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

[Sachin=GOD]

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

comparing Goddy's overall Tests and ODI records with that of his contemporaries, he has nearly 7000 runs and 28 centuries more than Ponting (who is 2nd in that list)). IMO, that is quite a big difference over his contemporaries in modern times. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[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.

comparing Goddy's overall Tests and ODI records with that of his contemporaries, he has nearly 7000 runs and 28 centuries more than Ponting (who is 2nd in that list)). IMO, that is quite a big difference over his contemporaries in modern times. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Nah man, I am talking in terms of average. Tendulkar also made his debut 7 years before Ponting. Kallis avg 56.82, Pntin 54, Sangakkara 57.25, Dravid 53.09, Samaraweera 54.25. I m sure there would be some more in that league. Bradman's avg was more than 60% of the next batsman of his era which is of 20 years.

[Sachinism]

Tendulkar was still averaging in high 50's which the good bowlers were around, the rest of the >50 averaging batsmen cashed in later

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachin=GOD]

To put this entire discussion to an end might I say that Bradman was the greatest cricketer in the Amateur era and Goddy is the greatest in the Professional era.

[pensionplan]

Every other post you make is rhetorical. All you do is look for SRT fans and start hurling insults and making fun of them as though you are the only one that has cricket gyan around here. So yeah you are right when you say it is what you post that decides where you are on these matters and that cute monickers ( or however you want to classify your monicker) are sometimes just a camouflage. You are anything but neutral.

Thank You for the feedback. Appreciate it.

You branded him as a spinner as you did not know who that was in the video. Had I not corrected you , you would have maintained that opinion on him. And as far as his stats are concerned I await your explanation on how someone with that sort of pace and venom can have stats that modern day express bowlers would kill for even with a high S/R. I mean even Javagal Srinath whom we all have observed closely does not even remotely compare to this guy in terms of avg. Do you realize the flaw in your analysis ?

I think you are too caught up on the classification of the bowler and pace than what exactly transpired on field and the effectiveness of a bowler. To each his own. I explained what I saw in the video for that particular bowler. You are free to wonder and convince yourself that the bowlers from that era are total crap or whatever. I cannot be a party to that at least not based on that video I saw which by the way had three of four other bowlers who I rated also in that post.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bublu Bhuyan]

In my books, Jack Hobbs is the best batsman after Bradman, closely followed by Sobers and Richards, then comes Tendulkar.

[pensionplan]

Iam not caught up on the classification it is merely to highlight the fact that how things were vastly different back then which people simply refuse to accept. Now can you tell me whether you rate that bowler as better than Javagal Srinath ? Toshacks stats certainly are significantly better than Srinath's.

Do I rate Toshacks better than Srinath who played across eras? May be or may be not. If at all I decide to that it all depends on how many tests each player played that meet a certain criteria like if that particular player played a minimum of 35 or 40 Tests for getting a good sample size to at least qualify that player as decent enough to be considered as good, really good, great or all-time great etc to throw out one possibility. Having seen Srinath first hand I know he is a very good fast medium pacer that has done really well and one of the best produced by India without a doubt.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Hardly one or two bowlers during those times had careers that went beyond 30 tests. But that has never stopped anyone from proclaiming the rest to be world beaters. So without offering anymore excuses can you kindly explain us how Ernie Toshack happens to have bowling stats that modern fast bowlers would die for ? Feel free to use First Class stats if you want which IIRC are similar to his Test stats.

So what you want me to do if most bowlers in the 1930's or 40's have not played in more than 30 Tests? I generally outlined the criteria to get a decent sampling for judging players. I do not have to offer any excuses whatsoever since I never made any haughty proclamations about any bowler from the 30's or 40's excepting question some of the explanations given here to dilute the more than 40 point average between Bradman and the rest which is unparalleled in the annals of the game to date. May be Bradman would not have averaged anywhere close to what he did then if he played today or may be he would have for a vast amount of time. We will never know. But what he has done when he played to accomplish that one single metric of 99 plus has never been neared to date during Bradman's era or this era.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

The clowns coming out of hoard was expected after Sachin's 50th 100 :giggle: :icflove:

[Nirvanam]

So what you want me to do if most bowlers in the 1930's or 40's have not played in more than 30 Tests? I generally outlined the criteria to get a decent sampling for judging players. I do not have to offer any excuses whatsoever since I never made any haughty proclamations about any bowler from the 30's or 40's excepting question some of the explanations given here to dilute the more than 40 point average between Bradman and the rest which is unparalleled in the annals of the game to date. May be Bradman would not have averaged anywhere close to what he did then if he played today or may be he would have for a vast amount of time. We will never know. But what he has done when he played to accomplish that one single metric of 99 plus has never been neared to date during Bradman's era or this era.

Dude you are evading his question.. It's a simple question: Is Toshack a better bowler than Srinath?

[pensionplan]

Dude you are evading his question.. It's a simple question: Is Toshack a better bowler than Srinath?

oh yeah? Either you read all my responses more carefully for my perspective on that or I suggest why not you answer it for yourself by fitting both of them in your analysis chart with all the scorecards around as you normally do.

[King Tendulkar]

50 test hundreds. Ridiculous. Greatest ever no doubts

[zen]

why finally 57>100! - Got his 50th test 100 in his 175th test. 50 test 100 is the new bench mark and supersedes an avg of 100. So what if no one else has played 175 tests to give themselves a chance of get 50 100s. Wasn't Kapil the best quick bowler when he broke Hadlee's record after playing 130 odd tests. 50 100s in 175 tests > 29 100s in 52 tests, as it is the number of 100s that counts and not how many games you need to get that record. - Played against super fast bowlers and fielders. So what if so many others played those bowlers too and averaged that much. Others don't play with the pressure of expectations from 1 billion fans. - The 2 mins video clips that I saw on video is enough to convince me that even someone like Rameez Raja would be better than the likes of Hammond and Hutton. - Some poll in some newspapaer says so too. - Anybody can avg a 100 if they get to play against minnows. See MoYo's avg for reference. It's difficult to avg 55+ and score 50 test 100s.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Rhetorics ? Ohh ya baby bring it on ... lets see what you got .. Why DGB > SRT ? Because he averages 99.94 ... so what if he got to beat up on mediocre trundlers who would keep setting fields with wide gaps even when he was well past 100 and his team was leading by 600 runs. - Bodyline supposedly the baap of all tactics ... so what if it didnt even get close to breaking anybodies pinky let alone break teeth or cause a concussion. - Fast scoring ... hey so what if it is now clear that the no.of balls taken is far more than Veeru or Hayden or Lara ... we can always create a new category - fastest by the no.of minutes. - Uncovered wickets ... yep thats it ... ohh wait so what if there is video footage of uncovered wickets being covered . - Surely the words of cricket writers must do it ehh. Yep thats it .. the cricket writers who were caught lying at times and saw no more than a dozen batsmen in their lifetimes and were all dead before 1989 .... No sh!t ehh

Unfortunately for you, if your rant had any meaning to it then someone else would have replaced Bradman as the best batsman a long time ago and Tendulkar would have competing with that someone. Also if your points made sense then Tendulkar wouldn't have had to wait till 2010 to be compared with Bradman. Based on the arguments that you put to run down Bradman, Tendulkar should have been the greatest a long time ago :giggle: .... The fact that not many dared to say that Tendulkar > Bradman in say 2000 when the arguments that you put forward to run down Bradman existed even at that time should tell you how hollow your points are :--D Keep digging! :P