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

[vvvslaxman]

Big write up' date=' but still no hard numbers. It means nothing if Bradman doesn't have anything else to show. Sachin still has far more runs and hundreds than Don.[/quote'] He got everything else to show. scoring 99.94 every innings for 80 innings. Tendulkar never did that in any part of ihs career.

[SRT PWNS]

Mate numbers on their own don't mean much, the way you're going on its like saying Player A has 1000 runs in 100 matches Player B has 500 run in 3 matches Player A has 1000 and therefore is far superior

Yeah but that isn't the case. I didn't make up that example. I'm talking about something that really happened. You can't prove that Bradman would maintain the average if he did play as much as SRT, the gap is simply too wide. We aren't talking about some backyard batsmen here, we're talking about world class players man.

He got everything else to show. scoring 99.94 every innings for 80 innings. Tendulkar never did that in any part of ihs career.

There are too many factors that apply to both Don and SRT with respect to pros and cons. You can claim that batting was harder then or now, but you can't prove it because neither batsmen ever played in the opposing eras. Same goes for all the other crap I've heard in the topic so far, you people are only going on assumptions, it's simply a big joke. SRT has those hard numbers, anyone can pull it up and see they are real, you can't do that with Don.

[99.94]

So going by SRT PWNS' logic Graham Gooch is better than Viv Richards.

[rabinjackman]

this debate is going round n round with no result in sight. sachin tendulkar is called the best batsman in the world due to his records in tests and ODI both, more due to his ODI exploits and his single handed victories in the 90's. don bradman will always reign superior in tests due to his 99.94 average. it wont matter what opposition he faced because he did what he did against what he faced, nothing anyone can do about that. sachin will remain the best odi batsman because of the sheer amount of runs and 100's and the single double hundred he scored. sehwag, lara n others r no patch on sachin n the ODI's Viv richards could come close in the ODI's but he played only 167 innings for an average of 47, whereas sachin has played a monstrous 431 for an average of 45.12 this is just my honest , humble opinion.... without going deeeeep into the jungle of statistics. thanks R J

[thevortex]

The Outsider - that was an impassioned response. I am not sure why you directed it at me though given that I agree with a quite a lot of those points you make. In short I do not want to knock Bradman into size so that he may be compared with Tendulkar or the latter inflated like a balloon to bear comparison with Bradman. There has to be some other way of objectively viewing things. By the way, I disagree with your theory on the number of grounds Bradman has played, number of quality spinners he faced to start with. Also even if we discount the LBW aspect, (umpires' reluctance or rigid interpretation of the law) which I am not sure we should, one aspect we MUST consider is the incidence of run outs in the modern game. Fielding becoming better does not just take out 20 runs from an innings. It could even result in 20 points taken out of a batsman's average. Consider direct hits (increase in percentage thereof) and then the advent of the slow motion replay decision for the run out, 3rd umpire et al. Those are huge average busters right there. However let me underline one thing. Sachin Tendulkar was and will probably never be the run accumulator and massive scorer that Bradman was. It has nothing to do with aggressiveness or a tendency to play strokes. Sehwag plays more strokes and yet makes the doubles and the triples. I believe it has more to do with Tendulkar tightening up mentally as well as physically when it comes to important landmarks which means he has less of a chance to reach a triple. This statement can be twisted around to be interpreted such that Tendulkar plays for records. I want to put it on record that such is not my insinuation.

[Bradman99]

Benaud is still alive and has seen a lot of cricket and is universally acknowledged to have a very good understanding of the game. Regarding, Bradman's technique all great batsmen have been able to make technical adjustments to suit the situation and bowler. Bradman, in fact, is renowned to be one of the masters of it. There is nothing to suggest he would not have been able to make whatever changes were required. Anyhow, I'll just summarize the points addressed in this and many other parallel threads and hopefully hit the exit button : 1. Batting was easier during Bradman's time : Factually incorrect. The batting/bowling averages from the 30s/40s are not significantly different from 90s/00s. 2. Bradman did not face any sub 28 average bowlers : Bradman did in fact face bowlers averaging below that like Tate, Bedser, and Verity and dominated all of them. Moreover : a. Around the top 10 bowlers who bowled to Bradman, had their averages spoiled by him. Removing the matches in which Bradman featured brings down their averages significantly, some of them into the early 20s range. b. If Tendulkar's series are taken into account where he did not face any bowler averaging below 28, he still averages in the 60s, much lower than Bradman 3. Bradman benefited from playing only minnows and one other team : Teams like West Indies and India still had some pretty good players in them, but ignore that fact. When Tendulkar's averages against the minnows and England and Sri Lanka are taken into consideration over a similar number of matches, his average is still in the 60s, much lower than Bradman. Nothing in Tendulkar's first class record suggests an average remotely close to 100 either. 4. Bradman was much better than his peers but not as good as modern day batsmen : Any model making this claim should be able to account for discrepancies which will arise from the above assertion and will put the likes of Rameez, Hick, and Butcher at par with Hammond, Hutton, and Sutcliffe. 5. Bradman would fail if put in a time machine and made to bad today : A sportsman greatness is measured by how he conquered the challenges and peers he was confronted with, not by putting him into a hypothetical time machine. a. Bradman's dominance is not only unparalleled in cricket, but any other sport. Here is statistical proof of it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#World_sport_context b. It is as good or bad as an assertion to say that Tendulkar would average 10 if he was transported into the 30s. 6. Bradman benefited from playing only on a small number of grounds : Bradman played on 10 grounds - 5 home, 5 away. Taking a similar criteria for Tendulkar ie. 5 home grounds where he played the most and 5 away grounds where he played the most, Tendulkar averages in the 50s-60s, no where close to Bradman. The only ground at which Tendulkar averages higher than Bradman's career average is the SCG. 7. Bradman benefited from lax LBW laws : Doing a simple calculation taking into account the percentage of LBWs given in the 30s/40s and comparing it to the percentage in 90s/00s, Bradman would have been dismissed twice more LBW. Assuming those two dismissals to be ducks, he would still have averaged 97.xx if modern day LBW guidelines are applied. 8. Bradman failed in Bodyline which is similar to conditions faced by batsmen today : Factually incorrect. Intimidatory bowling was outlawed a couple of seasons after Bodyline and fielding restriction changes were also implemented. a. Bradman averaged 40% more than the nearest Australian in the series and as much as the English top scorers likes of Hammond and Sutcliffe, who were not facing Bodyline, in similar match conditions. b. The only time something close to Bodyline was implemented in the modern game, a batting line up consisting the likes of Gavaskar and Viswanath, which had chased down a world record score in the previous game was hospitalized and basically forfeited the match. c. Bodyline did not have any restrictions on the number of bouncers, fielders, and the batsmen did not have any protective gear. 9. Bradman did not face express bowlers : No facts to support the assertion. The likes of Larwood and Bedser have been described as genuinely quick in literature and there are no speed gun ratings to dispute that claim. 10. Bradman did not face top quality spinners : At test level, Bradman faced and did well against Verity who has a bowling average better than Warne and Kumble. At first class level he was successful against Grimmett and O'Reily, all acknowledged as world class spinners. 11. Bradman did not face reverse swing : None of the modern greats have had their averages dip significantly after reverse swing has been introduced in the game. There is no logical basis to assume that Bradman's average would have suffered greatly, if at all. 12. Bradman had the "advantage" of off field factors like less traveling, playing one format of the game, and lots of First Class matches between tests : Again, there is no evidence to show that any of the greats have had their batting averages drastically reduced by any of these factors. Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell etc. also enjoyed these "advantages" but still average in the 50s. Moreover, playing lots of First Class matches can open up your game to the opposition and can work either way. Bradman also faced serious disadvantages compared to the modern cricketer : 1. There was no protective equipment at his time. 2. Cricket bats have a lot more power in them today than earlier. 3. Shorter boundaries in the modern day game. 4. Pitches were not covered during Bradman's time. 5. The modern day fitness, training, and analysis equipments and techniques were not available to Bradman. 6. He had to spend time trying to earn a living through means other than cricket, while some of his English opponents were professionals dedicated to full time cricket. 7. Bradman experienced a gap of 8 years in his cricketing career due to the war in which he also briefly served in the army and played little to no cricket. 8. Medical facilities available to cricketers today are exponentially better - Bradman almost died during an appendicitis operation.

Carnage :two_thumbs_up:

[Roshanrocks]

Benaud is still alive and has seen a lot of cricket and is universally acknowledged to have a very good understanding of the game. Regarding, Bradman's technique all great batsmen have been able to make technical adjustments to suit the situation and bowler. Bradman, in fact, is renowned to be one of the masters of it. There is nothing to suggest he would not have been able to make whatever changes were required. Anyhow, I'll just summarize the points addressed in this and many other parallel threads and hopefully hit the exit button : 1. Batting was easier during Bradman's time : Factually incorrect. The batting/bowling averages from the 30s/40s are not significantly different from 90s/00s. 2. Bradman did not face any sub 28 average bowlers : Bradman did in fact face bowlers averaging below that like Tate, Bedser, and Verity and dominated all of them. Moreover : a. Around the top 10 bowlers who bowled to Bradman, had their averages spoiled by him. Removing the matches in which Bradman featured brings down their averages significantly, some of them into the early 20s range. b. If Tendulkar's series are taken into account where he did not face any bowler averaging below 28, he still averages in the 60s, much lower than Bradman 3. Bradman benefited from playing only minnows and one other team : Teams like West Indies and India still had some pretty good players in them, but ignore that fact. When Tendulkar's averages against the minnows and England and Sri Lanka are taken into consideration over a similar number of matches, his average is still in the 60s, much lower than Bradman. Nothing in Tendulkar's first class record suggests an average remotely close to 100 either. 4. Bradman was much better than his peers but not as good as modern day batsmen : Any model making this claim should be able to account for discrepancies which will arise from the above assertion and will put the likes of Rameez, Hick, and Butcher at par with Hammond, Hutton, and Sutcliffe. 5. Bradman would fail if put in a time machine and made to bad today : A sportsman greatness is measured by how he conquered the challenges and peers he was confronted with, not by putting him into a hypothetical time machine. a. Bradman's dominance is not only unparalleled in cricket, but any other sport. Here is statistical proof of it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#World_sport_context b. It is as good or bad as an assertion to say that Tendulkar would average 10 if he was transported into the 30s. 6. Bradman benefited from playing only on a small number of grounds : Bradman played on 10 grounds - 5 home, 5 away. Taking a similar criteria for Tendulkar ie. 5 home grounds where he played the most and 5 away grounds where he played the most, Tendulkar averages in the 50s-60s, no where close to Bradman. The only ground at which Tendulkar averages higher than Bradman's career average is the SCG. 7. Bradman benefited from lax LBW laws : Doing a simple calculation taking into account the percentage of LBWs given in the 30s/40s and comparing it to the percentage in 90s/00s, Bradman would have been dismissed twice more LBW. Assuming those two dismissals to be ducks, he would still have averaged 97.xx if modern day LBW guidelines are applied. 8. Bradman failed in Bodyline which is similar to conditions faced by batsmen today : Factually incorrect. Intimidatory bowling was outlawed a couple of seasons after Bodyline and fielding restriction changes were also implemented. a. Bradman averaged 40% more than the nearest Australian in the series and as much as the English top scorers likes of Hammond and Sutcliffe, who were not facing Bodyline, in similar match conditions. b. The only time something close to Bodyline was implemented in the modern game, a batting line up consisting the likes of Gavaskar and Viswanath, which had chased down a world record score in the previous game was hospitalized and basically forfeited the match. c. Bodyline did not have any restrictions on the number of bouncers, fielders, and the batsmen did not have any protective gear. 9. Bradman did not face express bowlers : No facts to support the assertion. The likes of Larwood and Bedser have been described as genuinely quick in literature and there are no speed gun ratings to dispute that claim. 10. Bradman did not face top quality spinners : At test level, Bradman faced and did well against Verity who has a bowling average better than Warne and Kumble. At first class level he was successful against Grimmett and O'Reily, all acknowledged as world class spinners. 11. Bradman did not face reverse swing : None of the modern greats have had their averages dip significantly after reverse swing has been introduced in the game. There is no logical basis to assume that Bradman's average would have suffered greatly, if at all. 12. Bradman had the "advantage" of off field factors like less traveling, playing one format of the game, and lots of First Class matches between tests : Again, there is no evidence to show that any of the greats have had their batting averages drastically reduced by any of these factors. Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell etc. also enjoyed these "advantages" but still average in the 50s. Moreover, playing lots of First Class matches can open up your game to the opposition and can work either way. Bradman also faced serious disadvantages compared to the modern cricketer : 1. There was no protective equipment at his time. 2. Cricket bats have a lot more power in them today than earlier. 3. Shorter boundaries in the modern day game. 4. Pitches were not covered during Bradman's time. 5. The modern day fitness, training, and analysis equipments and techniques were not available to Bradman. 6. He had to spend time trying to earn a living through means other than cricket, while some of his English opponents were professionals dedicated to full time cricket. 7. Bradman experienced a gap of 8 years in his cricketing career due to the war in which he also briefly served in the army and played little to no cricket. 8. Medical facilities available to cricketers today are exponentially better - Bradman almost died during an appendicitis operation.

:asleep:

[King Tendulkar]

:asleep:

:hysterical:

[Guest DeveGowda]

:asleep:

this is like in schools during debate some people alwasy sleep in back benches....:cantstop:

[Gunner_Mania]

Big write up' date=' but still no hard numbers. It means nothing if Bradman doesn't have anything else to show. Sachin still has far more runs and hundreds than Don.[/quote']

 Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	4s  	6s  	Ct  	St
Graeme Hick
526  	871  	84  	41112  	405*  	52.23  	 	 	136  	158  	 	 	709  	0

Sachin Tendulkar
268  	422  	45  	22336  	248*  	59.24  	 	 	74  	100  	 	 	172  	0

41112 > 22336, 136>74 ergo as per SRT PWNS Graeme Hick is greater than Sachin Tendulkar:omg:

[Roshanrocks]

Graeme Hick :adore: my my everyday we are finding out the truth as to who the real greatest players in the world are.... long live ICF :adore:

[Guest DeveGowda]

Graeme Hick :adore: my my everyday we are finding out the truth as to who the real greatest players in the world are.... long live ICF :adore:

RoRo why cant u start a thread "Who is Greatest In ICF " ?

[Roshanrocks]

RoRo why cant u start a thread "Who is Greatest In ICF "

fer what? there is enough entertainment in this and KT's thread already :D

[vvvslaxman]

King Tendulkar' date=' don't expect them to give you a real answer. There minds are stuck in dreamland with 99 > 55. Don doesn't have anything else to show... NOTHING at all. What a big joke![/quote'] All your theories to prove 55 > 99 didn't work huh? :hysterical:

[99.94]

There minds are stuck in dreamland with 99 > 55.

What!? 55 is greater than 99? When did this happen?? :nervous:

[SRT PWNS]

I never said that 55 > 99, you people need to stop making stuff up just like what you are doing with Bradman. I'm not making anything up when I say Sachin has the most runs and hundreds.

[King Tendulkar]

I repeat, as no Bradman fan wants to answer. Bradman fans please state when you have seen Bradman bat? Give specifics on any live games you have seen or any TV footage you have seen of him?

[CSK Fan]

I repeat, as no Bradman fan wants to answer. Bradman fans please state when you have seen Bradman bat? Give specifics on any live games you have seen or any TV footage you have seen of him?

I doubt there are any genuine Bradman fans around. You cannot be a fan of just stats. There are 3 types of people who support Bradman. i) Those over 25 who are classicists and for whom the old will always be better than new (this includes Lurker, Outsider and me) For them its always the good old time when things were difficult and men were men and batsmen were without helmet. The bowlers stared you in the eyes and made you shiver and cricket seperated men from boys. Not like the sissy millionaires who play today ii) Those who feel the need to apologise and feel uncomfortable if an indian does well in any field and try to find faults with him. An Indian cannot be the best, no way. Its always other who have better ethics, are more professional, score on bouncy tracks, are better overall teams, etc, etc iii) A couple like Patriot whose sole aim in life is to oppose Sachin and will side with Bin Laden if he is pitted against Sachin

[bunny]

Watching Bradman getting bowled in his last innings makes me believe that he would have sucked mightily against modern bowlers...but I cant fathom a lot many things: i) How did he manage to average 90+ (international and first class) when no other player in the history of the game could get remotely close to it? Was it just the mental and physical that stood out, or was it technical? With SRT, apart from the stats, what has mattered to most fans is the beauty of his game (mainly front-foot game). ii) The continuity factor: Maybe Bradman's era was weak both in terms of bowling and batting (in terms of ability and not in terms of averages), and he dominated it. But when did the strong era begin? Let's take fast bowling first. From what I have seen: a) Marshall was great, Hadlee was great, Lillee was great, Trueman was close to an all time great. These guys would easily dominate in modern era. What about the 50s? And of course 40s and 30s? If the bowlers in the Bradman era were weak, when did the transformation occur? Who is the first greatest fast bowler? By that I mean who do you think is the oldest fast bowler that would dominate the modern era (or rather all eras)? What of spin? From what I've seen of Chandrasekhar and Underwood, they could definitely have emulated Anil Kumble. Richie Benaud and Jim Laker seem to be pretty decent too. None of these guys were an all time great but they would definitely be able to find places in a modern XI. What about the 50s and 40s then? Again it seems a bit odd that bowlers in the 30s and 40s were so weak that the best of them should be compared to the Zims and Banglas. Coming to batting. From whatever I've seen of Sobers, his backfoot play is second to none, and his on the rise drives are akin to Lara's. He does seem to struggle to hit flicks, and shots of good-length/pitched up deliveries, but imo that's not a prerequisite shot in the armory of a great. If we believe that Sobers was a great (Sobers vs Tendulkar batting is an interesting debate in itself), was he the first technically great batsman? Was he the first that could survive the modern era? If not, who was the one before? The continuity of averages makes it really difficult to interpret when the "great" era really began. iii) Having said all that, I genuinely believe that most modern batsmen (including greats such as Sehwag and Kallis) struggle off short pitch deliveries, whereas most batsmen before 70s had faulty front foot strokes. But most bowlers then, just like most bowlers now, have not been able to exploit the technical deficiencies. And, just like then, all batsmen of the modern era have scored a majority of their runs on flat pitches or in easy circumstances. In that respect, probably Bradman was the best-ever. He made hay while the sun shone. Btw, if Steve Waugh can average 50+ in the 90s, then Tendulkar could definitely have averaged 70+, or more to the point, Bradman would more than likely be a modern-era great.

[99.94]

What of spin? From what I've seen of Chandrasekhar and Underwood' date=' they could definitely have emulated Anil Kumble. Richie Benaud and Jim Laker seem to be pretty decent too. None of these guys were an all time great but they would definitely be able to find places in a modern XI. [/quote'] Just so you know, Bill O'Reilly was picked the Cricinfo All Time Australian XI, and played against Bradman.