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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

So case closed. Bradman is the ultimate champion in Test cricket :icflove:

[The Outsider]

@Boss and teacup, yeah obviously I don't understand cricket and don't wish to see the light and you guys are self proclaimed cricket scholars! My last post on the thread because jingoism and nationalistic garbage will never allow you to see the greatness of what Bradman achieved. On any other forum, such a ridiculous comparison thread would probably have been deleted or moved to their jokes forum. Go and post this comparison on some non Aussie/Indian/Paki forum and see the response you'll get. Greatness is not measured by putting players across eras in time machines and transporting them. It is measured by the dominance a sportsman achieves in his era with the competition he was offered. No one comes remotely close to Bradman in that respect and I dare say no one ever will. If Tendulkar is a once in a life time player, the chances that someone like Bradman will ever grace a cricket field are 10 times lesser than that. You guys can continue to bask in your supposed cricket knowledge while 99% of cricketing experts and followers know the truth. 99.94 is a stat which would hit anyone not in some deliberate stupor so hard to have them wake up to the reality. Neither the numbers support your conclusion, neither do any experts who have actually watched Tendulkar and Bradman bat. All you have to offer is trifling stuff - the basis of which is so weak that Rameez Raja can be shown to be a better batsman than Hammond and anyone reading this thread can see how they have dismantled. Have fun continuing your sophistry and alchemy without any regards to facts.

[fuub]

Here's some food for thought, would you agree given the difference in fielding standards and field placing paradigms of the 30s vs Current that a current day batsman could expect a significantly higher purchase for every shot if he could play them with the same kind of fielding as in the 30s? And, is it possible that the truly great among batsmen can maximize the advantage to a significantly greater extent than an above-average one? And, do you agree that cricket in the 30s was an elitist sport played by a significantly less percentage of people thereby reducing the chances of special talents embracing the sport?

If that were true how could a team from a country of only 20 million people completely dominate the sport for so long especially compared to india with over a billion people. Shouldnt larger countries have a significantly greater percentage of people thereby increasing the chances of special talents embracing the sport? or perhaps great sportsmen just work with what they have. Bradman figured out how to bat to twice the effect of other batsman of his time. Tendulkar has had a very long and successful career but he hasn't figured out anything significantly greater than other batsman in the last decade.

[teacup]

@Boss and teacup, yeah obviously I don't understand cricket and don't wish to see the light and you guys are self proclaimed cricket scholars! My last post on the thread because jingoism and nationalistic garbage will never allow you to see the greatness of what Bradman achieved. On any other forum, such a ridiculous comparison thread would probably have been deleted or moved to their jokes forum. Go and post this comparison on some non Aussie/Indian/Paki forum and see the response you'll get. Greatness is not measured by putting players across eras in time machines and transporting them. It is measured by the dominance a sportsman achieves in his era with the competition he was offered. No one comes remotely close to Bradman in that respect and I dare say no one ever will. If Tendulkar is a once in a life time player, the chances that someone like Bradman will ever grace a cricket field are 10 times lesser than that. You guys can continue to bask in your supposed cricket knowledge while 99% of cricketing experts and followers know the truth. 99.94 is a stat which would hit anyone not in some deliberate stupor so hard to have them wake up to the reality. Neither the numbers support your conclusion, neither do any experts who have actually watched Tendulkar and Bradman bat. All you have to offer is trifling stuff - the basis of which is so weak that Rameez Raja can be shown to be a better batsman than Hammond and anyone reading this thread can see how they have dismantled. Have fun continuing your sophistry and alchemy without any regards to facts.

Yeah right! Did Hadlee, Hussain or Gavaskar get ridiculed? :--D

[vvvslaxman]

Bradman averages 130 in winning matches. Tendulkar averages 67 in winning matches. Tendulkar is not the best of his own era on that count let alone best of all time!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[S.Bond]

And likewise not even a casual observer of cricket in a drunk stupor would select the likes of Larwood,Voce,Gubby Allen over Donald,McGrath,Warne,Steyn,Murli and others. What sophistry and alchemy ? We have had this discussion a million times and you never once provided a straight answer to the 10 points in posts#105. Can you atleast have the courtesy to tell us whether or not you think those items hurt a batsmans run making ability without indulging in pedantics and throwing out inane smilies. So for the last time do you think the items in Post#105 hurt a batsmans avg ... Yes/No ?

Brother i am not sure but i think from what i remember : tendulkar averges in the 30's in : - matches agaisnt south africa including donald - matches agaisnt australia including mc grath - matches agaisnt pakistan including wasim. Tendulkar is absolute class, superb batsman.... He has acheived so many things... But i do think this comparaison with Bradman is wrong.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

which is why his overall avg is 44 less than DGB ... unless you are saying that Playing in Eng against Larwood Voce Verity etc is the same as playing against Donald' date=' Pollock etc in SA.[/quote'] How do you know Tendulkar would have succeeded against Larwood. He might very well break his head and send him to hospital.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Because a juiced up Akthar ' date=' Lee, Bond , Tait can break your head even with a helmet ... do you think facing 90 MPH is a joke ?[/quote'] Oh really.. imagine Tendulkar not wearing helmet at Karachi. He would have been sent to morgue. :cantstop: or against Akram in 1996 sharjah match.

[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!

Why are no fans of the 1930s 99 average going to say they would choose Bradman to bat for their life over Tendulkar. Especially if this game was on a turner in India, as Bradman is unproven on such tracks, hence massive gamble on ones life to choose the pre world war 2 Bradman:--D

[King Tendulkar]

A batsman whose only ever toured one country in England is declared the greatest? Who only had one other decent team to play in England! Thus greatest batsman is someone who only played england and did well aginst England. On that basis I now declare Vinod Kambli the greatest batsman ever, as he averges 105 against England. ALL HAIL KAMBLI THE GREATEST BAT EVER!

[Rajiv]

Oh really.. imagine Tendulkar not wearing helmet at Karachi. He would have been sent to morgue. :cantstop: or against Akram in 1996 sharjah match.

When u have a tool to protect urself, u dont duck the way u duck. Don't fall in the Sachin gets scared phenomena, if there was no helmet - he would have moved away or ducked further The answer is along the same lines as could shoulda woulda which is 75% of this thread

[vvvslaxman]

When u have a tool to protect urself, u dont duck the way u duck. Don't fall in the Sachin gets scared phenomena, if there was no helmet - he would have moved away or ducked further The answer is along the same lines as could shoulda woulda which is 75% of this thread

That is my point as well. So we just have to go by the simple average and agree with experts who have seen and interacted with both. Someone like Richie Benaud. But this whole set of filter theories like Donald would have done more damage in the 30s, Larwood would have been cannonfodder in the 90s have no real proof or substance.

[King Tendulkar]

It is measured by the dominance a sportsman achieves in his era with the competition he was offered. .

Dominance against whom?? One team England. Thats it he dominated against one other competitive nation, the others were terrible. Also cricket that was an elitist sport for many and so the competition even from the one country england narrowed in this respect. It was such a uncmpetitive era and was an era were cricket was not reached out to the masses as like now.

[King Tendulkar]

That is my point as well. So we just have to go by the simple average and agree with experts who have seen and interacted with both. Someone like Richie Benaud. But this whole set of filter theories like Donald would have done more damage in the 30s' date=' Larwood would have been cannonfodder in the 90s have no real proof or substance.[/quote'] Did you type that with a straight face. So Larwood would have done damage in 90s and Donald would not have torn apart teams in 30s:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Also WG grace would have been IPLs top scorer and Hobbs would be ranked number 1 in rankings:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: After all there is no proof!