Who was the greater batsmen between Sachin Tendulkar and Don Bradman?

[ElRaja]

innings building is as important a part of batsmanship as is technical ability.

whilst we can debate whether bradman had the technical ability of the modern greats, there is no doubt that his ability to build innings is unparalleled across the entire history of the game.

and as far as being an outlier, even if arguably in only one facet of a sporting ability go, bradman is not only an outlier in cricket, but across all sports.

bradman's superior ability to build innings sets him apart as the greatest batsmen ever there was.

after that its all subjective in my opinion.

 

[therealAB]

Rational analysis which I appreciate.However it is not only about stats.Combining all forms of cricket Tendulkar was head and shoulders in his generation and only a genius like Lara gave him a run for his money in test cricket.Sachin overshadowed Viv in test cricket also.It must also be considered that Bradman was not the best on wet sticklers as contemporaries like Headley nor at his best against bodyline bowling.

You have made an important point about superiority in respective era which I respect .However remember much fewer played in Bradman's time .Headley overshadowed him on wet wickets, championing cause of much weaker teams and Hobbs scored most of his centuries on more treacherous surfaces before the War.It is mathematically very complex why Hammond averaged so much less .

My final question is would Bradman have scored 100 International centuries and been as consistent as Tendulkar in difficult conditions,facing as much pressure ?Ofcourse it is hypothetical but in terms of pure game Tendulkar looked more complete. Sachin overshadowing Viv and Lara overall speaks for itself.

Do read the analysis of comparison of Hanif Mohammad,Zaheer Abbas or Richard Hadlee which puts the issue in deeper light.Tendulkar's era was far more competitive or challenging.

Nobody from that vintage rates Hobbs ahead of bradman. Many people rate Lara and Richards ahead of Sachin. Plus Hobbs scored most of runs after WW1 so u are wrong there

bradman scored 974 in a series, he was way, way more hard to get out that Sunil, Amarnath. Did Viv ever score 300 in a day.

Of course he would score faster than Sachin. He already did, and with better bats and shorter boundaries he would score even faster.

Those are three players who have certain views. The vast, vast majority of international players would rank bradman higher

Stop comparing the feats of multiple players to Bradman. Even if Viv more destructuve than Bradman, how is that relevant to our debate

Re. competition, in Hutton, Hammond, Nourse and Headley every country Bradman played had an atg bat. Can the same be said about Tendulkar?

And given that Bradman played england in 71% of his tests, he would have faced much superior bowling due to no minnows.

Yes, Bradman would have scored that many runs. If he played 200 tests he would be projected to scoreavoer 25k runs. Only would have needed 5k from ODi's then

Also, Tendulkar doesn't overshow Viv. Sachin was a slightly better test bat and Viv was a significantly better odi bat

 

[therealAB]

So being popular in India makes you the best batsman of all time.

Yep. Bradman's fault Aus doesn't have 1 Billion people

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

innings building is as important a part of batsmanship as is technical ability.

whilst we can debate whether bradman had the technical ability of the modern greats, there is no doubt that his ability to build innings is unparalleled across the entire history of the game.

and as far as being an outlier, even if arguably in only one facet of a sporting ability go, bradman is not only an outlier in cricket, but across all sports.

bradman's superior ability to build innings sets him apart as the greatest batsmen ever there was.

after that its all subjective in my opinion.

Only someone like Wilt Chamberlain comes closer to Don.

Wilt had: 31,419 (30.1 ppg) and 23,924 (22.9 rpg). With 30/23 stats and thousands of blocks/assists the guy was a Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal combined. Unparalleled dominance.

Kallis had similar stats to SRT and Zaheer Khan combined.

In the end, stats are just a part of game and not the ultimate deciding factor!

 

[Bhaijaan]

Viv Richards literally had 1 Bradmanesque year in the beginning of his career after which he averaged like 45 something in tests.

Relatively speaking, he played in an era all his opponents were nowhere near their best. Some of whom, example India and to an extent had not even emerged to that extent as world beating cricket nations. I respect Viv Richards with all my heart but there is too much hype (mostly justified) but his numbers do not stack up to a few other great test batsmen keeping in mind Tendulkar, Lara both played better competition.

Gavaskar, playing in the same era, not having feasted on Indian bowling and instead playing West Indian pace quartet which Viv never got o play, averages 1 run higher.

In 5 more matches, he even has 1600 more test runs, and being a test opener

 

[SL_Fan]

People do tend to over-rate a lot of past players for the sake of it and under-rate modern-day players but each era had/has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. Bradman's feats are just impossible to ignore. He was obviously a freak 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane. Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline which was of course devised just to stop him (in 8 innings 103*, 76, 71, 66, 48, 24, 8, 0).

There’s a reason why fast leg theory has since been made illegal. It would be flat out dangerous even with all the protective gear you can get your hands on today. I doubt even top modern day bats had they somehow been transported back in time would have fared any better given the same gear and bats.

Bradman is quite simply in a league of his own. I mean sticky wickets aside he averaged close to 120! No it’s not a typo 6712 Test runs @ 119.90 with 29 tons in 65 innings. Freak of all freaks not just in cricket but sports in general.


Red line represents 900 rating points

 

[therealAB]

People do tend to over-rate a lot of past players for the sake of it and under-rate modern-day players but each era had/has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. Bradman's feats are just impossible to ignore. He was obviously a freak 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane. Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline which was of course devised just to stop him (in 8 innings 103*, 76, 71, 66, 48, 24, 8, 0).

There’s a reason why fast leg theory has since been made illegal. It would be flat out dangerous even with all the protective gear you can get your hands on today. I doubt even top modern day bats had they somehow been transported back in time would have fared any better given the same gear and bats.

Bradman is quite simply in a league of his own. I mean sticky wickets aside he averaged close to 120! No it’s not a typo 6712 Test runs @ 119.90 with 29 tons in 65 innings. Freak of all freaks not just in cricket but sports in general.


Red line represents 900 rating points

Great stat, especially the scale is exponential meaning it gets harder and harder to keep/gain points

 

[SL_Fan]

As for Sachin there were a fair few players during his career who were around the same sort of level or not that far off. In fact out of post 60s/70s bats there are guys like Sobers and Viv that you could make valid arguments for being better than him.


Top Test bats during Sachin’s career - Red line represents 800 rating points and the Blue line Lara’s peak

 

[therealAB]

Viv Richards literally had 1 Bradmanesque year in the beginning of his career after which he averaged like 45 something in tests.

Relatively speaking, he played in an era all his opponents were nowhere near their best. Some of whom, example India and to an extent had not even emerged to that extent as world beating cricket nations. I respect Viv Richards with all my heart but there is too much hype (mostly justified) but his numbers do not stack up to a few other great test batsmen keeping in mind Tendulkar, Lara both played better competition.

Gavaskar, playing in the same era, not having feasted on Indian bowling and instead playing West Indian pace quartet which Viv never got o play, averages 1 run higher.

In 5 more matches, he even has 1600 more test runs, and being a test opener

Agree that in test Viv is slightly overrated (worse stats than Chappel, Gavaskar and Border from his own era) but op keeps bringing up Sachin's odi prowess and Viv is the ODI goat by a wide margin for me. Has better stats than Sachin in a tougher era while dominating WC's and WC finals like no ones business.

As total cricketers Sachin is probably slightly ahead of Viv, but the fact that Sachin is not way, way ahead of his peers means that he cannot be compared to the Don

 

[shaz619]

Ha, a serial match loser like Tendulkar being compared to the Don ! the world has gone mad in isolation !

 

[Bhaijaan]

Agree that in test Viv is slightly overrated (worse stats than Chappel, Gavaskar and Border from his own era) but op keeps bringing up Sachin's odi prowess and Viv is the ODI goat by a wide margin for me. Has better stats than Sachin in a tougher era while dominating WC's and WC finals like no ones business.

As total cricketers Sachin is probably slightly ahead of Viv, but the fact that Sachin is not way, way ahead of his peers means that he cannot be compared to the Don

Bradman comparison can never do any good to any cricketer. I don't know why people, and in this case a decent poster has brought it up, no one in India wants to have this debate.

Actually being a cricket mad country, Bradman is more of an icon to Indians than to even Aussies probably.

Viv was by far the best in his era in ODIs, thats all he needed to be. Tendulkar did the same in his era and thats all he needed to do. Cross era comparisons always bring up weird arguements. 60 overs vs 50 overs, bowling quality etc etc.

 

[SL_Fan]

These are from analysis done recently if you google which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers and which batsmen have played the largest number of all-time-great innings you should find them quite easily.

 

[SL_Fan]

Great stat, especially the scale is exponential meaning it gets harder and harder to keep/gain points

One modern-day bat though who probably comes close to the Don is Steve Smith. Obviously his career is still ongoing so it’s early days yet but like Bradman he has left opposition bowlers and teams baffled as to how to get him out that too even with all the analytical tech available. Only time will tell whether he can sustain it but he’s definitely on the right track.


Red line represents 900 rating points

 

[Mamoon]

People do tend to over-rate a lot of past players for the sake of it and under-rate modern-day players but each era had/has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. Bradman's feats are just impossible to ignore. He was obviously a freak 28k+ runs @ 95+ is just insane. Plus most importantly for mine he also proved his mettle during Bodyline which was of course devised just to stop him (in 8 innings 103*, 76, 71, 66, 48, 24, 8, 0).

So he got worse and worse in the Bodyline series which shows that he failed to adapt and the bowlers found him out.

If the scores were the other way around and he started with a duck and an 8 and finished the series with a 103* and a 76, that would have showed that he has adapted. Unfortunately, the opposite happened.


His each innings was worse than the previous one, and he averaged 20 in the last 2 Tests.

Bradman’s average cannot be discounted, but 37 of his 52 Tests came against one opposition while the other Tests came against very weak opposition.

It is not uncommon for a batsman to have an abnormally high average against a particular opposition.

Tendulkar was certainly exposed to far more challenges and stipulations in his career. The only time Bradman was exposed to a different tactic in his career, his average literally halved.

 

[Slog]

Both are great and products of their era

One had comparable record to the other greats of his time whereas the other was so far ahead of the pack that its hard to fathom sometimes. And that is why the latter is the GOAT.

 

[Robert]

Viv Richards literally had 1 Bradmanesque year in the beginning of his career after which he averaged like 45 something in tests.

Relatively speaking, he played in an era all his opponents were nowhere near their best. Some of whom, example India and to an extent had not even emerged to that extent as world beating cricket nations. I respect Viv Richards with all my heart but there is too much hype (mostly justified) but his numbers do not stack up to a few other great test batsmen keeping in mind Tendulkar, Lara both played better competition.

Gavaskar, playing in the same era, not having feasted on Indian bowling and instead playing West Indian pace quartet which Viv never got o play, averages 1 run higher.

In 5 more matches, he even has 1600 more test runs, and being a test opener

Richards faced Chandra, Bedi, Kapil, Imran, Qadir, Wasim, Snow, Willis, Underwood, Botham, Hadlee, Lillee, Thomson, all of whom would walk into the sides Tendulkar faced.

Gavaskar would bat all day for 120. Whereas Richards would get a rapid and demoralising 200 and the match would be gone.

 

[anikrc1]

These are from analysis done recently if you google which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers and which batsmen have played the largest number of all-time-great innings you should find them quite easily.

Looks like among his contemporaries sachin outperformed lara and ponting while playing away massively. steve though has the best record among all of them.

 

[SL_Fan]

So he got worse and worse in the Bodyline series which shows that he failed to adapt and the bowlers found him out.

If the scores were the other way around and he started with a duck and an 8 and finished the series with a 103* and a 76, that would have showed that he has adapted. Unfortunately, the opposite happened.


His each innings was worse than the previous one, and he averaged 20 in the last 2 Tests.

Bradman’s average cannot be discounted, but 37 of his 52 Tests came against one opposition while the other Tests came against very weak opposition.

It is not uncommon for a batsman to have an abnormally high average against a particular opposition.

Tendulkar was certainly exposed to far more challenges and stipulations in his career. The only time Bradman was exposed to a different tactic in his career, his average literally halved.

It was ordered highest to lowest actual inning by inning scores were

0, 103* / 8, 66 / 76, 24 / 48, 71

So contributed every Test. It wasn't just some "different tactic" as you put it there are a fair few reasons as to why fast leg theory has since been made illegal.

 

[SL_Fan]

Btw probably should add that his strike rate during Bodyline was around 75.

 

[therealAB]

So he got worse and worse in the Bodyline series which shows that he failed to adapt and the bowlers found him out.

If the scores were the other way around and he started with a duck and an 8 and finished the series with a 103* and a 76, that would have showed that he has adapted. Unfortunately, the opposite happened.


His each innings was worse than the previous one, and he averaged 20 in the last 2 Tests.

Bradman’s average cannot be discounted, but 37 of his 52 Tests came against one opposition while the other Tests came against very weak opposition.

It is not uncommon for a batsman to have an abnormally high average against a particular opposition.

Tendulkar was certainly exposed to far more challenges and stipulations in his career. The only time Bradman was exposed to a different tactic in his career, his average literally halved.

The other way to look at it is that Bradman played 71% of his tests against his strongest opposition

 

[anikrc1]

Richards faced Chandra, Bedi, Kapil, Imran, Qadir, Wasim, Snow, Willis, Underwood, Botham, Hadlee, Lillee, Thomson, all of whom would walk into the sides Tendulkar faced.

Gavaskar would bat all day for 120. Whereas Richards would get a rapid and demoralising 200 and the match would be gone.

richards faced 3 atg bowlers imran,hadlee and lillie.
sachin faced donald wasim ambrose mcgrath steyn murali and warne. 7 sure shot atgs.

 

[Ab Fan]

Honestly, the question in OP should actually be, Who is the greatest batsmen(in pure batsmenship or whatever be the criteria you want to set) after Don Bradman and not between Bradman and Tendulkar? Bradman was just so far ahead.

I would say after Bradman, you can have

Graeme Pollock
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Garfield Sobers
Greg Chappell
Jack Hobbs

And probably a tier below

Sunil Gavaskar
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Wally Hammond
Virat Kohli
Steven Smith
Kumar Sangakkara
Javed Miandad
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Len Hutton

And so on.

 

[Ab Fan]

richards faced 3 atg bowlers imran,hadlee and lillie.
sachin faced donald wasim ambrose mcgrath steyn murali and warne. 7 sure shot atgs.

Viv was basically an all conditions performing version of Sehwag. He was known for his sheer shock factor, used to take on all the bowlers and not grind it out. There is a reason why Viv is considered one of the best ever in the game and stats and averages won't mean anything in his case.

 

[Ab Fan]

Honestly, the question in OP should actually be, Who is the greatest batsmen(in pure batsmenship or whatever be the criteria you want to set) after Don Bradman and not between Bradman and Tendulkar? Bradman was just so far ahead.

I would say after Bradman, you can have

Graeme Pollock
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Garfield Sobers
Greg Chappell
Jack Hobbs
Barry Richards

And probably a tier below

Sunil Gavaskar
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Wally Hammond
Virat Kohli
Steven Smith
Kumar Sangakkara
Javed Miandad
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Len Hutton

And so on.

*Included Barry Richards as well.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Honestly, the question in OP should actually be, Who is the greatest batsmen(in pure batsmenship or whatever be the criteria you want to set) after Don Bradman and not between Bradman and Tendulkar? Bradman was just so far ahead.

I would say after Bradman, you can have

Graeme Pollock
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Brian Lara
Garfield Sobers
Greg Chappell
Jack Hobbs

And probably a tier below

Sunil Gavaskar
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Wally Hammond
Virat Kohli
Steven Smith
Kumar Sangakkara
Javed Miandad
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Len Hutton

And so on.

Earlier you did select Sachin Tendulkar,if not mistaken.Liked my criteria?Changed your mind,not debatable?

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

These are from analysis done recently if you google which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers and which batsmen have played the largest number of all-time-great innings you should find them quite easily.

How is that median calculated. Is it based on stats of the bowling attack or avg rating or ranking.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] Please participate.Plead your incisive or methodical analysis.Love to have your great insights.

 

[Ab Fan]

Earlier you did select Sachin Tendulkar,if not mistaken.Liked my criteria?Changed your mind,not debatable?

No, I am just a moody kind of guy so on few occasions you can ignore my choices Precisely speaking for these kinds of comparisons,it becomes hard because you can't really compare two players from completely different era if you haven't seen them and none of us are old enough to have watched Sir Don Bradman.

We read about him, try to capture a certain imagination of his batting with what we read and then we debate. Sir Don Bradman's average of 99 really stands him as the best batsmen by several distance from his era.
Given that those stats don't flatter himself, it's evitable that if he played in the modern era, he would have averaged over 70 with the bat and would have maintained that average over a course of 120-125 tests.

Coming to Sachin Tendulkar, I do consider him the best batsmen of his generation because in the era he played, ODI cricket was considered as international cricket and was quite popular. So, it will be ridiculous to strict your analysis just to Test Cricket. Tendulkar's sheer domination in both the formats of the game makes him a standout and the best batsmen of his era <B>convincingly enough</B>, ahead of Brian Lara who was clearly a level below him in ODI cricket. I am not trying to say that Test Cricket should not be prioritised over ODIs but that is not the be all and end all of stuffs in the modern era of the game.

This obviously doesn't undermine the stature of Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border who were not good ODI players but still remain the legend of the game because ODI cricket hadn't really evolved till that era.

I do conclude that my rankings in the above post remains my picture of all the great batsmen the game has seen. Tendulkar was the best of his era but Bradman was simply in a different pane.

 

[SL_Fan]

How is that median calculated. Is it based on stats of the bowling attack or avg rating or ranking.

The bowling strength for a particular team innings is the weighted average of each bowler in a bowling line-up (the individual averages used were the bowlers’ averages at the start of the innings - bowlers on Test debut were assigned the median figure). Weights were assigned according to the share of the bowling for each bowler in the innings.

Same method was also used to calculate the bowling strength for all team Test innings. The median bowling strength for a Test innings from 1877 to 2014 (including the Sydney Test of the 2013-14 Ashes) was determined to be 31.54.

All batsmen in the 10k club (was done back in 2014) were looked at and their careers were divided into innings where the opposition bowling was better than the median (ie less than 31.54) and innings where the opposition bowling was worse than the median (ie greater than 31.54). Same was done to players' home and away Test records.

Not sure if I'm allowed to provide the links here but if you google which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers and which batsmen have played the largest number of all-time-great innings you should be able to find the articles quite easily.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

The bowling strength for a particular team innings is the weighted average of each bowler in a bowling line-up (the individual averages used were the bowlers’ averages at the start of the innings - bowlers on Test debut were assigned the median figure). Weights were assigned according to the share of the bowling for each bowler in the innings.

Same method was also used to calculate the bowling strength for all team Test innings. The median bowling strength for a Test innings from 1877 to 2014 (including the Sydney Test of the 2013-14 Ashes) was determined to be 31.54.

All batsmen in the 10k club (was done back in 2014) were looked at and their careers were divided into innings where the opposition bowling was better than the median (ie less than 31.54) and innings where the opposition bowling was worse than the median (ie greater than 31.54). Same was done to players' home and away Test records.

Not sure if I'm allowed to provide the links here but if you google which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers and which batsmen have played the largest number of all-time-great innings you should be able to find the articles quite easily.

Yeah i just googled it, thanks for the explanation.
This method is good to some extent but let me list its flaws.:
1.The performance against an attack of ashwin jadeja bhuvi will have the same weight as a performance against mcgrath, warne, gillespie.

2.
Attacks better than median who bowled against waugh, tendulkar, lara, ponting
-Ambrose Walsh bishop
-wasim waqar mushtaq
-mcgrath warne gillespie
Donald pollock fanie devilliers

Attack better than median faced by sanga, jaya

Anderson broad finn
Steyn morkel philander
Ashwin jadeja sharma

Now its clear that both scenarios are non comparable.

I agree with the overall conclusion that sachin wasn't ahead of his contemporaries.
But sangas stats are inflated here coz of facing much lower quality attacks.

 

[TurkishCricketFan]

There is 0 doubt in my mind that Bradman was the greatest ever.

I am not even sure that Tendulkar is the greatest of the rest, probably but not certainly.

 

[SL_Fan]

Yeah i just googled it, thanks for the explanation.
This method is good to some extent but let me list its flaws.:
1.The performance against an attack of ashwin jadeja bhuvi will have the same weight as a performance against mcgrath, warne, gillespie.

2.
Attacks better than median who bowled against waugh, tendulkar, lara, ponting
-Ambrose Walsh bishop
-wasim waqar mushtaq
-mcgrath warne gillespie
Donald pollock fanie devilliers

Attack better than median faced by sanga, jaya

Anderson broad finn
Steyn morkel philander
Ashwin jadeja sharma

Now its clear that both scenarios are non comparable.

I agree with the overall conclusion that sachin wasn't ahead of his contemporaries.
But sangas stats are inflated here coz of facing much lower quality attacks.

The weighted average of the bowling attack obviously varies according to overs bowled by the individual bowlers so it's very much inning dependent so not sure what you are trying to get at by bunching different bowlers there. For instance as explained in the article

An attack including the exact same bowlers can have two different strength measures in different Tests. For example, a South African attack playing in Sri Lanka, where Nicky Boje would bowl a lot of overs, would have a weaker strength measure than the same attack bowling in South Africa, where Boje's share of the bowling would be much smaller.

But yes within the innings deemed to have been against stronger attacks (ie less than the median of 31.54) obviously some attacks would have been better in absolute terms while others might have just barely made it in. Still to make it inside the 31.54 it would have to have been a very good attack regardless.

 

[Hasan123]

Tendulkar over Bradman. Longevity, succeeding against more opponents and different eras give him the advantage for me.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

The weighted average of the bowling attack obviously varies according to overs bowled by the individual bowlers so it's very much inning dependent so not sure what you are trying to get at by bunching different bowlers there. .

I completely understand that weighted average will vary based on innings but how does that affect what i posted.

A bowling attack having all bowlers averaging below 31.4 will surely be better than median.
That's where this analysis fails
An attack of ashwin jadeja shami will be better than median in all possible permutations in any innings.
But how does that compare to a bowling attack of wasim waqar mushtaq.

But yes within the innings deemed to have been against stronger attacks (ie less than the median of 31.54) obviously some attacks would have been better in absolute terms while others might have just barely made it in. Still to make it inside the 31.54 it would have to have been a very good attack regardless.

Basically this is where the analysis fails, sangakkara(khan, pietersen) played many attacks better than median but they were comparatively poor to what waugh, lara, sachin faced.

 

[SL_Fan]

Actually after going through your post again I think the point you were trying to make is that second point. The same weight bit in the beginning kind of threw me off.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Actually after going through your post again I think the point you were trying to make is that second point. The same weight bit in the beginning kind of threw me off.

Oh yes, i could have worded it better.

 

[SL_Fan]

I completely understand that weighted average will vary based on innings but how does that affect what i posted.

A bowling attack having all bowlers averaging below 31.4 will surely be better than median.
That's where this analysis fails
An attack of ashwin jadeja shami will be better than median in all possible permutations in any innings.
But how does that compare to a bowling attack of wasim waqar mushtaq.


Basically this is where the analysis fails, sangakkara(khan, pietersen) played many attacks better than median but they were comparatively poor to what waugh, lara, sachin faced.

Yeah no arguments there not all strong/better attacks are equal but you got to have a cut-off somewhere right. I haven't come across a more through analysis than this one though must have taken ages. I guess with all the data he has now collected he could divide into strong and stronger to get an even more accurate picture of things that would be a great suggestion.

 

[Robert]

Tendulkar over Bradman. Longevity, succeeding against more opponents and different eras give him the advantage for me.

What has longevity to do with it? Anyway Bradman’s career spanned 1930-48 and he still averaged close to 100 throughout.

As for more opponents I can argue that Tendulkar did not play against the excellent Iceland side of 2050. Or Mars in 2150. You can only beat what is in front of you and Bradman did that against all comers by a greatest margin over every other player.

 

[therealAB]

I completely understand that weighted average will vary based on innings but how does that affect what i posted.

A bowling attack having all bowlers averaging below 31.4 will surely be better than median.
That's where this analysis fails
An attack of ashwin jadeja shami will be better than median in all possible permutations in any innings.
But how does that compare to a bowling attack of wasim waqar mushtaq.


Basically this is where the analysis fails, sangakkara(khan, pietersen) played many attacks better than median but they were comparatively poor to what waugh, lara, sachin faced.

I would argue that Ashwin and Jadeja at home are stronger than alot of attacks we consider ATG

 

[sweep_shot]

Bradman has to be the best Test batsman of all time.

Sachin was the best in ODI but Kohli may overtake him.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

No, I am just a moody kind of guy so on few occasions you can ignore my choices Precisely speaking for these kinds of comparisons,it becomes hard because you can't really compare two players from completely different era if you haven't seen them and none of us are old enough to have watched Sir Don Bradman.

We read about him, try to capture a certain imagination of his batting with what we read and then we debate. Sir Don Bradman's average of 99 really stands him as the best batsmen by several distance from his era.
Given that those stats don't flatter himself, it's evitable that if he played in the modern era, he would have averaged over 70 with the bat and would have maintained that average over a course of 120-125 tests.

Coming to Sachin Tendulkar, I do consider him the best batsmen of his generation because in the era he played, ODI cricket was considered as international cricket and was quite popular. So, it will be ridiculous to strict your analysis just to Test Cricket. Tendulkar's sheer domination in both the formats of the game makes him a standout and the best batsmen of his era <B>convincingly enough</B>, ahead of Brian Lara who was clearly a level below him in ODI cricket. I am not trying to say that Test Cricket should not be prioritised over ODIs but that is not the be all and end all of stuffs in the modern era of the game.

This obviously doesn't undermine the stature of Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border who were not good ODI players but still remain the legend of the game because ODI cricket hadn't really evolved till that era.

I do conclude that my rankings in the above post remains my picture of all the great batsmen the game has seen. Tendulkar was the best of his era but Bradman was simply in a different pane.

Very analytical and fair,appreciate.Arguably no criteria to fairly compare.With a gun on my head I would not back Bradman to score 100 International centuries in modern era,throwing light on all factors.We would have to adjust Bradman's strike rate which when scaled may not equal Tendulkar's .Bradman may average 70-75 in tests but not equal the domination or mastery of Sachin on bad wickets or turning tracks.Do read the viewpoint of Hanif Mohammad on Tendulkar in OP.

Do you throw any light on Bradman's relative failures on wet wickets in 15 innings compared to George Headley ?Or also his relative failure playing bodyline pace with scores declining towards end?Many experts felt that Hobbs and Trumper were more adept on wet pitches.I somehow doubt Bradman would evn have eclisped Jack Hobbs's 197 centuries and 61237 runs in 1st class cricket scored mostly in bowler friendly conditions.

Ofcourse on pure record Bradman streets ahead but asessing all factors there is to me atleast a case for Tendulkar?

 

[therealAB]

Very analytical and fair,appreciate.Arguably no criteria to fairly compare.With a gun on my head I would not back Bradman to score 100 International centuries in modern era,throwing light on all factors.We would have to adjust Bradman's strike rate which when scaled may not equal Tendulkar's .Bradman may average 70-75 in tests but not equal the domination or mastery of Sachin on bad wickets or turning tracks.Do read the viewpoint of Hanif Mohammad on Tendulkar in OP.

Do you throw any light on Bradman's relative failures on wet wickets in 15 innings compared to George Headley ?Or also his relative failure playing bodyline pace with scores declining towards end?Many experts felt that Hobbs and Trumper were more adept on wet pitches.I somehow doubt Bradman would evn have eclisped Jack Hobbs's 197 centuries and 61237 runs in 1st class cricket scored mostly in bowler friendly conditions.

Ofcourse on pure record Bradman streets ahead but asessing all factors there is to me atleast a case for Tendulkar?

No, no case for Tendulkar like there is no case for Sobers, Viv, Gavaskar, Pollock and the multitude of other batsmen in Sachin's tier

If Bradman averaged 70-75 he would be vastly exceeding Sachin everywhere, who is not particularly well known for his play on difficult tracks, in every conditions. That is the difference between Sachin and Shane Watson batting-wise. Bradman has many, many great knocks on tricky pitches that i have outlined in prior posts that you have not responded to

For the Hobbs argument, Hobbs played in similar era scoring wise (maybe 5% higher for Bradman) which is not enough to scale 100 to 56. The vast, vast majority of former players put Bradman ahead, what one said does not matter.

Tendulkar never played on wet wickets, not relevant to debate. Also, given that if Bradman played 200 tests he would be estimated to score over 100 test hundreds alone, why do you doubt that a player who scored three hundred in a day would match Sachin 'I only averaged 53' Tendulkar's hundred record

Also, how do you rate Walter Hammond compared to Ian Bell?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

No, no case for Tendulkar like there is no case for Sobers, Viv, Gavaskar, Pollock and the multitude of other batsmen in Sachin's tier

If Bradman averaged 70-75 he would be vastly exceeding Sachin everywhere, who is not particularly well known for his play on difficult tracks, in every conditions. That is the difference between Sachin and Shane Watson batting-wise. Bradman has many, many great knocks on tricky pitches that i have outlined in prior posts that you have not responded to

For the Hobbs argument, Hobbs played in similar era scoring wise (maybe 5% higher for Bradman) which is not enough to scale 100 to 56. The vast, vast majority of former players put Bradman ahead, what one said does not matter.

Tendulkar never played on wet wickets, not relevant to debate. Also, given that if Bradman played 200 tests he would be estimated to score over 100 test hundreds alone, why do you doubt that a player who scored three hundred in a day would match Sachin 'I only averaged 53' Tendulkar's hundred record

Also, how do you rate Walter Hammond compared to Ian Bell?

Was nor Bradman not at his best in 15 innings on wet pitches and bodyline?Also would Bradman surpass Hobbs 197 centuries and 61237 runs scored mainly on tricky wickets?In tests woud win but there is a strong possibility that the Don would not overall the century or run aggregate overall of Hobbs and Sachin?Remember playing condition sor tracks before 1st world war and pressure and competitivity of modern era?

You have a valid point but pure stats does not always give the moral picture.Not for nothing does Hanif Mohammad or Richard Hadlee rate Tendulkar on top .

 

[Robert]

Was nor Bradman not at his best in 15 innings on wet pitches and bodyline?Also would Bradman surpass Hobbs 197 centuries and 61237 runs scored mainly on tricky wickets?In tests woud win but there is a strong possibility that the Don would not overall the century or run aggregate overall of Hobbs and Sachin?Remember playing condition sor tracks before 1st world war and pressure and competitivity of modern era?

You have a valid point but pure stats does not always give the moral picture.Not for nothing does Hanif Mohammad or Richard Hadlee rate Tendulkar on top .

Hobbs and Tendulkar scored one century per four tests, Bradman one per two tests playing on fliers, greentops, turners and stickies.

Give it up Harsh, India does not have the best batsman of all time.

 

[Ab Fan]

Very analytical and fair,appreciate.Arguably no criteria to fairly compare.With a gun on my head I would not back Bradman to score 100 International centuries in modern era,throwing light on all factors.We would have to adjust Bradman's strike rate which when scaled may not equal Tendulkar's .Bradman may average 70-75 in tests but not equal the domination or mastery of Sachin on bad wickets or turning tracks.Do read the viewpoint of Hanif Mohammad on Tendulkar in OP.

Do you throw any light on Bradman's relative failures on wet wickets in 15 innings compared to George Headley ?Or also his relative failure playing bodyline pace with scores declining towards end?Many experts felt that Hobbs and Trumper were more adept on wet pitches.I somehow doubt Bradman would evn have eclisped Jack Hobbs's 197 centuries and 61237 runs in 1st class cricket scored mostly in bowler friendly conditions.

Ofcourse on pure record Bradman streets ahead but asessing all factors there is to me atleast a case for Tendulkar?

To me, Tendulkar is the best batsmen of his generation comfortably. Reasoning? Because in tests, he was as good as Lara and better than Ponting but in ODIs, he has 18,500 runs at 44 average compared to Lara's 10000 runs at 40 and although Ponting was better than Lara in ODIs, he was also behind Tendulkar in both the formats.

No cricketer has ever been as complete and as all-round in the game as SRT has been. Peak Tendulkar averaged 63 for around 9 years between 1993-2002, and if you remove those 9 years, there is still 4 years period between 2007-2010 when he took that average to 60+. So, around 13 years of his career when he averaged over 60 with the bat, that is absolutely legendary. That does make him a standout but the difference ain't as high because similar although minutely lesser career graphs can be brought up for Lara and Ponting as well.

 

[andy0204]

To me, Tendulkar is the best batsmen of his generation comfortably. Reasoning? Because in tests, he was as good as Lara and better than Ponting but in ODIs, he has 18,500 runs at 44 average compared to Lara's 10000 runs at 40 and although Ponting was better than Lara in ODIs, he was also behind Tendulkar in both the formats.

No cricketer has ever been as complete and as all-round in the game as SRT has been. Peak Tendulkar averaged 63 for around 9 years between 1993-2002, and if you remove those 9 years, there is still 4 years period between 2007-2010 when he took that average to 60+. So, around 13 years of his career when he averaged over 60 with the bat, that is absolutely legendary. That does make him a standout but the difference ain't as high because similar although minutely lesser career graphs can be brought up for Lara and Ponting as well.

At one point Lara was averaging 47 in ODIs,I don't know what happened to him after that.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Hobbs and Tendulkar scored one century per four tests, Bradman one per two tests playing on fliers, greentops, turners and stickies.

Give it up Harsh, India does not have the best batsman of all time.

I did not only consider first class cricket.Also ODI's of Tendulkar and First class record of Jack Hobbs.Are you sure Bradman would have equalled Hobbs 197 centuries in first class cricket or Tendulkar's 100 International centuries?Or Hobbs 61237 first call aggregate or Tendulkar's 33,000 run international aggregate.Any response?

 

[Ab Fan]

At one point Lara was averaging 47 in ODIs,I don't know what happened to him after that.

He probably lost that hunger in ODIs or maybe there can be some other reason. But, that's what longevity does to you. Between age 19-28, Tendulkar averaged 63 with the bat but if we look at his career, he had a 24 years long period and ended with average of 53. It's hard to maintain that level of performance when you have such longevity.

Lara was a beast in ODIs in 90s(more so during mid-90s).

 

[andy0204]

He probably lost that hunger in ODIs or maybe there can be some other reason. But, that's what longevity does to you. Between age 19-28, Tendulkar averaged 63 with the bat but if we look at his career, he had a 24 years long period and ended with average of 53. It's hard to maintain that level of performance when you have such longevity.

Lara was a beast in ODIs in 90s(more so during mid-90s).

I agree,his record may be comparable to others but you can't deny his greatness.

 

[ElRaja]

At one point Lara was averaging 47 in ODIs,I don't know what happened to him after that.

tendu was more professional in his approach than lara, lara often had a few really poor spells.

lara averaged about 30 for his last 3 or 4 years with 1 hundred in odis, which is staggeringly poor for a player of his quality. his test average was still around 55 over this period, so its strange.

also lara had a 5 year spell between 96 and 01 where he averaged 39 in tests, 30 away (roughly around his first spell as captain), the rest of his career is book ended with an average of about 60.

 

[Junaids]

I have held off replying, but here goes......

The greatness of Don Bradman came from the fact that he was literally almost twice as prolific as the next best batsman of his age - his batting average was FORTY ONE RUNS HIGHER than Wally Hammond's.

Yes, Bradman had the longevity to remain at the highest possible level of performance for two decades. But he played against ATG's like Hammond and he simply pulverised their records.

Tendulkar was different. He lasted slightly longer at the very highest level than Kallis or Ponting, and significantly longer than Lara. But what really counts against him is that he never demonstrated that he was better than any of those three contemporaries, let alone all of those three.

Tendulkar didn't even quite reach the heights of Lara - who twice broke the Test score record, a decade apart - or Kallis who also took 300 Test wickets.

So Bradman and Tendulkar are similar in terms of maintaining a very high level of performance from a very young age to a very old age.

But they are different in that Bradman was massively better than anyone else in his era, whereas Tendulkar was not better than Lara and Kallis and Ponting at all, let alone significantly better.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I have held off replying, but here goes......

The greatness of Don Bradman came from the fact that he was literally almost twice as prolific as the next best batsman of his age - his batting average was FORTY ONE RUNS HIGHER than Wally Hammond's.

Yes, Bradman had the longevity to remain at the highest possible level of performance for two decades. But he played against ATG's like Hammond and he simply pulverised their records.

Tendulkar was different. He lasted slightly longer at the very highest level than Kallis or Ponting, and significantly longer than Lara. But what really counts against him is that he never demonstrated that he was better than any of those three contemporaries, let alone all of those three.

Tendulkar didn't even quite reach the heights of Lara - who twice broke the Test score record, a decade apart - or Kallis who also took 300 Test wickets.

So Bradman and Tendulkar are similar in terms of maintaining a very high level of performance from a very young age to a very old age.

But they are different in that Bradman was massively better than anyone else in his era, whereas Tendulkar was not better than Lara and Kallis and Ponting at all, let alone significantly better.

OK entitled to your viewpoint.Do you feel that there is any credibility to Bradman not being at his best on wet wickets like Headley and Hobbs or bodyline?Do you feel Bradman would have surpassed Tendulkar's 100centuries and overall run aggregate in modern era or the 197 centuries and 61,237 run s of Hobbs earlier?I feel Viv may have overshadowed him against express pace or in ODI's.Appreciate response.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] plead your participation with your great insight and ability to analyze.

 

[therealAB]

Was nor Bradman not at his best in 15 innings on wet pitches and bodyline?Also would Bradman surpass Hobbs 197 centuries and 61237 runs scored mainly on tricky wickets?In tests woud win but there is a strong possibility that the Don would not overall the century or run aggregate overall of Hobbs and Sachin?Remember playing condition sor tracks before 1st world war and pressure and competitivity of modern era?

You have a valid point but pure stats does not always give the moral picture.Not for nothing does Hanif Mohammad or Richard Hadlee rate Tendulkar on top .

First of all, you cannot compare him to 5 different players to say Sachin is better, that is totally disingenuous

Secondly, Bradman would be predicted to score 112 test centuries if he played 200 tests, so he would have done it without playing any ODI's!. Even if we say he only gets 80/90, he scored faster than anybody in his era so he would be a gun ODI bat. I reckon he would average 70@110 in ODI cricket

Re wet wickets, Bradman designed his technique for the majority of pitches. There is a quote somewhere of him saying that he could've adjusted for wet wickets, but given that it was such a small percentage it was more beneficial to the team to average 120 on the normal ones.

People say different things, 95% of pundits would say Bradman is better

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#55356;&#56814;&#55356;&#56819; On this day in 2004, Sachin Tendulkar registered a marathon unbeaten 241 against Australia at the SCG.<br><br>And he did it without playing a single cover drive &#55357;&#56394; <a href="https://t.co/MHI0KV6wzs">pic.twitter.com/MHI0KV6wzs</a></p>— ICC (@ICC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC/status/1478312788976152580?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Bradman and Tendulkar | The untold story of two of cricket’s giants | ABC Australia

 

[Ab Fan]

Undoubtedly, two of the greatest cricketing giants of all-time. Many came and left but none revolutionized the game for their nations as these two did.