Don't give me the "for once" **** when all you've provided is statistics which you got from cricinfo/wisden coupled with your huge bias (for whatever reason) for the 30's.
You've done nothing but bring generalisations. And mostly based on footage you've seen, which couldn't have been much.
Apart form natural progression of the sport (more people playing it being the obvious 1), then nothing has changed between Bradman and Tendulkar's time at all.
Ok, natural progression in terms of what? Evolution of humans? The sport? Be specific and show a measure. Show something tangible that one can measure to see just how much the sport has changed for us to concede that Bradman is inferior to Tendulkar.
You still haven't brought any proof. And trust me buddy, it doesn't take bias to think Bradman is better, it's
that clearcut.
That doesn't mean anything since my point was that the person with the lowest average isn't the best bowler of all time therefore it's not a given that the batsman is automatically the best batsmen because he has the highest average of all time.
Statistics, as I've said before (but you seem unwilling to admit), are relative to an era.
All your comparisons between eras are useless with different bowlers and batsmen participating.
Exactly, you brought it simply because it was a low average. Not that you actually knew anything about his era. The thing is...we ALL know about his era and why his average isn't enough to regard him the best of his era. So we are taking into account all variables, that is why Lohmann is never really mentioned in the same breath as the best bowlers.
However, Bradman is always a clear #1 because his era, unlike Lohmann's, is largely the same as today's. Since you are the one who is saying it isn't, you need to prove it. Give examples as to why it isn't. Then illustrate that by showing facts and figures. That's the only way you will be taken seriously.
Wow, you've copied statistics. You must study at Cambridge!
Sorry, that's a cop-out. Few people have looked into statistics enough to compare them era by era. Decade by decade. It's simply more than copy-paste.
But contrary to your belief, that isn't proof of Bradman being a better batsman than Tendulkar (since "better2 in sport is largely opinion based), as I said countless times before statistics are relevent only in comparing the era.
That IS proof. Whether it is conclusive proof depends on the individual. For some people, like yourself, a mountain - or a world's - worth of proof is still not enough and some things will never become conclusive and merely an opinion. I think that says more about the individual than the stats.
Simply put, the closest thing to a fact in Cricket is that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time...by far.
Simply saying stats are relevant to their era is not enough. Show us why, and why it means Tendulkar is better than Bradman. You give nothing but unsubstantiated generalisations.
I'm not saying Bradman wasn't the best of his era by some distance, only that you can't automatically equate his average with being worth 99.94 in the 50's-90's or even more than the best of those eras. I find it truly hard to believe the 2 "best" batsman (Bradman and Headey" were pre-WWII (for the most part, they were at peak in the 30's at least).
It seems strange a sport would be so stagnant in terms of individual quality even after 70 years.
It doesn't have to be the same; that's the whole point. That's why I showed you HOW much, for example, a few points in bowling average, decade to decade is noticed. 90s are much better than 00s, right? Yet the batting averages on the whole (a huge sample, because it is every batsman) is only inflated by a
few points. To say that Bradman's average would be affected by
10 would still be absolutely HUGE! Yet he would STILL be far and away the greatest batsman of all time. But you didn't say his average would suffer by 10 points...you said it would suffer enough for him to be inferior to Tendulkar, which is about 45 points worth. Now that is massive.
Think about it again, if 3 points can be so vivid in it's difference, then 10 points would be huge...and 45 points would be unthinkable. Cricket has not stagnated, but it has not differed THAT much.
Yet you think the 30's is 1 of the "toughest" eras when in fact in terms of cricketing ability (it would need you to be able to tell the difference between good and bad, and form your oown opinion god forbid) the sheer number of quality bowlers and batsmen have increased per decade after WWII (and ending with the crop of the 90's).
It's not even in the top 5.
It is one of the toughest, just not THE toughest. Apart from the 90s which is probably the most difficult era, the 00s, 80s, 70s, 60s and 30s are largely the same. You can only appreciate this by looking at Cricket on the whole - and not your isolated, and often contradictory, examples.
Talent means everything when the person you are arguing with (ie- me) is saying that whilst Bradman was more successful than Tendulkar, he wasn't better (aka more talented) than him (or Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards or Garry Sobers etc).
Sorry, no one really measures who is better than what someone else is purely on perceived talent. Talent is good as an after-thought. For example, some may say Lara is more naturally talented than Tendulkar, but who really cares? It's only what they achieved that matters. Which is why I bring up guys like Waugh or Martyn. At bat, they had brilliant techniques and made batting look artistic, but they are nowhere near as good as the Pontings or the Borders.
It all comes down to what was achieved, not what could have been achieved. Talent alone is not enough.
Based on what?
Your limited knowledge of how to use that thing made of willow and ignorance of sporting progression more than likely.
Facts, figures, commentary.... and hopefully common sense.
Well in that case Bradman had a twin brother who played for Australia at the exact same time.
And no, it doesn't "suit" my argument when I have no bias towards Bradman OR Tendulkar. You have an obvious bias towards Bradman.
If someone were to average 125 nowadays after 100 tests you would say "well, Bradman would've averaged 150".
No, I wouldn't. If it occurred nowadays I would consider that batsman better. Provided the batsman in question wasn't always playing Bangladesh, or some equivalent argument.
Anyway, that will be a discussion when a batsman happens to achieve that. Tendulkar is not near that and never will be.
In quality, every batsman is comparible (though the role they've been given differs so it's not necessarily fair to compare SR for example) but quality shines through whatever position they come in. The positions however aren't that comparible in terms of success.
Sure, most batsmen will bat higher, but it's not as clear-cut as that. Certainly not to make a difference of 40-50 points. LOL. Maybe 3-4. Most great batsman have batted that far low and Ponting did, but actually made his name at #3. So your original argument means absolutely nothing.
Someone coming in @ 6 will almost certainly start against an old soft ball. While it's not as easy to spot as a shiny new cherry, all things considered, it's easier to get started against.
You will also almost certainly get more NO @ 6 than at No. 4 thus increasing the average. I don't disagree with the ruling of NO innings being disregarded as an "inning" you faced since it's fair on those batting lower, but I expect anyone with common sense to take that into account when comparing ability.
They may have a bit more NOs than a #3 but not so much that it will create a different standard. At #7, it's more likely. For example, Sobers, even without NOs scored more runs per inning than Tendulkar who batted higher up. Which shows regardless, he was as good if not better.
3-4-5-6 is the mid-order. 3-4 probably a rung above 5-6 but not as different. Conversely, a batsman that comes in at 5-6 will face the spinners and could even see a new, new ball.
This of course is dependant on forming independent opinions, so I think it may be a bit beyond you.
Well, considering I don't think of myself as all-knowing I will look toward other opinions whilst forming my own. That's something that requires humility and intelligence. I am afraid, that's a bit beyond
you.
You are also more likely to face bowlers a bit more worn out @ 6 and 7 than @ 3 or 4 (this is exaggerated the further back you go taking into account nutrition, health and fitness change).
To group a batsman that comes in at 6 and 7 just shows how little you actually know about the game. Next you'll tell me because Mark Waugh was a wonder with the willow and because he usually batted higher up, he is better than Kenny Barrington, disregarding the 17 average points between them.
Tendulkar being at 4 is dead in between the opener and the late-middler order role (assigned for AR) and is generally the place where the best, non-opening, batsman (unless they are also an AR such as Sobers) comes into bat (ex- Tendulkar, Crowe, G.Pollock, Lara, G.Chappell, Miandad etc)
Er... The best batsmen usually come in at #3. Bradman, Hammond, Ponting, Richards, etc. But there is little difference and often batsmen switch between. It's really more dependent on where the team will need you to bat.
And, BTW, Steve Waugh batted @ 5 for the majority of his career, though granted he sometimes dropped down to 6 for (whatever reason).
The reason being: the team.
I have as much grasp of the statistics as you do and that's all you've brought.
I haven't seen 1 original opinion from you in this whole thread! All your opinions are based on statistics which is in fact NOT an opinion.
Anyone who hasn't seen 1 game of cricket can take the top 5 in the batting average lists, or find the highest averaging batsmen of every 10 years and put them side-by-side. That isn't knowledge. Knowledge is being able to look past statistics and judge for yourself. You aren't able to do that.
Putting statistics aside and judging purely from what you see is one of the dumbest things you can do. I showed you stats, analysis on those stats, how players in those times were rated and why...and you've brought nothing but "I saw some videos" and think that since that's original that it is more valid, or valid at all!
You can't get original with Bradman. He is the best batsman of all time by a country mile. All that can be written has already been written about him. You have some naive inkling that you are adding something new and, laughably, worthy.
Australia has never been a harder place to bat than England and nowadays it is generally much easier.
Who "done" the analysis and what criteria was taken into account?
It's been a much harder place to bat especially in the last two decades. Weather is only but one factor. Another: the bowlers. Australia has had by far the best domestic scene in Cricket.
The analysis done was to look at each touring side in each test nation. You see, this forum existed before you joined and many of these points are just re-hashed.
But still, let's see some proof. PROVE that Australia was NEVER tougher to bat in than England.
As for Australian state cricket, it depends on the state.
You're right. Probably not Tassie, but all the other states.
New South Wales on paper are as good as or better than Bangladesh, West Indies and maybe Pakistan.
But the rest are not necessarily better than our top county teams and some are worse.
I'd certainly take a full strength top 5 CCD1 team over Victoria & WA and South Australia, Tasmania & Queensland are of similar level to our "best" CCD2 teams.
I'd actually take Kent all things considered over the lat 3 state sides I named.
I'll give you NSW since they are a pretty good outfit on paper.
We're talking about Hayden, remember? Hayden played the domestic scene in the 90s. Where W.A., N.S.W., Queensland and Victoria were better than most of the test sides.
Australia had such competition for a Test spot, that it's 2nd tier players would have gotten into many of the Test sides available. That's why someone like Hayden could be dropped so easy. That's why it took so long for Mike Hussey to get a go. That's why Gilchrist debuted when he was 28.
Do a search on the forums, this point has already been raised before and the teams already mentioned, state by state.
They spanned 11-12 years in THEIR era. You're beginning to annoy me with every single "opinion" of yours being based on assumptions derived from statistics.
Um, as far as I know, 11-12 years then was still 11-12 years now.
Have you seen any footage of Chandrasekhar at all?
Yes that is wrong because that's not YOUR opinion. It's someone else's or a mixture of many people's.
It is my opinion. My opinion, and yours too, will
never be completely original. Originality does not equate accuracy nor validity. Whatever critique or testimony there is, has already been given to Bradman. You are not treading new ground.
I don't know, how about maybe.... base it on footage you've seen otherwise make no assumptions considering their era was nowhere near as good man-for-man as later eras.
No one can form a good opinion only on what they have seen. Especially about past cricketers. You cannot fathom the importance of the matches, their tension, their era's standard nor the quality of the player by looking at highlights. That's simply inane.
You have to use what you see, with what ACTUALLY happened (wink wink: stats) and put them into some valid and verifiable context. Not based on one's own whims and or fallible memory.
Nope, the most SUCCESSFUL by a country mile and I know a lot about cricket's history, I just don't rely on articles of romantic old fools to form an "opinion" around.
That's right, you've got Youtube and your grandpaps reels
.
You think Bedi and co are "mediocre"? Wow, what a moron. You don't know about batting OR spin bowling. Congrats.
LOL, yes he was mediocre as a bowler and simply one of India's great spinners. There's a reason why India were not much good away. Look at the facts son, stop imagining things.
How about slamming Waqar and Wasim's ability to move the old AND new ball in either direction while you're at it?
Waqar debuted at the end of 1989 and both he and Wasim were primarily bowlers of the 90s.
And West Indies were a force from 1976 pretty much til Ambrose and Walsh were past their best in the late-mid 90's. They weren't always THE best, but they were always in the top 2.
They were good, but not the best team till about the 80s. And that's it for them, who else was great?
Pakistan - Only towards the end of the 80s.
New Zealand - Nope.
India - Nope.
Sri Lanka - No way.
Australia - Nope.
England - For a time maybe.
S.Africa - Didn't Exist.
Not on You Tube, actually You Tube has about 1/10th of what I've seen of Bradman which is more than likely a hell of a lot more than you- unless you were around in his time so dementia may be to blame for your tosh...
No, unfortunately, all I have is what has been shown on TV and the clips found on the Internet. You must have some secret stash not even the documenters of his life could touch.
As for the Tendulkar vs Bradman debate, I think if you knew 1 iota about batting you'd at least see how I could possibly rate him as highly as the Don. All the things which make up a batsman seem to go over your head.
I do get it, that's why I think you're so incredibly naive.
I think a few in this thread, even if they disagree with my opinion, at least know where I'm coming from.
Yes, they know where you are coming from; naivety and ignorance.
There's no video or stat which will prove/disprove what I'm talking about since the 2 batsmen are split by a number of decades.
And using that theory, Larwood was an even better batsman than Tendulkar - since there is no way to prove or disprove, right?
The only way to really prove/disprove my opinion is to see both batsmen bat in both eras against the same bowlers on the same wickets. That wont happen until someone invents a time machine.
Your first mistake was to think your opinion constituted a valid argument.
You have given no proof, and worse what little in the way of opinion you have is non-sensical.
The thing you're not taking into account is how the best batsmen destroy poor bowling. The majority of the Don's runs weren't against the best English bowlers, but he destroyed the also-rans as well as notching up some against the better bowlers.
But even amongst the best, 1-6 (or 1-5), there's still little variation and not much to suggest the gap. You see, this is what you keep missing. It's like there is a hippo on your lap, but you can't feel it.
We are not talking about a difference of a few points, we are talking about 40-50 god damn points.
There was never as great a seam partnership in terms of ability (imo of course, but at the risk of sounding arrogant I think I'm a good judge of talent) as those I mentioned earlier in the thread and even Larwood who many, and I, consider the best English bowler of the time is a country mile away from all the seamers of the likes of Waqar, Wasim, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh etc as an individual.
But you've proven you know jack about Larwood and his era so what good is your judge of talent? Is the ACB or ECB going to ask you to scout soon? I doubt it.
The irony is, the bowlers Tendulkar did do well against was simply the WIndies. He didn't do well against Pakistan nor S.Africa in the 90s. His successes against Australia were either when one or both of Warne or McGrath weren't there. So even on that account, your outta luck.
As I alluded to above, the best bowlers of the time weren't 40 runs per person worse, but the average and poorest bowlers at test level were much worse.
But they weren't the poorest at test level...LOL, you've gone from demeaning the English attack underrating it's potency to raping it by equating it with the WORST test bowlers.
Bradman's era was probably the 5th hardest era to bat in and again, you're equating success with talent. This thread is about the batsmen who's 2 levels don't match up.
Between the 2nd-6th eras there is little difference in terms of batting. Even between the 1st and 2nd there is not that much of a gap.
How about knowledge of bowling and batting ability. Do you have any?
Yes. And, don't take my word for it, but many people on this site have played Cricket at one level or another
.
Boring. Stats don't tell the whole story and "your" stats didn't take into account the growing number of players through the eras (which in itself results in better quality. The more people who play a sport generally equals that sport having a better quality man-for-man. Since you're a football fan first and foremost, I thought you would've noticed that), quality of bowling attack, levels of fitness (which in a bowler's case is hugely important).
Of course stats don't tell the whole story. But that never was the point, was it?
I didn't say: Bradman 100 and Tendulkar 55, hence Bradman is better. I explained WHY those numbers are important. I explained HOW they were achieved. I explained the STANDARD of the eras. Whether there are 100 players or 1000, both have a standard.
With all respect to the forum, I've seen very few "in depth" conversations which wasn't completely based on stats which isn't so much an analysis as being able to read and copy from Wisden.
Then what are you doing here? Seriously. You've gone and questioned one of the easiest answers in Cricket and even fudged that up. Why don't you take your intelligence elsewhere?
I've yet to hear anyone give me a genuine opinion of their own on players of eras past. Maybe you can tell me why exactly you think Bradman is a country mile ahead of Tendulkar without copying stats from Cricinfo?
I'd lvoe to have in-depth conversations, that's the whole reason I joined, but I have only had a few to date.
I've already told you why. But my opinion is also the opinion of others. It will never be unique.
Bradman was a once-in-10-generations-player. His sharp mind, hand-eye coordination and his refusal to be second best, for some 20 years, made him the run-machine no one else has yet come close to. When England opposition were down by some several hundred runs, Keith Miller purposely gave away his wicket while Bradman was annoyed that Keith didn't continue the slaughter. Such is the mind of this perfectionist. He was a boy who hit a ball against a wall with a stump and trained himself. His dedication has never been matched and his natural aptitude is unlikely to be.
If Tendulkar simply batted selfishly, only to get runs for himself, at the expense of time or team or entertainment...he STILL wouldn't touch Bradman. Bradman doesn't have to be this cricketing god with every stroke in the book and the most perfect of footwork, that's not what is required to have his average. It's all the other things that make him special and untouchable.
And it has nothing to do with bias. Viv Richards is my favourite batsman...but not even he is the gleam on Bradman's shoe.
.
