Sachin second only to Bradman - Michael Clarke

[G_B_]

IDK why people have to prove X > Y that too across eras :wall:

they have small d!cks

[GoldenSun]

they have small d!cks

exactly:cantstop:

[putrevus]

the point is its futile to compare the eras. Somebody like sunny was super in the tests but dud in the ODIs. Does not mean thay Bradman would have made it in the odis if played back then. Its remains an open question. Cricket back then effectively was a closed shop between Aus and England. Bradman for example played against the first Indian team comprising most of royals who were chosen on the basis of their station in life rather than actually meriting selection.

Going by your point bradman was the best in his era but there is lot of debate if Sachin is the best in his era.

[Captain of Bhangra]

I can't decide which is better, but hope people don't overlook the fact that Sachin played 4 times as many Tests as the Don, hundreds of ODIs, and faced a hell of a lot of all time great bowlers. The modern game involves bowlers looking into the science of what they do, and improving their game/techniques. Sachin faced more different opponents in more different countries. These are facts that should be considered.

[King Tendulkar]

also clarke > ponting

:hysterical:

[Crookbond]

I can't decide which is better' date=' but hope people don't overlook the fact that Sachin played 4 times as many Tests as the Don, hundreds of ODIs, and faced a hell of a lot of all time great bowlers. The modern game involves bowlers looking into the science of what they do, and improving their game/techniques. Sachin faced more different opponents in more different countries. These are facts that should be considered.[/quote'] Yea and Tendulkar had access to more modern cricketing facilities, more modern medicine, more modern coaching and more modern communication media than Bradman. I believe these facts should also be considered.

[Captain of Bhangra]

Yea and Tendulkar had access to more modern cricketing facilities' date=' more modern medicine, more modern coaching and more modern communication media than Bradman. I believe these facts should also be considered.[/quote'] Touché...

[King Tendulkar]

Yea and Tendulkar had access to more modern cricketing facilities' date=' more modern medicine, more modern coaching and more modern communication media than Bradman. I believe these facts should also be considered.[/quote'] Exactly, toally agree. So there is no way bradaman can be as good as any modern batsman, let alone Tendulkar. Thanks making the point that Sachin is better

[Number]

Even without big scores Tendu averages around 90 in Ranji and played against various oppositions. I have no doubt Tendu and Lara would have averaged close to 90 if they played in that era. That's one of the estimations I would make.

[King Tendulkar]

Even without big scores Tendu averages around 90 in Ranji and played against various oppositions. I have no doubt Tendu and Lara would have averaged close to 90 if they played in that era. That's one of the estimations I would make.

There are seperate threads for this. But frankly if he played back in the charlie chaplin days, would have averaged 200 plus with ease. Not sure he would ever get out

[G_B_]

Going by your point bradman was the best in his era but there is lot of debate if Sachin is the best in his era.

Bradman was the best in his era because his era consisted of 2 teams. International cricket was effectively Australia v England. So you can say Bradman was the best among 22 international semi professional cricketers among the established cricketing countries. Its equivalent to the 1930 world cup. Where hardly any western european nations participated due to the commute to Uruguay involved. In the modern era there are multiple events and test series which are played simultaneously. Making it harder to stand out. and i can argue that Sachin has stood out in his era. I would say the Sachin era has been marked out by the introduction and popularity of the cricket world cup. He has been leading run scorer in 1996, 2003 and 2011(for India) . Thats what makes him stand out from his peers.

[CG]

Sachin's inability to score big hundreds is always going to work against him, he was consistent but not match winning overseas both in odis and tests. Bradman will always remain ahead just due to gigantic number 99.6.

Sachin tendulkars 20 hundreds out of 50 have been above 150.:hatsoff: Regarding match winning stats Tendulakr averages 61 in won matches :hatsoff: Test matches are won by bowling attacks and teams ,So It would be unfair on tendulkar to judje him that way.Also match winning knocks can be as good as 50 or 90 according to situation.Tendulkar peak was in an era where bowlers were world class and pitches juicer .In Most test matches india has won he has played match winning knocks.

[putrevus]

Bradman was the best in his era because his era consisted of 2 teams. International cricket was effectively Australia v England. So you can say Bradman was the best among 22 international semi professional cricketers among the established cricketing countries. Its equivalent to the 1930 world cup. Where hardly any western european nations participated due to the commute to Uruguay involved. In the modern era there are multiple events and test series which are played simultaneously. Making it harder to stand out. and i can argue that Sachin has stood out in his era. I would say the Sachin era has been marked out by the introduction and popularity of the cricket world cup. He has been leading run scorer in 1996, 2003 and 2011(for India) . Thats what makes him stand out from his peers.

See indians have also come long way from stage where they were glorifying an innings played by sachin against a minnow team like Zimbabwe, that would not even notice a non descript knock like he had against Olonga today. Sachin stood out as best indian batsman of this era and he is one of the best in modern era. Sachin just has most number of followers/fans.

[CG]

See indians have also come long way from stage where they were glorifying an innings played by sachin against a minnow team like Zimbabwe, that would not even notice a non descript knock like he had against Olonga today. Sachin stood out as best indian batsman of this era and he is one of the best in modern era. Sachin just has most number of followers/fans.

Actually zimbabwe attack of 90s with heath streak, would be much better than current Wi,lanka,bangla,nz pace attacks

[putrevus]

Actually zimbabwe attack of 90s with heath streak, would be much better than current Wi,lanka,bangla,nz pace attacks

I don't think so, it is just Indians made them look better than they were, just like Pakistanis made current Zim better than they actually are in reality.

[CG]

I don't think so' date=' it is just Indians made them look better than they were, just like Pakistanis made current Zim better than they actually are in reality.[/quote'] No Heath streak was a good bowler and the zim team of 1990s with Flower brothers,heath streak,cambell,Murray GoodwinAlso a legspinner were a decent side better than current zim side by a distance and they would actually win against current wi side.

[GoldenSun]

I don't think so' date=' it is just Indians made them look better than they were, just like Pakistanis made current Zim better than they actually are in reality.[/quote'] are you really saying that Brendan Taylor, Sean Williams, Tendai Chatara, and co= Andy Flower,Grant Flower, Neil Johnson, Douglas Hondo, Henry Olonga, Heath Streak, Alistair Campbell, Andy Blignaut, Sean Ervine, Stuart Carlisle, Murray Goodwin, Paul Strang???? :giggle: That team Zimbabwe had in the 90s beat India AND a highly dominant SA in the 1999 world cup and could put up a good fight against most international sides anyday. Andy Flower could walk into any international side barring Australia. He was world class. Brendan Taylor, the current best player of Zimbabwe is not even 20% of what he was.

[CG]

are you really saying that Brendan Taylor, Sean Williams, Tendai Chatara, and co= Andy Flower,Grant Flower, Neil Johnson, Douglas Hondo, Henry Olonga, Heath Streak, Campbell???? :giggle:

do not forget Murray Goodwin,blignaut and they had some decent bits and pieces players like whitell spinners like strang.neil johsnon was doing good in odis in 1999.

[adi B]

There are seperate threads for this. But frankly if he played back in the charlie chaplin days, would have averaged 200 plus with ease. Not sure he would ever get out

frankly speaking even i think the same :cantstop:, but then cricket didn't evolve much back then,bowling styles were different,batting techniques were vastly different to today`s world

[putrevus]

No Heath streak was a good bowler and the zim team of 1990s with Flower brothers' date='heath streak,cambell,Also a legspinner were a decent side better than current zim side by a distance and they would actually win against current wi side.[/quote'] They sure were better than current Zim team but in odis still they were very average side.