If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[Old guy]

u cant compare sachin with bradman. but u can compare one thing in the eras they played bradman dominated much more thn sachin no excuses abt professionalism its not that radman came from future.. LOL he was same like others and still out performed them kallis even now has better average then sachin.. sachin is gr8 we all love him. but seriously whts the big deal how does him not being the best batsmen ever changes anything? statstell bradman was better.. and it cant be fluke 52 matches while others struggled to get avg of 50 he got avg of 100!

[tothepoint]

Why so much argument on who is the greatest ever? In each and every generation,majority of the people have claimed that the best batsman of their time be acknowledged as the best batsman ever. But only Bradman have stood the test of time. It remains to be seen whether Sachin will be regarded as highly by our future generations, or will be discarded like say Gavaskar(who is in my opinion the greatest test batsman of India considering all the factors). And I pity on those people who think bowlers or batsmen were not upto the standards as compared to another generation! How can they claim that is beyond my understanding. Some of the posters here are ridiculing the bowlers of 30s,that is as stupid as it gets. Larwood, Bedser, Verity, Bowes and Voce were some of the great bowlers of 30s. And for the nth time, If batting in Bradman's era was so easy, then why did no other batsmen at the time get anywhere near his 99.94 batting average? Why does the statistics show that "no other athlete dominated an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket"? And since cricket is a game defined by statistics,what is so wrong in admitting that he is the greatest ever?!

[CSK Fan]

hmmm' date=' [b']so SRT would be avg 100 in ranjis :--D Dude, , stop making blank statements .... Has it even occurred to you that those who think SRT is not the greatest bat may be loving him more than you .... There is a reason why ppl want fair judges, police, jury, etc

Did I claim that? Yep there are fair judges, jury, police, and fair posters too, but you are not one of them. Have seen you so many times making ridiculous points and then not backing from them even when proved wrong because your ego does not let you admit that. There might be genuine people who think Bradman is greatest but then are posters who do not even have the courtesy to read other people's posts, jump into a thread with one liners or the same things which have been said multiple times in this thread

[CSK Fan]

Why so much argument on who is the greatest ever? In each and every generation,majority of the people have claimed that the best batsman of their time be acknowledged as the best batsman ever. But only Bradman have stood the test of time. It remains to be seen whether Sachin will be regarded as highly by our future generations, or will be discarded like say Gavaskar(who is in my opinion the greatest test batsman of India considering all the factors).

Yep, lets see

And I pity on those people who think bowlers or batsmen were not upto the standards as compared to another generation! How can they claim that is beyond my understanding. Some of the posters here are ridiculing the bowlers of 30s,that is as stupid as it gets. Larwood, Bedser, Verity, Bowes and Voce were some of the great bowlers of 30s.

Hmm, lets see, only two countries playing most cricket. In those countries only the elite with time on their hand play the game. Kings and princess from other countries are invited to play. What are the odds of the overall standard of cricket being high when the sample size itself is so small?

And for the nth time, If batting in Bradman's era was so easy, then why did no other batsmen at the time get anywhere near his 99.94 batting average? Why does the statistics show that "no other athlete dominated an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket"? And since cricket is a game defined by statistics,what is so wrong in admitting that he is the greatest ever?!

This point has been replied to many times. Cricket was played among a very select few people. Both batsmen and bowlers were below average and only Bradman was a true great. In today's era where millions play cricket, how many true greats do we have? And in an era where there were only hundreds playing would you think there will be more than one great player? So of course he was head and shoulders above all of them

[Magneto]

again you pick stats what you want... What if you leave Waugh brothers and Anwar still it only proves Sachin is second best when facing these bowlers...but more importtantly it also debunks the theory that he is Great against these bowlers...it just sjhows he is only good when facing some of the greats of the era... Also for people who says Bradman era is full of minnows...after 1994 only Oz is best team all others are not in the same stanndard of oz...only 3/4 good teams in whole world....

I am not picking any stats here. Neither am I suggesting any comparison between Bradman and Sachin. On a different set of world-class bowlers, Sachin will have an edge over Lara and Ponting and vice-versa, and after a point it will become a meaningless exercise because of the number of variables involved in the whole comparisons. I am just pointing out the inherent FLAW in the data in question, where 2 batsmen's data against 6 bowlers have been put forward; and in the same comparative table three other batsmen's records only 4 have been stated. Hope it doesn't have a usual twisted explanation.

[tothepoint]

I dont know how to quote you My Two Cents, sorry for the misconvenience. If I'm not wrong, Bradman played against 4 or may be 5 countries. I dont agree with your second point as well, I have read about Ranji and some other cricketers who were not born in the royal family. Cricket was quite a popular game at that time as well and at the international level, I dont think you will find too many princes. Regarding Bradman being the only great of 30s,you are demeaning non-Australian cricketers like Larwood,Hobbs,Verity,Headley,Hammond,Hutton, just because Bradman was so much better than most of them(cant compare him with Larwood and Verity as they were bowlers). Also IMO,sample size has nothing to do with talent. You have made some good points and I understand that you are a big big fan of Sachin, and you are never going to admit Bradman and for that matter,anyone else is/was/will be better than Sachin but at the same time,try to save some respect for the players from the past as well because as they "time is cruel".

[Magneto]

I dont know how to quote you My Two Cents, sorry for the misconvenience. If I'm not wrong, Bradman played against 4 or may be 5 countries. I dont agree with your second point as well, I have read about Ranji and some other cricketers who were not born in the royal family. Cricket was quite a popular game at that time as well and at the international level, I dont think you will find too many princes. Regarding Bradman being the only great of 30s,you are demeaning non-Australian cricketers like Larwood,Hobbs,Verity,Headley,Hammond,Hutton, just because Bradman was so much better than most of them(cant compare him with Larwood and Verity as they were bowlers). Also IMO,sample size has nothing to do with talent. You have made some good points and I understand that you are a big big fan of Sachin, and you are never going to admit Bradman and for that matter,anyone else is/was/will be better than Sachin but at the same time,try to save some respect for the players from the past as well because as they "time is cruel".

Are you saying that Maharaja Ranjitsinhji (Maharaja Jam Sahib of Nawanagar) was NOT a prince?

[mishra]

Info only ============ his neice (DuuleepSinghji) averaged 60+ playing for England..... Verity who used to get Bradman most of the time got killed in worldwar II. Bedser was a chap came to scene after worldrwar II. I dont know about facts but he his first one who bowled legcutter (unlike others who could have just thrown the bowl)

[tothepoint]

Saurav, as far as I can remember he was son of a farmer,made into a maharaja because of his connections with the Britishers. I may be wrong but the perception that only princes used to play in those days is not true either. People used to play in many leagues and lots of first-class matches. If I'm not wrong again, Bradman himself was not a prince. One cant argue that Australia, England, West Indies, South Africa and NewZeaLand had some genuine talents.

[tothepoint]

I'm not sure how Duleep Singhji comes into the picture. But yeah,the information that Verity was killed in the world war points to the fact that he was not a prince as well.

[mishra]

I'm not sure how Duleep Singhji comes into the picture. But yeah' date=the information that Verity was killed in the world war points to the fact that he was not a prince as well.

He was prince who played against Bradmans team. Dont mix English Elites with term princes

[Raghav_12]

cold hard facts: * avg of 100 in 52 tests, played over 2 decades * 29 test 100s in 80 innings * amazing records like 300 in a day, 100 in 3 overs * 50+ avg when the next guy avg was in 40s in probably the toughest series played of all time, the bodyline * likes of wisdon rating Bradman inning of 270 at the top, along with his some other innings * likes of cricinfo choosing players of pre 1970s era * Aus 'invincibles' rated amongst the top 3 teams of all time, along with WI of late 70s and 80s and Aus of 1999-2007 and there is no point in forming an opinion based on a few seconds clip .... if you did I don't know what to say

100 in 3 overs ...!! Now these kinda records put rest of the records of Brdaman in shade of doubt. Going by all arguments look like Bradman was Rahul Dravid and Yousuf Pathan combine together and then magnified 10 times.

[mishra]

@Rett Can you post the link of your stats please?

[mishra]

@Raghav 8 balls per over

[tothepoint]

Mr.Mishra, I am not getting it. Googled "DuleepSinghji",he was not a prince. His record pales in comparison with Bradman. But respect to the man who has a trophy in his name and played so well and got selected in the English Test team despite being an Indian.

[mishra]

@Tothepoint... I dont buy Bradman is best batsman of all time theory...... I do admit that he was best batsman of 1930 era and one of the greatest batsman ever

[Raghav_12]

First let's see how much Sachin avg when the below combination is playing vs his peers: McGrath-Warne Wasim-Waqar Donald-Pollock And if Sachin doesn't come on top, would you be willing to accept that someone like Lara or Waugh would be better than SRT? Yes or No (I will post the stats in a few minutes, no ifs and buts)

• This is not the first time you ignored another lethal pair of that time - Walsh-Ambrose from your numbers, just because Sachin averaged 50+ against that pair.
• Why take numbers of Warne only when McGrath is with him? If you have to assess his performance against good bowlers like Warne, why not include numbers for all the matches when Warne was there, with or without McGrath?
• Why you not mentioning the fact for all the tests Sachin played against Donald, Donald could take him only as many times as Cronje did, even Cronje would have had just one third number of attempts to get Sachin then what Donald did. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=dis_dismissals;player_involve=2011;template=results;type=batting;view=bowler_summary So Sachin's relatively worse average is because of Cronje, not because of Donald or Pollock as you are trying to make it out to.
• Why don't include the numbers Sachin raked up against pair of Akhtar and Saqlain or Steyn and Morkel?

[Raghav_12]

@Raghav 8 balls per over

I know that. It was mentioned earlier as well. But somebody would be scoring 100 in 24 balls only if bowling standards are extremely abysmal. In IPL, all big hitters of world, with their highly modern bats and with poor bowlers to play with, could hardly go anywhere near to 40 ball century and here we are talking about 24 ball century.

[tothepoint]

Fair Enough Mr.Mishra. And why should you? You are man of your own. If you are a fan of X, support him no matter what anyone says.

[Magneto]

100 in 3 overs ...!! Now these kinda records put rest of the records of Brdaman in shade of doubt. Going by all arguments look like Bradman was Rahul Dravid and Yousuf Pathan combine together and then magnified 10 times.

But even Yuvi scored 50 off 12 balls in a World Cup match against a top team. So Bradman can score 100 off 24 balls in some domestic match, and I don't see a reason to doubt it. This was the sequence: 1st Over; 66424461 (33) 2nd Over 64466464 (40) 3rd Over 16611446 (27) & 2 to Wendell Bill.