| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nick_Admin
Admin
United Kingdom
26424 Posts |
 Posted - 15/11/2010 : 22:08:48
|
| look at his first class stats , simply amazing !!! |
 |
|
|
ammo500
Semi-Pro
Australia
1205 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 06:30:56
|
Harbhajan Singh LOL! |
Edited by - ammo500 on 16/11/2010 06:31:15 |
|
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 08:20:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by italianharris
in my opinion why bradman isnt the greatest because he was surrounded by one of the best ever aussie side only facing england at home and choice to bat at certain wickets - if a player from 70's-present choice which wicket to bat on would we say he was the greatest-WE WOULDNT,
i aint saying he's crap or even not a great but in my opinion i would chose those 3 as better, but i do respect and understand people opinion saying he was the greatest
Wow, that shows a real lack of understanding. Lets start with the suggestion that Bradman enjoyed particularly favourable conditions and had choice of who he played against and where - would you care to explain why you think that is accurate? Bradman mainly played Ashes series because, for the most part, that is what there was in those days. If anything, credit should be given for the fact that his record is not padded with the wealth of meaningless cricket played nowadays.
As for the three you feel are "better" - you named Barry Richards, Brian Lara and George Headley - I cannot really see a rationale between two of the choices, and think the third is blinkered at best. However good you may perceive Richards to have been - and to be fair, he was an excellent player - the fact is that he never had the chance to appear at test level, and therefore we do not have a genuine appreciation of whether he was that good or not. Before you bleat, there are plenty of others in the same boat - Graeme Pollock and Jimmy Cook to mention but two.
As for Headley - undoubtedly a good record, some great performances etc - but the simple fact was that he was a level below Bradman, as evidenced by comparative performances against England at the time.
And Lara. Possibly could have been, but he didn't have the mental toughness to make the very best of himself - he had four prolific years to begin his career, but then tended to go rather off the boil in comparative terms. Yes, he continued to make an awful lot of runs, but there was a definite tendency - one glorious series against the Aussies aside - to make them on the flattest of flatbeds and to pad his average thereby. |
|
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 08:29:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by fw 14
I am in a bad place to comment here, because being a young'un, I never got to see Viv, Hanif, etc. But surely Virender Sehwag has gotta be up there with the best. The volume of runs he scores in all formats, at such consistency, at the incredible stike rate that he does is pretty special. In modern day cricket, I'd say he is second or equal to Sachin.
Again, I disagree. In modern cricket, lets say since 2000, he is behind (at a conservative estimate) Tendulkar, Laxman, Hayden, Steve Waugh, Ponting, Jayawardene, Kallis, Smith and arguably Lara and Chanderpaul.
Sehwag is entertaining, undoubtedly. But his record is predicated on murdering average attacks on Indian featherbeds and that does not, for me, make a great player. He has done reasonably in his two tours of Australia (albeit on the back of a single innings in each series) but has struggled in England, New Zealand, South Africa etc. |
|
|
|
italianharris
Amateur
United Kingdom
478 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 12:54:10
|
| but bradman played against bowlers who we carnt even say were good because of lack of coverage and no colour tv, just asking how do we say he was the greatest without having really any knowledge about how good/bad were those days? this can apply 2 headley- after the war he was finished past his best |
|
|
|
Skipper
Amateur
Australia
107 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 13:07:07
|
| So if Tendulker wasn't on TV he would not be as good? |
|
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 13:32:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by italianharris
but bradman played against bowlers who we carnt even say were good because of lack of coverage and no colour tv, just asking how do we say he was the greatest without having really any knowledge about how good/bad were those days? this can apply 2 headley- after the war he was finished past his best
your argument appears to be that without colour TV it is impossible to gauge a bowlers skill...
you really don't know much about cricket, do you?
Okay, so we can see more nowadays, and will never get a direct comparison from era to era. But standards have not changed that much and, where they have, it has tended to be in favour of the batsman rather than the bowler so, if anything, Bradman's acheivements seem to me magnified. Look at the calibre of bowlers he played against - for England, Larwood, Voce, Hammond, Tate, Verity, Allen, Laker, Bedser et al ad nauseum, for the West Indies Learie Constantine and George Francis... |
|
|
|
Super Slogger
Pinch of Salt !!!
1125 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 17:48:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by ammo500
Harbhajan Singh LOL!
YES! |
|
|
|
fw 14
Amateur
Bahamas
57 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 18:01:46
|
Tykemania: Correct me if Im wrong, but your post said that you beleive Mahela Jaywardene to be a better player that Virender Sehwag. That is so unbelievably wrong! You say that Sehwag scored runs on featherbeds, Jayawardene has scored far more runs on 'flat' pitches. Recently in the Wisden Magazine, a stat appeared that said Jaywardene's average in the sub continent was 60 something, outside the sub continent, it was in the thirties! Im not arguing that Sehwag is the best player ever, but your claim that Jayawardene is better than him is simply 100% incorrect!
|
|
|
|
fw 14
Amateur
Bahamas
57 Posts |
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 19:14:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by fw 14
Tykemania: Correct me if Im wrong, but your post said that you beleive Mahela Jaywardene to be a better player that Virender Sehwag. That is so unbelievably wrong! You say that Sehwag scored runs on featherbeds, Jayawardene has scored far more runs on 'flat' pitches. Recently in the Wisden Magazine, a stat appeared that said Jaywardene's average in the sub continent was 60 something, outside the sub continent, it was in the thirties! Im not arguing that Sehwag is the best player ever, but your claim that Jayawardene is better than him is simply 100% incorrect!
I'm going to stand by my guns and stick with Jayawardene as the better of the two, albeit marginally (though I'm assuming you've conceded the other ten or so names on my list) - As of today, Jayawardene averages 4 more on the sub continent and 2.5 less overseas than Sehwag but has contributed to more overseas test wins and has played fewer tests against genuine whipping boys. In addition, whilst Sri Lanka has some featherbeds, it also has a couple of seamers paradises; for example, his double ton against England in Galle was more than the entire England side managed!
And that would be the same Ian Chappell who described Inzi as a "fat blocker" with "no hope of a lasting career" and who felt that no less a light than Shane Muller was "potentially the final cog in a great Australian side". He has a reputation for talking absolute ****e. |
|
|
|
fw 14
Amateur
Bahamas
57 Posts |
Posted - 16/11/2010 : 19:43:30
|
NO, i didnt discount the other 10. Jayawardene stuck out. For me Stats dont tell the real story.
Jayawardene scores his runs slower than Sehwag. Jayawardene scores his runs mainly batting in the middle order against an older, softer ball. Sehwag has had multiple opening partners at the top of the order not allowing for consistency or any working relationship to be built. Sehwag bats with the pressure of 1 billion expectant fans. Sehwag takes more risks than Jayawardene. Sehwag entertains the crowd more than Jayawardene. Sehwag posses the ability to play the same WHATEVER the situation. Perhaps the best example of this is Chennai 2008/9 when set 380 odd to win, Sehwag scored 91 in ONE session to turn the game on its head.
If that isnt enought for you we may have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 08:00:57
|
Erm, most of the stuff you've mentioned has no bearing whatsoever on the question of who is the better batsman - number of fans? irrelevant. opening partners? irrelevant entertainment etc - only relevant in the loosest way. And the suggestion that opening is harder than batting in the middle order is just rubbish!
Sehwag and Jayawardene are different players, different types of player. If you're going to judge on excitement and pace of run scoring then arguably Kieron Pollard is the bestbatsman in the world...but that would be ridiculous. Jayawardene isn't the most exciting - though he is good to watch - but he scores important runs in a range of circumstances, rather than going out first and having a pop!
So yes, we agree to differ! |
|
|
|
ammo500
Semi-Pro
Australia
1205 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 09:30:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Super Slogger
quote:
Originally posted by ammo500
Harbhajan Singh LOL!
YES!
Highest run scorer for India this series!
back to back centuries |
|
|
|
Super Slogger
Pinch of Salt !!!
1125 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 17:48:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by ammo500
quote:
Originally posted by Super Slogger
quote:
Originally posted by ammo500
Harbhajan Singh LOL!
YES!
Highest run scorer for India this series!
back to back centuries
LOVE IT! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Best Batsman Ever
