bradman or tendulkar

[Ken Gargett]

i normally don't get involved in debates on any other forum, bar a specific redskins site, but i follow a few. this was a thread started by a person whose views are somewhat different to mine (and anyone else with half a clue) but i thought i would put up the link to see what the thoughts might be. the thread was supposedly about murali (yes, the chucker) but seems to have simply been a way for him to flog his book about why he thinks tendulkar is better than bradman. i am one of those who have responded.

 

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/08/19/muttiah-muralitharan-don-bradman-bowlers/comment-page-3/#comment-5117506

[westg]

99.94 and 53.78 ...I think Tendulkar may be embarrassed by anyone suggesting otherwise. Would like to know if Sachin thinks Murali is a chucker or not.

cheers Ken ...

[TheGipper]

Yes, but has either of them stood in for God in a Monty Python movie?

[JohnS]

Why even have this debate? It's just silly, no one should bother comparing anyone to Don Bradman.

[Ken Gargett]

it would seem self evident. but the chap who posted the original thread turns out to have actually written a book on why sachin is better than the don. i am assuming his next one will locate elvis.

the main argument seems to be (aside from self promotion and idiocy) that england were crap when bradman played so he was not that good. seriously. he uses bowling averages but seems to forget that these poor sods were bowling to bradman. and conveniently forgets that tendulkar played nearly 10% of his tests against zimbabwe and bangladesh (i have raised this with him but he refuses to respond). if you take out his runs against those bog awful nations, his average drops to around 50. fabulous but hardly earth-shattering. even at 53, he is still only 24th in the all time list (though adam voges is second so perhaps some caution urged).

and of course it makes no mention of bradman always batting on uncovered pitches as opposed to today when all pitches are covered, the protection of helmets (there goes bodyline - que chorus of boos towards the poms), much smaller fields today (roping off boundaries), far better bats etc etc.

what is interesting is that probably the worst pitches sachin ever played would have been the 4 tests he played in zimbabwe. despite the overall bradmansque average against bangladesh and zimbabwe of 100, on those pitches he averaged only 40. pitches that would have been superior to a great many bradman played in his career.

 

[westg]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 6:58 AM, Ken Gargett said:

it would seem self evident. but the chap who posted the original thread turns out to have actually written a book on why sachin is better than the don. i am assuming his next one will locate elvis.

the main argument seems to be (aside from self promotion and idiocy) that england were crap when bradman played so he was not that good. seriously. he uses bowling averages but seems to forget that these poor sods were bowling to bradman. and conveniently forgets that tendulkar played nearly 10% of his tests against zimbabwe and bangladesh (i have raised this with him but he refuses to respond). if you take out his runs against those bog awful nations, his average drops to around 50. fabulous but hardly earth-shattering. even at 53, he is still only 24th in the all time list (though adam voges is second so perhaps some caution urged).

and of course it makes no mention of bradman always batting on uncovered pitches as opposed to today when all pitches are covered, the protection of helmets (there goes bodyline - que chorus of boos towards the poms), much smaller fields today (roping off boundaries), far better bats etc etc.

what is interesting is that probably the worst pitches sachin ever played would have been the 4 tests he played in zimbabwe. despite the overall bradmansque average against bangladesh and zimbabwe of 100, on those pitches he averaged only 40. pitches that would have been superior to a great many bradman played in his career.

 

Its a  way to get someone to read your book . Make an outrageous clam

[Williamos]

The average comparison seems pretty cut and dry, whose team mates actually liked the relative batsman, now that's an interesting question...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, Williamos said:

The average comparison seems pretty cut and dry, whose team mates actually liked the relative batsman, now that's an interesting question...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in fairness, this was very much a catholic/protestant thing (the public didn't care because he scored runs and won games). it was very strong in those days. the catholics in the team - fingleton, o'reilly (though o'reilly to a lesser extent as they had played against each other and with each other for many years) etc, were struggling with him. the proddo's, no problem. this has been blown up over the years but it has always seemed to be used as there is bugger all else to dump on him about. fingelton was unhappy (i remember reading his autobiography as a kid - not happy at all) but seriously, the bloke was a fringe player. stop bitching, play better - would be my thoughts.

he was not liked by the 70s players as tried to oppose world series which in retrospect, may have saved cricket or gone close. and the stockbroking business had problems, though these seem to be strongly the fault of his boss. but an easy way to target him. plenty i've spoken to spoke very highly. at no stage, as far as i am aware, did he lie about anyone putting a gun to his head to rob him.

no doubt, he was not a perfect person. but he was the greatest batsman by the proverbial country mile, and a serious contender for the most dominant sportsman who has ever lived.

 

[Williamos]

in fairness, this was very much a catholic/protestant thing (the public didn't care because he scored runs and won games). it was very strong in those days. the catholics in the team - fingleton, o'reilly (though o'reilly to a lesser extent as they had played against each other and with each other for many years) etc, were struggling with him. the proddo's, no problem. this has been blown up over the years but it has always seemed to be used as there is bugger all else to dump on him about. fingelton was unhappy (i remember reading his autobiography as a kid - not happy at all) but seriously, the bloke was a fringe player. stop bitching, play better - would be my thoughts.

he was not liked by the 70s players as tried to oppose world series which in retrospect, may have saved cricket or gone close. and the stockbroking business had problems, though these seem to be strongly the fault of his boss. but an easy way to target him. plenty i've spoken to spoke very highly. at no stage, as far as i am aware, did he lie about anyone putting a gun to his head to rob him.

no doubt, he was not a perfect person. but he was the greatest batsman by the proverbial country mile, and a serious contender for the most dominant sportsman who has ever lived.

 

It's interesting to read how historically Australia was so divided along sectarian lines. Very important at the time, largely obsolete and forgotten now. New bigotries replace the old, as a rule.

Cricket being a statistician's game, what kind of multiplier could you add to a batsman's average to better compare pre and post covered pitches eras? Granted, it's a impossible task.

My favourite Bradman story is his response to what he thought he'd average against a touring party in, I think, the 1980s. "Oh, 70 or 80." "Why so low? Your Test average was 99.94!" "That's true, but I'm 70 years old now."

With most sports in the professional era decided by such small margins, the gap between Bradman and the other batting greats is staggering. Especially as has been pointed out, the advances in bat technology, smaller grounds, roped boundaries, etc.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnS]

One of my favourite Bradman stories is the respect Jeff Thomson gained for him when he batted in the nets against him in his sixties (and without padding or protection). This was around tge time when Thommo was obliterating the Poms and Windies in the mid-70s with his sheer pace.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, JohnS said:

One of my favourite Bradman stories is the respect Jeff Thomson gained for him when he batted in the nets against him in his sixties (and without padding or protection). This was around tge time when Thommo was obliterating the Poms and Windies in the mid-70s with his sheer pace.

john, the way thommo tells it, in the backyard of a friend of the team who had his own pitch and often held a bbq for the team on the rest day. bradman was in a suit and in his 70s and told thommo he had not faced a ball for nearly 30 years. thommo was scared stiff of killing him but was egged on by those there. let fly with two balls and then stopped. said bradman just belted them. thommo then watched him belt everyone around for the next half hour. as though in his prime.

[JohnS]

17 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

john, the way thommo tells it, in the backyard of a friend of the team who had his own pitch and often held a bbq for the team on the rest day. bradman was in a suit and in his 70s and told thommo he had not faced a ball for nearly 30 years. thommo was scared stiff of killing him but was egged on by those there. let fly with two balls and then stopped. said bradman just belted them. thommo then watched him belt everyone around for the next half hour. as though in his prime.

I love it...this famous story never gets old!

[gweilgi]

22 hours ago, Williamos said:

The average comparison seems pretty cut and dry, whose team mates actually liked the relative batsman, now that's an interesting question...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh?  Did someone mention the name Kevin Pietersen?

[Ken Gargett]

if we are honest, very few major long term successful sporting teams don't have major personality clashes. our recent cricketers a prime example - clarke, katich, hayden, symonds, warnie, waugh and so on. not sure many chrissie cards shared there. we have had rugby teams where the honourable qlders were ostracised by the villainous dullards from nsw; league teams where people have pulled out from personality clashes. i'm sure other countries have many more examples.KP a fine example. and as i've always said, how bad a bloke must joe root be if that idiot warner chooses to punch him when stu broad is in the room.

bradman was highlighted because fingleton was a journo, the proddo/mick thing was much bigger back then and because there was no way one could fault his cricket.

[RickHendeson]

I like bowling . . . Usually I score in the low 100s.  But what's a wicket?

[MaxG]

No clue,  but I've heard they're sticky. 

 

- MG

 

[gweilgi]

6 hours ago, MaxG said:

No clue,  but I've heard they're sticky. 

in the interests of promoting international understanding, here is a basic introduction to the greatest gift the English ever gave the world:

Cricket comprises a game played by 11 men a side (though the women's game is coming along nicely, too).  The object is to score more runs than the opposing team.  The team that does this are the winners.  I'm not going too fast for you, am I?

Now for the basic rules:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.  Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.  When
they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.  Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.  There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.  When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all
the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

Major international matches between countries, called Test Matches, always have two innings per side, so that each team goes in and can be all out twice.  These games often
go on for five days; when played in England, they traditionally end in a draw with no result decided because of rain.

This is why, of course, Americans find the game of cricket totally incomprehensible and also why far more people around the world play cricket than play baseball! So take
that, uncouth Yankees, neener neener.

And yes, it's true, they do stop playing for lunch and tea.

If you need help with other terms such as "googly", "silly mid-on" or the Duckworth-Lewis Method, ask away...

[MaxG]

Ok, thanks, we're communicating now.

When you wrote "innings" and "runs", it had me thinking of baseball, an American game so slow and boring 80% of seats in stadiums watching our best professional players go empty on any given night. 

But the rest of the description gives me further insight.  Lots of players.  Games go on for days.  Breaks for lunch and snacks.  Got it!!!  This is what they make out kids play when we send them off to summer camp and when they come back home they tell us they did "nothing."  Right?

And they call it "cricket" because that's the only living beings heard in the viewing stands?

 

- MG, trying to bridge international gaps