Has modern master Tendulkar eclipsed The Don?

[vamos_rafa]

Again if resorting to personal abuse can cover up for the lack of cricketing logic then suit yourself. And you are expecting an informed discussion. :giggle: Btw, you probably do not comprehend a very simply written post. ( no sarcasm here). It is precisely why Kanga league is played the middle of monsoon that I called your theory bogus or maybe just an isolated case of "curious case of pitches in Kolkata" Here is Geoffrey Boycott, "I was very good on uncovered pitches. Most people don’t realise today, that we played on uncovered pitches until 1979 in county cricket. They have no knowledge, recollection or idea of what playing on these pitches is and it’s difficult,†says Geoff. "“We played Championship matches two times a week for a few days on uncovered pitches. You got a great variety of surfaces with the weather as it is in this country. The weather changed the outlook of the match daily. If it rained and you were playing on an uncovered pitch the whole match could swing one way or another.â€" http://www.50connect.co.uk/leisure/interviews/where_are_they_now/an_interview_with_geoffrey_boycott You can listen to him here too. "Nov 15, 2007: Why technique is key and the need for uncovered pitches in Test cricket - Geoffrey Boycott answers readers' queries" http://www.cricinfo.com/talk/content/current/multimedia/feature.html?genre=21&skiplimit=70 As for Chappell and Gavaskar, I heard on them on Chat show that comes on Star Cricket. So, no links there.

Mate.. Geoff Boycott was one of the biggest self proclaiming person to have come across. He seemed to have this psychic disorder that whatever he did was the best and his method was the best. And he was always given second prefernece to Gavaskar at the world stage and that always pissed him off. And regarding your insights on the wet pitch. I have played at the national level for my School and we had some of the matches scheduled in the morning, in the winters in Delhi, and the ball does skid onto the bat like anything. I know you would cite the examples of the great men and my experience would seem miniscule in comparision to them,but the feel of playing on such tracks is the same as playing with a wet ball in dewy conditions. The ball simply skids on. No deviations whatsoever.

[ravishingravi]

Just as I expected' date=' you couldn't tell between rain and overnight dew. Thanks for confirming my point. :hysterical:[/quote'] If that is the retort, I bet Tendulkar would be disappointed in not having more resourceful fans. Although to be fair, there better contenders. I can only pray for 1st division cricket in Kolkata

[ravishingravi]

Mate.. Geoff Boycott was one of the biggest self proclaiming person to have come across. He seemed to have this psychic disorder that whatever he did was the best and his method was the best. And he was always given second prefernece to Gavaskar at the world stage and that always pissed him off. And regarding your insights on the wet pitch. I have played at the national level for my School and we had some of the matches scheduled in the morning, in the winters in Delhi, and the ball does skid onto the bat like anything. I know you would cite the examples of the great men and my experience would seem miniscule in comparision to them,but the feel of playing on such tracks is the same as playing with a wet ball in dewy conditions. The ball simply skids on. No deviations whatsoever.

Mate I gather your point on Boycott and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your views on him. Let me again state clearly, Sachin is the greatest batsman of my life time, but I have to say that not much of compelling argument has been made for him being better than Don or for the uncovered pitches imo. I can't vouch for your personal experience, but you are entitled to your opinion. Anyhow if something concrete is put forth then I ll contribute, for now, I don't care, as long as India wins.

[Pratters]

Weak opposition is a relative term. Even the weakest of them all nowadays do a thorough homework on every aspect of Sachin's (or Lara's if you want) batting and exploit every little weaknesses. All of this backed up by a fielding standard that'd be unheard of in Bradman's days. We are not even discussing off-field factors like thousands of air-miles clocked every week etc. I'd not venture into silly extrapolations and assumptions like deducting 25% of his average but the point remains valid. The game has not just evolved it's completely changed in character and dynamics. So' date=' if you want to establish Bradman as the undisputed numero uno, [b']you need to bring something else to the table than just his freak average. Simple.

Yeah sure. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were better than England. Bradman's feats like being the only batsman in test history to score 300 runs in a day among trillion other achievements don't mean much today. All I can say is you should read a few books and get yourself educated regarding the game.

[King Tendulkar]

Yeah sure. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were better than England. Bradman's feats like being the only batsman in test history to score 300 runs in a day among trillion other achievements don't mean much today. All I can say is you should read a few books and get yourself educated regarding the game.

When did you see Bradman play? You are ranking Bradman as number 2 based on books and stats. What next Cleoptra is most beautiful ever based on a book.

[Pratters]

I apologize but I refuse to form a cricketing opinion based on Cardus's fiction. Good luck sitting in the library and ranking players. :haha:

There are other writers, Bradman's contemporaries and people who watched Bradman play who gave their perspectives. I guess with your attitude you will remain ignorant about various cricket topics.

[Pratters]

When did you see Bradman play? You are ranking Bradman as number 2 based on books and stats. What next Cleoptra is most beautiful ever based on a book.

Given your novice analysis, based on stats and what you have read off cricinfo, surely YOU would say Cleopatra is the most beautiful or whatever. I wouldn't because I y look way deeper. Seriously, just stop embarrassing yourself.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Anakin]

How does SRT's avg look like on his favorite venues (avg wise)?

[TumTum]

What ? For the return series after the Bodyline fiasco the Aussie players extracted promises that no-one would bowl intimidatory bowling else they would walk away from the tour.... imagine someone doing that today ....

You are forgetting about the gear. Most cricketers of today would have been killed long time ago if this was the case :hysterical:

[Anakin]

You are forgetting about the gear. Most cricketers of today would have been killed long time ago if this was the case :hysterical:

How many times do the batsmen get hit nowadays, how about during that era? Sometimes this is taken a bit too far.

[The Outsider]

How does SRT's avg look like on his favorite venues (avg wise)?

6. Bradman benefited from playing only on a small number of grounds : Bradman played on 10 grounds - 5 home, 5 away. Taking a similar criteria for Tendulkar ie. 5 home grounds where he played the most and 5 away grounds where he played the most, Tendulkar averages in the 50s-60s, no where close to Bradman. The only ground at which Tendulkar averages higher than Bradman's career average is the SCG.

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1013411&postcount=1042

[JonVen]

So, what's the decent level you've played at? I've played in Kolkata's 1st division league for two years. The clubs there have their own grounds with turf wickets that are left uncovered even on match days. Now get this, overnight dew, heavy dew, makes the pitch EASIER to bat on. Unless there's been heavy rain, an uncovered pitch HELPS batsmen. Unless you can tell me about Bradman batting on flooded pitches, keep this uncovered pitch nonsense away if you want an informed discussion.

Maybe you're correct in sub-continent conditions, but uncovered pitches in England especially are much much harder to play on - just ask decent club cricketer in England. I think the consensus amongst most professional batsmen is that covered pitches have made batting easier in England, NZ, Australia, etc - but I bow to your greater knowledge of Indian conditions bhai sahib...

[acharya]

in bradman's time they never use to give out lbw's

[akshayxyz]

Guyzzzzz. Comparing (conclusively) Sachin with Don is even more difficult a problem than proving whether Aliens exist or not. Zeroth of all - There are far too many parameters that need to be considered to arrive at some comparison algorithm for calculating 'cricket batting greatness across time and space', that we can use to sort the list of all batsmen across time and space to arrive at a 'perfectly' sorted list . A list which would even take care of 'close' ties - within acceptable (by all) limits of 'least count'. Not to mention the 'exact' weight-age to be assigned to each such parameter. One cant even, with fair amount of certainty, prove that had Ponting/Lara been born in place of Tendulkar and gone through similar upbringing/challenges, they would have performed better/worse than tendulkar. Dravid/Laxman/Sehwag vs Sachin comparison still can reach certain level of quality (as they all faced reasonably similar oppositions/circumstances. Batting average, peer domination, pitch conditions, variety of pitches batted on, quality of opponents etc. are decent parameters, but not conclusive. Fact - Don outclassed his peers by 'some' margin, and Sachin has outclassed his peers by 'some other' margin. I believe, Sachin (even Graeme Hick), with his current (contemporary) skills, upbringing etc., without any doubt would have outclassed Don in Don's era/playing conditions. However, there is no conclusive way to know whether Don would have failed/succeeded to acquire similar/better skill level in current era. One thing I can, with fair amount of certainty, say is that Sachin seems to have more passion, fire in his belly, hunger, composure, level headedness, fitness, discipline, (and few more other psychological factors) than most of the cricketers ( esp batsmen) to have ever played cricket. And he has skills too. Perhaps, same can be said about Don too ( going by the fact that he dominated his peers by significant margin). But who would have bettered the other (e.g. who would have ended up with 0.00....1 more average more than the other) may never be known - conclusively, not even in next few billion years. You all are smart enough to construct/dissect/destruct logical (and not so logical) arguments, but I believe its wise to leave this comparison bull***** (esp across Eras, esp Sachin vs Don) and just enjoy the present. Unless of course your idea of enjoyment is indulging in such arguments.

[akshayxyz]

Btw - Newton discovered gravity - none of his peers could (kind of accepted by almost all). Einstein discovered relativity - none of his peers could (kind of accepted by almost all). But none of them are greatest 'scientist' ever, because some thousands of years ago, there was a homo-sapien who invented wheel, that too at such a time when people (might) hadn't even learned how to name each other, in fact that time none hadn't even discovered the notion of 'science'. Hence proved - "Buckminster Fuller" was second best scientist ever born.

[King Tendulkar]

Btw - Newton discovered gravity - none of his peers could (kind of accepted by almost all). Einstein discovered relativity - none of his peers could (kind of accepted by almost all). But none of them are greatest 'scientist' ever, because some thousands of years ago, there was a homo-sapien who invented wheel, that too at such a time when people (might) hadn't even learned how to name each other, in fact that time none hadn't even discovered the notion of 'science'. Hence proved - "Buckminster Fuller" was second best scientist ever born.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

Modern batsmen play a more demanding game. Both in terms of homework and physical standards and off-field demands like travel etc. I don't know about rameez-hammond thread and that isn't my point either. The point is simple' date=' and I stated it above. If you want to convince me of Bradman's superiority over the modern greats then do it with something more convincing than just fixating over that average. Could you tell me how he negotiated bouncers? How quick were the bowlers he faced? How good were the spinners? So on and so forth.[/quote'] Raja > Hammond sums it all up, doesn't it? As I can't tell you how well Hammond negotiated the bouncers, how quick were the bowlers he faced and how good were the bowlers then. In fact, I have been led to believe by Tendulkar fanboys that bowling and fielding was crap in that era so anyone could average high. Hence Raja who avgs 32 in tests, would probably have been better than Hammond who avgs 58 as Raja would probably have avg 64 in Hammond's era. And I know what bowlers Raja faced and how he dealth with it so that makes it even better :P

[King Tendulkar]

I have seen footage of so called great Hobbs batting. Can anyone source this? It was a joke, a comedy act. Watched with a bunch of players as it came on tv, everyone cracked up! And he was supposed to be an all time great. He would not get in my clubs 5th eleven

[Sachinism]

I have seen footage of so called great Hobbs batting. Can anyone source this? It was a joke, a comedy act. Watched with a bunch of players as it came on tv, everyone cracked up! And he was supposed to be an all time great. He would not get in my clubs 5th eleven

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7yXEmx1QzE]YouTube - Jack Hobbs in 1914[/ame]