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

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.
Majority would concur with that. We can only speculate things. But at the end of the day He made 29 centuries in 80 innings. That is like a century every 3rd innings. I do not think you can do that even in first class cricket or club cricket in any era . 2000 is the era where most number of batsmen average 50 plus than any era in the history of cricket. Even in this era nobody has done that.

Share this post


Link to post
All discussed in that thread or many others on that topic.... uncovered pitches and no helmets.
I am not asking you about the all that^ but merely pointing at your uni-dimentional post where you only posted the advanatges of batting in that era. By pointing towards advantages/disadvanatges of different era, I am implying what you wrote isn't a point worth twisting brains over!
Again answered in that thread. It only means he was far better than his peers and not everybody that played the game after him
If you think that^ then you can't even show that Tendulkar is any better than those who played before him. In that case, your post on trying to show that Don had unique advantages become pointless as your indirect goal of trying to show that Tendulkar is the best cannot be proved by the same counts! From what you said, at least one thing can be agreed up on is that Don was far ahead of others in his era, which is something one can't say of any other batsmen in any other era. From your angle, it's even difficult to show that Tendulkar/Lara > Hammond/Headley or Gavaskar/Richards. So in the end, it all boils down to being objective and that's where the avg of 100 comes in! case closed :winky:

Share this post


Link to post
yeah and you were being fair by highlighting the difficulties of modern players ehh ? as soon as you can show that scoring runs in 30s was as tough as it is today ... otherwise your comparison has no basis.
I didn't highlight any advantages or disadvantages of any era. I said that it's a moot point and to show that I asked the question As I said, discussing advantages/disadvantages of batting in different eras is a moot point because it's implied that if Bradman were to play in whatever era, he would adjust to the challenges and still be in the own league of his own duh. His average isn't going to turn in to half, if he is playing in a different era :winky: One can give credit to Tendulkar for being as close to Don as possible, which is something he can leverage on to be considered as the best amongst the rest but 'overall' he isn't in Don's league, nor he is in a league of his own (heard of guys like Richards, Sobers, Lara). And you only have to watch cricket to know that, you don't even need stats for that. If anyone thinks that Tendulkar/Lara/Richards/Sobers/Whoever > or = Don (from batting perspective) then he probably needs to get his head examined I am one of Tendulkar's biggest fans but that doesn't mean I go around twisting things to show that he is greater than or equal to Don, when he isn't. As I said, he may have the case of being the best from the rest

Share this post


Link to post
To go on and proclaim that no modern batsman is comparable to DGB by conveniently ignoring the points mentioned in post#105 is being disingenious. As far as adjusting to the standards of any era .... there is simply no evidence of that as far as bradman is concerned (Bodyline Series anyone). Wheras SRT has a similar avg against minnows and avgs nearly 60 against teams like SL and Eng combined. You got no case. Every body can have a opinion but not everyone can back it up with some sort of evidence.
This is getting funny! The points you gave aren't worth considering in the first place as they don't even show that if Tendulkar/Whoever had batted in the 30s would have averaged 100. Any attempt to show that would only have comic relief value 2ndly, an average of 100 itself is an evidence for those who know anything about cricket. If you know what cricket is then you know what averaging 100 esp after 50 tests means :winky: What's worse is that by making meaningless arguments, you aren't raising Ten's position but forcing people to write stuff against the great player. His comparison with Bradman is unwarranted and Ten not being in Don's league doesn't take anything away from him. Moreover unless someone averages around say 75 after playing 50 tests or so, it's not even worth pondering a serious comparison with Don You can live in your imaginary world thinking that Tendulkar is comparable to Don, I have no problems with that. If you go around trying to pick people up who don't think that, you are only inviting them to have a good laugh at your cost. (and poor Tendulkar gets dragged in to it for no fault of his)

Share this post


Link to post

One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).

Share this post


Link to post

Does Tendulkar have a 1st class average of 95 after 250+ matches, does he have a Test average of 99 after 50+matches? Is Tendulkar leagues above his peers of this era, the Lara's, the Ponting's? If you answered no to these questions then i think we have an answer, you can really only compare to people in a similar era. Who knows how Bradman would have done in the modern era with the advanced training regimes, modern protective equipment, modern bats, it is all speculative. Bradman will always be that anomaly, i dont see any batsman ever achieving what he has done. It is interesting, im sure if India had a batsman that averaged nearly 100 and i was on here saying Ricky Ponting is better because of people would be all up in arms haha. Second best batsman ever :hmmm: probably

Share this post


Link to post
Does Tendulkar have a 1st class average of 95 after 250+ matches, does he have a Test average of 99 after 50+matches? Is Tendulkar leagues above his peers of this era, the Lara's, the Ponting's? If you answered no to these questions then i think we have an answer, you can really only compare to people in a similar era. Who knows how Bradman would have done in the modern era with the advanced training regimes, modern protective equipment, modern bats, it is all speculative. Bradman will always be that anomaly, i dont see any batsman ever achieving what he has done. It is interesting, im sure if India had a batsman that averaged nearly 100 and i was on here saying Ricky Ponting is better because of people would be all up in arms haha. Second best batsman ever :hmmm: probably
Which great bowler did punter dominate?:nervous::nervous: Punter is in the league of Yousuf,sangkara,jayawardene. Check the average of punter in 90s.He scored runs only when most of the great bowlers were on the verge of retirement or retired. However sachin and lara are in same league. When it comes to challenging condition Dravid is a far better no.3 test batsmen than punter. Give me one great bowler who has rated punter as the best batsmen. There are many for sachin and lara. Punter,dravid, kallis are in the same league. Sachin and lara in other league

Share this post


Link to post
Bradman will always be that anomaly, i dont see any batsman ever achieving what he has done.
I'll concede that much. Bradman certainly is an anomaly insofar he's rated as the best without ever having faced the best.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).
Very good point, sarchasm. However what it also means is that deterioration will be rapid in such cases. The reason why batting on uncovered pitches is made out to be a great deal is because bounce is rarely if ever completely predictable. And given that Bradman did not play on perfect flat batting tracks most of the time, his average is quite creditable.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).
Take a bow dude, take a bow :bow:

Share this post


Link to post
Very good point, sarchasm. However what it also means is that deterioration will be rapid in such cases. The reason why batting on uncovered pitches is made out to be a great deal is because bounce is rarely if ever completely predictable. And given that Bradman did not play on perfect flat batting tracks most of the time, his average is quite creditable.
Either you are making broad assumptions or taking cricket literature by writers like Neville Cardus for fact. If what you are stating (pitch deterioration was rapid) is true, more matches should have produced results when compared with the era of covered pitches but you know that is not the case despite the fact that test matches were played for more than 5 days. If you are basing your statement on literature you should read the article by Scyld Berry in Cricinfo. The relevant point is quoted below:
There is a drawback, of course. Cardus' writing was based on his own subjective impressions. If he had got out of bed on the wrong side and felt in a gloomy mood, he projected that mood on to one of the players - perhaps one of his favourites, like Harry Makepeace or Emmott Robinson. Cardus called on literary licence and often took it, for modern taste, too far. He had no television to say he was wrong. He could wander round the boundary at Old Trafford, or even not watch the game at all, and write in the evening that the ball had spun viciously all day and Makepeace had batted to perfection, without anyone contradicting him. The next stage in cricket writing is to capture objectively the players' feelings and thought processes by closely interviewing them - not by projecting the writer's own thoughts and feelings onto them. Cricket is a unique game because of the time it allows for the inner struggle. And capturing this should be the goal of cricket writers of the present and future. Cardus, the inspiration, deserves nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).
You probably find it funny because you are missing the context in which the difficulty of playing on uncovered pitches is mentioned, perhaps? Play was not held on waterlogged pitches anyways - the difficulty in playing on uncovered pitches came when they were not completely dry and had started to dry out. During those hours the ball would grip and move off the pitch a lot and very quickly. You can see some watered down - no pun intended - examples of this when spinners get the occasional turn and bounce on a first session track because it has a bit of moisture in it, before settling down. Or it might well be the case that hundreds and thousands of test and first class cricketers have no clue at all about the difficulty associated with playing on uncovered pitches, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Righto so the points that I mentioned in Post # 105 are all imaginary ehh ?
I think I clarified that many of those are moot points. A world where a guy averaging 100 is compared with a guy averaging 55 based on such moot points is imagiinary :P

Share this post


Link to post
okaaaay ... lets take item 1 on that list .... feel free to tell me the names of those non-imaginary bowlers who in your mind bowled to DGB .... :hmmm:
Appears as if you didn't even understand what I wrote (including getting the relation) b/w moot points and imaginary world!

Share this post


Link to post
this is what I understood .... DGB was pounding minnows .
If that's what you understood then it's not much :P It's a moot point. As so what if he was pounding the minnows. If he was pounding the minnows then others in that era were pounding minnows to but they didn't average 100! And it's hard to imply that if Tendulkar (or one of his peers) were playing in 30s, they would have averaged 100 too. If you say that Tendulkar would have averaged 100 then may be Lara would have too, and if Lara would have then why not Richards. And Gavaskar did well against one of the all time best bowling attacks, against whom many struggled, so if he could do that against them then the Q is how much he would have averaged in 30s. And if doing well against good bowling attack(s) is the key criteria then why not consider Gavaskar to be the best? And if doing best against a good attack shows you can bash minnows then why isn't his record better against many of the other teams compared with his record against WI What about Greg Chappell. He averages 50+ too. May be he would have averaged 100 too and instead of being arguably Australia's 2nd best batsmen, he would have been the first Now since everyone averaging over 50 is shown to be averaging like 100 (to be in Bradsman league) then it casts a serious shadow on the batting calibre of those batting in those era in which some of the all time batting legends like Hammond (avg 59) and Headley (60 odd) played in. Why would anyone want to put a Q mark over the calibre of greats of yester years just to show that Tendulkar is comparable or in the same league of Bradman In the end, if your point is that Don did well against minnows, it means little in overall scheme of things. Which is why it's a moot point :winky:
Shall we go to the next point then ? :hmmm:
2nd point looks to far away at this point :asleep:

Share this post


Link to post
then lets see that list of super mean bowlers then ... which means he was better than his peers.
I wrote the whole post to show that why who bowled is a moot point. After that if you still have to ask me to list super mean bowlers then it only shows why picking out lines is not a good idea and why it's important to understand the central idea of a post For the 2nd line, the paras following it tells you why it's not easy to average 100 or imply others (from different era) could have done that. Implying the need to stress on being objective duh
probably but SRT has done it for the longest time and so many other things ... Iam sure you are aware of all that.
This is where things get subjective and lose value. Which is why your points are non-starters
Slow down here .... before I answer that do you agree that Modern day batsman are at a huge disadvantage as compared to those of 30s ?
I don't know how many times have I made it clear that it's a moot point for me. My points are more in the lines of "If you think 'that' then let's assume 'that' as despite 'that' it means little". I am not discussing whether your points are right or wrong (which is what you are trying to do) but I am saying that they are irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
we will figure out whats moot or not after we have arrived at who played against a higher standard. So if you dont mind could you kindly tell us (without using the word moot and not beating around the bush) who faced tougher bowlers DGB or SRT ?
Why would who batted against a higher standard matter? If you think that Ten played against a higher standards then it doesn't mean he would have averaged 100 in Don era. Similarly even if Don had played against comparitively lower standards, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't be able to be in a league of his own In short, If you think that Ten played against a higher standards and would have averaged 100 too in Don era then why not show us at least from the point of comic relief. And also show us that based on those criteria why wouldn't Lara, Richards and company have averaged 100, if Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton, Hammond, Headley, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton' date=' Hammond, Headley, etc.[/quote'] Now Bangla fans will say Tamim Iqbal > Hammond. Because he faced tougher bowling. So 30 average now is better than 58 average then :hysterical: Roqibul > Stan mcab.

Share this post


Link to post
Now Bangla fans will say Tamim Iqbal > Hammond. Because he faced tougher bowling. So 30 average now is better than 58 average then :hysterical: Roqibul > Stan mcab.
:hysterical: Adjusted averages according to 1930s standards: average X 2 Afridi 37.4(2)= approx 75 B->

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing that is obvious about Bradman is that his approach to batting was several decades ahead of his time on which count he scores over everyone who has ever picked up a bat including Tendulkar. However, to take that fact and make wild-**** guesses that the Don would average 70-80 runs even today (as some in this forum have) is pure speculation and has no merit. Another argument that has no merit is the supposed disadvantage of batting on an uncovered wicket. If that were the case, the batting average would have been significantly lesser compared to other eras and more matches would have yielded results. Statistics show that the batting average (33+) is the same as any other era except the 2000s and the percentage of result matches (60%) is less than the current era. In any case, Batsman, according to the Wisden Almanac (already referenced by BossBhai), was never successful on "sticky dog" wickets.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the funniest cliche that is cited to underscore Bradman's genius relates to batting on uncovered pitches. An impression is created, atleast for casual readers, that Bradman scored most of his runs on waterlogged pitches. Hilarious. The truth is, most of the time, an uncovered pitch, because of overnight dew, becomes so wet that even if you bowl with a nice seam position, the ball will not be able to grip or contact with the pitch. The ball skids and negates the swing and spin of the ball and reaches the batsmen nice and straight. It's pretty intuitive for people who have played on such pitches. Otherwise, for evidence, you only have to look at teams in Kolkata's 1st division league. The matches are played on uncovered pitches and teams invariably choose to bat first (following a night with heavy dew fall).
Spoken like a true cricket ignorant (and it is hilarious to see people joining the chorus). Speaks wonders about common sense , cricketing history, knowledge etc etc. And no I dont mean to be patronizing. For those who are joining the chorus two words should suffice - Derek Underwood. The man was impossible to play on the kind of wickets we hear about in 30s. The wet wickets. And on these wet wickets the "seam is not up and straigh" (:haha: ) but the ball stops and is unplayable. Look up 1968 Oval match between Australia and England where a draw changed into a decision game based on shower, and subsequent mopped up ground. Underwood knocked off 4 wickets in 5 overs and won England the game. Feel free to read Wisden's description as well. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63027.html xxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Spoken like a true cricket ignorant (and it is hilarious to see people joining the chorus). Speaks wonders about common sense , cricketing history, knowledge etc etc. And no I dont mean to be patronizing. xxxx
Totally concur. H.Verity was another bowler in bradman's era . Not quiet quick like underwood. But he was a master in those conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Why would who batted against a higher standard matter?
erm ... probably because its much easier to score against weaker attacks ... but Iam sure its "moot" and Iam sure you will tell me by the end of this decade the reason.
Now why would anyone want to say that when the answer was provided by me in the very same para (see below) which you split up
If you think that Ten played against a higher standards then it doesn't mean he would have averaged 100 in Don era. Similarly even if Don had played against comparitively lower standards' date=' it doesn't mean that he wouldn't be able to be in a league of his own [/quote'] Doesn't that answer your first question? Or isn't it clear that I am providing an answer to the question I am asking
you know this how ? BTW I can quite simply type the exact opposite of what you wrote ... And ?
Which is what the point is. It's subjective, which is what you are treading on! That's why I stressed the need to be objective duh
Well there are no such teams anmore ... the closest are BD and Zim and he avges 97 against the minnows. Heck he avged 76 against Eng till 2002 and 80 against SL in the 90s.
So it tells us that it cannot be shown, which is what the point is. And once again why you have to be objective. And unlike in Don's era, there are others too who avg like that against some of those teams so again your point gets diluted
Whats that got anything to do with SRT ? There was only one otherr "strong" team (if you can call it that ) during 30s ... today there are atleast 6 .. so the odds of someone not being better are much more favourable for DGB.
I said this: "And also show us that based on those criteria why wouldn't Lara, Richards and company have averaged 100, if Tendulkar could. And how would that impact the batting creditainals of other greats of Don's era like Compton, Hammond, Headley, etc. " In simple English, a law to judge a player should be universally applicable. It has to be true in most cases. You also have to understand that if you are undermining Don's average then you are doing that for others of that era too. Based on whatever criteria you chose to show for example Ten > or = Don, one should be able to discuss say Tamim Iqbal vs Hammond too. You should be able to rate most batsmen equally on a sytem that same for everyone. It should involve key players from different era. It's the system that should show who stands where and not meaningless points. If your system can't do that then its pointless. If you are designing a system that exclusuve to the point that you are making then you are not creditable Enough said!

Share this post


Link to post
Totally concur. H.Verity was another bowler in bradman's era . Not quiet quick like underwood. But he was a master in those conditions.
Verity was a great bowler and if I am not mistaken Bradman ranked him higher than O Reilley. My memory beats me, and I wont be able to find a link to support it, but Don had said something like - I could never command Verity, he had loads of patience and there was no breaking point with him (I paraphrase). There is a chance many cricket fans today would look Verity up on statsguru, check the numbers and shrug the shoulders wondering whats the big deal, but for cricket historians Verity is one of the all time greats. (and I have not talked about his domestic career or his military services for that matter)

Share this post


Link to post

How about bouncer restrictions , protective gears, covered wickets, bat with edges that look like another bat , superb coaching facilities, bowling machines, so many bowlers to bowl at you all day for practice, immense amount of former cricketers to sort out problems, wealth of money pouring in to keep your motivation going on, not living in a depressive world war era, not having a whole think tank trying to kill you with bodyline tactic....

Share this post


Link to post
How about bouncer restrictions ' date=' protective gears, covered wickets, bat with edges that look like another bat , superb coaching facilities, bowling machines, so many bowlers to bowl at you all day for practice, immense amount of former cricketers to sort out problems, wealth of money pouring in to keep your motivation going on, not living in a depressive world war era, not having a whole think tank trying to kill you with bodyline tactic....[/quote'] *Cynic hat on* Irrelevant! Thats all babble emanating from the gora journalists who took poetic license. Lets translate that into numbers to be subjective Bouncer restriction in modern era = extra 0.15 runs per innings. Protective gears = less 0.176 runs per innings(have you seen the weight of those??) covered wickets = less 55 runs per innings (ball is at decent height with seam up so extra runs) Bat with edges = less 15 runs (you have to have bigger forearms now). Continue this cycle till the modern era genius's stat reaches 99.94. *Cynic hat off*

Share this post


Link to post
err ... I just did ... those stats give SRT a avg of 85 over 4500 runs ... quite similar to what DGB did against Eng ... the best of his times..
what you did was you cherry picked, which doesn't count :winky:
quite right which is why I put up those 10 points in post # 105 which dont apply to DGB ... unless you think things like facing super fast bowlers, alltime great spinners ( not one but two) and have to adjust to about 50+ diferent Test grounds with little practice matches (never mind the umpiring and lbw laws) doesnt affect the batting average negatively then perhaps you shouldnt even be discussing this topic
Appears as if still you haven't realized that subjectivity doesn't work. You are still struggling to even show that your first point has any kind of relevance. Forget abt 10 points :--D

Share this post


Link to post
have answered most of them in that thread I linked in post # 105. Bodyline lasted for exactly 5 tests ... if facts are allowed :P
I read that. But all of them are speculative Boss. You cannot transport someone to that era and test that or you cannot bring Don back life and transport back him to 1930 and again transport a 30 year old bradman to 2000 and test that. Cricket has evolved over the years. Scoring 250 in a ODI was a good score in the 80s. Look at now. They score 350 at will. Tendulkar and all the other current batsmen benefitted immensely from that evolvement of cricket. When Tendulkar made debut India already had about 56 years of strong cricketing culture. India started fully evolving in the 1970s. There are lot of intangible factors we conveniently overlook just to prove a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Because the entire career of DGB was one big cherry picking .... against trundlers who would find it hard to get into the lower ranked teams these days. So you wanted to know what SRT could do against weak teams and I gave you evidence of that ... why dont like the bitter truth.
There are a few of things there: 1) Did you pick the entire games against those sides or chose periods 2) how do others like Lara, etc fare when compared with Tendulkar against those criteria
that is because you dont understand the difference between facing a McGrath and say a Larwood or Bowes ... ones you figure that out everything will fall in place ... Iam here to help you out ... will take time but ...thats time well spent for a good cause :--D
Similar argument can be used by Gavaskar and he can say that 'I am much better because I opened the batting and faced some of the deadlist bowler of my time so I am better' Richards can say, 'Hey wait, I smashed Eng like hell too and I have faced likes of Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, Imran, Lillee, Thomson'. So how am I not like Don? Lara can say 'Dudes I have two 300+ scores against Eng. I have faced McGrath too' :--D

Share this post


Link to post
There are a few of things there: 1) Did you pick the entire games against those sides or chose periods 2) how do others like Lara, etc fare when compared with Tendulkar against those criteria Similar argument can be used by Gavaskar and he can say that 'I am much better because I opened the batting and faced some of the deadlist bowler of my time so I am better' Richards can say, 'Hey wait, I smashed Eng like hell too and I have faced likes of Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, Imran, Lillee, Thomson'. So how am I not like Don? Lara can say 'Dudes I have two 300+ scores against Eng. I have faced McGrath too' :--D
So can Salman Butt say who also scored a 100 against Mcgrath :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post

Btw, since 1 Jan 2005, Viru and Gambhir have been our best test batsman!

Overall figures 

Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
V Sehwag 2005-2010 44 78 4 4073 319 55.04 4678 87.06 11 12 6 563 47  
R Dravid 2005-2010 52 92 10 4009 177 48.89 9241 43.38 11 23 2 513 7  
SR Tendulkar 2005-2010 46 78 8 3568 160 50.97 6596 54.09 13 16 2 437 15  
VVS Laxman 2005-2010 49 83 18 3341 200* 51.40 6906 48.37 8 23 6 426 1  
G Gambhir 2005-2010 26 48 4 2491 206 56.61 4623 53.88 8 10 1 300 6 

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.

×