"Sachin is better than Bradman" : Hanif Mohammad

[TestMatch]

Bradman averaged 90+ as a young man, averaged 90+ decades later after the war, and averaged 90+ over 230+ first class matches. He was consistently twice as good as most batsmen of his time. Even during the bodyline tour, when the Brits specifically looked to neutralize him, he was the only batsman to combat their tactics (and still averaged well over 50).

 

[maxamax]

Bradman averaged 90+ as a young man, averaged 90+ decades later after the war, and averaged 90+ over 230+ first class matches. He was consistently twice as good as most batsmen of his time. Even during the bodyline tour, when the Brits specifically looked to neutralize him, he was the only batsman to combat their tactics (and still averaged well over 50).

Only over 50? Even Younis Khan did that.

 

[maxamax]

I have my own opinion about Don being credited more than he deserves . Like that , many others might have different opinions. But these types of across the era comparisons invariably ends up being a slug fest between two sets which is not healthy for the forum. Also we are disrespecting the legends that way. So please don't do it.

Its not like we are comparing two for 1st vs 9999th position. Its 1st and 2nd. There is no disrespect in being #2.
Forums are made for having such discussions.

 

[Mamoon]

As of today, Tendulkar has the strongest claim of being the greatest batsman to ever live - consistency, versatility, iconic knocks, impact, records, longevity, performing under pressure etc. etc.

There have been better players than him in terms of individual criterions, i.e. some have had more impact, some have been better under pressure and some have played more iconic knocks etc., but no batsman has ticked as many boxes as Tendulkar.

For e.g., those who have done better under pressure have not been consistent, those who have been consistent have not been versatile in terms of excelling in multiple formats, and those who had longevity have not been able to hold as many records as Tendulkar.

To put it the other way round, Tendulkar has less holes in his career than any batsman in history.

 

[Ab Fan]

As if we all weren't aware of the points mentioned by OP in such a long time.LOL!

 

[Proactive_]

Bradman was obviously enormously ahead of his peers. It's obvious that he had a natural penchant for cricket which would only have been accentuated had he got modern day amenities to aid his talents. Having a FC average of 95+ over 338 innings and almost 100 in Test cricket is just something which can't be undermined in any circumstance whatsoever.

Tendulkar wasn't even the single best batsman of his time and had many competitors. Just see the below graphic for instance:

.. where someone like Kallis who is hardly ever in the discussion for the best batsman of his generation easily outperforms Tendulkar in scenarios when the team is in dire straits. He is a statistical marvel, sure.. thanks to his longevity.. but he is incredibly overrated for strictly his batsmanship.

 

[Tusker]

Bradman was obviously enormously ahead of his peers. It's obvious that he had a natural penchant for cricket which would only have been accentuated had he got modern day amenities to aid his talents. Having a FC average of 95+ over 338 innings and almost 100 in Test cricket is just something which can't be undermined in any circumstance whatsoever.

Just like that ehh? And who is going to account for the countless exceptional bowlers that Tendulkar had to deal with ? There is exactly ZERO top tier ATG bowlers that Bradman faced. You might want to come to terms with that it of sobering thought.

Tendulkar wasn't even the single best batsman of his time and had many competitors. Just see the below graphic for instance:

.. where someone like Kallis who is hardly ever in the discussion for the best batsman of his generation easily outperforms Tendulkar in scenarios when the team is in dire straits. He is a statistical marvel, sure.. thanks to his longevity.. but he is incredibly overrated for strictly his batsmanship.

Is this stat for 2 Down or just whenever they came into bat at whatever position they batted ?

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Bradman by far.

But Tendulkar is undoubtedly on of the strongest contenders for the #2 spot.

 

[Bilal7]

Bradman? Sachin was an inferior batsman to the likes of Viv, Sobers and Lara. Bradman is in his own league.

Sachin isn't really the best at anything. Not at test batting, as shown above. Not at ODI batting because Viv and ABD and arguably Ponting, are better. Not the best cricketer from Asia either since Imran is obviously superior and Wasim and Murali match him.

However, no one matches Tendulker's consistency across formats, eras and situations and for that, he's one of the greatest to play the game of cricket and an absolute legend.

His fans need to stop making these sort of threads and embarassing the nice man again and again. He's already a bonafide legend, what more do you desperate romeos want?

 

[AlizeeFan]

Bradman? Sachin was an inferior batsman to the likes of Viv, Sobers and Lara. Bradman is in his own league.

Sachin isn't really the best at anything. Not at test batting, as shown above. Not at ODI batting because Viv and ABD and arguably Ponting, are better. Not the best cricketer from Asia either since Imran is obviously superior and Wasim and Murali match him.

However, no one matches Tendulker's consistency across formats, eras and situations and for that, he's one of the greatest to play the game of cricket and an absolute legend.

His fans need to stop making these sort of threads and embarassing the nice man again and again. He's already a bonafide legend, what more do you desperate romeos want?

He left Sobers behind 15 years back and Lara probably 10 years back. Neither ABDV nor Ponting are better ODI bats.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Both Bradman and Tendulkar played in tough condtions with swing. Not like Kholi with 2 new balls and batting paradises.

 

[maxamax]

Bradman by far.

But Tendulkar is undoubtedly on of the strongest contenders for the #2 spot.

On what basis? I found him okay, not #1.

Bradman? Sachin was an inferior batsman to the likes of Viv, Sobers and Lara. Bradman is in his own league.

Sachin isn't really the best at anything. Not at test batting, as shown above. Not at ODI batting because Viv and ABD and arguably Ponting, are better. Not the best cricketer from Asia either since Imran is obviously superior and Wasim and Murali match him.

However, no one matches Tendulker's consistency across formats, eras and situations and for that, he's one of the greatest to play the game of cricket and an absolute legend.

His fans need to stop making these sort of threads and embarassing the nice man again and again. He's already a bonafide legend, what more do you desperate romeos want?

It was about consistency and being principally genius for 20+ years. No one is able to. You may see Viv or Lara blazing it out, but Tendulkar was someone who'll own you sooner or later. Not by playing flashy strokes but to score bulk against you making you feel worthless.

Both Bradman and Tendulkar played in tough condtions with swing. Not like Kholi with 2 new balls and batting paradises.

Agreed! I don't consider Kohli an ATG, no where near it.

 

[Shafi]

And Kohli > Tendulqar+Bradman

 

[Shafi]

The pitches in Bradman time was bowling friendly + bowlers were far better than Sachin era

 

[cricketjoshila]

The pitches in Bradman time was bowling friendly + bowlers were far better than Sachin era

Name a few ATG bowlers Bradman faced.

 

[Convict]

When did Hanif Mohammad see Don Bradman bat?

 

[Mamoon]

No batsman in history has a stronger claim than Tendulkar as far as the GOAT title is concerned.

 

[DRsohail]

No batsman in history has a stronger claim than Tendulkar as far as the GOAT title is concerned.

We cant say about bradman but here i agree that no one can perform so consistently over the years against every opposition.i dont see any ATG bowlers from bradman era.Can u?
both are up there but the difference may not be huge if not marginal.

 

[Lefthanded]

I've never understood comparisons between a guy most people's great grandfathers were in position to see and really understand as adults, and a guy who retired six years ago.

Not to mention that cricket isn't really the same game, and few people even know half as much about the opposition bowlers Bradman faced.

I am always surprised that people have strong opinions on cricketers who they didn't see play in a single match on TV, forget live.

It's like watching two trailers of a film, then reviewing which film is better.

Would you take someone seriously who has seen a trailer for a lost film from the 30s, read up on the film and decide that it's the greatest film and better than all films than they've actually seen?

All most have seen, are trailers of Bradman.

Bradman might have been the greatest batsman, but I'm not sure how many people alive are in a position to make a proper comparison between Bradman and Sachin, or Lara.

 

[Mr.Q]

This is a comparison based on stats right? Doesn't make much sense not just because we're comparing two different eras but we have too little info about one of the players involved. What comes to most people's mind when they think about The Don is a number. 99.94. His batting average.

Sachin to his merit had a great range of very elegant shots and there wasn't and isn't anybody anywhere close to him when we look at the numbers. The only batsman among the currently active ones I can think of having a range of shots similar to him is ABD but his arsenal is full of far more risky shots (though I was pleasently surprised to see him execute that punch of the back foot very elegantly, which Sachin also used to play so well).

Anyways coming to the point, we can't compare two people belonging to two different eras based on some random statistic. When I saw Sachin score that 200 in Gwalior towards the end of his career, the one thing that came to mind was someone's words: "He's born to play cricket". When we look at Sir Don's average (and the situations he played in) it screams the same thing. He too was born for it. Born to play cricket. What Bradman showed us with his average of 99.94 and Sachin showed us over two decades is pretty much the same thing. Class and consistency that didn't fade with time. Two players with interminable careers. Such players are sooo rare. These two individuals represent two different eras of this beautiful game. Instead of trying to know who is better or whatever, we should be looking at the similarities that make them so great.

Anyone who tries to prove one of them is better by throwing mud on the other is not only insulting the players and the game but proving his ignorance too.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

You could only do so much, it's not Bradman's fault that he was born 70 years earlier than Tendulkar or Tendulkar to have been born 70 years earlier. Based on the stats, Bradman is far ahead of Tendulkar.

And to those who are saying that Bradman played against trundlers and stuff, he also batted without any protection.

The 20s-50s era was considered to be the most advanced then, and if it weren't for these previous legends, the game of cricket wouldnt have come to the position it is now at.

I think Bradman easily comes ahead of any other batter of any era.
Tendulkar might be a second, but it might be disputed between some others.

 

[Tusker]

I've never understood comparisons between a guy most people's great grandfathers were in position to see and really understand as adults, and a guy who retired six years ago.

Not to mention that cricket isn't really the same game, and few people even know half as much about the opposition bowlers Bradman faced.

I am always surprised that people have strong opinions on cricketers who they didn't see play in a single match on TV, forget live.

It's like watching two trailers of a film, then reviewing which film is better.

Would you take someone seriously who has seen a trailer for a lost film from the 30s, read up on the film and decide that it's the greatest film and better than all films than they've actually seen?

All most have seen, are trailers of Bradman.

Bradman might have been the greatest batsman, but I'm not sure how many people alive are in a position to make a proper comparison between Bradman and Sachin, or Lara.

Great analogy!. The thing is any trailer that remains of Cricket from that ERA depicts such a poor image of the quality of Cricket played at that time that it further diminishes any credibility that the Bradman fanatics had.

 

[Cric1234]

I've never understood comparisons between a guy most people's great grandfathers were in position to see and really understand as adults, and a guy who retired six years ago.

Not to mention that cricket isn't really the same game, and few people even know half as much about the opposition bowlers Bradman faced.

I am always surprised that people have strong opinions on cricketers who they didn't see play in a single match on TV, forget live.

It's like watching two trailers of a film, then reviewing which film is better.

Would you take someone seriously who has seen a trailer for a lost film from the 30s, read up on the film and decide that it's the greatest film and better than all films than they've actually seen?

All most have seen, are trailers of Bradman.

Bradman might have been the greatest batsman, but I'm not sure how many people alive are in a position to make a proper comparison between Bradman and Sachin, or Lara.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZHfEIEJ54

See Bradman for yourself and the game was similar but less competitive overall.

 

[Shafi]

Name a few ATG bowlers Bradman faced.

Back then teams play fewer tests and wickets are not like now-a-days where players like Shafiq, Shan play test cricket.
Bowlers back then are difinately better than many bowlers of present days.
But Bradman> Kohli> Dravid> Tendulqar

 

[Shafi]

Also if you check current batsmen stats even Smith has better average than Kohli. Root and pujara are close to Kohli as well. In Bradman's era only him has over 99+ average and rest are same like now-a-days.
Kohli is present day legend based on stats but you can't treat Bradman like Shafiq or Hooper.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Back then teams play fewer tests and wickets are not like now-a-days where players like Shafiq, Shan play test cricket.
Bowlers back then are difinately better than many bowlers of present days.
But Bradman> Kohli> Dravid> Tendulqar

Who were these better bowlers whom Bradman faced?Names please.

 

[AlizeeFan]

I've never understood comparisons between a guy most people's great grandfathers were in position to see and really understand as adults, and a guy who retired six years ago.

Not to mention that cricket isn't really the same game, and few people even know half as much about the opposition bowlers Bradman faced.

I am always surprised that people have strong opinions on cricketers who they didn't see play in a single match on TV, forget live.

It's like watching two trailers of a film, then reviewing which film is better.

Would you take someone seriously who has seen a trailer for a lost film from the 30s, read up on the film and decide that it's the greatest film and better than all films than they've actually seen?

All most have seen, are trailers of Bradman.

Bradman might have been the greatest batsman, but I'm not sure how many people alive are in a position to make a proper comparison between Bradman and Sachin, or Lara.

Yeah, it's like claiming even after watching black and white trailers that films were so colorful.

 

[Cric1234]

Who were these better bowlers whom Bradman faced?Names please.

Of the English bowlers Laker is probably the best off spinner.One of the best ever Verity was decent one of the best left arm spin bowlers.
Larwood was the quickest but not the best faster bowler he faced Bowes was a decent seam bowler and others who averaged under 30 in test cricket.
There is no doubt Tendulkar has faced more great bowlers and more average ones too the number of teams and bowlers are higher which would make him and other modern day greats ahead of Hammond and Hutton but Bradman is easily the best ever.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Of the English bowlers Laker is probably the best off spinner.One of the best ever Verity was decent one of the best left arm spin bowlers.
Larwood was the quickest but not the best faster bowler he faced Bowes was a decent seam bowler and others who averaged under 30 in test cricket.
There is no doubt Tendulkar has faced more great bowlers and more average ones too the number of teams and bowlers are higher which would make him and other modern day greats ahead of Hammond and Hutton but Bradman is easily the best ever.

Did Bradman face Laker?How many matches?Larwood was good and so was Verity.

We are talking great bowlers here and as you said Tendulkar faced many more.

Tendulkar played in more countries in 2011 than Bradman played in his career.

Sorrry Bradman is the best till 1950s.But cricket changed post 1955 with subcontinental tours etc.

 

[Cric1234]

Did Bradman face Laker?How many matches?Larwood was good and so was Verity.

We are talking great bowlers here and as you said Tendulkar faced many more.

Tendulkar played in more countries in 2011 than Bradman played in his career.

Sorrry Bradman is the best till 1950s.But cricket changed post 1955 with subcontinental tours etc.

Laker bowled in different matches against Bradman but struggled with his performance getting better after his retirement.
Yes but no batsman discounting subcontinental tours comes anywhere near Bradmans average.
Spinners did well in his era the pitches at times looked dusty assisting slower bowlers uncovered wickets probably was the reason why.

 

[Tusker]

Laker bowled in different matches against Bradman but struggled with his performance getting better after his retirement.
Yes but no batsman discounting subcontinental tours comes anywhere near Bradmans average.
Spinners did well in his era the pitches at times looked dusty assisting slower bowlers uncovered wickets probably was the reason why.

How is a covered wicket different from an uncovered one if it does not rain ?

 

[Lefthanded]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZHfEIEJ54

See Bradman for yourself and the game was similar but less competitive overall.

I've seen this trailer, but I think we might just disagree that trailers from ye olden times vs live matches over the last three decades is actual evidence for comparison.

Additionally, several cricketers over 60 have argued that the game, conditions, innovation, and pitches are radically different since their days. And very few of them actually saw Bradman play live when conditions were even more different.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced we can compare something we haven't even seen with something we have seen. Certainly something that very few people alive have actually seen, presuming they still have their mental faculties.

 

[Lefthanded]

Great analogy!. The thing is any trailer that remains of Cricket from that ERA depicts such a poor image of the quality of Cricket played at that time that it further diminishes any credibility that the Bradman fanatics had.

Haha, thanks. At first I thought of a Basil D'Oliveira analogy, whose actual Test record wasn't great, but was denied the opportunity to play Tests in his pomp before he left apartheid South Africa. Except in his instance aside mostly word of mouth, there's more than 1.5 people alive who have seen him bat.

Next thread, Was Ijaz Ahmed better than D'Oliveira?

 

[backfootpunch]

He plays half his matches on dead wickets.

Had Viv Richards been Indian he would have averaged 150 and Bradman would have averaged 300.

Jealous! and posters like yourself should be stripped of your posting privileges. Worst post I've seen on PP and this should be made official on here from admin.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Have to have some Faith in what Hanif says !!!!!!

 

[BaankeJi]

Bradman completely conquered his era. Tendulkar just about won.
There's no comparison. Bradman is far ahead.

 

[Sin Nombre]

I don't even necessarily rate Tendulkar highly but Bradman was a rank amateur.

Cricket before the 70s was an amateur sport played by people who would have a drink and a smoke while waddling around.

Football was the same until the 60s.

I would recommend watching some old videos to all the folks here to see how bad things actually were.

 

[Tusker]

I don't even necessarily rate Tendulkar highly but Bradman was a rank amateur.

Cricket before the 70s was an amateur sport played by people who would have a drink and a smoke while waddling around.

Football was the same until the 60s.

I would recommend watching some old videos to all the folks here to see how bad things actually were.

In the past I have seen few posters claim that Larwood bowled at more than 90 mph and some other nonsense that you wouldnt believe. Such is the power of the Anglo centric cricket media.

 

[Hitman]

Jealous! and posters like yourself should be stripped of your posting privileges. Worst post I've seen on PP and this should be made official on here from admin.

I wonder what prevented Viv Richards from averaging 150 in India. Instead he averages 45 in India

 

[Sin Nombre]

You can actually find atleast one poster right here on this thread drooling on Cricket footage from Bradmans time. In the past I have seen few posters claim that Larwood bowled at more than 90 mph and some other nonsense that you wouldnt believe. Such is the power of the Anglo centric cricket media.

Yeah that's utter nonsense.

People are significantly stronger, faster and taller than the pre-war era and every such record has tumbled. In the absence of official times, people would have said Jesse Owens was faster than Usain Bolt which in fairness to the people of his time, he might have felt fast.

Baseball has some records from the 1920s and the speeds were 20% lower than the modern era for the fastest guys from back then.

 

[Tusker]

Yeah that's utter nonsense.

People are significantly stronger, faster and taller than the pre-war era and every such record has tumbled. In the absence of official times, people would have said Jesse Owens was faster than Usain Bolt which in fairness to the people of his time, he might have felt fast.

Baseball has some records from the 1920s and the speeds were 20% lower than the modern era for the fastest guys from back then.

you would think all of this is basic common knowledge (especially in google age !) but after having gone through numerous Bradman discussions it is very clear that there is simply no shortage of gullible folks on this planet.

 

[Cric1234]

Yeah that's utter nonsense.

People are significantly stronger, faster and taller than the pre-war era and every such record has tumbled. In the absence of official times, people would have said Jesse Owens was faster than Usain Bolt which in fairness to the people of his time, he might have felt fast.

Baseball has some records from the 1920s and the speeds were 20% lower than the modern era for the fastest guys from back then.

A bit faster stronger and what else Bolt is 6% faster than Owens and that's with all the modern day training and nutrition methods.
These things could only apply to the fastest bowlers batsmen don't need to be tall and strong neither do spin bowlers or medium fast bowlers.

 

[Shafi]

And Asad Shafiq is better than Hanif Mohammad
Asad Shafiq



Hanif Mohammad


Because Tendulqar average is less than Bradman.
Why our former players act all flattering. Annoying!!!

 

[Hitman]

And Asad Shafiq is better than Hanif Mohammad
Asad Shafiq

View attachment 77408

Hanif Mohammad

View attachment 77409
Because Tendulqar average is less than Bradman.
Why our former players act all flattering. Annoying!!!

The man is dead, let him RIP. Not everyone needs to keep catering to your opinion. Some people, irrespective of being Pakistanis, do admire Sachin. You have a problem with that, deal with it.

 

[Shafi]

The man is dead, let him RIP. Not everyone needs to keep catering to your opinion. Some people, irrespective of being Pakistanis, do admire Sachin. You have a problem with that, deal with it.

I respect Sachin was a great cricketer but both Kohli and Bradman are in different league of talent.

 

[Hitman]

I respect Sachin was a great cricketer but both Kohli and Bradman are in different league of talent.

That's your opinion, and I don't believe any former Pak player will be after your blood if they don't share your views.

 

[Shafi]

That's your opinion, and I don't believe any former Pak player will be after your blood if they don't share your views.

Don't need to be defensive. Praising is good but our formers always take it to next level such as Umar Akmal as Kohli, Babar as Kohli, Shehzad more talented than Tendulqar bla bla.

In last 80 years or more how many players have average over 90+ in test. None, but you will find at least 5-6 players average above Tendulqar.

Tendulqar was a great talent but he was also play for his records just like Babar Azam, where Kohli play for team's and that's the main difference between them.

Seeing people treating Bradman like some any other batsman is really pathetic. Near about 7000 runs in only 80 innings was a super human effort.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

A more pertinent questions for today: Is Kohli better than Tendulkar?

any thoughts on this

 

[DRsohail]

A more pertinent questions for today: Is Kohli better than Tendulkar?

any thoughts on this

not at ALL..i think kohli is gonna end better than him..