Jump to content

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


Feed

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

2 members have 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.
Link to comment
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:
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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)
Link to comment

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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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:
Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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?
Link to comment
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
Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...