As a matter of fact, he played in an era where batting was much harder than it is now, so his stats are worth even more because of his different era. I would say that for a post-2000 XI that isn't bad, though I personally would include Smith, but it wouldn't have a hope of standing up against an All-Time XI with Bradman, Hobbs, O'Reilly/Grimmet, Lilee, etc.
Well well there is no doubt whats so ever that Bradman is THE best ever by far and as you said the fact that in his era batting was much harder makes his stats worth heck of a lot more. but I just feel like comparing his era and the modern era players just not right. Its like comparing orange and apple. Like if I were to pick the all time cricket XI, then most of these if not all of these modern era players wouldn't make the cut, easy. because as you said lot of those Bradman-era players batted in difficult conditions and I would say most of them are better than the likes of KP,Smith,Sanga,Kohli etc. and I haven't really seen most of those past players batting so its kinda hard to pick a team.
besides I would give Smith another couple of years before putting him in a best XI
not that he is any bad, but just that the way cricket works, to be a legend, you have to play for a long period of time in different conditions around the world and perform consistently. all my players in my team Lara, Tendulkar , Sangakkara , Ponting ,Pietersen Kallis etc performed like this for more than a decade. Smith only has been playing like this for past few years and he only has 5000+ test runs yet. sure he is a freak, his test average would say that, I have no doubt he will walk in to any cricket world xi if he keeps performing like this for next couple of years. but for the moment he isn't in my team, yet
Just like Kohli.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: The Cricket Thread (Read 366001 times)