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

[thevortex]

You are missing the point of this whole discussion. It is not about Bradman Vs Tendulkar but it is about who is the Greatest Batsman of All Time. The discussion would seem like it is a comparison between Bradman and Tendulkar as they are the leading contenders for the title but it is not.

The title of the thread seems to disagree with your claim, teacup. In your opinion are there other contenders? And how much have they been discussed about in this thread?

[teacup]

The title of the thread seems to disagree with your claim, teacup. In your opinion are there other contenders? And how much have they been discussed about in this thread?

Why don't you read the thread title again. Is there any mention of Greatest Test Batsman in there? The discussion was mainly on whether Bradman's peer domination in the 30s would make him inarguably the greatest batsman of all time ahead of modern day greats. Sheesh, the thread has become so big that people have become confused on what they are discussing about.

[teacup]

I would put Bradman in a league of his own. Ideally' date=' we should keep Bradman out of such comparisions. But when someone like Sachin, who has a remarkable record in Tests and [b']ODIs, keeps performing so well for so many games, some people are bound to make comparisions. It's credit to Sachin to be able to bring out such a comparision but there is no threat to Bradman's position, which is a league of his own

:winky:

[thevortex]

Why don't you read the thread title again. Is there any mention of Greatest Test Batsman in there? The discussion was mainly on whether Bradman's peer domination in the 30s would make him inarguably the greatest batsman of all time ahead of modern day greats. Sheesh' date=' the thread has become so big that people have become confused on what they are discussing about.[/quote'] You are getting carried away, teacup! :) Read your post #648. You were the one saying that this thread was discussing about who the greatest batsman was. And now you are going back on that. So make your mind up what this thread is all about. Lets get this right here. This is one of many Bradman vs Tendulkar threads here.

[teacup]

You are getting carried away, teacup! :) Read your post #648. You were the one saying that this thread was discussing about who the greatest batsman was. And now you are going back on that. So make your mind up what this thread is all about. Lets get this right here. This is one of many Bradman vs Tendulkar threads here.

Yes, the thread is about who deserves to be the Greatest Batsman of All time and we were discussing about Bradman's case for the title which was mostly based on his domination of peers. One group was of the opinion that this peer domination sets him apart from all other batsmen and hence he is inarguably the greatest of all time. The other group believed the era in which he played made it possible for a genius to dominate his peers but it is much more difficult to stand-out in the modern era and therefore a modern great like Tendulkar can lay claim to the title. There is no contradiction here. On the issue of considering ODIs, it is not something I just added on to suit my argument. It has been my stand from the start. There are many posts including the one where I have cited the Guardian poll which had the subject - "Is Tendulkar the greatest of all time because of his strength in all forms of the game". There are others where I have mentioned that if in the future someone would come in and excel in all forms of the game for a period comparable to Tendulkar then the title should pass on to him as the game would have developed further by then. As for why other contenders were not discussed, come on, keeping it to two itself has made this thread this big and adding more contenders would have made it impossible to keep the discussion on topic. However, I sincerely feel Viv Richards also deserves to be put in the same bracket as Don and Sachin.

[zen]

Quote by rett I would put Bradman in a league of his own. Ideally, we should keep Bradman out of such comparisions. But when someone like Sachin, who has a remarkable record in Tests and ODIs, keeps performing so well for so many games, some people are bound to make comparisions. It's credit to Sachin to be able to bring out such a comparision but there is no threat to Bradman's position, which is a league of his own

:winky:

What that says is that because of his good record in two formats, some people 'tend' to compare him with Don but Don is in the league of his own. Why Don is in the league of his own is explained by my post where I spoke about test cricket being the key :winky: To which (my further expansion on the subject) you had to go back to one of my posts and quote it thinking that I am bringing ODIs in to it too when I am implying why people 'tend to' (without having a broad view) compare Tendulkar to Don based on Ten's Tests and ODI records .... Well, thanks for the comic relief :--D keep on digging in the hope of eventually finding something! And appears as if your PMs to other member to come up with a reasonable argument for Ten hasn't worked either as whatever advise you gave to your friend has only dragged him in to a deeper hole

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[teacup]

What that says is that because of his good record in two formats, some people 'tend' to compare him with Don but Don is in the league of his own. Why Don is in the league of his own is explained by my post where I spoke about test cricket being the key :winky: To which (my further expansion on the subject) you had to go back to one of my posts and quote it thinking that I am bringing ODIs in to it too when I am implying why people 'tend to' (without having a broad view) compare Tendulkar to Don based on Ten's Tests and ODI records .... Well, thanks for the comic relief :--D keep on digging in the hope of eventually finding something! And appears as if your PMs to other member to come up with a reasonable argument for Ten hasn't worked either as whatever advise you gave to your friend has only dragged him in to a deeper hole

I quoted your own post to show that you have selective amnesia! :cantstop: Does that afflict you only when you get into a debate? When you talk of modern day players you cannot exclude ODIs. Cricinfo's player of the decade selection included ODI performances as well. Nasser Hussain and Hadlee called Tendulkar the Greatest Batsman of all time for his excellence in both forms of the game. I think you know all this but your zeal to win a debate clouds your thinking.

[teacup]

teacup ' date=' its ok to bring in records from a lower format (first class) but not from a higher level like ODI's ... dont ask why :winky:[/quote'] That is expected in keeping with the pedigree of their arguments.

[Bumper]

1) Bjarne Borg won all 4 grand slams. 2) He was well ahead of his peers. 3) He did it with low-tech rackets 4) He didnt benefit from coaching or videos Neither Sampras nor Federer have done any of this. Therefore Bjarne Borg is the greatest tennis player ever.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

But but ... did he face mortal fear as DGB did in Bodyline ? :headshake:

Dont know about bodyline, but he did make the headline.

[thevortex]

Yes, the thread is about who deserves to be the Greatest Batsman of All time and we were discussing about Bradman's case for the title which was mostly based on his domination of peers. One group was of the opinion that this peer domination sets him apart from all other batsmen and hence he is inarguably the greatest of all time. The other group believed the era in which he played made it possible for a genius to dominate his peers but it is much more difficult to stand-out in the modern era and therefore a modern great like Tendulkar can lay claim to the title. There is no contradiction here. On the issue of considering ODIs, it is not something I just added on to suit my argument. It has been my stand from the start. There are many posts including the one where I have cited the Guardian poll which had the subject - "Is Tendulkar the greatest of all time because of his strength in all forms of the game". There are others where I have mentioned that if in the future someone would come in and excel in all forms of the game for a period comparable to Tendulkar then the title should pass on to him as the game would have developed further by then. As for why other contenders were not discussed, come on, keeping it to two itself has made this thread this big and adding more contenders would have made it impossible to keep the discussion on topic. However, I sincerely feel Viv Richards also deserves to be put in the same bracket as Don and Sachin.

Teacup - I was pointing out the dichotomy only to make sure you dont ask me to read the title again :). As long as we are on the same page there, that is fine. Since when are we really concerned about keeping a thread small? Come on, dont give me that. If you really think Richards deserved to be discussed why not bring him in? So how would you personally rank these trimurtis? I am sure though you would see the point about not bringing in ODIs when comparing with a player who played in an era where there were no limited overs matches. If you want to talk about scoring rate per se, Bradman scored even a double century in a day - if I am not mistaken. Tendulkar has not done that.

[thevortex]

teacup ' date=' its ok to bring in records from a lower format (first class) but not from a higher level like ODI's ... dont ask why :winky:[/quote']

That is expected in keeping with the pedigree of their arguments.

Guys - please tell me you are joking. Can we not get above aspects such as questioning the pedigree of others? Are you guys telling me you do not see a difference between a 4 day first class match and a 1 day international?

[teacup]

Teacup - I was pointing out the dichotomy only to make sure you dont ask me to read the title again :). As long as we are on the same page there, that is fine. Since when are we really concerned about keeping a thread small? Come on, dont give me that. If you really think Richards deserved to be discussed why not bring him in? So how would you personally rank these trimurtis? I am sure though you would see the point about not bringing in ODIs when comparing with a player who played in an era where there were no limited overs matches. If you want to talk about scoring rate per se, Bradman scored even a double century in a day - if I am not mistaken. Tendulkar has not done that.

He scored a triple century in a day. However, in those times 120 overs were being bowled in a day's play and the fielding team captain almost never placed a fielder in a run-saving position no matter what the situation was. About separating the three - Viv, SRT, DGB - I would have done it if I was able to. Each had his own strengths and weaknesses and played in three different eras but what is common about them is that their mere presence affected the odds of their team winning a match. You could never say that of any other batsman barring perhaps Brian Lara but in Lara's case it depended on what kind of a patch he was in.

[thevortex]

He scored a triple century in a day. However' date=' in those times 120 overs were being bowled in a day's play and the fielding team captain almost never placed a fielder in a run-saving position no matter what the situation was.[/quote'] That works both ways, teacup. A batsman has to have the wherewithal to last 120 overs. And a mistake by a batsman will not land safe as it does today with defensive field sets. He would get out. Any which way you cut it, a triple century over 120 overs is nothing to turn your nose up at. And thanks for pointing out that it was a triple not a double.

[teacup]

That works both ways, teacup. A batsman has to have the wherewithal to last 120 overs. And a mistake by a batsman will not land safe as it does today with defensive field sets. He would get out. Any which way you cut it, a triple century over 120 overs is nothing to turn your nose up at. And thanks for pointing out that it was a triple not a double.

On the same token what Sehwag has achieved by scoring 300 in a 90 over day is much more significant and praise-worthy than Don's effort. Now, compare Sehwag's ODI record to Tendulkar's.

[thevortex]

So on that basis, Sehwag is better than Don Bradman then?

[teacup]

So on that basis' date=' Sehwag is better than Don Bradman then?[/quote'] Err...who said Sehwag is better than Don? The point was scoring a triple hundred in a day's play in a Test Match is not a pointer to how a batsman would perform in ODI.

[thevortex]

Well, frankly those who use Sehwag's ODI record as proof that he cannot excel in that format do not understand his game - beyond the numbers, that is. It is only a matter of time before he corrects that record. Or did you not watch him play T20s? I am sure you would agree that when a player excels in Tests as well as T20s he is not going to be a dud at ODIs. All this though has no relation to the original subject. Bradman did NOT play ODIs and it is not our job to predict what would have happened had he played. Test cricket is the highest/toughest form of the game and I would much rather grade batsmen on that basis.