Tendulkar - The Greatest Ever?
- Thread starter glenferry23
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #52
great point
sachin destroyed us in that series (the one dayers too)....i think warney said at the time he was having nightmares about him. i recall steve waugh came out and said after that series sachin was the greatest batsman since bradman, and warney as well as punter have said sachin is the best batsman they've played with or against
so i think he is comfortably the best batsman of our generation...but yes the don really deserves to be in a category of his own and sachin comes in 2nd overall
but if we're talking about greatest CRICKETERS of all time (not just greatest batsman), then of course you have the addition of guys like sobers who has outstanding batting AND bowling records
but i for one am very happy india are coming here next year for a test series - another opportunity to see sachin play...am sure he'll bring his A game as usual, he's got 6 tonnes on our decks already and averages close to 60 here, unbeleivable stuff and has been a pleasure to watch
Facing Larwood and Voce, as Bradman did, would be no fun whatsoever.
Fastest era of bowlers was the 70's and 80's with Lillee, Thomson, Roberts, Holding. Garner, Croft. Marshall, Patterson, Ambrose, Walsh, LeRoux (WSC days), Willis, Imran Khan, Hadlee.
In the 50's, Frank Tyson was super fast. Trueman was fast too. Then there was the super fast West Indians Wes Hall and charlie Griffith in the 60s. Here we have Lindwall and Miller.
Nearly all faster than most, quicks now.
It's why I have Greg Chappell rated higher than Tendulkar as he faced the Windies in absolute full flight, before helmets, and averages the same.
Bradman just dwarfs everyone.
A bit of Lillee and Thomson here. Very frightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXRTraA1tY&feature=related
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,341
part of the reason for lack of really fast bowlers now is helmets and all the protection batsmen have. you can't really intimidate a batsmen out anymore. the other things is the pitches are so good now. generally the faster someone bowls the faster the ball heads to the boundary.
what is astounding is how so many bowlers have lost the art of swinging the ball. you would think if bowling fast is out of fashion then to make up for it you have to swing the ball instead.... well i guess that is why the top quicks in world cricket swing the ball - anderson, steyn and johnson (when he is on).
what is astounding is how so many bowlers have lost the art of swinging the ball. you would think if bowling fast is out of fashion then to make up for it you have to swing the ball instead.... well i guess that is why the top quicks in world cricket swing the ball - anderson, steyn and johnson (when he is on).
Indian_Hotdog
Debutant
- Jan 29, 2010
- 135
- 0
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Funny how the Bradman cheerleaders forget that cricket was a pastime , a mere hobby of the fortunate classes in his heyday , not a fullblood professional sport like today where a cricketer has to play in all corners of the earth on different conditions against supremely athletic fielders with umpteen times more terrifying bowlers (not the dobblers of WW eras) , not to mention technology that spots every chink in your armour.
But hey carry on.
But hey carry on.
Swinging the ball is coming back more into vogue now. Since the days of the West Indies banging the ball into the pitch the accent was more on hitting the pitch hard, short of a length, with movement off the wicket rather than swing. McGrath actually barely swung a ball in his life. Healy said ihe never swung it after his 3rd ball. Beside's Botham, swing was used mostly the Pakistani's to counter their lifeless, sub-continent pitches.
99.94!!!! Double anyone else of his era.
Nothing more to say as there's no argument.
Very true, but the conditions they played in and equipment they used was also hobby standard - it's all relative.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,341
seconded.
Indian_Hotdog
Debutant
- Jan 29, 2010
- 135
- 0
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I would say Bradman benefitted from the outdated LBW law they had at the time - a batsman couldn't be given out unless it first pitched in line with stumps then hit in line to go onto the stumps.
Today you are out even if it pitches outside line.
Today you are out even if it pitches outside line.
and today they have udrs.
covered pitches.
better bats.
mneither is better than the other
People can nitpick all the differences in eras all they want, the fact that Bradman still averages lightyears ahead of all great batsmen in his own era shows that he was in a complete galaxy of his own, no matter how you look at it
Yep, that make 45 runs difference in the averages column
.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
You can't be serious can you? Besides Thomson, most of these blokes didn't bowl faster than 140, it's what they did with the ball that made them hard to play.
YT that bowl off they had where Thomson was 10k's faster than everyone else and he was only bowling 140's. The reality is that, that's what those blokes did at their best and Thomson could get into the the 150's and on occasion push to the 160 limit. No bowler in the 50's is quicker than anything going around today, that's like saying that 100m sprinters are as quick then, than the blokes running today.
These guys were the peak for their time, not the stand out for all time.
One thing to remember though is that when speed was measured in the 70's -80's (on the occasions they were measured), such speed was measured at the point the ball reached the batsman, not at the point the ball was released, as it is now.
I heard Holding and Thomspon allude to this difference. I think its fair to say that a Thommo at 150+ of yesteryears would be faster than Shoiab, Lee or Bond of 2000's. Same would go for the other bowlers of that time too, given that a delivery loses velocity in travel and even more velocity once it pitches on the deck.
I heard Holding and Thomspon allude to this difference. I think its fair to say that a Thommo at 150+ of yesteryears would be faster than Shoiab, Lee or Bond of 2000's. Same would go for the other bowlers of that time too, given that a delivery loses velocity in travel and even more velocity once it pitches on the deck.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
No it wasn't. It was measured on frames per second, which was then calculated what it was at the release point.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,903
- 6,945
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Cricket was far more than a hobby in Bradman's day. Jardine only got a call up because the E&WCB had a rule that the captain must be an amatuer, the rest of the squad were all professional players.
Cricket is in fact one of the oldest professional sports in the world. (Boxing & horseracing are the oldest).
I challenge you to name a player who would've anywhere near 50 against the bodyline attack.
You may be right but that is certainly not what I have heard / read Thommo or Holding say. Their point was that the velocity was calculated not at release point but near the batsman's end.
With regards to measurement via frames per second, again while that may have been the predominant method used (certainly thats what was used to measure Thommo), detailed footage that I have seen of bowling speed competitions (involving many of these greats) radar was used to determine speed, not fps (slow mo cameras).
As an aside, using cameras and fps is a pretty accurate method in and of itself, and some might argue perhaps a tad bit more accurate than the speed gun (depending on the quality of the camera analysis of course).
This is because a speed gun uses radar to determine the speed -- radar or use of doppler waves to measure speed is most accurate when the ball is traveling in a straight line. Unfortunately, the cricketing ball does not travel in a straight line but travels downwards from the bowlers hand towards the pitch. The difference between what the doppler waves measure (horizontal vector) vs the actual trajectory of the ball (horizontal vector plus vertical vector) results in some inaccuracy of measurement.
The high speed camera on the other hand will actually measure the pace at which the ball is travelling towards the batsman by analyzing the displacement of the ball (distance) by time (the frame rate). And it can be used to measure velocity at any given point -- point of release, mid pitch, or when near the batting end, depending on the parameters per which it is set up.
Additionally, another issue with the radar would be that the variance in actual vs measured speed would vary depending on whether the bowler is bowling short (steeper downward angle) or full (less steep downward angle).
- Banned
- #69
tendulkars not even the best batsman of his generation, let alone all time
give me lara any day
give me lara any day
Seems I know alot more than you do. You really have little clue about the history of cricket do you. Absolutely zero. Try reading up on Frank Tyson in the 50's, his speed, what Richie Benaud said about his speed as hew faced him. He knows way more than you would about it.
They've been bowling fast since the game began. It's not like running the 100m. Changes there are due to training methods, better competition, sport science and and better running tracks. By contrast there's no great attempt to increase fast bowling speed as there is trying to run the 100m as other aspects are required to get wickets. Changes and skill development over time have come in training the ability to use the ball in the air and off the seam, as that gets you wickets. Speed natural something that you don't necessarily work on. It's a skill-based sport and that's what has developed over time, not speed. Otherwise we'd have found many bowlers faster than Thomson, Lillee and the West Indians in the current era of sports science if it was purely training speed. 100m requires you to get to the other end as fast as you can so that aspect trained, but bowling fast is not a prerequiste of getting wickets so other aspects are trained and developed. See the difference?
So, yes i am serious. So unless you have any understanding of fast bowling, history etc.... don't make uninformed opinions.
Parquet Court
Club Legend
- Jun 10, 2010
- 1,642
- 716
- AFL Club
- Richmond
lara not even in the top 20...and michael hussey ahead of him?? laughable.
You've got to be kidding.
Dobblers of WW eras? Let's see now, you have for starters:
- Larwood and Voce in Australia in 1932/33
- I've met plenty of people who saw Lindwall and Miller and they've assured me they were every bit as fast as anyone around now.
- Frank Tyson's spell at Melbourne in 1954 was regarded by Alan McGilvray (not a man given to hype) as the fastest bowling he'd ever seen.
- In later times we had Lillee and Thomson. Especially before Thomson did his shoulder, check out how far back the slips cordon were.
- Michael Holding versus Australia in 1984 at the WACA was terrifyingly fast
Fast bowlers, very fast bowlers, have been around as long as the game itself. It's not a new invention.
No they weren't. Gubby Allen who toured here in 1932/33 and captained England in 1936/37 was an amateur. Nawab of Pataudi toured here in 1932/33 also, another amateur. Len Hutton was the first professional cricketer to captain England in 1952.
Funny you mention Jardine, his only test century was against Bodyline when the West Indies gave England a dose of their own medicine in 1933. Some of the English batsmen weren't too happy to be on the receiving end, but Jardine didn't say a word of complaint. He showed he was happy to take it as well as dish it out.
I should point out that the site I link to has lots of different ways of presenting the data. The one I have linked to shows the highest rating an individual reached at any point. It is not a comparative record between players - that can only be performed by checking dates.
If you click on a players name, you can see their history.
Here uis the link to the World's fastest bowler comp. As you can see, it is hard to see how it could be more accurate. Certainly better than radar guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs
