Tendulkar is today's Bradman, says Brian Lara

[The Outsider]

I would definitely like to know how many overs were bowled in one day' date=' one session, etc during Bradmans's time as compared to mordern time[/quote'] Typical fan boy stuff! Care to put Bradman's strike rate in the context of his time? The average strike rate during those days was 45. Bradman's strike rate was around 60, a good 30+ % above. Why do you think Richards is rated so highly? His strike rate of around 65 has been replicated by many batsmen, or close to, in the modern era. But the average strike rate during his days was 50. Similarly, Sehwag's strike rate towers well above the average strike rate of his time - around 80 in an era of around 55. The above does not even take into account the fact that Bradman scored pretty much twice as many runs per knock than Richards and Sehwag.

[The Outsider]

Another 20-30 years down the line there is probably going to be at least one more all time great batsman in cricket. Take my word for it, even then he would be compared to Bradman and not Tendulkar. Someone will make a statement that 'XYZ is today's Bradman' and not that 'XYZ is today's Tendulkar'. Bradman is the holy grail of batting and will remain the benchmark of all comparisons in the future.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Another 20-30 years down the line there is probably going to be at least one more all time great batsman in cricket. Take my word for it, even then he would be compared to Bradman and not Tendulkar. Someone will make a statement that 'XYZ is today's Bradman' and not that 'XYZ is today's Tendulkar'. Bradman is the holy grail of batting and will remain the benchmark of all comparisons in the future.

Disagree. Tendulkar is gonna be the holy grail of batting after he retires as people will know how he was like, with all the footage and analysis of his records available unlike bradman

[Jersey #10]

Hell no! Sachin is better!

[zen]

Disagree. Tendulkar is gonna be the holy grail of batting after he retires as people will know how he was like, with all the footage and analysis of his records available unlike bradman

But then footage and records are available for the likes of Lara, Richards, Chappell as well. People will look at his record and say that he only got more runs because he played more tests, People will say that despite hitting 50 odd hundreds, not many are memorable that made you think something unbelievable happened. And then people will ask why was this guy was rated so highly by the Indians :P People will talk about how he focused on stats like they way he would try to take 20 singles when he is in the 80s in ODIs. When they will look at this 200* in ODIs, they would say he would have never got that if not for Dhoni, who took apart the SA attack which allowed Tendulkar to take those singles in the final stages of the game. People will also say how he kept playing overs after over to get to 200 in Pakistan that the frustrated captain had to finally declare .... It's not just the Tendulkar fanboys who can write negatives about other greats just to show that Tendulkar is the greatest. If you can try to find negatives abt someone like Bradman then rest assured that there would be tons of negatives for other batsmen That's the bitter truth. Go out of Indian forums and see if there is a consensus as to Tendulkar being the best of his time. Being all time greatest is a long way off. :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

That's the bitter truth. Go out of Indian forums and see if there is a consensus as to Tendulkar being the best of his time. Being all time greatest is a long way off. :winky:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[goose]

I think anyone commentating on Tendulkar's career in these forums ought to inform the rest of their age.

[FairCricket]

Lara now wanted to play in IPL , so hes saying those things ..... http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/current/story/490097.html look like hes in need of some money :giggle:

[vaibhav_delhi]

But then footage and records are available for the likes of Lara, Richards, Chappell as well. People will look at his record and say that he only got more runs because he played more tests, People will say that despite hitting 50 odd hundreds, not many are memorable that made you think something unbelievable happened. And then people will ask why was this guy was rated so highly by the Indians :P People will talk about how he focused on stats like they way he would try to take 20 singles when he is in the 80s in ODIs. When they will look at this 200* in ODIs, they would say he would have never got that if not for Dhoni, who took apart the SA attack which allowed Tendulkar to take those singles in the final stages of the game. People will also say how he kept playing overs after over to get to 200 in Pakistan that the frustrated captain had to finally declare .... It's not just the Tendulkar fanboys who can write negatives about other greats just to show that Tendulkar is the greatest. If you can try to find negatives abt someone like Bradman then rest assured that there would be tons of negatives for other batsmen That's the bitter truth. Go out of Indian forums and see if there is a consensus as to Tendulkar being the best of his time. Being all time greatest is a long way off. :winky:

Disagree again. Lara himself has admitted that Sachin surpasses him. Majority of cricket fans consider him the best that they have seen. Plus his records, his longevity, all his batting videos are there for all to see. on the other hand, there is no denying the fact that bradman played far inferior bowling both in terms of quality and variety in his age. As I said, just imagine bradman facing steyn, akhtar, ambrose, Lee, tait, akram type bowlers' bodyline bowling without helmet. He would be pissing his pants...lol. You can not deny the fact the back in 1920's bowlers werent as fast and as professional as last 30-35 years.

[zen]

Disagree again. Lara himself has admitted that Sachin surpasses him. Majority of cricket fans consider him the best that they have seen. Plus his records, his longevity, all his batting videos are there for all to see. on the other hand, there is no denying the fact that bradman played far inferior bowling both in terms of quality and variety in his age. As I said, just imagine bradman facing steyn, akhtar, ambrose, Lee, tait, akram type bowlers' bodyline bowling without helmet. He would be pissing his pants...lol. You can not deny the fact the back in 1920's bowlers werent as fast and as professional as last 30-35 years.

A correction: majority of Indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best amongst his peers. Not necessarily everyone. Just like Tendulkar fanboys think that he is best amongst his peers, I am sure Lara fanboys think that Lara is ahead esp when he got more runs in lesser innings than the likes of Tendulkar and Ponting, has broken the WC of higest runs per inning twice, also holds the FC record of 501*. Personally, in tests, of the current lot Sehwag would be my first pick when I am picking an Indian test team. There is no point in harping over Tendulkar's greatness on an Indian forum where everyone (almost) is his fan and not going to present negatives about him But if bowling is a factor, then those who played in 70s-80s probably have a better chance of being termed the greatest. I am sure people can look up at records and see how Tendulkar fared against likes of Donald. And his weakness against incoming delivaries, along w/ his tendency to "choke". All these factors like bowling are put forward by Tendulkar fanboys in an effort to run down Bradman. Some of their arguments are so hilarious that based on that one can even prove that Rameez Raja > Hammond :giggle: In short, you bring nothing new to the table except for continuing the comedy :P

[vaibhav_delhi]

A correction: majority of Indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best amongst his peers. Not necessarily everyone. Just like Tendulkar fanboys think that he is best amongst his peers, I am sure Lara fanboys think that Lara is ahead esp when he got more runs in lesser innings than the likes of Tendulkar and Ponting, has broken the WC of higest runs per inning twice, also holds the FC record of 501*. Personally, in tests, of the current lot Sehwag would be my first pick when I am picking an Indian test team. There is no point in harping over Tendulkar's greatness on an Indian forum where everyone (almost) is his fan and not going to present negatives about him But if bowling is a factor, then those who played in 70s-80s probably have a better chance of being termed the greatest. I am sure people can look up at records and see how Tendulkar fared against likes of Donald. And his weakness against incoming delivaries, along w/ his tendency to "choke". All these factors like bowling are put forward by Tendulkar fanboys in an effort to run down Bradman. Some of their arguments are so hilarious that based on that one can even prove that Rameez Raja > Hammond :giggle: In short, you bring nothing new to the table except for continuing the comedy :P

wrong again. All most all the indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best EVER. Largest percentage of non-indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best of last 20 years. Do not just rely on stats mate which are not the absolute indicators. Cricket is played on the field, not on record books. If you go only by stats, Sydney Barnes is the best bowler ever (avg of 19 at sub 40 SR for his 189 wkts) Very few people would disgree that Sachin is the best in terms of pure batsmanship although: laxman plays better On-drives than sachin. ponting has always played pulls/hooks better than sach. dravid,kallis have had better frwd defensive and leave outside off than sachin has. lara has better lofted shots. sanga plays as good a straight drives as sach sehwag is more aggresive than sach. Ponting is most relentless. Lara is perhaps the best single-handed match winner ever. laxman is better than sachin in pressure situations in tests. similarly dhoni in ODIs. Are you suggesting that Difference between 70's-80's bowling and last 20 years' bowling is as big as difference between 70's-80's and the 1920's lol? 1920's bowlers were nothing compared to today's bowlers mate. And bradman couldn't have avged 99 in today's cricket says Brain Lara.

[zen]

wrong again. All most all the indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best EVER. Largest percentage of non-indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best of last 20 years. Do not just rely on stats mate which are not the absolute indicators. Cricket is played on the field, not on record books. If you go only by stats, Sydney Barnes is the best bowler ever (avg of 19 at sub 40 SR for his 189 wkts) Very few people would disgree that Sachin is the best in terms of pure batsmanship although: laxman plays better On-drives than sachin. ponting has always played pulls/hooks better than sach. dravid,kallis have had better frwd defensive and leave outside off than sachin has. lara has better lofted shots. sanga plays as good a straight drives as sach sehwag is more aggresive than sach. laxman is better than sachin in pressure situations in tests. similarly dhoni in ODIs. Are you suggesting that Difference between 70's-80's bowling and last 20 years' bowling is as big as difference between 70's-80's and the 1920's lol? 1920's bowlers were nothing compared to today's bowlers mate. And bradman couldn't have avged 99 in today's cricket says Brain Lara.

Are you understanding what I am wrote? Pure batsmanship: that's highly subjective So if you agree that the bowling standard of 70s-80s was greater than it is today then one can argue that Tendulkar wouldn't avg as much as he is avg now. If he can be found out by the likes of Donald then like you imagine Bradman to fail against Steyn, some folks can imagine Sachin to fail against quality bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Thompson, etc. On th other hand, if you think that Tendulkar is a quality batsman and would have been successful at any point then same goes for Bradman :P In short, there is no point in your argument. And you are free to write "disagree" or "wrong again" or whatever w/o even understanding how the arguments that you make are being used against your points :giggle: Enough said!

[vaibhav_delhi]

Are you understanding what I am wrote? Pure batsmanship: that's highly subjective So if you agree that the bowling standard of 70s-80s was greater than it is today then one can argue that Tendulkar wouldn't avg as much as he is avg now. If he can be found out by the likes of Donald then like you imagine Bradman to fail against Steyn, some folks can imagine Sachin to fail against quality bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Thompson, etc. On th other hand, if you think that Tendulkar is a quality batsman and would have been successful at any point then same goes for Bradman :P In short, there is no point in your argument. And you are free to write "disagree" or "wrong again" or whatever w/o even understanding how the arguments that you make are being used against your points :giggle: Enough said!

Lol...Agree with the bolded part. Thats why I say that majority of experts and fans think that Sach is the best in last 20 years. It cant be absolute . 1. My main point is tht the level of professionalism has been too far beyond what was there in the 1920s. Sachin has also faced Many Many greats during his career --> Warne, Akram, Ambrose, Murli, Mcgrath, Steyn, Donald, Walsh, waqar just to name a few. So, you are wrong when you say that he would have failed against marshell, lillee, holding... 2. On the other hand, Level of bowlers was far inferior in bradman's era. The variety of bowlers in terms of numbers, the talent, the pace, the fitness and the professionalism are just incomparable from today's era. Bradman couldnt have lasted 1 full test series facing bodyline attack of today's fast bowlers without helmet on those uncoverd pitches = FACT, not an opinion.

[The Outsider]

Disagree. Tendulkar is gonna be the holy grail of batting after he retires as people will know how he was like, with all the footage and analysis of his records available unlike bradman

I am sure fanboys of Sobers and Richards would have thought the same in their times.

[Sachin=GOD]

Are you understanding what I am wrote? Pure batsmanship: that's highly subjective So if you agree that the bowling standard of 70s-80s was greater than it is today then one can argue that Tendulkar wouldn't avg as much as he is avg now. If he can be found out by the likes of Donald then like you imagine Bradman to fail against Steyn, some folks can imagine Sachin to fail against quality bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Thompson, etc. On th other hand, if you think that Tendulkar is a quality batsman and would have been successful at any point then same goes for Bradman :P In short, there is no point in your argument. And you are free to write "disagree" or "wrong again" or whatever w/o even understanding how the arguments that you make are being used against your points :giggle: Enough said!

What Vaibhav_delhi said was completely right. There are some batsmen who are really good on one side of the wicket, some are really good at playing one particular shot, some are really good against one particular type of bowling, some are only attacking and some only defensive but I think if you look at the history of cricket you will not find a single batsman other than Sachin who can be rated at a consistent level on all parameters and even more importantly you will not find any batsman who has performed at such a high level for such a long time with so much pressure on him. Sachin is the best............ever:two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

Lol...Agree with the bolded part. Thats why I say that majority of experts and fans think that Sach is the best in last 20 years. It cant be absolute . 1. My main point is tht the level of professionalism has been too far beyond what was there in the 1920s. Sachin has also faced Many Many greats during his career --> Warne, Akram, Ambrose, Murli, Mcgrath, Steyn, Donald, Walsh, waqar just to name a few. So, you are wrong when you say that he would have failed against marshell, lillee, holding... 2. On the other hand, Level of bowlers was far inferior in bradman's era. The variety of bowlers in terms of numbers, the talent, the pace, the fitness and the professionalism are just incomparable from today's era. Bradman couldnt have lasted 1 full test series facing bodyline attack of today's fast bowlers without helmet on those uncoverd pitches = FACT, not an opinion.[/

Do you guys seriously write such crap? If so then this is shockingly hilarious! Is that suppose to mean that today's batsmen play bodyline bowling on uncovered pitches w/o helmet? If NOT then how is that even a point! What are you trying to compare? :giggle: The standrad displayed by many of the "Tendulkar is the greatest" brigade (the comedy brigade) never fails to crack me up. So much so that I have begun to think that only those w/o some seriuos understanding flaws consider Tendulkar to be the greatest.

[The Outsider]

wrong again. All most all the indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best EVER. Largest percentage of non-indian cricket fans consider Tendulkar to be the best of last 20 years.

Yet a poll on ICF - Indian Cricket Fans - says that around 50% of the posters believe Bradman to be the greatest ever and only 30% disagreed. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212051

[Sachin=GOD]

Do you guys seriously write such crap? If so then this is shockingly hilarious! Is that suppose to mean that today's batsmen play bodyline bowling on uncovered pitches w/o helmet? If NOT then how is that even a point! What are you trying to compare? :giggle: The standrad displayed by many of the "Tendulkar is the greatest" brigade (the comedy brigade) never fails to crack me up. So much so that I have begun to think that only those w/o some seriuos understanding flaws consider Tendulkar to be the greatest.

There can never be any sports person without flaws. Sachin, like any other player has some flaws but what makes him better than everyone else is the fact that he has less flaws than all others and even in areas where he has some flaws he has done things which a few other could have done (remember 241* against Aus - he had developed a chink in his armor in that series and then we all saw his reply).

[Ram]

Another 20-30 years down the line there is probably going to be at least one more all time great batsman in cricket. Take my word for it, even then he would be compared to Bradman and not Tendulkar. Someone will make a statement that 'XYZ is today's Bradman' and not that 'XYZ is today's Tendulkar'. Bradman is the holy grail of batting and will remain the benchmark of all comparisons in the future.

To be fair, that doesn’t necessarily prove anything at all. I am not saying Bradman was NOT better than Sachin (frankly, I think its such a futile argument, its not even worth waging), but the conventional wisdom of people considering Bradman to be the greatest doesn’t actually prove he’s the greatest. Conventional wisdom believes in a lot of things and not all of them turn out to be true.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Do you guys seriously write such crap? If so then this is shockingly hilarious! Is that suppose to mean that today's batsmen play bodyline bowling on uncovered pitches w/o helmet? If NOT then how is that even a point! What are you trying to compare? :giggle: The standrad displayed by many of the "Tendulkar is the greatest" brigade (the comedy brigade) never fails to crack me up. So much so that I have begun to think that only those w/o some seriuos understanding flaws consider Tendulkar to be the greatest.

Lol...Not getting the point. It is implied that Pace Bowlers of bradmans era were NOTHING as compared to todays bowlers. They were right arm medium-slow bowlers like collingwood/watson in all probability. The proof is that the batsmen were able to survive on those uncovered pitches without even a helmet whereas playing today's fast bowlers without helmet is unthinkable (even on today's covered pitches). I hope you THINK (not from your behind that is:P) before expressing your shock the next time.