The stats do not do him justice!

[GIMH]

one of your pieces?

 

[wpdavid]

one of your pieces?

Yeah - here it is fwiw.

Cricket Web - Nasser's Top Ten Tests

 

[GIMH]

Nice read, enjoyed that. Love Nasser.

 

[rivera213]

Shane Warne. Deserved a sub 24 bowling average, and definitely atleast a 1 against his 100s column.

Yeah definitely.

Tendulkar's the best batsman I've ever seen, but he isn't half as good as what the Don was. Bradman's arguably easily the best sportsmen of alltime - No cricketer even comes remotely close to Bradman. Not Sobers, not Tendulkar, not anyone.

Players like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards, although unfortunate, should not be held anywhere near the same regard as Bradman. Also, Garry Sobers batted a fair chunk of his career down the order. Anyone who bats lower-order for the majority of their career and averages 50, should not be held in the same regard as someone who bats in the top 4 and averages 50.

Wow, did someone actually devote a pageful to try and establish Tendulkar > Bradman?

Brave attempt I must say, like Don Quixote’s charge at the windmills.

Having said that, I regard Tendulkar as the best batsman of the modern era, even above players like Lara, Ponting etc.

a good page worth of crap .

If the captain declared after a lead was reached, Bradman's average may well be higher, with the number of not outs he'd achieve.

Look, Tendulkar is a great player, of that there can be no question. He certainly belongs in the group of the finest players I've ever seen, and he'd be towards the top of that group, if not leading it.

But it's not the sheer size of Bradman's average which alone sets him apart. Look at the difference between his average and the next best of his time, or indeed of all time, who played a large enough number of tests to count. It's ridiculous the difference in the numbers. True it is he did not play against as many opponents as Tendulkar, but he played a large percentage of his tests vs the best opposition of his time, namely England.

Were Tendulkar's average greater by a similar margin than the other great players of his time I would accept the premise of your argument. Say Tendulkar averaged 60-odd, and the Laras, Pontings, Waughs, Kallises et al were around the 40-odd mark, then I could countenance this argument.

But really there is no comparison because, frankly, Bradman is incomparable.

Glad to see we have so many people on this board who have seen Bradman live. Awesome!

Now, back in the real world.

How is it not even possible that the best batsman of the modern era be also the best of all time?

And is it not possible that the Lara's, Ponting's, Kallis' of the world aren't actually better than the other batsmen in Bradman's era.

I've seen as much of the Don as all of you have I estimate, but I think some of you are guilty of being revisionists and speaking from stats and ignorance as opposed to as a result of unbiased comparisons between Bradman and other batsmen.

@ Burgey- I'm not talking about in Bradman's time, but nowadays. Sorry, but he wouldn't be out there for as long as he was in his time. That's just common sense. Especially in Australia with Hayden and Langer as openers, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much time in the middle as he did in his day.

I don't dispute Bradman was easily the best of HIS era, but the lack of bowling quality allround helped with that.

It's also impossible to equate the pressure Bradman was under to the ridiculous amount of expectation which was put upon Tendulkar since he was only 16. You can't say Bradman was under anywhere near that pressure. India is completely different to every other country in the world. Worse than the US and pressure takes it's toll on even the best.

Also, just take a look at the techniques of the 2 players. There is absolutely nothing that Bradman did better than Tendulkar. And his eyes (by Bradman's own admission) weren't great either.

It's similar to the "Babe Ruth is the best hitter of all-time" in baseball argument. If you look at stats then sure, but the fact he didn't face any black pitchers, that the quality of pitchers weren't great past the star in each team and he was never walked compared to Barry Bonds (steroid allegations aside) who batted in a more level era.

Tendulkar flatters to deceive though. When you watch him in full flight it seems as though he will never, ever get out, when the fact is he gets out once for about every fifty runs he scores. Your eyes tell you one thing but the facts say another.

But then Bradman didn't play against the same (better quality allround) bowlers so how do you know he wouldn't do the same. Plus the wickets in the 30's were as batsmen friendly as those post 2003.

I think it's easy to ook at Bradman's average and say "He's the greatest ever bar none", but then, as I said previously, there are so many other factors which contribute to a player's average.

Important to note that averages aren't a measure of how good someone is, that's much too abstract to assign a number to. They're a measure of how many runs he scores for every time he gets out. Against good teams, against bad teams, in easy conditions or hard conditions, his average is the mathematical sum of all of his performances. I don't really see how it can fail to do him justice.

Is it fair to compare a batsman who basically only played his career in 2 countries (and 2 conditions) to 1 who's had to bat in 7 countries for 16 tests or more?

Surely a batsman who only plays at home and in 1 other country would get used to conditions?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

How come no one else averaged 100 if the bowling was so weak?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's also impossible to equate the pressure Bradman was under to the ridiculous amount of expectation which was put upon Tendulkar since he was only 16. You can't say Bradman was under anywhere near that pressure. India is completely different to every other country in the world. Worse than the US and pressure takes it's toll on even the best.

Bradman played during the depression and after World War 2. People would leave, as soon as Bradman got out. Bradman played under allot more pressure then what Tendulkar ever did. Not even comparable.

 

[andyc]

How come no one else averaged 100 if the bowling was so weak?

Exactly. Like I said before, Sachin doesn't even have a clear cut case for being the best batsman of the modern era, plenty of other batsman have reasonable arguments. If Sachin was far and away the best, as you claim him to be, surely he'd have an average much higher than his contemparies, like Bradman did.

 

[rivera213]

How come no one else averaged 100 if the bowling was so weak?

I didn't say there were batsmen as good as Bradman in his own era, just in eras after his.

He's by far the best in his era but the lack of any other 99.94 average batsmen doesn't mean the bowling was good.

Bradman played during the depression and after World War 2. People would leave, as soon as Bradman got out. Bradman played under allot more pressure then what Tendulkar ever did. Not even comparable.

Don't give me that BS. You seriously need to do some research on the Indian media. People in INdia, especially Bombay, pay especially to see Tendulkar to but there is a million times the media coverage 1990's onwards than in the 30's and 40's.

There's no comparison with what Bradman was under to Tendulkar. Get real.

Exactly. Like I said before, Sachin doesn't even have a clear cut case for being the best batsman of the modern era, plenty of other batsman have reasonable arguments. If Sachin was far and away the best, as you claim him to be, surely he'd have an average much higher than his contemparies, like Bradman did.

It's pretty clear cut if you use unbiased comparisons.

The point of this thread is players that deserve an average better than they have.

Ponting isn't a 50 average player. He has nowhere near the range of shots, timing ability or adaptability Tendulkar (or even Lara) has/had.

And as I said earlier, the quality of batsmen is much closer together than it was in the 30's. The same with baseball.

People are always going to take the view that there is no better batsman than Bradman, no better footballer than Pele, no better baseball hitter than Ruth, no better pitcher than CY, no better hockey player than Gretzsky and no better basketball player than Jordan simply because of the romance.

 

[Uppercut]

Ponting isn't a 50 average player. He has nowhere near the range of shots, timing ability or adaptability Tendulkar (or even Lara) has/had.

Hmm, why do you think he does average 50? Interestingly, his stats take nowhere near the damage of his contemporaries when you remove the minnows.

 

[Smith]

Hmm, why do you think he does average 50? Interestingly, his stats take nowhere near the damage of his contemporaries when you remove the minnows.

Tendulkar and Lara are hardly Ponting's contemporaries. It is proven fact that pitches flattened out considerably after 2000 and much of the cricket of these two were played before that.

 

[Uppercut]

Tendulkar and Lara are hardly Ponting's contemporaries. It is proven fact that pitches flattened out considerably after 2000 and much of the cricket of these two were played before that.

Ponting's career started in 1995 tbf. But yeah, i'm aware. I just think the effect is a little overstated sometimes regarding batsmen (and understated regarding bowlers). Considering Ponting averages 55 to Tendulkar's 51 without Bang/Zim, there has to be more to it than just that.

 

[Smith]

Ponting's career started in 1995 tbf. But yeah, i'm aware. I just think the effect is a little overstated sometimes regarding batsmen (and understated regarding bowlers). Considering Ponting averages 55 to Tendulkar's 51 without Bang/Zim, there has to be more to it than just that.

There is also the not so significant factor of having played on Australian roads. But it is a puerile discussion for me, this Sachin vs Ponting debate.

 

[Uppercut]

There is also the not so significant factor of having played on Australian roads. But it is a puerile discussion for me, this Sachin vs Ponting debate.

As opposed to Indian...

 

[Smith]

As opposed to Indian...

Proof? There was an article in cricinfo some time back which proved contrary to notions, Australian grounds are far more conducive for batting.

 

[GIMH]

How the hell did this article 'prove' anything?

Tomorrow I'm gonna be writing an article proving that Stuart Broad is better than Bradman. It will then be indisputable.

 

[Uppercut]

Precam, you can't make a completely unfounded claim then respond to my counter-claim asking for proof.

 

[Smith]

It's a numbers analysis.

Cricinfo - Blogs - It Figures - 19 grounds, 19 years - an in-depth study

 

[zaremba]

Glad to see we have so many people on this board who have seen Bradman live. Awesome!

Including you. And yet you seem able to compare him to Tendulkar.

Awesome!

 

[pako007]

I don`t think you can compare Bradman to Tendulkar i am not saying that Bradman is better or tendulkar, but the era was different. so there is no comparison, Bradman has the records to show, but he played a lot of matches against england same sort of bowling everytime he didn`t face bowlers like jeff thompson, curtley ambrose, shoaib akhtar, mendis, murali, etc. back then there were no footages etc. nowadays batsman get analysed to death so i think batting nowadays is more difficult.

i would like to see some1 proving me wrong on this one.
people will try for sure.

 

[MrIncredible]

Wow im new to this site but already i see craziness abounds. Much respect to Sachin Tendulkar but he is no where near to Bradman. I cant think of a significant accomplishment that Tendulkar has achieved that couldnt be easily emulated and surpassed by Bradman and many other batsmen tbh. Do people realise that Bradman averaged 56 in the bodyline series designed specifically to counter his domination? Im not going to delude myself, I accept that teams like India, WI and South Africa of his times were rubbish but they werent any worse than the Zimbabwes and Bangladeshes of these times that Tendulkar has 'cashed' in on. Wow Tendulkar> Bradman LOL.