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

[King Tendulkar]

tendulkar could average that much' date=' but i would fear Sehwag's average, with that kind of fielding and that era's bowling speeds , sehwag would score 400 in a day[/quote'] Totally agree. And have said so previously

[Roshanrocks]

KT bhai.... yaar when bradman didnt face the owrlds greatest bowlers from the 1890's, y do they keep calling him the world's greatest?

[King Tendulkar]

KT bhai.... yaar when bradman didnt face the owrlds greatest bowlers from the 1890's' date=' y do they keep calling him the world's greatest? [/quote'] Could not agree more :cantstop:

[TSAG_RGB]

Like I said. There is no shortage of facile excuses for the lousiest of Sachin's failures. He had the clout to get what he wanted - so don't give me factually non sensical things like " squads he was given to lead" .

He hardly ever got the team he wanted. His removal from captaincy at the end of 1997 was due to the selectors not wanting an independent captain .

It is no secret that the decision to oust Sachin Tendulkar had its seeds not, as is widely propagated, in his loss of batting form or even in India's plummeting cricketing results. Rather, the seeds were sown as early as March 1997, when the then Indian captain made the unpardonable mistake of telling the press that he was dissatisfied with the way the selection committee went about its business. He did that during the selection of the team to tour the West Indies. When he asked for an off spinner and the request was turned down, Sachin stormed: "If you are not going to listen to me, then why invite me for these meetings and make a farce of it?". Subsequently, at the end of the meeting, he let it be widely known that he disagreed with the team as selected. From that point on, Sachin had to go -- simply because this selection committee, which operates on principles other than cricketing logic, could not afford an independent-minded captain who would question their decisions. Sure, each successive selection exercise with its quota of "surprises" would be ripped by the media -- but that falls under the category of "acceptable risk" for the famous five. Because after all, they always had the option of saying -- as they did, again, when announcing the team for Dhaka -- that the media was on a witch-hunt. However, if the captain himself began criticising them, they would find themselves on a sticky wicket -- ergo, Tendulkar should go.

http://www.rediff.com/sports/1998/jan/05a.htm

At one point he did have a Marathi mandal in the playing XI during his captaincy.

When?

[Sooda]

Like I said. There is no shortage of facile excuses for the lousiest of Sachin's failures. He had the clout to get what he wanted - so don't give me factually non sensical things like " squads he was given to lead" . He had 2 stints at captaincy and he could have got players that he asked for. At one point he did have a Marathi mandal in the playing XI during his captaincy. Fact is he can't think and do beyond his own game. Harsh but truth. It reflect's on what motivates him and how he responds to pressure situations in matches. It takes alot of b@lls to absorb captaincy and lead a side and also be the leading batsman of the side. This is the reason why Aussies have this kind of respect for Allan Border, who lead a rag a tag side through their worst time , was its leading batsman. Ponting lead legends and now is part of the rebuilding. It takes alot out of one's individuals game. Some can focus only on their game. Sachin falls in that category.

No one is going to deny he wasnt a great captain, but to compare the team he kead (Devang Gandhi, MSK Prasad, Kanitkar etc etc) to Pontings current charges is unfair. He still did well as batsman then (avergares 50+ as skip IIRC)- so the pressure of it didnt effect him in that sense. The whole Tendulkar vs the rest malarkey has been debated to death, this isnt the thread to restart it.

[Roshanrocks]

arey TSAG, patriot is a confirmed sachin hater.... whatever u put forward in front of him will dissappear in a black hole....he will come up with another one of his stats which will be backed up with smileys n insults to shoot you down...just wait :D just look at this tiny sample

Sachin is not fit to clean Ponting's dirty linen. He doesn't even warrant a comparison with someone like Bradman.

get my drift?

[Sooda]

Wrong vvslaxman claims that if Bradman went in a time machine he would still be best in world now! You should take your buddy to task over this nonsenical claim! Instaed you are so wrapped in politics(allies/non allies) on this board, that you won't take to task certain posters even when they spout utter nonsense. And in this post you still hint that the time machine Bradman may be still the best! That is MORONIC stuff from the Bradman bootlicker! Just come out and speak common sense and clarify that time machine bradman would not be best in the world and then you might regain some dignity. In terms of greatness some will not want to know who dominated their peers the most. Some will simply want to know if they all played tommorow who will be the BEST. That clearly will not be Bradman. Thus some will say how can he actually be the best batsman ever, when he would not actually be the best batsman if the greats played!

I think thats the point Outsider made- I dont know if he did 'hint' that Bradders would be the best- point is WE JUST DONT KNOW, so that will be a pretty futile discussion. There are two ways of looking at your 'if they played tomorrow' argument... If were talking about inherent talent and ability here, Bradman clearly had that in spades , he was born with it. If he was born in say 1975 and underwent the much improved coaching, fitness techniques etc that living in this era brings with it and honed that talent- then who's to say that he wouldnt be the greatest. OTOH transposing a 20 something yr old Bradman from 1930-something in a time machine and asking to start his career a few weeks ago vs NZ (and I actually think he might not do too badly versus the crappy bowlers on pattas there are today), or better yet doing that in the 1980s and asking him to start his career in THAT Aus side against WI pacers and all... well time brings with it progress in every field and in human ability. He's not going to have had the huge advantages that batsmen in the 80's and 90's had (whilst developing i.e) so he would not have the same kind of success. (Whilst were being fantasmagorical, we could say that he'd be so dazzled by modern technology and unnerved by the time jump itself that personally he'd be affected, have a nervous breakdown and not be able to play cricket at all .) The only way to decide this 'greatest' debate IS to compare with peers, competitors and in the context of their times as Outsider rightly states Id like to see if he played Lindwall and Miller in domestic cricket- he was a bit old when they emerged- but it would be interesting to see how he fared agaisnt them. I have read of him hammering O Reilly and Grimmet in local Aus matches around in his youth. Those bowlers were probably better than most test attacks he played against. And No I personally have not seen him bat on footage or otherwise, but in come cases we have to go by what we read, as sadly I wasnt around in the 1930's. :P

[TSAG_RGB]

arey TSAG, patriot is a confirmed sachin hater.... whatever u put forward in front of him will dissappear in a black hole....he will come up with another one of his stats which will be backed up with smileys n insults to shoot you down...just wait :D just look at this tiny sample get my drift?

yeah i know that. have read his previous comments as well.

[99.94]

Well said Sooda. Hopefully that will get through to King Tendulkar as to why his argument is ridiculous

[King Tendulkar]

^ Following your logic through, do you agree that Lohmaan is the greatest bowler ever then?

[99.94]

I keep asking this question but still Bradman fans do not 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?

Yeah actually I've seen a lot of him. I was with the Australian team on the Ashes tours of 1930 and 1948. He is without a doubt the best batsman I have ever seen.

[King Tendulkar]

Did you get a chance to see Lohmaan the great on your time travels?:--D

[99.94]

^ Following your logic through' date=' do you agree that Lohmaan is the greatest bowler ever then?[/quote'] Well no. As someone showed earlier his average was not that much better than his peers, unlike Bradman.

[King Tendulkar]

^ It was over 20% better then 2nd on list and 50% better then 3rd on list. This is monster domination. And 100% better then modern players So following peer theory through, Warne and Murali have no clear domination over each other in stats terms. Thus in terms of peer domination they are awful. That means they are not good as spinners before who dominated their peers more

[King Tendulkar]

So we agree Warne is not an all time great then and is certainly no were near list of greatest spinner ever. As in terms of stats he did not dominate his peers. In fact he has worse average and strike rate then murali. Thus not only did he not dominate his peers , he was surpassed by his peers. Also his average is not much better then other peer Kumble. I am sure that Bradman fans(with peer domination criteria) will agree that there is no way Warne can be considered greatest spinner ever. In fact taking in to account peer domination he would not make top 10 greatest spinner ever list

[King Tendulkar]

Just imagine if Warne played in an era with only england as oppo, like in the 30s. He would have clear domination of his peers of England, as their spinners were useless in Warnes era! Then he would be a great. But Warne played in a competitive era, hence there were annoying subcontinent players to ruin his domination stats. Thus unfortunatley Warne cannot be considered an all time great. Poor Warne, shame he did not play in 30s when all you had to was dominate poms and you are numero uno!

[Roshanrocks]

So following peer theory through, Warne and Murali have no clear domination over each other in stats terms. Thus in terms of peer domination they are awful. That means they are not good as spinners before who dominated their peers more

:hysterical:

[Roshanrocks]

Just imagine if Warne played in an era with only england as oppo, like in the 30s. He would have clear domination of his peers of England, as their spinners were useless in Warnes era! Then he would be a great. But Warne played in a competitive era, hence there were annoying subcontinent players to ruin his domination stats. Thus unfortunatley Warne cannot be considered an all time great. Poor Warne, shame he did not play in 30s when all you had to was dominate poms and you are numero uno!

poor warne :((

[The Outsider]

If were talking about inherent talent and ability here, Bradman clearly had that in spades , he was born with it. If he was born in say 1975 and underwent the much improved coaching, fitness techniques etc that living in this era brings with it and honed that talent- then who's to say that he wouldnt be the greatest. OTOH transposing a 20 something yr old Bradman from 1930-something in a time machine and asking to start his career a few weeks ago vs NZ (and I actually think he might not do too badly versus the crappy bowlers on pattas there are today), or better yet doing that in the 1980s and asking him to start his career in THAT Aus side against WI pacers and all... well time brings with it progress in every field and in human ability. He's not going to have had the huge advantages that batsmen in the 80's and 90's had (whilst developing i.e) so he would not have the same kind of success. (Whilst were being fantasmagorical, we could say that he'd be so dazzled by modern technology and unnerved by the time jump itself that personally he'd be affected, have a nervous breakdown and not be able to play cricket at all .)

Good post, Sooda. The time machine argument is absurd to say the least. If a 20 year old Einstein or Newton was put into a time machine and made to attend a graduate level class in Physics, he would have no clue of what's going on in the class. By the assertions made by Tendulkar fan boys, Einstein and Newton would then be crap Physicists and Mathematicians. On the other hand, if they were given the same growing up environment as other students, is there any doubting there inherent genius?

Id like to see if he played Lindwall and Miller in domestic cricket- he was a bit old when they emerged- but it would be interesting to see how he fared agaisnt them. I have read of him hammering O Reilly and Grimmet in local Aus matches around in his youth. Those bowlers were probably better than most test attacks he played against.

I had been curious about this earlier and remember checking some older scorecards, but apparently Bradman played very little First Class cricket once the duo made their debuts due to illness and the war. He had major health problems during and around the war years and had concentrated mainly on his business.

[vvvslaxman]

Those days frontfoot noballs were allowed. I think they changed it around in the 50s or 60s. Imagine bowlers keep bowling with front foot noball like Sreesanth did deliberately in England and almost killed Pietersen with a beamer? These days bowlers cannot marginally over step. ON the subject of bowling, Mr Benaud has unearthed an interesting statistic. Since the change to the front foot no-ball law in 1962 there have been 574 occasions on which 20 or more no-balls have been bowled in a Test (19,276 of them if you are interested). In 86 years of Test cricket prior to the change of the law, there were just 15 occasions when 20 or more no-balls were bowled in a Test (396 of them).