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

[King Tendulkar]

OMG. You are so fkn frustrating. Do you expect someone who was born in the fkn 1800s to have as perfect a technique as a modern day player? Don Bradman said himself he never had a coach, things were different back then. YOUR LOGIC IS ****ED. :dash1:

So then how can a player from the 30s be called the greatest ever compared to 2010 players? Greatest in their era yes. But pound for pound best player EVER? No chance

[King Tendulkar]

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!

Anyone picking Bradman?:--D

[99.94]

So then how can a player from the 30s be called the greatest ever compared to 2010 players? Greatest in their era yes. But pound for pound best player EVER? No chance

DUDE. OMG. What is wrong with you? How is it fair that because standards have improved that someone can't be considered the best? Why is Ali considered the best? Why is Pele considered the best? The thing that makes this even more frustrating is that I wouldn't even be having this argument with you if Bradman was Indian.

[King Tendulkar]

Put aside that Bradman pound for pound cant be as good as modern players . Would you not admit that Bradman was in a uncompetitive era for cricket as it had not developed in to a world competitive sport. As all the countries were akin to Bangladesh now. Only england were his opposotion. Also he only toured england and no other country. At least admit that it was uncompetitive era with only one other country to play and test him? And that his skillis were not tested against differnet countries/conditions/oppositions etc. Thus how can one be called greatest when not tested against the varities of cricket, that seems ridiculous to me.

[99.94]

He was tested in every way possible at the time and absolutely owned everyone.

[teacup]

DUDE. OMG. What is wrong with you? How is it fair that because standards have improved that someone can't be considered the best? Why is Ali considered the best? Why is Pele considered the best? The thing that makes this even more frustrating is that I wouldn't even be having this argument with you if Bradman was Indian.

So why would anyone consider Ali better than Joe Louis? Surely Joe Louis has the better record and so does Rocky Marciano who was unbeaten but Ali who came into the scene much later in the period generally known as the golden era for boxing is considered to be the greatest of them all. Why so? Pele's legacy is enhanced by his being a striker and part of three World Cup winning teams otherwise for true soccer fans, Maradona is the best the World has seen.

[King Tendulkar]

He was tested in every way possible at the time and absolutely owned everyone.

By everyone you mean England. There was no one else, everyone else was awful! So he was never tested on dusty turners in India, or by battery of 90mph windies bowlers, or by ball tampering paks with their cheating umpires! How can he be called greatest when all he played was England!

[Sachinism]

i found this list of sachin's wrong dismissals... how much is true??? http://sachinandcritics.com/sachin_vs_ump.php i saw rabinjackman post some videos somewhere of some wrong dismissals too, i wish i could complie avidoe thread of this.... but MODS would hit me :D

I can vouch for most of them, having seem them. I'm sure a few have been missed.

[rabinjackman]

Amir Khan is the best guys, undefeated in 2 matches he played one match in the nineties and one match in pre-independence era against british, he has played in both bradman and tendulkar's times and scored centuries both time.. also let it be noted that he hit last ball sixes in both the games :D jus kidding....

[Roshanrocks]

:orderorder: this is a serious discussion

[vvvslaxman]

Random Stat ? That stat tells you that the bowlers gave 2+ less runs per wkt ... over an entire decade ... any bowler would give an arm to acheive that sort of a improvement after having played just 30-40 tests. Dont take my word based on stats .... go ask any keen observer of cricket as to which decade between 30+40 and 90s was the toughest to bat and had the best bowlers. You gotta be kidding me if you consider the likes of Donald,Ambrose,Bishop and co to be of the same caliber as Larwood and co .... Laters gotta sleep. :--D

Stlll it doesn't prove that is because of superor bowling. It most likely due to inferior batting of England whole of other crappy teams like Srialnka, Zimbabwe, Pakistan et al. :cantstop: Tendukar did not play against Pakistan from 1990 and 1999. So do not include Akram and Younis in that list.

[vvvslaxman]

Tendulkar played through entire decade post 2000. The most batting friendly decade in the history. Where does he rank in that decade. He is even behind Mo Yousuf in that decade.

[The Outsider]

bah ... here you go ... http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;template=results;type=batting;view=series Just add up the series with 70+ avgs in that list and you will end up with a avg in the mid nineties ... and some of these series were against Aus,SL,SA,Eng with bowlers like Steyn,Murli,Warne,Stuart,Clark,BLee,Johnson,Gillespie etc etc ... I dare you to find ONE single bowler of the Class of Steyn Murli and Warne from DGB's era ... you will have to resort to digging up first class stats and even then you will end up with say a O'Reily but there never was any Steyn.

After reading this post, there are two options - either you are being deliberately facetious or you just do not have the mental capacity to understand and interpret numbers. I will try to break it down and explain to you the context of my post - let me know which part is not clear to you. Your claim was that Bradman averaged so high because he did not face any bowlers averaging less 28 during his time. Yes or No? If yes, and Tendulkar is in the same league as Bradman he should be able to average similar or close to Bradman in matches where he did not face any bowlers averaging less than 28. Yes or No? I picked out the series in which Tendulkar did not face any bowler with an average less than 28 and demonstrated that his average was a good 30 points lower than Bradman. Your counter to it was picking out series in which he averaged more than 70! :hysterical: Do you realize the stupidity of your argument now? Even then you could have done better by just picking the innings in which Tendulkar scored more than 100 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;runsmin1=100;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=batting See, now Tendulkar averages 211 and is twice as good as Bradman!

These numbers are not right. Moreover SG doesnt give you the ability the remove extras ... heres what I have 30s+40s (With DGBs Runs ) = 32.17 30s+40s (Without DGBs 3500 Runs ) = 31.2 90s = 29.45 00s = 32.02

Can you combine 90s and 00s together like you have done for 30s and 40s and tell me how on the basis of the result you conclude that batting back then was much easier than now? :hmmm:

[The Outsider]

He was far ahead of his times ... I have said that long back. But to use that and proclaim that he would continue to avg 100 in the modern era is requires a fertile mind.

If Bradman was far ahead of his times ie. the likes of Hammond, Hutton etc. and Tendulkar is better than Bradman, why do you have a problem accepting Rameez Raja was better or at the very least comparable to the likes of Hammond?

[King Tendulkar]

Tendulkar played through entire decade post 2000. The most batting friendly decade in the history. Where does he rank in that decade. He is even behind Mo Yousuf in that decade.

Sachin has more runs then Mo Yo in post 2000 decade! Also has more runs then Laxman in that decade:--D

[Sachinism]

Sachin has more runs then Mo Yo in post 2000 decade! Also has more runs then Laxman in that decade:--D

And during that time YoYo went through the form of his life and Tendulkar was in the operating theatre

[vvvslaxman]

Sachin has more runs then Mo Yo in post 2000 decade! Also has more runs then Laxman in that decade:--D

I am talking about average.

[S.Bond]

To me, Moyo and tendulkar were about as good as each other during the last decade until 2009... Moyo really let Pakistani team down on 3 very crucial occasions.. So i will say Tendulkar a litle better than moyo even in the last decade. Still moyo had a great one.

[King Tendulkar]

Moyo/Yoyo did have a good decade. But his poor record in SA ans Aus count aginst him

[teacup]

If Bradman was far ahead of his times ie. the likes of Hammond' date=' Hutton etc. and Tendulkar is better than Bradman, why do you have a problem accepting Rameez Raja was better or at the very least comparable to the likes of Hammond?[/quote'] How many times have you come across a linear relationship when human entities performing under varying circumstances are compared? Now to add to the already complex nature of the comparison you have to normalize the stats to account for vastly different standards. 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 you still hold on to your point that Bradman is inarguably the greatest of all time, I have to take it that you are in denial and do not wish to see the light.