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

[zen]

This stupid thread is still on! I must say that this year as been Bradmanisque for Tendulkar. Reminding everyone how good Bradman was as he played like this year after year and how one has to play to be compared with him! Credit to Tendulkar for showing us that and managing a comparison with Don!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

sorry but who are these 19 people who said "No"? :haha:

You just have to click on the numbers to see

[bhanu]

Sigh even the poll @ this site proved bradman is best crickater alltime

[King Tendulkar]

Viv Richards says Tendulkar is the all time greatest cricketer.:--D http://cricket.ndtv.com/storypage.aspx?id=SPOEN20100156402&nid=59300

[kooljatt]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2010/oct/12/cricket-india-sachin-tendulkar-greatest 85.8 % cricket lovers choosing Goddy, rest 14.2.......

[zen]

Again for the n'th time ... it is just silly to compare by mere avg's . The skill level reqd to succeed against modern day ruthless bowlers backed up by extraordinary fielding is significantly more. To add to that Baasu has had to play lot of T20 and ODI cricket and never really has the luxury of going into a Test series with good First Class outing something that was unthinkable back in the days of DGB. I mean he came into this Test series after playing Tontee-Tontee in far off South Africa. Enough said.

Thanks for entertaining us for the nth time. Why would you think that Don wouldn't be successful if he played a test following a T20? And many modern batsmen do the same as what Tendulkar does and have been equally successful. If you want to argue based on that then you will first have to show that all modern batsmen are better than their peers in the past era and that Tendulkar is way ahead of the peers of his generation like Lara. Or even the greats of previous generations like Richards, Sobers, etc. On one hand, you keep staking up stats to show how good Tendulkar is (Stats for Boss thread) and on the other when stats don't work you resort to saying the above! I just wonder, what would Sachin himself say when you take your stack of stats to show him that he is better than the Don! Don Bradman is in the league of his own. All the best batsman dedate are for the 2nd best! PS Talking about stats, it would be interesting to see where Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Gavaskar, Lara, Tendulkar and Sehwag stand if you take their best 80% of tests.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

The biggest arguments in favor of DGB and against Sachin is this: a) DGB's average is significantly higher than HIS peers. There is no one else in the 90s or even 80s from HIS era. b) Sachin's average is in the ball park of HIS peers and is not in a league of it's own even when compared to HIS own peers. If DGB had peers who averaged in the low 90s OR if Sachin had averaged in the high 60s or 70s with his peers in the 50s, the above argument could be dismissed. Since that is not the case, it is a valid argument.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

I have answered this peer business earler ... it only proves that DGB was far better than his peers. You cannot automatically convert that into DGB > Everyone else forever. He also had only a handfull of peers to compete with as only Eng and Aus were the 2 major countries playing Test Cricket on no more than 10 grounds. You try to play like that today you will get ridiculed at. Times have changed . Quite drastically infact. The sports world is insanely competitive and there is just soo much more players trying to compete for places. The standards are bound to be naturally higher.

That will probably be the case 100 years from now as well, relatively speaking, which doesn't take anything away from today's performances either.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bradman99]

Sick of hearing about this.. Especially those who downplay Bradman's achievements in the games, comparing it to someone who beats up schoolboys and then expects to beat professional boxers. That is a very disrespectful way to speak about a man who dominated his sport for such a long period of time.

[zen]

Because he never played in one. Feel free to enlighten us as to how you automatically assumed that he would succeed without any relevant data to back up your case. Dont try to sell your opinion as fact. Read my earlier posts in this thread ... cant be bothered to retype the same again and again. You still have doubts about this ? There are no Stats to tell me what DGB would do in Asia, WI, SAF. There are no Stats to tell me what DGB would do against the absolute best bowlers in the history of the game. The bowlers he beat up are all no-name trundlers compared to the likes of W's,Donald,Amby,Walsh,McGrath,Steyn,MM,Morkel,Pollock,Warne,Gillespie,Flintoff,Shoaib,Saqlain etc etc etc. There is simply NO comparison whatsoever as to the quality of bowling and also the pace and variations. There are no Stats to tell me what DGB would do against reverse swing at express pace. All you have is mere assumptions. So in the absense of all that it is a bit like saying if I had the luxury of being considered a world-champion boxer based on my performances beating up school kids ... I would repeat the same sort of performance against professional battle hardened wrestlers elsewhere. You dont need stats to tell how that will pan out .. simple common sense will do. Again completely missing the point .... a run scored back in the 30s isnt equal to a run scored in modern era. Any cricket expert worth his salt will tell you that the levels have increased drastically over the last 60+ yrs since DGB last played. If you dont understand this you shouldnt even get into this debate.

Thanks for the entertainment. What I get from your post is that 1. you have already replied to some of the points so I should go look around and match what releates to the point I am making. Why do you bother replying than? Why not just post stuff like see my post #xxx. In fact just keep pasting those post # :P 2. you use stats when they suit you and intangible when tangibles like stats don't As a Sachin fan, I have no hestitation in saying that Bradman is in the league of his own. And there isn't a huge difference b/w the capabilities of Sachin, Lara, Sobers, Richards, etc. I wouldn't mind having a Richard/Sobers in best form than a Sachin in his best form and vice versa (in their best form, they all are interchangable). But if Don were available, he would be my first pick w/o hesitation. In fact I would think Don would give the other team an unfair advantge, if he isn't playing for my team :winky: You can sit on your stack of stats or whatever, but even Sachin is not going to be convinced by that :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

As long as there will be test matches played I doubt the standards will increase as drastically as they have since DGB plus we will always have high quality video footage to compare. Its a shame that DGB had to play in crickets stone age.

well it the same old argument. - no video footage then, so won't believe what I have read cause all those writers were biased - standards were low then, but will not go higher - he was better than his peers, but a modern day great doesn't have to better than his peers cause they are all so good these days - bowling was cr@p then, but has been so good these days, doesn't matter that it has been quite crappy for a while even now barring a few guys BTW for comparison, in Tennis, Rod Laver is still considered an all time great, Sampras was hailed for crossing Roy Emerson's grand slam record and no one said all those past achievements were all cr@p.

[zen]

Because of the futility of that exercise ... for example the T20 thingy that I mentioned in the previous post ... I see you quitely ducked out of that after my response ? You will do exactly the same for everything else. You very well know that you have no leg to stand on in this debate. So you will keep re-locating the goal post everytime you get owned. Nothing new. I donot know how else to explain this but heres another try ... For starters .... Lets see DGB's avg in SAF,Asia,WI Lets see DGB's perf against Bowlers with sub 25 career bowling avg + Sub 55 SR ... Once you post those we can talk about other things. As far as I know they dont exist for DGB. If you have some magic wand that generates this stat for DGB Iam all ears. Else move on. How do you know what he would be a advantage when he has no experience facing the sort of bowling and standards from the modern era. Remember YOUR opinion is exactly just that : "OPINION" . Not fact. I prefer facts. If you got any lets see them.

Yes, I will arrange a test series in SA, Asia and WI for Don to play there so we could give you his average. And since he hasn't played there, it means Don cannot do well there If that's your way of showing Sachin is better than Sachin better not have fans like you. As a Sachin fan, one thing you could learn from him is to have respect for the players of the past era rather than trying to run down their achievements. Based on your points, if Sachin is better than Don, then so is Sehwag/Richard/Sobers/etc. Why complicate your life by trying to create something that isn't going to last and devoting your time trying to blow Sachin's trumphet when it isn't required

[The Outsider]

If 20 years from now Mongolia starts playing cricket, all those who have batted in Mongolia will be better batsmen than Tendulkar. B->

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[donkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2214154.stm

Tendulkar passed Bradman's record at Headingley Indian cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar believes compatriot Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than the late great Donald Bradman. Tendulkar scored his 30th Test hundred at Headingley on Friday - passing Bradman's record of 29. Who is the best? You say And Gavaskar, who holds the record with 34 Test centuries, was full of praise for Tendulkar. Tendulkar is probably the most complete batsman the game has seen Sunil Gavaskar Gavaskar told The Daily Telegraph: "For all Bradman's achievements, Tendulkar is the closest thing to batting perfection I've seen - in terms of technique and temperament." Tendulkar hit 193 before falling lbw to Andrew Caddick on the third morning of the third Test. But the 29-year-old was very humble about his achievement. He said: "Statistically, I have passed Don Bradman but I can't be compared with him. He's not a normal person. "You can only dream of scoring a hundred every three innings." But Gavaskar added: "If you have a look at some of the film of Bradman, you see his bat came from third man. "Because Bradman was Bradman, he could see the ball incredibly early and score at a phenomenal rate. Statistically, I have passed Don Bradman but I can't be compared with him Sachin Tendulkar "Tendulkar's bat comes down very straight, he is perfectly balanced off either foot, and there is not a shot he cannot play. "He is probably the most complete batsman the game has seen. "I would back him to become the first man to score a hundred international hundreds - that's 50 in Tests and 50 in one-dayers. Bowlers of the world beware." Bradman, who died last year at the age of 92, was widely regarded as the greatest batsman to have ever played the game. The Australian had said Tendulkar was the one contemporary batsman who reminded him of himself.

Two things stand out in the article Tendulkar himself thinks he can't be compared to Bradman Tendulkar had 30 centuries at the tender age of 29, imagine the possibilities if it wasn't for tennis elbow.