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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Rameshraja17]

You can't compare sachin with any of the existing players like Lara , Ponting , Kallis etc... Coz they themselves would agree Sachin is the Best. Tough to choose between Sachin and Bradman with respect to records. yet I would still say Sachin is the best considering his debut at 16+ and playing near 40 to a country like INDIA which has filled up with hurdles such high expectations and controversies to pass One should have a great amount of passion , dedicativeness and Stamina to do that.

[Mohan470]

I agree ramesh. when u say Bradman u hav gary sobers , ... etc in company. but all time that should definitely be sachin after this 50 hundred. I would say Kallis a better all rounder than sachin Wuagh better captain than sachin when it comes to batting , No body matches sachin :)

[Sachinism]

then who do you think voted on the poll in this thread?

Look I know there are some people who think its funny/clever to label anyone to defends Sachin as a Sachin Bhakt, lets not go down the same path. BTW domaink if Time magazines polls can be messed around with, I'm sure SMH can be too

[DomainK]

Look I know there are some people who think its funny/clever to label anyone to defends Sachin as a Sachin Bhakt, lets not go down the same path. BTW domaink if Time magazines polls can be messed around with, I'm sure SMH can be too

If the US presidential election poll can be messed around, what are online polls worth?

[ravishingravi]

If the US presidential election poll can be messed around' date=' what are online polls worth?[/quote'] Actually not much. But he is the "Bradman" of this era which is the general sentiment of most fans across the world. Not many have watched Bradman play, so it is a value judgement.

[DomainK]

Honestly, I am of the opinion that a fair comparison is just not possible. The times have changed and the game has evolved to become quite different now. So we should be satisfied saying that Bradman was the best in his era. Sachin is the best in this era. However I have objections to anyone saying that Bradman was better than Sachin (confusing whether to use 'was' or 'is'), because you just dont know so. The reason why I am stressing on the results of an Australian online poll is that it shows the undisputed popularity of Tendulkar.

[ravishingravi]

Honestly, I am of the opinion that a fair comparison is just not possible. The times have changed and the game has evolved to become quite different now. So we should be satisfied saying that Bradman was the best in his era. Sachin is the best in this era. However I have objections to anyone saying that Bradman was better than Sachin (confusing whether to use 'was' or 'is'), because you just dont know so. The reason why I am stressing on the results of an Australian online poll is that it shows the undisputed popularity of Tendulkar.

Except that Sachin is not the only one in line after Bradman. There is a major list of batsmen after Bradman's era and before Sachin's who have averaged more than him. So, it almost an impossible argument to make. Also, as I said before, one has to find a way to raise the value of Sachin's average and bring down Don's sufficently. Right now the difference is 43. Also, one has to bear in mind that there were not any players who averaged more than 60 in his era and played more than 25 test matches. So, the argument of batting friendly conditions or poor bowling attacks is not a valid one.

[King Tendulkar]

poor bowling attacks is not a valid one.

You want to see videos of the bowlers bradman faced?

[ravishingravi]

You want to see videos of the bowlers bradman faced?

I have seen the videos and the documentary. It is all inconclusive considering most of it is from wrong angles and very little at live speed. Plus, that still poses the question why didn't anyone else from Aus. or Eng. plunder runs remotely at the same rate.

[Sachin=GOD]

Except that Sachin is not the only one in line after Bradman. There is a major list of batsmen after Bradman's era and before Sachin's who have averaged more than him. So' date=' it almost an impossible argument to make. Also, as I said before, one has to find a way to raise the value of Sachin's average and bring down Don's sufficently. Right now the difference is 43. Also, one has to bear in mind that there were not any players who averaged more than 60 in his era and played more than 25 test matches. So, the argument of batting friendly conditions or poor bowling attacks is not a valid one.[/quote'] Here I am not in any way trying to belittle Bradman but when I see certain things about his career then I'm forced to think whether he would have done as well in modern times. He played in just 10 grounds in his entire life and out of these 5 were in Eng and 5 in Aus - talk about getting used to pitches in particular grounds. Players nowadys have to adjust their batting styles and techniques to 30-40-50 grounds. 37 out of his 52 matches were against 1 team (England) and therefore a pretty limited set of bowlers played against him again and again and again while the modern day players have to play hundreds, probably thousands of bowlers in their entire careers. Most of the times he was not tested because the quality of bowling in those days was amateurish as compared to modern day bowlers and the one time he was tested (Bodyline series) his average fell down drastically. People question the fact that others from the same era played against the same bowlers and on the same pitches but never scored even close to Bradman - the answer is simple, Bradman was unquestionably head and shoulders above all batsmen in THAT era. Bradman had the advantage of a large number of practice matches in every tour, nowadays sometimes we see not even 1 practice match on many international tours (the current India-SA series is an excellent example). He had to play only ONE format of the game and that also at a time when there were no quality spinners or super fast bowlers or reverse swing or the current LBW law and the fielding was'nt exactly outstanding.

[pensionplan]

Here I am not in any way trying to belittle Bradman but when I see certain things about his career then I'm forced to think whether he would have done as well in modern times.

hmm...ok. First change your Sachin=God moniker and may be people will believe you more when you say that you are not trying to belittle Bradman disclaimer.

[dhillon28]

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

all i can say is: thank you!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

hmm...ok. First change your Sachin=God moniker and may be people will believe you more when you say that you are not trying to belittle Bradman disclaimer.

I have neither asked for nor do I want your opinion :finger:

[pensionplan]

I have neither asked for nor do I want your opinion :finger:

You are welcome.

[pensionplan]

Ditto with your monicker .... having cute monickers doesnt guarantee neutrality. .

I never thought my moniker is cute. Based on what I read here a lot before I joined this forum I wanted to go with it. Remember it is what you post that matters not what moniker you go by. But some of the monikers I see here exactly fit the billing and hence my saying so. If anyone feels the same about my moniker and pattern of my posts they are entitled to it and I have absolutely no qualms about it.

Take your own case for example .... you were telling how you saw no problems with Ernie Toshacks bowling

I took the time to view that video not once but twice upon your request and gave you my opinion with as good a cricketing reason I could based on my observation. If you do not concur with it that is fine. But I am sure you appreciated the others POV even in disagreement.

[jibranpatel15]

simply BRADMAN is Don of Cricket. If he wasn't then one would not say that Sachin is bradmen of Today. No batsmen currently has capability to keep his average above 100 after scoring Century on Debut for coming 5 tests. And Bradmen did it throughout his career. Add to that: those days there were no protection even helmet wasn't there and we all know that time bowlers were tall fast and bouncers were allowed as many as u want in an over. Even today we ccompare Sachin to BRADMEN y????? Bcoz he is Great and was great that u need to compare with him.so close all discussions right now and agree truly that BRADMEN was and is real DON of CRICKET. These days world cricket is out of quality bowlers who look for helpful wickets and that time bowlers were of those kind who were able to manufacture balls to get batsmen out.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ravishingravi]

Here I am not in any way trying to belittle Bradman but when I see certain things about his career then I'm forced to think whether he would have done as well in modern times. He played in just 10 grounds in his entire life and out of these 5 were in Eng and 5 in Aus - talk about getting used to pitches in particular grounds. Players nowadys have to adjust their batting styles and techniques to 30-40-50 grounds. 37 out of his 52 matches were against 1 team (England) and therefore a pretty limited set of bowlers played against him again and again and again while the modern day players have to play hundreds, probably thousands of bowlers in their entire careers. Most of the times he was not tested because the quality of bowling in those days was amateurish as compared to modern day bowlers and the one time he was tested (Bodyline series) his average fell down drastically. People question the fact that others from the same era played against the same bowlers and on the same pitches but never scored even close to Bradman - the answer is simple, Bradman was unquestionably head and shoulders above all batsmen in THAT era. Bradman had the advantage of a large number of practice matches in every tour, nowadays sometimes we see not even 1 practice match on many international tours (the current India-SA series is an excellent example). He had to play only ONE format of the game and that also at a time when there were no quality spinners or super fast bowlers or reverse swing or the current LBW law and the fielding was'nt exactly outstanding.

Even if all of that is taken into consideration. Even if you overlook the lack of protection the batsmen had. Even if one accepts the unique cricketing logic of ICF i.e uncovered tracks were easier to bat on, the question remains why is there no other batsmen remotely in the same league from that era in terms of average from Aus or Eng given that they had the luxury of the same conditions. However, given the "tougher" challenges in Sachin's era s you put it, why isn't Sachin's comprehensively superior to the top batsmen of his era. Surely, if he is the top batsman "Bradman" of his time and has had the luxury of playing on the flattest home tracks, shouldn't his average be much more than the contemporaries