Sachin second only to Bradman - Michael Clarke

[Crookbond]

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.

There are people who have seen both play choose the Don over Tendulkar as well.

[Blue-no1]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket...-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.

There are people who have seen both play choose the Don over Tendulkar as well.

and that is the point. The problem I have is on Aussies who have never seen Bradman play, blindly saying Tendu is not as good. I do not have any problem with people who have seen both play, claiming one is better than the other (assuming they are non jingoistic). As some have pointed out here, there can be no comparison, both belong to different era, and both were the best of their times. I have one observation though. Between the two, I see Tendu transferring his body weight/balance into the shot more precisely than the Don (seen from the limited videos that are available). This might be related to his height and body figure. Might be a mechanical engineering study.... :icflove:

[GrandMasterSaxy]

Don played against the same side (England) almost 85% of the time, played only in England and Australia, most probably against the same bowling attack. I have never seen playing Don but I believe, if both Sachin and Don would have played together in the same era, Sachin would have emerged better than Don due to his commitment, hardwork and zeal to learn.

[Scarves]

Don played against the same side (England) almost 85% of the time, played only in England and Australia, most probably against the same bowling attack. I have never seen playing Don but I believe, if both Sachin and Don would have played together in the same era, Sachin would have emerged better than Don due to his commitment, hardwork and zeal to learn.

Not really actually. The attack from 1928 was different from the attack in 1935 and so on. I mean when Tendulkar played in the 90's he played attacks that barely changed as well. It happens to all players throughout time. I don't think we should count anything against Bradman because he played against England a lot, you would think with that many matches they would figure him out, so to really well to score a lot of runs is pretty amazing. Plus he worked part time as an accountant. An accountant.

[Blue-no1]

Plus he worked part time as an accountant. An accountant.

[GrandMasterSaxy]

Plus he worked part time as an accountant. An accountant.

and Tendu came from my hometown Mumbai where families barely make ends meet. Until he became a star in the 90's he lived as a lower middle class guy in a 2 room apartment.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Going by some bizarre logic of this thread, Sachin in early 90's was better batsman than later part of his career. Reason - There was less technological help available in early 90's.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

He has scored some decent tons in India and remember Stats don't tell you everything. I mean if we did listen to stats only then Sangakkara would be the best atm. :hysterical:

With regards to Ponting, it is not just about stats. He had a glaring weakness against spin when ball started turning.

[rkt.india]

Different era and different challenges but the very fact that no player after Don has even come close to the ave 70 says a lot I believe the next best is mid 60's' date=' I agree Sachin was not a match winner for most part in his test career, Probably Laxman, Sehwag, Rohit, even Kohli might win more tests single handedly, he is the best we have seen in our lifetime talent wise maybe as good as anyone , his stats although don't show his genius besides the length of his career and consistency, many players ave more then him.[/quote'] High number of SRT's 100s are in matches win by India so how he was not match winning.

[Scarves]

Plus he worked part time as an accountant. An accountant.

and Tendu came from my hometown Mumbai where families barely make ends meet. Until he became a star in the 90's he lived as a lower middle class guy in a 2 room apartment.

[Scarves]

With regards to Ponting' date=' it is not just about stats. He had a glaring weakness against spin when ball started turning.[/quote'] This has nothing to do with Ponting. Yes Ponting struggled in one Indian tour, everyone struggles in a tour. Laxman struggled in Australia last tour, does that mean he has a glaring weakness against pace and seam? No it doesn't I'm saying that stats don't tell a full story because then we would be classing Sangakkara as one of the best batsman in history. We don't because we are smarter than that. There are so many variables that stats don't show.

[NareshK]

This has nothing to do with Ponting. Yes Ponting struggled in one Indian tour' date= everyone struggles in a tour. Laxman struggled in Australia last tour, does that mean he has a glaring weakness against pace and seam? No it doesn't I'm saying that stats don't tell a full story because then we would be classing Sangakkara as one of the best batsman in history. We don't because we are smarter than that. There are so many variables that stats don't show.

One Indian tour ? Are you kidding ? He averaged 26 in 14 tests in India and he was Harbhajan's bunny and he was clueless against spinners. Havent you seen this video ? :cantstop: O91bEvmwFP8

[Raghav_12]

and Tendu came from my hometown Mumbai where families barely make ends meet. Until he became a star in the 90's he lived as a lower middle class guy in a 2 room apartment

So he was playing cricket part time as a lower middle class guy? :S My point was cricketers back then had jobs all around the world which makes it even more astounding with his consistency and stats and also take into consideration that WWII happened, it makes Bradman seem more remarkable as well as other players. I think people also state that Windies and South Africa must have been weak but they did beat England in England also England did beat Australia. The only two weak countries were NZ and India and if you look at now you see that there are still weak sides and strong sides. This isn't saying who is better personally I lean towards Bradman due to sheer averages and amount of runs he has scored in matches and innings and series. This is about giving respect to the era of cricket from 1920's to 1950's which people look unfavorably at. There were great bowlers, fielders, keepers and batsman. There were a lot of matches as well as a tour to England would take 4 months with a game like twice a week. There were several of difficult conditions like dustbowls in India, sticky wickets in Australia and so on. There was also WWII which ruined a lot of careers. If you are going try to compare Bradman and Tendulkar, you have to give respect to both eras of cricket.

All your argument is counter productive. All this highlights is that Bradman's era was amateurish and need not to be compared with professionals of today. You can't compare Bradman's exploits with Sachin's just because they were recorded in under same columns on data tables.

[Scarves]

ITT: Getting out to one spinner makes you bad at facing spin bowling. He has a great average against Murali, Mushy and others. Harbhajan just bowled really well against him. Also for the record he did average 38 and 56 in his last tours of India, just saying. Anyway this has nothing to do with Ponting in the first place.

[Scarves]

All your argument is counter productive. All this highlights is that Bradman's era was amateurish and need not to be compared with professionals of today. You can't compare Bradman's exploits with Sachin's just because they were recorded in under same columns on data tables.

Why was it amateurish? They weren't still paid money like professionals and that the Cricket Boards wouldn't pay them?. Is it amateurish because of the standard? So that means that the great Windies side of 1960's must be worse than the current side because they weren't paid more money. So obviously that makes sense since the more money you are paid obviously you have to be better, your era has to be better. I mean since Sunil Gavaskar era must be less professional you know before WSC and IPL and stuff that means of course that his era means nothing. Oh yes scoring 365 and hitting 6 sixes like Sobers did means nothing as well. Oh since Vijay Hazare played in 30's we must dismiss him from being a great because he was in an 'amateurish era' Get real. Just because they had to work part time during off-season doesn't mean that they are any less of a cricketer than this era. Basically all you said is anything before WSC cricket is irrelevant and no one should read anything into it.

[Raghav_12]

Why was it amateurish? They weren't still paid money like professionals and that the Cricket Boards wouldn't pay them?. Is it amateurish because of the standard? So that means that the great Windies side of 1960's must be worse than the current side because they weren't paid more money. So obviously that makes sense since the more money you are paid obviously you have to be better, your era has to be better. I mean since Sunil Gavaskar era must be less professional you know before WSC and IPL and stuff that means of course that his era means nothing. Oh yes scoring 365 and hitting 6 sixes like Sobers did means nothing as well. Oh since Vijay Hazare played in 30's we must dismiss him from being a great because he was in an 'amateurish era' Get real. Just because they had to work part time during off-season doesn't mean that they are any less of a cricketer than this era. Basically all you said is anything before WSC cricket is irrelevant and no one should read anything into it.

Nothing new in this. All Bradman bhakt defends 30's cricket by giving example of 60's and 70's.

[Raghav_12]

Why was it amateurish? They weren't still paid money like professionals and that the Cricket Boards wouldn't pay them?. Is it amateurish because of the standard? So that means that the great Windies side of 1960's must be worse than the current side because they weren't paid more money. So obviously that makes sense since the more money you are paid obviously you have to be better, your era has to be better. I mean since Sunil Gavaskar era must be less professional you know before WSC and IPL and stuff that means of course that his era means nothing. Oh yes scoring 365 and hitting 6 sixes like Sobers did means nothing as well. Oh since Vijay Hazare played in 30's we must dismiss him from being a great because he was in an 'amateurish era' Get real. Just because they had to work part time during off-season doesn't mean that they are any less of a cricketer than this era. Basically all you said is anything before WSC cricket is irrelevant and no one should read anything into it.

They were surely. Get real. It would only be romanticism to believe people can be better when they have to work on multiple things in comparison to people when they have to completely focus on single things. Nowaday players focus more, have better support system available so they are bound to be better than the older lot. All you can say that Bradman had shown enough sign to suggest that he would have been as good as anybody else if he had played in current era, but those would be just speculations. As of now, you simply can't compare.