Has modern master Tendulkar eclipsed The Don?

[SachDan]

HAS Sachin Tendulkar overtaken Don Bradman as the greatest batsman in cricket history? By Simon Barnes And while we're on the subject, how would any of the legendary figures of the sporting past get on if they could be beamed up into the unforgiving modern arena? There is more than a parlour game in this - but let us look at Tendulkar first. Last week, with murderous certainty, he scored the sixth double century of his Test career and followed it with a calm, unbeaten 50 to take India to a 2-0 win in its far-too-brief Test series against Australia. Tendulkar is now 37. He has been playing for India since he was 16, he has scored 49 Test centuries and 46 in one-day internationals, one of them the format's only double, which he scored this year. He is the unquestioned modern master. But would you promote him to the master of all time and space? Bradman traditionally holds that place, with 29 centuries in 52 matches and that untouchable average of 99.94, compared with Tendulkar's 56.96. But would Bradman be the same if he was facing modern bowling? While the best bowlers were probably as good as modern players, the worst were a good deal worse. No easy pickings now. How would Bradman have coped in a helmet? With assaults on the body? Or would consistent targeting at head and body have upset him too much? We begin to stray into such questions as whether a 21st-century Mozart would have been a rock star and whether Shakespeare would have gone to Hollywood. But the real question is not about great players, but about the game itself. Cricket is a different game now - almost unrecognisable, in fact. Bradman was admirably suited to the cricket of his time, but he would face different things today: fitter bowlers, much better fielders, a far more aggressive atmosphere, greater research on weaknesses, more coherent battle plans, higher stakes, big financial considerations, intense media following, television; an altogether different kind of stardom. We can extend this into other sports. How would George Best have fared in the modern game? His control over the football would have been as good, but the most memorable part of his game, the dribble, the beating of one opponent after the next, is not a skill much asked for in the modern game. Modern defenders are too quick, too savvy, too well coached to be beaten on a serial basis. Modern attacking players are more inclined to stick and move - to beat one man, pass and run into space. No doubt Best had the savvy to play like this, but he would have had to play a different game, because the game has changed. Would he have been exceptional in a modern game that is much less suitable for the expression of individuality? The technology of all sports has changed; the more technological the sport, the greater the changes. So how would Jim Clark have fared in modern Formula One? His bravery and his mechanical adroitness would matter a good deal less. Could he have made himself one of the modern-day button-pressing astronauts, instead of being the greatest ever boy-racer? These questions cannot be entirely laughed off. The notion of Bradman in a helmet playing the Bradscoop over the wicketkeeper's head to win the Twenty20 final for Australia is to some an abomination - almost a blasphemy. Sports change. The talents required to excel at them must, of necessity, change with them - talents to do with mind and personality and attitude as much as with physical co-ordination. It is too easy to say that a successful mindset inevitably leads to success in any era. We must at least entertain the possibility that in different eras, Bradman, Best and Clark would have been lesser figures. The Times http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/has-modern-master-tendulkar-eclipsed-the-don/story-e6frg7t6-1225940394482

[King Tendulkar]

No one from the 1930s is going to be better at their sport then someone form 2010. People need to grow up. One can argue who was more dominat in their era. But no sane person is going to say someone from 30s was actually better at their sport then a modern day giant! Simon Barnes is a brilliant writer and has it spot on.

[yoda]

LOL, same old discussion again. As explained a gazillion times, you don't just take a Bradman and take him through a time machine and drop him in today's world with his baggy outfit and no helmets and expect him to average 99.94 or even a 56.5. You extrapolate and see that given his performances of those years where he was light years ahead of his peers, if he was born in this era and grew up in the same conditions of current players, would be do better than a 56.5 average.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

or conversely .... if SRT could beat the crap out of trundlers ... he most often does .. and indeed has done that to better than trundlers ...

Yes, he would have averaged more than his 56.5, but would he have beaten the crap out of them by more than 30-40% when compared to others like Ponting, Dravid, Richards, Sehwag, etc? Anyways, the point is to look at all these instead of jumping up and down and saying that oldies would suck in today's game, wow we are so good in the modern era, so let's declare them as cr@p. This last comment was for KT and not you as I know you don't consider them to be cr@p.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

You extrapolate and see that given his performances of those years where he was light years ahead of his peers' date=' if he was born in this era and grew up in the same conditions of current players, would be do better than a 56.5 average.[/quote'] By what logic do you conclude that Bradman's peers were equal in talent to SRT's peers? The pool of available talent was extremely small and most countries(except England and Aus) hadn't seriously taken to cricket. If you take current English batsmen (ignoring the imports), check the difference between their average and Indian top four batsmen's

[Ram]

This is not a question for which there’s a clear-cut answer. The only way to resolve is to somehow magically Don from the dead and make him play side-by-side along Sachin. But from a general reading standpoint, it is nice to see the debate getting more and more sophisticated (and sometimes, rather unfortunately, more and more crude). I am sure that if some egg-heads got their heads together, they might be able to come up with some mathematical technique to normalize the career numbers of these two players and maybe simplify the debate a little more, but no matter how comprehensive we get, no one can say with a 100% confidence that he has the answer, one way or the other. Bradman was far and away the outstanding player of his generation, while I think there’s still some room for debate on whether Sachin is the outstanding player (player, not batsmen) of this era (Some might throw in Murali’s name, others even Warne’s). Why cant we just agree that Bradman was the preeminent batsmen of his era, while Sachin was the counterpart in this era? How hard is it to make peace with that position? Why do we have tear each other apart in the quest for this answer? Sure, it makes for great cricket writing and debating, but it also leads to a lot of frayed tempers and ridiculous arguments.

[yoda]

By what logic do you conclude that Bradman's peers were equal in talent to SRT's peers? The pool of available talent was extremely small and most countries(except England and Aus) hadn't seriously taken to cricket. If you take current English batsmen (ignoring the imports)' date= check the difference between their average and Indian top four batsmen's

Who concluded that? Bradman >>>>>> his peers SRT >= his peers (as in close to his peers or better than his peers) Conclusion: Bradman >> SRT How does this translate to? Bradman's peers == SRT's peers

[fineleg]

dsr is magically able to compare across eras? 1930s vs 2010? These sort of across era comparisons are more often than not :fail:

[acharya]

we have one guy who is the greatest but our own won't recognize it - compare to australia who are not willing to give an inch on their guy of 1930s - damn us indians

[CSK Fan]

Who concluded that? Bradman >>>>>> his peers SRT >= his peers (as in close to his peers or better than his peers) Conclusion: Bradman >> SRT How does this translate to? Bradman's peers == SRT's peers

Because then its not a fair comparison to make. If I and you have the same IQ and are made to sit for two different tests. And all your peers have above average IQ and mine don't, I will trounce my peers by a great margin and you might not. How does that equate to my IQ being much more than yours? With any compariosn being made, shouldn't all other factors remain constant(to the extent possible)?

[donkey]

Sachin of 90s is better than Sachin of 2010

[The Outsider]

By what logic do you conclude that Bradman's peers were equal in talent to SRT's peers? The pool of available talent was extremely small and most countries(except England and Aus) hadn't seriously taken to cricket. If you take current English batsmen (ignoring the imports)' date=' check the difference between their average and Indian top four batsmen's[/quote'] By the logic that if you think Bradman's peers were distinctly inferior to Tendulkar's peers, then you should also be willing to concede that Keith Miller was equivalent in talent to Jadeja, Lindwall equivalent in talent to Sami, and Hobbs equivalent in talent to Farhat. If you concede to the above, I'll grant you Tendulkar is the equivalent of Bradman.

[zen]

If there were a holy grail for batting, it would probably be a career test avg of 100 in tests. This is such a phenomenal achievement, it would probably be like touching the deepest part of ocean for a diver or setting foot on the moon for an astronaut. When Charles Lindbergh landed in Europe from his flight from the States, he created history. Many consider him amongst the best pilot in the world for doing something which many do so frequently now. Those lucky enough to fly the Concord did it in about 3 hours. That Lindbergh journey is a cause for celebration for many as it opened up new avenues for aviation. No amount of argument is going to show that today's pilots are better than Lindbergh. What Lindbergh achieved is one of the landmarks in aviation history, similarly what Sir Don Bradman achieved through his career batting average of almost 100 is a landmark in cricketing history. Something that is unparalled. In 1990s, when McLaren F1 hit the roads it created a storm. It could hit 60mph from 0 mph in 3 sec. Yes, you say 1-2-3 and it is doing 60 mph. This was phenomenal. It was the fastest production car for a long time. Today, we have Bugatti Veyron as the fastest car but hey, McLaren F1 still turns people on! With all the advancement in technology, Veyron merely beats the F1 by a few fractions of a second to 60mph from 0. F1 is the benchmark which showed where the modern sports car could go. F1 is a cause for celebration just like Bradman is with his magical average of 100. Today, we have Veyron beat the F1 is straight line but Bradman still remains untouched. Once you hit a career average of 100 in tests other things become irrelevant. It's the holy grail for batting period. Achieving that is heroic just like Lindbergh's achievement of his historic flight. Achieving that is as big a breakthrough as the F1's speed. Achieving that is a big landmark, just like the first step man took on the moon!

Wrote this on the other thread but I think this goes here too!

[yoda]

Because then its not a fair comparison to make. If I and you have the same IQ and are made to sit for two different tests. And all your peers have above average IQ and mine don't' date=' I will trounce my peers by a great margin and you might not. How does that equate to my IQ being much more than yours? With any compariosn being made, shouldn't all other factors remain constant(to the extent possible)?[/quote'] There is no reason or evidence to assume that this man was superior to his peers ONLY because his peers were cr@p. And even that doesn't give anyone in modern era the title of the greatest simply going by test performance alone, leaving aside ODIs, longevity, etc. There are just too many whose performances are close enough for us to keep debating. I guess we all will be going in circles for sometime to come till someone averages like 70 and leaves his peers behind in the dust.

[The Outsider]

I guess we all will be going in circles for sometime to come till someone averages like 70 and leaves his peers behind in the dust.

Yeah, there was a statistical correlation article (was posted by Gaurang on the old ICF) which came to the conclusion that a modern batsman would have to average around the 75-80 mark to be the equivalent of what Bradman was in his era. It was a simple yet very intuitive correlation study which was based on how much of an 'outlier' Bradman was from his peers for someone in the modern era to be an equivalent 'outlier'. (By definition of the analysis it took into account the competing talent pool, which it turns out is one of the easiest things to quantify).

[King Tendulkar]

So Bradman was best of his peers. Warme and Murali couild not dominate their era in spin. Reason cos the other one was there. Does that detract from their brillinace? No still best spinners of all time despite not being able to dominate their peers. Thats what happens when you play in competitive era, so many great players. Bradman played in non competitive era were only other team was england. Just imagine if warne only played against england. His bowling avergae would be amazing and he would be totally dominant in his era with no annoying brown players hogging his era! Also anyone seriously trying to say a player from 30s is better then a modern player is being intellectually dishonest. And they know it!

[ravishingravi]

It is impossible to win this discussion when one of the batsmen averages more than one and half times any other great batsman of any era or even his era. You add in the lack of cricketing gear and uncovered tracks. I am not interested if every person who follows cricket rates him as the greatest or not as long as he keeps winning matches for India.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --