Whom would you pick as the best batsman after Donald Bradman?

[Snatch]

It would be a close tie between SRT and LARA, cant go wrong either way. I would pick SRT as he was more attractive to watch and consistent while Lara was up and down....

Tendulkar more attractive to watch than Lara? Wow

 

[Tusker]

Why should I when such a blatantly obvious fact like Bradman being basically twice as good as his next closest contemporaries seems to be ignored by some here, & they instead put Tendulkar, who I'm not even convinced is the best batsmen of his own era, into the argument.

It will become obvious when you actually watch some footage ... see post#67. Or you expect people to simply roll over and accept your views ?

We've been through this before. Bradman is a reasonable & realistic contender for the Greatest sportsman ever title, if we're judging those playing a top sport on how far they were ahead of their contemporaries.

He even gets mentions in American sports articles around the question of greatest ever sportsmen, simply because although they don't know much about cricket, they can't ignore the statistical anomaly which is Bradman.

Statistics aren't everything, I'll grant you that, but when a player is basically twice as good as the next in terms of their records, that just cannot be ignored, regardless of the fact there's 1.3 million people living in India.

First of all Prove that he is twice as good as the next. In order to do that you need to prove that run making today is as easy/difficult it was back in Bradmans time. Otherwise these claims are just meaningless. Again watch that footage and then comment. Nobody can hope to be a strike bowler today bowling like Bedser. Do you agree ?

 

[shaz619]

Exactly. I mean perhaps if he averaged only 70, there could be a case to be made for other factors, but when it's 100, there's just no case to deny it.

Remember other great batsmen of Bradman's era like the Sutcliffe's, Hammonds could only average late 50s, which again might be different if a few of them averaged 70-80, but for them it was no different than it is today in which the very top batsmen average 50-55 and the real elites 55-60.

No batsmen in any era seems to be able to get above that magic 60 mark and then Bradman who let's not forget played right through the 9 year gap of WWII averages a 100.

Statistically speaking it's so stupid it's just simply beyond debating.

Uncovered pitches, lack of helmets, poor quality of bats and bigger boundaries have already been mentioned but that's a great point! WWII meant that the Don didn't play Test cricket at all between the ages of 30 and 37; this is a period that has been the most fruitful of many batsmen’s careers. For me though all the arguments for or against are belittled by the magic numbers; 9 9 9 4 which cement The Don as the Ultimate GOAT and like you say it's beyond debating.

 

[Snatch]

It will become obvious when you actually watch some footage ... see post#67. Or you expect people to simply roll over and accept your views ?

Haha, my views? Are you seriously suggesting I have this radical out there opinion about Bradman?

hate to inform you, but Test batting is about run scoring and averages, not what someone looks like at the crease.

If it was about how someone looked, then Martin Guptill is one of the best Test bats ever, because few look so majestic hitting down the ground.

First of all Prove that he is twice as good as the next. In order to do that you need to prove that run making today is as easy/difficult it was back in Bradmans time. Otherwise these claims are just meaningless. Again watch that footage and then comment. Nobody can hope to be a strike bowler today bowling like Bedser. Do you agree ?

You're completely missing the point again. There's no point us having this discussion if you still can't grasp that there's no way to compare sports people across eras other than how they performed against their contemporaries. That is the only way.

It could be a little different in WG Grace's time because then it was only a sport for elites and there's old rumours that Grace used to keep batting even when dismissed. But in Bradman's era it was a competitive sport. As competitive as today? Of course not, but that's the same across any sports, Diet get better, technology gets better and the same will apply in cricket played in 2040.

There's a reason Babe Ruth is still regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest baseball batter ever, and his stats weren't as far ahead of others in his time as Bradman's were.

No Baseball fans are stupid enough to deny Ruth's greatness because they don't think he appears to hit the ball well enough or say he was athletic enough to be transported from a time machine to play in 2017.

 

[Vivek_86]

No, he didn't because he couldn't. Did Sachin bat without a helmet against fast bowlers on unprepared wickets?

OK leave Sachin out then . What about Sobers,Viv ,Gavaskar? They did bat on every type of pitches without helmet? So they are credible contenders than Bradman.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Tendulkar more attractive to watch than Lara? Wow

Yeah 'WOW'.. Lara had a poor technique, he jumps around all over the crease and was not easy on the eye.. Lara had one thing going for him, he had a superhuman ability to make huge scores...

 

[Snatch]

Yeah 'WOW'.. Lara had a poor technique, he jumps around all over the crease and was not easy on the eye.. Lara had one thing going for him, he had a superhuman ability to make huge scores...

I loved Lara's high bat-lift, made him look so good on the eye to me.

If I'm thinking of my top 10 batsmen in terms of elegance and how they looking even in the last 25 years, Tendulkar wouldn't even get close to my top 10 list. Perhaps because he always looks so short and squat in his stance.

Lara wasn't much taller, but I think his bat-lift added to the visual.

For attractiveness I prefer batsmen like

David Gower
Martin Crowe
Damien Martyn
Mark Waugh
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
VVS Laxman
Brian Lara

to name a few

 

[Romali_rotti]

I loved Lara's high bat-lift, made him look so good on the eye to me.

If I'm thinking of my top 10 batsmen in terms of elegance and how they looking even in the last 25 years, Tendulkar wouldn't even get close to my top 10 list. Perhaps because he always looks so short and squat in his stance.

Lara wasn't much taller, but I think his bat-lift added to the visual.

For attractiveness I prefer batsmen like

David Gower
Martin Crowe
Damien Martyn
Mark Waugh
Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
VVS Laxman
Brian Lara

to name a few

Well that's just your opinion, I prefer SRT, cause his cover drive and off drive was the best I have ever seen, Lara's high back lift just looked weird imo, plus he jumped all over the crease and he had a bent body which wasn't easy on the eye. SRT played with a still head, nice posture and played very straight with an immaculate all weather technique.. The other batsmen on your list barring Lara most I would agree are very elegant..

 

[Midwinter13992]

Don Bradman was easily better than Sachin Tendulker. Honestly guys, give it a rest and try coming up with good arguments for why your idol is a better batsman than Richards, Sobers and Lara.

True..No one can go past Bradman's epic average..Can't be compare with anyone

 

[Midwinter13992]

Bradman followed by SRT

 

[Snatch]

Well that's just your opinion, I prefer SRT, cause his cover drive and off drive was the best I have ever seen, Lara's high back lift just looked weird imo, plus he jumped all over the crease and he had a bent body which wasn't easy on the eye. SRT played with a still head, nice posture and played very straight with an immaculate all weather technique.. The other batsmen on your list barring Lara most I would agree are very elegant..

I forgot Stephen Fleming too. Not a great batsman, but man his straight drives.

Of course styles come down to opinion though, you are correct, it is personal preference.

It is the same about the Lara v Sanga v Ponting v Sachin v Kallis debate as to the best batsman in the last 25 years, when you are at their level it comes down to personal preference.

 

[Tusker]

Haha, my views? Are you seriously suggesting I have this radical out there opinion about Bradman?

hate to inform you, but Test batting is about run scoring and averages, not what someone looks like at the crease.

If it was about how someone looked, then Martin Guptill is one of the best Test bats ever, because few look so majestic hitting down the ground.

Well this is the problem. If you want to find out who is the best batsman then do you want to find that out by checking how he performs against the best bowlers ever or bowlers who dont even rank in the top 50 ? The answer is pretty obvious.

You're completely missing the point again. There's no point us having this discussion if you still can't grasp that there's no way to compare sports people across eras other than how they performed against their contemporaries. That is the only way.

And this is fair how ? How is it fair for a batsman who has to deal with bowling standards that are so significantly higher that it is ridiculous to even make an objective comparison with an ERA that was so abysmally poor in standards ?

My reasoning is very simple ... the best batsman is one who has made runs facing the best bowling. Nobody from Bradmans time is even remotely considered as the best bowler of all time. Tendulkar faced 8 or 9 of the top 10 bowlers all time.

 

[Snatch]

Well this is the problem. If you want to find out who is the best batsman then do you want to find that out by checking how he performs against the best bowlers ever or bowlers who dont even rank in the top 50 ? The answer is pretty obvious.



And this is fair how ? How is it fair for a batsman who has to deal with bowling standards that are so significantly higher that it is ridiculous to even make an objective comparison with an ERA that was so abysmally poor in standards ?

My reasoning is very simple ... the best batsman is one who has made runs facing the best bowling. Nobody from Bradmans time is even remotely considered as the best bowler of all time. Tendulkar faced 8 or 9 of the top 10 bowlers all time.

You ignored the Babe Ruth analogy I noticed. Following your same logic, he can't be considered as one of the great baseball hitters, because if you look at the old footage they don't look as good.

Same with the great American sprinter Jesse Owens.

Same with Muhammad Ali, he doesn't look quite as strong as modern day boxers with the weights they now use & the boxers of today can bench more than Ali does, so modern day boxers must be greater than Ali etc etc

It's such a stupid and flawed logic.

Furthermore, how many innings did Tendulkar face Hadlee and Marshall in? Like 3?

Who are you to decide 8-9 of the greatest bowlers played in the last 25-30 years anyway?

Who are you to decide Sydney Barnes, Fred Trueman, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee, Joel Garner, Jim Laker Alan Davidson, Harry Larwood to name a few aren't among the top 10 bowlers ever?

 

[yasir]

My favorites ( batsmen I have seen), VIV and Lara, rest are tad below them.

 

[Tusker]

You ignored the Babe Ruth analogy I noticed. Following your same logic, he can't be considered as one of the great baseball hitters, because if you look at the old footage they don't look as good.

Same with the great American sprinter Jesse Owens.

Same with Muhammad Ali, he doesn't look quite as strong as modern day boxers with the weights they now use & the boxers of today can bench more than Ali does, so modern day boxers must be greater than Ali etc etc

It's such a stupid and flawed logic.

I don't follow those sports. Stick to cricket.

Furthermore, how many innings did Tendulkar face Hadlee and Marshall in? Like 3?

Who are you to decide 8-9 of the greatest bowlers played in the last 25-30 years anyway?

Who are you to decide Sydney Barnes, Fred Trueman, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee, Joel Garner, Jim Laker Alan Davidson, Harry Larwood to name a few aren't among the top 10 bowlers ever?

Iam a nobody just like you lol. The top bowlers of all time are all from the last 30-40 yrs. This is common knowledge.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I don't follow those sports. Stick to cricket.



Iam a nobody just like you lol. The top bowlers of all time are all from the last 30-40 yrs. This is common knowledge.

No.

Revisionist history is why its a problem.

The people who lived in those times would have regarded Trueman, Larwood and Barnes as best bowlers ever.

Now we in our century regard Marshall, Wasim and McGrath as best bowlers ever.

And when you die there will be another Tusker who won't take Tendulkar seriously because cricket will have changed even more.

So should you just downplay all previous eras that have passed because sports in general become better as science progresses?

If you can say with a straight face that you are Okay with Tendulkar being labelled a nobody 100 years from now, you have won this argument comprehensively.

BUT

If you start telling me about anything else (cricket has reached its peak, there is unlikely to be further changes), you will be called out a HYPOCRITE right now.

I claim, following your redundant argument that Tendulkar will be a nobody 100 years from now, because another Tusker will come and reject all his achievements.

So what will it be?

Lets see if you are a man of your words.

 

[Snatch]

I don't follow those sports. Stick to cricket.

This is probably why you don't get it. Sportsmen across eras are only compared on how they dominated in the era they played in.

Iam a nobody just like you lol. The top bowlers of all time are all from the last 30-40 yrs. This is common knowledge.

What does 40 years have to do with anything? I just have you a list of some of the best bowlers of all time who played before Sachin's time after you initially suggested 8-9 of the top 10 played against Sachin, when guys like Hadlee and Marshall were winding their careers up. I think Richard Hadlee for example was 39 when he played 1 or 2 tests against Sachin ..haha, so you really want to use that as an example?

Just like you ignored that Larwood was really fast and that Barnes wasn't one of the great bowlers of all time.

Best you and I agree to disagree, because you've basically made the rules up so no past player in any sport can be compared with a current one, & like I said to you last time if you want to stick to that logic you are going to have to accept when another Tusker-like poster in 50 years says the same thing about Tendulkar not being allowed to be compared to any players of their eras, because to them he probably looks like a short fat nonathletic chump and the bowlers only bowled 150 kms tops and couldn't touch 165km like they may in 2070.

 

[Snatch]

Thankfully to the rest of the cricketing world (outside India), there's really no argument across the board of who the greatest ever batsman is, which is exactly why questions like 'who the 2nd greatest batsman ever?' are commonplace... because it is so so obvious who the number 1 is.

 

[Tusker]

No.

Revisionist history is why its a problem.

The people who lived in those times would have regarded Trueman, Larwood and Barnes as best bowlers ever.

Yes but the topic here is who is the ATG batsman. With benefit of hindsight I do know that there have been better bowlers than those 3.

Now we in our century regard Marshall, Wasim and McGrath as best bowlers ever.

And when you die there will be another Tusker who won't take Tendulkar seriously because cricket will have changed even more.

So should you just downplay all previous eras that have passed because sports in general become better as science progresses?

If you can say with a straight face that you are Okay with Tendulkar being labelled a nobody 100 years from now, you have won this argument comprehensively.

100 yrs ? In about 10-15 yrs we might have a new king as Kohli is making some special strides as is Smith ... such is life ... it doesn't wait for Bradman or Sobers or Tendulkar or Lara or anyone. But it would be foolish to NOT recognize special talents just because some old farts who are unable to come to terms with reality said so.. And BTW I have previously answered this question so not sure why you are getting worked up.

BUT

If you start telling me about anything else (cricket has reached its peak, there is unlikely to be further changes), you will be called out a HYPOCRITE right now.

I claim, following your redundant argument that Tendulkar will be a nobody 100 years from now, because another Tusker will come and reject all his achievements.

So what will it be?

Lets see if you are a man of your words.

Easy there Dr saab ... calm down ... see above.

 

[Tusker]

This is probably why you don't get it. Sportsmen across eras are only compared on how they dominated in the era they played in.

Well then it should be really easy to convince me how that is such a logically sound and reasonable way to go in order to find out what was he better Batsman. Tell me how Bradman was a better batsman when he never faced any of the greatest bowlers and played during times when standards were very low.

What does 40 years have to do with anything? I just have you a list of some of the best bowlers of all time who played before Sachin's time after you initially suggested 8-9 of the top 10 played against Sachin, when guys like Hadlee and Marshall were winding their careers up. I think Richard Hadlee for example was 39 when he played 1 or 2 tests against Sachin ..haha, so you really want to use that as an example?

Just like you ignored that Larwood was really fast and that Barnes wasn't one of the great bowlers of all time.

once again do you even agree with the logic that a batsman who has faced better bowlers is generally a better quality batsman than the one who made runs against lower quality bowlers ? It appears that you value minnow bashing.

Best you and I agree to disagree, because you've basically made the rules up so no past player in any sport can be compared with a current one, & like I said to you last time if you want to stick to that logic you are going to have to accept when another Tusker-like poster in 50 years says the same thing about Tendulkar not being allowed to be compared to any players of their eras, because to them he probably looks like a short fat nonathletic chump and the bowlers only bowled 150 kms tops and couldn't touch 165km like they may in 2070.

What rules did I make up ? And yes Iam more than happy to accept that players will be better than SRT ... nowhere have I claimed that SRT will be the best forever.

 

[R0H1T]

Thankfully to the rest of the cricketing world (outside India), there's really no argument across the board of who the greatest ever batsman is, which is exactly why questions like 'who the 2nd greatest batsman ever?' are commonplace... because it is so so obvious who the number 1 is.

Yes because the rest of the world still thinks that uncovered pitches were the worst thing since the invention of cricket, easily forgetting that the highest 4th innings total was ever made on an uncovered pitch & in a timeless test some ~80yrs back!

The one time Bradman faced a competent pace bowling attack his avg was cut in half, the bodyline series, & that had one genuinely true quick! So if you're telling me that Bradman would avg 100+ facing the likes of Marshall, Roberts, garner, Croft, Holding et al on the WACA of the 70's then forgive us Indians if we don't recite the gospel that everyone likes to sing around here.

Also India anyone, what was Bradmenesque Ponting's avg in this part of the world?

The thing that people forget about timeless tests & uncovered pitches is that unless there was rain overnight, uncovered pitches tended to slow down perhaps massively so. Just take a look at the footage of the 1975 Windian tour of Aus & tell me that those (covered) pitches were anything less than what people around the WWII era faced. There's a reason Packer's world series is considered a game changer & even Holding attributes the rise of WI to the level of professionalism, that he demanded, & fitness, they'd be know for, unseen in cricketing realm to Packer.

 

[Snatch]

Well then it should be really easy to convince me how that is such a logically sound and reasonable way to go in order to find out what was he better Batsman. Tell me how Bradman was a better batsman when he never faced any of the greatest bowlers and played during times when standards were very low.




once again do you even agree with the logic that a batsman who has faced better bowlers is generally a better quality batsman than the one who made runs against lower quality bowlers ? It appears that you value minnow bashing.




What rules did I make up ? And yes Iam more than happy to accept that players will be better than SRT ... nowhere have I claimed that SRT will be the best forever.

It would be good if you could come up with a convincing argument that proves Sachin is even the best batsman in his own era, before taking on this absurd argument that he's better than the guy who's basically twice as good as any batsmen to play.

I'd like to know how there's any actual proof that Tendulkar is any better than the likes of Sanga, Ponting, Kallis, Lara etc apart from the fact he played for longer. I maintain when it comes to those guys mentioned, it comes down to personal preference only. Their records are all about the same and they all pretty much faced the same bowlers within reason, Tendulkar played a little longer, Kallis has the best century per innings ratio, Sanga has the best average & Ponting scored the fastest. So I think there's a pretty decent case for any of them.

Try making a convincing argument there before trying to pretend any Test batsman ever even comes close to Bradman. You're not fooling anyone (except a few uneducated Indian fans) and some ex cricketers who want to play up to the Indian media.

I already cited Warne once doing an interview for a NZ cricket show, and saying he quietly thought Lara was a better batsman than Sachin, but only after jokingly checking that the interview won't be shown in India.

Every big interview since then he's maintained they are about the same and couldn't split them.

To be clear, if someone does think Tendulkar was the best batsman from the last 30 years, I have no problem with that, just as I wouldn't with someone thinking it was Lara, because it's that close between 3-4 of them.

Remember the fiasco & outrage poor old Sangakarra faced after suggesting he personally thought Lara was the better of the two, he even said afterwards he regretted commenting about it after the reaction from sections of the Indian media.

 

[R0H1T]

It would be good if you could come up with a convincing argument that proves Sachin is even the best batsman in his own era, before taking on this absurd argument that he's better than the guy who's basically twice as good as any batsmen to play.

I'd like to know how there's any actual proof that Tendulkar is any better than the likes of Sanga, Ponting, Kallis, Lara etc apart from the fact he played for longer. I maintain when it comes to those guys mentioned, it comes down to personal preference only. Their records are all about the same and they all pretty much faced the same bowlers within reason, Tendulkar played a little longer, Kallis has the best century per innings ratio, Sanga has the best average & Ponting scored the fastest. So I think there's a pretty decent case for any of them.

Try making a convincing argument there before trying to pretend any Test batsman ever even comes close to Bradman. You're not fooling anyone (except a few uneducated Indian fans) and some ex cricketers who want to play up to the Indian media.

I already cited Warne once doing an interview for a NZ cricket show, and saying he quietly thought Lara was a better batsman than Sachin, but only after jokingly checking that the interview won't be shown in India.

Every big interview since then he's maintained they are about the same and couldn't split them.

To be clear, if someone does think Tendulkar was the best batsman from the last 30 years, I have no problem with that, just as I wouldn't with someone thinking it was Lara, because it's that close between 3-4 of them.

Remember the fiasco & outrage poor old Sangakarra faced after suggesting he personally thought Lara was the better of the two, he even said afterwards he regretted commenting about it after the reaction from sections of the Indian media.

Objectively speaking there is no best ever (batter/bowler/AR) in cricket, it simply cannot be because of the transformational changes that ODI/T20 heck two new balls have brought into the game.

Subjectively though I could give arguments that SRT is the GOAT, at least for me & many others, just as Kohli could be the best ever (batter) after he finishes his career.

 

[Snatch]

Yes because the rest of the world still thinks that uncovered pitches were the worst thing since the invention of cricket, easily forgetting that the highest 4th innings total was ever made on an uncovered pitch & in a timeless test some ~80yrs back!

The one time Bradman faced a competent pace bowling attack his avg was cut in half, the bodyline series, & that had one genuinely true quick! So if you're telling me that Bradman would avg 100+ facing the likes of Marshall, Roberts, garner, Croft, Holding et al on the WACA of the 70's then forgive us Indians if we don't recite the gospel that everyone likes to sing around here.

.

You're not really serious about that argument are you?

Is that why all those other great batsmen of Bradman's time all averaged 80-100 as well is it? Haha

You know, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley etc? They averaged the same as the top batsmen of the last 40 years average. That's between 50-60, so your argument about timeless tests, uncovered wickets falls on it's head there.

 

[shaz619]

You ignored the Babe Ruth analogy I noticed. Following your same logic, he can't be considered as one of the great baseball hitters, because if you look at the old footage they don't look as good.

Same with the great American sprinter Jesse Owens.

Same with Muhammad Ali, he doesn't look quite as strong as modern day boxers with the weights they now use & the boxers of today can bench more than Ali does, so modern day boxers must be greater than Ali etc etc

It's such a stupid and flawed logic.

Furthermore, how many innings did Tendulkar face Hadlee and Marshall in? Like 3?

Who are you to decide 8-9 of the greatest bowlers played in the last 25-30 years anyway?

Who are you to decide Sydney Barnes, Fred Trueman, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee, Joel Garner, Jim Laker Alan Davidson, Harry Larwood to name a few aren't among the top 10 bowlers ever?

This is a great example and analogy! while knowledge has enhanced in terms of diet, nutrition, fitness and training methods old school techniques have enabled the greatest HW boxers of all time in the likes of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Joe Louis , Mike Tyson etc in the last 10 years in the modern era we've seen a huge decline in the HW division until now, never mind the skill set the fighters looked like Mcdonalds sales assistants rather then pro sportsman the likes of Samuel Peters and Chris Arreola were fighting for world championship bouts; despite the advancements in the modern era they were unable to develop into elite fighters. And while all round fitness regiments which incorporate modern techniques is encouraged it's also disregarded because old school techniques in the boxing gym and methods from old school trainers have long been viewed as the fundamental route to enhancing attributes such as speed, power, endurance, skill, awareness and an in-ring IQ.

Also it's worth mentioning that back then at one point there were unlimited rounds and it gradually came down to 15 during Ali's golden HW era which allowed for bouts which were a lot more energetic as fighters with a high work rate such as Dempsey would flourish and finally 12 rounds in modern times. It's a flawed logic indeed, expert historians, literature reviews and context of performance in addition to their nature are all factors which are enough to make a comparison between era's or ranking greatness in a specific field.

 

[Snatch]

Objectively speaking there is no best ever (batter/bowler/AR) in cricket, it simply cannot be because of the transformational changes that ODI/T20 heck two new balls have brought into the game.

Subjectively though I could give arguments that SRT is the GOAT, at least for me & many others, just as Kohli could be the best ever (batter) after he finishes his career.

I'm sorry, but you cannot be educated on cricket historians if you really think this. I can only imagine you've only listened to/read Indian media.

Are you honestly suggesting that within world cricketing circles (past players & cricket historians in general), there's really a serious debate about whether Bradman is the greatest batsmen ever?

Yes nothing is objective in sport, but if any player was even close to objectively the best in any big team sport like football, cricket, baseball etc, it's Donald Bradman. The one guy who's so far ahead of the rest of the world it's not even funny.

 

[R0H1T]

You're not really serious about that argument are you?

Is that why all those other great batsmen of Bradman's time all averaged 80-100 as well is it? Haha

You know, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley etc? They averaged the same as the top batsmen of the last 40 years average. That's between 50-60, so your argument about timeless tests, uncovered wickets falls on it's head there.

What was Bradman's avg against the WI, they had a genuine quick in their ranks? Somewhere in the 70's & a shade under 90 vs Eng IIRC. He avg over a hundred against minnows India & SA(?) in a handful of tests & at home IIRC. You know what Voges' avg is against the WI in 5~6 tests he played against them?

Coming to his contemporaries, the only argument people have is that Hobbs/Hutton et al avg just about half. Well they did play against great pioneers of the game in Grimmett & O'Reilly, who avg just as low with the ball, & who's the best that Bradman faced?

Then onto the pitches, assuming you've watched the last test series between Ind/SA & probably the Mumbai test 2004. Now tell me had he played in a two test series in India on the Nagpur & Mumbai pitches, that I just mentioned, he'd avg over a 100 across 4 innings agsinst the likes of Kumble/Harbhajan/Jadeja/Ashwin? Likewise on the pitches that NZ gave us in 2002, they were worse than what Pak faced recently, I'd have love to see what the Don could've done against someone like a Bond let alone Hadlee.

Contemporariness & nostalgia, the latter in just hearsay, is one thing but if you're just looking at the avg (which most people do) & then reminiscing about how the Don could've dominated across eras facing the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Kumble, Hadlee, Imran, Steyn on their turf & in conditions that'd favor these bowlers, massively at times, & still avg over 100 then keep living in that bubble. I laud you & the rest for faith you have in Don.

 

[Snatch]

What was Bradman's avg against the WI, they had a genuine quick in their ranks? Somewhere in the 70's & a shade under 90 vs Eng IIRC. He avg over a hundred against minnows India & SA(?) in a handful of tests & at home IIRC. You know what Voges' avg is against the WI in 5~6 tests he played against them?

Coming to his contemporaries, the only argument people have is that Hobbs/Hutton et al avg just about half. Well they did play against great pioneers of the game in Grimmett & O'Reilly, who avg just as low with the ball, & who's the best that Bradman faced?

Then onto the pitches, assuming you've watched the last test series between Ind/SA & probably the Mumbai test 2004. Now tell me had he played in a two test series in India on the Nagpur & Mumbai pitches, that I just mentioned, he'd avg over a 100 across 4 innings agsinst the likes of Kumble/Harbhajan/Jadeja/Ashwin? Likewise on the pitches that NZ gave us in 2002, they were worse than what Pak faced recently, I'd have love to see what the Don could've done against someone like a Bond let alone Hadlee.

Contemporariness & nostalgia, the latter in just hearsay, is one thing but if you're just looking at the avg (which most people do) & then reminiscing about how the Don could've dominated across eras facing the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Kumble, Hadlee, Imran, Steyn on their turf & in conditions that'd favor these bowlers, massively at times, & still avg over 100 then keep living in that bubble. I laud you & the rest for faith you have in Don.

You know nobody can respond with an answer to any of those hypothetical scenarios about Don facing Bond, Ashwin etc, so what's the point of raising them?

The only thing we can look at is how other batsmen in the world performed in Bradman's era. The problem for you here is the very best of them averaged the same as the very best batsmen do today, between 50-60, just like the Sachin's, Pontings, Laras, Sanga etc of this era do. Imagine is one of those guys averaged 40-50 more than the next best?

Whether the conditions were different with pace of the bowlers, the fact they didn't have helmets back then, the bat size difference, the uncovered pitches etc etc are all irrelevant because it's just speculation.

What's not speculation & what we do know objectively is Bradman was pretty much twice as good all of other great batsmen of his era, meanwhile, Tendulkar is just in a group of batsmen from the last 25-30 years who really can't be split except based on anything except personal preference, since Sachin had the most runs, Kallis the best hundreds ratio, Sanga the best average & Ponting the best scoring rate overall, and Lara the best most impactful innings.

The battle of the modern day batsman is a very interesting debate.

The battle of the greatest batsmen ever isn't so interesting because there's only ever been one even who's been nearly twice as good as all the rest.

 

[R0H1T]

You know nobody can respond with an answer to any of those hypothetical scenarios about Don facing Bond, Ashwin etc, so what's the point of raising them?

You tell me, you went from uncovered pitches, no protective gear (timeless tests?) to how far ahead he was as compared to the best batters at that time?

Then when I bring into the debate facts such as professionalism wasn't even a thing beck then, to comparing his avg against someone like a Voges you conveniently fall back to the same argument & you know what that is. The fact is Don basically played on
two kinds of surfaces, one in Eng & the ones at home, & he never faced anything remotely close to the kind of bowling that the world dreaded in the 70's or 80's or even 90's. This is like Sehwag playing only against Pak, home & away, & then retiring after playing against the Zimbabwe of 2016.

The only thing we can look at is how other batsmen in the world performed in Bradman's era. The problem for you here is the very best of them averaged the same as the very best batsmen do today, between 50-60, just like the Sachin's, Pontings, Laras, Sanga etc of this era do. Imagine is one of those guys averaged 40-50 more than the next best?

Whether the conditions were different with pace of the bowlers, the fact they didn't have helmets back then, the bat size difference, the uncovered pitches etc etc are all irrelevant because it's just speculation.

What's not speculation & what we do know objectively is Bradman was pretty much twice as good all of other great batsmen of his era, meanwhile, Tendulkar is just in a group of batsmen from the last 25-30 years who really can't be split except based on anything except personal preference, since Sachin had the most runs, Kallis the best hundreds ratio, Sanga the best average & Ponting the best scoring rate overall, and Lara the best most impactful innings.

The battle of the modern day batsman is a very interesting debate.

The battle of the greatest batsmen ever isn't so interesting because there's only ever been one even who's been nearly twice as good as all the rest.

Well that's your opinion & not a fact. The facts are he never got expose in conditions too alien too him, never faced attacks stronger than his (at least over a period of time) & never faced the scrutiny of DRS or video footage exposing all his moves, or weaknesses.

To objectively say some as the greatest ever, like I've said is impossible, however if you're to add the caveat that he's the greatest batter of his era or an era with timeless tests, lesser bowlers, less professionals so on & so forth. Looking at his avg, I can say that he's the most prolific run scorer against the kind of opposition he faced, but if you're not comparing teams of the past with the ones of today, or 90's when the batting avg were at an all time low after WWII, then you're simply putting an objective cloak over your subjective spin.

 

[Snatch]

You tell me, you went from uncovered pitches, no protective gear (timeless tests?) to how far ahead he was as compared to the best batters at that time?

Then when I bring into the debate facts such as professionalism wasn't even a thing beck then, to comparing his avg against someone like a Voges you conveniently fall back to the same argument & you know what that is. The fact is Don basically played on
two kinds of surfaces, one in Eng & the ones at home, & he never faced anything remotely close to the kind of bowling that the world dreaded in the 70's or 80's or even 90's. This is like Sehwag playing only against Pak, home & away, & then retiring after playing against the Zimbabwe of 2016.

Well that's your opinion & not a fact. The facts are he never got expose in conditions too alien too him, never faced attacks stronger than his (at least over a period of time) & never faced the scrutiny of DRS or video footage exposing all his moves, or weaknesses.

To objectively say some as the greatest ever, like I've said is impossible, however if you're to add the caveat that he's the greatest batter of his era or an era with timeless tests, lesser bowlers, less professionals so on & so forth. Looking at his avg, I can say that he's the most prolific run scorer against the kind of opposition he faced, but if you're not comparing teams of the past with the ones of today, or 90's when the batting avg were at an all time low after WWII, then you're simply putting an objective cloak over your subjective spin.

Sorry what attacks were Australia's other great batsmen of Bradman's time facing? And what roads were they playing on? And why was Ponsford (probably the 2nd best aussie bat in Bradman's era) average just 48?

You logic doesn't follow because you're raising these points as if Bradman had significantly different conditions to bat on than other batsmen of his era (again the only thing we can actually compare with any objectivity).

 

[Tusker]

It would be good if you could come up with a convincing argument that proves Sachin is even the best batsman in his own era, before taking on this absurd argument that he's better than the guy who's basically twice as good as any batsmen to play.

I'd like to know how there's any actual proof that Tendulkar is any better than the likes of Sanga, Ponting, Kallis, Lara etc apart from the fact he played for longer. I maintain when it comes to those guys mentioned, it comes down to personal preference only. Their records are all about the same and they all pretty much faced the same bowlers within reason, Tendulkar played a little longer, Kallis has the best century per innings ratio, Sanga has the best average & Ponting scored the fastest. So I think there's a pretty decent case for any of them.

Try making a convincing argument there before trying to pretend any Test batsman ever even comes close to Bradman. You're not fooling anyone (except a few uneducated Indian fans) and some ex cricketers who want to play up to the Indian media.

I already cited Warne once doing an interview for a NZ cricket show, and saying he quietly thought Lara was a better batsman than Sachin, but only after jokingly checking that the interview won't be shown in India.

Every big interview since then he's maintained they are about the same and couldn't split them.

To be clear, if someone does think Tendulkar was the best batsman from the last 30 years, I have no problem with that, just as I wouldn't with someone thinking it was Lara, because it's that close between 3-4 of them.

Remember the fiasco & outrage poor old Sangakarra faced after suggesting he personally thought Lara was the better of the two, he even said afterwards he regretted commenting about it after the reaction from sections of the Indian media.

lol ... Really ? Lara has exactly ZERO hundreds while facing Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Donald and he never had to face Ambrose, Walsh , Bishop ... and then he missed Steyn as he wasnt fit enough nor did he have the hunger to push the limits and last longer like Tendulkar who at age 37-38 was making bing runs against Steyn. Let me know if you want to bring in ODI stats ... so there goes the best contender of the lot you have from SRT's ERA.

Still waiting to get a clear answer from you about whether you agree that standards during Bradman's ERA were much poorer than Tendulkar's ERA and how it is fair to do a comparison with such vastly different standards.

 

[abhayjj]

Babar Azam

 

[Tusker]

You know nobody can respond with an answer to any of those hypothetical scenarios about Don facing Bond, Ashwin etc, so what's the point of raising them?

The only thing we can look at is how other batsmen in the world performed in Bradman's era. The problem for you here is the very best of them averaged the same as the very best batsmen do today, between 50-60, just like the Sachin's, Pontings, Laras, Sanga etc of this era do. Imagine is one of those guys averaged 40-50 more than the next best?

Again who decided this and on what basis ? The moment we look at any of the footage from that ERA it is like mickey-mouse cricket. How can you say that these people were the best cricketers and compare them to modern greats ?

Again watch this and let me know what you think about the quality of bowling : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRM6oQSuyI

 

[R0H1T]

Sorry what attacks were Australia's other great batsmen of Bradman's time facing? And what roads were they playing on? And why was Ponsford (probably the 2nd best aussie bat in Bradman's era) average just 48?

You logic doesn't follow because you're raising these points as if Bradman had significantly different conditions to bat on than other batsmen of his era (again the only thing we can actually compare with any objectivity).

What were O'Reilly & Grimmett's averages? What was Don's avg against Larwood? How many timeless tests he played? What about his avg against the WI, twice as good as his peers?

As for Ponsford, you do know that opening is the hardest job in cricket, don't you? How many openers, since WW1 avg over 50, against say batters in the middle order?

What about Bolt, he's won 100 metres sprint across three olympics, probably a feat never to be matched? How much further ahead is he vs his contemporaries, not much when you count the milliseconds! What about Phelps, Dhyanchand anyone?

Don's avg looks so good because he was a damn good player, it looks better because his contemporaries didn't take as much advantage of conditions as he did back then. When you're basically playing against a single opponent, England, & doing exceptionally well against them then it's bound to increase your average. But if it's only the average we're looking at, then surely Bevan must be the best ever ODI batter?

 

[Snatch]

lol ... Really ? Lara has exactly ZERO hundreds while facing Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Donald and he never had to face Ambrose, Walsh , Bishop ... and then he missed Steyn as he wasnt fit enough nor did he have the hunger to push the limits and last longer like Tendulkar who at age 37-38 was making bing runs against Steyn. Let me know if you want to bring in ODI stats ... so there goes the best contender of the lot you have from SRT's ERA.

Still waiting to get a clear answer from you about whether you agree that standards during Bradman's ERA were much poorer than Tendulkar's ERA and how it is fair to do a comparison with such vastly different standards.

Haha, So that's your argument for why Sachin > Lara in Tests is it? Ok

Would be almost as weak as me holding it against Tendulkar for never scoring a Hundred at the most prestigious place to play Test cricket (Lords) in spite of several attempts and suggesting the pressure might have been too much for him. Don't worry I wouldn't be that fickle to judge his whole career because he didn't score runs in the ground all overseas batsmen dream of scoring hundreds at.

Also, what have ODIs got to do with anything? And if we're including those, shall we also incoude Sachin's T20s numbers? Oh wait, you wouldn't want to do that, because he merely an average T20 batsman.

Anyone, never fear I was talking about Test cricket only. I prefer to debate forms of cricket separately, but if you wanted to talk about ODI then the best 3 ODI bats ever are Viv, AB & Kohli. Although the greatest innings under pressure has to be Ponting's 140 odd in the WC final when he was captain. I've never forget that for performing when the pressure as at it's peak.

 

[Snatch]

What were O'Reilly & Grimmett's averages? What was Don's avg against Larwood? How many timeless tests he played? What about his avg against the WI, twice as good as his peers?

As for Ponsford, you do know that opening is the hardest job in cricket, don't you? How many openers, since WW1 avg over 50, against say batters in the middle order?

Glad you mentioned that about opening being the toughest, so logically you must also think number 3 is tougher than number 4 as well yeah? You know the likes of Bradman and Ponting batted at 3 which means facing the music when an early wicket fell as opposed to Tendulkar getting that little more protection at 4?

Or do you not agree with that same logic when it's point against Sachin?

 

[Tusker]

Haha, So that's your argument for why Sachin > Lara in Tests is it? Ok

well remember my logic that I stated earlier to determine the best players ? The Best batsman must do well against the best bowlers ... unless you want to argue that those listed ( Wasim, Waqar, Donald , Steyn etc) arent the best .

Would be almost as weak as me holding it against Tendulkar for never scoring a Hundred at the most prestigious place to play Test cricket (Lords) in spite of several attempts and suggesting the pressure might have been too much for him. Don't worry I wouldn't be that fickle to judge his whole career because he didn't score runs in the ground all overseas batsmen dream of scoring hundreds at.

Also, what have ODIs got to do with anything? And if we're including those, shall we also incoude Sachin's T20s numbers? Oh wait, you wouldn't want to do that, because he merely an average T20 batsman.

Anyone, never fear I was talking about Test cricket only. I prefer to debate forms of cricket separately, but if you wanted to talk about ODI then the best 3 ODI bats ever are Viv, AB & Kohli. Although the greatest innings under pressure has to be Ponting's 140 odd in the WC final when he was captain. I've never forget that for performing when the pressure as at it's peak.

ODI's are also important. There is a reason why the premier world cricket event is in ODI's. As a overall player (Test + ODI ) nobody comes closer to SRT right now.

 

[Snatch]

well remember my logic that I stated earlier to determine the best players ? The Best batsman must do well against the best bowlers ... unless you want to argue that those listed ( Wasim, Waqar, Donald , Steyn etc) arent the best .




ODI's are also important. There is a reason why the premier world cricket event is in ODI's. As a overall player (Test + ODI ) nobody comes closer to SRT right now.

Sorry but you can't conveniently decide to combine 2 of the 3 forms together and ignore the 3rd one just because Sachin was ordinary at it, you're giving your game up doing that. There are T20 world cups too and none for Test cricket, but Tests are far more important in my opinion, so the world cup thing is kind of irrelevant to me, especially considering we can't compare past players pre 1970 who didn't play white ball cricket.

Which I why I think it's better just speaking about the forms separately.

 

[R0H1T]

Glad you mentioned that about opening being the toughest, so logically you must also think number 3 is tougher than number 4 as well yeah? You know the likes of Bradman and Ponting batted at 3 which means facing the music when an early wicket fell as opposed to Tendulkar getting that little more protection at 4?

Or do you not agree with that same logic when it's point against Sachin?

So SRT opening in ODI's? He gets extra brownie points for that as well? What about middle order batting in 3/4th innings in India, much harder than opening (in India) or number 3 in Aus?

I'm not arguing at this point in time, objectively speaking, that SRT is the best ever. But I don't accept this tired notion that Bradman was the best ever because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries. This is like someone saying Murali is the best bowler ever, because he took 6 wickets per match & no one else (from his era) comes close!

 

[Tusker]

Sorry but you can't conveniently decide to combine 2 of the 3 forms together and ignore the 3rd one just because Sachin was ordinary at it, you're giving your game up doing that. There are T20 world cups too and none for Test cricket, but Tests are far more important in my opinion, so the world cup thing is kind of irrelevant to me, especially considering we can't compare past players pre 1970 who didn't play white ball cricket.

Which I why I think it's better just speaking about the forms separately.

Its not me who decided it. Its the fans and the ICC. Thats why they have ODI worldcup. And most fans in Asia are mostly into ODIs but not surprising why you are shying away from ODI's. Anyway Iam ok with sticking to Test Cricket and I have already given you one good reason why SRT > Lara. Let me know if you need more reasons ... but will have to wait till tomorrow ...

 

[Snatch]

So SRT opening in ODI's? He gets extra brownie points for that as well? What about middle order batting in 3/4th innings in India, much harder than opening (in India) or number 3 in Aus?

I'm not arguing at this point in time, objectively speaking, that SRT is the best ever. But I don't accept this tired notion that Bradman was the best ever because he was so far ahead oh his contemporaries. This is like someone saying Murali is the best bowler ever, because he took 6 wickets per match no one else (from his era) comes close!

Read my previous post, I judge ODIs on their own as I do with Test cricket as I do with T20s. They are 3 quite different games. If there's any similarity, ODI and T20s are more similar.

I was talking about Test cricket and you made a great point that opening is the hardest skill, so when Ponsford got dismissed early on in Tests, guess who came in next at no 3?

Meanwhile Tendulkar had a little more protection batting at 4, and was so lucky to have someone as solid defensively as Dravid the wall at no 3 to protect him further.

I was just making sure since you mentioned opening is tougher in tests than number 3, that you will be consistent enough to say the same about no. 3 versus 4. Was that a yes to that?

 

[R0H1T]

I was just making sure since you mentioned opening is tougher in tests than number 3, that you will be consistent enough to say the same about no. 3 versus 4. Was that a yes to that?

Yes, obviously, just as people conveniently forget that Hobbs was an opener when assigning "Don twice as good as his peers" trophy to Bradman. Not to mention he started in an era where bowlers avg half of what they do today.

 

[Snatch]

Its not me who decided it. Its the fans and the ICC. Thats why they have ODI worldcup. And most fans in Asia are mostly into ODIs but not surprising why you are shying away from ODI's. Anyway Iam ok with sticking to Test Cricket and I have already given you one good reason why SRT > Lara. Let me know if you need more reasons ... but will have to wait till tomorrow ...

To be clear, I never made that claim. If we're talking test cricket, I don't think there's anything between Ponting, Lara, ST, Sanga and Kallis, it just comes down to personal preference.

I already said they all have their cases

ST - most runs
Sanga - best average
Ponting - best SR
Kallis - Best 100s conversion/match ratio
Lara - biggest innings and arguably most impactful innings

I say people will choose their favourites when it comes to these top batsmen because for any meaningful analysis to be done in the case of any of them it will involve cherry picking certain statistics

 

[joly]

Best Batsman after Bradman in tests : Gavaskar/Sachin
Best Batsman after Bradman as a match winner : Lara

 

[Snatch]

Yes, obviously, just as people conveniently forget that Hobbs was an opener when assigning "Don twice as good as his peers" trophy to Bradman. Not to mention he started in an era where bowlers avg half of what they do today.

So how much more should a 3 have to average more than an opener in your mind for parity then and how much more should a 4 have to average more than a 3?

Careful because depending on how much you think could be an argument against Sachin vs all the others who batted at 3.

 

[Snatch]

Its not me who decided it. Its the fans and the ICC. Thats why they have ODI worldcup. And most fans in Asia are mostly into ODIs but not surprising why you are shying away from ODI's. Anyway Iam ok with sticking to Test Cricket and I have already given you one good reason why SRT > Lara. Let me know if you need more reasons ... but will have to wait till tomorrow ...

I don't let fans decide for me which is the more important form of the game, & if we did, then it would be T20s these days anyway, even in India.

More people think Sachin is the best only because there's 1.4 million people in India. If Lara was Indian and Sachin West Indian, it would be reversed and i think deep down you know it.

 

[R0H1T]

So how much more should a 3 have to average more than an opener in your mind for parity then and how much more should a 4 have to average more than a 3?
Careful because depending on how much you think could be an argument against Sachin vs all the others who batted at 3.

I've already stated multiple times that I don't use avg to declare someone twice as good as the next best, let alone the best ever. Stats can be manipulated anyway we want, what was Bradman's avg against the googly (his last ball?) of a legspinner. Taking that as a gauge then SRT is the best ever, seeing how he manhandled Warne time & again.

It seems you only have one card to play, avg & that isn't something that many of us consider as some irrefutable measure of greatness, beyond scrutiny! Elsewhere Sydney Barnes is the best bowler ever, seeing his avg.

 

[transitional]

Sunil Gavaskar.

 

[Snatch]

I've already stated multiple times that I don't use avg to declare someone twice as good as the next best, let alone the best ever. Stats can be manipulated anyway we want, what was Bradman's avg against the googly (his last ball?) of a legspinner. Taking that as a gauge then SRT is the best ever, seeing how he manhandled Warne time & again.

It seems you only have one card to play, avg & that isn't something that many of us consider as some irrefutable measure of greatness, beyond scrutiny! Elsewhere Sydney Barnes is the best bowler ever, seeing his avg.

Haha, Of course anyone arguing for Sachin wouldn't be a fan of using averages, because his average was no better than the other great batsmen of his era, so clever move on your part, I wouldn't use average either if I was trying to make a case for Sachin.

So now we've moved to picking random good bowlers Sachin's had success against and using them as the yardstick yeah?

Will the same logic follow if I find some bowlers he didn't go well against? Or will we move to some other criteria at that point?

It's always fun debating any Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis fan from this era, because since their records are so similar, they all have their own fun things that they rope into the argument which become the be all and end all to them.

Someone mentioned the 2002 tour to NZ earlier, and if I recall correctly Dravid was the best Indian batsman on those really green difficult wickets against Bond Tuffey and co and I recall Tendulkar averaging about 20 in 4 innings, but I'm sure you'll find some reason for discounting that fact by bringing up a good innings he played against Warne once.

Don't worry I won't use his terrible results on those green wickets in NZ, I'd rather look at his average, since that gives a much better picture of how good a batsman is.

 

[R0H1T]

Haha, Of course anyone arguing for Sachin wouldn't be a fan of using averages, because his average was no better than the other great batsmen of his era, so clever move on your part, I would use average either if I was trying to make a case for Sachin.

So now we've moved to picking random good bowlers Sachin's had success against and using them as the yardstick yeah?

Will the same logic follow if I find some bowlers he didn't go well against? Or will we move to some other criteria at that point?

It's always fun debating any Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis fan from this era, because since their records are so similar, they all have their own fun things that they rope into the argument which become the be all and end all to them.

Someone mentioned the 2002 tour to NZ earlier, and if I recall correctly Dravid was the best Indian batsman on those really green difficult wickets against Bond Tuffey and co and I recall Tendulkar averaging about 20 in 4 innings, but I'm sure you'll find some reason for discounting that fact by bringing up a good innings he played against Warne once.

Don't worry I won't use his terrible results on those green wickets in NZ, I'd rather look at his average, since that gives a much better picture of how good a batsman is.

No because at his peak he played less than half the matches that Sanga, Kallis, Ponting played when they hit their purple patch. What was Sanga's avg in India, SA, Eng? His avg in the last two series against Pak & India, also why didn't he play all six games? Played only 4 IIRC.

Sure find me half a dozen bowlers of the quality of Mcgrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Murali that Don faced.

Only when you don't dig in deeper, when you do SRT & Lara come out a fair bit ahead with Ponting, Kallis, Sanga at least a notch below.

Surely better than no name bowlers who disappeared, into obscurity, after a series or two.

Dravid wasn't the best, it was Sehwag & btw it wasn't just 2 matches rather 9 innings across 2 formats.

Just once, you must've missed the ones in MCG & Chennai in 2001?

 

[street cricketer]

SRT for the sheer number of boxes he ticked as a batsman. There have been better batsmen than him during various periods of time, but none had as many facets to his game as Tendulkar did.

If a 21 or 22 year old batsman hit consecutive centuries overseas, he would've been hyped as the best batsman in the world. To put things into perspective, Sachin hit his first century in the 4th innings to save a test for India at Manchester as a 17 year old in 1989 and then hit another 90 odd against Hadlee at Napier at the same age. He then followed it up with consecutive centuries at Sydney and Perth in Australia, and then toured South Africa and hit another century there at Jo'burg against Donald & co, all within 18 years of age. It is a feat which I don't think will ever be repeated again in history. He was the complete batsman by 20 years of age averaging over 50 in test cricket. Fame and popularity could've easily went into the head of any other lesser player and his career could've easily fizzled out after a bright start. But to think that he sustained that form and passion over 24 years, when other players are struggling to have a 10 year duration at the top is simply mind boggling.

One of the best battles of this decade came in South Africa between a peak Steyn and a 37 year old Tendulkar in 2010. Steyn was in rampage mode running through everyone else when India were trying to save a match at Centurion. Tendulkar stood resolutely amidst all the carnage and Steyn actually said that it was the only time he got frustrated as Sachin was easily picking his inswingers and outswingers. Eventhough that knock ended ultimately in vain, it was one of the best battles you could hope to see between two top players. That he was able to perform at his best even at 37-38 years of age in alien conditions against by far the only ATG bowler of this era at his peak is a testament to the impeccable technique of him and his amazing durability. I have seen many great players who have performed similar to Sachin's level in test cricket, but none for as long as he managed to do in his career. Even at his worst phase with all his reflexes lost during his last year or so when his team was getting demolished 4 nil in Australia , he still managed to average in mid thirties iirc.

As far as ODI cricket was concerned, even though he was very very good, I've seen better players. Ponting was more attacking than him, Kohli atm looks much more clutch in pressure situations than Sachin during chases, AB is far more devastating than Sachin ever was. But one thing that goes in Sachin's favour was that he was a great big match player, among the best I've seen. There is a subtle difference between a pressure player and a big match player. Even the bilateral jamodi matches come with their own pressure situations where you need a clutch player to chase down huge totals like Kohli who is unbelievably good in that aspect. But there are certain big matches and regardless of whether the match situation is difficult or not, you need your best players to stand up in those matches and make it count for your team. Sachin and Ponting were huge big match players and hence their outstanding world cup record which Kohli atm doesn't have in ODIs. Secondly both Sachin and Ponting did it against far tougher bowlers in less batting friendly conditions and that always goes in their favour.

Overall Sachin, Lara and Ponting are the three best players I've seen in my time watching cricket. Ponting was less rounded batsman than the other two in test cricket but was probably the best ODI bat among the three. Lara was similarly great in test cricket but his stock falls when you take longevity and ODIs into consideration. Sachin pulls ahead of the pack as he has a far more balanced record than the other two and was the best in the longer format. Again, there have been players who have performed at a better level than Tendulkar for some period of time. But to put it simply, if I want a batsman to bat for me with the pitch, match venue, conditions, opposition and their bowlers an unknown quantity, it would have to be SRT as he came on top against the best of bowlers in one of the most difficult eras of batting.

 

[Snatch]

No because at his peak he played less than half the matches that Sanga, Kallis, Ponting played when they hit their purple patch. What was Sanga's avg in India, SA, Eng? His avg in the last two series against Pak & India, also why didn't he play all six games? Played only 4 IIRC.

Sure find me half a dozen bowlers of the quality of Mcgrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Murali that Don faced.

Only when you don't dig in deeper, when you do SRT & Lara come out a fair bit ahead with Ponting, Kallis, Sanga at least a notch below.

Surely better than no name bowlers who disappeared, into obscurity, after a series or two.

Dravid wasn't the best, it was Sehwag & btw it wasn't just 2 matches rather 9 innings across 2 formats.

Just once, you must've missed the ones in MCG & Chennai in 2001?

Haha buddy, let's just stick to the debate as to why Sachin should be considered the best out of that group of batsmen in his own era I mentioned. I say you can't really split them and it just comes down to personal preference, even if Sanga's averages 6-7 more than Sachin did.

I'm not bothering to argue anymore about Bradman, because if people are just going to discount the guy who statistically could well be the greatest ever sportsman (let alone cricketer), then there's nothing more to say about him. Bradman deniers are almost as silly as holocaust deiners, he averaged 95 in FC too for those who want to say he never had to face his own countries bowlers.

Anyway, I'm sticking to the thread question and I don't think there is a clear no.2, If I was forced to say I'd probably go with Sobers from what I've read and heard about him, but older guys like Hammond, Hobbs & G Pollock get forgotten about which is sad.

 

[R0H1T]

Haha buddy, let's just stick to the debate as to why Sachin should be considered the best out of that group of batsmen in his own era I mentioned. I say you can't really split them and it just comes down to personal preference, even if Sanga's averages 6-7 more than Sachin did.

I'm not bothering to argue anymore about Bradman, because if people are just going to discount the guy who statistically could well be the greatest ever sportsman (let alone cricketer), then there's nothing more to say about him. Bradman deniers are almost as silly as holocaust deiners, he averaged 95 in FC too for those who want to say he never had to face his own countries bowlers.

Anyway, I'm sticking to the thread question and I don't think there is a clear no.2, If I was forced to say I'd probably go with Sobers from what I've read and heard about him, but older guys like Hammond, Hobbs & G Pollock get forgotten about which is sad.

Well for one you went from Bradman to Sachin, then took the same argument (avg) to discount Sachin just as that one figure which makes Don the best ever.

Sure for you, but statistically there are greater feats achieved in other sports. Like hockey, or (swimming) Olympics but don't let the facts bother you. You'll be hung up on the ms difference between the second best after Phelps or Bolt.

Of the batters that I've never seen (or scant) footage of, Don/Hobbs/Sobers would be my picks, in no particular order for obvious reasons. The modern era, since late 70's IMO, is different but in that SRT would be my pick.

 

[R0H1T]

While we're on the subject of general sports, I've love to know. Who are these players in Hockey or swimming that were nearly twice as good in their statistics as the next best in their sports?

Phelps might have more victories because it's an individual sport, and I agree he would be up there as a contender for that title, but in individual races, he wins be narrow margins. But he is a good call.

I'm more interested in whether there was a baseballer who had a batting average so good it was close to twice as good as anyone else whoever played the game, even if it was someone from the 1950s.

Babe Ruth's average is excellent but not that much better than other baseballers (the closest comparison we can make to cricket) and he's generally regarded as the greatest ever hitter.

Surely you've heard of (hockey maestro) Dhyanchand, Margaret Court for individual sports?

As for the comparison with baseball, it'd be more valid if Don played against half a dozen countries, home & away instead of just 2 or 3.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

I am going to pick from the players I have seen. And I think it is easily Tendulkar.

He domianted both the formats, thrashed best bowlers in the business and also did for 24 years!

 

[Tusker]

Same goes with Boxing, Basketball, Baseball and other sports. They still respect Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlin and Rocky Marciano. They were all ahead of every one else. One reason why Associate countries don't produce good batsmen is because their batsmen don't face quality bowlers enough to develop into a batsmen that would be comfortable enough to face Test members. If we we were to compare skills then Sachin can't play T20 like Virat Kohli, he knew that and that is why he quit after playing 1 T20i. In that sense, Kohli is ahead of Sachin as he can dominate in all formats.

Doesn't matter what other sports do ... prove that it makes logical sense and that most importantly it is a fair level playing field for every ERA ... don't expect people to just accept your views and opinions just as I don't expect you to accept mine. The question is very simple why should I accept a player as a better batsman than any Modern great when the said player (Bradman) mostly had to deal with innocuous bowlers like Bedser whom he rated as the best he faced ?.

You are wrong about Tendulkars T20 abilities .... even at near 40 age he made a T20 hundred in IPL and proved that he could still adapt.

But you are right about the Associate batsmen ... and this is why Tendulkar is different . At Age 16 he was fairly comfortable facing the worlds best fast bowlers without having any such experience while playing for domestic teams. He remains the only teenager to make hundreds in Eng, SA and Aus.

 

[Tusker]

I don't let fans decide for me which is the more important form of the game, & if we did, then it would be T20s these days anyway, even in India.

More people think Sachin is the best only because there's 1.4 million people in India. If Lara was Indian and Sachin West Indian, it would be reversed and i think deep down you know it.

It is not just Indians like you want to paint it ... most famously Bradman himself rated Tendulkar very highly and this was when he had not even completed a third of his career.

 

[Snatch]

It is not just Indians like you want to paint it ... most famously Bradman himself rated Tendulkar very highly and this was when he had not even completed a third of his career.

Stop citing what individuals said here and there. Bradman commented that Sachin reminded of him at the crease due to their short stature, both bring 5'5.

Are you questioning that the general consensus across the cricketing community (educated cricket fans, past players & historians & NOT passive Indian fans) is that Don Bradman isn't the greatest batsman ever and by absolutely miles?

Regardless of your opinion and the opinion on an Asian cricket forum, are you honestly saying that across cricket historians there's even a question about Bradman being the best?

 

[Tusker]

Stop citing what individuals said here and there. Bradman commented that Sachin reminded of him at the crease due to their short stature, both bring 5'5.

Are you questioning that the general consensus across the cricketing community (educated cricket fans, past players & historians & NOT passive Indian fans) is that Don Bradman isn't the greatest batsman ever and by absolutely miles?

Its not here and there ... Tendulkar is the first player to raise a serious challenge to Bradmans spot. You are going to find it very hard to disagree. And since when did all Indians become impartial and all Pakistanis and the rest of the cricket world become neutral ?

Regardless of your opinion and the opinion on an Asian cricket forum, are you honestly saying that across cricket historians there's even a question about Bradman being the best?

Absolutely ... if it was so beyond any doubt why haven't you yet answered my very simple question on how it is fair to rate a player as the Best Ever who only played against innocuous fast bowlers as seen in that video clip? Feel free to logically explain that in such a way that it makes proper cricketing sense. As far as I know nobody thinks very highly of players who rack up runs against lesser standards. This is where you will try to turn the discussion to somewhere else instead of answering the question.

It is very easy to make one sided proclamations and claim victory. Much difficult to substantiate your opinions through proper reasoning and logic.

 

[Snatch]

Its not here and there ... Tendulkar is the first player to raise a serious challenge to Bradmans spot. You are going to find it very hard to disagree. And since when did all Indians become impartial and all Pakistanis and the rest of the cricket world become neutral ?



Absolutely ... if it was so beyond any doubt why haven't you yet answered my very simple question on how it is fair to rate a player as the Best Ever who only played against innocuous fast bowlers as seen in that video clip? Feel free to logically explain that in such a way that it makes proper cricketing sense. As far as I know nobody thinks very highly of players who rack up runs against lesser standards. This is where you will try to turn the discussion to somewhere else instead of answering the question.

It is very easy to make one sided proclamations and claim victory. Much difficult to substantiate your opinions through proper reasoning and logic.

What are you talking about? You're still failing to realize that on uncovered wickets, spin bowlers were much more potent.

That's like playing someone in the year 2050 a clip of Murali or Warne bowling and laughing how slow they looked... they're spinners. You keep going on about Bedser, he was a medium bowler, he was never thought of as fast, it's like a McGrath & Philander look pedestrian compared with Bond or Lee on videos clips, doesn't mean they weren't better bowlers.

To balance the fact bowlers might have been quicker overall in Sachin's era, you need to acknowledge the old uncovered pitches had incredibly variable bounce, they obviously didn't have helmets, which makes an enormous difference, and general protective gear was no effective compared to today, no body guards, hip guards, chest guards etc. You see to be missing that part. Players today play the short ball with abandonment because they can just take it on the helmet, you see it all the time. In Bradman's era you risk being killed if you miss a short ball, which makes an enormous difference.

Tendulkar is no more a challenge to Bradman's batting spot that any of the others in his era (lara, ponting, sanga, kallis) and he's less of a challenge than Sobers was. Remembering Sobers not only averaged close to 58, but scored his runs at an incredible rate.

And yes there's obviously a huge difference in how Indian's (and Asian countries as a general rule) view Tendulkar compared to the rest of the cricketing world, everyone knows this, that's why it's so funny.

Forget Australia, because obviously everyone there will say Bradman, but you ask West Indian cricket historians, English historians, SA historians, NZ historians, and there's only ONE name when talking greatest batsman, and it's Bradman, everyone knows this. You have to go top India or Asian countries to hear Tendulkar.

And it's be really surprised if you're seriously suggesting that among Pakistan and Sri lankan cricketing historians, that the general consensus isn't that Bradman is the greatest ever batsman and no contest.

I'm not talking about a few on this cricket forum who seem to have no appreciation of cricket history and the different challenges of cricket 50-60 years ago, I'm talking proper educated historians. I don't buy it that that top cricket historians from Pakistan suggest Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Sanga or any of them come close to Bradman.

I can however believe young Indian and Pakistanis on this forum are brought to somehow believe these modern players were better than Bradman, but that is a common trait among young sports fans the world over, I read a boxing forum the other day with your fans suggesting today's boxing heavyweights are greater than Ali & young soccer fans to the same with modern players being better than Pele. It's all too common.

 

[TestMatch]

Lara has exactly ZERO hundreds while facing Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Donald and he never had to face Ambrose, Walsh , Bishop ... and then he missed Steyn as he wasnt fit enough nor did he have the hunger to push the limits and last longer like Tendulkar who at age 37-38 was making bing runs against Steyn

Lara averages exactly the same vs Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar and Donald as Tendulkar (32). He played Ambrose and Walsh heavily on the domestic circuit and handled them fine. He didn't "not play Steyn because he was not fit", he did not play Steyn because he was pushed off the West Indies team 2 years prematurely by the WICB (Steyn first played the WI in 08).

 

[Thivagar]

Doesn't matter what other sports do ... prove that it makes logical sense and that most importantly it is a fair level playing field for every ERA ... don't expect people to just accept your views and opinions just as I don't expect you to accept mine. The question is very simple why should I accept a player as a better batsman than any Modern great when the said player (Bradman) mostly had to deal with innocuous bowlers like Bedser whom he rated as the best he faced ?.

You are wrong about Tendulkars T20 abilities .... even at near 40 age he made a T20 hundred in IPL and proved that he could still adapt.

But you are right about the Associate batsmen ... and this is why Tendulkar is different . At Age 16 he was fairly comfortable facing the worlds best fast bowlers without having any such experience while playing for domestic teams. He remains the only teenager to make hundreds in Eng, SA and Aus.

It does matter what other sports do, because cricket is no different and neither is the history of every other sport. No sports has declined since its early days in a constant tangent. You get dry period here and there like we have now where there isn't many quality spinners compared to 15 to 20 years ago. Like you said, why should you accept Sachin as a modern day great when Kohli is a better batsmen, can play all 3 formats, and a way better captain ? Lets not talk about Sachin's bowling skills on 4th and 5th day rank turners.

Why are we talking about IPL when it is about international cricket? The likes of Sammy, Dwayne Smith, Andre Russel and Pollard look like superstars in IPL while they look mediocre when facing international bowlers with little bit of brain.

LOL at the ATG bowlers that bowled to him at that match. Indians still lost that match LMAOOO.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2011/engine/current/match/501210.html

Every sport is constantly developing, so is Cricket. Gone are the days of Boon and Ranatunga. In a decade or two, every fast bowler will hit 150s constantly and spinners will turn much more. Cricket will be very advanced then. We'll have another ATG dominating the game, then we'll have people debating who was better than who. Sachin then will be dismissed as someone who bullied trundlers bowling at 130s and spinners that turned 2 inches.

Sachin was a prodigy and no one disagrees with that. That doesn't mean there wasn't anyone that was never better than him.

 

[Tusker]

What are you talking about? You're still failing to realize that on uncovered wickets, spin bowlers were much more potent.

That's like playing someone in the year 2050 a clip of Murali or Warne bowling and laughing how slow they looked... they're spinners. You keep going on about Bedser, he was a medium bowler, he was never thought of as fast, it's like a McGrath & Philander look pedestrian compared with Bond or Lee on videos clips, doesn't mean they weren't better bowlers.

To balance the fact bowlers might have been quicker overall in Sachin's era, you need to acknowledge the old uncovered pitches had incredibly variable bounce, they obviously didn't have helmets, which makes an enormous difference, and general protective gear was no effective compared to today, no body guards, hip guards, chest guards etc. You see to be missing that part. Players today play the short ball with abandonment because they can just take it on the helmet, you see it all the time. In Bradman's era you risk being killed if you miss a short ball, which makes an enormous difference.

1. Uncovered wkts are deadly only when it rains and you happen to bat AFTER the rain delay while the pitch isnt completely dry. Bradman ran into such situations very rarely and his performance is not good at all for you to claim that he was some magician in such situations. Its one of the worst ever Cricket myths that uncovered wkts = un playable wkts. Infact he famously reveresed the batting lineup sending in tailenders to open in order to buy time so that the pitch dries up by the time he got to bat at No7. You do this today and you will be ridiculed and trolled and you will never hear the end of it. Like I said these are all classic cases of Amateur ERA cricket ... nobody plays cricket like this anymore.

2. I didnt pick Bedser out of thin air just like that ... Bradman himself considers Bedser as the best bowler that he faced. Now when you compare him to the best bowlers of Tendulkars time it is a joke.

3. In Bradmans time the un-written rule was to never hurt the batsman. Except for the Bodyline series where he avged in the 50s. You must read Bradmans reaction to this tactic and it just sounds hilarious. This is the difference between a veteran Test player like Bradman and a 16 year old Tendulkar who took on seasoned veterans in his very first tour without complaining. Had the Phil Hughes incident happened in that series the crowd would have killed some English players. Very different times.And no nobody really plays the short ball with abandonment. We must be watching completely different games. Today the speed , skill levels are such that the bowlers can still hurt you no matter how much protection you put on. I present to you Hameed the english opener who broke is hand dealing with a unplayable express short ball (not bouncer BTW you can bowl them as many as you want even today ... another myth !).

4. I can show you clips of McGrath bowling at 140K's. So dont try to portray him as Medium Pace trundler. Wheras Bedser most certainly is a innocuous bowler.

Tendulkar is no more a challenge to Bradman's batting spot that any of the others in his era (lara, ponting, sanga, kallis) and he's less of a challenge than Sobers was. Remembering Sobers not only averaged close to 58, but scored his runs at an incredible rate.

And yes there's obviously a huge difference in how Indian's (and Asian countries as a general rule) view Tendulkar compared to the rest of the cricketing world, everyone knows this, that's why it's so funny.

Forget Australia, because obviously everyone there will say Bradman, but you ask West Indian cricket historians, English historians, SA historians, NZ historians, and there's only ONE name when talking greatest batsman, and it's Bradman, everyone knows this. You have to go top India or Asian countries to hear Tendulkar.

And it's be really surprised if you're seriously suggesting that among Pakistan and Sri lankan cricketing historians, that the general consensus isn't that Bradman is the greatest ever batsman and no contest.

I'm not talking about a few on this cricket forum who seem to have no appreciation of cricket history and the different challenges of cricket 50-60 years ago, I'm talking proper educated historians. I don't buy it that that top cricket historians from Pakistan suggest Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Sanga or any of them come close to Bradman.

I can however believe young Indian and Pakistanis on this forum are brought to somehow believe these modern players were better than Bradman, but that is a common trait among young sports fans the world over, I read a boxing forum the other day with your fans suggesting today's boxing heavyweights are greater than Ali & young soccer fans to the same with modern players being better than Pele. It's all too common.

Again if it is so obvious and irrefutable lets see all the reasons and logic ... the facts should speak for themselves and settle the debate in your favour. Doesnt seems to be happening isnt it ?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Stop citing what individuals said here and there. Bradman commented that Sachin reminded of him at the crease due to their short stature, both bring 5'5.

Can you prove this please ?


Thanks..

 

[Tusker]

Lara averages exactly the same vs Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar and Donald as Tendulkar (32). He played Ambrose and Walsh heavily on the domestic circuit and handled them fine. He didn't "not play Steyn because he was not fit", he did not play Steyn because he was pushed off the West Indies team 2 years prematurely by the WICB (Steyn first played the WI in 08).

36.5 for SRT vs 32.5 for BCL to be precise

But it includes 4 inngs that are masterclasses in batting - 169, 194 , 136 and 111. Another reason why stats and raw avg's don't always tell you the full story. It took three tours of SAF for Lara to finally score a hundred there (After Allan Donald had retired). And I dont think he ever faced Shoaib in a Test match.

 

[Romali_rotti]

36.5 for SRT vs 32.5 for BCL to be precise

But it includes 4 inngs that are masterclasses in batting - 169, 194 , 136 and 111. Another reason why stats and raw avg's don't always tell you the full story. It took three tours of SAF for Lara to finally score a hundred there (After Allan Donald had retired). And I dont think he ever faced Shoaib in a Test match.

There is no point arguing who was better between SRT & LARA, they are both in the same class imo. Only difference was that SRT's batting was just better to watch, LARA was very unattractive, his strokes were all over the place and that constant jumping in the crease was ugly.. However Lara had the ability to play that innings with the huge score aka 400 which SRT could not do.

 

[Tusker]

It does matter what other sports do, because cricket is no different and neither is the history of every other sport. No sports has declined since its early days in a constant tangent. You get dry period here and there like we have now where there isn't many quality spinners compared to 15 to 20 years ago. Like you said, why should you accept Sachin as a modern day great when Kohli is a better batsmen, can play all 3 formats, and a way better captain ? Lets not talk about Sachin's bowling skills on 4th and 5th day rank turners.

Because Kohli hasnt played enough Test Cricket yet.

Why are we talking about IPL when it is about international cricket? The likes of Sammy, Dwayne Smith, Andre Russel and Pollard look like superstars in IPL while they look mediocre when facing international bowlers with little bit of brain.

LOL at the ATG bowlers that bowled to him at that match. Indians still lost that match LMAOOO.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2011/engine/current/match/501210.html

You were the one that decided to introduce T20s and I never claimed the 100 was against ATG's ... Iam going to resist the temptation to do the peurile LMAO's as it doesnt really add anything.

Every sport is constantly developing, so is Cricket. Gone are the days of Boon and Ranatunga. In a decade or two, every fast bowler will hit 150s constantly and spinners will turn much more. Cricket will be very advanced then. We'll have another ATG dominating the game, then we'll have people debating who was better than who. Sachin then will be dismissed as someone who bullied trundlers bowling at 130s and spinners that turned 2 inches.

Do Shoaib, Bond, Mitch, Steyn, Waqar and Brett Lee appear as bowling at 130 Ks wherever you are watching Cricket ? likewise did Murali, WArne, Saqlain, Qadir only spin by 2 inches ? How about being realistic and practical for once instead of trying to doggedly play down things by gross exxageration ?

But to answer your question ... yes if standards go so high that todays cricket footage appears comically slow and cringeworthy then yes it similarly makes anyone arguing for Tendulkar as the best really stupid. I certainly wont be that person. I have no problems moving on with time and respect its say. You on the other hand might want to go the opposite direction and cling on to Bradman as the best.

Sachin was a prodigy and no one disagrees with that.

Thank lord for the small mercies !!

That doesn't mean there wasn't anyone that was never better than him.

Prove it through logic, reason and facts that make cricketing sense instead of parroting second hand hearsay.

 

[Tusker]

There is no point arguing who was better between SRT & LARA, they are both in the same class imo. Only difference was that SRT's batting was just better to watch, LARA was very unattractive, his strokes were all over the place and that constant jumping in the crease was ugly.. However Lara had the ability to play that innings with the huge score aka 400 which SRT could not do.

Beg to disagree ... absence of noteworthy inngs against numerous top bowlers of his time is a big hole. Another way to seperate is their H2H on same pitches. Tendulkar is again the winner despite the WI bowling being superior.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Yes but the topic here is who is the ATG batsman. With benefit of hindsight I do know that there have been better bowlers than those 3.




100 yrs ? In about 10-15 yrs we might have a new king as Kohli is making some special strides as is Smith ... such is life ... it doesn't wait for Bradman or Sobers or Tendulkar or Lara or anyone. But it would be foolish to NOT recognize special talents just because some old farts who are unable to come to terms with reality said so.. And BTW I have previously answered this question so not sure why you are getting worked up.



Easy there Dr saab ... calm down ... see above.

Then you have to admit that Tendulkar is the best batsmen of this era.

Not all time.

Because back in 1940s Tendulkar didn't exist and he very well couldn't be the best batsmen of that era when he wasn't even born.

Best Batsmen of this era Tendulkar.

Best Batsmen of previous era Bradman

Best batsmen of all time - cannot be said definitely because previous people were too slow and modern ones will be too much better.

Your argument, not mine.

 

[Tusker]

Then you have to admit that Tendulkar is the best batsmen of this era.

Not all time.

Because back in 1940s Tendulkar didn't exist and he very well couldn't be the best batsmen of that era when he wasn't even born.

Best Batsmen of this era Tendulkar.

Best Batsmen of previous era Bradman

Best batsmen of all time - cannot be said definitely because previous people were too slow and modern ones will be too much better.

Your argument, not mine.

This is what I said in my first or 2nd post in this thread .. its best to separate the ERA's and never mix the twain!.

However there is no doubt whatsoever that the Modern ERA is the one that will find it much easier to adjust to the older ERA and excel than otherway around. This is simple logical deduction but still unfair to the older generations as they will say you cannot be certain they would adapt.

 

[Pakpak]

It doesnt matter if they were better than the amateurs or not. If you look at any of the surviving footage it is pretty obvious that what we call Amateur standards today were probably better than the Pro's.



Yes its all mentioned in that link I posted in my previous post. It only goes to show how ridiculous the administrators were.



What great resources and training did Akram, Imran, Waqar, Tendulkar, Sunny etc have during their development years ?

Perhaps you dont know this but Bradmans record on Wet Wickets is very poor. And uncovered wkts dont automatically mean difficult wkt. Otherwise there would be no need for Timeless tests and 6 day tests and you would never see 400+ scores by any team. It only becomes a problem when it rains and the unlucky team that happens to be batting at that time would suffer when they come on to bat after a rain interruption. Basically it was a lottery. It again suggests how idiotic the thinking was. The funny thing is they would cover the bowlers runup but not the wkt. All these things point to a ERA that was woefully amateur in nature and should never be compared to the Professional ERA.

I agree word for word.

Applies to both cricket, boxing and snooker. The stances, the way they played in the past was very amateurish. The stance, the way some batsmen hit their shots in the past or batted the way they did, they'd get laughed at today.

Fans of every sport live in the delusion that noone can surpass the bygone era greats.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

This is what I said in my first or 2nd post in this thread .. its best to separate the ERA's and never mix the twain!.

However there is no doubt whatsoever that the Modern ERA is the one that will find it much easier to adjust to the older ERA and excel than otherway around. This is simple logical deduction but still unfair to the older generations as they will say you cannot be certain they would adapt.

Yup.

Cant disagree with much there.

However, as you pointed out, it would be unfair to assume that batsmen of old era, if they lived in this era would be unable to perform because they would have the same experiences as Tendulkar or Lara had.

Do we punish them for being born in the wrong era?

That is my only difference.

Clearly you want to do that, and i cant punish someone for being born in the wrong time.

That is like saying that a doctor of 1700 cannot be a great doctor because knowledge at that time was limited and every doctor of modern era is better than him.

Of course he is. He has more books to read and more knowledge to apply. But does that mean a doctor of 1700 wasnt a great one? Hardly so.

 

[Chrish]

What would Bradman have averaged today ??

Anyone willing to guess?

 

[Tusker]

Yup.

Cant disagree with much there.

However, as you pointed out, it would be unfair to assume that batsmen of old era, if they lived in this era would be unable to perform because they would have the same experiences as Tendulkar or Lara had.

Do we punish them for being born in the wrong era?

That is my only difference.

Clearly you want to do that, and i cant punish someone for being born in the wrong time.

That is like saying that a doctor of 1700 cannot be a great doctor because knowledge at that time was limited and every doctor of modern era is better than him.

Of course he is. He has more books to read and more knowledge to apply. But does that mean a doctor of 1700 wasnt a great one? Hardly so.

Actually most of this nonsense was raked by Bradman / older era fanatics who got insecure after Tendulkars incredible career and began the mudslinging and ridiculing of modern players.

 

[Tusker]

I agree word for word.

Applies to both cricket, boxing and snooker. The stances, the way they played in the past was very amateurish. The stance, the way some batsmen hit their shots in the past or batted the way they did, they'd get laughed at today.

Fans of every sport live in the delusion that noone can surpass the bygone era greats.

Thanks ! Imagine if there wasnt any footage ... pretty sure that we would get shout down by angry fanatic fans outraged at questioning their heroes.

Perhaps this topic would make an interesting topic for human psychology studies.

 

[Snatch]

Again if it is so obvious and irrefutable lets see all the reasons and logic ... the facts should speak for themselves and settle the debate in your favour. Doesnt seems to be happening isnt it ?

The facts do speaks for themselves, but you deny them.

In Bradman's era, one batsman averaged 100 (99.94) and all the other very best averaged 50-60

In Tendulkar's era, several batsmen averaged 50-60, Tendulkar was just one of them & there were several who averaged higher.

They are the facts, everything else such as hypothetical questions whether Bradman would have done well against McGrath had he been transported in a time machine is nothing more than speculation, so only one of us seem to be dealing with facts here. The other dealing with modern bias and wild speculation.

As I've said many times now, had there been other batsmen in Bradman's era even averaging 70, let alone 99, you might have a ghost of an argument to say something like batsmen averaged more in Bradman's era, but clearly they didn't.

 

[TestMatch]

6.5 for SRT vs 32.5 for BCL to be precise

No. You have added bowlers Lara didn't play internationally.

 

[Buffet]

What would Bradman have averaged today ??

Anyone willing to guess?

In 60s.

 

[Chrish]

In 60s.

My gut feeling as well..

 

[Robert]

What would Bradman have averaged today ??

Anyone willing to guess?

Sir Donald reckoned he would average 70. The improved fielding would stop a lot of hits that went for four in the 'thirties. But he said that during the eighties, when the bowling was better than it is today, before the era of batting average inflation. Cook and Root would not have averaged 46 and 50 in the eighties - maybe 40 and 45.

So I think it realistic that a perfectly organised batting brain like Sir Donald would average 75+ in the modern era. The only flaw in his game was the sticky dog, and there are no stickies today - the match would be called off.