Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Feed

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud  

1 member has voted

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

Ok. One more thread on 'The Boss'. Only this time it's a small video where Richie Benaud gives his opinion on who he believes is the best batsman since Bradman. Mind you, Richie Benaud is someone who has seen even Bradman play. He made his own debut in 1948, a year after bradman retired. He has grown up watching all the great players since Bradman's time from Sobers, Richards, Chapell, Gavaskar, Miandad, Border, and leaving many else. Enjoy the video - vthfSPF_LCw
This was an interview on ESS. The viewership base was primarily focussed in India. Having said that this is now seriously getting tiresom. The Sachin is greater than X, Y, Z debate.

Share this post


Link to post
LOL its because pansies like England/Aus wet their pants at the slightest hint of turn and in turn we're required to make flat wickets
In Mumbai test few years ago Australia got all out for 107 runs. :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Of course!! You know what Kallis thinks...Kallis has got where he is playing half his games in South Africa - the country with the lowest runs per wicket - ie THE HARDEST PLACE TO PLAY unlike India...flat flat flat wickets....+ when I saw him bat he looked better than Tendulkar. You need to respect the opinion of others' date=' 'sach'dan (I'm sure Tendulkar is happy you worship him that much!) I respect other peoples opinions....what about you, or do you not know how to debate?[/quote'] Well he isn't playing SA bowling attack in SA, is he? His record in SA against a similar bowling line up to his i.e. Aus is:
Career averages    	Span  	Mat  	Runs  	HS  	Bat Av  	100  	Wkts  	BBI  	Bowl Av  	5  	Ct  	St  	
unfiltered 	1995-2010 	137 	10843 	189* 	54.76 	34 	261 	6/54 	31.55 	5 	155 	0 	Profile
filtered 	1997-2009 	12 	749 	114 	35.66 	2 	29 	3/22 	31.51 	0 	13 	

In short: Avg of approx 36 in 12 tests, while Tendulkar averages approx 40 in SA (similar bowling attack to Aus) Also in Aus (apples to apples) Kallis - approx avg 46 Tendulkar - approx avg 59 in Eng (a place where conditions aren't all flat) Kallis - approx avg 29 Tendulkar - 62 in SL (a tough place for visiting teams) Kallis - approx avg 35 Tendulkar - approx avg 64 Obviously, you have an opinion but I guess what others are saying is does it make sense?!

Share this post


Link to post
Of course!! You know what Kallis thinks...Kallis has got where he is playing half his games in South Africa - the country with the lowest runs per wicket - ie THE HARDEST PLACE TO PLAY unlike India...flat flat flat wickets....+ when I saw him bat he looked better than Tendulkar. You need to respect the opinion of others' date=' 'sach'dan (I'm sure Tendulkar is happy you worship him that much!) I respect other peoples opinions....what about you, or do you not know how to debate?[/quote'] First things first. debate? not my cup of tea :winky: I haven't heard a single player who played along with Sachin and Kallis say that Kallis is a 'better' and 'skilled' batsman than Sachin. Whether Lara and Pwnting is of Sachin's class is debatable. But Kallis purely as a batsman is not quite in that league. Yes he's definitely the better all-round cricketer among those four...Very good batsman,good bowler and a fine fielder. Talking of pitches..Can you show me a "class" South African batsman who averages better outside South Africa? Even though conditions are tough, they have batted all their life on those tracks and are bound to do well there especially with lots of crappy bowling units touring nowadays. Agree..It's your opinion and should have respected that :)

Share this post


Link to post

Trust a fellow Aussie to spring to the Don's defence. Bradman is a cult figure Down Under. You wont get an Aussie to concede that Sachin, or for that matter player, is better than him.

Share this post


Link to post
because he is not. All the Indian arguments are weak' date=' why can Indians just accept it - Bradman is the greatest ever. Whatever country you are from.[/quote'] And your arguments are strong. Isn't it?:giggle::giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Indeed - the fact that on Green pitches' date=' against great fast bowlers, ucovered pitches and with poor levels of protection, he avergaged nearly TWICE AS MUCH as the little record seeker (tendulkar if you don't know it):haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:[/quote'] Same opposition, same kind of bowling, no variety, etc, etc. Bradman is still greater but by not much. As for your Kallis argument :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
And' date=' as frequently stiplulated, I was not arguing about Kallis....merely expressing an opinion....so here's to your interpretative abilities:hysterical::hysterical:[/quote'] I can't help but comment on that as what constitutes an argument depends upon how and why an opinion is made. Once you understand that others understand what you are trying to imply, it won't be difficult for you to get why people think that you gave your opinion to argue a point

Share this post


Link to post
Well he isn't playing SA bowling attack in SA, is he? His record in SA against a similar bowling line up to his i.e. Aus is:
Career averages    	Span  	Mat  	Runs  	HS  	Bat Av  	100  	Wkts  	BBI  	Bowl Av  	5  	Ct  	St  	
unfiltered 	1995-2010 	137 	10843 	189* 	54.76 	34 	261 	6/54 	31.55 	5 	155 	0 	Profile
filtered 	1997-2009 	12 	749 	114 	35.66 	2 	29 	3/22 	31.51 	0 	13 	

In short: Avg of approx 36 in 12 tests, while Tendulkar averages approx 40 in SA (similar bowling attack to Aus) Also in Aus (apples to apples) Kallis - approx avg 46 Tendulkar - approx avg 59 in Eng (a place where conditions aren't all flat) Kallis - approx avg 29 Tendulkar - 62 in SL (a tough place for visiting teams) Kallis - approx avg 35 Tendulkar - approx avg 64 Obviously, you have an opinion but I guess what others are saying is does it make sense?!

Come on man,please don't bring facts here.Especially where people trying hard to pass their opinions as facts:winky:

Share this post


Link to post

Is Tendulkar better than Bradman? at the test level, probably not. but keep in mind how the two may not be compared: Bradman knew his opposition well, he knew who was up against, and he played against a similar attack for a majority of his career. tendulkar must contend with playing varying oppositions in changing conditions, though the conditions are docile as compared to the then contemporary for the don. furthermore, tendulkar has more technological facilities available at his disposal to prepare him. thus the comparison is rather difficult to make: difficult conditions, but repeat exposure vs. relatively easier conditions, but limited exposure though some of that is neutralized with technology. furthermore, keep in mind that tendulkar was often the only performing batsman for the country for some time. bradman played in the company of brilliant batsmen and a dominating bowling attack. the two are not easily compared. had bradman averaged around 55-60s, it would be easy to conclude that tendulkar is better, but bradman averaged significantly higher. and thus, i must conclude, rather hesitantly mind you, that bradman was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Certainly' date=' having seen all three live, I derived the more pleasure out of watching them, and thought them to be the more skilled...why am I not allowed to come to this conclusion - it is not wrong, just as you thinking Tendulkar (please do not call someone you do not know by their first name!) to be the best is equally valid. However i do not see why there is so much agression towards me for this opinion. Tendulkar is, after all, only another human no more important than you or I - I fail to understand why there is this worship about him - it strikes me as something children do, or[b'] old and backward cultures such as Ancient Greece.
Ancient Greece comprises a period that is regarded as foundational to Western civilization; it's contribution to the world in the arts, political structures, philosophy, literature and sciences is immense. In other words, your casual evaluation of history does not exactly inspire confidence in your evaluation of Tendulkar.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to know how does the culture of ancient Greece compare with the culture of Jamhuryat Islami Pakistan. I won't be surprised if ancient Greece's culture turns out to be more modern :P

Share this post


Link to post
I would suggest I know considerably more about the culture of Ancient Greece than you - the values you have mentioned are indeed valid' date=' but pertain only to Athens - the rest of Greek Poleis were violent and backward...if you want to have an argument with me on Greek history and culture by all means do. But you will lose horribly.[/quote'] Is sucking your own dick something you learnt at Cambridge ?

Share this post


Link to post
Rubbish - Bradman is the greatest' date= not only in cricket, but in any sport at any time - for never has a single player ever dominated thier game to such an extent before or since. And, as frequently stiplulated, I was not arguing about Kallis....merely expressing an opinion....so here's to your interpretative abilities:hysterical::hysterical:
That is bull crap. Try selling that theory to football, tennis, formula one or even darts fans. You will hear names like Pele, Sampras, Federer,Schumi, Phil Taylor et all

Share this post


Link to post

OK, enough of your trolling. You've been asked to cool off by several posters and moderators here, despite that it seems that 1 in 10 of your posts is actually on topic, and the rest either seem to be sociopolitical trolls, blatant or thinly veiled insults or various proclaimations about yourself to have something more to jerk off over. Find some place else to set up your soapbox to rant and moan about racism and backward cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Trust a fellow Aussie to spring to the Don's defence. Bradman is a cult figure Down Under. You wont get an Aussie to concede that Sachin' date=' or for that matter player, is better than him.[/quote'] Perhaps becauses he's not?

Share this post


Link to post

Christiano Ronaldo all the way Yeah he's great at diving :two_thumbs_up: And i agree that if an Indian batsman had an average of 99.94 i could concede that he is better than the Don, but i think a more telling stat is that he played 234 first class matches and still ended up with an average of 95.14 to add to his 99.94 he played over 52 Tests. Every batsman should have a lull or a dip in form at some point over their career, or just days where they are off. Look at Hussey, he started out with an average in the 70's, that has normalised to around 50 now. Seems the Don never had a dip in form over his entire career and his off days were very few and far between. No one i can think of has been so far in front of his peers, not just in Cricket but in any ball sport, the Don was like a professional in what was still an amateurish game.

Share this post


Link to post

That first class average of 95.14 is just further back up for Bradman's case. It is still hard to compare across eras though. I do think If an Indian had an average off 99.94, they would laugh off suggestions by an Aussie who claimed they had a better batsman.

Share this post


Link to post

We have to stop being naive by comparing pioneers of cricket who were source of inspirations for so many generations of cricketers with current players. If i am right Bradman was self-taught cricketer practicing in the backyard with a stick and a ball in an era of depression. Look at the dedication he showed in mastering the game. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEo-7Q5XA_k]YouTube- Sir Donald Bradman: A Tribute[/ame]

Share this post


Link to post

I agree to the above fact. But among indian crickters sachin is considered as the god of cricket when he later achieved the victory by 200 runs in second ODI's held in FEB 2010..but a player like sachin ......its not a big deal by marking such a performance. More

Share this post


Link to post

Comparing players of completely different eras is a impossible task. Bradman was the best and probably would have been the best in the modern era as well. The fact that he almost had a 100 average in tests and 95+ in first class cricket is astounding. No one is even close in any era. I love Sachin and I think he is the best player in the modern era, but Bradman's record speaks VOLUMES!

Share this post


Link to post

I would put Bradman in a league of his own. Ideally, we should keep Bradman out of such comparisions. But when someone like Sachin, who has a remarkable record in Tests and ODIs, keeps performing so well for so many games, some people are bound to make comparisions. It's credit to Sachin to be able to bring out such a comparision but there is no threat to Bradman's position, which is a league of his own

Share this post


Link to post

bossbhai is always right - these ** will never accept sachin as greatest - all bradman did was beat up on the hapless meek english guys - and face with bodyline his ave was halved

Share this post


Link to post

Yeh these ** are the problem.......Who would have though an average of 99 makes one better than an average of 55. Ridiculous from the ***.

Share this post


Link to post
this topic has been done to death soo many times but FWIW heres the full list of reasons why DGB cant be simply considered beyond question ... 1. Lack of quality strike bowlers (As in sub 25 avg , sub 55-60 strike rate ) 2. No real super fast express bowlers who bowl regularly in the 87+ mph category 3. Lack of quality spinners 4. Never played in India, Pak, SL, SAF,WI (in fact he played in a grand total of 10 grounds in his entire career .... 5 each in Eng & Aus) 5. Never tested against reverse swing. 6. Advantage of lax fielding standards. 7. Advantage of playing just one format of the game. 8. Advantage of numerous first class tour matches throughout the tour ( compare that to Indias recent tour of Australia where the only practice match was by and large washed out ) 9. No taxing travel schedules. 10. Batsman friendly lbw law and umpires being very pro-batsman for lbws. More discussion can be found here in this thread: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=97689&page=7 PS : I think the mods should think about making one big Bradman-vs-ModernBatsmen thread by moving such posts from various threads and archiving it for easy access. :--D
And what about the disadvantages of playing in that era? Let's not ignore the advantages/disadvantages of playing in this era too. Below is the table that shows how batsmen did from 1 Jan 1927 to 1 Jan 1950. It includes those who have scored close to 2000 runs or more
Overall figures 
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0  
WR Hammond (Eng) 1927-1947 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45 22 24 4  
DG Bradman (Aus) 1928-1948 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94 29 13 7  
L Hutton (Eng) 1937-1949 41 72 5 3788 364 56.53 11 17 3  
B Mitchell (SA) 1929-1949 42 80 9 3471 189* 48.88 8 21 3  
DCS Compton (Eng) 1937-1949 36 60 8 3132 208 60.23 13 12 2  
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 1927-1935 39 63 7 3046 194 54.39 10 16 1  
M Leyland (Eng) 1928-1938 41 65 5 2764 187 46.06 9 10 6  
SJ McCabe (Aus) 1930-1938 39 62 5 2748 232 48.21 6 13 4  
AD Nourse (SA) 1935-1950 26 49 7 2469 231 58.78 8 12 3  
LEG Ames (Eng) 1929-1939 47 72 12 2434 149 40.56 8 7 5  
EH Hendren (Eng) 1928-1935 29 50 4 2291 205* 49.80 4 13 1  
GA Headley (WI) 1930-1948 21 38 4 2173 270* 63.91 10 5 2  
WJ Edrich (Eng) 1938-1949 29 45 1 2006 219 45.59 6 9 2  
WM Woodfull (Aus) 1928-1934 30 48 4 1994 161 45.31 5 13 4  
C Washbrook (Eng) 1937-1949 26 48 6 1979 195 47.11 4 10 1  

That's^ what tells the story as to why he is in the league of his own!

Share this post


Link to post

Put it this way, if an Indian player averaged 99.94 and had the exact same record as the don in the same era everyone on here would be getting pretty mad that people were claiming an aussie with a 55 average is better.

Share this post


Link to post

If you take the averages of guys who have played 20 tests or more in the period I mentioned in my last post, this is how they stand: (Avg rounded off) Don 52T, 100A G Hadley 21T, 64A (also known as Black Bradman) Compton 36T, 60A Paynter 20T, 59A Nourse 26T, 59A Hammond 85T, 58A Duleepsinji, who played in 12T for Eng, averaged 59. As I said earlier that it's credit to Sachin that he has been able to bring out such comparisions but Don remains in the league of his own, in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
All discussed in that thread or many others on that topic.... uncovered pitches and no helmets. If you read the wisden almanck match reports from that time you will find that most pitches in that era were heavily batsmen friendly. Helmets will protect from grevious injury but they will not suddenly remove the fear of a Cricket ball to the extent that batsman no longer need a technique to counter short pitch bowling as the helmet will take care of that. Ask Dravid Ponting etc. Plus its hardly comfortable wearing a heavy helmet. Again answered in that thread. It only means he was far better than his peers and not everybody that played the game after him.
Wearing a helmet is not an issue, old batsman didnt know about helmets so its not an issue and modern batsmen grew up wearing it so it becomes second nature. And I fail to see how wisden can call pitches batsman friendly in those days, its impossible to produce a batsman friendly wicket in England without covering, there will always be something in the pitch. At the end of the day you are trying to compare the incomparable.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×