exude some malaise that caused fielders to become absolutely butterfingered? In any case he is famed for never ever hitting the ball in the air. How many sixes did he hit in his entire career, five? Six?

 

[WindieWeathers]

The question can have either answer for someone who doesn't know. So you who think it's a question so you should be open to the possibility of both. Those that know, know. Simply put, the theory that fielding was going to make Bradman average some 50 points less is laughable.

On your other point: few, if any, batsmen in history faced 4 all-time great bowlers at the same time. That's something you can question all batsmen on.

It's not that the WIndies quartet wouldn't stop Australians (including Bradman) from scoring their usual load of runs; they'll most likely be much more miserly. It's that the same principle goes for the WIndies batsmen. And if all these batsmen, let's say, average under their career average by 10 points, due to the quality of bowling being faced, that still isn't enough to take away from Bradman's undoubtable contribution. For even if Bradman averages 30 points less, he'd still be far and away the best batsman of the lot. Yet keep perspective, if you lessened 30 points for any other batsman in the two teams said batsman's average would be crippled.

I just believe when we're talking about "the greatest cricketer" ever there should be no question marks, everything should be laid on the table, but when that isn't possible where Bradman's concerned then of course people are gonna have doubts, Sobers's class and level of opposition is all there for all to see which is why people lean towards him imo.

 

[satyam]

in any case, there is the other glaring issue - something such as mediocre bowling or fielding should affect more than bradman, it should affect all the players consistently. It is a huge logical fallacy to claim one's player's stats was affected by something that should have affected the whole team. Or did bradman exude some malaise that caused fielders to become absolutely butterfingered? In any case he is famed for never ever hitting the ball in the air. How many sixes did he hit in his entire career, five? Six?

7

 

[Spark]

I just believe when we're talking about "the greatest cricketer" ever there should be no question marks, everything should be laid on the table, but when that isn't possible where Bradman's concerned then of course people are gonna have doubts, Sobers's class and level of opposition is all there for all to see which is why people lean towards him imo.

I could see why you could call Sobers the best cricketer ever. Certainly, the best all-rounder cricketer ever.

But the logic you are applying here (that Bradman faced only mediocre bowlers and poor fielders, assumed from the lack of video footage of him batting) is hopelessly flawed.

 

[Johnners]

Got_Spin/Satyam, please don't try and take the thread any further off track, as I said, any further posts on the matter will be deleted.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah just like the standard of the opposition Bradman faced!! .

Just so I have this right, it's your opinion that;

1) The greatest Windies side > any other teams greatest side

2) The current Windies Test side is the best outside the big 3 of Aust, India & Eng &;

3) Sobers is the greatest cricketer of all time, ahead of Bradman

Correct?

 

[WindieWeathers]

There is countless proof through match reports, articles and so forth.

Writing is one thing G-S, but like the old saying goes "a picture speaks a thousand words" .

 

[GotSpin]

Writing is one thing G-S, but like the old saying goes "a picture speaks a thousand words" .

And then there's pictures which are created by words. They describe and illustrate to the same extent.

 

[Ikki]

I just believe when we're talking about "the greatest cricketer" ever there should be no question marks, everything should be laid on the table, but when that isn't possible where Bradman's concerned then of course people are gonna have doubts, Sobers's class and level of opposition is all there for all to see which is why people lean towards him imo.

There are way more question marks over Sobers than there are over Bradman. And, broadly speaking, more question marks over many more batsmen than there are Bradman. What you think are question marks seem to be figments of your own imagination. To gauge how good a batsman is, you look at proof. There is tonnes of it for Bradman. You seem to be of the argument that because you hadn't seen it with your own eyes Bradman's batting has a question mark. The reality is, there are overwhelming stats and testimony that back up Bradman's position.

If one wishes to be that arbitrary, I could claim: only when Mark Waugh faced bowlers were they of a great standard; against his brother Steve they'd drop back down to dire. And not give reasons why, not explain how but merely hold that it was my "opinion".

 

[WindieWeathers]

In any case, there is the other glaring issue - something such as mediocre bowling or fielding should affect more than Bradman, it should affect all the players consistently. It is a huge logical fallacy to claim ONE's player's stats was affected by something that should have affected the whole team. Or did Bradman exude some malaise that caused fielders to become absolutely butterfingered? In any case he is famed for never ever hitting the ball in the air. How many sixes did he hit in his entire career, five? Six?

No-one is disputing whether Bradman was a special talent, clearly he was way ahead of the competition in terms of batting, but that still doesn't mean the fielding was up to par or that every bowler he faced was good, because that clearly wasn't the case, and for someone who is hailed as "the best cricketer ever" one would have expected him to get way more 6's than that.

 

[Spark]

No-one is disputing whether Bradman was a special talent, clearly he was way ahead of the competition in terms of batting, but that still doesn't mean the fielding was up to par or that every bowler he faced was good, because that clearly wasn't the case, and for someone who is hailed as "the best cricketer ever" one would have expected him to get way more 6's than that.

"You can't be out caught if you don't hit the thing in the air"

 

[Ikki]

No-one is disputing whether Bradman was a special talent, clearly he was way ahead of the competition in terms of batting, but that still doesn't mean the fielding was up to par or that every bowler he faced was good, because that clearly wasn't the case, and for someone who is hailed as "the best cricketer ever" one would have expected him to get way more 6's than that.

That's why Bradman was so hard to get out. His tactic was to reduce the opposition's chances in getting him out. This is just another case of you assuming something without contextual knowledge.

 

[satyam]

Writing is one thing G-S, but like the old saying goes "a picture speaks a thousand words" .

IMO there are other points to discuss than Bradman. Bradman is without doubt the greatest cricketer of all time. Discuss about pace bowling,batting and spin bowling of WI, AUS,

 

[WindieWeathers]

There are way more question marks over Sobers than there are over Bradman. And, broadly speaking, more question marks over many more batsmen than there are Bradman. What you think are question marks seem to be figments of your own imagination. To gauge how good a batsman is, you look at proof. There is tonnes of it for Bradman. You seem to be of the argument that because you hadn't seen it with your own eyes Bradman's batting has a question mark. The reality is, there are overwhelming stats and testimony that back up Bradman's position.

If one wishes to be that arbitrary, I could claim: only when Mark Waugh faced bowlers were they of a great standard; against his brother Steve they'd drop back down to dire. And not give reasons why, not explain how but merely hold that it was my "opinion".

Well clearly i'm not the only one using "imagination" as when it comes to the level of opposition Bradman faced it seems like you believe he took on "world greats"!! , you've got no evidence concerning the fielding, the bowlers he faced where decent but not outstanding and there's still no word on how the pitches were like back then but you can keep dreaming about Bradman being some kind of "god like figure" if you wish.