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

[vvvslaxman]

Don't cut into the middle of SRT's career and pull numbers. The end result is what matters' date=' SRT has more test runs than anyone else in history - FACT 1. You can no way prove that Bradman would have been able to keep his average that high for the amount of matches SRT has played - FACT 2. So how can you come to a certain conclusion that Don > SRT? The gap in the amount of matches they played is too big to assume Don would average enough to surpass SRT even without taking into consideration [b']all the other factors that come into play by comparing players across eras with pro/con on both sides. It comes down to hard numbers, I can show you that SRT has more runs and 100's than Don and everyone else, you can't show me the opposite though. All you can do is make a prediction based on the average, but in the end Don has nothing else to show, SRT does.

ok

[SRT PWNS]

ok

Finally someone gets it. So can we all stop this SRT Vs. x, y, z etc...

[teacup]

I have heard that before. I won't bother replying. I realise that nothing I say will make a difference. I'm finished here. You've won. Rejoice.

Consider this: Hansie Cronje has dismissed Tendulkar 5 times - as many as Donald and one more than Pollock - and should get as much credit as Donald for keeping Tendulkar's average down against South Africa. I would have shown a passing interest in your analysis, if you had considered frequency and total number of dismissals by a bowler as well but without all that it is basically a waste of time. Btw, no bowler owned a batsman as much as McGrath did against Lara. Check out the number of dismissals and the frequency.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

Btw, no bowler owned a batsman as much as McGrath did against Lara. Check out the number of dismissals and the frequency.

Mc Grath vs ATherton i think was the worst pawning possible

[Roshanrocks]

another non high IQ, non statistical, data from me..... Alan DOnald's view on Tendulkar THE LINK Choice comments from it

though I've been quite successful against him. He is No. 1 in my book - the best player I have ever had the privilege of bowling to. There's Steve Waugh and there's Brian Lara, who was wonderful in 1995, but Tendulkar is a class above, consistently special.

Your margin for error against him really is marginal. If you get him on a flat track, when he is, say, 50 not out off 24 balls, then you know that you have a very long day ahead and the situation can be very, very demoralising. The best knock I can remember him playing was at Newlands in 1997, when he was just unstoppable. We only got him thanks to a blinding catch by Adam Bacher off a hook shot, otherwise he would have gone on and on.

Under Hansie Cronje we studied hard for a Tendulkar weakness. We thought he might be vulnerable, especially early in his innings, to the ball that is bowled from wide of the crease, coming back in off a good length. He might then be bowled through the gate, or be lbw, especially on English wickets. We also tried peppering him with short balls - not many top-class batters like that - but it didn't really seem to bother him.

my personal fav :

I don't think he really gets rattled by sledging. Glenn McGrath tried it and Tendulkar just kept running at him and hitting him back over his head for four. I think that, like Steve Waugh, sledging just makes him more focused: I don't think it is a good idea to have a word.

[99.94]

Your point is moot, SRT has more runs and 100's, Don doesn't. I'll say it again. Don has nothing else backing him except one big assumption that his average would be maintained for as long as he played. This is the biggest load of illogical mess you and the others ride on. SRT has the solid numbers, Don only has the imaginary predictions. So you need to quit trolling man, don't accuse others.

He has also played 3 times as many matches as Bradman. Bradman dominated for years and years, went off to war, came back and kept on destroying people. What makes you think he couldn't have kept up such an average? It may have even gotten higher (as someone said earlier, he averaged well over 100 after the war). Imaginary predictions? Haha, is 7000 runs not enough? You talk about him like he's Albert Trott - like he played a dozen tests at an average of 100. He scored 29 fkn hundreds and 12 double centuries (that's 8 more than Tendulkar), and played for 20 years. Still not good enough for you?

[satyam1729]

He has also played 3 times as many matches as Bradman. Bradman dominated for years and years, went off to war, came back and kept on destroying people. What makes you think he couldn't have kept up such an average? It may have even gotten higher (as someone said earlier, he averaged well over 100 after the war). Imaginary predictions? Haha, is 7000 runs not enough?

Bradman was a great batsman. But he did not destroy bowlers. This is called destruction. Check the strike rate of sehwag against Murali and steyn. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=8;orderby=default;player_involve=2041;template=results;type=allround http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=3;player_involve=47154;template=results;type=batting

[99.94]

He did actually destroy bowlers. He has the record for most centuries in a session (6) and his strike rate is comparatively as good as Sehwag's. Not only did he dominate by scoring quickly but he dominated by turning any starts in to massive scores (much like Sehwag) and by plundering runs (974 in one series).

[satyam1729]

He did actually destroy bowlers. He has the record for most centuries in a session (6) and his strike rate is comparatively as good as Sehwag's. Not only did he dominate by scoring quickly but he dominated by turning any starts in to massive scores (much like Sehwag) and by plundering runs (974 in one series).

Strike rate of Bradman was 58, sehwag is 81. And regarding runs in a session , it depends upon number of ball faced. But yes regarding attacking, he was much like sehwag of his era.

[99.94]

Strike rate of Bradman was 58' date=' sehwag is 81. And regarding runs in a session , it depends upon number of ball faced. But yes regarding attacking, he was much like sehwag of his era.[/quote'] Yeah, but I would imagine a par strike rate would have been around 40 back then (???), and one for this era is around 60? Sehwag of his era with an unmatched ability to score runs.

[99.94]

Also, I came across a 20 cent piece today which is a Bradman one, which was released in 2001 (when he died). It's got a picture of him on the back and his birth year and death year. It's quite cool, I'm going to hang onto it! Here it is:

[King Tendulkar]

Posters here who are saying Bradman is better. Please clarify when you have seen him bat and where? What tv footage(was the tv invented when he played?) have you seen of him batting that convinced you he was best?

[King Tendulkar]

My god whats next? Gone with the wind had better special effects then avatar. Cars in 30s were faster then cars now. NO SPORTSMAN IN 30s WAS BETTER THEN SPORTSMAN NOW. Charlie Chaplin era get a life. Things have moved on big time.

[99.94]

My god whats next? Gone with the wind had better special effects then avatar. Cars in 30s were faster then cars now. NO SPORTSMAN IN 30s WAS BETTER THEN SPORTSMAN NOW. Charlie Chaplin era get a life. Things have moved on big time.

You've already said that. It is not a valid argument.

[satyam1729]

Yeah, but I would imagine a par strike rate would have been around 40 back then (???), and one for this era is around 60? Sehwag of his era with an unmatched ability to score runs.

Yeah, but sehwag isn't too bad in scoring runs. It is due to him only we got no.1 ranking in tests. You can see what crap bowling attack we have.

[King Tendulkar]

Do you know that there used to be one or two guys before DGB's times that batted without any gloves ? Going by your theory shall we nominate them as better batsmen than DGB ?

Yeah WG Grace is second best bat as well??:hysterical::hysterical: The black and white era fans are hysterical here:hysterical:

[King Tendulkar]

You've already said that. It is not a valid argument.

O yes it is and you know it

[99.94]

O yes it is and you know it

Well it isn't.. “I was never coached; I was never told how to hold a bat.” - Donald Bradman

[satyam1729]

My god whats next? Gone with the wind had better special effects then avatar. Cars in 30s were faster then cars now. NO SPORTSMAN IN 30s WAS BETTER THEN SPORTSMAN NOW. Charlie Chaplin era get a life. Things have moved on big time.

So that means 30 years later , batsman averaging in 30s would be better than sachin. Don't let emotion overtake logic. We have no evidence to suggest Sachin is better than Don.