Instagram


Indoor Big Bash

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 80 of 233
  1. #1
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    How can a modern batsman be considered better than Don Bradman?

    and of course undisputed greatest of all time?

    considering the multiple formats today and the amount of games against so many different opponents it is impossible for anyone to average more than 99 in test cricket

    the don himself would have averaged lower than that in a professional era

    so what would it take for a modern batsman to be considered superior?

    60+ average in both tests and odis and a very good (50) average in t20s as well as over 40 centuries in both formats?

    or even that would not suffice because his test average would still be 30 points lower??

  2. #2
    Debut
    Dec 2013
    Venue
    SMCHS, Karachi, Pakistan
    Runs
    8,877
    Mentioned
    595 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Don ko Parkarna Mushkil hi nahe Na Mumkin Hay

    GOAT

  3. #3
    Debut
    Mar 2017
    Runs
    304
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    70 average in tests over 13-14 years.

  4. #4
    Debut
    May 2017
    Runs
    71
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't compare or consider. Enjoy watching the player as long as he entertains you.

  5. #5
    Debut
    Oct 2008
    Venue
    MCG - Mera Chota Ghar, SE England
    Runs
    11,729
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ahmedwaqas92 View Post
    Don ko Parkarna Mushkil hi nahe Na Mumkin Hay

    GOAT
    What a line. End of thread.


    Frank Skinner: Pakistan looked better than this when they were trying to lose.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    His average is a bit inflated due to an era where cricket wasn't too competetive so I don't think a modern batsman would need to average 99 to even be mentioned in the same breath.

    If a current batsman can average 65/70 over a full career, he'd be better I'd say.

  7. #7
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Runs
    3,820
    Mentioned
    172 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    and of course undisputed greatest of all time?

    considering the multiple formats today and the amount of games against so many different opponents it is impossible for anyone to average more than 99 in test cricket

    the don himself would have averaged lower than that in a professional era

    so what would it take for a modern batsman to be considered superior?

    60+ average in both tests and odis and a very good (50) average in t20s as well as over 40 centuries in both formats?

    or even that would not suffice because his test average would still be 30 points lower??
    Average is not even the metric in ODI/T20. T20 Strike rate is far far more important, and even in ODI average with bad SR is worse than bad avg and good SR.

  8. #8
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Venue
    Scot-la-la-land
    Runs
    9,973
    Mentioned
    1529 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    No Leo - I've read enough of your posts on this thread to know where you are going with this - Kohli is NOT better than Bradman.

    Now please - give it a rest.

    Kohli is great. People have acknowledged that.

    Now please - don't push it & just move on.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    17,546
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Fielding alone will cut down anyone average by 25% and then you take so many venues and teams. I will say someone averaging 65-70 over a long career will be better than Bradman.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  10. #10
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Venue
    Karachi
    Runs
    4,227
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Someone with an average of 55+ in tests over a long period of time,with good averages in each country.

    And in ODI's an average of 50@ a SR of 90

  11. #11
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    But how about modern day players using much superior bats to pierce the gap? How about fence being the boundary rather than current roped in boundaries half-way through? How about facing no more of rain affected wickets these day?

    One can't simply point out the benefits of playing in the past while completely ignoring the disadvantages?

    It's a two way street.
    Last edited by Chrish; 3rd August 2017 at 14:39.

  12. #12
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    United States of America
    Runs
    8,441
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Maybe,

    In Tests: 75+ average, 60+ centuries, 20,000+ runs

    In ODIs: 70+ average, 60+ centuries, 25,000+ runs

    In T20Is: 60+ average, 15+ centuries, 160+ strike rate


    "Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all." --Aristotle

  13. #13
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketAnalyst View Post
    Average is not even the metric in ODI/T20. T20 Strike rate is far far more important, and even in ODI average with bad SR is worse than bad avg and good SR.
    90 strike rate in odis and 130 strike rate in t20s with the averages in the op

  14. #14
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrish View Post
    But how about modern day players using much superior bats to pierce the gap? How about fence being the boundary rather than current roped in boundaries half-way through? How about facing no more of rain affected wickets these day?

    One can't simply point out the benefits of playing in the past while completely ignoring the disadvantages?

    It's a two way street.
    yes but take all these factors into consideration. according to you what does a batsman of today needs to achieve to dethrone don??

  15. #15
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TalhaSyed View Post
    No Leo - I've read enough of your posts on this thread to know where you are going with this - Kohli is NOT better than Bradman.

    Now please - give it a rest.

    Kohli is great. People have acknowledged that.

    Now please - don't push it & just move on.
    don't be obsessed with kohli. it is just a hypothetical question. pls stick to the topic. if you think kohli has no chance of surpassing him then it is totally fine. in my view if he retires with 50 average in all three formats and retires with 100 international hundreds I will put him ahead of don

  16. #16
    Debut
    Dec 2013
    Venue
    SMCHS, Karachi, Pakistan
    Runs
    8,877
    Mentioned
    595 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    don't be obsessed with kohli. it is just a hypothetical question. pls stick to the topic. if you think kohli has no chance of surpassing him then it is totally fine. in my view if he retires with 50 average in all three formats and retires with 100 international hundreds I will put him ahead of don
    First Let Kohli surpass Azhar Ali as a test batsmen, catching up to Don is just out the question for that HTB....And bro !! We all know kay.......

    'KOHLI SAY NAHE HOPATA HAY CHASE' !!

  17. #17
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    don't be obsessed with kohli. it is just a hypothetical question. pls stick to the topic. if you think kohli has no chance of surpassing him then it is totally fine. in my view if he retires with 50 average in all three formats and retires with 100 international hundreds I will put him ahead of don
    Alot batsman averages 50+ these days its not like before all rules in batsman favour + no great bowlers currently. Even if he averages 60 in current era it will be hard to compare him with lara or sachin leave bradman.

  18. #18
    Debut
    Feb 2017
    Runs
    2,104
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Average atleast 20 more than the best of his era.
    So yeah an average of 75 in test cricket now then we can talk.


    Sarfi as captain'll lead us to glory.Babar'll be our best odi bat & Haris'll be world class in tests

  19. #19
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Venue
    Scot-la-la-land
    Runs
    9,973
    Mentioned
    1529 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    don't be obsessed with kohli. it is just a hypothetical question. pls stick to the topic. if you think kohli has no chance of surpassing him then it is totally fine. in my view if he retires with 50 average in all three formats and retires with 100 international hundreds I will put him ahead of don


    The irony of you suggesting someone else is obsessed with Kohli is hilarious.

    What's even more hilarious is how quickly that went from "don't be obsessed with Kohli" to basically "if Kohli keeps doing what he is doing now [aka. Averaging more than 50 in all three formats] he's better than Don"



    As I said in my last post mate - it's blatantly obvious what your intentions behind this thread are, and if you expect people to claim that Kohli is better than Don, you can move along

  20. #20
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Venue
    In your dil, but not in your dimaag.
    Runs
    9,487
    Mentioned
    860 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    He has been surpassed already.


    Swing it like Akram, whack it like Afridi, live it like Inti.

  21. #21
    Debut
    May 2016
    Runs
    6,611
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    He isn't the GOAT anyway. Faced 120k trundlers and played against one team for majority of his career.

    Viv is the GOAT as far as I am concerned. 50 at 70 in tests, 46 at 90 in ODIs are ridiculous numbers considering the time he played in.


    A skilled hawk conceals its talons.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TalhaSyed View Post


    The irony of you suggesting someone else is obsessed with Kohli is hilarious.

    What's even more hilarious is how quickly that went from "don't be obsessed with Kohli" to basically "if Kohli keeps doing what he is doing now [aka. Averaging more than 50 in all three formats] he's better than Don"



    As I said in my last post mate - it's blatantly obvious what your intentions behind this thread are, and if you expect people to claim that Kohli is better than Don, you can move along
    you are free to think what you want. you needlessly brought kohli to this thread because you assumed that i am trying to prove that he is better than bradman just because of my display picture

    but once you brought him up i explained what he needs to do in my opinion to surpass bradman.

    that is not true for kohli only but also for any other batsman because in my opinion if a modern batsman finishes his career with 50 average in all formats and 100 hundreds than i will consider him better than bradman. that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree

    yes kohli looks more likely than any batsman at the moment but things can change in the future

    you are a senior poster here but please don't act like a bully. i have noticed it happens a lot here with new posters which is why a lot of them (including me) are reluctant to sign up

    peace
    Last edited by Leo23; 3rd August 2017 at 16:54.

  23. #23
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief Destroyer View Post
    He isn't the GOAT anyway. Faced 120k trundlers and played against one team for majority of his career.

    Viv is the GOAT as far as I am concerned. 50 at 70 in tests, 46 at 90 in ODIs are ridiculous numbers considering the time he played in.
    so how can a modern batsman surpass viv?

  24. #24
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    He has been surpassed already.
    majority don't think so. the 99 average is the most amazing statistic in history of sports. he was literally twice as good as the next best batsman of his time.

  25. #25
    Debut
    Nov 2012
    Venue
    Gondor > The Shire
    Runs
    18,470
    Mentioned
    1434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Most important thing is how you compare to your peers.

    None of Bradman's peers during his career went anywhere near him.

    So a batsmen must indisputably a level above every one of their peers to be considered at the same level.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saqs on Steve Smith
    And who taught him to bat? Chris Martin? Is he the Australian equivalent of ....wait, I'm struggling to think of another useless player of his calibre.

  26. #26
    Debut
    May 2016
    Runs
    6,611
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    so how can a modern batsman surpass viv?
    At the rate Smith is going in tests, he's on his way. He lacks impact in ODIs though and is one-dimensional.


    A skilled hawk conceals its talons.

  27. #27
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Convict View Post
    Most important thing is how you compare to your peers.

    None of Bradman's peers during his career went anywhere near him.

    So a batsmen must indisputably a level above every one of their peers to be considered at the same level.
    so would an average of 70 in both formats be good enough? or does a batsman today still needs to be "twice as good" like bradman was since batsmen today are averaging 50 that would mean an average of 100 which is not possible today

    by that token steve smith has a realistic chance in test cricket. he has breached the 60 average mark and another purple patch could take him to 70.

  28. #28
    Debut
    Jul 2017
    Runs
    374
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief Destroyer View Post
    At the rate Smith is going in tests, he's on his way. He lacks impact in ODIs though and is one-dimensional.
    agree. smith has a good chance of becoming the best test batsman ever

  29. #29
    Debut
    May 2016
    Runs
    6,611
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    so would an average of 70 in both formats be good enough? or does a batsman today still needs to be "twice as good" like bradman was since batsmen today are averaging 50 that would mean an average of 100 which is not possible today

    by that token steve smith has a realistic chance in test cricket. he has breached the 60 average mark and another purple patch could take him to 70.
    If somebody averages 70, heck even 60+ in both formats, no one will even mention Bradman. He'd be leagues above any batsman that's played the game.


    A skilled hawk conceals its talons.

  30. #30
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Viv is not as good as or better than Bradman. In fact there is no clear evidence that he is even 2nd best batsman of all time.

    And I love Viv.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    yes but take all these factors into consideration. according to you what does a batsman of today needs to achieve to dethrone don??
    Impossible to quantity. But I will say this in order for the player to be as good as him, that player needs to be above everyone else by a fair enough if not considerable margin. There shouldn't be a shadow of the doubt that the player is the best of that generation.

  32. #32
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Venue
    In your dil, but not in your dimaag.
    Runs
    9,487
    Mentioned
    860 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    majority don't think so. the 99 average is the most amazing statistic in history of sports. he was literally twice as good as the next best batsman of his time.
    Doesn't matter. We are 50+ years on. The level of competition, demand of body and mind has all gone up, not to,mention the quality of cricket. 70-2000s was the fiercest period of cricket. The best batsman of that era whoever you think it is is already arguably at the same,level.


    Swing it like Akram, whack it like Afridi, live it like Inti.

  33. #33
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    Doesn't matter. We are 50+ years on. The level of competition, demand of body and mind has all gone up, not to,mention the quality of cricket. 70-2000s was the fiercest period of cricket. The best batsman of that era whoever you think it is is already arguably at the same,level.
    No. Cricket has been around for a few centuries, till now Bradman still has the most anomalous statistic in cricket which gives him bonafide greatness and I do not see it being corrected. Like I and others above have said if one's averaging 65/70, they'd be overtaking Bradman.

    Every era has had cricketers who were the best of their time...Lara of 90s, Punter of 00s, Border of 80s, Smith of now. BUT, there have been batsmen who have rivalled them like Sachin, Miandad, Gavaskar, Dravid, Chappel Kallis etc. Bradman had other renowned ATGs like Hobbs in his era, however he was still stupidly better than them. No other batsman has done that, I highly doubt a batsman ever will either...If Smith averages 5 or so points more, I'd say he's the greatest ever batsman but he's already at his best.

    No other player was as uniquely dominant as Bradman, no one will ever be either.

  34. #34
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Venue
    In your dil, but not in your dimaag.
    Runs
    9,487
    Mentioned
    860 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    No. Cricket has been around for a few centuries, till now Bradman still has the most anomalous statistic in cricket which gives him bonafide greatness and I do not see it being corrected. Like I and others above have said if one's averaging 65/70, they'd be overtaking Bradman.

    Every era has had cricketers who were the best of their time...Lara of 90s, Punter of 00s, Border of 80s, Smith of now. BUT, there have been batsmen who have rivalled them like Sachin, Miandad, Gavaskar, Dravid, Chappel Kallis etc. Bradman had other renowned ATGs like Hobbs in his era, however he was still stupidly better than them. No other batsman has done that, I highly doubt a batsman ever will either...If Smith averages 5 or so points more, I'd say he's the greatest ever batsman but he's already at his best.

    No other player was as uniquely dominant as Bradman, no one will ever be either.
    I don't think so, and it is debatable as none of us were alive during his time to come to an end all conclusion that he was the best ever.,he is arguably the best. Arguably. It's not out of the realm of logic to think that he has been surpassed by another ATG. There weren't as many quality sides during his time nor conditions nor variety of bowlers. Guys from 70s onwards had to face fearsome pacers on green mamas spinners on absolute dustbowls, unlike Bradman they weren't just facing 1 side on a regular basis like he did with England so he got time to adjust and get used to their conditions, strategy and bowlers. Whereas in post 70s era a match in India or Pakistan would require different application and approach to batting than in WI or Australia. People get too caught up with his 99.xx stat yet when the discussion is about McGrath vs Akram as greatest pacer of all time Pakistanis are quick to vote for Akram (myself included) yet McGrath was statistically superior, but anyone who has watched them would know Akram had greater amount of skill. So why is it that we use different yardsticks to measure greatness of different legends.


    Swing it like Akram, whack it like Afridi, live it like Inti.

  35. #35
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    I don't think so, and it is debatable as none of us were alive during his time to come to an end all conclusion that he was the best ever.,he is arguably the best. Arguably. It's not out of the realm of logic to think that he has been surpassed by another ATG. There weren't as many quality sides during his time nor conditions nor variety of bowlers. Guys from 70s onwards had to face fearsome pacers on green mamas spinners on absolute dustbowls, unlike Bradman they weren't just facing 1 side on a regular basis like he did with England so he got time to adjust and get used to their conditions, strategy and bowlers. Whereas in post 70s era a match in India or Pakistan would require different application and approach to batting than in WI or Australia. People get too caught up with his 99.xx stat yet when the discussion is about McGrath vs Akram as greatest pacer of all time Pakistanis are quick to vote for Akram (myself included) yet McGrath was statistically superior, but anyone who has watched them would know Akram had greater amount of skill. So why is it that we use different yardsticks to measure greatness of different legends.
    Incorrect.. There have been people who have seen all these player play.

    Richie Benaud was one for example.

    "He was easily the best.. Don't even put anyone in that bracket"...
    Last edited by Chrish; 3rd August 2017 at 18:41.

  36. #36
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Venue
    Scot-la-la-land
    Runs
    9,973
    Mentioned
    1529 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    you are free to think what you want. you needlessly brought kohli to this thread because you assumed that i am trying to prove that he is better than bradman just because of my display picture

    but once you brought him up i explained what he needs to do in my opinion to surpass bradman.

    that is not true for kohli only but also for any other batsman because in my opinion if a modern batsman finishes his career with 50 average in all formats and 100 hundreds than i will consider him better than bradman. that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree

    yes kohli looks more likely than any batsman at the moment but things can change in the future

    you are a senior poster here but please don't act like a bully. i have noticed it happens a lot here with new posters which is why a lot of them (including me) are reluctant to sign up

    peace
    It's nothing to do about bullying - you're of course free to post whatever you want - but it's a very opportune thread to post a couple of weeks after Kohli manages to get his average above 50 in all three formats.

    It's way too obvious what you're trying to get at - specially with that DP and specially by looking at your posts in other threads - for instance where you claim that Kohli has proven himself to be way better than the likes of Sachin and Deaves.

    See you around bud

  37. #37
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Venue
    In your dil, but not in your dimaag.
    Runs
    9,487
    Mentioned
    860 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrish View Post
    Incorrect.. There have been people who have seen all these player play.

    Richie Benaud was one for example.

    "He was easily the best.. Don't even put anyone in that bracket"...
    Here is a quote from Nasir Hussain:

    "Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time. Better than Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting.......Better than Sir Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border. And I would even say better than Sir Don Bradman himself.” - Daily Mail, UK, 25 February 2010

    Hanif Mohammad:

    "I am one of those fortunate people who have seen Bradman and Tendulkar bat in my lifetime and in my opinion Tendulkar is the best batsman I have seen in my life. I have never seen a more complete player.." - The Hindu, 25 December 2012​

    We can dive deep into this "he said, she said" area, you will find many quotes from ex players passing judgement on who is greater or who is not.

    There is a great amount of evidence for both, and I don't think you can say one is the definite GOAT.


    Swing it like Akram, whack it like Afridi, live it like Inti.

  38. #38
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    I don't think so, and it is debatable as none of us were alive during his time to come to an end all conclusion that he was the best ever.,he is arguably the best. Arguably. It's not out of the realm of logic to think that he has been surpassed by another ATG. There weren't as many quality sides during his time nor conditions nor variety of bowlers. Guys from 70s onwards had to face fearsome pacers on green mamas spinners on absolute dustbowls, unlike Bradman they weren't just facing 1 side on a regular basis like he did with England so he got time to adjust and get used to their conditions, strategy and bowlers. Whereas in post 70s era a match in India or Pakistan would require different application and approach to batting than in WI or Australia. People get too caught up with his 99.xx stat yet when the discussion is about McGrath vs Akram as greatest pacer of all time Pakistanis are quick to vote for Akram (myself included) yet McGrath was statistically superior, but anyone who has watched them would know Akram had greater amount of skill. So why is it that we use different yardsticks to measure greatness of different legends.
    I'm well aware of competition (or lack thereof). However uncovered pitches, lack of intent (everyone was plodders but Bradman innings were 70+ strike rate...dominant) and etc. all play a role too. My reply to the crux of your argument had already been stated before you even posed the argument lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    His average is a bit inflated due to an era where cricket wasn't too competetive so I don't think a modern batsman would need to average 99 to even be mentioned in the same breath.

    If a current batsman can average 65/70 over a full career, he'd be better I'd say.
    What I basically tried to say here is that Bradman, unlike Hobbs and co (who are already rated ATG), is simply in a league of his own. A lot of it is down to his 99 odd average, however there is still no one as dominant as him. There are many factors I'd argue if I were to play devils advocate. I kno it's not Bradmans fault the quality was poor and that he didn't face the bowlers the 80s/90s batsmen did, just like most modern day batsmen but Bradmans average is simply still too vast and it's to the point where it's beyond reasoning and it's just something to accept.

    Again, if a batsman averages 65/70 over a full career, I would not hesitate to call him the greatest to have ever played the game.

  39. #39
    Debut
    Jul 2013
    Venue
    Cairo, Egypt
    Runs
    5,028
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think this whole "The player must be 2X as great as the next best player of his era" logic is flawed. Cricket, like pretty much all other sports, has advanced and grown to the level that there are a sufficient number of truly great players in existence for the difference between the best of them to be that of inches rather than miles.

    What if there are two players, one who averages 70 in Tests and 60 (SR: 110) in ODIs, while the next best player of his era averages 64 in Tests and 57 (SR: 98) in ODIs? Will the best player only be comparable to the anomalous case of Bradman if he averages 128 in Tests and 114 (SR: 196) in ODIs?


    Follow PakPassion on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Instagram!

    Please also follow PakPassion Sport!

  40. #40
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammad10 View Post
    I think this whole "The player must be 2X as great as the next best player of his era" logic is flawed. Cricket, like pretty much all other sports, has advanced and grown to the level that there are a sufficient number of truly great players in existence for the difference between the best of them to be that of inches rather than miles.

    What if there are two players, one who averages 70 in Tests and 60 (SR: 110) in ODIs, while the next best player of his era averages 64 in Tests and 57 (SR: 98) in ODIs? Will the best player only be comparable to the anomalous case of Bradman if he averages 128 in Tests and 114 (SR: 196) in ODIs?
    Exactly. You can't rate players higher just because they had less competition or rate them lower because they more. Performance relative to contempraries is a flawed metric.

  41. #41
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Venue
    Yorkshire
    Runs
    35,762
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    IMO to be considered on a similar level to Bradman, one would have to replicate Tendulkar's career (who is the Buzz Aldrin to Bradman's Neil Armstrong), and even then make it better than that. Doubt it will ever happen.

  42. #42
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    Here is a quote from Nasir Hussain:

    "Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time. Better than Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting.......Better than Sir Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border. And I would even say better than Sir Don Bradman himself.” - Daily Mail, UK, 25 February 2010

    Hanif Mohammad:

    "I am one of those fortunate people who have seen Bradman and Tendulkar bat in my lifetime and in my opinion Tendulkar is the best batsman I have seen in my life. I have never seen a more complete player.." - The Hindu, 25 December 2012​

    We can dive deep into this "he said, she said" area, you will find many quotes from ex players passing judgement on who is greater or who is not.

    There is a great amount of evidence for both, and I don't think you can say one is the definite GOAT.
    Nasir retracted his statement later on when he was asked "Then how come no one else averaged 100?" saying "fair enough".

    And it has also been pointed out there is more chance of Hanif's statement being a myth than a reality. Hanif was born in 1934 and Bradman played his last game in 1948. There has been no mention of trip Hanif made to UK/ Aus during that time period. Although I never understood why he would lie about something like this.

    I am not suggesting you should believe what these guys are saying. But there have been few of them who have observed players from several different generations and the opinion is almost unanimous.

  43. #43
    Debut
    Nov 2012
    Venue
    Gondor > The Shire
    Runs
    18,470
    Mentioned
    1434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    so would an average of 70 in both formats be good enough? or does a batsman today still needs to be "twice as good" like bradman was since batsmen today are averaging 50 that would mean an average of 100 which is not possible today

    by that token steve smith has a realistic chance in test cricket. he has breached the 60 average mark and another purple patch could take him to 70.
    Doesn't have to be twice as good imo and an average of 70 over a career would definitely match it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saqs on Steve Smith
    And who taught him to bat? Chris Martin? Is he the Australian equivalent of ....wait, I'm struggling to think of another useless player of his calibre.

  44. #44
    Debut
    Nov 2012
    Venue
    Gondor > The Shire
    Runs
    18,470
    Mentioned
    1434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammad10 View Post
    I think this whole "The player must be 2X as great as the next best player of his era" logic is flawed. Cricket, like pretty much all other sports, has advanced and grown to the level that there are a sufficient number of truly great players in existence for the difference between the best of them to be that of inches rather than miles.

    What if there are two players, one who averages 70 in Tests and 60 (SR: 110) in ODIs, while the next best player of his era averages 64 in Tests and 57 (SR: 98) in ODIs? Will the best player only be comparable to the anomalous case of Bradman if he averages 128 in Tests and 114 (SR: 196) in ODIs?
    2x is a random and arbitrary measure.

    Just have to be far enough ahead to be undisputed as the best.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saqs on Steve Smith
    And who taught him to bat? Chris Martin? Is he the Australian equivalent of ....wait, I'm struggling to think of another useless player of his calibre.

  45. #45
    Debut
    Nov 2012
    Venue
    Gondor > The Shire
    Runs
    18,470
    Mentioned
    1434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Suleiman View Post
    Here is a quote from Nasir Hussain:

    "Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time. Better than Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting.......Better than Sir Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border. And I would even say better than Sir Don Bradman himself.” - Daily Mail, UK, 25 February 2010

    Hanif Mohammad:

    "I am one of those fortunate people who have seen Bradman and Tendulkar bat in my lifetime and in my opinion Tendulkar is the best batsman I have seen in my life. I have never seen a more complete player.." - The Hindu, 25 December 2012​

    We can dive deep into this "he said, she said" area, you will find many quotes from ex players passing judgement on who is greater or who is not.

    There is a great amount of evidence for both, and I don't think you can say one is the definite GOAT.
    When did Hanif Mohammad even watch Don Bradman play?


    Quote Originally Posted by Saqs on Steve Smith
    And who taught him to bat? Chris Martin? Is he the Australian equivalent of ....wait, I'm struggling to think of another useless player of his calibre.

  46. #46
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,953
    Mentioned
    207 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SarfiBabarHaris View Post
    Average atleast 20 more than the best of his era.
    So yeah an average of 75 in test cricket now then we can talk.
    That's the right way of doing it. One has to be way way ahead of all of his peers. I guess an average of 70+ will do.

  47. #47
    Debut
    Jul 2013
    Venue
    Cairo, Egypt
    Runs
    5,028
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Convict View Post
    2x is a random and arbitrary measure.

    Just have to be far enough ahead to be undisputed as the best.
    At the moment, Smith is far enough ahead of the rest in Tests to at least be considered the best Test batsman of the current era, in my opinion. I think it's less straightforward in ODIs because there isn't a lot of difference between Kohli and de Villiers.

    I don't think any of the current batting greats have been dominant enough across the two main formats to be considered as the GOAT batsman as of yet.


    Follow PakPassion on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Instagram!

    Please also follow PakPassion Sport!

  48. #48
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    3,363
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Smith's career is far too short ATM.

    Many players have had amazing purple patches. It's maintaining it for a longer period of time which is a challenge.

    Had Ponting retired with 60+ in tests, I might have considered him for this debate (my opinion only).

  49. #49
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,172
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    His average is a bit inflated due to an era where cricket wasn't too competetive so I don't think a modern batsman would need to average 99 to even be mentioned in the same breath.

    If a current batsman can average 65/70 over a full career, he'd be better I'd say.
    His peers had much lower avg, similar to the avg of today's great, which clearly indicates that he was an anomaly.

    With so many conditions on bowlers, plus pitch cover, now someone to avg 120 to be considered equivalent ( I think sanga/k all is got avg of 56/57 and we know there are many with 50+ )

  50. #50
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    His peers had much lower avg, similar to the avg of today's great, which clearly indicates that he was an anomaly.

    With so many conditions on bowlers, plus pitch cover, now someone to avg 120 to be considered equivalent ( I think sanga/k all is got avg of 56/57 and we know there are many with 50+ )
    Do you actually think that cricket has become easier since Bradman's time?

  51. #51
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,043
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let kohli touch the league of tendu, ponting first (he's miles away). Then we can talk about him surpassing Don.

    You take baby steps at a time.

  52. #52
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,043
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    His peers had much lower avg, similar to the avg of today's great, which clearly indicates that he was an anomaly.

    With so many conditions on bowlers, plus pitch cover, now someone to avg 120 to be considered equivalent ( I think sanga/k all is got avg of 56/57 and we know there are many with 50+ )
    I used to study in a village school. And I used 100/100 in almost all subjects. There wasn't a competition because the other guys were just coming to school. The next guy probably had percentage somewhere between 50-55.

    Does it mean my Performance was out of this world?

    Nope. My competitors and fellow mates were weak.

    Don was a beast. But not as invincible as people make him out to be.

  53. #53
    Debut
    Nov 2012
    Venue
    Gondor > The Shire
    Runs
    18,470
    Mentioned
    1434 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammad10 View Post
    At the moment, Smith is far enough ahead of the rest in Tests to at least be considered the best Test batsman of the current era, in my opinion. I think it's less straightforward in ODIs because there isn't a lot of difference between Kohli and de Villiers.

    I don't think any of the current batting greats have been dominant enough across the two main formats to be considered as the GOAT batsman as of yet.
    At the moment yes and if Smith keeps this up for his career rather than 1-2 years that is a different thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saqs on Steve Smith
    And who taught him to bat? Chris Martin? Is he the Australian equivalent of ....wait, I'm struggling to think of another useless player of his calibre.

  54. #54
    Debut
    Mar 2017
    Runs
    304
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrish View Post
    But how about modern day players using much superior bats to pierce the gap? How about fence being the boundary rather than current roped in boundaries half-way through? How about facing no more of rain affected wickets these day?

    One can't simply point out the benefits of playing in the past while completely ignoring the disadvantages?

    It's a two way street.
    Quite true. Crazy how all these factors are ignored.

    There are ALWAYS tradeoffs and advantages and disadvantages in every era. All of these factors always balance out.

    This is the reason why this has been true for every ATG player since the second world war: ATG batsmen averages roughly 50-60. ATG bowlers average roughly 20-25. Has it occured to no one why all great batsmen REGARDLESS OF ERA average roughly in the same range of 50-60? It's because the challenges of each era may be different but they all balance out to a mean. Only one man has broken this rule. It is simply stupid to pretend he isn't the greatest. There is just too much evidence pointing to him being GOAT.

  55. #55
    Debut
    Mar 2017
    Runs
    304
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, you guys say Bradman played the majority of his matches against England, as though it takes away from his greatness. On contrary, it should be looked at in this way: he played 80% of his matches against the best possible opposition. It would be like if Sachin played 80% against Australia and didn't get to play mid-tier teams like SL, WI, NZ, etc to inflate his average. Or if Viv only played Australia, and never got to pump his average up by playing England and India.

    It is very difficult to maintain excellence against the best opposition constantly. Somehow people don;t want to mention this.

  56. #56
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuts_and_cuts_hard View Post
    Also, you guys say Bradman played the majority of his matches against England, as though it takes away from his greatness. On contrary, it should be looked at in this way: he played 80% of his matches against the best possible opposition. It would be like if Sachin played 80% against Australia and didn't get to play mid-tier teams like SL, WI, NZ, etc to inflate his average. Or if Viv only played Australia, and never got to pump his average up by playing England and India.

    It is very difficult to maintain excellence against the best opposition constantly. Somehow people don;t want to mention this.
    Except that Tendulkars Test Avg against Australia is higher than his Overall Avg and nobody has scored more intl runs against Aus than Tendulkar. Not even in the same range.

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=batting


    Now lets talk about the actual Quality of Aussie bowling in the 90s and 00s and early 10s as compared to the English bowling circa 1930s .... thats were the fun lies.


    Sydney Bangalore Manchester Centurion Durban Jo'burg Mohali Colombo Dhaka Adelaide Kolkata

  57. #57
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    17,546
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Except that Tendulkars Test Avg against Australia is higher than his Overall Avg and nobody has scored more intl runs against Aus than Tendulkar. Not even in the same range.

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=batting


    Now lets talk about the actual Quality of Aussie bowling in the 90s and 00s and early 10s as compared to the English bowling circa 1930s .... thats were the fun lies.
    Well, SRT having 20 tons against the best team of his time and second best team of all time is the reason he gets lots of praise. It's futile to compare bowling standards and even more futile to compare fielding of older era with current era.

    Players who did well in their era deserve all praise coming their way. You are never going to have an undisputed number one in entire history. Different people will have different opinions.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  58. #58
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    2,235
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TalhaSyed View Post


    The irony of you suggesting someone else is obsessed with Kohli is hilarious.

    What's even more hilarious is how quickly that went from "don't be obsessed with Kohli" to basically "if Kohli keeps doing what he is doing now [aka. Averaging more than 50 in all three formats] he's better than Don"



    As I said in my last post mate - it's blatantly obvious what your intentions behind this thread are, and if you expect people to claim that Kohli is better than Don, you can move along
    Closest current comparison would be with Smith, no Kohli.

    We can sidestep endless debates over bats, pitches, competitiveness etc, by asking, simply, how much better was Bradman than his peers?

    Does anyone in the current era put the same kind of distance between themselves and the competition?

  59. #59
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post
    Closest current comparison would be with Smith, no Kohli.

    We can sidestep endless debates over bats, pitches, competitiveness etc, by asking, simply, how much better was Bradman than his peers?

    Does anyone in the current era put the same kind of distance between themselves and the competition?
    Marshall had more competition from ther West Indies bowlers than Steyn has from any other bowler in the world. Does that mean Steyn is far better than him?

  60. #60
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    2,235
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sachin136 View Post
    Marshall had more competition from ther West Indies bowlers than Steyn has from any other bowler in the world. Does that mean Steyn is far better than him?
    Where did you get the 'far' from? How much better is Steyn than his competition? Steyn's SR is best among pacers, but is the gap between him and peers like Philander, Rabada, Asif really that significant, not to mention the gap with Marshall, who has a better Ave? In any case, we are at most talking 2-5 percentage points difference in Ave, SR. With Bradman there is something like a 30-40 point gap to the rest of the field.

  61. #61
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffet View Post
    Well, SRT having 20 tons against the best team of his time and second best team of all time is the reason he gets lots of praise. It's futile to compare bowling standards and even more futile to compare fielding of older era with current era.

    Players who did well in their era deserve all praise coming their way. You are never going to have an undisputed number one in entire history. Different people will have different opinions.
    Having opinions is one thing. Backing those opinions by facts is quite another thing all together. So when the topic is who was the best Batsman of all times then nobody ticks as many boxes as Tendulkar. Bowling quality being the topmost factor.

    If you notice even the most fanatic Bradman supporter won't touch that topic with a ten foot pole.

    The difference in the quality is so large that it makes 99.94 meaningless. It's like rating players who piled up runs against minnows as better batsmen than those who did ok against Top quality bowling. No brainer.

  62. #62
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Ironic that it's Indians who are only menstrual over Bradmans accepted greatness #wonderwhy?

    It's like saying how is Isaac Newton accepted as one of the greatest scientists ever if he didn't know about relativity, inside nuclei and other facts that were discovered later?

    SOMETHING CALLED COMPARISON WITH PEERS, IN A DIFFERENT ERA AND BEING SO AHEAD OF THE NEXT GREATEST. It's not rocket science.

  63. #63
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post
    Where did you get the 'far' from? How much better is Steyn than his competition? Steyn's SR is best among pacers, but is the gap between him and peers like Philander, Rabada, Asif really that significant, not to mention the gap with Marshall, who has a better Ave? In any case, we are at most talking 2-5 percentage points difference in Ave, SR. With Bradman there is something like a 30-40 point gap to the rest of the field.
    Over the last 10 years, Steyn has been leagues above any other bowler.

    Philander and Rabada aren't close to him, and Asif did well in only a couple of series.

  64. #64
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    8,088
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Most of current era batsmen would do better than donald bradman if they could time travel back to his era.

  65. #65
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    I wish I could travel back to the 1500s, I'd be known as the greatest physicist, mathematician, biologist and etc of all time.

  66. #66
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    Ironic that it's Indians who are only menstrual over Bradmans accepted greatness #wonderwhy?

    It's like saying how is Isaac Newton accepted as one of the greatest scientists ever if he didn't know about relativity, inside nuclei and other facts that were discovered later?

    SOMETHING CALLED COMPARISON WITH PEERS, IN A DIFFERENT ERA AND BEING SO AHEAD OF THE NEXT GREATEST. It's not rocket science.
    Who decided that science and sports are same?

    How does being 2x better 70 yrs ago translate into he could survive modern bowling standards that are miles ahead from what Bradman faced?

    This is where trolling and hurling insults should come handy for you to save face.

  67. #67
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    Ironic that it's Indians who are only menstrual over Bradmans accepted greatness #wonderwhy?

    It's like saying how is Isaac Newton accepted as one of the greatest scientists ever if he didn't know about relativity, inside nuclei and other facts that were discovered later?

    SOMETHING CALLED COMPARISON WITH PEERS, IN A DIFFERENT ERA AND BEING SO AHEAD OF THE NEXT GREATEST. It's not rocket science.
    Another flawed analogy. Good scientists aren't good scientists because they're knowledageable. It is because of their contributions to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    I wish I could travel back to the 1500s, I'd be known as the greatest physicist, mathematician, biologist and etc of all time.
    Yes, you would. In fact, if you fully understand something like the proof of FLT, and just go back 30 years and show it, you will be famous.

  68. #68
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    Who decided that science and sports are same?

    How does being 2x better 70 yrs ago translate into he could survive modern bowling standards that are miles ahead from what Bradman faced?

    This is where trolling and hurling insults should come handy for you to save face.
    hahaha is this guy asking to be insulted?

    If you can't see what my point is with that statement, I really have no means starting another essay level argument with you.

  69. #69
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As suspected. .. Cannot argue with facts so lets hurl insults and start trolling. .... well done.

  70. #70
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sachin136 View Post
    Another flawed analogy. Good scientists aren't good scientists because they're knowledageable. It is because of their contributions to science.



    Yes, you would. In fact, if you fully understand something like the proof of FLT, and just go back 30 years and show it, you will be famous.
    Yes and Bradmans contributions to cricket was a 99 average when the next greatest batsmen couldnt even average 60 in what was the most competetive the sport had ever been TILL THEN. Just like how Newton became the cleverest. I don't see why that's so hard to fathom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    As suspected. .. Cannot argue with facts so lets hurl insults and start trolling. .... well done.
    This isn't a matter of facts, its a matter of opinion. You are the largest wall on PP, countless people have tried to shift your viewpoint but you are too stubborn, i will not waste my time

  71. #71
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    Yes and Bradmans contributions to cricket was a 99 average when the next greatest batsmen couldnt even average 60 in what was the most competetive the sport had ever been TILL THEN. Just like how Newton became the cleverest. I don't see why that's so hard to fathom?


    This isn't a matter of facts, its a matter of opinion. You are the largest wall on PP, countless people have tried to shift your viewpoint but you are too stubborn, i will not waste my time
    What do you mean this is matter of opinion? It is a fact that bowling quality has been miles ahead in Tendulkar's time. Not even the most dogmatic and obtuse Bradman fanatics will dispute that. You pretending that bowling quality has no say in determining Batsmans quality is an "alternate fact ".

  72. #72
    Debut
    Jan 2014
    Runs
    7,580
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    What do you mean this is matter of opinion? It is a fact that bowling quality has been miles ahead in Tendulkar's time. Not even the most dogmatic and obtuse Bradman fanatics will dispute that. You pretending that bowling quality has no say in determining Batsmans quality is an "alternate fact ".
    Again look at my posts above please. I have repeated time and time that yes his average is a bit inflated due to a weaker quality era, yes there was only one good team, yes cricket is a lot more 'professional' now but fact is he still averaged 100. I would argue this poor bowlers argument for Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton et al but not Bradman because HE AVERAGED 90 flipping 9. You need to understand that he's an anomaly in all of cricket...I am not trying to prove to you that an older era player like Hobbs is an ATG opener, that Holding is 145+, that Marshall is the GOAT bowler. I am saying that in all of cricketing existence, the biggest anomaly is Don Bradman's average- this gives him bonafide greatness.

    Once again, if a modern batsman averages 65/70, I will not hesitate to rate him ahead of Bradman. This is my opinion and I have again and again said why.

  73. #73
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Venue
    Scot-la-la-land
    Runs
    9,973
    Mentioned
    1529 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by New Yorker View Post
    Closest current comparison would be with Smith, no Kohli.

    We can sidestep endless debates over bats, pitches, competitiveness etc, by asking, simply, how much better was Bradman than his peers?

    Does anyone in the current era put the same kind of distance between themselves and the competition?
    Thats a very good way to look at it.

  74. #74
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz95 View Post
    Again look at my posts above please. I have repeated time and time that yes his average is a bit inflated due to a weaker quality era, yes there was only one good team, yes cricket is a lot more 'professional' now but fact is he still averaged 100.
    Soo ? How does this prove He would Avg 70 today without having made a single run under significantly tougher conditions ?

    But this reminds me of The dialogue from sholay where Jay is pitching for Veeru who is a drunk jobless gambler.

    BTW since you have professional in quotes. ... Do you know that back then the consensus was that Amateurs were better and you had to be a Amateur to be a captain? How can anyone even take that era seriously?

  75. #75
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TalhaSyed View Post
    Thats a very good way to look at it.
    And who is going to ensure that the playing field is fair and even? Today thanks to population, test playing nation count, popularity and $$ cricket attracts easily a 100 times higher participation levels (there fore significantly higher competition ) than anything that existed 100 yrs ago. How are you going to account for that?

  76. #76
    Debut
    Feb 2017
    Runs
    2,104
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Odd_One View Post
    That's the right way of doing it. One has to be way way ahead of all of his peers. I guess an average of 70+ will do.
    Yeah 70 should be a minimum atleast.
    Avg of 60 in test cricket over a span of 100 tests is achievable imo and not good enough to surpass Don.. there are current players who I think will avg close to 60 at end of their careers. Few are: Smith, Pujara, Haris Sohail (despite losing his peak years).


    Sarfi as captain'll lead us to glory.Babar'll be our best odi bat & Haris'll be world class in tests

  77. #77
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Venue
    Scot-la-la-land
    Runs
    9,973
    Mentioned
    1529 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    And who is going to ensure that the playing field is fair and even? Today thanks to population, test playing nation count, popularity and $$ cricket attracts easily a 100 times higher participation levels (there fore significantly higher competition ) than anything that existed 100 yrs ago. How are you going to account for that?
    Comparing players against their peers from the same era does account for all of that, since all players are in the same both.

    However:

    Population increase

    Test playing nation count

    More competition

    Smaller grounds

    Poorer bowlers

    Covered/Uncovered pitches

    Flat pitches

    Bigger bats

    Batting friendly rules

    Increased investment in the sports

    Those are just some of the factors to take into account which is why I think the comparison cannot accurately be done.

    However, if someone was particularly keen to carry out a comparison, then comparing the batsmen against their peers is a good way to do it IMO.

    Having said all that - it's very difficult to argue with 99.94

  78. #78
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TalhaSyed View Post
    Comparing players against their peers from the same era does account for all of that
    No it doesn't. Why? Because Bradman never had to deal with competition from Asia. And even in England cricket really wasn't the No.1 sport. That's why the playing field is not even and is heavily in favor of Bradman.

  79. #79
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,013
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SarfiBabarHaris View Post
    Yeah 70 should be a minimum atleast.
    Avg of 60 in test cricket over a span of 100 tests is achievable imo and not good enough to surpass Don.. there are current players who I think will avg close to 60 at end of their careers. Few are: Smith, Pujara, Haris Sohail (despite losing his peak years).
    A few players did average 60 after 100 tests already, such as Sachin.

  80. #80
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    2,235
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sachin136 View Post
    Over the last 10 years, Steyn has been leagues above any other bowler.

    Philander and Rabada aren't close to him, and Asif did well in only a couple of series.
    There's your fantasy and then there are numbers.

    I'd say Steyn is the best pace bowler of his generation, and one of the best ever, certainly comparable to Marshall, and many other great fast bowlers. But none of these bowlers, Steyn included, were leagues ahead of the rest.

    Marshall, Garner, Ambrose averaged 20, McGrath 21, Hadlee and Khan 22. Steyn at Ave 22 has the best SR in the modern era, at 41 but it is still only 2 points better than Waqar, 4 ahead of Marshall, 8 points ahead of Philander, who has an identical average to Steyn.

    Bradman's numbers were set apart from the rest by orders of magnitude. 30-40 points more in Ave. And he is still ahead by as much.

    The argument that bats change, the game is more competitive, population increases, no Asia etc is besides the point. Every other batsman who played in Bradman's time enjoyed the same relative advantages, compared to contemporary batsmen. Yet he was still leagues ahead of them.

    There is a more interesting corollary to your interest in bowlers though. Most commentators on this thread seem to be in agreement that batting is harder in the current era, that someone averaging 50 today would have averaged 65 in Bradman's time.

    I am skeptical, for a number of reasons, chiefly this:

    If batting is harder today than in the past, then bowling should be much easier; there is no other way of making this work logically. So we should expect to see pace bowlers averaging 15. But this is not the case. Even Imran, enjoying arguably the most purple of purple patches in modern pace bowler history, could not average less than 15 during those years. Rather, it is in Bradman's era that we see bowlers with those kinds of career averages, even though they played relatively fewer Tests.
    Last edited by New Yorker; 5th August 2017 at 11:11.

Posting Permissions

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