Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

[Number]

Kallis.

[Crookbond]

poor attempt we know its that day of the year :--D

It's "that time" of the month for him though.

[Muloghonto]

no doubt kumar and mahela.but between these two i will go with kumar with the other one only a close 2nd.

Neither of these two are even 'good', nevermind great, outside of the pattas of Sri Lanka. They are a level below Dravid, Kallis and Ponting, who are a level below Sachin,Lara, Gavaskar,Viv, etc.

[Muloghonto]

Best: Bradman #2: Sachin #3: Sobers #4: Gavaskar #5: Lara #6: Greg Chappell #7: Viv #8: Graeme Pollock #9: Rohan Kanhai #10: George Headley

[vvvslaxman]

Where is BossBhai.. lol we miss him here. He would change the title to Who is best batsman after Tendulkar.

[saket123]

What do you mean "next to bradman"... ?? Bradman is ancient and long gone.. his techniques, conditions etc.. were ENTIRELY different those days.. Cheeez!.. it's like how the goras back in the days tried to discredit Indian Civilization by claiming Aryans were actually whites who moved in from Germany!! LOL The Goras need to stop using Bradman as a yardstick for a game that has changed by leaps and bounds in the last 15 years.. nay 50-60 years!!... and desis need to stop factoring Bradman OUT of all these comparisons.

[Muloghonto]

What do you mean "next to bradman"... ?? Bradman is ancient and long gone.. his techniques, conditions etc.. were ENTIRELY different those days.. The Goras need to stop using Bradman as a yardstick for the game that changed by leaps and bounds in the last 15 years.. nay 50-60 years!!... and desis need to stop factoring Bradman OUT of all these comparisons.

Never going to happen. Regardless of how much the game has changed, statistical anomalies like Bradman, babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, etc. will always be considered alltiime greats/best in their positions. That is what being 'twice as good as the next best guy in statistics' gets you. Bradman is the best ever test batsman. Period. Until someone comes around who averages over 65 in his entire career spanning 75-100 tests or more, Bradman is the best ever.

[saket123]

Never going to happen. Regardless of how much the game has changed, statistical anomalies like Bradman, babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, etc. will always be considered alltiime greats/best in their positions. That is what being 'twice as good as the next best guy in statistics' gets you. Bradman is the best ever test batsman. Period. Until someone comes around who averages over 65 in his entire career spanning 75-100 tests or more, Bradman is the best ever.

yea, I call BS on that... Bradman was THE BEST at his time.. no question!.. but he did not play even a FRACTION of what today's cricketers play in a year... or have to go thru the physical and mental duress that today's players have to. Yes, sure.. Bradman's statistics are unparalleled.. but so is Sachin's whose statistics surpasses Bradman in every other department other than a couple. So then should we just say that someone with THE BEST statistics is THE BEST batsman?? That's ridiculous!!... I am not saying Sachin is THE BEST all time batsman either... This "ALL TIME" for a constantly evolving game with constantly evolving conditions and formats is an extremely silly tag to associate it with. There are only best____ for that particular generation.. and some (like Sachin) may leave behind records that may or may not be surpassed. But just because that statistical figure is not surpassed 500 years from now, that doesn't mean Sachin is the "all time best batsman" 500 years from now... when god knows what the situation with cricket will be. This is not like athletics where records for running etc are set. Those records are timeless.. because the exact same feat is replicated by other athletes over and over in an attempt to surpass it.. But it is pure tunnel vision to look at someone's mere longevity at the crease and collect runs. . and then attribute him as an "all time" best batsman.

[Muloghonto]

yea' date=' I call BS on that... Bradman was THE BEST at his time.. no question!.. but he did not play even a FRACTION of what today's cricketers play in a year... or have to go thru the physical and mental duress that today's players have to. [/quote'] So what ? today's players do not play on uncovered pitches or matches where 'survive the last session' is pointless, because in timeless tests, you play till you win or lose. Sachin's stats, as great as they are, are 10-15% better than the next best player of his time and cricketing history. Not in the same class of statistical anomaly as Bradman, Dhyan Chand, Chamberlain or Ruth, who's stats are 50-100% better than the next best in the history of the game. Agreed. All i am saying is, the only players who can truely bridge the generational gap, according to expert opinions, are statistical anomalies of serious magitude, ala Bradman. The only players who still figure in the 'alltime greats, despite the game having changed so much' are these guys, the reason being their jaw-dropping statistical superiority. As i said, statistics is not the end-all, be-all of the sport. I happen to consider expert opinion more highly than a limited set of numbers that do not encapsulate the entire spectrum of cricket mathematically. Which is why when it comes to 'Kallis vs Tendy', i will go by expert opinion and not the miniscule statistical difference between the two. But when expert opinion is heavily consensized ( eg: Graeme Pollock = ATG) or when statistics are seriously mindboggline (Bradman), then it does win by default.

[saket123]

If you say Bradman is an "all time best" then you are also saying that Bradman will play equally well today shuttling between 20/20, ODI, IPL and test cricket about a dozen times or more in 1 year.. while at the same time playing in bouncy West Indies, to SA, to flat tracks of Sri Lanka, India, to UAE etc.. all in a given year.. and facing spin bowlers from 9 different teams with 3 different spinners .. an each with 4 different kinds of spin techniques.. from each team. I am not saying Bradman will definitely not perform as well, I am saying.. we don't know.. and going with the logic of how things only get better and better in a structured and technical sport.. most likely he may not have. As such.. we need to drop this "All Time" tag when it comes to Cricket.

[Desi Cartman]

Greatest of them all

[Muloghonto]

If you say Bradman is an "all time best" then you are also saying that Bradman will play equally well today shuttling between 20/20, ODI, IPL and test cricket about a dozen times or more in 1 year.. while at the same time playing in bouncy West Indies, to SA, to flat tracks of Sri Lanka, India, to UAE etc.. all in a given year.. and facing spin bowlers from 9 different teams with 3 different spinners .. an each with 4 different kinds of spin techniques.. from each team. I am not saying Bradman will definitely not perform as well, I am saying.. we don't know.. and going with the logic of how things only get better and better in a structured and technical sport.. most likely he may not have. As such.. we need to drop this "All Time" tag when it comes to Cricket.

Bradman= alltime best in Tests. That is all i am saying, i have no qualms about saying he was a complete unknown for ODIs/20-20s. Also, the idea that 'things only get better and better' in sports is not entirely true. Over a long enough timescale it maybe true but having watched cricket from the late 70s onwards, i would say that 1991-2004 is definitely the highest quality phase of cricket in Tests and ODIs than it has been in the 2005-present phase. Not all sports have become more competetive & harder to play in a linear level simply due to technology.

[vvvslaxman]

Greatest of them all

:hysterical:

[Lurker]

Ian Chappell's article (not sure if it was written by a ghost author), made for a good read. :two_thumbs_up: The anecdote about Sobers sledging fast bowler and then pulling him for a boundary and then sledging him again was hilarious. As was the comment about Sobers wearing the West Indies cap against visiting South Africans. This is how such readings should be. Celebrating the greatness of a player, without degrading anyone else, and also anecdotes to add to the player's personality instead of mindless stats.

[Deleted_User_1]

Where is BossBhai.. lol we miss him here. He would change the title to Who is best batsman after Tendulkar.

I think he is in exile seeing SRT's struggles. After all who can blame him. I am not as big a fan as he, and even I cringe as I see the average plummet and he looks more and more like a man refusing to accept reality that his time is over.

[jf1gp_1]

Not suggesting he was the best after bradman or even better than lara but one of the best batsman for WI who I feel no one ever talks about was Carl hooper. I don't know his stats but he was the wonderful batsman

[Chalks]

Inzi.