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

[99.94]

I have busted all these myths many times ... i.e if you allow facts to get in the way.

What myth? There's no denying that Bradman owns almost every batting record under the sun.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[satyam1729]

But it is a testament to how good he is in that the game has become more batter friendly and batting records tumble left right and centre these days, yet so many of his records have stood for years, and will probably remain untouched for the rest of cricket. DGB's scoring rate as a comparision was just as good as Sehwag's however.

If game has become more batsman friendly in comparison to 30s, what would have the average of steyn, murali and warne in that era. And again strike rate of bradman was 58 and of sehwag is 81. Numbers of runs scored in a session depends upon number of balls faced by batsman in that session. And even in those bowling friendly era why has no one matched the record of Steyn,murali or Mcgrath?

[99.94]

And again strike rate of bradman was 58 and of sehwag is 81.

I said by COMPARISON.

[thevortex]

Before we descend into even more microscopic scrutiny of the little nitty gritties of the game, Bradman did not need to have scored faster than Sehwag. What if he could not match the scoring rate of Sehwag? Does Tendulkar match that? Does that make him a lesser player than Sehwag? The problem with most of these comparisons is that one side tries to pull down one player and attempts to tarnish what actually is a genius' body of work. The other side then tries to push the other player up above the stratosphere. Can there not be a comparison without these pushing and pulling? Case in point - I do not like the assertion that Bradman averaged 99.94 only because he did not face Ambrose or Imran Khan. Or that Tendulkar averages in the 50s only because he faced those bowlers and more and did not get to face Gubby Allen. There is more to all this - dont you think? Maybe if we pull back we could actually see the woods instead of just the trees. Just a thought...

[Ram]

So only 8 of the 33 people who have so far voted in this poll think Sachin's the best batsmen in this world. And this is an Indian forum. Imagine if a similar poll had been conducted in an international forum - Bradman would have probably thumped Sachin by a distance.

[Rajiv]

So only 8 of the 33 people who have so far voted in this poll think Sachin's the best batsmen in this world. And this is an Indian forum. Imagine if a similar poll had been conducted in an international forum - Bradman would have probably thumped Sachin by a distance.

On the contrary, Indians would have favored Sachin and don't forget the 3rd question was in context to this monstrous thread

[Ram]

On the contrary' date=' Indians would have favored Sachin and don't forget the 3rd question was in context to this monstrous thread[/quote']

Exactly. And he's not being factually correct either since Guardian did conduct a similar poll and people voted resoundingly for Sachin. 92% to be precise. The predictable response here was to rubbish it. :winky:

And thats because the average Guardian reader does not know the nuances of the game of cricket as say, some of the folks here at ICF, who are actually so interested in cricket so as to register in a MB and post their views on the game. If you ask your average Indian walking on the street as to who is better, Bradman or Sachin, of course you'll get an patronizing and predictable response from him. What matters is the opinion of the people who have reasonable knowledge and insight into the game of cricket, not your average Joe on the street. P.S; Just so that you know, I havent voted for Bradman. I belong to the 'dont know/cant say category'.

[Ram]

Incredible! It take some arrogance to dismiss others' opinion as ignorant simply because they don't write long pretentious posts on a MB. Talk about inflated self-worth.

It takes some amount of ignorance to not discern b/w the views of a average dude who does not follow cricket with as much as interest as say, someone who has been watching it for years and has enough interest to join an online community to discuss it. I'd love to think thats just pure common sense, where did terms like 'long pretentious posts', 'inflated self-worth' come from, only the one up above knows.

[Rajiv]

Sri, when u put a poll out there, u will get more avg joes to respond. You think the avg fan applies so much math and calculation to a game of bat and ball

[Ram]

Sri' date=' when u put a poll out there, u will get more avg joes to respond. You think the avg fan applies so much math and calculation to a game of bat and ball[/quote'] No of course not. But surely you will accept that a reasonably prolific follower of cricket probably understands the game a touch better than a casual follower. No? There's one thing that unites almost every ICF-er and thats his love for the game of cricket. Of course, there will be variations in the degree to which they follow the game, but all them do have basic understanding of the nuances of the game. And if anyone claims that their views are more or less the same as say, an ordinary person on the street then they're missing the bloody obvious.

[gaurav92]

I have not seen Bradman play so i cant say he is the Best, but similarly, his average suggest he was a great player, so on that note, i cant even say he wasn't the best.But i have seen Sachin play, and TBH i have never seen a batsman like him anywhere, so to me He is the best.Still if we take into consideration the complexities in the game, the way he handled the "Bodyline".Without Helmets on grassy, green and uncovered pitches, was a seriously magnificent achievement.So Bradman gets the edge over Sachin, on the other hand, Sachin carried a billion hopes on his shoulders, and have faced some Legends of the game with full authority, he has been doing this for over 20 years now.So it is again Even Steven for me.Cant say Bradman is the greatest, but cant deny it too.For me Both are the Legends of the game and The Greatest batsmen the game has ever had. Thats why i voted for Cant say.Its really tough to chose one superior out of the two.

[vvvslaxman]

you :fail: at cricket ... end of. Strike bowlers ' date=' good spinners , reverse swing dont matter ... you proudly said ... more than once ... hehehee[/quote'] you :fail: and you did that spectacularly numerous times in this thread when confronted with questions. When i asked you about Sachin's domination in a single series let alone whole career against one opposition in the mode of Bradman, you couldn't come up with one. How about not using bat whose edges were thick as another bat, How about not using protective gears, how about playing on uncovered pitches, how about playing in bodyline series, How about dominating the bowling attack he faced not just merely batting against a team that happened to have good bowlers :hysterical:. You seriously have to come up with some other theories to even remotely convince me. Keep trying son.

[vvvslaxman]

I have not seen Bradman play so i cant say he is the Best, but similarly, his average suggest he was a great player, so on that note, i cant even say he wasn't the best.But i have seen Sachin play, and TBH i have never seen a batsman like him anywhere, so to me He is the best.Still if we take into consideration the complexities in the game, the way he handled the "Bodyline".Without Helmets on grassy, green and uncovered pitches, was a seriously magnificent achievement.So Bradman gets the edge over Sachin, on the other hand, Sachin carried a billion hopes on his shoulders, and have faced some Legends of the game with full authority, he has been doing this for over 20 years now.So it is again Even Steven for me.Cant say Bradman is the greatest, but cant deny it too.For me Both are the Legends of the game and The Greatest batsmen the game has ever had. Thats why i voted for Cant say.Its really tough to chose one superior out of the two.

That is a very honest assertion. :two_thumbs_up:

[gaurav92]

That is a very honest assertion. :two_thumbs_up:

Thank You.:icflove:

[Ram]

It is arrogant because you are dismissing their opinion even though you know squat about them.

Yes I do know a lot more than squat about 'em, which is that most of them dont follow cricket as much as big proportion of ICF-ers here.

"Average dude", " Does not follow cricket" - says who? Someone with an inflated self worth ofcourse. :wink_smile: How would you know? A lot of my friends follow cricket more ardently than me, have more insight than me and they do not post on any MB unlike me - by your convoluted logic I'm the more enlightened cricket fan. Oh the delusions!

How would I know? Just read some of the so called 'fan' comments in so many of the cricket/news sites and you'll know that a MAJOR proportion of cricket 'fans' arent really fans, they're just jingoistic followers who are there just to ensure their views are heard, no matter how crude or far removed from reality it is. And just to prove my point on the sheer lunacy of these public polls, here are a numbers for you to chew on; A Harris Poll released this month states that of 2,230 people surveyed,

• 57% of Republican respondents believe President Obama’s faith is Islam.
• 67 % of Republicans polled believe that Obama is a socialist
• 45% believe Obama was not born in the United States
• 38 % say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
• 24% believe that Obama is the antichrist, a biblical figure who foretells the end of the world.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/march-harris-poll-57-67-gop-believe-obama-muslim-socialist And since you respect the outcomes of public polls so much, I am guessing that you also probably agree that Obama is Muslim, he was not even born in the US and does 'Hitler-like' things. No? :winky: On the contrary, If I logon to ICF, what I see, a lot of times, is informed debate based on genuine cricket watching knowledge.Sure, you do see the odd misinformed/jingoistic behavior here also, but its more the exception than the norm. I'd like you to point out any other non-forum based media where as much reasonably informed debate on cricket happens. Lets talk then. :icflove: So yes, If I want to know the consensus opinion on a cricket issues, ICF or some other cricket board is where I will head to, not some random news poll. Wonder who's the deluded one now. :winky:

[patriot]

Comparing SRT to Bradman ??? Blimey :cantstop: :D Not surprising to see hundreds of silly nitpicking stats in lame efforts to prove the same when the most obvious ones see SRT being pwned by his own generation of batsmen. SRT is not even the best of his generation. Heck ..he is not even the best Indian test batter. Gavaskar and Veeru hold that status. The below link shows that for over 50% OF HIS CAREER OF 80 TESTS against non minows....which were played in the flattest pitches cricket has known since 2000 , SRT has been pwned by no less than 10 other batters, both in terms of averages and runs scored. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting As conclusive and inarguable as it gets. If he is anywhere close to being the best test bat of his generation ( let alone best of all times LOL :D), then Kabul must be a more cosmopolitan city than Mumbai. Heck, inspite of playing 23 more innings, SRT is still to catch up with Brian Lara who retired 4 years ago, :hysterical:. SRT clearly epitomizes two words like no one else. Overrated and Hype. But then side stepping the most obvious face slapping facts...don't be surprised to here lame excuses to justify the above like...

1) But my boss did most of his net practice in the humid weather in Mumbai, it is difficult to practice for long periods in humid weather, hence boss was never able to train enough to average more than what he does now. Had he net practiced in Melbourne, he would have averaged 90 +. :haha: 2) But my boss , being a gourmet, has a chef who makes very spicy masaledar food, which upsets the stomach after 4-6 hours. Thats why boss has never scored 250+ , even on these patta pitches. If Boss had the same healthy boiled food like Bradman he would have averaged 100+

[patriot]

Again, I would like to go back to what Dhondy said a few weeks back. Insane comparisons ( like SRT vs Bradman ) and ridiculous assertions to justify the same by some deluded SRT fan boys will always prevent ICF from being a global cricket forum. Don't expect any serious well read English, Aussie or Kiwi fan to become members when certain deluded posters are hell bent on making this place a ghetto.

[99.94]

Clearly polls mean more on sites like this.. why would people get a panel of experts when compiling the greatest XI etc. Because they know what they're talking about.

[patriot]

You've started on the wrong foot. BossBhai made it clear he's not measuring Sachin individually against Bradman but using his name as a representative of all modern bats' date=' from Sehwag to Viv.[/quote'] Let your boss atleast be worthy of being compared among his own generation. On the flattest pitches known to cricket he averages 47.XX ( excluding minnows) since Jan 1 2000 and has been bettered by no less than 10 batters, both in terms of avg and runs scored. You must have an IQ lower than Afretard to compare him to someone who stands out like a colossus across all eras.