Closest comparison between cricket players

[Unbiased-Fan]

Comparing cricketers is such a fun game. Its get even better when comparison is very close.
Presenting you such very close comparison between players who have almost same statistics and impact on the game.

1. Tendulkar vs Lara
Starting with a classic comparison. Tendulkar and Lara are probably the two greatest ever batsman in terms of legacy and stats.

2. Kallis vs Sobers vs Imran
The war of legendary all rounders. Everyone has different opinion about the greatest ever all rounders ever play the game. But these three feature in everyone's list.

3. Hammond vs Hobbs vs Hutton
All these three has 100+ centuries in 1st class cricket and finished with 55+ average in Tests.

4. Williamson vs Root
Two modern day greats. Almost everyone rates Smith and Kohli above these two, but comparison between these two gets very close.

5. Steve Waugh vs Border
Both world cup winning captains, both has similar record in tests.

6. Dhoni vs Bevan
Two greatest finishers of all times. Bevan was pioneer but Dhoni sets even higher standards.

7. Marshall vs Ambrose
Two of the greatest fast bowlers produced by Windies. Both fnished careers with average slightly less than 21..unbelievable

8. Weekes vs Walcott
Both scored almost same number of runs with averaging above 56. Part of famous W trio.

Each comparison above is very close and it is very tough to chose one above other.
Can you provide other such comparisons?

 

[FearlessRoar]

Bro, are you comparing Sachin Tendulkar with Brian Lara?

Sachin Tendulkar can't match the tactics and techniques of Brian Lara.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Tbh Dhoni vs Bevan is not a good comparison. Bevan was a beats while Dhoni no doubt was a good finisher initially but at fag end of his career was just a shadow of his prior self

 

[Ab Fan]

Marshall vs Ambrose is easy.

Smith vs Hayden vs Cook would also be a solid comparison.

 

[Mesozoic]

How is Williamson and Root still a close comparison?

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

Marshall vs Ambrose is easy.

Smith vs Hayden vs Cook would also be a solid comparison.

Who would you pick between Ambrose n Marshall?
Hayden easily better than Smith and Cook imo

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

How is Williamson and Root still a close comparison?

Who is better?

 

[Ab Fan]

Who would you pick between Ambrose n Marshall?
Hayden easily better than Smith and Cook imo

Marshall is #1.

Ambrose maybe in top 5.

Hayden was weak vs moving ball as compared to Smith and Cook.

 

[mominsaigol]

Comparing cricketers is such a fun game. Its get even better when comparison is very close.
Presenting you such very close comparison between players who have almost same statistics and impact on the game.

1. Tendulkar vs Lara
Starting with a classic comparison. Tendulkar and Lara are probably the two greatest ever batsman in terms of legacy and stats.

2. Kallis vs Sobers vs Imran
The war of legendary all rounders. Everyone has different opinion about the greatest ever all rounders ever play the game. But these three feature in everyone's list.

3. Hammond vs Hobbs vs Hutton
All these three has 100+ centuries in 1st class cricket and finished with 55+ average in Tests.

4. Williamson vs Root
Two modern day greats. Almost everyone rates Smith and Kohli above these two, but comparison between these two gets very close.

5. Steve Waugh vs Border
Both world cup winning captains, both has similar record in tests.

6. Dhoni vs Bevan
Two greatest finishers of all times. Bevan was pioneer but Dhoni sets even higher standards.

7. Marshall vs Ambrose
Two of the greatest fast bowlers produced by Windies. Both fnished careers with average slightly less than 21..unbelievable

8. Weekes vs Walcott
Both scored almost same number of runs with averaging above 56. Part of famous W trio.

Each comparison above is very close and it is very tough to chose one above other.
Can you provide other such comparisons?

With the exception of Dhoni and Bevan none of the rest are remotely comparable.

Sachin is far superior to Lara in odi while Lara is unmatched in Test and Sachin just doesn't compare.

 

[mominsaigol]

Closest comparison for me

1) Dhoni vs Bevan (Both finishers, both like to take the game deep)

2) David Warner vs Travis Head vs Adam Gilchrist in Odi (They collectively form a left handed opening trilogy aka Gilchrist the 1st, Warner the 2nd, Travis the 3rd)

3) Don Bradman vs Sachin Tendulkar (Both are considered the god of cricket and both are considered the best in their respective eras, Even if I disagree on Sachin, the public opinion is regarded in this light)

 

[mominsaigol]

Who is better?

In test it's easily root.

In odi it's Williamson, he doesn't get appreciated but he pretty much carried an entire brittle 2015 and 2019 NZ batting line up on his back.

2023 he got outshined but that's because NZ now has competent batters and not burnt out end of rope Guptill's and Ross taylors.

Root on the other hand always seemed like a passenger in England side, you always wanted Alex hales to replace him, He just didn't fit in 2019 with Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Butler batting around him

 

[BouncerGuy]

Tendulkar vs Lara is pretty easy. SRT takes the ODI while Lara is ahead in Tests IMO.

Lara was a different breed in red ball.

 

[Buffet]

Comparing cricketers is such a fun game. Its get even better when comparison is very close.
Presenting you such very close comparison between players who have almost same statistics and impact on the game.

1. Tendulkar vs Lara
Starting with a classic comparison. Tendulkar and Lara are probably the two greatest ever batsman in terms of legacy and stats.

2. Kallis vs Sobers vs Imran
The war of legendary all rounders. Everyone has different opinion about the greatest ever all rounders ever play the game. But these three feature in everyone's list.

3. Hammond vs Hobbs vs Hutton
All these three has 100+ centuries in 1st class cricket and finished with 55+ average in Tests.

4. Williamson vs Root
Two modern day greats. Almost everyone rates Smith and Kohli above these two, but comparison between these two gets very close.

5. Steve Waugh vs Border
Both world cup winning captains, both has similar record in tests.

6. Dhoni vs Bevan
Two greatest finishers of all times. Bevan was pioneer but Dhoni sets even higher standards.

7. Marshall vs Ambrose
Two of the greatest fast bowlers produced by Windies. Both fnished careers with average slightly less than 21..unbelievable

8. Weekes vs Walcott
Both scored almost same number of runs with averaging above 56. Part of famous W trio.

Each comparison above is very close and it is very tough to chose one above other.
Can you provide other such comparisons?

In 90s ( toughest and most variety in bowling with lots of ATGs), SRT and Lara were great duo. Only 2-3 batsmen averaged 50 plus in 90s with 5K plus runs. Both played 60 odd tests . SRT averaged 58 with 22 tons and Lara was bit behind with average of 51 with 13 tons in 90s. Actually Lara was far behind, due to not doing anywhere close to SRT when playing away ( SRT avg 56 vs Lara avg 44 )but I always saw Lara and SRT as great duo of 90s. Both were great to watch despite having different style. There was a clear gap, but people took these two names together.

Root is ahead of Williamson by some margin unless we stick to home games only.

Dhoni Bevan is a good one. Dhoni had more power hitting but then both were product of thei times.

Marshall is just above Ambrose.

Kallis, Soberse and IK is also a good one. 3 great all rounders and normally they feature in everyone list as top 3-4.

 

[Buffet]

I was thinking test cricket except when commenting on Dhoni/Bevan.

 

[Ab Fan]

In test it's easily root.

In odi it's Williamson, he doesn't get appreciated but he pretty much carried an entire brittle 2015 and 2019 NZ batting line up on his back.

2023 he got outshined but that's because NZ now has competent batters and not burnt out end of rope Guptill's and Ross taylors.

Root on the other hand always seemed like a passenger in England side, you always wanted Alex hales to replace him, He just didn't fit in 2019 with Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Butler batting around him

In 2015, NZ had Guptil who was top run scorer and McCullum gave blazing starts. Elliot played a superb knock in semi final. Williamson had one good knock vs Australia which he finished with a 6 but largely failed in that tournament.

 

[ElRaja]

Don Bradman vs Sachin Tendulkar (Both are considered the god of cricket and both are considered the best in their respective eras, Even if I disagree on Sachin, the public opinion is regarded in this light)

easy now, bradman has no statistical comparables across any sport, let alone cricket, there's a reason he doesn't come up in these comparisons ever.

 

[mominsaigol]

easy now, bradman has no statistical comparables across any sport, let alone cricket, there's a reason he doesn't come up in these comparisons ever.

You're acting as If you've seen Don Bradman play live and know everything.

He's a folklore. If he batted today theirs no guarantee he'd be superior to anyone.

Bradman batted in an era in which he was the best of the best, and the rules and conditions are for his time only.

The issue with Bradman is that we only have stats to go off ove.

We have no idea how good the players were in his time, how good he was and how he'd compare to today whereas with players like viv you can make a judgment.

With Bradman their is no footage and anyone who saw him live is dead now, heck even in Viv's era they'd probs be dead or very old since human lifespan was far lesser back in the day, infact it's a miracle Bradman even lived till 2001 lol.

This is the issue with Folklore, Alot of people do this with Bruce Lee as well where they think he's some martial artist god whereas in reality the limited footage that we have available we see that while he's good, he's clearly not the unbeatable ninja in his movies and someone like brock lesnar would whoop him into next week.

Bradman was the best of his era, but with zero footage, Zero info on playstyle and how others use to fucntion back then, we can't say how good he is. Even the cheating tactics that use to work back in the day like body line will not work now due to extra protection

 

[ElRaja]

You're acting as If you've seen Don Bradman play live and know everything.

He's a folklore. If he batted today theirs no guarantee he'd be superior to anyone.

Bradman batted in an era in which he was the best of the best, and the rules and conditions are for his time only.

The issue with Bradman is that we only have stats to go off ove.

We have no idea how good the players were in his time, how good he was and how he'd compare to today whereas with players like viv you can make a judgment.

With Bradman their is no footage and anyone who saw him live is dead now, heck even in Viv's era they'd probs be dead or very old since human lifespan was far lesser back in the day, infact it's a miracle Bradman even lived till 2001 lol.

This is the issue with Folklore, Alot of people do this with Bruce Lee as well where they think he's some martial artist god whereas in reality the limited footage that we have available we see that while he's good, he's clearly not the unbeatable ninja in his movies and someone like brock lesnar would whoop him into next week.

Bradman was the best of his era, but with zero footage, Zero info on playstyle and how others use to fucntion back then, we can't say how good he is. Even the cheating tactics that use to work back in the day like body line will not work now due to extra protection

look at the OP, "almost the same statistics", how is an average of 99.94 the same as an average of 50?

i dont need to see him, i havnt watched county cricket from 150 years ago or Zimbabwean domestics from last season, i havnt watched baseball from 1900 or the last season, there is no statistical outlier like bradman. the whole point of statistics is that they allow for comparison without having to have see the players.

ill concede to you his technique was rubbish, he was slow, he was weak, everything you might want to believe about him, but what cannot be denied is that his propensity to make mistakes while batting was exponentially lower than any other sportsman in bat related sports in the history.

fwiw there is footage of him batting, he had a very stange technique, kinda similar to steve smith, and theres no reason to believe that he would be unable to translate his exceptional focus and discipline whilst batting to the modern era.

this is all however by the by, in terms of the OP there is no statistical comparable to bradman.

 

[mominsaigol]

look at the OP, "almost the same statistics", how is an average of 99.94 the same as an average of 50?

i dont need to see him, i havnt watched county cricket from 150 years ago or Zimbabwean domestics from last season, i havnt watched baseball from 1900 or the last season, there is no statistical outlier like bradman. the whole point of statistics is that they allow for comparison without having to have see the players.

ill concede to you his technique was rubbish, he was slow, he was weak, everything you might want to believe about him, but what cannot be denied is that his propensity to make mistakes while batting was exponentially lower than any other sportsman in bat related sports in the history.

fwiw there is footage of him batting, he had a very stange technique, kinda similar to steve smith, and theres no reason to believe that he would be unable to translate his exceptional focus and discipline whilst batting to the modern era.

this is all however by the by, in terms of the OP there is no statistical comparable to bradman.

the whole point of statistics is that they allow for comparison without having to have see the players.

No they dont, Almost everyone puts Jaysuria and Sachin as an opening pair in an Asian atg 11, however Jaysuria has Umar Akmal level stats. Stats don't show the whole picture.

Bradman's 99 avg is a product of its time that cannot be achieved today fir obvious reasons, The main reason being that lbw is a thing alongside the fact bowling on the body and head is not a big issue due to protective gear compared to the old era where it was banned for injuring players, and amoung other rules such as same pitch plays and playing the same 11 players whereas now players have to travel globally and play teams across the world.

ill concede to you his technique was rubbish, he was slow, he was weak, everything you might want to believe about him, but what cannot be denied is that his propensity to make mistakes while batting was exponentially lower than any other sportsman in bat related sports in the history.

No, you have not seen him bat, you cannot definitely claim that.

fwiw there is footage of him batting, he had a very stange technique, kinda similar to steve smith, and theres no reason to believe that he would be unable to translate his exceptional focus and discipline whilst batting to the modern era.

No their is not, Black and white footage from a 100year old camera at a side awkward angle for just 2 to 3 deliveries is not proper footage nor does it constitute as being able to highlight it.

His 99 avg is not possible today, in the same vein as another World War between countries is not possible without causing a nuclear catastrophy.

If he batted in this era he might be an ATG averaging 50 or whatever and have steve smith style batting but he would not be batting at an avg of 99, Even from that small footage that we've seen, None of the bowlers he's faced are remotely close to the likes of mcgrath, Warne, Bumrah etc.

In Bradman's era their was no proper domestic structure so the quality was obviously alot lower back in the day. Bradman himself wasn't even a full time cricket player, since he alternated qith his job + his passion for tennis.

 

[ElRaja]

the whole point of statistics is that they allow for comparison without having to have see the players.

No they dont, Almost everyone puts Jaysuria and Sachin as an opening pair in an Asian atg 11, however Jaysuria has Umar Akmal level stats. Stats don't show the whole picture.

Bradman's 99 avg is a product of its time that cannot be achieved today fir obvious reasons, The main reason being that lbw is a thing alongside the fact bowling on the body and head is not a big issue due to protective gear compared to the old era where it was banned for injuring players, and amoung other rules such as same pitch plays and playing the same 11 players whereas now players have to travel globally and play teams across the world.

ill concede to you his technique was rubbish, he was slow, he was weak, everything you might want to believe about him, but what cannot be denied is that his propensity to make mistakes while batting was exponentially lower than any other sportsman in bat related sports in the history.

No, you have not seen him bat, you cannot definitely claim that.

fwiw there is footage of him batting, he had a very stange technique, kinda similar to steve smith, and theres no reason to believe that he would be unable to translate his exceptional focus and discipline whilst batting to the modern era.

No their is not, Black and white footage from a 100year old camera at a side awkward angle for just 2 to 3 deliveries is not proper footage nor does it constitute as being able to highlight it.

His 99 avg is not possible today, in the same vein as another World War between countries is not possible without causing a nuclear catastrophy.

If he batted in this era he might be an ATG averaging 50 or whatever and have steve smith style batting but he would not be batting at an avg of 99, Even from that small footage that we've seen, None of the bowlers he's faced are remotely close to the likes of mcgrath, Warne, Bumrah etc.

In Bradman's era their was no proper domestic structure so the quality was obviously alot lower back in the day. Bradman himself wasn't even a full time cricket player, since he alternated qith his job + his passion for tennis.

so why didnt others average 100 over 7000 test runs if it was that much more likely back then? why havnt we seen a 10,000 first class run career, let alone bradman scoring 30,000 an average of 100 over a career even in the weaker domestic first class competitions? go back to OP, statistically similar, there is no equal to bradman on stats.

i dont want to argue on qualitative points because you dont see the irony in saying i cant make a qualitative point cos i didnt see him, but you can refute any point, despite you not seeing him either, lol, but fwiw he averaged 58 in the bodyline series at a strike rate of 75 when the second-best average was around 40, so even in that series where he was being peppered with short pitch bowling without any safety equipment he averaged more than what's considered a good average in the modern era facing a bowling style he had never done before in his whole career.

 

[mominsaigol]

so why didnt others average 100 over 7000 test runs if it was that much more likely back then? why havnt we seen a 10,000 first class run career, let alone bradman scoring 30,000 an average of 100 over a career even in the weaker domestic first class competitions? go back to OP, statistically similar, there is no equal to bradman on stats.

i dont want to argue on qualitative points because you dont see the irony in saying i cant make a qualitative point cos i didnt see him, but you can refute any point, despite you not seeing him either, lol, but fwiw he averaged 58 in the bodyline series at a strike rate of 75 when the second-best average was around 40, so even in that series where he was being peppered with short pitch bowling without any safety equipment he averaged more than what's considered a good average in the modern era facing a bowling style he had never done before in his whole career.

Others didn't average 100 because Bradman was the Best of his era. That doesnt mean hes the best of all time and would start thrashing bumrah's and Wasim akram's and Murli's left and right.

we have not seen such a career because such a career is no longer possible in today's era, What part of that do you not get?

Don't keep going into folklore territory, it's meaningless.

 

[ElRaja]

Others didn't average 100 because Bradman was the Best of his era. That doesnt mean hes the best of all time and would start thrashing bumrah's and Wasim akram's and Murli's left and right.

we have not seen such a career because such a career is no longer possible in today's era, What part of that do you not get?

Don't keep going into folklore territory, it's meaningless.

where did i say hed be thrashing murali or wasim or bumrah? stop trying to make straw men arguments. you were the one bringing in talk of eras and playing conditions, and when i refute it you call it meaningless.

fine lets stick to stats alone then. bradman is a statistical anomaly unlike any other, including all the respective best batsmen of the eras which preceded or followed him, which part of this do you not get?

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

As OP says cricketers not batsmen, I believe Sachin and Warne were so close. Special cricketers along with Lara and Wasim, rest are easily 1 tier below.

IMO Sachin-Lara-S Waugh in 90s

Dravid-Inzi in ODI (Mediocre but dependable, 400 ODIs with few 100s and only 70 SR), Inzi a flop in ICC events
Ponting-Dravid in Tests (insane peaks)
Kallis-Sanga-Cook (consistent but boring run machines), Amla is same but 1 tier below
Hayden-Sehwag-Gillchrist-Jayasuriya-Smith
AB-Kohli

it's mind boggling Sachin played for 24 years, he was always THE best batsmen other than brief period when Ponting and Dravid were dominating in Tests. He was averaging what 60 after 170 tests, that's just insane.

 

[mominsaigol]

where did i say hed be thrashing murali or wasim or bumrah? stop trying to make straw men arguments. you were the one bringing in talk of eras and playing conditions, and when i refute it you call it meaningless.

fine lets stick to stats alone then. bradman is a statistical anomaly unlike any other, including all the respective best batsmen of the eras which preceded or followed him, which part of this do you not get?

Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm not changing your arguments to make it easy for me to counter lol.

Regardless I never once denied that he's a statical anamoly. The analogy was that both Sachin and Bradman are considered the best of their respective eras ans are called the God of cricket.

The part you're not understanding is that being a statical anamoly in one era does not constitute you as automatically being superior in all eras just because your record is now no longer achievable for today's standards.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

As OP says cricketers not batsmen, I believe Sachin and Warne were so close. Special cricketers along with Lara and Wasim, rest are easily 1 tier below.

IMO Sachin-Lara-S Waugh in 90s

Dravid-Inzi in ODI (Mediocre but dependable, 400 ODIs with few 100s and only 70 SR), Inzi a flop in ICC events
Ponting-Dravid in Tests (insane peaks)
Kallis-Sanga-Cook (consistent but boring run machines), Amla is same but 1 tier below
Hayden-Sehwag-Gillchrist-Jayasuriya-Smith
AB-Kohli

it's mind boggling Sachin played for 24 years, he was always THE best batsmen other than brief period when Ponting and Dravid were dominating in Tests. He was averaging what 60 after 170 tests, that's just insane.

Was he ever the best batsman during those times and truly dominated?

His peak ICC ranking is quite low.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Tendulkar vs Lara is pretty easy. SRT takes the ODI while Lara is ahead in Tests IMO.

Lara was a different breed in red ball.

He was wildly inconsistent. Lot of gigantic scores also lot of very small scores. back in the 90s he gave an interview stating "I want to be more consistent like Sachin" . He was aware. He would score a 400 on his favorite belter of Antigua. On the other side Sachin was consistent without having massive series. Sachin was able to achieve multiple peaks in his career meaning he could negotiate a completely new generation of bowlers.. Lara retired before facing Steyn. TEndulkar played against steyn and co. Later Anderson.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

You're acting as If you've seen Don Bradman play live and know everything.

He's a folklore. If he batted today theirs no guarantee he'd be superior to anyone.

Bradman batted in an era in which he was the best of the best, and the rules and conditions are for his time only.

The issue with Bradman is that we only have stats to go off ove.

We have no idea how good the players were in his time, how good he was and how he'd compare to today whereas with players like viv you can make a judgment.

With Bradman their is no footage and anyone who saw him live is dead now, heck even in Viv's era they'd probs be dead or very old since human lifespan was far lesser back in the day, infact it's a miracle Bradman even lived till 2001 lol.

This is the issue with Folklore, Alot of people do this with Bruce Lee as well where they think he's some martial artist god whereas in reality the limited footage that we have available we see that while he's good, he's clearly not the unbeatable ninja in his movies and someone like brock lesnar would whoop him into next week.

Bradman was the best of his era, but with zero footage, Zero info on playstyle and how others use to fucntion back then, we can't say how good he is. Even the cheating tactics that use to work back in the day like body line will not work now due to extra protection

Wrong.

It is obvious that Bradman or anyone of that time will have lesser skills compared to the current era. Its the same across all sports, sports and sportsmen evolve, do you think the first one to hold the bat in international could ever come close to modern era players? The sport was on another level at that time.

The only fair way to compare sportsmen is to see how they stand out amongst-their peers, the second best batsman in Don’s era was a 63 averaging opener from England, thats a 36 point difference!

If it was so easy to average 100 why only Bradman did that?

Sachin has many peers who were comparable to him, I agree he was the best out of ‘em but the margin was still very close. On the other Hand there was no one close to Bradman, that alone should be enough to convince us of his abilities.

 

[mominsaigol]

Wrong.

It is obvious that Bradman or anyone of that time will have lesser skills compared to the current era. Its the same across all sports, sports and sportsmen evolve, do you think the first one to hold the bat in international could ever come close to modern era players? The sport was on another level at that time.

The only fair way to compare sportsmen is to see how they stand out amongst-their peers, the second best batsman in Don’s era was a 63 averaging opener from England, thats a 36 point difference!

If it was so easy to average 100 why only Bradman did that?

Sachin has many peers who were comparable to him, I agree he was the best out of ‘em but the margin was still very close. On the other Hand there was no one close to Bradman, that alone should be enough to convince us of his abilities.

Again never once did I claim it was easy to average 100 in his era.

Just that he was the best in his era.

The comparisons for both Sachin and Don are that they were the best in their era and both are called the God of cricket by many alike.

The margin gap was never argued. It's just brainless people you and your contemporaries don't understand this fact.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Again never once did I claim it was easy to average 100 in his era.

Just that he was the best in his era.

The comparisons for both Sachin and Don are that they were the best in their era and both are called the God of cricket by many alike.

The margin gap was never argued. It's just brainless people you and your contemporaries don't understand this fact.

So you wanna argue that a guy who was head and shoulder above his peers and has achievements that will never be surpassed can he compared to a guy that wasn't ever the best of his era ( just that he outlasted others) because of the fact that 1 billion Indians call him God?

What a weird take.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Sachin fanatics have killed cricketing debate

 

[mominsaigol]

So you wanna argue that a guy who was head and shoulder above his peers and has achievements that will never be surpassed can he compared to a guy that wasn't ever the best of his era ( just that he outlasted others) because of the fact that 1 billion Indians call him God?

What a weird take.

Whether people like it or not, Sachin was unmatched in odi, but not in test.

Bradman only played test aka one format. Bradman is known as God of cricket in test and Sachin is known as God of cricket in odi.

Sachin is definitely the best in odi. Compare him to someone like pointing to who need to score a century every 3 games in an equivalent no of matches to break his record.

Sachin had the most runs, highest avg(at the time), most no of centuries which was only broken by kohli in odi nearly an entire easier batting era later.

At this time bilaterals were taken seriously and Sachin genuinely performed the best in every game despite dealing with bowlers that were far far superior to what Bradman had to deal qith as these bowlers came from a proper domestic structure.

IK you have an outdated approach to cricket where any person who supports Indians outside of India are considered frauds and Misbah and his buddies like chacha and rizwan are considered heroes but please come of ove it.

The funniest thing about all of this, is that in my post I even wrote IN BRACKETS that while I disagree on Sachin the general consensus and how he was marketed would put Bradman and Sachin similar but not nessarily in the same caliber.

But ig you oldies can't read let alone comprehend.

 

[Hitman]

Don't want to spoil the party of young guys here, but this is cricket Bible WISDEN in 2002 giving their opinion on Sachin Tendulkar in both Tests and ODI's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tendulkar second-best ever: Wisden​

The Bible of cricket, Wisden, has rated batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar as the second greatest Test batsman ever, behind the legendary Don Bradman of Australia.

In the shorter version of the game he was behind West Indian legend Viv Richards, who was rated the best ever. Tendulkar was placed ahead of several cricketing idols, including Brian Lara of the West Indies, Mark Waugh of Australia and Saeed Anwar of Pakistan.

Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan and Pakistan's Wasim Akram were rated the best bowlers in Tests and one-dayers respectively.

While Muralitharan pipped many stalwarts like Richard Hadlee, Shane Warne, Dennis Lillee and Courtney Walsh, all of whom finished in the top ten, Akram was followed by Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Glenn McGrath and Joel Garner.

Besides Tendulkar, Sunil Gavaskar (8) and Sourav Ganguly (6) were the other two Indian batsmen in the list for their exploits in the Test and one-day arena respectively.

However, no Indian bowler, including the legendary Kapil Dev, could find a place in the top-ten bowling list.

According to Wisden, while preparing the list the expected score for a top performer was around 1000 points and the Don, who had a batting average of 99.94, managed 1349.

Tendulkar got 921.5 points. Among the current players, only Lara got a place in the Test list with 881 points.

Similarly, in the one-dayers, Richards got 1132.5 points while Tendulkar 1119.3 points, almost 90 points more than the third-placed Lara (1036.8).

Amongst the current one-day players, Michael Bevan (5) managed 1016.7 points followed by Ganguly with 1012.6. Jacques Kallis (1001.2) and Anwar (997.7) took the last two spots in the top-ten list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: https://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/dec/13wisden.htm​

 

[Bhaijaan]

Bro, are you comparing Sachin Tendulkar with Brian Lara?

Sachin Tendulkar can't match the tactics and techniques of Brian Lara.

That’s true because Tendulkar left him way behind eventually. OP is being generous because Lara is still the 2nd greatest batter of his era after Tendulkar despite the massive gulf in their stature eventually.

Tendulkar is in the league of Bradman.
Lara belongs with Len Hutton, Wally Hammond, Viv, Sobers

 

[zarak]

look at the OP, "almost the same statistics", how is an average of 99.94 the same as an average of 50?

i dont need to see him, i havnt watched county cricket from 150 years ago or Zimbabwean domestics from last season, i havnt watched baseball from 1900 or the last season, there is no statistical outlier like bradman. the whole point of statistics is that they allow for comparison without having to have see the players.

ill concede to you his technique was rubbish, he was slow, he was weak, everything you might want to believe about him, but what cannot be denied is that his propensity to make mistakes while batting was exponentially lower than any other sportsman in bat related sports in the history.

fwiw there is footage of him batting, he had a very stange technique, kinda similar to steve smith, and theres no reason to believe that he would be unable to translate his exceptional focus and discipline whilst batting to the modern era.

this is all however by the by, in terms of the OP there is no statistical comparable to bradman.

Standards were quite low then. Bradman was much ahead of his peers, but his batting looks quite average. Probably like a modern club cricketer.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Whether people like it or not, Sachin was unmatched in odi, but not in test.

Bradman only played test aka one format. Bradman is known as God of cricket in test and Sachin is known as God of cricket in odi.

Sachin is definitely the best in odi. Compare him to someone like pointing to who need to score a century every 3 games in an equivalent no of matches to break his record.

Sachin had the most runs, highest avg(at the time), most no of centuries which was only broken by kohli in odi nearly an entire easier batting era later.

At this time bilaterals were taken seriously and Sachin genuinely performed the best in every game despite dealing with bowlers that were far far superior to what Bradman had to deal qith as these bowlers came from a proper domestic structure.

IK you have an outdated approach to cricket where any person who supports Indians outside of India are considered frauds and Misbah and his buddies like chacha and rizwan are considered heroes but please come of ove it.

The funniest thing about all of this, is that in my post I even wrote IN BRACKETS that while I disagree on Sachin the general consensus and how he was marketed would put Bradman and Sachin similar but not nessarily in the same caliber.

But ig you oldies can't read let alone comprehend.

Tendulkar in ODIs was incredibly dominant. People don’t realise sometimes how much he has to fight with injuries in the later half of his career.

He went from master blaster to Sehwag’s sidekick for a short while to once again becoming the master blaster from 2008-2011 in ODI cricket. These days too batters struggle to change gears, this man literally reinvented and rebuilt himself for a fragile body that he had.

In a world of peak Gayle, Gibbs, Sehwag, Dilshan it was Tendulkar who smashed the first ODI double ton as an oldie. A fit and inform Tendulkar could do anything he wanted in ODI cricket.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Bradman was a freak genius. He was the first Mr 360 degree in cricket. Played the ball very late and was phenomenal at middling and timing the ball. It’s all about how much a player can work on his game. If Bradman played today he would have used his gos given gift and would have trained himself to become the best in the world. Bradman was known to be a hard worker. His training methods were unique and pioneering for his time.

And again, you can easily relate that to Tendulkar, Kohli, Smith and how they worked on their game to become the best.

In the late 1990s, Tendulkar was well aware Shane Warne was coming to test him as a cricketer. He trained with Laxman Sivaramakrishnan for weeks with unorthodox methods to prepare himself for Shane Warne bowling to him in the rough and when the time came Tendulkar was ready to smash him. I remember on SA at Bloemfontein, the South Africans had prepared to bounce Sachin out, what he did? Unleashed the upper cut as a weapon to smash 150 runs in a couple of sessions in one of the finest test knocks ever.

Kohli, was a chubby gifted cricketer. He realized he needed to become super fit to sustain the requirements of modern day cricket. He reimagined himself , and built that physique. These are traits of great players. They are not content with what they have but they desperately investigate what they lack and work on it.

 

[mominsaigol]

Tendulkar in ODIs was incredibly dominant. People don’t realise sometimes how much he has to fight with injuries in the later half of his career.

He went from master blaster to Sehwag’s sidekick for a short while to once again becoming the master blaster from 2008-2011 in ODI cricket. These days too batters struggle to change gears, this man literally reinvented and rebuilt himself for a fragile body that he had.

In a world of peak Gayle, Gibbs, Sehwag, Dilshan it was Tendulkar who smashed the first ODI double ton as an oldie. A fit and inform Tendulkar could do anything he wanted in ODI cricket.

Exactly, but these pakistani Tendulkar haters just want to hate Tendulkar because he's indian.

I have no dog in this fight, infact I'm an aussie supporter, but I've seen Tendulkar play and if you've read my past comments I've maintained the stance that in test their are players who you can argue are superior to Tendulkar, In odi Tendulkar is unmatched and truly deserves to be the God of cricket just like how bradman was dubbed the God of cricket.

The only cricketer who I've seen that for me surpasses Tendulkar in odi is VIV Richards but he's an entire era before Tendulkar.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Whether people like it or not, Sachin was unmatched in odi, but not in test.

Bradman only played test aka one format. Bradman is known as God of cricket in test and Sachin is known as God of cricket in odi.

Sachin is definitely the best in odi. Compare him to someone like pointing to who need to score a century every 3 games in an equivalent no of matches to break his record.

Sachin had the most runs, highest avg(at the time), most no of centuries which was only broken by kohli in odi nearly an entire easier batting era later.

At this time bilaterals were taken seriously and Sachin genuinely performed the best in every game despite dealing with bowlers that were far far superior to what Bradman had to deal qith as these bowlers came from a proper domestic structure.

IK you have an outdated approach to cricket where any person who supports Indians outside of India are considered frauds and Misbah and his buddies like chacha and rizwan are considered heroes but please come of ove it.

The funniest thing about all of this, is that in my post I even wrote IN BRACKETS that while I disagree on Sachin the general consensus and how he was marketed would put Bradman and Sachin similar but not nessarily in the same caliber.

But ig you oldies can't read let alone comprehend.

So you reply to a thread on close comparisons and want to compare Bradman the rest Batsman with Tendulkar the ODI batsman ( a format Bradman never played). )

The intellectual duplicity of Sachinistas honestly has no bounds.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Exactly, but these pakistani Tendulkar haters just want to hate Tendulkar because he's indian.

I have no dog in this fight, infact I'm an aussie supporter, but I've seen Tendulkar play and if you've read my past comments I've maintained the stance that in test their are players who you can argue are superior to Tendulkar, In odi Tendulkar is unmatched and truly deserves to be the God of cricket just like how bradman was dubbed the God of cricket.

The only cricketer who I've seen that for me surpasses Tendulkar in odi is VIV Richards but he's an entire era before Tendulkar.

Its alright. It’s fashionable to try to pull Tendulkar down but his legacy is secured as one of the biggest attractions in the game ever. Cross era comparisons are always useless for me, it’s all about where you rank in your era and how far above the competition you were. Tendulkar , if you consider his achievements in the only two formats he played, his combined record and the consistency of it is quite freakish.

Look at how Steve Smith, Joe Root, Kohli etc all struggle to maintain dominance across formats.

 

[mominsaigol]

So you reply to a thread on close comparisons and want to compare Bradman the rest Batsman with Tendulkar the ODI batsman ( a format Bradman never played). )

The intellectual duplicity of Sachinistas honestly has no bounds.

The point was always about Bradman and Tendulkar being the best of their era and both being referred to as the God of cricket.

Personally I believe Tendulkar was unmatched in odi but in test he had people superior to him like sanga and lara.

Again the irony of all this is that my og post outright said I personally disagree qith Sachin however the marketable trend is that both are dubbed god of cricket and both are best in their era according to general consensus.

Again too bad you can read. Or maybe you can and you're deciding to Intellectually Deceive the crowd.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The point was always about Bradman and Tendulkar being the best of their era and both being referred to as the God of cricket.

Personally I believe Tendulkar was unmatched in odi but in test he had people superior to him like sanga and lara.

Again the irony of all this is that my og post outright said I personally disagree qith Sachin however the marketable trend is that both are dubbed god of cricket and both are best in their era according to general consensus.

Again too bad you can read. Or maybe you can and you're deciding to Intellectually Deceive the crowd.

There is no general consensus of Sachin being a God of cricket. It's a the consensus of 1 billion fanatics.

Ultimately you have yourself walked into the classic goal post switching style common to all Sachinistas. When you couldn't compare tests you compared Sachins ODI to the Dons test ( makes no sense). When that is pointed out you pretend that there is some sort of conensus on Sachin being God.

Listen you may bow down or bend down for him but must of us don't.

Ultimately when you strip away the BS there is no comparison to be made.

 

[mominsaigol]

There is no general consensus of Sachin being a God of cricket. It's a the consensus of 1 billion fanatics.

Ultimately you have yourself walked into the classic goal post switching style common to all Sachinistas. When you couldn't compare tests you compared Sachins ODI to the Dons test ( makes no sense). When that is pointed out you pretend that there is some sort of conensus on Sachin being God.

Listen you may bow down or bend down for him but must of us don't.

Ultimately when you strip away the BS there is no comparison to be made.

That is where you are wrong.

Ask any sane person in developed cricketing countries like Australia or England and a vast majority will tell you about Sachin and his greatness. Various cricketing greats including the likes of waugh and Pointing believe Sachin was gead and shoulders > others in the whiteball format

I never once shifted the goal post, I made it very clear from the very start on what I was discussing.

Please try to understand that just because something does not make sense to you, doesn't mean it's non sensical by default.

The world being round will never make sense to flat earthers just like your chacha support will never make sense to me(Ironically in this case it's factually non sensical lol)

Bradman played one format and was the best in his era in that very particular format. Sachin being dubbed as the God of cricket is a general consensus.

Lastly the whole 1.4 Billion fanatics logic doesn't make any sense. 1.4 billion people would make it a general concensus by default since that's pretty much 90% of the cricketing fandom compared to the 25M or so that live in other countries. Even pakistan's 220M + Population wouldn't even make 20% of that no.

Sorry to say this, But a misbah fandom supporter has no right to judge me on my opinions when opinions like Chacha needs 4 extra years to become a Goat finisher is the norm of argumentative reasoning from you folkes. Lol.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There is no general consensus of Sachin being a God of cricket. It's a the consensus of 1 billion fanatics.

Ultimately you have yourself walked into the classic goal post switching style common to all Sachinistas. When you couldn't compare tests you compared Sachins ODI to the Dons test ( makes no sense). When that is pointed out you pretend that there is some sort of conensus on Sachin being God.

Listen you may bow down or bend down for him but must of us don't.

Ultimately when you strip away the BS there is no comparison to be made.

That is where you are wrong.

Ask any sane person in developed cricketing countries like Australia or England and a vast majority will tell you about Sachin and his greatness. Various cricketing greats including the likes of waugh and Pointing believe Sachin was gead and shoulders > others in the whiteball format

I never once shifted the goal post, I made it very clear from the very start on what I was discussing.

Please try to understand that just because something does not make sense to you, doesn't mean it's non sensical by default.

The world being round will never make sense to flat earthers just like your chacha support will never make sense to me(Ironically in this case it's factually non sensical lol)

Bradman played one format and was the best in his era in that very particular format. Sachin being dubbed as the God of cricket is a general consensus.

Lastly the whole 1.4 Billion fanatics logic doesn't make any sense. 1.4 billion people would make it a general concensus by default since that's pretty much 90% of the cricketing fandom compared to the 25M or so that live in other countries. Even pakistan's 220M + Population wouldn't even make 20% of that no.

Sorry to say this, But a misbah fandom supporter has no right to judge me on my opinions when opinions like Chacha needs 4 extra years to become a Goat finisher is the norm of argumentative reasoning from you folkes. Lol.

It’s just low self esteem from people that 1 billion people’s opinion doesn’t matter as much as someone from NZ while talking at the Sky Sports.

Americans wouldn’t ever bother to hear anyone’s opinion on Jordan, Lebron.

In Bharat also for a long time, people seemed validation from the white man. That generation has gone. Now we do not need any validation.

We grew up hearing about hyped up stories about bowlers. Mohammad Shami literally broke all parameters of bowling at the world cups. No one in the Channel 9 or Sky Sports news to validate him as the greatest ODI fast bowler in the world cups. We saw him conquer that.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It’s just low self esteem from people that 1 billion people’s opinion doesn’t matter as much as someone from NZ while talking at the Sky Sports.

Americans wouldn’t ever bother to hear anyone’s opinion on Jordan, Lebron.

In Bharat also for a long time, people seemed validation from the white man. That generation has gone. Now we do not need any validation.

We grew up hearing about hyped up stories about bowlers. Mohammad Shami literally broke all parameters of bowling at the world cups. No one in the Channel 9 or Sky Sports news to validate him as the greatest ODI fast bowler in the world cups. We saw him conquer that.

It’s just low self esteem from people that 1 billion people’s opinion doesn’t matter as much as someone from NZ while talking at the Sky Sports.

Americans wouldn’t ever bother to hear anyone’s opinion on Jordan, Lebron.

In Bharat also for a long time, people seemed validation from the white man. That generation has gone. Now we do not need any validation.

We grew up hearing about hyped up stories about bowlers. Mohammad Shami literally broke all parameters of bowling at the world cups. No one in the Channel 9 or Sky Sports news to validate him as the greatest ODI fast bowler in the world cups. We saw him conquer that.

You guys are entitled to your opinion. Despite his criminality and behaviour he scored a lot of runs and carried the hopes of your nation. He deserves praise and recognition from Indians who cheered him over a long and semi distinguished career no matter what the rest of the world may say.

The problem is trying to force arguments and comparisons where they aren't valid or related to the thread. These types of mentally stunted arguments ( Tendulkar ODI v Bradman Test) on the basis of fan following alone, will be called out and the posters making these arguments ruthlessly mocked.

It insults our intelligence and it actually insults the legacy of Tendulkar.

 

[ElRaja]

Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm not changing your arguments to make it easy for me to counter lol.

Regardless I never once denied that he's a statical anamoly. The analogy was that both Sachin and Bradman are considered the best of their respective eras ans are called the God of cricket.

The part you're not understanding is that being a statical anamoly in one era does not constitute you as automatically being superior in all eras just because your record is now no longer achievable for today's standards.

well thats not what the OP is about though, just admit you misunderstood the OP,

 

[mominsaigol]

well thats not what the OP is about though, just admit you misunderstood the OP,

How about you admit you argued for the sake of arguing and are now running away?

 

[mominsaigol]

You guys are entitled to your opinion. Despite his criminality and behaviour he scored a lot of runs and carried the hopes of your nation. He deserves praise and recognition from Indians who cheered him over a long and semi distinguished career no matter what the rest of the world may say.

The problem is trying to force arguments and comparisons where they aren't valid or related to the thread. These types of mentally stunted arguments ( Tendulkar ODI v Bradman Test) on the basis of fan following alone, will be called out and the posters making these arguments ruthlessly mocked.

It insults our intelligence and it actually insults the legacy of Tendulkar.

If anything the posts like

1) Give Chacha 4 years to finish

2) Id rather Take Misbah > Inzi in a world cup because Misbah can play more Mohali's

3) Who would you send in a super over other then Chacha

4) SKY and David Warner are crap players and we shpuld ban India in totalitu

This misbah fandom has to have one of the worst opinions ever which get Ruthlessly mocked because crapola players like chacha are supported but good players are hated

 

[BouncerGuy]

Please stay on topic and no need for personal attacks on each other.