Lara or Bradman??

[Jefferz]

0 to 100 before lunch ... for the first time in 30 years and only the second occasion in almost 70 years - Don Bradman's 334 in 1930 ... Lara's tally ranks only behind Bradman's ...should he exit undefeated ...hmm? pure class.

hes goin for the triple to surpass bradman for most triple centuries, ah class by himself above bradman

Stewps... now you are trying to argue that Lara is a Class above Bradman... you on f**kin crack awa?

tell me how lara isnt above bradman? by the way, bradman played when it was 6 day test matches, 7 balls in a over and 2 test series a year sometimes, compare that to the most studied batsman in the history or cricket, brian charles lara, in bradman's time, the opponent couldnt study how to get bradman out, they simply played it by ear....

[/b]


Lets have an open debate on this one.


Im quite interested to see who will rate who higher and for what reasons.

[ribbit]

0 to 100 before lunch ... for the first time in 30 years and only the second occasion in almost 70 years - Don Bradman's 334 in 1930 ... Lara's tally ranks only behind Bradman's ...should he exit undefeated ...hmm? pure class.

hes goin for the triple to surpass bradman for most triple centuries, ah class by himself above bradman

Stewps... now you are trying to argue that Lara is a Class above Bradman... you on f**kin crack awa?

tell me how lara isnt above bradman? by the way, bradman played when it was 6 day test matches, 7 balls in a over and 2 test series a year sometimes, compare that to the most studied batsman in the history or cricket, brian charles lara, in bradman's time, the opponent couldnt study how to get bradman out, they simply played it by ear....

[/b]


Lets have an open debate on this one.


Im quite interested to see who will rate who higher and for what reasons.

i had this discussion with TI in person - my pick is bradman.

ED:
expanding on this a bit - when i see batsmen that are a little younger than lara and comparing the legacy that they will leave behind, like ponting, it is too close to the mark that lara will leave behind. ponting will finish with more centuries and likely a higher average than lara. tendulkar is (or was) very close to lara's stats-wise.

bradman had a healthy gap between himself and any of his contemporaries. TI like to point out differences between the game then and now. there are those differences that is true, but if the game was so much easier back then for the batsmen, you would see contemporaries of bradman with comparable stats. but that's not the case.

anyway, comparing history to present always difficult. history sets the standard for the future. until someone goes out and averages a century or better, then stats are on bradman's side.

[Toppa]

Lara.

[Organic]

Lara.

i cant say i avent seen bradman bat...and i havent seen people bowl to him.
stats dont tell the whoel story..since its obvious that both of them produced.
but keep in mind lara was the fastest to 10000 runs maybe only eclipsed by ponting at the rate he is going.
also i do feel the the qulaity of bowling all aroudn the wolrd has teaken a dip in rcent times.
lara had waqor and wasim to face at the hieght of thier careers and top quality bowlers form all aroound the world.
each country maybe has one or maybe 2 top owlers now at most in thier side..
its not a consistent attack
at anyrate the debates goes on
as the analysts said what makes lara better is his willingness to attack bowlers....in most situation...
ponting and those guys attack but not liek lara
he also has shown gritty detemination also

if you guys talk abut best in ear's
then u can but the top people together n call it a day
come like comparing pele to maradonna and ronaldihno
u can specualte all u want
u will never know definitively

[Jefferz]

Interesting points ribbit.

Lara.

i cant say i avent seen bradman bat...and i havent seen people bowl to him.
stats dont tell the whoel story..since its obvious that both of them produced.
but keep in mind lara was the fastest to 10000 runs maybe only eclipsed by ponting at the rate he is going.
also i do feel the the qulaity of bowling all aroudn the wolrd has teaken a dip in rcent times.
lara had waqor and wasim to face at the hieght of thier careers and top quality bowlers form all aroound the world.
each country maybe has one or maybe 2 top owlers now at most in thier side..
its not a consistent attack
at anyrate the debates goes on
as the analysts said what makes lara better is his willingness to attack bowlers....in most situation...
ponting and those guys attack but not liek lara
he also has shown gritty detemination also

if you guys talk abut best in ear's
then u can but the top people together n call it a day
come like comparing pele to maradonna and ronaldihno
u can specualte all u want
u will never know definitively

we'll I must say while your point of bowling attack is decent and how it fluctuates but i still hold firm that the vast difference of batting average and sheer amount of runs his made in less innings is just too overwhelming a thing to look over.

I cant definitively say that Bradman is better than Lara or viceversa, however I know it is simply a stupid thing to say that Lara is a class above Bradman... (and of course PH I'm not referring to you saying that... we both know well you said that...  )

[dwolfman]

Ribbit touched on it a bit. Bradman - last test match in the late 1940s a bit after WWII which interrupted his career- was years ahead of not only his contemporaries, but also ahead of many to come after him. It eventually took Sobers to break his innings record decades later and Lara to match him for scoring 300 or more even longer after that.

Bradman only played 52 matches and managed 29 centuries in that and had an average of 99.94. The fact that nobody then and nobody now has been able to come close to replicating it speaks volumes for the man's ability. We can talk about technology and how studied a batsman is, but the fact remains that we have not seen Lara bat in 1937 and we have not seen Bradman bat in 2006. All the batsmen back then had to play with the same equipment, the same general set of techniques and the same analysis of each other. Today it is the same. Everyone uses the same equiment and technological advances, same general set of techniques and same analysis. That is why Bradman, Headley, Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Lara are all greats in the game. They stood out head and shoulders above everyone else all things being equal.

Bradman - a century every 2.76 innings
Lara - a century every 6.76 innings

Point being that - as Jefferz has said - it's hard to ignore the statistics and even harder to say that Lara is a class above Bradman. I would give the nod to Bradman myself, but we can agree to disagree on who is better.

[Jefferz]

Ribbit touched on it a bit. Bradman - last test match in the late 1940s a bit after WWII which interrupted his career- was years ahead of not only his contemporaries, but also ahead of many to come after him. It eventually took Sobers to break his innings record decades later and Lara to match him for scoring 300 or more even longer after that.

Bradman only played 52 matches and managed 29 centuries in that and had an average of 99.94. The fact that nobody then and nobody now has been able to come close to replicating it speaks volumes for the man's ability. We can talk about technology and how studied a batsman is, but the fact remains that we have not seen Lara bat in 1937 and we have not seen Bradman bat in 2006. All the batsmen back then had to play with the same equipment, the same general set of techniques and the same analysis of each other. Today it is the same. Everyone uses the same equiment and technological advances, same general set of techniques and same analysis. That is why Bradman, Headley, Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Lara are all greats in the game. They stood out head and shoulders above everyone else all things being equal.

Bradman - a century every 2.76 innings
Lara - a century every 6.76 innings

Point being that - as Jefferz has said - it's hard to ignore the statistics and even harder to say that Lara is a class above Bradman. I would give the nod to Bradman myself, but we can agree to disagree on who is better.

soundly put... I suppose though in Lara's defence the fact that he played more tests probably would have naturally lowered his average and yet then again... that still isnt quite enough for me to say that Lara is better.

Atleast we can strongly argue that Lara is the most exciting batsman theres ever been.


He has a flurry of bad innings and then he really reminds you of it... for instance... the way he took on Kaneria in the last inning of that last test match... it would have been a complete shock to see any other batsmen take on a bowler like Kaneria like that in a test match, however with Lara... you really do expect it... im sure when he hit Kaneria for that big six... yuh was sayin tuh yuhself... next ball will be the boundry again.

[Remie]

I dont compare batsman from different generations for a number of reasons. A few of them being

- Helmets were not around in the previous generation so batting was a different art.
- In this generation the quality of spin bowling is the best it has ever been- Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble are the leading wicket takers for spinners in the history of the game and they all played in this generation. Then you can add Harbajhan Singh, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Kaneria etc.

Batsmen in different generation all had different challenges to overcome and it is just too subjective to quantify the challenges.

Also i dont buy into using statistics when comparing the greatest players of all time. It is hard to ignore statistics as they do not lie but you have to put it into perspective. The recent debate from cricinfo which was posted a few days ago on who was the best batsman of our generation had some good reasons why the statistics should be put to one side when comparing the greatest players.

[dwolfman]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

[dinho]

i ent think this "they haven't seen bradman can't devise a plan for him" argument hold any water.... simply because...

so what was bradman watching videos of the bowlers with hawkeye and all that back in dem days before he go out to face them??? NO! he was at the same disadvantage as the bowlers would have been, he would be facing the same unknown quantities... Also, take into account that the condition of the pitches in bradman days was much worse than today, not pampered by groundsmen, rolled to perfection etc...

that said, its also noteworthy that lara has faced the very best of bowling the sport has ever seen... Also, Lara has had to play from the most disadvantaged position of any premier batsmen on the planet... He is always coming in at 5-1, 10-2, 21-2 when the ball is still shiny and new the bowlers still fresh and scenting blood and the pressure on.. The openers before him never gave him any consistent foundation to build upon from Phil Simmons to Stuart Williams, Sherwin Campbell, Philo Wallace, Clayton Lambert, Suruj Ragoonath, Adrian Griffith, Devon Smith, Darren Ganga etc etc etc... All thru the years these openers were a highly inconsistent bunch which cannot be said for what Bradman had to deal with back in his day, or Tendulkar over in India, or Ponting in Australia...

Its an interesting debate that will never have an answer.. Its like comparing Ronaldinho to Pele and Maradona, you just can't come to a conclusion..

[Jefferz]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

[Quags]

He coulda probably do it if he was playing ,in bradman era 

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

[Organic]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding,[/b] you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

then how come u made comparisons to support your opnion that lara is better


lara never faced them either eh. he played ond e same team as dem... so maybe u might want to say waqar to support yuh idea
at any rate its both opnions you both have no one cal tell who is better than either because thye played under different circumstnaces
and as  cv 5 said
genius is genius and tehy usually adapt
i dont see y bradman couldnt adapt to our times
lara adapts
so does tendulkar
ponting
etc etc
both will have strengts, knwo thier weakensses and work on it
bradman i am almost sure oudl have done that
BUT SINCE I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM PLAY FOR MY SELF ALL I AHVE TO GO ON IS SHORT BLACK AND WHITE CLIPS AND STATS AND OPNIONS

[Jefferz]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

[Organic]

I just found this...its from a mensa challenge people had to to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition

this one just seems very apt now..

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

[Remie]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

dwolfman i will take you up on this point seing that i personally do not believe in using statistics to compare the greatest players.

When we were comparing the greatest batsman of the modern generation, all the names were put forward and everyone to a man including all the cricinfo experts and everyone on this site went for Lara. Of all the candidates, Tendulkar and Ponting statistically averaged more runs than Lara, but statistics were put to the side because we know they were irrelevant in this case. Other factors took far more weight than statistics. In my opinion and also the cricinfo experts when you are comparing the greatest players statistics are not necessary.

Dont get me wrong statistics always have their place and i do use them regularly but to me this is an exceptional case. This is not because i prefer Lara to Bradman because i am indifferent between the two. Put Richards in there and you get three. To be honest i just cant see how one could be picked above the other in terms of greatness given the huge differences in conditions for different generations.

[ribbit]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?   

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?

bredda when i was 10 years old watching test cricket you were watching hockey in canada, i know about headley long before your time, i dont know why you trying to sound like you know about the game when yuh now start watching 2, or 3 years ago...schupsss

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

yuh mean, fast leg bowling to get catches off the batsman on the leg side with a fielder in place? yes i have heard of it, england used it alot and were claimed to be the inventors of it against australia, but when the west indians mastered what the english started, the term was the bouncer bc it didnt pinpoint the leg side, allyuh feel is a fool allyuh dealing with, when greig and the chappelle brothers said west indies revolutionized the game of cricket, they were not referring to batting only, they also meant bowling, the bouncer is diff than the fast leg....

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?

teach who, not me padnah, man talking about bodyline tour with english bowlers bowling at grandma speeds compared to the west indies pack attack, the reason they changed the rule in modern times was bc west indian bowlers were bowling too many bouncers in an over.

ribbit juss talking nonsense, the amount of knowledge he learned from listening to me, but of course he would never admit that, as well as many others on the board also...

[WestCoast]

ribbit juss talking nonsense, the amount of knowledge he learned from listening to me, but of course he would never admit that, as well as many others on the board also...

are you under the influence?

[Savannah boy]

lara never faced them either eh. he played ond e same team as dem

Hogwash...so Lara never play any inter island cricket?  Didn't he have to shine in de Shell Shield Seris first before making the West Indies?

[weary1969]

Them men jokey yes them remember that Red Stripe series in 1994 when he broke the regional record. Haynes broke it a couple weeks later but that 180 against jamaica when he batted with Danraj is waht legends are made of.

[ribbit]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?

teach who, not me padnah, man talking about bodyline tour with english bowlers bowling at grandma speeds compared to the west indies pack attack, the reason they changed the rule in modern times was bc west indian bowlers were bowling too many bouncers in an over.

ribbit juss talking nonsense, the amount of knowledge he learned from listening to me, but of course he would never admit that, as well as many others on the board also...

england had the first real pace attack in cricket during that bodyline series. larwood & voce. larwood bowled greater than 90 mph - that is "grandma speed" for you? steups. bodyline was more vicious than the bouncers which you talking about and it was developed specifically because of bradman. it also resulted in changes to the cricket laws.

TI, you does talk a fair amount of - i can tell when you talking out yuh ass. i check everything yuh write because you usually only know half the story if that and yuh improvise the rest. your knowledge is limited. and your reasoning is sh*t.

you trying to argue that the changes to the game via technology and rules have been to the bowlers advantage but you are only looking at one side of the story. just think that going into a match, lara has tape of every bowler that he will face and he knows everything they have already bowled and can pick up any idiosyncracies in delivery or even selection. lara can identify what is coming out of a bowler's hands because he has the tapes to study their every action. just as the bowler knows what lara is doing, lara knows what the bowler is doing.

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?

teach who, not me padnah, man talking about bodyline tour with english bowlers bowling at grandma speeds compared to the west indies pack attack, the reason they changed the rule in modern times was bc west indian bowlers were bowling too many bouncers in an over.

ribbit juss talking nonsense, the amount of knowledge he learned from listening to me, but of course he would never admit that, as well as many others on the board also...

england had the first real pace attack in cricket during that bodyline series. larwood & voce. larwood bowled greater than 90 mph - that is "grandma speed" for you? steups. bodyline was more vicious than the bouncers which you talking about and it was developed specifically because of bradman. it also resulted in changes to the cricket laws.

TI, you does talk a fair amount of - i can tell when you talking out yuh ass. i check everything yuh write because you usually only know half the story if that and yuh improvise the rest. your knowledge is limited. and your reasoning is sh*t.

you trying to argue that the changes to the game via technology and rules have been to the bowlers advantage but you are only looking at one side of the story. just think that going into a match, lara has tape of every bowler that he will face and he knows everything they have already bowled and can pick up any idiosyncracies in delivery or even selection. lara can identify what is coming out of a bowler's hands because he has the tapes to study their every action. just as the bowler knows what lara is doing, lara knows what the bowler is doing.

you now start watching cricket 3 years ago, you talking out of your ass, your a man who does go on the net and research about cricket and then talk, bodyline tour was more about skull duggery, damaging a player, rather than intimidation and getting the wicket, many of the australian players retired hurt in that series bc of injury, england was trying to damage them rather than get them out, you call that skill, i call the modern version of the bouncer which was used by the west indies as more effective, your quoting larwood bowling 90mph, but that was one bowler that was claimed to bowl at that speed in their time, what happened to the rest of the bowlers bowling at that speed, on england? its funny bc if they were so famous they would have gained respect over our great fast bowlers, after that series tougher laws were enforced on the game of cricket, bc england were a shame after the series and allyuh biggin that bullshit up, when the bowlers did not bowl effectively, the bouncer was effectively bowled by the west indies without damaging half of a cricket team, on top of taking wickets...

[TrinInfinite]

Allyuh could really disappoint me when allyuh ready yes.

People use statistics conveniently. When it is to prove their point nothing is wrong with it. When it counters their argument all of a sudden they have no value. While I agree that to use statistics exclusively as your guide is not taking in the whole picture, to all of a sudden put it aside when it might not work in your favour is sad.

All in all it is healthy to compare batsmen from different eras. It can make for nice debating and fun speculation. Greatness will always inspire discussion. Otherwise they really aren't that great to begin with. I don't think that there is ever right or wrong in these discussions, but since most of us are interested only in being right all the time we find these discussions spoiled when a man cannot prove something that cannot be proven.

Lara or Bradman... even batting in the same era would anyone ever really prove that one is better than the other? At the end of the day it boils down to personal taste or preference.

very good point, i not trying to ignore bradman's record, it is great, but in his era he had 6 days in a test, 7 balls in an over, the quality of spin bowling and the art of studying a bastman for hours was not in his time, could you imagine preparing for a batsman like lara and having to go by what someone else has seen, without seeing how he has batted, or whenever you face him it is all new to you. How would you devise a plan to attack lara? imagine a team like australia going into a test match and having to recollect or devise a plan in the test match itself... Lara would massacre any team if video technology wasnt available to the opposing teams. Imagine Bradman only had two, maybe three test series a year, no odis or having the face pace attacks or pitches with invariable bounces where a spinner like warne could clean out an entire tail end.

Bradman for example didn't have to carry the weight of his team on his shoulders, the only other person who has this plight was Headley. Imagine lara being on a team with 2 very good openers like what we have of late with ganga and gayle, but consistently, lara would average over 70 an innings easily, maybe even 100. Bradman even said he had a luxury of a good team with reliable and determined openers, which set the foundation for his innings.

so if you ask me who is the best test bastman in the history of the game, hands down i would say Lara, the best test batsman in the old days of cricket, definately would have been bradman and of course headley...

stewps...Yuh wanna get technical, what about the fact that he had about 30% of the protection that Lara has today, orm maybe you can imagine being bowled a bouncer for every ball of the over?? what about the fact that he had to play on uncovered pickets... what about the fact that bowlers back then had the advantage of only having to plant they're back foot.

You seriously are comparing an average of 99 to 53 and sayin that 53 is better, even if Bradman played in this same era as Lara and he got the same amount of runs I would still back him. Im sorry, but yuh lookin at a man that has an average that is twice that of another man's average and you are rockheaded enough to try to argue that the man who has half of the other's average is better?



Think about it somehow Lara plays as many as 7 more tests (highly unlikely he'll make 4 more) and he hits a century in every match, in every innings, his average probably still wont go over 60 far less over 90... so come on think before yuh speak nuh... have some common bloody sense.

  here nah, bradman did not have bouncers in his time boss, the bouncer was invented the late great pace attack of the west indies, we redefined the game as people know it today, bradman was facing bowling which was slower so you could afford to wear no helmets and body gear, secondly once again there was no bouncers, bradman's record was great but i cannot ignore the circumstances he had compared to lara, it is ignorant to ignore the comparisons of attacks and other factors that has made it harder for modern day batsmen and also easier.

imagine bradman facing garner and walsh, ambrose, holding, you have to be joking, where was that attack in his time, i highly doubt bradman would have made them runs now... plus he had 6 days fo the most part to do it, imagine lara having an extra day and also a great consistent team throughout his career, without the insularity and his burden of carrying the team...

you are such a f**king joker... there were no bouncers? are you retarded.... seriously are you?


bouncers were invented by The West Indies!?

HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE BODYLINE TOUR!??


stewps.


and you claim to know something about cricket!? STEWPS.

nice jefferz - teach him, teach him.

TI, how yuh doh know about bodyline? and you want to play yuh know cricket?   when we had this conversation a while back you didn't even mention headley. is I that mentioned headley and now like you suddenly remember?

teach who, not me padnah, man talking about bodyline tour with english bowlers bowling at grandma speeds compared to the west indies pack attack, the reason they changed the rule in modern times was bc west indian bowlers were bowling too many bouncers in an over.

ribbit juss talking nonsense, the amount of knowledge he learned from listening to me, but of course he would never admit that, as well as many others on the board also...

england had the first real pace attack in cricket during that bodyline series. larwood & voce. larwood bowled greater than 90 mph - that is "grandma speed" for you? steups. bodyline was more vicious than the bouncers which you talking about and it was developed specifically because of bradman. it also resulted in changes to the cricket laws.

TI, you does talk a fair amount of - i can tell when you talking out yuh ass. i check everything yuh write because you usually only know half the story if that and yuh improvise the rest. your knowledge is limited. and your reasoning is sh*t.

you trying to argue that the changes to the game via technology and rules have been to the bowlers advantage but you are only looking at one side of the story. just think that going into a match, lara has tape of every bowler that he will face and he knows everything they have already bowled and can pick up any idiosyncracies in delivery or even selection. lara can identify what is coming out of a bowler's hands because he has the tapes to study their every action. just as the bowler knows what lara is doing, lara knows what the bowler is doing.

allyuh are some idiots, wasnt it the same larwood who got banned/penalized after that tour? he was also the only bowler at that time who bowled fast, they believed he bowled 90mph, they didnt have anything to prove he did, people claimed he did, thats an assumption, plus its strange he was the only man who was used to implement the attack against australia, bc i cant remember anyone else on england bowling that line or bowling that supposed speed from what i have read before, thanx for refreshing my memory from info that i have read long before both of you idiots, west indies were the first institute a bowling attack as deadly as it is in the modern era, effectively, the fast leg was a way of damaging the batsman, thats why as i remember reading the rules were revised after that tour and larwood never played for england again, once again i will say, this was not a truely effective bouncer that was performed by the west indies fast bowlers...

[ribbit]

for allyuh statsmen and formulists - this is available on the icc-cricket site:

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/test/player-comparison-results.php?stattype=batting&name=Bradman&name_selected=572&name2=lara&name_selected2=1726&type=Compare

[fishs]

lara never faced them either eh. he played ond e same team as dem

Hogwash...so Lara never play any inter island cricket?  Didn't he have to shine in de Shell Shield Seris first before making the West Indies?

The only one Lara did not face was Andy Roberts.
The first match he played at home against Barbados he scored 92.
The attack had Garner , of that I am sure because he got him out lbw , the umpire was sleeping  (Hosien) Garner shout with he big mouth , hosien wake up and give Lara out . Nanan was the captain and that year TT win the shell shield.