Will Joe Root beat Sachin Tendulkar's record in Tests for most runs?

[mominsaigol]

Bradman is way overrated. Way too much.

Sanga Kallis Smith are some people that i saw and were as good as tendulkar in tests.

No he isn't.

Bradman played in the exact same era as his peers.

In that era domestic + leagues + curation and many other forms of cricket were not established.

Had sanga, Kallis existed in that era they wouldn't have had access to coaching facilities or an infrastructure to succeed.

In other words they'd have been on an equal footing to the rest of the world.

Every player in that era averaged 20 to 60 max while bradman averaged 99.94.

Sanga ain't time travelling to the past with his current skills, he'd have had the same infrastructure if he was born in that era.

 

[kron]

No he isn't.

Bradman played in the exact same era as his peers.

In that era domestic + leagues + curation and many other forms of cricket were not established.

Had sanga, Kallis existed in that era they wouldn't have had access to coaching facilities or an infrastructure to succeed.

In other words they'd have been on an equal footing to the rest of the world.

Every player in that era averaged 20 to 60 max while bradman averaged 99.94.

Sanga ain't time travelling to the past with his current skills, he'd have had the same infrastructure if he was born in that era.

Sanaga is not even better than dravid.

Sanga is really overrated here. His stats are way too inflated. I don't rate him at all. Not one match winning performance away from home vs strong teams.

He is a stat padder like jaywardene

 

[mominsaigol]

Sanaga is not even better than dravid.

Sanga is really overrated here. His stats are way too inflated. I don't rate him at all. Not one match winning performance away from home vs strong teams.

He is a stat padder like jaywardene

He only has a weak record against sa ans India?

Dude avg 60 ot close to it in every other country Including Australia?

How is he a stat padder?

 

[jnaveen1980]

KP is not even top 15 English batters

Root is top 6 at WORST

As an outsider i rate him above others. Don't care what English thinks. These boycotts, gooches, gattings, don't care for.

 

[atreus]

I honestly rate Sanaga lower than most rate him in this forum. Sanga was pretty ordinary in SA, Eng and SA. One thing went against him - he did not get long series. Don't get me started on Kane. I don't rate him high due to not doing much in Eng, Ind, Aus and SA.

I agree that it's been hard to score big in Ind, Aus, Eng and SA in the last 8-10 years due to many bowles averaging below 25 playing for them.

Reading your details of home for Root, he has been at ATG level in the last 5 years at home. I stand corrected. His away in SA, Aus, Ind has remained at the same level even in the last 5 years so big room for improvement there.

Fair, I respect your criterias for rating players even if I've disagreements with it.

 

[atreus]

As an outsider i rate him above others. Don't care what English thinks. These boycotts, gooches, gattings, don't care for.

Root passed Kevin...in 2017, I don't think anyone who has actually followed the careers of both would come to the conclusion that Kevin was a superior Batsmen.

 

[kron]

He only has a weak record against sa ans India?

Dude avg 60 ot close to it in every other country Including Australia?

How is he a stat padder?

Oh did he win a series in aus? Did he even help them win a match? Match defining performance?

I dont think so.

He is wildly overrated. Not sure why.

Maybe pakistani fans just want to parade him around as some goat to infuriate indian fans. But he is a massive stat padder. I never rated him

 

[mominsaigol]

Oh did he win a series in aus? Did he even help them win a match? Match defining performance?

I dont think so.

He is wildly overrated. Not sure why.

Maybe pakistani fans just want to parade him around as some goat to infuriate indian fans. But he is a massive stat padder. I never rated him

The match is 2007 was one of the greatest knocks against aus that I've ever seen?

The 2nd innings target was 500+ . And Samga got them very close ahainat a tough aussie attack?

It's just not a single batsmen performed besides him. They all collapsed. Samga's 192 is > Antyhing many great test batters have ever dome.

 

[kron]

The match is 2007 was one of the greatest knocks against aus that I've ever seen?

The 2nd innings target was 500+ . And Samga got them very close ahainat a tough aussie attack?

It's just not a single batsmen performed besides him. They all collapsed. Samga's 192 is > Antyhing many great test batters have ever dome.

Again losing cause

Loser. Basically he is a good loser

Also pathetic in SA

So that's 2 3 top teams

Sorry just not good enough

I rate him around virat level

 

[mominsaigol]

Again losing cause

Loser. Basically he is a good loser

Also pathetic in SA

So that's 2 3 top teams

Sorry just not good enough

I rate him around virat level

I rate him around virat level

Lol, Kohli isn't even in bootlicking distance of sanga. Sanga's avg on retirement is equal to Kohli's peak avg lol.

Sanga was avg 60 in his prime and it only dropped to 57

Kphli was avg 55-57 in his prime and it dropped to 48.

Secondly test isn't odi. In odi you can critise someone for scoring in losing causes and stat padding.

In tests it's almoat impossible without some sort of backup or support. Very few like Lara, and Steve smith have done it and even then Lara only did it once agaisnt pakistan and only Smith did it multiple times during his prime.

Sanga's avg maybe inflated in the same sense that kane Williamson avg is inflated, Samga is obviously not on the level of prime steve smith or lara as test batters

But that doesn't mean he isn't top 10 of all time and that you insult him by comparing him to Virat kohli.

Even in his absolute prime, Tests were always Kohli's weakest format

 

[kron]

I rate him around virat level

Lol, Kohli isn't even in bootlicking distance of sanga. Sanga's avg on retirement is equal to Kohli's peak avg lol.

Sanga was avg 60 in his prime and it only dropped to 57

Kphli was avg 55-57 in his prime and it dropped to 48.

Secondly test isn't odi. In odi you can critise someone for scoring in losing causes and stat padding.

In tests it's almoat impossible without some sort of backup or support. Very few like Lara, and Steve smith have done it and even then Lara only did it once agaisnt pakistan and only Smith did it multiple times during his prime.

Sanga's avg maybe inflated in the same sense that kane Williamson avg is inflated, Samga is obviously not on the level of prime steve smith or lara as test batters

But that doesn't mean he isn't top 10 of all time and that you insult him by comparing him to Virat kohli.

Even in his absolute prime, Tests were always Kohli's weakest format

Maybe not kohli. Actually kohli yes cause kohli actually scored vs aus, sa. 2 of the hardest teams to face outside india.

He only struggled vs eng and nz.

He did get to stat pad in Asia vs pakistan on roads.

Sanga is wildly overrated. Sorry. If not kohli level he is maybe at best like kane Williamson level whom I rate below the other big 2 of root and Smith and he is also well below sacchu and dravid etc.

Big player should perform vs strong teams not weak teams and stat pad.

I don't even think he is better than kane.

 

[mominsaigol]

Maybe not kohli. Actually kohli yes cause kohli actually scored vs aus, sa. 2 of the hardest teams to face outside india.

He only struggled vs eng and nz.

He did get to stat pad in Asia vs pakistan on roads.

Sanga is wildly overrated. Sorry. If not kohli level he is maybe at best like kane Williamson level whom I rate below the other big 2 of root and Smith and he is also well below sacchu and dravid etc.

Big player should perform vs strong teams not weak teams and stat pad.

I don't even think he is better than kane.

So did sanga, Sanga has scored against Australia's all star attack. It isn't his fault that he had to become the Travis Head of current australia where virtually everyone were bunnies against aus bowling and only he had to solo carry .

And lol at roads, He's literally played in difficult conditons all his life.

The criticism for sanga is that while he was very good against many oppositions, It was only against rubbish attacks where his best performances lie and hence he padded his stats against them.

But isnt an issue. The issue with players like rizwan, is that they only capitalise on rubbish bowling or road pitches and are bunnies otherwise.

Not the case with sanga who's good against most opposition but goes Bully mode on rubbish attacks.

As for root and smith, Smith during his peak years was approaching bradman level, Dude was avg 70 to 85 against every opposition year by year.

Root is good, no doubt, but sanga is better. Sanga is virtually better agaonst almost every opposition that Root had faced including Aus. Root has only been better against India.

Ricky Pointing was also only rubbish agaonat india in tests but that does that make him a bad test player? Absolutely not.

 

[Ab Fan]

He only has a weak record against sa ans India?

Dude avg 60 ot close to it in every other country Including Australia?

How is he a stat

Maybe not kohli. Actually kohli yes cause kohli actually scored vs aus, sa. 2 of the hardest teams to face outside india.

He only struggled vs eng and nz.

He did get to stat pad in Asia vs pakistan on roads.

Sanga is wildly overrated. Sorry. If not kohli level he is maybe at best like kane Williamson level whom I rate below the other big 2 of root and Smith and he is also well below sacchu and dravid etc.

Big player should perform vs strong teams not weak teams and stat pad.

I don't even think he is better than kane.

@kron , you are completely right. If Kohli has poor record in Eng and NZ, Sanga also has poor record in SA, Ind and WI.

Sanga is way overrated. His average is highly inflated by minnow bashing and flat roads in Colombo.

Kohli has played in bowling friendly era where SENA teams tried to take revenge by deliberately putting bowling friendly wickets to take revenge.

This guy bashes Ashwin because Ashwin has achieved huge success due to spin friendly wickets but the hypocrisy is such that he is not willing to accept Kohli’s greatness despite playing in bowling friendly conditions both home and away. Look at wickets which Kohli got in SA and NZ and compare it with Root or Smith.

Sanga is at same level as Kohli. Completely agreed with you @kron. Don’t give up your argument vs such heavily biased posters.

 

[kron]

So did sanga, Sanga has scored against Australia's all star attack. It isn't his fault that he had to become the Travis Head of current australia where virtually everyone were bunnies against aus bowling and only he had to solo carry .

And lol at roads, He's literally played in difficult conditons all his life.

The criticism for sanga is that while he was very good against many oppositions, It was only against rubbish attacks where his best performances lie and hence he padded his stats against them.

But isnt an issue. The issue with players like rizwan, is that they only capitalise on rubbish bowling or road pitches and are bunnies otherwise.

Not the case with sanga who's good against most opposition but goes Bully mode on rubbish attacks.

As for root and smith, Smith during his peak years was approaching bradman level, Dude was avg 70 to 85 against every opposition year by year.

Root is good, no doubt, but sanga is better. Sanga is virtually better agaonst almost every opposition that Root had faced including Aus. Root has only been better against India.

Ricky Pointing was also only rubbish agaonat india in tests but that does that make him a bad test player? Absolutely not.

It does affect his rating if he fails to perform vs tough opposition so no sanga can't be rated higher than root. Root only failed vs one team. Sanga failed vs 2 or 3.

And performance against best teams mattr more and carry more weight. Sanga failed in this regard. He is kane level at best for me.

He can stat pad vs crap teams all He wants but that's all he is. Stat padder.

 

[kron]

@kron , you are completely right. If Kohli has poor record in Eng and NZ, Sanga also has poor record in SA, Ind and WI.

Sanga is way overrated. His average is highly inflated by minnow bashing and flat roads in Colombo.

Kohli has played in bowling friendly era where SENA teams tried to take revenge by deliberately putting bowling friendly wickets to take revenge.

This guy bashes Ashwin because Ashwin has achieved huge success due to spin friendly wickets but the hypocrisy is such that he is not willing to accept Kohli’s greatness despite playing in bowling friendly conditions both home and away. Look at wickets which Kohli got in SA and NZ and compare it with Root or Smith.

Sanga is at same level as Kohli. Completely agreed with you @kron. Don’t give up your argument vs such heavily biased posters.

They can alter stats all they want. Nothing will change. I personally don't like kohli but even still I wouldn't put him below sanga by much. Sanga really isn't all that special.

Very good player but not true atg

He is also below Kevin pieterson whom I rate much higher than him kohli etc.

 

[Ab Fan]

They can alter stats all they want. Nothing will change. I personally don't like kohli but even still I wouldn't put him below sanga by much. Sanga really isn't all that special.

Very good player but not true atg

He is also below Kevin pieterson whom I rate much higher than him kohli etc.

Yeah, noticed the trend. They don’t take into consideration the number of tests these guys are playing vs minnows or on home pitches which helps in inflating the averages of the mentioned batsman. Sanga’s case is like that but nevertheless I would have him at same level as Root and Kohli. But not above of those two.

I find KP a bit overrated too. Yes, he became a star right away after his debut but it needs to be accepted that he played in the era of flat wickets and average bowling attacks with players either in last leg or top bowlers mostly retired. He doesn’t have longevity either and hence an avg of 47 is just nothing special. A lot of romanticism is done over the knocks where the credit goes to the player who did well throughout that series rather than him performing in one inning. That England team of 2008-12 had a very strong batting lineup.

 

[kron]

Yeah, noticed the trend. They don’t take into consideration the number of tests these guys are playing vs minnows or on home pitches which helps in inflating the averages of the mentioned batsman. Sanga’s case is like that but nevertheless I would have him at same level as Root and Kohli. But not above of those two.

I find KP a bit overrated too. Yes, he became a star right away after his debut but it needs to be accepted that he played in the era of flat wickets and average bowling attacks with players either in last leg or top bowlers mostly retired. He doesn’t have longevity either and hence an avg of 47 is just nothing special. A lot of romanticism is done over the knocks where the credit goes to the player who did well throughout that series rather than him performing in one inning. That England team of 2008-12 had a very strong batting lineup.

I rate Kevin highly because he won in India albeit vs a weakened washed team but still credit needs to be given and also helped win a series in aus. 2 great performances on tough away tours.

Sanga never performed vs SA india and even in aus it was just in losing cause.

Hadlee single handedly helped nz win an away series in aus no? And even won a test or 2 vs india on his own. No stand out performances by sanga. He also failed vs a very half decent West indies side.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Root passed Kevin...in 2017, I don't think anyone who has actually followed the careers of both would come to the conclusion that Kevin was a superior Batsmen.

You are hung on to statistics. I am not talking about stats.

 

[jnaveen1980]

They can alter stats all they want. Nothing will change. I personally don't like kohli but even still I wouldn't put him below sanga by much. Sanga really isn't all that special.

Very good player but not true atg

He is also below Kevin pieterson whom I rate much higher than him kohli etc.

Sanga is an accumulator much like all the others. Never played truly a counter attacking innings. ALso he was part of 1 test series 2 test series something like that.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Sanaga is not even better than dravid.

Sanga is really overrated here. His stats are way too inflated. I don't rate him at all. Not one match winning performance away from home vs strong teams.

He is a stat padder like jaywardene

What is your favorite Tendulkar match winning innings away from home v strong teams?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Sanga is an accumulator much like all the others. Never played truly a counter attacking innings. ALso he was part of 1 test series 2 test series something like that.

Talking left handers do you know if Brian Lara has any match winning 100s in Aus/SA?

 

[Ab Fan]

I rate Kevin highly because he won in India albeit vs a weakened washed team but still credit needs to be given and also helped win a series in aus. 2 great performances on tough away tours.

Sanga never performed vs SA india and even in aus it was just in losing cause.

Hadlee single handedly helped nz win an away series in aus no? And even won a test or 2 vs india on his own. No stand out performances by sanga. He also failed vs a very half decent West indies side.

That won was down to Cook hitting three tons in that series. Who wins a series by performing in 1 out of 4 games?

 

[kron]

What is your favorite Tendulkar match winning innings away from home v strong teams?

Did I tell you that I like Tendulkar?
I hate all stat padders. Despise them.

But tenda atleast performed well vs peak steyn. Peak mcgrath and did well everywhere overall.

 

[kron]

That won was down to Cook hitting three tons in that series. Who wins a series by performing in 1 out of 4 games?

Without Kevin they won't win that series. He made a huge difference.

 

[Ab Fan]

Without Kevin they won't win that series. He made a huge difference.

by performing in 1 out of 4 games?

 

[atreus]

You are hung on to statistics. I am not talking about stats.

I've seen Root play more great knocks on spicy wickets

 

[atreus]

Talking left handers do you know if Brian Lara has any match winning 100s in Aus/SA?

Not to my knowledge, in the 5-0 series he got bullied by Donald, but as usual with Lara, he could make hundreds of runs and double hundreds and West Indies would still lose

 

[Ab Fan]

I've seen Root play more great knocks on spicy wickets

I think from this millennium, Root just misses out from top 5. The top 5 batters are Smith, Sangakkara, Kohli and de Villiers.

 

[atreus]

I think from this millennium, Root just misses out from top 5. The top 5 batters are Smith, Sangakkara, Kohli and de Villiers.

I have him next to Smith in tests and tests is the only thing I consider myself knowledgeable enough to have strong stances on, Kohli and De . Villiers seem to be top tier ATGs in LO cricket so with all three taken into account they're probably top 3 alongside Smith whose just ridiculous in tests.

 

[Buffet]

Sanga was avg 60 in his prime and it only dropped to 57

Sanga high career avg? That's neither here nor there when comparing him with Kohli.

Since, mods work hard to keep threads on topic, I am going to open a new thread comparing Sanga and Kohli in the test fromat to avoiding derailing this thread.

Happy to hear your and eveyr one elses thoughts in that thread.

 

[ElRaja]

joe root has scored 13,000 runs in twelve years, thats an average of 1100 a year. joe root will likely decide whether to retire in the home ashes 2027.

2.5 year * 1100 runs is 2750 rus, which takes him to a career tally of 15,500. if he is in form i have no doubt he'll go for the record, but if hes not in form, i reckon hell call it a day. and you cannot rule out england sacking him 200 runs short of the record, given how they treated Anderson, lol.

i think he will do it, England players have excellent fitness, and root doesnt have a particularly taxing work load given his lack of league assignments.

 

[Buffet]

joe root has scored 13,000 runs in twelve years, thats an average of 1100 a year. joe root will likely decide whether to retire in the home ashes 2027.

2.5 year * 1100 runs is 2750 rus, which takes him to a career tally of 15,500. if he is in form i have no doubt he'll go for the record, but if hes not in form, i reckon hell call it a day. and you cannot rule out england sacking him 200 runs short of the record, given how they treated Anderson, lol.

i think he will do it, England players have excellent fitness, and root doesnt have a particularly taxing work load given his lack of league assignments.

+ 1

Root should get this unless he declines too much.

 

[jnaveen1980]

IN this day and age these highest runs, highest wickets become totally irrelevant stat. People care more about high strike rates these days, high sixes than total runs, impact. Welcome to new world. Bumrah may never take 500 wickets. But he is already rated by everyone on par with other potential ATGs. People definitely had that obsession 15 years back. Most number of runs. Because 10000 was a nice round number when Gavaskar made. Nowadays any slight stat obsession is called out immediately by fans. Rishabh pant got out in the 90s a lot more than 100s. But everyone of it were valuable.

 

[kron]

by performing in 1 out of 4 games?

He averaged 48 49 in that series
What about in the series before in India?
He averaged 48 there too

 

[Technics 1210]

If Root is in contention of the record, then ECB will 100% set him up with a series or two to break it.

I hope Pakistan have the honour in England.

 

[kron]

IN this day and age these highest runs, highest wickets become totally irrelevant stat. People care more about high strike rates these days, high sixes than total runs, impact. Welcome to new world. Bumrah may never take 500 wickets. But he is already rated by everyone on par with other potential ATGs. People definitely had that obsession 15 years back. Most number of runs. Because 10000 was a nice round number when Gavaskar made. Nowadays any slight stat obsession is called out immediately by fans. Rishabh pant got out in the 90s a lot more than 100s. But everyone of it were valuable.

Yea but bakwaskar has an average of 58 or something too. That's why he is a true atg best opener.

Adn rishab pant is easily the second greatest wicket keeper bat of all time after gilly

Maybe you could argue say someone like sanga or abd but those 2 weren't keeper for majority of their career.

I would also rate knott and the former kiwi keeper

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yea but bakwaskar has an average of 58 or something too. That's why he is a true atg best opener.

Adn rishab pant is easily the second greatest wicket keeper bat of all time after gilly

Maybe you could argue say someone like sanga or abd but those 2 weren't keeper for majority of their career.

I would also rate knott and the former kiwi keeper

Most stat obsessed fans nowadays are Babar Azam fans. They share constantly every useless stat of Babar on social media just to mask his mediocre high stake performances.

 

[Justcrazy]

He is only 33 years old.

I think he can play for 6 more years minimum. England also play a lot of Tests. All he has to do is score 600-700 runs per year for 6 years.

34.

Yes England do play lot of test. That is the positive thing, but sometimes English players suddenly give up cricket. If he is motivated for next three years , he will be really close.

 

[Justcrazy]

England plays a lot of Tests and that’s why their batters retire early. It takes a lot of focus and concentration for a batsman.

He will be 34 in a month and still be 3000 runs behind. I think he will likely retire in 1-2 years. No England batsman have been able to carry on beyond 35 in recent times.

If he comes close in next two years , I think the motivation to get ahead of Tendulkar would be in his mind.

 

[Justcrazy]

I have alot of respect for Sachin. Dude is top 5 of all time and if you say allformats( Test + Odi) then he is no 1.

I just disagree with Indian fans immortalizing him and hyping him up to stupidity.

Goat player no doubt but to act like he had no equals is absurd.

Many players have been superior to him year by year however yes, Sachin never fizzled out like they did and that's a huge quality considering today's generation is so use to seeing kohli and steve smith fizzling out in tests.

If we ask people to name there best all time Test XI and OD XI , Tendulkar would be in both for all the people. Very very few players can be in both unanimously.

 

[mominsaigol]

If we ask people to name there best all time Test XI and OD XI , Tendulkar would be in both for all the people. Very very few players can be in both unanimously.

He'd be in both but that doesn't mean he has no equal.

In his era Sachin was the best all format player( test + odi) that I agree with.

However when you look at it individually he

Year by year their were multiple people performing better then he did.

It's a stark contrast from someone like bradman who in his era was superior to everyone from all fronts.

In test cricket Sachin is no different from kallis, Lara, Sanga and many other batters in his era, Similarly in odi he's no different from pointing, and many others.

The difference is that he just lasted longer. Year by year Sachin only top scored twice in 24 years. Their were always people outperforming him or out averaging him or playing icc events better then him, with the exception of 2003 and 2007 where he did top score.

He also failed 8 test games in a row in pakistan, Had a rubbish 2006 outing etc etc.

Sachin has played goat innings, but he's also played rubbish innings and match losing innings as well. It's just that Sachin remained consistent while many batters like kohli, Steve smith, Pointing fizzle out at the back end of their careers.

However these guys were on par with him in his era.(kallis, Sanga etc etx)

Bradman is the only player ik of who didn't have any equal, As in his era every averaged 60 max while he not only averaged 99.94, He also top scored, out averaged everyone series by series and even during the bodyline he still somehow managed to out average even English batters who in that series could only muster 50 avg despite not being exposed to bodyline. Bradman still averaged 56 in that series.

Sachin had many equals and many superiors. He became no 1 by outlasting them and that's it.

Bradman on the other hand was superior to everyone in his era hands down. He didn't outlast anyone, he just was built different.

 

[Justcrazy]

He'd be in both but that doesn't mean he has no equal.

In his era Sachin was the best all format player( test + odi) that I agree with.

However when you look at it individually he

Year by year their were multiple people performing better then he did.

It's a stark contrast from someone like bradman who in his era was superior to everyone from all fronts.

In test cricket Sachin is no different from kallis, Lara, Sanga and many other batters in his era, Similarly in odi he's no different from pointing, and many others.

The difference is that he just lasted longer. Year by year Sachin only top scored twice in 24 years. Their were always people outperforming him or out averaging him or playing icc events better then him, with the exception of 2003 and 2007 where he did top score.

He also failed 8 test games in a row in pakistan, Had a rubbish 2006 outing etc etc.

Sachin has played goat innings, but he's also played rubbish innings and match losing innings as well. It's just that Sachin remained consistent while many batters like kohli, Steve smith, Pointing fizzle out at the back end of their careers.

However these guys were on par with him in his era.(kallis, Sanga etc etx)

Bradman is the only player ik of who didn't have any equal, As in his era every averaged 60 max while he not only averaged 99.94, He also top scored, out averaged everyone series by series and even during the bodyline he still somehow managed to out average even English batters who in that series could only muster 50 avg despite not being exposed to bodyline. Bradman still averaged 56 in that series.

Sachin had many equals and many superiors. He became no 1 by outlasting them and that's it.

Bradman on the other hand was superior to everyone in his era hands down. He didn't outlast anyone, he just was built different.

what is your parameter to judge a player ?

 

[mominsaigol]

what is your parameter to judge a player ?

Multiple factors

1) Peak performance
2) Avg at retirement
3) Oversea country and by opponent performance
4) Run tally
5) Best innings
6) ICC tournament performance
7) Longetivity
8) No of centuries
9) No of 50's

^^ Sachin no doubt is a great and it is for this reason I put him as the greatest all format player in his era and top 5 greatest test + odi player of all time. Infact my older brother @Hitman will vouch for me.

I just disagree with the notion that he was outmatched. Multiple people matched him.

If I was to create an analogy the Sachin would be like the classic John cena of his era in that he would take a beating, would have tough matches, would lose the title but would ultimately reclaim it, maintain dominance and finish off with the most title reigns.

Many matched him in the ring but he outlasted everyone.

However bradman is like classic wrestlemania undertaker or classic Goldberg. Just unmatched and undefeated with no equals.

One player is superior and is no 1 due to outlasting all his peers, The other is superior because he's genuinely unmatched in every aspect.

That being said, yes the fact that we are even comparing Sachin to bradman is a massive achievement towards the little man as any other comparison such as Babar vs Bradman would be laughed at.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No he isn't.

Bradman played in the exact same era as his peers.

In that era domestic + leagues + curation and many other forms of cricket were not established.

Had sanga, Kallis existed in that era they wouldn't have had access to coaching facilities or an infrastructure to succeed.

In other words they'd have been on an equal footing to the rest of the world.

Every player in that era averaged 20 to 60 max while bradman averaged 99.94.

Sanga ain't time travelling to the past with his current skills, he'd have had the same infrastructure if he was born in that era.

Player pool was extremely small then. So its not a proper comparison.

Bradman played in only 2 countries in his career. He was the best player to play in Australia and England.

The best batsman of his era.

That's about it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Multiple factors

1) Peak performance
2) Avg at retirement
3) Oversea country and by opponent performance
4) Run tally
5) Best innings
6) ICC tournament performance
7) Longetivity
8) No of centuries
9) No of 50's

^^ Sachin no doubt is a great and it is for this reason I put him as the greatest all format player in his era and top 5 greatest test + odi player of all time. Infact my older brother @Hitman will vouch for me.

I just disagree with the notion that he was outmatched. Multiple people matched him.

If I was to create an analogy the Sachin would be like the classic John cena of his era in that he would take a beating, would have tough matches, would lose the title but would ultimately reclaim it, maintain dominance and finish off with the most title reigns.

Many matched him in the ring but he outlasted everyone.

However bradman is like classic wrestlemania undertaker or classic Goldberg. Just unmatched and undefeated with no equals.

One player is superior and is no 1 due to outlasting all his peers, The other is superior because he's genuinely unmatched in every aspect.

That being said, yes the fact that we are even comparing Sachin to bradman is a massive achievement towards the little man as any other comparison such as Babar vs Bradman would be laughed at.

How many proper teams were there during Bradmans time?

 

[Devadwal]

How many proper teams were there during Bradmans time?

Bradman scored runs against amature bowlers of that time .

So I don't even look the stats seriously till the world war 2 .

 

[Hitman]

I wish I got the opportunity to speak to Richie Benaud while he was alive on Bradman. He is someone who saw Bradman play. He started his career a year after Bradman retired. And since it's Bradman, you don't have to worry about whether Richie saw him at his peak or not because Bradman was always at his peak throughout his career.

I specially want to know his talent level and technique compared to Sobers, Viv, Sachin and Lara.​

 

[mominsaigol]

Player pool was extremely small then. So its not a proper comparison.

Bradman played in only 2 countries in his career. He was the best player to play in Australia and England.

The best batsman of his era.

That's about it.

How many proper teams were there during Bradmans time?

Bradman scored runs against amature bowlers of that time .

So I don't even look the stats seriously till the world war 2 .

You're looking at things all wrong.

Yes it was an amateur era however during that same era, Everyone had the exact same resources.

They all had the exact same bats, exact same infrastructure, the exact same resources.

The same arguments you use for bradman are the exact same arguments that apply for every player in his era.

Yet none of those players could even avg 65-70.

If it were that easy everyone would be averaging 99.94.

I'd like to Sachin perform like bradman if he was born in an era where

A) Coaching facilities didn't exist

B) Bat equipment wasn't good enough

C) pitches weren't properly curated

D) PlayS had to be frequently stopped for years due to world war

E) and none of the players were full time players, bradman had a job + was a tennis player as well.

Sachin's skills were developed via coaching + alot of money being poured into him to develop those skills.

I'm not disrespecting Sachin as every player in his era also had the same resources and Sachin was ahead however same logic applies to bradman.

You can't just time travel ans take Sachin back to the 30's and have him play with same said skills.

Had Sachin been born in that era, he wouldn't have even 5% of the resources to develop his skills which he did in his career. The Sachin of 2007 wipes the floor with 16 uear old Sachin, However that due to experience, coaching and world class facilities.

He wouldn't have had any of these during bradman's era.

Can't have your slice of pie and eat it. Either give bradman the same resources as Sachin or take sachin's resources away and compare them with bradman's.

 

[mominsaigol]

Indian posters need to stop downplaying. What bradman achieved is something o player has ever achieved.

I was hoping steve smith would achieve it in tests since for 3 years in a row he was heading towards that trajectory bit he didn't last long enough and fizzled out sadly.

 

[Hitman]

Indian posters need to stop downplaying. What bradman achieved is something o player has ever achieved.

I was hoping steve smith would achieve it in tests since for 3 years in a row he was heading towards that trajectory bit he didn't last long enough and fizzled out sadly.

Ever heard this video song on Bradman? Watch it. Lovely song.

 

[mominsaigol]

Ever heard this video song on Bradman? Watch it. Lovely song.

Beautiful. They also showed footage of Larwood. This is what I was talking about.

Irrespective of the bowling, With no safety equipment it would have been impossible for any batsmen even Sachin to handle bodyline.

The bruises coupled with the fact that delivery is coming to your body and head, 99% of humans would be too fearful of their own life to actually play properly.

Bodyline was dangerous, it's a miracle no one was killed and no one averaged even 10 against it.

To avg 56 and and continue playing with a bruised and battered body is just crazy.

Every batsmen from this era would have whined and complained non stop the umpire and would have raised a valid point about their own safety.

 

[Hitman]

Beautiful. They also showed footage of Larwood. This is what I was talking about.

Irrespective of the bowling, With no safety equipment it would have been impossible for any batsmen even Sachin to handle bodyline.

The bruises coupled with the fact that delivery is coming to your body and head, 99% of humans would be too fearful of their own life to actually play properly.

Bodyline was dangerous, it's a miracle no one was killed and no one averaged even 10 against it.

To avg 56 and and continue playing with a bruised and battered body is just crazy.

Every batsmen from this era would have whined and complained non stop the umpire and would have raised a valid point about their own safety.

Bodyline was introduced only and only to counter Bradman. And England was basically spat upon by the cricket world and the media of that time for doing it. It's reasons like these why the Aussies might be hated, but they are always respected. And it's also reasons like these why England is often mocked and poked fun at.

My oldest cousin (from my mother's side) was born in 1962, and he started following cricket since around 1969. He used to listen to radio commentary with his elders back then and once TV's came to our city, he shifted to that. He has always maintained how the Aussies might have always had a notorious reputation since the days of Ian Chappell's captaincy tenure, but they were always respected.​

 

[atreus]

Bradman is objectively the greatest batsmen of all time with no scope of contention, perhaps in the chat for the greatest sportsmen of all time, how is Tendulkar being argued ahead?

 

[mominsaigol]

Bradman is objectively the greatest batsmen of all time with no scope of contention, perhaps in the chat for the greatest sportsmen of all time, how is Tendulkar being argued ahead?

They use the era argument, however they don't realise that if it were that easy then everyone from Bradman's era should have averaged 99.94 as well.

Bradman didn't have any extra treatment.

Sachin is ahead of others in his era due to outlasting them that's all.

Bradman is objectively ahead of any cricketer of his era by every single metric.

Infact he was so far ahead, the entire England had to cheat and invent an illegal move just to neutralise the Don and even then they weren't able to do it successfully.

He still averaged 56 against them. England won that series because no batter gave Bradman support at the other end .

 

[BouncerGuy]

Let's keep the posts relevant.

 

[Hitman]

Bradman is objectively the greatest batsmen of all time with no scope of contention, perhaps in the chat for the greatest sportsmen of all time, how is Tendulkar being argued ahead?

Here's from Wikipedia -

Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 is considered by some to be the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport.

 

[mominsaigol]

Let's keep the posts relevant.

Someone needs to create a Bradman vs Joe root thread

 

[BouncerGuy]

Someone needs to create a Bradman vs Joe root thread

Too many comparison thread... not encouraged

 

[mominsaigol]

Too many comparison thread... not encouraged

Why? Because eventually I'll make a Bradman vs Rizwan thread?

 

[atreus]

because a lot of people here have a clear agenda and it always seems to come down to India vs Pakistan tbh in comparision threads

 

[BouncerGuy]

Why? Because eventually I'll make a Bradman vs Rizwan thread?

Not needed really.. That makes no sense... Root vs tendulkar is fine.. Talk about it now

 

[mominsaigol]

Not needed really.. That makes no sense... Root vs tendulkar is fine.. Talk about it now

Bro, you need to work on your sarcasm detector skills.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Bro, you need to work on your sarcasm detector skills.

LOL... Rizwan will win that battle... here you go

 

[BouncerGuy]

well just come back to the original topic

 

[cricketjoshila]

You're looking at things all wrong.

Yes it was an amateur era however during that same era, Everyone had the exact same resources.

They all had the exact same bats, exact same infrastructure, the exact same resources.

The same arguments you use for bradman are the exact same arguments that apply for every player in his era.

Yet none of those players could even avg 65-70.

If it were that easy everyone would be averaging 99.94.

I'd like to Sachin perform like bradman if he was born in an era where

A) Coaching facilities didn't exist

B) Bat equipment wasn't good enough

C) pitches weren't properly curated

D) PlayS had to be frequently stopped for years due to world war

E) and none of the players were full time players, bradman had a job + was a tennis player as well.

Sachin's skills were developed via coaching + alot of money being poured into him to develop those skills.

I'm not disrespecting Sachin as every player in his era also had the same resources and Sachin was ahead however same logic applies to bradman.

You can't just time travel ans take Sachin back to the 30's and have him play with same said skills.

Had Sachin been born in that era, he wouldn't have even 5% of the resources to develop his skills which he did in his career. The Sachin of 2007 wipes the floor with 16 uear old Sachin, However that due to experience, coaching and world class facilities.

He wouldn't have had any of these during bradman's era.

Can't have your slice of pie and eat it. Either give bradman the same resources as Sachin or take sachin's resources away and compare them with bradman's.

Only England and Australia had any resources. Rest were just making the numbers.

The player pool was extremely small and Bradman was the only true great batsman. Even with todays talent pool there are not more than 3-4 great batsmen in a era. So with only 2 teams a far lesser pool Bradman was perhaps the only true great.

Players were amateur

No analysis

No DRS

No neutral umpire

No video replay

Only one format and you play only in 2 countries that too, years apart.

Sachin played in more countries in 2010 than Bradman played in his career.

As per your criteria George lohmann is the greatest bowler ever.

 

[mominsaigol]

Only England and Australia had any resources. Rest were just making the numbers.

The player pool was extremely small and Bradman was the only true great batsman. Even with todays talent pool there are not more than 3-4 great batsmen in a era. So with only 2 teams a far lesser pool Bradman was perhaps the only true great.

Players were amateur

No analysis

No DRS

No neutral umpire

No video replay

Only one format and you play only in 2 countries that too, years apart.

Sachin played in more countries in 2010 than Bradman played in his career.

As per your criteria George lohmann is the greatest bowler ever.

None of these arguments will ever change the fact that Bradman in his era was a million times superior to any player of his era and they had had the exact same resources as he did plain and simple.

Not the case qith Sachin

 

[cricketjoshila]

None of these arguments will ever change the fact that Bradman in his era was a million times superior to any player of his era and they had had the exact same resources as he did plain and simple.

Not the case qith Sachin

None of that changes the fact that Bradman was the greatest of his era not Tendulkar's.

That Tendulkar played in a far larger pool and faced more varied conditions and far greater bowlers.

 

[mominsaigol]

None of that changes the fact that Bradman was the greatest of his era not Tendulkar's.

That Tendulkar played in a far larger pool and faced more varied conditions and far greater bowlers.

Never claimed he was.

Bradman was the greatest in his era and was far far superior to anyone in his era

Whereas Tendulkar wasn't. Year by year their was always someone out averaging, our scoring, or out performing him. He only managed to top score twice in his 24 year career.

Tendulkar only outlasted everyone with consistentcy and longetivity.

No one stopped tenda from out averaging and Out scoring everyone from his era.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Never claimed he was.

Bradman was the greatest in his era and was far far superior to anyone in his era

Whereas Tendulkar wasn't. Year by year their was always someone out averaging, our scoring, or out performing him. He only managed to top score twice in his 24 year career.

Tendulkar only outlasted everyone with consistentcy and longetivity.

No one stopped tenda from out averaging and Out scoring everyone from his era.

Tendulkar outscored everyone from his era. People came and went, Tendulkar remained the gold standard of comparison for his contemporaries for more than 2 decades.

Avg is not a single number. Can you show me another batsman of Tendulkar's era who avgd 50 over all and avgd 50 in every country and against every opponent in test Cricket.

 

[mominsaigol]

Tendulkar outscored everyone from his era. People came and went, Tendulkar remained the gold standard of comparison for his contemporaries for more than 2 decades.

Avg is not a single number. Can you show me another batsman of Tendulkar's era who avgd 50 over all and avgd 50 in every country and against every opponent in test Cricket.

Tendulkar didn't avg 50 in every country. Check howstat. Lying kei bi had hoti hai.

And he didn't outscore everyone In his era. He just played the most games.

In his 24 year long career, he only achieved top run scorer of the year twice.

22x the top position belonged to someone else. Not the case with bradman

 

[Romali_rotti]

Not to my knowledge, in the 5-0 series he got bullied by Donald, but as usual with Lara, he could make hundreds of runs and double hundreds and West Indies would still lose

Lara doesnt have a 100 against Donald.

 

[atreus]

Lara doesnt have a 100 against Donald.

He had a big issue with extreme pace because of his eye problems.

 

[Varun]

Root won't average 50 by the end of his career. It's not an English trait. How can he be a great test batsman then, leave alone better than Tendulkar?

 

[atreus]

Root won't average 50 by the end of his career. It's not an English trait. How can he be a great test batsman then, leave alone better than Tendulkar?

You can average 50-51 which Root probably will and be an elite ATG, if he falls to 48-49 but makes 18000 runs that's ATG anyway

 

[Varun]

You can average 50-51 which Root probably will and be an elite ATG, if he falls to 48-49 but makes 18000 runs that's ATG anyway

Yeah nah.

 

[atreus]

Yeah nah.

why nah?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Root won't average 50 by the end of his career. It's not an English trait. How can he be a great test batsman then, leave alone better than Tendulkar?

If he doesn't average 50. Then he won't be an ATG.

 

[Varun]

why nah?

The basic barometer for a test batsman to be an ATG for me is to average 50. Even after that he might not (eg: Vinod Kambli, Adam Voges), but it's a start.

Fate has made a lot of such flawed batsmen average just under 50, proving my point: Inzamam, Sehwag, Jayawardene etc.

 

[atreus]

The basic barometer for a test batsman to be an ATG for me is to average 50. Even after that he might not (eg: Vinod Kambli, Adam Voges), but it's a start.

Fate has made a lot of such flawed batsmen average just under 50, proving my point: Inzamam, Sehwag, Jayawardene etc.

so Mohammad Yousuf is a ATG bat?

though, Root averages 50 anyway so who even really cares.

 

[Rajdeep]

If he doesn't average 50. Then he won't be an ATG.

He will not be an ATG simply bcoz he avgs 40 in Ashes cricket. There is no excuse for an English batsman to avg so less against the biggest series of their calendar.