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

[King Tendulkar]

Well.. But Veeru will beat Tendulkar hands down. So will Richards. They both score quicker. So will Gilly. Veeru' date=' Richards, Gilly would have become better than Tendulkar :cantstop:[/quote'] You are being silly now:--D

[vvvslaxman]

You are being silly now:--D

I am not silly. Your logic is silly. You are saying the exact same thing. 1000 runs not out :cantstop:

[King Tendulkar]

Well.. But Veeru will beat Tendulkar hands down. So will Richards. They both score quicker. So will Gilly. Veeru' date=' Richards, Gilly would have become better than Tendulkar :cantstop:[/quote'] Actually I am wrong. I think they had timeless games then and 8 ball overs. Sachin would have batted for 10 days and got 3000 runs. He would never have got out and so would have out lasted above batters and got more runs.

[vvvslaxman]

Actually I am wrong. I think they had timeless games then and 8 ball overs. Sachin would have batted for 10 days and got 3000 runs. He would never have got out and so would have out lasted above batters and got more runs.

Veeru, Gilly, Richards would have got 8000 runs.:hysterical:

[King Tendulkar]

Veeru' date=' Gilly, Richards would have got 8000 runs.:hysterical:[/quote'] One thing is for certain, they would have made more then Bradman!

[King Tendulkar]

p.s I am massive fan of Bradman, as he is part of cricket history. But to compare a 30s sportsman to modern day sportsman is plain stupid! Great in their time, YES! But pound for pound(i.e if they played now a days in same match) as good as players in modern era, that is the stuff of madness and delusion. Any batsman to bat for your life in reality would be TENDULKAR. Anyone here would genuinley choose Bradman? Of course not! Thus Tendulkar is the greatest of all time!

[goose]

One argument put forward by many of the SRT>DGB bridage is that almost everyone alive today has not watched DGB play i.e. his legend is in part a self-perpetuated myth. That maybe so. I'd go further and say a significant portion outside India (i.e. the contingent not yet convinced) did not watch Tendulkar play in his prime. The rest of the world was too busy playing Brian Lara cricket playstation to note the rise of a legend until his numbers dictated it. Scores of 501 and 375 were easier for the public to assimilate. Today Sky has the rights to telecast all India games. It wasn't always like this. For those who have followed Indian cricket and Tendulkar in the 90s, who would like to join me in recalling what seemed like an eternity before the rest of the world actually caught onto Tendulkar's magic? And those that did 'catch' on will understandably have a hard time shaking off the cult of 99.94.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

One argument put forward by many of the SRT>DGB bridage is that almost everyone alive today has not watched DGB play i.e. his legend is in part a self-perpetuated myth. That maybe so. I'd go further and say a significant portion outside India (i.e. the contingent not yet convinced) did not watch Tendulkar play in his prime. The rest of the world was too busy playing Brian Lara cricket playstation to note the rise of a legend until his numbers dictated it. Scores of 501 and 375 were easier for the public to assimilate. Today Sky has the rights to telecast all India games. It wasn't always like this. For those have followed Indian cricket and Tendulkar in the 90s' date= who would like to join me in recalling what seemed like an eternity before the rest of the world actually caught onto Tendulkar's magic?

No .. i disagree. Tendulkar became a phenomenon as soon as he stepped in. FIrst major attention he got was when he almost became the youngest century maker in history in NZ. Then his reputation grew in Australia and England in subsequent tours. Anything big you do against England will always get more attention. That has been the case for years. So 375/401/501 obviously got more attention. But Lara became famous after his 277 in Australia.

[yoda]

I can't believe there is even an argument against 99.94. :hehe:

[The Outsider]

Like i said before its not that cut and dry ... there were always good bowlers in the 50s and 60s as well Truman, Griffith, Wes Hall etc ... and dont discount the spinners too ... there were a bunch of truly great spinners in the 60s and 70s ... we all know that fast bowling alone wont cut it all the time. In Bradmans case there was soo little competition going around given the harsh economic state of the world. I cant believe that people like you find such a simple concept hard to understand. In any case why dont you pick the matches that SRT played against teams that had even a slightly lesser pedigree of bowling attack .. like the Eng team of 90s and early 00s ... or the SL,BD and Zim teams ... that will give you a sufficient sample.

Wow - this is really disingenuous. You just said pre mid 70s and post mid 70s was a big difference - nothing in the batting averages who played across those days shows it. Now you are saying batting was not all that easy even in the 50s and 60s, but was half as easy in the 30s and 40s. Bradman played 3 series after the war in the late 40s as well - the result was the same. And he was well into his late 30s by then. So, you are suggesting within a space of Bradman's retirement and the 50s batting became twice as difficult? Even you will have a tough time believing that if you are honest to yourself. You talk about minnows - well Bradman averaged close to 150 and not 100 against the supposed minnows of his times, which still had better bowlers like Mankad, Phadkar, Constantine, Griffith than the Bangla bros. But, let me humor you a bit. Bradman played 15 tests against India, South Africa, and West Indies averaging 140 against them. Tendulkar played 16 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe averaging 96 against them. Bradman played 37 tests against England averaging 90 against them. Taking the first 36 tests(to make 52 for each, with Tendulkar having a one test minnow advantage) against England and Sri Lanka - your designated teams Tendulkar averages 67 against them. Over 52 Bradman tests, he averages 99.94 of course. Over your chosen sample of 52 tests Tendulkar averages, 72.68. Still well well short of Bradman!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Good one outsider. Any way you look at it bradman towers above everyone else. So fans resort to use some selective filters to justify their claims. For every good bowler there are 10 crappy bowlers in our era. It is impossible to have flatter pitches in any era compared to current era. Remember how Delhi one dayer was recalled right after few unevenly bounced deliveries. You serioulsy think pitches made those days were better than pitches that are made now? Imagine how many such pitches would have existed. It is very difficult to score on those kind of pitches even against average bowlers like our batsmen found on portable pitches in New zealand. They scored because they honed their skills without playing in the air, without hitting through the line eyes closed. Give credit to those our past masters who inspired generation of cricketers instead of coming up with imaginary theories.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

batting avgs back in the 30's were higher than 90s ... infact the 90s has one of the lowest batting avgs of all time.

That is because they were freaking good. If they had played like idiots like Afridi they would have also averaged 25. In the 90s.. have you seen the ENglish batting line up against India on crumblers designed for Kumble. Guys like Richard blakey would have never existed in any era. Probably Danny Morrison and Chris Martin would have come close.

[The Outsider]

Besides the minnows, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Tendulkar has played the following series - just eyeballing and guessing bowlers' averages from memory - in which all bowlers from the opposition averaged above 28 (the criteria being used to dismiss Bradman's double average) : Varun or Bossbhai can perhaps run a more accurate query. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=309;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=313;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=318;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=330;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=346;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=364;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=371;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=410;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=417;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=458;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=467;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=472;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=474;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=490;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=520;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=2709;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=2872;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=4472;template=results;type=batting;view=innings http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;series=4548;template=results;type=batting;view=innings Just approximating from the averages from above, they would be in the 60s, again not even close to the 90 Bradman averaged against England - no minnows.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

You need to read up on the history a bit more .... the 30s and 40s were renowned for producing batting beauties. Otherwise its not possible to have timeless test matches that go beyond 5 days with each day consisting of 120 overs ... nor is it possible to score 900+ on pitches assisting bowlers. If you think that is possible you need to consider re-educating yourself on the nitty-gritty of cricket.

Batting beauties more than what we have at Kanpur, Ahmedabad, Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad? I don't think so. Do you really think current players are capable of playing that long? They did well because they valued their wickets and protected it. Not all succeeded though. Ony select players succeeded. It requires great amount of concentration just to be there. If you quote about timeless test i have to talk about SL/India match where SL piled 952 runs. You completely ignore all the high scoring games that are going on currently where every tom, dick and harry make centuries.

[The Outsider]

You need to read up on the history a bit more .... the 30s and 40s were renowned for producing batting beauties. Otherwise its not possible to have timeless test matches that go beyond 5 days with each day consisting of 120 overs ... nor is it possible to score 900+ on pitches assisting bowlers. If you think that is possible you need to consider re-educating yourself on the nitty-gritty of cricket.

Batting average in 30s and 40s - 33.72 Batting average in 90s and 00s - 33.10 Yeah it was so much easier to bat in the 30s and 40s compared to now - all this when tail end batting has improved. :hysterical: EDIT : And if you take away the Bradman effect ie. reduce his runs by half, batting average in 30s and 40s actually drops below 90s and 00s to 32.98. :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --