Sachin second only to Bradman - Michael Clarke

[Crookbond]

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

That would just make the comparison unfair. It is like saying an aeroplane or car in the 21st century is better than the one in the 70s - of course it is but it would be naive to make such a comparison. By the very same extension of that logic, a batsman in the end of the 21st century would be WAY better than Tendulkar and I'm not sure that would be fair on Tendulkar either. The comparison (and for heaven's sake I hope others are thinking of it the same) is - IF both players played in the same set of conditions, had same set of facilities etc., who would come out better?

[Lord]

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'] but that is the same for the bowlers Sachin faced as compared to the bowlers Bradman faced,So sort of evens out imo

[Crookbond]

but that is the same for the bowlers Sachin faced as compared to the bowlers Bradman faced' date='So sort of evens out imo[/quote'] That's for you - for others it doesn't apparently. Choose whichever way you want - unless you are bhakt the final conclusion would be that Bradman was as much a great batsman as Tendulkar was and vice-versa.

[King Tendulkar]

That would just make the comparison unfair. It is like saying an aeroplane or car in the 21st century is better than the one in the 70s - of course it is but it would be naive to make such a comparison. By the very same extension of that logic, a batsman in the end of the 21st century would be WAY better than Tendulkar and I'm not sure that would be fair on Tendulkar either. The comparison (and for heaven's sake I hope others are thinking of it the same) is - IF both players played in the same set of conditions, had same set of facilities etc., who would come out better?

If you look back at sachin v bradman threads, you had plenty of nutters lining up to say that a car/aeroplane in 70s was better then 21st century versions:hysterical: In fact they would argue that a car in 1930s was better then modern car:cantstop:

[Scarves]

You have to consider the rules during Bradman's time. Bodyline, bouncers all day (They just did a doco I saw yesterday called Bodyline (newer one) and using computers and **** they found out Larwood would be Johnson's pace), flimsy pats, gloves, no helmets, uncovered pitches and others. You would like to see how Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and other top batsmen now would have been back there. People dismiss Bradman's era too easily, sure India and New Zealand were weak but Windies were quite strong with Walcott, Weekes, Headley and Worrell, South Africa had Nourse, Faulkner and others while England were stacked. The bowlers according to several accounts were as quick as today (Larwood, Voce, Lindwall, Miller, Johnson) and you had decent spinners in Grimmett and O'Reilly. Sure on paper since Hutton, Bradman, Ponsford and Hammond had high averages that it is a weak era but it was actually pretty strong. So we can't compare really anything at all because there is no way to have Larwood bowl to Tendulkar with bodyline or having Hammond bat against Warne on a covered Brissie deck. It is just too difficult.

[maniac]

Jeff Thompson used to drink Whiskey,smoke and practice and we are talking about the 70's,can you imagine the fitness levels by fast bowlers or any other cricketer during that era :haha: :hatsoff: for pulling that off though I mean... a normal naturally non-athleticguy cannot pull that off but just saying in this era with tests,ODIs,T20I;s and top of that BBL and IPL can't imagine anyone succeeding with that level of discipline. Cricketers were a joke in bradman's era.:hatsoff: to him for being the best among his contemporaries and by some margin but can't compare him with modern cricketers.

[Temujin Khaghan]

It is enough sample to compare.We are talking about away tests. Ponting completly outclassed clarke in 2008 tour and 2010 tour of india even when he was at end of his career speaks a lot of pitches and indian attack of 2001 and ponting .:hatsoff: I bring bad decisons as they clear edges not lbws.

suit yourself. not interested in arguing

[GrandMasterSaxy]

Bradman was a great batsman but the fact is he played 80% of the matches against England and rest 20% against weak India side, Windies and SA.

[Scarves]

Jeff Thompson used to drink Whiskey,smoke and practice and we are talking about the 70's,can you imagine the fitness levels by fast bowlers or any other cricketer during that era :haha: :hatsoff: for pulling that off though I mean... a normal naturally non-athleticguy cannot pull that off but just saying in this era with tests,ODIs,T20I;s and top of that BBL and IPL can't imagine anyone succeeding with that level of discipline. Cricketers were a joke in bradman's era.:hatsoff: to him for being the best among his contemporaries and by some margin but can't compare him with modern cricketers.

Did you not see Mark Cosgrove. :hysterical:

[Sajid_Rana]

Clarke is wrong. According to recent research by neutrals , Sachin is 29th best batsman of all time.

[bulbul]

^ :agree:

[GrandMasterSaxy]

You are right, I just googled and got the following result 1) D. Bradman 2) S. Afridi 3) U. Akmal 4) K. Akmal 5) A. Akmal 6) U. Amin 7) S. Maqsood 8) H. Sohail 9) M. Hafeez 10) S. Malik 11) Misbah ... ... ... 29) S. Tendulkar

Clarke is wrong. According to recent research by neutrals ' date=' Sachin is 29th best batsman of all time.[/quote']

[Scarves]

That's is pretty interesting that you can say that Sachin had his best peak according to the ICC at 29th. So your top 10 are 1. Bradman (961) v. India in '48 2. Hutton 3. Hobbs 3. Ponting during his peak in 2003-2007 which is fair. 5. Peter May which is fair 6. Walcott = Sobers = Viv = Sangakkara - That's interesting really 10. Hayden - During the 2001-2003 period where he dominated South Africa and England 10. Kallis - 2007 12. Mohammad Yousuf - During the best ever runs scored in a calender year 13. Weekes = Graeme Pollock 15. Dudley Nourse - Around Bradman's time 15. Doug Walters - That's really interesting 17. Neil Harvey - Fair = Mike Hussey - When his average was like between 80-100 19. Denis Compton 20. Gavaskar - Really underrated batsman 21. Headley - Bradman's time 22. Ken Barrington - Scored a lot of runs 23. Lara - I'm surprised he is not higher up during the 92-95 period and not this 2004 period 24. AB de Villiers - You gotta thank Pakistan with this = Pietersen - Just before he was captain 26. Amla - Gotta thank Pakistan but surprised it wasn't during the English series 27. Chanderpaul 28. Clarke - Before his massive year with the triple and three doubles which is surprising 29. Tendulkar in 2002 He is ahead of Hammond, Waugh, Dravid, Gambhir who is ahead of Jayawardene and Miandad, Greg Chappell, Younis Khan, Border, Lawry, Vaughan, Richardson, Cook, Gilchrist and a lot others. ODIs Surprisingly in the ODI rankings, Tendulkar is 13th behind Viv, Zaheer Abbas, Greg Chappell, David Gower, Dean Jones, Javed Miandad, Lara, Amla, Kirsten, Haynes, Lamb and Greendige. Amla is the only one with a ranking from the 21st century. Also Tendulkar is 1998 when he was the best ODI batsman without doubt. Bevan is just behind Tendulkar, Kohli 17th, Aravinda de Silva is 19th ahead of Hussey. Mark Waugh, Hayden and Ganguly are 21st, 22nd and 23rd respectively. Ponting is 33rd behind Bailey's peak which is really odd. Anyway what I can get from these rankings is that even though Tendulkar is an amazing batsman he never really had a massive peak where he scored a lot of runs. He has just been consistently solid throughout his career but nothing really big which does speak anything about his volume and longevity. It also shows that Bradman has been consistent and at a very long peak.

[Stuge]

ENOUGH !!! First he should know who he is next to d:

[adi B]

That's is pretty interesting that you can say that Sachin had his best peak according to the ICC at 29th. So your top 10 are 1. Bradman (961) v. India in '48 2. Hutton 3. Hobbs 3. Ponting during his peak in 2003-2007 which is fair. 5. Peter May which is fair 6. Walcott = Sobers = Viv = Sangakkara - That's interesting really 10. Hayden - During the 2001-2003 period where he dominated South Africa and England 10. Kallis - 2007 12. Mohammad Yousuf - During the best ever runs scored in a calender year 13. Weekes = Graeme Pollock 15. Dudley Nourse - Around Bradman's time 15. Doug Walters - That's really interesting 17. Neil Harvey - Fair = Mike Hussey - When his average was like between 80-100 19. Denis Compton 20. Gavaskar - Really underrated batsman 21. Headley - Bradman's time 22. Ken Barrington - Scored a lot of runs 23. Lara - I'm surprised he is not higher up during the 92-95 period and not this 2004 period 24. AB de Villiers - You gotta thank Pakistan with this = Pietersen - Just before he was captain 26. Amla - Gotta thank Pakistan but surprised it wasn't during the English series 27. Chanderpaul 28. Clarke - Before his massive year with the triple and three doubles which is surprising 29. Tendulkar in 2002 He is ahead of Hammond, Waugh, Dravid, Gambhir who is ahead of Jayawardene and Miandad, Greg Chappell, Younis Khan, Border, Lawry, Vaughan, Richardson, Cook, Gilchrist and a lot others. ODIs Surprisingly in the ODI rankings, Tendulkar is 13th behind Viv, Zaheer Abbas, Greg Chappell, David Gower, Dean Jones, Javed Miandad, Lara, Amla, Kirsten, Haynes, Lamb and Greendige. Amla is the only one with a ranking from the 21st century. Also Tendulkar is 1998 when he was the best ODI batsman without doubt. Bevan is just behind Tendulkar, Kohli 17th, Aravinda de Silva is 19th ahead of Hussey. Mark Waugh, Hayden and Ganguly are 21st, 22nd and 23rd respectively. Ponting is 33rd behind Bailey's peak which is really odd. Anyway what I can get from these rankings is that even though Tendulkar is an amazing batsman he never really had a massive peak where he scored a lot of runs. He has just been consistently solid throughout his career but nothing really big which does speak anything about his volume and longevity. It also shows that Bradman has been consistent and at a very long peak.

roger federer doesn't have the best serve on the tour(roddick,isner,raonic better than him),his return of serve aint the best(djokovic,murray better),his backhand isn't the best(djokovic,agassi better),his forehand wasn't the greatest(delpo,gonzalez,nadal better) but still he is the GOAT with 17 GS and the best overall play..same with sachin which separates a champion like him from those in the list

[Crookbond]

Since this pretty much is the professional era i think we should be asking the question whether the don would have been comfortable playing 'this' sport across formats varied geographies and attacks. And not be regressive and ask questions of arguably the best modern batsman the world has seen.

Since the earlier era did had sub standard facilities, coaching, Internet & communications devices , food, medicine etc. may be we can also ask if the best modern batsman would do well in an era where people died of malaria and typhoid in their 30s and how tennis elbows were never heard of, nor recovered.

[Crookbond]

roger federer doesn't have the best serve on the tour(roddick' date='isner,raonic better than him),his return of serve aint the best(djokovic,murray better),his backhand isn't the best(djokovic,agassi better),his forehand wasn't the greatest(delpo,gonzalez,nadal better) but still he is the GOAT with 17 GS and the best overall play..same with sachin which separates a champion like him from those in the list[/quote'] Federer's serve is highly under rated. A serve is not just about the meter reading in MPH on the clock.

[adi B]

Federer's serve is highly under rated. A serve is not just about the meter reading in MPH on the clock.

agree but sampras,roddick,isner are better servers than him..fed`s serve is definitely top drawer especially his cunningness in using the wide services

[Crookbond]

That to me is regressive some might find it interesting to investigate yes the other way around. My point is why are we asking this question or thereabouts of a fellow - 'hey can u play the amateurish format well enough' rather than 'hey can u play the professional format well enough' And then we can get into all the details and the nitty gritties - my starting point would be this.

It's called being "fair" and not regressive. Both questions need to be asked and not just the one which you think is good. It is important to note that the amateurish format (due to technological less advancement etc.) was not Bradman's fault. Important to respect history as much as bask in the present glory. Easy to sit on an armchair and say - "Hey that was amateurish" sitting on the Internet which came into prominence 50 years after the Don had played his last game. By the same logic, 100 years down the line there will be Internet warriors trying to prove some XYZ Sharma > Tendulkar by more runs in IPL games.

[Blue-no1]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/crickets-greatest-batsmen-sachin-tendulkar-v-don-bradman/story-fndpt0dy-1226738004879 Good article. Did Clarke see Bradman play? Why he and other Aussies is so definitive? People like Hanif who have seen both have chosen Tendu over Don.