100 100's - Finally it has come. Take a bow Master!

[pcfan123]

, after all Larwood was almost as fast as modern day quickies and when he hit you there was no helmet to keep your head on.

It has been argued that he could be the fastest bowler in history. Just looking at his action and run up I'll believe it too.

 

[ballers101]

If tendulkar had to play in Bradman's era, he would probably be dead, after all Larwood was almost as fast as modern day quickies and when he hit you there was no helmet to keep your head on.

The best way to see how good a batsman, a player was is to compare him to player in his own time and see the differnce. Wally Hammond was probably number 2 behind Bradman but averaged a whole 40 points less, Tendulkar however is not the only player who fights for the title of greatest batsman in the 90's, with Lara being right up their. Bradman dominated an era with dodgy wickets, dodgy bats, no safty gear and some very good english bowling. Tendelkur is in a era with expert training, bats which hit the ball a mile and Laws whoch are catered to make batting easier.

And if you talk about effect, people still quote what Bradman said even if it was 40 or 50 years ago. Recognition from Bradman was probably the greatest honour a player could get. Bradman was also a selector and administrator for cricket.

Now you brought an interesting point, first off Bradman played extremely well when the opposition never bowled bodyline tactics. However, when they did his average was over 50 close to Tendulkar's. Also, not all batsmen played terrible against the bodyline such as Ponsford, Mccabe, Woodfull and Fingleton. So you can see how there were definitely some flaw in Bradman's game especially when like I said he never faced the spin attack that Tendulkar has faced.

Also, you brought up an interesting point about gear, yes it is a lot more safer however, I would not say that Tendulkar would die reason being that he is a great hooker of the ball. It is also not like fear is not going through the minds of cricketers today nevertheless. The ball has gotten harder, bowlers also learned new tactics such as perfecting the yorker and learning how to reverse swing. So there is a lot of stuff that the new generation gets but they do give a lot as well.

 

[pcfan123]

Im sorry ballers but you cannot compare facing modern spin bowling with facing lethal fast bowling with ye olde gear,pitches and bats.

There is a reason every single batsman wears a helmet nowadays when facing pace. The element of possibly being seriously injured/maimed for life just does not exist anymore.

Bradman played in tougher conditions and got better scores. Simple as that.

Your question about what Bradman would average today is very very interesting though. Honestly it might even be more than 100 (at least in my opinion).

 

[ballers101]

Im sorry ballers but you cannot compare facing modern spin bowling with facing lethal fast bowling with ye olde gear,pitches and bats.

There is a reason every single batsman wears a helmet nowadays when facing pace. The element of possibly being seriously injured/maimed for life just does not exist anymore.

Bradman played in tougher conditions and got better scores. Simple as that.

Your question about what Bradman would average today is very very interesting though. Honestly it might even be more than 100 (at least in my opinion).

That's our opinion. My opinion is that he wouldn't get near 100 but also remember like I said he didn't play Bradman like against the bodyline where some batsmen did actually bat well, some average in mid 40's other than Bradman. The comparision when the bodyline began is more like how it is on an actual cricket team. Just look at all the players averages so it's not like everyone played terrible and Bradman was much higher generally it's an even batting lineup. Also, because batsmen played well against the bodyline you cannot delegate whether or not Tendulkar would play terrible against the bodyline because you don't know that.

 

[pcfan123]

Bodyline is not the question though, and just because someone managed to play Bodyline better than Bradman does not mean that Bradman had some giant flaw.

I am lost now? What exactly is your point? Are you saying that Tendulkar is a better batsman than Bradman? Because I have honestly never heard that before, not even from the most hardcore Indian fan.

 

[Paki007]

Yeah i think it's not impossible for him but i am afraid that he will leave international cricket after 2011 wc

 

[ballers101]

Bodyline is not the question though, and just because someone managed to play Bodyline better than Bradman does not mean that Bradman had some giant flaw.

I am lost now? What exactly is your point? Are you saying that Tendulkar is a better batsman than Bradman? Because I have honestly never heard that before, not even from the most hardcore Indian fan.

No, my point was that Tendulkar has made a bigger impact on cricket than Bradman.

 

[pcfan123]

Oh, well that is a bit debatable as well but much more of a gray area than who is the better player.

You could argue that Sachin's success is what turned India into a cricket obsessed nation from field hockey. If so then that might be the biggest impact in the games history, India's obsession with it.

You could argue that if Indian's never took to cricket it might have died out (in popularity and money) a long time ago, with only the Ashes being popular.

 

[TumTum]

No, my point was that Tendulkar has made a bigger impact on cricket than Bradman.

So tell me the impact then?

 

[ballers101]

So tell me the impact then?

Read this right here all of it throughly, and if you want to respond to it, please respond to most of the points rather than just one point.

I understand that but see I just said it before and people avoid it over and over again, how can you delegate that Bradman was the greatest when you personally have never seen his game. The problem is that your getting all your info from other people's perception on the Don not your own perception on him. I am not saying he is NOT the greatest, I am saying that you cannot say he is the greatest because everyone here does not know how good he truly was. If he played in today's society like I said before he would not be as big of a player in my eyes. I know that is a big statement but that's my personal opinion on that matter and unless you have an ability to show what would happen if the Don played in today's society and he average nearly 100, you won't change that view on me.

Okay, now yes because of him there are only allowed two players behind the square on the leg side. However, cricketers today are probably influenced by Bradman in a way but the style that cricketers play today in my perspective is almost identical to Tendulkar's ways. Cricketers are trying to imitate him because he has been so successful as a cricketer. And also, I think he has become that Perfect Image, I mean he is in my eyes the greatest cricketer off the field. A respectful character who is thought about as a great personality in a place where is so hated like in....Pakistan (the team I follow).

To say that Sobers is the ONLY player to get close to his level in class and awe is a difficult statement to make. Now first off, you must explain the context of the word class, because if your saying on a techinical cricket standpoint. Sobers was more talented as a tests batsmen I would agree to that but, Tendulkar has everything as a batsmen. This is also confusing, because if you say that Sobers is the only player to get close to Bradman's class and awe then you must take back what Benaud said about Bradman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereotype
Someone who rates Sachin as number 2 to the Don
If Sachin is rated 2nd to Bradman in Benaud's eyes then that means that Tendulkar should at least have more class and awe than Sobers in Benaud's eyes. If you were to say no to that statement than you are clearly contridicting yourself, either you take Benaud's opinion to the fullest or you don't take his opinion at all. Now your trying to prove Bradman has had a larger impact so I guess you need to keep his opinion because he has seen him play.

Now back to who has a greater impact, Tendulkar is definitely the largest impact player in Southern East Asia. You also, have to think about something Bradman like I said has only played in England and Australia. He may be the largest impact player in England and Australia. However, Bradman is not the largest impact player in the rest of the world because he never got the opportunity to show his abilities to the rest of the world. How can you say that a player has affected the WORLD of cricket if they never saw him play. What I am trying to say is that if West Indies never got the opportunity to see Bradman bat then how can their batting be similar to his. They never got the chance to imitate how Bradman bats and develop those skills that he had.

 

[ballers101]

I read the whole thing, like the last 10 fricking times

You are high on pot.

/discussion

This is what I call.....fail. Just a question for you, can you actually prove that what I said makes me seem like I am high or is too much work for you.

 

[pcfan123]

Tum Tum at least respond to ballers arguments in a logical and systematic manner. Personal attacks just make you look like the sore loser.

I am sure you have some rational arguments why you believe Bradman had a bigger impact (ie the shots he invented, the leg side game etc).

 

[TumTum]

Tum Tum at least respond to ballers arguments in a logical and systematic manner. Personal attacks just make you look like the sore loser.

I think he called me an idiot in a couple of his posts :laugh

 

[surendar]

No, my point was that Tendulkar has made a bigger impact on cricket than Bradman.

But that's not the point of this thread. :readit As simple as that :sarcasm

 

[ballers101]

Sorry for going off topic here, it's just irritating how someone doesn't respond to someone else's posts and that someone thinks he has superior knowledge in cricket.