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

[saket123]

The idea is to show Sachin > Bradman by hook or crook' date=' no? In this way, we will also re-pay the debt (of entertaining us, carrying the burden, ....) we owe to Sachin :winky:[/quote'] :facepalm: Seems like you have poor reading comprehension skills.

[King Tendulkar]

If Tendulkar played about 3 cricket matches a year.. that too all tests.. I have a feeling he would be averaging about 200.

And against the same opposotion over and over again, in only 2 countries

[Sachin=GOD]

The idea is to show Sachin > Bradman by hook or crook' date= no? In this way, we will also re-pay the debt (of entertaining us, carrying the burden, ....) we owe to Sachin :winky:

There's no need to "show" it. He already is better than Bradman. Its just that you simply do not want to accept this fact. Keep denying it, sooner or later even you will accept it :winky:

[zen]

There's no need to "show" it. He already is better than Bradman. Its just that you simply do not want to accept this fact. Keep denying it' date=' sooner or later even you will accept it :winky:[/quote'] Better than Bradman per his fanboys :winky: Arre bhai, I have followed most of his career, along with the likes of Ponting, Lara and Waugh. And you are hoping that folks like me would get converted based on what he does in few more months that he has! .... He has had a long dip in his form (2004-2007) and on top of them has been over-shadowed by many others during parts of his career .... He is certainly one of the all time great batsmen, probably in top 5!

[Sachin=GOD]

Better than Bradman per his fanboys :winky: Arre bhai, I have followed most of his career, along with the likes of Ponting, Lara and Waugh. And you are hoping that folks like me would get converted based on what he does in few more months that he has! ....

if after following his whole career of 21 years, you still need to see these few months of performance to be convinced then there's no point in talking any further.

[saket123]

Okay, here is the list of Sachin's 3 test matches per year. Some years were good, some years were not so good.. but assuming Sachin also played only 3 test matches per year like Bradman.. and picking the ones where he fared better... this is how Sachin's statistics would look. source: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match 1989: 67, 41, 92 1990: 88, 37, 187 1991: 23, 55 1992: 148, 119, 112 1993: 165, 78, 132 1994: 142, 119, 233 1995: 4, 52, 2 1996: 146, 251, 97 1997: 178, 147, 161 1998: 159, 208, 160 1999: 177, 232, 168 2000: 105, 161, 201 2001: 141, 143, 170 2002: 176, 193, 212 2003: 56, 38, 44 2004: 301, 194, 248 2005: 94, 104, 125 2006: 49, 58, 63 2007: 132, 122, 92 2008: 166, 121, 140 2009: 160, 113, 104 2010: 203, 267, 147 Total Runs: 8623 Total Matches: 57 Sachin's Batting Average over equivalent test matches = 151.28 > Bradman's 99.94 Like i said.. if Sachin ONLY played 3 tests a year.. his average would have been probably 200. :--D

[zen]

if after following his whole career of 21 years' date=' you still need to see these few months of performance to be convinced then there's no point in talking any further.[/quote'] :giggle: instead of picking out a few words, read the whole para to see what I said and meant :winky:

[zen]

Okay' date=' here is the list of Sachin's 3 test matches per year. Some years were good, some years were not so good.. but [b']assuming Sachin also played only 3 test matches per year like Bradman.. and picking the ones where he fared better... this is how Sachin's statistics would look. source: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match 1989: 67, 41, 92 1990: 88, 37, 187 1991: 23, 55 1992: 148, 119, 112 1993: 165, 78, 132 1994: 142, 119, 233 1995: 4, 52, 2 1996: 146, 251, 97 1997: 178, 147, 161 1998: 159, 208, 160 1999: 177, 232, 168 2000: 105, 161, 201 2001: 141, 143, 170 2002: 176, 193, 212 2003: 56, 38, 44 2004: 301, 194, 248 2005: 94, 104, 125 2006: 49, 58, 63 2007: 132, 122, 92 2008: 166, 121, 140 2009: 160, 113, 104 2010: 203, 267, 147 Total Runs: 8623 Total Matches: 57 Sachin's Batting Average over equivalent test matches = 151.28 > Bradman's 99.94 Like i said.. if Sachin ONLY played 3 tests a year.. his average would have been probably 200. :--D

Great post! Just when I thought nothing can get better, you came up with this gem .... To me this represents the thinking of many who think Sachin is the greatest Sir, you have made the fanboys proud :hatsoff:

[Baad Indian]

Better than Bradman per his fanboys :winky: Arre bhai, I have followed most of his career, along with the likes of Ponting, Lara and Waugh. And you are hoping that folks like me would get converted based on what he does in few more months that he has! .... He has had a long dip in his form (2004-2007) and on top of them has been over-shadowed by many others during parts of his career .... He is certainly one of the all time great batsmen, probably in top 5!

Many others like who and for how long ? From 1990-2004 and 2008- Present which other batsmen over-shadowed Sachin ?

[zen]

Many others like who and for how long ? From 1990-2004 and 2008- Present which other batsmen over-shadowed Sachin ?

I have posted that (including links) on this thread already. I am continuing from what I had said earlier on this thread :winky:

[saket123]

To me this represents the thinking of many who think Sachin is the greatest :

Some may think Sachin is the greatest because of their blind love for him. I love Sachin . but I'll admit to his faults too. Like I showed.. if you picked the best 3 matches every year of Sachin's career.. he beats Bradman by over 50 points!.. Sure there is cherry picking involved.. but also factored in is the fact that most of these totals were against Strong teams (which Sachin would have been selected to play if he were to confine himself to only 3 matches a year).. Also factored in is that Sachin knows and plays cricket a lot more than Bradman.... and it is extremely difficult to be consistent over so many record number of matches. So if you chop Sachin's average calculation by even 50 runs in every one of those games.. he still comes out with better figures than Bradman. You can't seriously think Bradman is better.

[akshayxyz]

Some may think Sachin is the greatest because of their blind love for him. I love Sachin . but I'll admit to his faults too. Like I showed.. if you picked the best 3 matches every year of Sachin's career.. he beats Bradman by over 50 points!.. Sure there is cherry picking involved.. but also factored in is the fact that most of these totals were against Strong teams (which Sachin would have been selected to play if he were to confine himself to only 3 matches a year).. Also factored in is that Sachin knows and plays cricket a lot more than Bradman.... and it is extremely difficult to be consistent over so many record number of matches. So if you chop Sachin's average calculation by even 50 runs in every one of those games.. he still comes out with better figures than Bradman. You can't seriously think Bradman is better.

It is unfair for Bradman. Can you do similar stat for Bradman - pick best 3 test matches per year for him, so that we are covering similar grounds.. :giggle:

[saket123]

It is unfair for Bradman. Can you do similar stat for Bradman - pick best 3 test matches per year for him, so that we are covering similar grounds.. :giggle:

Bradman averaged 3 games a year!..so there is nothing to pick.

[akshayxyz]

Bradman averaged 3 games a year!..so there is nothing to pick.

:hmmm:, but I heard that the cricket scene was very competitive those days. With all the top sporting talents in England and Australia dieing to play cricket, there have to be more matches than 3 per year. Perhaps, there must have been 'ship-lags' due to long travel and it must be taking a toll on their bodies and what not.

[saket123]

:hmmm:, but I heard that the cricket scene was very competitive those days. With all the top sporting talents in England and Australia dieing to play cricket, there have to be more matches than 3 per year. Perhaps, there must have been 'ship-lags' due to long travel and it must be taking a toll on their bodies and what not.

95% of Bradman's innings were against England.. so how could you say Cricket was more competitive? Look at the bowling videos of that era.. With that kind of bowling in today's time even Pakistanis would have 4 or 5 Bradman... .. sure Bradman was beyond his time compared to his peers.. .. but no where close to Tendulkar's versatility to face all kinds of bowling in all kinds of conditions. Yes, Bradman did play many years with more than 3 matches.. but he also didn't play for many years at a stretch. Moreover.. 52 International matches alone is not enough of a yard stick to call someone "the best ever to grace the game"

[Sachin=GOD]

95% of Bradman's innings were against England.. so how could you say Cricket was more competitive? Look at the bowling videos of that era.. sure Bradman was beyond his time.. but no where close to Tendulkar's versatility to face all kinds of bowling in all kinds of conditions. Yes, Bradman did play may years with more than 3 matches.. but he also didn't play for many years at a stretch. Moreover.. 52 International matches alone cannot be a yard stick to call someone "the best ever to grace the game"

No. He played "only" around 80% of his innings against England.

[saket123]

No. He played "only" around 80% of his innings against England.

yea.. you are right.. More like 72% since 37/52 matches were against England.. 5 against West Indies.. where he averaged about 89...5 against South Africa with 100 avg... and 5 against India with 143 avg. Still.. not much competition there.

[akshayxyz]

95% of Bradman's innings were against England.. so how could you say Cricket was more competitive? Look at the bowling videos of that era.. sure Bradman was beyond his time.. but no where close to Tendulkar's versatility to face all kinds of bowling in all kinds of conditions. Yes, Bradman did play may years with more than 3 matches.. but he also didn't play for many years at a stretch. Moreover.. 52 International matches alone cannot be a yard stick to call someone "the best ever to grace the game"

But it must be competitive in the sense, every one in England/Australia wanted to be best Cricketer/batsman/Bradman, so the top cricket players that were playing were the best possible cricket talent. And to be dramatically dominant among such competitive scene - it can only mean one thing - He was best ever. I am 100% sure he would have easily dominated ODI with similar margins. Unless of course someone proves ODI is not cricket. If less frequent matches was the norm those days, then it is not Don's fault. Give him another 10 matches per year, and he would have scored at/more-than 120 perhaps, with more games to practice his skills. It also improves one's stamina and gives you more chance to study opposition bowlers. Btw - pre ware break, he was averaging 93-94 or so, and after war he averaged 105 or something, so it means during the war, he would have managed somewhere in between... like 98-99 or so. And hence overall would have crossed 100 barrier. It is unfortunate that some people claim that the reason he could not score those last 4 runs - was due to burden of expectations. I say BS, bowlers of that era were so good (always looking for wicket), that even with Don in his prime, could not score 4 runs, that further shows how great he was that he maintained over all career average of 99.96.

[akshayxyz]

The obsession with Tendulkar is crazy. Just yesterday, in the IPL match they gave the man of the match to Tendulkar whereas Rayudu scored more than him and at a faster pace as well. Some stupids commit suicide after he fails in the final of the world cup even though India went onto win the match. That's what can happen when you start treating players as Gods. Please let them live their life. They cannot even go out to the supermarket because some dumb fans will stomp them with autographs. Give them more place to breathe for God's sake. Please come out of this. But Tendulkar is quite modest, and took Rayudu along with him to receive the award

You will find fools/fanatics on either side of the fence. Even I was surprised to see Rayudu missing MoM. But nice gesture on part of Sachin.

[saket123]

If less frequent matches was the norm those days, then it is not Don's fault. Give him another 10 matches per year, and he would have scored at/more-than 120 perhaps, with more games to practice his skills. It also improves one's stamina and gives you more chance to study opposition bowlers. .

It is also not Tendulkar's fault that he has the opportunity to play 30 matches a year! and I doubt that Bradman would have kept up his average playing 30 cricket matches every year for 20 years against 14 different teams in an era of Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Ambrose, Murali.. not to mention in an era of Reverse Swing, googlies, flippers, >145 kmph balling etc. Sachin has played 631 Internation matches..that is 12 times more than Bradman. If Sachin had an average of 99.94 in Test Cricket after playing 454 of "other" matches..all religions in the world would unanimously hail Sachin as God Himself!