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

[King Tendulkar]

Also Lohmann played for 4 years after getting tuberculoisis. His carrer was cut short due to this and played for 4 years after getting it. Just imagine his figures if he never got ill.:cantstop:

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Cricket for me begins and ends with Tendulkar. Yet, I take pride in being a rational rather than a blind fan. Batsmen of the world can be divided in two leagues - in one league there's Bradman, in the other league there's the rest. As for the honor of being the second best ever, there are quite a few contenders - Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Hutton and Hammond. My pick would be either Sobers or Hobbs.

[ZodiaC]

Lohmann played for 10 years. A full decade of cricket. Its not his fault they did not play as much cricket, horses are slower then cars and boats were not as quick then. Could not get to grounds as quick or to down under. A decade of cricket is not big enough sample size? Thats not fair on the players from 120 years ago, that they are discarded cos of small sample size, they did not play as much, not Lohmaans fault. I mean Bradman only played against one proper cricket team in England. The other were awful then and he only toured one country England. Surely that sample size of competition is far to small. Look at modern players and the different tems they play, diferent countries toured and pitches they encounter. Bradmans sample size is to small.

Haha :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ZodiaC]

The next problem in this theory is that of Cricketing laws ... the lbw law underwent a big change in 1937 when they first allowed balls pitching outside off to be considered for a lbw. Previosuly only wkt-to-wkt bowling got you lbw's ( think about that for a min). So there isnt even a level playing field here from end-to-end for the theory to make any sense.

:omg: And then there was no bucknor either :--D

[zen]

You missed the main part about competitveness and free lunches ... care to explain why they used to employ attacking fields with huge gaps and continue to bowl gazillion overs even when the batsmen had scored big runs and the bowlers leaking runs? You seemed to have ducked that one. :banghead: Go back and read the sub-discussion from when I put up that stat in response to Outsiders post. I cant be bothered to re-hash the same thing again and again.

So having attacking field when a batsman is on 100 makes those runs scored less valuable! Let's see the following example: Dravid is batting on say 150, Tendulkar walks in. The opposition captain takes the new ball and sets attacking field. Based on your understanding, every run Dravid would score would be less valuable than what Tendulkar scores. With the same kind of field, if Dravid and Tendulkar are on 20 each, based on your argument, Tendulkar runs would be more valuable than Dravid's. This is getting cartoonish. And I am suppose to reply to such remarks :giggle: *Rett hammers another nail in to Bossbhai's web of meaningless points / stats* :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Feel free to come up with a instance when SRT is batting on 100+ and they have 3 slips and gully and we can talk ... for Sehwag this would be after he has scored about 25 in 3-5 overs. Understand ? If not its ok to keep quite instead of spamming with inane smilies like a school girl.

I have to give it to you for pulling out one cartoonish point after another :hatsoff: The time is not far away when some folks will say which 100 is more valuable based on field settings! May be you to play some cricket than living in the world of stats! And yeah for players like Bradman, it is not a bad idea at all to have fielders in attacking positions to pick up his wkt as it is difficult to stop them from scoring runs no matter how the field is set :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

you need to stop making those peurile statements if you want this to continue .... its pretty easy for me to make similar statements but Iam not interested in that. So if you want to discuss it has to be done in a mature and non-emotional way. Else feel free to find someone else to continue your slanging match.

I understand that any statement that crashes your "Tendulkar is not the greatest" dream and buries your stats is peurile A collection of your gems: 1. Anyhow the main thing in this SRT vs DGB comparison according to me atleast is would SRT avg 100 if presented with those conditions 2. the point was simply to disprove this notion that since batting avgs have remained the same it means that a run scored in the 30s was as valuable as a run scored now 3. Explain 3 slips and a gully when DGB is batting on 100* 4. These teams are not as weak as the teams that DGB played against. No one in the right mind will say Pakistani bowling and WI bowling are pushovers. NZ in NZ are always competitive. 5. care to explain why they used to employ attacking fields with huge gaps and continue to bowl gazillion overs even when the batsmen had scored big runs and the bowlers leaking runs? You seemed to have ducked that one. 6. Feel free to come up with a instance when SRT is batting on 100+ and they have 3 slips and gully and we can talk :haha:

[King Tendulkar]

The tide is turning. People are waking up. Video evidence is now there to blow the delusionists fantasy tales wide open of the quality of cricket back then in the dark ages http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2010/08/jack-hobbs-on-video.html Viv Richards has already stated that Tendulkar is the greatest CRICKETER ever. It is now being openly discussed about who is better Tendulkar or Bradman. Headline on front of The Tiimes today(a hardcore traditional cricket paper from old days of England) "Who is the greatest batsman of all time" and analyse a straight shoot out between Tendulkar and Bradman by Woodcock(oldie and very respected cricket journalist). He gives them joint top status and I quote him "I can easily see Tendulkar scoring an undefeated 309, even 409, on the first day of the fourth Test match of 1930, as the don did" I believe people are reading our posts and seeing the light.:winky: People are being woken from the lazy genralisations of past greatness and watching magical Tenulkar in full glorious flight is wiining the battle in greatness!

[King Tendulkar]

Here is the article --------------------------------- SEPARATED BY THE GENERATIONS; JOINED BY THEIR GENIUS John Woodcock Last updated November 3 2010 12:01AM To say so in Australia would be to invite invective, even eviction, but I have long thought that, simply as a batsman, Sachin Tendulkar is the equal of Sir Donald Bradman. He does not dominate the game in the way the Don did in the 1930s, but nor, I think, would the Don himself if he were playing in today’s much more calculating environment. There is every chance that Tendulkar will make his 50th Test hundred before the end of this month, in itself an amazing achievement. But if Bradman had played the same number of Test innings (Tendulkar has played 280 to Bradman’s 80) he would have finished with something like 100 hundreds, given the rate at which he scored them. Tendulkar’s Test average this year (97.69) is of Bradmanesque proportions, but his overall figure of 56.96 is dwarfed by Bradman’s 99.94. When W. G. was asked to name the best batsman he played with, he replied: “Give me Arthur”, meaning Arthur Shrewsbury, whose average in his 23 Tests was 35.47. They all played a very different game, albeit one that has always gone by the same name. Statistically, the long-held assertion that there will never be another Bradman still holds good, and almost certainly always will. Not only his batting, but his knowledge of the game, credentials as a captain, sagacity as an administrator and iconic status as an Australian set him apart from any other sportsman of the 20th century. However, he himself believed that there were certainly others with just as much ability, as is borne out by his remark to Stan McCabe after his team-mate’s stupendous 232 in the Trent Bridge Test match of 1938: “I’d love to be able to bat like that.” Much has been said about Bradman’s remarkable “eye”, yet when he submitted to having an optional eye test being carried out in Adelaide for purposes of research, nothing unusual cropped up. Concentration and total commitment, as well, of course, as relishing the moment, were what his wife picked out. She would hardly have liked to cite ruthlessness, too. “If he was not out overnight, he would restart his innings from the moment he woke up next morning,” she once told me. Tendulkar was understandably flattered when, upon their meeting, Bradman told him he thought that as batsmen they had much in common. Physically, Tendulkar is the shorter and stockier of the two. With the sub-continent being the breeding ground of the world’s most natural batsmen, there could be any number born with Tendulkar’s talent in the course of a year. What eventually it comes down to is opportunity, ambition and temperament. Tendulkar is not a lovely player in the sense that V.V.S. Laxman, Rahul Dravid and Mohammad Azharuddin have been, or Ranjitsinhji and his nephew, Duleepsinhji must have been, or David Gower was, or Greg Chappell and Mark Waugh could be. But nor was Bradman. Commercialism and gracefulness are by no means necessarily compatible. When he put his mind to it, the most complete batsman I have seen, including Bradman and Tendulkar, was probably Barry Richards, the most overpowering Vivian Richards, the most disarming Denis Compton, the most serene Frank Worrell, the most majestic Walter Hammond, the most dazzling Brian Lara, the most expansive Garfield Sobers. But none had Bradman’s abiding dominance or Tendulkar’s staying power. And perhaps none of them, as an 18-year old, could have played the innings that Tendulkar did for India against Australia in Perth in 1992, when he made 114 on a pitch that still demanded more of a batsman’s courage and capacity to survive than any other. I was there to see it and wrote in these columns that, “Playing as he did yesterday Tendulkar is arguably already the best batsman in the world ... He showed maturity, tenacity and judgment that were quite extraordinary for someone so young. On top of that, he has a wonderfully sound technique, stands beautifully at the wicket and footwork that looks after itself.” Not unlike Colin Cowdrey when, a week after his 22nd birthday and without a championship hundred to his name, he made the first, best and most valuable of his 22 Test hundreds, against Australia in Melbourne in 1954, driving Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller to kingdom come as though unaware of the scale of it. And Tendulkar seems as run-hungry and nerveless as ever. Incredible! Tendulkar belongs to the school of those Indian batsmen (Sunil Gavaskar and Gundappa Viswanath were others) who make up for a lack of inches with eye, wrist and insatiability. He uses a bat so heavy that Bradman would have laughed at it. You need only to pick it up to realise how strong his arms must be. Just as the modern driver sends the golf ball anything up to 50 yards farther than those made 30 or 40 years ago, so the modern bat makes a mockery of today’s much shortened boundaries. MCC may well have been lax in keeping an eye on the built-in power of the bat. To say that Tendulkar, or anyone else for that matter, might be as good as Bradman does not diminish Bradman and his achievements. Bradman, I believe, would have been proud to play today’s game as well as Tendulkar does, just as Tendulkar, like all of us, holds Bradman in awe. Comparing the leading players of different generations, especially when the generations are far apart, is usually more diverting than meaningful. All we can be sure of is that today’s two unquestionably great batsmen, Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting, would always have excelled. Against the same England attack and the same decidedly stately (by today’s standards) fielding; on the same Headingley pitch and outfield, and facing the same number of balls (19 or 20 overs an hour rather than 13 or 14), I can easily see Tendulkar scoring an undefeated 309, even 409, on the first day of the fourth Test match of 1930, as the Don did. This is often quoted as the day on which Bradman took batting in Test cricket to a previously unattained level of sustained brilliance. On getting back to the Queen’s Hotel in Leeds, where the Australians were staying, he went straight to the desk and asked for “a nice pot of tea” to be sent to his room, while the rest of the side went expectantly to the bar — a case, perhaps, of genius doing what it must. As with Tendulkar, I expect privacy was already becoming an ever more precious commodity for Bradman, even at the age of 21. Let us just say that Tendulkar is the Bradman of today — less hypnotic but scarcely less phenomenal — and leave it at that. Highest Test batting averages Matches Runs Average 1, D G Bradman (Australia, 1928-1948) 52 6,996 99.94 2, R G Pollock (South Africa, 1963-1970) 23 2,256 60.97 3, G A Headley (West Indies, 1930-1954) 22 2,190 60.83 4, H Sutcliffe (England, 1924-1935) 54 4,555 60.73 5, E Paynter (England, 1931-1939) 20 1,540 59.23 6, K F Barrington (England, 1955-1968) 82 6,806 58.67 7, E D Weekes (West Indies, 1948-1958) 48 4,455 58.61 8, W R Hammond (England, 1927-1947) 85 7,249 58.45 9, G St A Sobers (West Indies, 1954-1974) 93 8,032 57.78 10, S R Tendulkar (India, 1989-present) 171 14,240 56.96 Most Test runs Matches Inns Runs Average 1, S R Tendulkar (India, 1989-present) 171 280 14,240 56.96 2, R T Ponting (Australia, 1995-present) 148 251 12,250 54.68 3, B C Lara (West Indies, 1990-2006) 131 232 11,953 52.88 4, R Dravid (India, 1996-present) 144 249 11,602 52.73 5, A R Border (Australia, 1978-1994) 156 265 11,174 50.56 6, J H Kallis (South Africa, 1995-present) 140 237 11,126 55.07 7, S R Waugh (Australia, 1985-2004) 168 260 10,927 51.06 8, S M Gavaskar (India, 1971-1987) 125 214 10,122 51.12 9, D P M D Jayawardena (Sri Lanka, 1997-present) 113 187 9,408 54.06 10, S Chanderpaul (West Indies, 1994-present) 126 215 8,969 49.28 39, D G Bradman (Australia, 1928-1948) 52 80 6,996 99.94 Most Test hundreds Matches 100s 1, S R Tendulkar (India) 171 49 2, R T Ponting (Australia) 148 39 3, J H Kallis (South Africa) 140 35 4, S M Gavaskar (India) 125 34 5, B C Lara (West Indies) 131 34 6, S R Waugh (Australia) 168 32 7, M L Hayden (Australia) 103 30 8, D G Bradman (Australia) 52 29 9, R Dravid (India) 144 29 10, D P M D Jayawardena (Sri Lanka) 113 28

[dhillon28]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmUw9dDa1ys]YouTube - Don Bradman[/ame] doesnt don bradman's demonstration of the pull shot give a big indication of how poor the bowling must have been during his time. He's demonstrating that you pull off the front foot.....something you can only do to bowlers who are a) not fast and b) cant direct their bouncers well. Ppl who pull off the front foot get found out against top quality fast bowlers. if the best batsmen of that time advocates pulling off the front foot, id hate to see what the rest of the batsmen, must have been like at that time.

[Rajiv]

^^ In some angles of the interview, he looks like McGrath ( or vice versa )

[dhillon28]

When neutral umpires were introduced in tests earlier this decade, Michael Holding phoned Ian Chappell and said: "Ian the West Indies no longer has to be 4 times as good as Australia to beat them in tests in Australia". Holding was referring to the widely acknowledged belief that home umpires in Australia were overly biased and were very hesitant to give decisions against australian batsmen and quick to give decisions for opposition batsmen. Now Donald Bradman played 33/52 tests in Australia. The only tests he ever had to play overseas were in england. Apart from touring one country, all his other tests were played on home turf. Can only imagine how the aussie umpires would be so biased in his favour (esp once he gained hero status). Also when bradman played in Aus he only ever played on four grounds (Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane). When he toured abroad he only ever played on five different grounds (Oval, Leeds, Manchester, Lords, Nottingham). So in summary, throughout his entire career Don only had to play on 9 different grounds.Talk about getting used to the conditions! Sachin has played on 13 different grounds within India alone before you even consider the 9 other countries he's toured. Familiarity with a track is more condusive to getting 'batted in' on a certain track more consistently as opposed to playing on wide variety of tracks where you have to continually adjust mentally to define what is 'good length' per new batting strip. Playing on such a variety of surfaces meant that SRT had to continually learn and apply new skills more often than Bradman. To further complicate this issue, some of the new skills you pick up and learn new to give you an advantage on a certain track can actually lead to your downfall on another. E.g. in perth batsmen can confidently leave the ball on length and if a batsmen applies that same rule to centurion for example where there was uneven bounce and with ball sometimes keeping low, then sooner or later the stumps would go for a cartwheel if you continue to leave on length. Bradman never had to deal with such complexities as he only played on 9 different grounds. Sachin played on 37 different grounds......ABROAD!!!! 50 DIFFERENT GROUNDS IN TOTAL....talk about having to be adaptable! If one wants to observe the magnitude of effect that ground variability has on batting performance then one needs to look no further than the last Two 2010 ashes tests in Adelaide/Perth. In Adelaide Pietersen scored 228 runs in one innings, next game in Perth with completely different batting conditions he scores 3 runs.....over two innings. Trott goes from averaging 78 in Adelaide to 17.5 in Perth. Cook this series averages 138 in Adelaide to 22.5 in Perth. The amount of times the don would have to have made this mental adjustment is 41 less times than Sachin. Think how that would inflate Sachin's average and deflate the Don's. Did I mention Bradman never played at Perth? Also since the Don toured far less and when he did it was only ever to England (a country with extensive cultural similarities to Aus), he never had to continually adjust to non stop touring and always being away from family and being in a foreign unfamiliar land. Whereas Sachin doesnt just have test tours to consider but he also has ODI tours to consider. These factors no doubt can also adversely affect a batsmen's performance. Also Sachin bats with the pressure of a Billion, Don batted with the pressure of 7.5 million (as quoted from Australian Bureau of Statistics). For first halfof his career he also batted in a team whose batsmen were so poor and bowlers so unreliable that everything rode on sachin's performance. Contrast this to bradman whose Australia team were always in the top two in the world.

[pensionplan]

When neutral umpires were introduced in tests earlier this decade, Michael Holding phoned Ian Chappell and said: "Ian the West Indies no longer has to be 4 times as good as Australia to beat them in tests in Australia". Holding was referring to the widely acknowledged belief that home umpires in Australia were overly biased and were very hesitant to give decisions against australian batsmen and quick to give decisions for opposition batsmen. Now Donald Bradman played 33/52 tests in Australia. The only tests he ever had to play overseas were in england. Apart from touring one country, all his other tests were played on home turf. Can only imagine how the aussie umpires would be so biased in his favour (esp once he gained hero status). Also when bradman played in Aus he only ever played on four grounds (Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane). When he toured abroad he only ever played on five different grounds (Oval, Leeds, Manchester, Lords, Nottingham). So in summary, throughout his entire career Don only had to play on 9 different grounds.Talk about getting used to the conditions! Sachin has played on 13 different grounds within India alone before you even consider the 9 other countries he's toured. Familiarity with a track is more condusive to getting 'batted in' on a certain track more consistently as opposed to playing on wide variety of tracks where you have to continually adjust mentally to define what is 'good length' per new batting strip. Playing on such a variety of surfaces meant that SRT had to continually learn and apply new skills more often than Bradman. To further complicate this issue, some of the new skills you pick up and learn new to give you an advantage on a certain track can actually lead to your downfall on another. E.g. in perth batsmen can confidently leave the ball on length and if a batsmen applies that same rule to centurion for example where there was uneven bounce and with ball sometimes keeping low, then sooner or later the stumps would go for a cartwheel if you continue to leave on length. Bradman never had to deal with such complexities as he only played on 9 different grounds. Sachin played on 37 different grounds......ABROAD!!!! 50 DIFFERENT GROUNDS IN TOTAL....talk about having to be adaptable! If one wants to observe the magnitude of effect that ground variability has on batting performance then one needs to look no further than the last Two 2010 ashes tests in Adelaide/Perth. In Adelaide Pietersen scored 228 runs in one innings, next game in Perth with completely different batting conditions he scores 3 runs.....over two innings. Trott goes from averaging 78 in Adelaide to 17.5 in Perth. Cook this series averages 138 in Adelaide to 22.5 in Perth. The amount of times the don would have to have made this mental adjustment is 41 less times than Sachin. Think how that would inflate Sachin's average and deflate the Don's. Did I mention Bradman never played at Perth? Also since the Don toured far less and when he did it was only ever to England (a country with extensive cultural similarities to Aus), he never had to continually adjust to non stop touring and always being away from family and being in a foreign unfamiliar land. Whereas Sachin doesnt just have test tours to consider but he also has ODI tours to consider. These factors no doubt can also adversely affect a batsmen's performance. Also Sachin bats with the pressure of a Billion, Don batted with the pressure of 7.5 million (as quoted from Australian Bureau of Statistics). For first halfof his career he also batted in a team whose batsmen were so poor and bowlers so unreliable that everything rode on sachin's performance. Contrast this to bradman whose Australia team were always in the top two in the world.

I simply got two words to describe you. You Rock.

[Rajiv]

Also Sachin bats with the pressure of a Billion, Don batted with the pressure of 7.5 million (as quoted from Australian Bureau of Statistics). For first halfof his career he also batted in a team whose batsmen were so poor and bowlers so unreliable that everything rode on sachin's performance. Contrast this to bradman whose Australia team were always in the top two in the world.

While cricket was close to most Aussies, it wasn't even the same league as it's today. Sachins record has been a process, the pressure grew and almost 90% of it was due to the readily;y available media. Don must be mainly worried about the game, bread and going to war

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[fineleg]

Heres the scorecard of that mother of all matches : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html

What in the world!?? :omg: Had to pull up the Almanack report!

This was a stormy Test, with accusations from the Indians of persistent intimidatory bowling after three of their batsmen were put out of action in their first innings. However, the Test will not be remembered only for the controversy. The cricket for the first three days was highly combative, promising a much keener finish. The virgin pitch had an immense bearing on the tactics of the West Indies as also the result. The bounce at each end was vastly different and even at one particular end was variable because of an undulation on a fast bowler's length, the ball rising from it to alarming heights. It was the unpredictability of bounce that contributed to the unsafe manner in which the Indian batsmen took evasive action and, consequently, suffered nasty injuries. This is not to say that there was no short-pitched bowling. There was a surfeit of it -- overdone, in fact, to the extent where the umpires should have intervened. A lot of the short-pitched bowling was delivered by Holding from round the wicket to minimise the batsman's scope of drawing away from his stumps. The success of the West Indian tactics, questionable though they were, was owed to the talent, speed and stamina of Holding, who took seven wickets in the match. The first day, shortened by bad light, belonged to India. They scored 178 for one, a position that must have encouraged them, for already Jumadeen was seen to spin the odd ball. The opening stand between Gavaskar and Gaekwad put on 136, lasting almost until tea. Attacked on the leg stump, Gavaskar did not look as convincing as in the two previous Tests and had two escapes, at 24 and 36, before Holding yorked him for 66. Gaekwad came through the day with 60, needing great courage to survive, for he took several blows on the body and on the arms. India's problems set in the following morning when, at 199, the new ball was taken. In three overs with it, Holding reduced India to 216 for three, having Mohinder Amarnath and Viswanath caught at backward short-leg. Viswanath was caught off the glove, the impact leaving a finger both fractured and dislocated. The fall of the fourth wicket at 280 would suggest that the West Indies offensive had been checked. But, in fact, two batsmen, Patel and Gaekwad, had meanwhile retired with injuries that put them out of the match. Patel, facing Holder, took his eye off the ball and edged it on to his mouth. Gaekwad was struck just above the left ear, having ducked into a ball that was not too short, but the bounce of which bore no relation to its length. In this instance, the irregularity in the pitch seemed responsible. India declared fifteen minutes before tea, at 306 for six, not because they considered themselves strongly placed but because Bedi wished to protect himself and Chandrasekhar, both key bowlers, from the risk of injury. The one consolation India derived before the innings ended was the sight of young Vengsarkar, only 19, batting through the upheavals with impressive skill and great calm. West Indies finished the second day at 82 without loss but on the third, India, inspired by some assistance from the pitch, bowled superbly and when Julien was sixth out at 217, it looked as though the first innings would end with honours even. But as the bowlers tired, Murray and Holding took control and added 107 for the seventh wicket, the partnership stretching into the fourth day. Nor was this stand the end of West Indies' resistance. Holder played sensibly for 36 and the last two wickets added 46. When Holding had Gavaskar caught at short-leg in the third over, India's spirit was broken. They slid to 97 for five in less than three hours and at that point, the innings closed as five batsmen in all absented themselves because of injury. In addition to Viswanath, Patel and Gaekwad, who were hurt during the Indians' first innings, Bedi and Chandrasekhar had damaged fingers while attempting return catches during the West Indies' innings. At first it was thought that Bedi had declared again -- with India only 12 runs in front -- and it was only after West Indies had won that a statement was issued by Bedi that the Indian innings should be recorded as completed.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --