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

[zen]

99.9 is 100 :-D .... if someone averages 53.88, we just write 54 because that's what it is. But I guess since 99.94 is so famous that it's almost intuitive to type that

[King Tendulkar]

Tendulkar is the greatest cricketer ever. If Bradman played today he would be worse then Kaif, in fact he would be worse then most number 11s. Keep watching the grainy black and white tv footage and kid yourself he is the best. All those saying Bradman is the best, know in their hearts that if both batted now. Bradman would be useless. If Sachin batted in Bradmans era he would averge close to 200!

[Bradman99]

Tendulkar is the greatest cricketer ever. If Bradman played today he would be worse then Kaif, in fact he would be worse then most number 11s. Keep watching the grainy black and white tv footage and kid yourself he is the best. All those saying Bradman is the best, know in their hearts that if both batted now. Bradman would be useless. If Sachin batted in Bradmans era he would averge close to 200!

:haha:

[Bradman99]

I guess in that case Ponting would average 200, Lara 200, just about every player that plays around today would average up around 200 ? Or is that just Tendulkar because he is Indian ? Hope you were joking with that comment.

[vvvslaxman]

Tilan samaraweera would average 500 lol

[King Tendulkar]

I guess in that case Ponting would average 200, Lara 200, just about every player that plays around today would average up around 200 ? Or is that just Tendulkar because he is Indian ? Hope you were joking with that comment.

Ponting would average around 190 as well. Even Kaif would average more then Bradman. Sport in all sports has moved on enormously. Just look at the simple yardstick of Atletics. Check out times of 40s compared to now. Even rubbish runners now would be world record holders in 40s. If Ronaldo played football in 40s he would average a hatrick a game , maybe more. I watched footage of the alleged great Hobbs batting, he was coaching. One of the funnies things you will ever see. He would not make my clubs 4th eleven SRT destroys Bradman and you know it. Trust me if you had to choose one to bat for your life no one here would choose Bradman over a modern day batter. This clarifies who was the best

[99.94]

Honeslty King Tendulkar, are you really that stupid? Muhammed Ali was a terrible boxer. Babe Ruth was **** at baseball. Pele could barely kick a ball. Rod Laver wouldn't be able to beat me in a tennis match. This is a stupid and unfair looking of looking at things. Be careful not to say such ludicrous things in a bar, because you may get your ass kicked.

[King Tendulkar]

So WG Grace is as good as Ponting then?

[King Tendulkar]

Also Rod Laver would get massacred by a modern day tennis player. These are facts and you know it. To compare sportsman from 30s to sportsman is 2010 is nonsense. Modern day sportsmen are miles better then black and white tv players. If you want to say they are great cos greatest in their era, then fair enough. But to actually say that they would score more runs and score more goals then modern day players, is BS and stupid and fairy tale/nostaligic nonsense

[99.94]

Of course not, because one grew up in the 1800s. Times have changed, standards have lifted, you can't compare the two on a who was a better batter, you can only compare them to what era they played in, otherwise it is unfair.

[King Tendulkar]

Of course not' date=' because one grew up in the 1800s. Times have changed, standards have lifted, you can't compare the two on a who was a better batter, you can only compare them to what era they played in, otherwise it is unfair.[/quote'] So you do admit that Tendulkar is actually the better batsman? Just that you feel Bradman is greater in history aspect, cos he was more dominant in his era?

[99.94]

Yes I do. And yes, that is the only fair way to compare the two batsmen. One was lightyears ahead of the others in his time, and the other was a few weeks ahead (although some would dispute that).

[vvvslaxman]

I am better htan my great great great grand dad because i know how to create a hotmail account. :winky: He wouldn't know yet.

[Bradman99]

You can't prove that Bradman would be a poor batsman if he batted today and you can't prove that Tendulkar would average 200 if he batted back then. Personally, I find it reasonably disrespectful to all the great things which Bradman has achieved in his career. And I don't know it. I never had the privelage of watching Bradman play, but I would take the words of Richie Benaud who has watched cricket for his entire life. He describes Bradman as the greatest batsman to have ever played and he is a very knowledgable person. So I would take his words over yours.

[Bradman99]

I am better htan my great great great grand dad because i know how to create a hotmail account. :winky: He wouldn't know yet.

I am cooler than my great grandad because I have a mobile phone. He didn't, what a loser!

[teacup]

You can't prove that Bradman would be a poor batsman if he batted today and you can't prove that Tendulkar would average 200 if he batted back then. Personally, I find it reasonably disrespectful to all the great things which Bradman has achieved in his career. And I don't know it. I never had the privelage of watching Bradman play, but I would take the words of Richie Benaud who has watched cricket for his entire life. He describes Bradman as the greatest batsman to have ever played and he is a very knowledgable person. So I would take his words over yours.

It is a shame that Bradman did not get to play in the modern era. However, you cannot hold that against Tendulkar. Cricket was still in it's nascent stage in terms of development and inclusiveness during the 30's and as in any sport, in it's early stages of development, you are likely to encounter a naturally gifted cricketer who will dominate the rest with his rare talent. Today, talented cricketers are in the dozens and to have been the best or near best in the professional era for a period of 20 years in Test cricket and to also be the undisputed champion of the ODI format is an extraordinary achievement that deserves more than just a greatest of his generation title. Btw, Benaud is very knowledgeable alright but he is also an Aussie! :winky:

[Bradman99]

It is a shame that Bradman did not get to play in the modern era. However, you cannot hold that against Tendulkar. Cricket was still in it's nascent stage in terms of development and inclusiveness during the 30's and as in any sport, in it's early stages of development, you are likely to encounter a naturally gifted cricketer who will dominate the rest with his rare talent. Today, talented cricketers are in the dozens and to have been the best or near best in the professional era for a period of 20 years in Test cricket and to also be the undisputed champion of the ODI format is an extraordinary achievement that deserves more than just a greatest of his generation title. Btw, Benaud is very knowledgeable alright but he is also an Aussie! :winky:

Sure thing, I don't hold that against Tendulkar at all. I just think the comments on Bradman were ridiculous. I think you will find that I have said many a time that it is hard to compare the two because they come from different era's, but I have no doubt in my mind that if an Indian had an average of 99.94 and an Aussie had an average of 54 who you would all say is the best. Heck, most would probably say Ponting was better if he was Indian. The comparison is too hard to make because it is comparing across era's. That is why I would say only that Bradman is the best of his era, Tendulkar the best of his. But, if I have to defend Bradman, I will do. It's so easy to just dismiss his talent because it was from some time ago, that means nothing. What if in 50 years time, a player averages 30 and they say that he is better then Tendulkar was. Would Indians accept that ?

[teacup]

Sure thing, I don't hold that against Tendulkar at all. I just think the comments on Bradman were ridiculous. I think you will find that I have said many a time that it is hard to compare the two because they come from different era's, but I have no doubt in my mind that if an Indian had an average of 99.94 and an Aussie had an average of 54 who you would all say is the best. Heck, most would probably say Ponting was better if he was Indian. The comparison is too hard to make because it is comparing across era's. That is why I would say only that Bradman is the best of his era, Tendulkar the best of his. But, if I have to defend Bradman, I will do. It's so easy to just dismiss his talent because it was from some time ago, that means nothing. What if in 50 years time, a player averages 30 and they say that he is better then Tendulkar was. Would Indians accept that ?

If 30 is the benchmark for greatness in that era and if the player is as consistent or better than Tendulkar for a period of 20 years (or whatever is considered, in that generation, as a comparably long time in professional cricket) in all forms of the game that is played then, it would be acceptable to me. I am sure cricket would be more developed by then and to excel for a long period would be more difficult then than now, so an adjusted benchmark would be the right thing.

[Bradman99]

If 30 is the benchmark for greatness in that era and if the player is as consistent or better than Tendulkar for a period of 20 years (or whatever is considered' date=' in that generation, as a comparably long time in professional cricket) in all forms of the game that is played then, it would be acceptable to me. I am sure cricket would be more developed by then and to excel for a long period would be more difficult then than now, so an adjusted benchmark would be the right thing.[/quote'] Well, I don't think they would accept that that player was "greater". Maybe equivalent OR they would say they couldn't be compared.

[vvvslaxman]

Btw, Benaud is very knowledgeable alright but he is also an Aussie! :winky:

But we never fail to talk about Benaud including Tendulkar in his all time world XI when he is compared with Lara do we? We dont question his nationality then. Aussies respect Tendulkar as well as any other fans. Bradman himself included his name in the all time XI. Oh yea..