Has modern master Tendulkar eclipsed The Don?

[varun]

Is this an ego issue ? Why does it matter who has eclipsed whom ? Too much "vehla" time :headshake:.. Just enjoy the game man

[King Tendulkar]

KT do you mean to say DGB was crap? I don't know if he's better than Tendulkar, but he was very good. You can only perform against what is put up against. He has clearly shown he has the talent, who's to say he wouldn't have adapted had he grown up in this era? Some people are naturally talented, give them any circumstances, I'm sure they'll adapt

He was the greatest of his era. And as such one of all time greats. But it should be viewd in that prism. If you want to list a greatest list based on greatness in their era, then fair enough. But Bradman fanboys are actually saying that put him in a time machine he would be best batsman in 2010( I doubt he would make a lot of 1st eleven amateaur club sides), now thats plain silly but bradman fanboys continue this crazy mantra.

[99.94]

Talk about flogging a dead horse.. we've been over this **** a million times. At the end of the day, Bradman was still voted number one on an Indian forum, and has been selected as the best batsman of all time on numerous occasions by panels of experts. So what that a few fan boys want to argue that Bradman was inferior to Tendulkar, at the end of the day they'll both go down as absolute legends - however, I don't think too many will ever argue with '99.94'.

[King Tendulkar]

KT do you mean to say DGB was crap? I don't know if he's better than Tendulkar, but he was very good. You can only perform against what is put up against. He has clearly shown he has the talent, who's to say he wouldn't have adapted had he grown up in this era? Some people are naturally talented, give them any circumstances, I'm sure they'll adapt

He did not grow up in this era. He grew up 80 years ago. Whos to say etc etc etc He could have adapted etc etc. The fact he is he is what he is, A 1930s player. No one in football world would even dare suggest a player from 30s would be able to play in 2010. Yet nuuty cricket fans armed with copies of wisden still continue to promote this romantic lie

[99.94]

He was the greatest of his era. And as such one of all time greats. But it should be viewd in that prism. If you want to list a greatest list based on greatness in their era' date=' then fair enough. But Bradman fanboys are actually saying that put him in a time machine he would be best batsman in 2010( I doubt he would make a lot of 1st eleven amateaur club sides), now thats plain silly but bradman fanboys continue this crazy mantra.[/quote'] Although there's no way of proving how he would have handled it, I think most are saying: IF Don Bradman was born in 1979, and given the same oppurtunities as those who play nowadays have, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have dominated world cricket.

[King Tendulkar]

Talk about flogging a dead horse.. we've been over this **** a million times. At the end of the day' date=' Bradman was still voted number one on an Indian forum, and has been selected as the best batsman of all time on numerous occasions by panels of experts. [b']So what that a few fan boys want to argue that Bradman was inferior to Tendulkar, at the end of the day they'll both go down as absolute legends - however, I don't think too many will ever argue with '99.94'.

Is viv richards a fan boy? He states Sachin greatest cricketer ever. Looks like Viv lives in the real world not the world of romantic nostalgic dream of a bygone era.

[King Tendulkar]

Although there's no way of proving how he would have handled it' date=' I think most are saying: IF Don Bradman was born in 1979, and given the same oppurtunities as those who play nowadays have, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have dominated world cricket.[/quote'] IFS IFS and more IFS. So he is not the greates then is he. As know you are saying for him to be as good as the master balster needs to be born in 1979. Basically confirm that you dont think in real terms as good as tendulkar. Case closed. Sachin greatest player ever

[99.94]

IFS IFS and more IFS. So he is not the greates then is he. As know you are saying for him to be as good as the master balster needs to be born in 1979. Basically confirm that you dont think in real terms as good as tendulkar. Case closed. Sachin greatest player ever

Do you agree the standard of sport has risen in the past 50 years?

[99.94]

Is viv richards a fan boy? He states Sachin greatest cricketer ever. Looks like Viv lives in the real world not the world of romantic nostalgic dream of a bygone era.

Do you want a list of those who consider Donald Bradman to be the best cricketer ever? Not really much of a point is there? Most of us live in the real world - unfortunately people like you need to take off your blue spectactles, take your hand out of your pants, and stop letting your obsession get in the way of the facts.

[ZodiaC]

:woot: *running to edit my all time XI*

[SachDan]

Sachin Tendulkar: favoured by all By Suresh Menon Great sportsmen straddle many worlds. They leave behind the merely good very quickly as they enter rarefied areas defined as much by their mastery as by the elements that do not even enter the debate when others are discussed. Part of Don Bradman's greatness lay in his Test average of 99.94, but partly it was also a function of what he meant to a nation coming to terms with itself; he defined Australian nationhood. It is an accident of time and space, this identification with an evolving nation, but it is crucial to the understanding of the context of greatness. W. G. Grace, for example, was the icon of Victorian England, representing both its elements and its aspirations. Such players dominate their era, and tell us there is more to greatness in batting than a fabulous cover drive or a delicate leg glance. The intangibles enter the equation, and other things remaining equal (statistics, averages, role in victories), the intangibles tip the balance. There was a time when it was difficult to separate the careers of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara — both had similar statistics, influence on their teams, impact on bowlers around the world. Lara's taste for huge scores meant he held the individual batting record for both Tests and first class cricket, 375 and 501 respectively made within two months of each other in 1994. Tendulkar, four years younger, more consistent, less flamboyant, more sober, less controversial, frustrated the bowlers with a defence of Gavaskar-like certainty and an attack that could match Lara's. “Sachin is a genius,†said Lara himself, “I am a mere mortal.†Even if that is taken as a modest assessment by a great rival when Lara first made the point, today it is difficult to disagree. After Tendulkar's ‘ Second Coming', the statistics too go in favour of the Indian. At 37, when Lara called it a day, Tendulkar discovered a new steel, a new joy of batsmanship, a new purpose that was difficult to distinguish from those he entered the game with at the age of 16. In his last 15 Tests, Tendulkar has scored 1811 runs, with eight centuries and an average of 86.23. To get Bradmanesque when others of his age are rediscovering the joys of fatherhood or the comforts of the commentary box places Tendulkar not just in another league, but on another planet altogether. The debate today is not about who is the best batsman after Bradman, it is about deciding whether Tendulkar is better than Bradman was given the range of his game (Bradman didn't play a single one-dayer, Tendulkar the greatest batsman without argument in that form of the game has played 442), the travel, the greater media and public pressure and the fact that he has played more years (Bradman had a break of five years during the War), on more grounds (57 different Test grounds in 10 countries to Bradman's 10 in two countries), and destroyed more bowling attacks. Tendulkar versus Lara, let's get the statistics out of the way first. Lara ended his career after 131 Tests, 11,953 runs, an average of 52.88 and 34 centuries. Tendulkar's figures at the end of his 131st Test (he played 23 fewer innings) were 10,434 runs, an average of 55.79 and 35 centuries. Little to choose there between the two, although Tendulkar's current figures tend to border on the verge of absurdity, like the US budget deficit or the temperature at the centre of the sun. Body willing, Tendulkar could play 200 Test matches, score 16 or 17 thousand runs and over 55 centuries. This is not just startling, but faintly ridiculous too. Such figures cease to have any real meaning simply because it is difficult to get our minds around them. :hatsoff: And when you consider that there could be another 50 ODI centuries and nearly 20,000 runs in that format, it would be foolish to even consider anyone else in the same league. Lara, twice holder of the individual score, the first man to make 400 in a Test innings will have to move into that portion of the stage inhabited by second fiddles. But, as mentioned earlier, the debate cannot be reduced to statistics and averages, for then we would be ignoring the intangibles that make up the whole picture. Statistics can only be the basis for starting the debate. Greatness is made up of other elements you cannot put a decimal point on. Such things as respect for the craft, contribution to the team. Lara, a great player in a mediocre team, has had to go it alone for most of his career, finishing on the winning side only 32 times. His average in Tests won is 61.02 (eight centuries). Tendulkar, by contrast, averages 69.14 in the 59 Tests India won when he was playing (20 centuries). So stunning has been the impact of his figures that Tendulkar's historical contribution to Indian cricket is often forgotten. In a recent exercise to choose an all-time India XI, it became apparent even to those generally slow to recognise good times when they are living through it that the Golden Age of Indian cricket is here and now. Four players in the list were current national players, and two had retired only recently. In sport, greatness is usually bestowed retrospectively. Perhaps it is no coincidence that India are currently the number one side in the world. That six of the eleven made their debuts after November 1989, when Tendulkar first announced himself to the world, is a tribute to the Mumbai man's impact. Golden Ages must have their iconic figure and Tendulkar is clearly the one here, both for what he has accomplished himself and for his qualities that inspired the others. Lara, through no fault of his own, presided over the decline of West Indies cricket and his impact therefore has been far less than Tendulkar's on Indian cricket and cricket-watching public. The major difference between the two great players has been in their attitude towards the game. Lara, like, Tiger Woods in another context, has always had a sense of entitlement, a feeling that cricket owed him for his being one of its most accomplished players. This was especially evident during his stints as captain and the tantrums he threw when his wishes were not met. Tendulkar might not have taken up the cause of players when a word from him could have made a difference, but he had no sense of entitlement. The guiding force was gratitude to the sport for making him what he is. Like Bradman in another era, Tendulkar too has been both representative and flag-bearer of a nation rediscovering its self-confidence and redefining its identity. Diffidence has been replaced by inspired self-worth, and in a nation often riven by faith and religion and artificial lines of separation, he has been a hero across the divisions. Again, it is not Lara's fault that he cannot play a similar role in a country, the West Indies, that exists only on the cricket field but divides into Jamaica and Trinidad and Barbados and others off it. Tendulkar is a product of his period. Time and space are in his favour. As are those qualities that define greatness, discipline, tough work ethic, the ability to both extract joy from the game and distribute it to millions as well as the creativity to invent new ways of scoring runs, and the ability to score them consistently. Lara will have his supporters, but for the majority of fans (and not necessarily in the subcontinent), the debate was resolved long ago. Tendulkar first.

[King Tendulkar]

Talk about flogging a dead horse.. we've been over this **** a million times. At the end of the day' date=' Bradman was still voted number one on an Indian forum, and has been selected as the best batsman of all time on numerous occasions by panels of experts. So what that a few fan boys want to argue that Bradman was inferior to Tendulkar, at the end of the day they'll both go down as absolute legends - however, [b']I don't think too many will ever argue with '99.94'.

Well why not? Plenty are willing to argue with a bowling average of 10 and a strike rate of 34!:giggle:

[King Tendulkar]

Although there's no way of proving how he would have handled it' date=' I think most are saying: IF Don Bradman was born in 1979, and given the same oppurtunities as those who play nowadays have, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have dominated world cricket.[/quote'] Well i saw some slum kid on the strret today playing cricket, he hit some great shots. I say if he was given the same opprtunities as those who play from middle class families, thre is no reason to believe he wouldn't dominate world cricket! Shame he is from slums and will never have chance to show he is best in the world!

[Roshanrocks]

Do you want a list of those who consider Donald Bradman to be the best cricketer ever? Not really much of a point is there? Most of us live in the real world - unfortunately people like you need to take off your blue spectactles, take your hand out of your pants, and stop letting your obsession get in the way of the facts.

its amazing that bradman's fans need to resort to ......... to prove their "facts"

[The Dark Horse]

Found this video- Interesting thing to note that both Don and Sachin had amazing discipline and humility:hatsoff:QmUw9dDa1ys&feature=related

[King Tendulkar]

^ Respect to the don:hatsoff: Its shame oldies are haven't to be analysed like this. But thats what happens when you try and compare them to modern day players.

[yoda]

^ Respect to the don:hatsoff: Its shame oldies are haven't to be analysed like this. But thats what happens when you try and compare them to modern day players.

No, this is what happens when you have a bunch of guys who can't understand that people need to be compared based on what they did during their times instead of being asked to come today and prove themselves, and not be respected for what they did then. If a guy left others in the dust then, he is an all time great, even if he did that when they held the bat differently or had different slip formations or wore different attire or played on uncovered pitches or faced more mediocre bowling or had to play fewer teams than they do today or not. If you accept that he is an all time great based on the fact that he left his peers well behind (unlike the much discussed Lohmann whose sample size is questionable and rightly so), then move onto evaluating whether he is the greatest of all time. If you don't have the common sense to accept the above, and want to belittle and make fun of what anyone from the past did because they don't bat the same way people do TODAY, there is no point in even moving onto the second question.

[Roshanrocks]

No, this is what happens when you have a bunch of guys who can't understand that people need to be compared based on what they did during their times instead of being asked to come today and prove themselves, and not be respected for what they did then. If a guy left others in the dust then, he is an all time great, even if he did that when they held the bat differently or had different slip formations or wore different attire or played on uncovered pitches or faced more mediocre bowling or had to play fewer teams than they do today or not. If you accept that he is an all time great based on the fact that he left his peers well behind (unlike the much discussed Lohmann whose sample size is questionable and rightly so), then move onto evaluating whether he is the greatest of all time. If you don't have the common sense to accept the above, and want to belittle and make fun of what anyone from the past did because they don't bat the same way people do TODAY, there is no point in even moving onto the second question.

so if SriLanka played only zimbabwe in sri lanka and zimbabwe and no other country ...all the time... and sanga / jaya average 120+ , will you say they were bettern than Bradman?

[yoda]

so if SriLanka played only zimbabwe in sri lanka and zimbabwe and no other country ...all the time... and sanga / jaya average 120+ ' date=' will you say they were bettern than Bradman?[/quote'] If that was the norm during their times and the only teams who played during a certain imaginary age were those, and if they are the only ones who averaged in the 120+ with others averaged below 100+ playing only against teams, yea. Remember it is not about 120+ or 99.94 it is how many people got 120+ playing under similar circumstances during those times in question. If someone today averaged a 45 with everyone else below 30, he would make a great case for an all time great even if the only teams available today were Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe cause the rules and conditions would be same for all during this period.

[Roshanrocks]

If that was the norm during their times and the only teams who played during a certain imaginary age were those, and if they are the only ones who averaged in the 120+ with others averaged below 100+ playing only against teams, yea. Remember it is not about 120+ or 99.94 it is how many people got 120+ playing under similar circumstances during those times in question. If someone today averaged a 45 with everyone else below 30, he would make a great case for an all time great even if the only teams available today were Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe cause the rules and conditions would be same for all during this period.

so ur saying that if there had been another guy who averaged 99 odd during bradman's time, then you wouldnt consider bradman to be great?