Even if that was the case - and I strongly disagree with that FWIW - does it still qualify him as the most underachieving batsman ever? I'd say that Mark Ramprakash for example underachieved far more than someone who was best Test batsman of his era, even if he should have done much better than he did.
Even beyond players we know, I'm sure there are many who never even made it to First Class level who should have been good Test batsman.
Post was facetious, TBH. Though I don't doubt Tendulkar
could have averaged 70 or 80 in Tests, so undoubtedly could a number of others - for instance, Jack Hobbs, Vijay Merchant, George Headley, Sid Barnes, Garry Sobers, Barry Richards (over a lengthy period), Vivian Richards and Greg Chappell.
Fact is, no-one's done it, or come close. Bradman is in a class of his own, and is clear of the field. He is the only one who has managed the consistency to do it.
I'll be very surprised if anyone else ever averages much more than 60 over any length of time as long as Tests are played.
Heck, even Don Bradman underachieved. Everyone who didn't play the perfect shot to every ball and land every ball on the perfect line and length with outswing underachieved. It's all relative, and I think Tendulkar underachieved less than pretty much everyone.
