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

[SL_Fan]

[MENTION=142156]Snatch[/MENTION] no point wasting your time champ. Trust me. Some people just can’t even understand the simple fact that most things evolve and improve over time and not overnight. For them modern-day players would have magically played the same way had they played all the way back then and vice versa. They are just in another world and quite clearly logic is not their strong suit.

 

[Mamoon]

Bradman and Hobbs would have been tailenders today with their early 20th century techniques. To excel in contemporary cricket, they would have had to completely reconstruct their techniques, which may/may not have been possible.

Another fallacy that we hear in Bradman's defense is that he was too good compared to his peers. No doubt it is true, but why must be assume that his level of competition was great? Why isn't it possible that he got lucky with his era, i.e. a quality player playing in an era of rubbish cricketers.

Same goes for Sobers and his status as the undisputed GOAT all-rounder. He was simply the best cricketer of his time, but would he have been number one in the 80s, with Imran, Botham, Kapil and Hadlee as his competition?

That's why Tendulkar has the 'strongest claim' to the GOAT title. It is not possible to say with conviction that he or A or B is the GOAT, but Tendulkar ticks more boxes than any other batsman: longevity, performance across multiple formats, technique, versatility etc. etc.

 

[Dead Ball]

Impossible to deduct how much Bradman would've averaged today.

A great like Ponting averaged 90+ against Indian bowlers at home and around 20 away. One of the biggest challenges in batting during the modern era is batting in different conditions/surfaces.

While no cricketer ever will touch the statistical heights of Bradman you've got to be blind to not see that the level of cricket played in the modern era is far more competitive.

I would rate two batsmen as the best in the modern era. IVA Richards and Sachin Tendulkar.

Lara was great but failed too often on alien surfaces for my liking.

 

[SL_Fan]

Also one thing a lot of people tend to forget is that Bradman not only scored 7k Test runs @ 99.94 but he also racked up over 21k Shield runs @ 94. He's just an absolute freak of nature.

 

[Ellipsism]

Played 71% of his games against one team, the remaining 29% were against three teams and all were home series.

Played in only two countries, both known for relatively same pitches. It might swing more in England, but you have to ask whether the balls manufactured then were good enough to swing for more than couple of overs.

Played in an era where video analysis was unheard of, maybe even impossible (I am a bit short on electronics history here). So he could have played with serious technical incompetencies which were never explored by his single major opposition. The only time when they did test him, during the bodyline series, his avg was in the 50s, which is the 'great' territory and not 'greatest'. In the modern age, oppositions change tactics against batsmen every innings, so one has to wonder how Don would have coped with that.

People say that Bradman and Gavaskar were truly great because they played fast bowlers without helmets. For a great batsman with excellent hand-eye coordination, I would think that adding more weight on the head would be more of a hindrance when it comes to balance. To make it worse, usage of helmets hasn't really changed how a batsman approaches the bouncer. Maybe some lesser batsmen are now attempting to hook more. But great players are still leaving the bouncers alone most of the time, with a rare hook played only when they are fully confident of connecting.

The opposition batsmen of Bradman's era include Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Duleepsinhji; all four considered amongst the greats. This makes me more concerned about the bowling quality and pitches of that era. My guess is that we should just consider them as good as a Tendulkar against Hayden, Ponting, Waugh and Gilchrist. With the variety of pitches and kind of analysis that Tendulkar and Lara have been subjected to, I do not see how Bradman's career can even be compared to theirs.

 

[SL_Fan]

Bradman and Hobbs would have been tailenders today with their early 20th century techniques. To excel in contemporary cricket, they would have had to completely reconstruct their techniques, which may/may not have been possible.

Another fallacy that we hear in Bradman's defense is that he was too good compared to his peers. No doubt it is true, but why must be assume that his level of competition was great? Why isn't it possible that he got lucky with his era, i.e. a quality player playing in an era of rubbish cricketers.

Same goes for Sobers and his status as the undisputed GOAT all-rounder. He was simply the best cricketer of his time, but would he have been number one in the 80s, with Imran, Botham, Kapil and Hadlee as his competition?

That's why Tendulkar has the 'strongest claim' to the GOAT title. It is not possible to say with conviction that he or A or B is the GOAT, but Tendulkar ticks more boxes than any other batsman: longevity, performance across multiple formats, technique, versatility etc. etc.

I can assure you that Sachin or any other modern-day bat had they played their cricket in the 1930s and 40s for example they would not have played the same way as they did in the modern times. Similarly had Bradman or Hobbs played in the modern times they would not have played the same way as they did all the way back then. So not a fair way of looking at things.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Played 71% of his games against one team, the remaining 29% were against three teams and all were home series.

Played in only two countries, both known for relatively same pitches. It might swing more in England, but you have to ask whether the balls manufactured then were good enough to swing for more than couple of overs.

Played in an era where video analysis was unheard of, maybe even impossible (I am a bit short on electronics history here). So he could have played with serious technical incompetencies which were never explored by his single major opposition. The only time when they did test him, during the bodyline series, his avg was in the 50s, which is the 'great' territory and not 'greatest'. In the modern age, oppositions change tactics against batsmen every innings, so one has to wonder how Don would have coped with that.

People say that Bradman and Gavaskar were truly great because they played fast bowlers without helmets. For a great batsman with excellent hand-eye coordination, I would think that adding more weight on the head would be more of a hindrance when it comes to balance. To make it worse, usage of helmets hasn't really changed how a batsman approaches the bouncer. Maybe some lesser batsmen are now attempting to hook more. But great players are still leaving the bouncers alone most of the time, with a rare hook played only when they are fully confident of connecting.

The opposition batsmen of Bradman's era include Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Duleepsinhji; all four considered amongst the greats. This makes me more concerned about the bowling quality and pitches of that era. My guess is that we should just consider them as good as a Tendulkar against Hayden, Ponting, Waugh and Gilchrist. With the variety of pitches and kind of analysis that Tendulkar and Lara have been subjected to, I do not see how Bradman's career can even be compared to theirs.

SO what are you saying ? from reading your post I feel that you are implying both Bradman and SRT are ATGs but neither is better than the other because of obvious reason; playing in different eras ?

 

[SL_Fan]

Played 71% of his games against one team, the remaining 29% were against three teams and all were home series.

Played in only two countries, both known for relatively same pitches. It might swing more in England, but you have to ask whether the balls manufactured then were good enough to swing for more than couple of overs.

Played in an era where video analysis was unheard of, maybe even impossible (I am a bit short on electronics history here). So he could have played with serious technical incompetencies which were never explored by his single major opposition. The only time when they did test him, during the bodyline series, his avg was in the 50s, which is the 'great' territory and not 'greatest'. In the modern age, oppositions change tactics against batsmen every innings, so one has to wonder how Don would have coped with that.

People say that Bradman and Gavaskar were truly great because they played fast bowlers without helmets. For a great batsman with excellent hand-eye coordination, I would think that adding more weight on the head would be more of a hindrance when it comes to balance. To make it worse, usage of helmets hasn't really changed how a batsman approaches the bouncer. Maybe some lesser batsmen are now attempting to hook more. But great players are still leaving the bouncers alone most of the time, with a rare hook played only when they are fully confident of connecting.

The opposition batsmen of Bradman's era include Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Duleepsinhji; all four considered amongst the greats. This makes me more concerned about the bowling quality and pitches of that era. My guess is that we should just consider them as good as a Tendulkar against Hayden, Ponting, Waugh and Gilchrist. With the variety of pitches and kind of analysis that Tendulkar and Lara have been subjected to, I do not see how Bradman's career can even be compared to theirs.

Bodyline was a desperate tactic Eng devised solely because of Bradman. Even then he averaged 57 striking around the 75 mark.

 

[Ellipsism]

SO what are you saying ? from reading your post I feel that you are implying both Bradman and SRT are ATGs but neither is better than the other because of obvious reason; playing in different eras ?

I tend to stray from comparing players across eras.

Thus, I don't rate anyone higher than the other,

 

[Romali_rotti]

I tend to stray from comparing players across eras.

Thus, I don't rate anyone higher than the other,

Who would you say has been the best batsmen from SRT's era ?

 

[Romali_rotti]

The only time when they did test him, during the bodyline series, his avg was in the 50s, which is the 'great' territory and not 'greatest'. In the modern age, oppositions change tactics against batsmen every innings, so one has to wonder how Don would have coped with that.
.

Ahhh interesting, I did not know that, I thought Bradman consistently avg in the 90s through out his whole career. Bradman is human afterall and vulnerable to change in tactics like everyone else...

 

[street cricketer]

I generally like to divide cricket into 2 different eras - pre 1970 and post 1970. It's just an arbitrary division of mine and you could probably go some 10 years back as well.

Think there is no point in comparing players from these two different eras. Amateur is probably a harsh word, but I see pre 1970 as the non professional era and post 1970 as the professional era. I don't think we should compare players from these two eras not because one group was superior or inferior to the other, but mainly because the level of competition was different in both eras and it would be unfair to both sets of players to compare with the other set. W.G. Grace was probably the first superstar of cricket and the level of competition has progressively increased over the years. Pre 1950s, many cricketers used to be part time cricketers and there are countless examples of players participating in the world wars and then coming back to play after a 5 or 10 year gap while quite a few of them ended up perishing for the cause of their nation. Not everyone participated in wars as well and not everyone were professional too, so the level of competition wasn't uniform even within the same period as we have now.

Since the post war era, so many advancements have been made in sports and the game as a whole has become a whole lot professional. Cricket isn't a part time job for the players anymore and is a full time career option for them where they have access to state of the art training unlike the old era. Every single player is a full time cricketer (barring the associate teams like UAE, Oman, etc) and so there is a uniformity among the players. Anyway it's just my opinion on this and I generally don't like to compare players from the past era and the contemporary era because of the above mentioned reasons.

 

[Chrish]

Bodyline wasn't just about bowling short pitched stuff.. it was that ALONG with leg side fielding.. imagine bowlers consistency bowl aiming at your body with 7-8 players fielded on the leg side? It would make run scoring near impossible.

There is a reason why the tactic was outlawed as soon as it was introduced

 

[Chrish]

Australia also travelled to South Africa where Bradman didn't play.. iirc both McCabe and jack finglton averaged in 70s and 80s so it's safe to assume Bradman would have killed it as both of these blokes were half the players Bradman was (both subjectly and objectively)

Also video analysis theory cuts both ways as Bradman can also review footage to help him create counter strategy against bowlers.. just like DRS which helps both disciplines

Moreover Bradman didn't play new zeland who were one of the true minnows of the time

 

[cr7great]

sachin is greatest batsman of all time


2. Lara


3. Bradman

 

[Tusker]

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.

And how do these facts translate into Bradman >>> Everyone else ? To me these facts only suggest that Bradman >> his peers.

And if you are comparing avgs from then to now it appears that it is based on a faulty avg comparison across ERA's. Anyone with a deep understanding of the game will tell you that run making today is far more difficult than it was in Bradman's time.

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.

No speculation here. It is a FACT that bowling standards today are far higher than they used to be in Bradmans time which is why it is unfair for the modern Batsmen to be evaluated on the 99.94 scale. Forget the bowling just the fielding alone would cut down his avg significantly.

 

[Tusker]

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

No I did not ... and infact I was wrong ... his avg is 30.30 when playing against Ws, Donald or Shoaib. And he only played in one Test vs Shoaib where he possibly did not face much of his bowling

Links:

Lara:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...49;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

SRT:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...49;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[Dulex9]

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.

Tendulkar head and shoulders had the highest average and best record for any batsman from the 90s era and played all the great bowlers from the teams.

Lara never scored a hundred against Wasim, Waqur, Donald.

Tendulkar even played Steyn quite well too.

Above all I would go for Tendulkar.

 

[Dulex9]

Also like to add I'm a great fan of Lara.

Tendulkar was more elegant, consistent, carried the hopes and expectations of a whole nation, was a prolific run scorer and faced all the greatest bowlers of the 90s and 2000s.

The 90s had Wasim, Waqur, Donald, Warne, McGrath, Murali, Ambrose, Walsh and Tendulkar average the best and had the best record of the 90s.

 

[Robert]

Bradman and Hobbs would have been tailenders today with their early 20th century techniques. To excel in contemporary cricket, they would have had to completely reconstruct their techniques, which may/may not have been possible.

Of course that would be the case if you moved Sir Jack and Sir Len into 2017 via a time machine. Or if you moved Jesse Owens by time machine and stuck him in a race with Usain Bolt.

But consider how far they were ahead of all their peers. Lads born in 1995 with that level of natural ability and sheer drive to excel, given modern coaching, strength exerices and diet, will develop into world-beaters.

 

[Stallion__]

Best batsman after Bradman? Should have been greatest batsman after Bradman.

Bradman is the greatest cricketer ever but he wasn't the best one. He, however was the best during his time.

Anyways, I would say Richards, Tendulkar, Lara and Sobers are in contention. Each of them has their strengths and foibles. Opinions keep changing.

 

[Ellipsism]

Who would you say has been the best batsmen from SRT's era ?

Sachin
Lara
Ponting
Sangakarra

 

[Snatch]

Ahhh interesting, I did not know that, I thought Bradman consistently avg in the 90s through out his whole career. Bradman is human afterall and vulnerable to change in tactics like everyone else...

Vulnerable to changes in tactics is what you call it? Dude, read some cricketing history & understand what leg theory actually was.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Younis Khan - The Greatest Batsman to Ever set foot on a cricket field. There is a reason why he has scored centuries in 11 different nations and no other batsman in history of the game has done this !!!

YK - THE GOAT

 

[Romali_rotti]

Vulnerable to changes in tactics is what you call it? Dude, read some cricketing history & understand what leg theory actually was.

It was a change in tactic which caused his avg to dip, regardless of what it was. Who is to not say had Bradman been given a blunsden burner turning track in India rather than what he was used to (Change in tactic again) he would not have avgd a Ponting like 19 there ?... I am not going to argue against Bradman being the greatest batsmen of all time, however you need to stop your silly responses like above and stop saying untrue statements like how Bradman said he reminded SRT of him because he was 5 feet 5. Just be honest rather than make things up, you will gain more respect that way...

 

[Tusker]

Vulnerable to changes in tactics is what you call it? Dude, read some cricketing history & understand what leg theory actually was.

Why don't you tell us how this leg theory was such a great tactic in a way that makes cricketing sense ? Do you realize that bowling short into body with 3 leg slips + FSL + 2 men for the hook is going to open up so much space elsewhere that it really isnt going to present any real challenge to modern batsmen especially at the pace at which they bowled back then ?

 

[Tusker]

Played 71% of his games against one team, the remaining 29% were against three teams and all were home series.

Played in only two countries, both known for relatively same pitches. It might swing more in England, but you have to ask whether the balls manufactured then were good enough to swing for more than couple of overs.

Played in an era where video analysis was unheard of, maybe even impossible (I am a bit short on electronics history here). So he could have played with serious technical incompetencies which were never explored by his single major opposition. The only time when they did test him, during the bodyline series, his avg was in the 50s, which is the 'great' territory and not 'greatest'. In the modern age, oppositions change tactics against batsmen every innings, so one has to wonder how Don would have coped with that.

Add the following to that list :

1. No express fast bowlers like today and short bowling generally frowned upon (Except in that one Bodyline Series )
2. No real high quality wrist spinners like Warne and Murali.
3. Never played on spinning pitches in Asia
4. Never played against quality reverse swing bowlers.
5. LBW laws and umpiring in general heavily batsman friendly.
6. Poor fielding standards back then.
7. Back then there used to be plenty of Practice matches (First Class) while on tour. All top test players would play in them which would give ample time for players to adjust to foreign conditions. No such luxuries are accorded these days.
8. Timeless tests on batting beauties. Check this out for some hilarious reading : http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/901415.html
9. Minimum of 110-120 overs per day !

Once you account for all these factors (and also any that made batting difficult like Wet Wkts when it rained ) it becomes obvious why that 99.94 would nose-dive today.

 

[Snatch]

Why don't you tell us how this leg theory was such a great tactic in a way that makes cricketing sense ? Do you realize that bowling short into body with 3 leg slips + FSL + 2 men for the hook is going to open up so much space elsewhere that it really isnt going to present any real challenge to modern batsmen especially at the pace at which they bowled back then ?

You missed my point to Romali, he made bodyline sound like a normal change of tactic, that any team tries against any batsman in the world. I'm pointing out that it was a completely radical tactic to maim and injury batsmen & it was specifically devised for no other reason than to curb Bradman.

That they felt they had to resort to that sort of tactic really demonstrates to me just how great Bradman, if the opposition felt they'd need to go to that extreme.

When was there ever a tactic to completely change cricket to try to dismiss Sachin?

What are these modern day tactics that would make Bradman so inferior that everyone is talking about? That's what I'd like to know? What bowl a 4th off stump line outside off stump?

 

[Tusker]

You missed my point to Romali, he made bodyline sound like a normal change of tactic, that any team tries against any batsman in the world. I'm pointing out that it was a completely radical tactic to maim and injury batsmen & it was specifically devised for no other reason than to curb Bradman.

I got all the discussion context ... what I don't understand is how you got sold on the idea that this was a completely radical tactic. It was nothing new. Leg theory existed much before that series. It just wasnt tried against Bradman with a half decent fast bowler.

And moreover the thing that really boggles my mind is how people get sold on the ingenuity/deadliness/effectiveness/radicalness/however you want to describe it in 2017 when with benefit of hindsight it is crystal clear that bowlers of that pace do not pose any threat to a batsman at all no matter what the field settings are regardless of the line and length. Can you clearly explain how you are so convinced about this? This is one of the single most controversial point in this discussion. And to me it appears that is more to do with emotions and nostalgia than clear facts and reason and cricketing technical points.

But if viewed from a really cold and un-emotional view point the single biggest reason why players found that tactic difficult to handle was because of complete lack of skills (Standards !!!) when it come to short bowling. It was un-gentlemanly to bowl that line and length and hence it came as a rude shock and surprise when tried by Larwood. Do you know that Gubby Allen refused to bowl short in that series ? You should really watch him actually bowl ... it will bring a chuckle. The thing is they couldnt hurt a fly with that pace. Unless ofcourse the batsmen are complete novices who cant even handle that pace (again Standards !!!). (And Please dont furbish certificates of achievements to establish that these batsmen were just as good as any modern batsman )

That they felt they had to resort to that sort of tactic really demonstrates to me just how great Bradman, if the opposition felt they'd need to go to that extreme.

When was there ever a tactic to completely change cricket to try to dismiss Sachin?

As I said before it was nothing new nor illegal at the time which is why Larwood refused to apologize. They changed the laws much later in 1960. And there is no shortage of captains trying new things to restrain Tendulkar ... just that he never complained and threatened to not tour England next time like what Bradman did. Big difference.

What are these modern day tactics that would make Bradman so inferior that everyone is talking about? That's what I'd like to know? What bowl a 4th off stump line outside off stump?

Simple express fast bowling , reverse swing and top notch fielding ... the likes of which wasn't going to be part of cricket till the 80s and 90s. Or spinners like Murali who could spin the bowl. All these things(And there is more but this shall do) just were not part of cricket.

 

[Snatch]

I got all the discussion context ... what I don't understand is how you got sold on the idea that this was a completely radical tactic. It was nothing new. Leg theory existed much before that series. It just wasnt tried against Bradman with a half decent fast bowler.

And moreover the thing that really boggles my mind is how people get sold on the ingenuity/deadliness/effectiveness/radicalness/however you want to describe it in 2017 when with benefit of hindsight it is crystal clear that bowlers of that pace do not pose any threat to a batsman at all no matter what the field settings are regardless of the line and length. Can you clearly explain how you are so convinced about this? This is one of the single most controversial point in this discussion. And to me it appears that is more to do with emotions and nostalgia than clear facts and reason and cricketing technical points.

But if viewed from a really cold and un-emotional view point the single biggest reason why players found that tactic difficult to handle was because of complete lack of skills (Standards !!!) when it come to short bowling. It was un-gentlemanly to bowl that line and length and hence it came as a rude shock and surprise when tried by Larwood. Do you know that Gubby Allen refused to bowl short in that series ? You should really watch him actually bowl ... it will bring a chuckle. The thing is they couldnt hurt a fly with that pace. Unless ofcourse the batsmen are complete novices who cant even handle that pace (again Standards !!!). (And Please dont furbish certificates of achievements to establish that these batsmen were just as good as any modern batsman )

I'm aware they used the tactic in English county cricket around the time, but that doesn't change the fact there was a reason they outlawed it after that series. It would make cricket an entirely different game, and no batsmen today would prosper if they allowed it and had no limitations on field placements. Imagine Mitchell Johnson continuously aiming at the body & head of batsmen with 8 fielders on the leg side. And you seem to forget they didn't have helmets in Bradman's day.

Anyway, the fact you still haven't been able to provide any convincing argument that Tendulkar was even the categorically best Test batsmen of his own era, & all you keep coming back to is Lara didn't face certain bowlers speaks volumes. But perhaps outside your hypothetical assertions about how Bradman would go today, perhaps you might wish to actually explain your rationale as to why EVERY other batsmen in Bradman's era only averaged about half of what he did?

I mean are you at least going to concede that he was absolutely miles ahead of any of his contemporaries?

Something nobody could say about Tendulkar.

 

[Snatch]

Simple express fast bowling , reverse swing and top notch fielding ... the likes of which wasn't going to be part of cricket till the 80s and 90s. Or spinners like Murali who could spin the bowl. All these things(And there is more but this shall do) just were not part of cricket.

One other thing I'd like to add is even accepting that Bradman in the bodyline series, had his worse series, he still managed to average 56 haha, higher than Tendulkar's career average.

Can we then pick apart Tendulkar's worst series as well? What about when he was faced with real proper green tracks in 2002 (when he was supposed to be around his peak at 29 years old) against bowlers like Bond, Tuffey and Jacob Oram haha? He averaged about 20 for the series.

Bodyline is relevant because the English were so desperate to curb Bradman's run scoring to win the ashes after 1930 that they needed to look at doing something different. When have sides ever worried about curbing Tendulkar to win Test series? It's a completely different thing, even average sides like NZ could beat India easily without him being much of a worry, just like that series I alluded to.

Bradman was a proper matchwinner, in some ways a one man team, Tendulkar was never this, sides like Australia, NZ, South Africa still beat India easily in their own conditions in spite of Tendulkar, there's no comparison in this respect.

And while we're talking about match-winners, where was Tendullkar in the biggest games of his career?

Even in ODIs, which I'm generally reluctant to talk about, when it truly mattered in world cups (and I'm not talking about qualifying games), I'm talking about the biggest games of his career, where was he?

Ponting showed his ability to step up when it really truly mattered in '03 & in '11, both times he failed. In 2011 he was just lucky India had Dhoni and Ghambir to perform when it really counted.

 

[Tusker]

I'm aware they used the tactic in English county cricket around the time, but that doesn't change the fact there was a reason they outlawed it after that series.

Nope. Law was changed in 1960. The MCC however banned Larwood after Bradman said he wouldn't tour. Imagine a fast bowler getting banned today for doing nothing illegal ... thats how weird and totally amateur the world of cricket was .

It would make cricket an entirely different game, and no batsmen today would prosper if they allowed it and had no limitations on field placements. Imagine Mitchell Johnson continuously aiming at the body & head of batsmen with 8 fielders on the leg side. And you seem to forget they didn't have helmets in Bradman's day.

Except Larwood wasnt even remotely as fast as Mitch. Now lets suppose they changed the rule ( only 2 Men behind square on legside) and you had Mitch Bowl at well above 90mph ... what would suddenly be different JUST because there were more fielders behind square on the legside ? Explain this purely from a Technical viewpoint.

Anyway, the fact you still haven't been able to provide any convincing argument that Tendulkar was even the categorically best Test batsmen of his own era, & all you keep coming back to is Lara didn't face certain bowlers speaks volumes.

Don't twist my words ... I clearly said that he didn't do well against Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Akhtar AND also did not face as many great bowlers as Tendulkar. He also loses in H2H comparisons with SRT on same pitches even when SRT faced better WI bowlers (Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh). These are just plain facts that you are going to find ways to come terms with some how..

But perhaps outside your hypothetical assertions about how Bradman would go today, perhaps you might wish to actually explain your rationale as to why EVERY other batsmen in Bradman's era only averaged about half of what he did?

Nothing hypothetical about Bradman being uncomfortable with fast bowling.

I mean are you at least going to concede that he was absolutely miles ahead of any of his contemporaries?

I have Never ever denied that. Or seen anyone claim that others were just as good as Bradman in his ERA. You need to read my posts more closely. What I don't agree is using his superiority over peers and declaring Bradman > Everyone from future and past. How does that prove Bradman was a better batsman ? The only way to evaluate a batsman is by checking his skills against the best bowlers and sadly Bradman never had the opportunity to play against the best bowlers in cricket. Not his fault but you cant revise history and claim things that he did not achieve.

Something nobody could say about Tendulkar.

Tendulkar as a complete package (Tests + ODIs + Part time Bowling ) Is miles ahead of others. Its not a joke to make nearly 35K runs and 100 x 100s. Or you think he got a free pass to play as long as he could just so he could break those records ..lol And pretty sure you are going to try and downplay ODI's and try to tell us that they don't matter. Again a simple fact check will tell you that cricket today survives because of shorter formats and the premier Cricketing events are mostly shorter formats. Can't ignore such obvious facts.

 

[Tusker]

One other thing I'd like to add is even accepting that Bradman in the bodyline series, had his worse series, he still managed to average 56 haha, higher than Tendulkar's career average.

Convince me (Based purely on Technicalities and logic ) how this presents the exact same difficulty level as this one :

Can we then pick apart Tendulkar's worst series as well? What about when he was faced with real proper green tracks in 2002 (when he was supposed to be around his peak at 29 years old) against bowlers like Bond, Tuffey and Jacob Oram haha? He averaged about 20 for the series.

 

[nik45hil]

Umar Akmal
Or
Manoj Tiwary