What Sachin Tendulkar has that Don Bradman didn’t - Atherton

[Guest Gunner]

What is the definition of modern greatness?

I would say sheer volume of runs, longevity and number of centuries scored.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Grimmet took 216 wickets at 24....good.....but againist the better team of tha era England the avg goes up to 32 o reilley.played only 27 tests took 144 wickets at 25.......good bowler.... but as we know the best spin players of all time were indians....and they didnt play againist them..... they may have been excellent spinners...... but that doesnt make Bradman the greatest ever......

[vvvslaxman]

I would say sheer volume of runs' date=' longevity and number of centuries scored.[/quote'] There are lot of guys like Punter, Lara, Dravid who have done the same. They are very close to Tendulkar. But who was very close to Bradman then?

[Mr. Wicket]

Grimmet took 216 wickets at 24....good.....but againist the better team of tha era England the avg goes up to 32 o reilley.played only 27 tests took 144 wickets at 25.......good bowler.... but as we know the best spin players of all time were indians...and they didnt play againist them.....

:hysterical: So what? At that time, India was not even a cricketing force to bother with. We had CK Nayudu, and then a few smaller league players in the Bombay Pentangular. Nayudu was our ONLY genuinely world class player, and it is doubtful he was in the league of any of Hammond, Hutton, Bradman, Ponsford, Paynter or the other big names as a pure batsman. Suggesting that India had significantly good players of spin (or that many significantly good players in the first place) is nonsense. Australia and England were the primo teams of the era, followed by South Africa - and playing against the best, O'Reilly was routinely consistent and brilliant in his wicket-taking.

[vvvslaxman]

For heavensake he has scored a century every 2.75 innings. It is a very very difficult task at any level of cricket let alone international cricket in any era.

[vvvslaxman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmUw9dDa1ys]YouTube- Don Bradman[/ame] Very humble person. He is talking about "breaking records".

[Malcolm Merlyn]

:hysterical: So what? At that time, India was not even a cricketing force to bother with. We had CK Nayudu, and then a few smaller league players in the Bombay Pentangular. Nayudu was our ONLY genuinely world class player, and it is doubtful he was in the league of any of Hammond, Hutton, Bradman, Ponsford, Paynter or the other big names as a pure batsman. Suggesting that India had significantly good players of spin (or that many significantly good players in the first place) is nonsense. Australia and England were the primo teams of the era, followed by South Africa - and playing against the best, O'Reilly was routinely consistent and brilliant in his wicket-taking.

Bradman didnt play againist grimmet and reilley in tests.........i have always said that bradman was great........but the greatest ever???Significant probs there......to declare him the greatest ever....

[vvvslaxman]

Jeez.. this thread has taken a nasty turn. The guy you have to go after is Mike Atherton for the premise he used to compare two great players. One is the pioneer of Test cricket. Other one is modern day great. Just leave them alone to their eras stop this stupid comparisons.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Jeez.. this thread has taken a nasty turn. The guy you have to go after is Mike Atherton for the premise he used to compare two great players. One is the pioneer of Test cricket. Other one is modern day great. Just leave them alone to their eras stop this stupid comparisons.

exactly my point............but some englishmen and aussies wont understand that

[vvvslaxman]

exactly my point............but some englishmen and aussies wont understand that

I think Mr.Gunner feels we must compare and belittle Bradman. because he thinks Tendulkar is the greatest ever. :winky:

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I think Mr.Gunner feels we must compare and belittle Bradman. because he thinks Tendulkar is the greatest ever. :winky:

gunner is an englishman may be

[EnterTheVoid]

What everyone has that Atherton doesn't A brain instead of a clump of dirt

[Dinx - the Jinx]

So, is Geoffrey Boycott or for that matter Suni Gavaskar better than Sachin cos they dint wear helmets with grills while batting? Sachin wear those helmets with grills, thigh pads,chest guards etc.. carries a big bat.. it surely makes him a tad slower in running between the wickets than bradman.. isnt it? What Don Bradman did not have that Sachin had.. 1 - to deal with moron umpires like Bucknor, Harper, De Silva 2 - pressure and crticism from billion fans (including me) who expect him to go and thrash the bowlers everytime he steps on to a cricket ground.. 3. to travel throughout the year across the world with very little time to recover from injuries or fatigue.. had Sachin been injury free throughout his career.. and not missed any of the series involving India, he would have 60 test centuries by now and would be 15k+ in tests and 20k+ in ODIs 4. constant comparison with predecessors which adds that much more extra pressure... while Don was setting benchmarks.. Sachin was going past records and redefining benchmarks,..

[Guest Gunner]

There are lot of guys like Punter' date=' Lara, Dravid who have done the same. They are very close to Tendulkar. But who was very close to Bradman then?[/quote'] There are several more new test playing nations, larger pool of players and the money attracts more talent. Therfore the competitiveness has increased. Who could have said what might have happened if Archie Jackson hadn't died at the age of 24. How many contemporary challengers did the Don have as compared to SRT?

[Guest Gunner]

I think Mr.Gunner feels we must compare and belittle Bradman. because he thinks Tendulkar is the greatest ever. :winky:

You would be wrong my friend. My intention is not to belittle Bradman, I haven't done that at all in any of my posts. I have already admitted without any question the greatness of Bradman. I am just debating with you the merits and demerits of comparison across eras.:winky:

[vvvslaxman]

There are several more new test playing nations, larger pool of players and the money attracts more talent. Therfore the competitiveness has increased. Who could have said what might have happened if Archie Jackson hadn't died at the age of 24. How many contemporary challengers did the Don have as compared to SRT?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1950;spanmin1=01+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[Guest Gunner]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1950;spanmin1=01+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;orderby=runs;qualmax1=150;qualmin1=25;qualval1=matches;spanmax1=31+Dec+1950;spanmin1=01+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting More realistic. :winky: What is more telling is that there are only 2 saffers, everyone else is English or Aussie.

[vvvslaxman]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;orderby=runs;qualmax1=150;qualmin1=25;qualval1=matches;spanmax1=31+Dec+1950;spanmin1=01+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting More realistic. :winky: What is more telling is that there are only 2 saffers, everyone else is English or Aussie.

Still he is head and shoulders above everybody else. average difference of 40. More centuries. by anyone else. Apply the same to Tendulkar era http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[Guest Gunner]

Still he is head and shoulders above everybody else. average difference of 40. More centuries. by anyone else. Apply the same to Tendulkar era http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

What does that prove? That pitches have eased out enough for a lot of average players to look good? SRT has still scored more runs than anyone else, more centuries, tests and has withstood longer than anyone else. If that doesn't prove that he is quite comfortably above all else I don't know what will. I remember quite a few games where the tide of the match has been turned by SRT and SRT alone. Just have a look at the players who surrounded Bradman each man a great player in his own right. How often did Tendulkar have that luxury till 2000?

[vvvslaxman]

SRT has still scored more runs than anyone else, more centuries, tests and has withstood longer than anyone else. If that doesn't prove that he is quite comfortably above all else I don't know what will. =

Is it Bradman's fault he lost significant amount of matches due to War? He lost totally 8 years. Let us take away 8 years from Tendulkar's career. Will he be able to come back and average 100 like Bradman did ?