No, he isn't. There is plenty of doubt against him when compared to Lara and Ponting in Tests. It is like comparing McGrath and Ambrose or Warne and Murali. Statistically it's too close to say "indubitably" - such a distinction does not exist. Only Bradman could qualify for being indubitably better than every other batsman.no. he is indubitably the best batsman of his generation. tests or odis.
But the reality is that is how far apart they probably are - and that says it all. It's just that in football we do not have the equivalent to Bradman. There is no set of all-time greats and one other guy who is far ahead of even those all-time greats.Agree with GIMH that that particular analogy is stretching it though, if not a tad disrespectful to Tendulkar.
regarding lee: that receding hairline and the creases around the eyes don't give it away? i just hope that when he loses it all, he doesn't go the ponting, sehwag, bollinger route.I know.Some players look remarkably young for their age.
Mahela doesn't look like he's over 30.That cute baby face should be 17-18 max.Brett Lee doesn't look like 34 also.
Firstly, are you seriously comparing number of centuries to average as a benchmark? Surely I don't have to point out how completely flawed your reasoning is?It is without question that Bradman stands head and shoulders and tummy and buttocks above any player of his generation. His average is unrivalled to date and the next best batting avg to his 100 is 65 odd iirc.
Then again, it's a statistic. A mindnumbing statistical domination to be honest.
But so is this, Sachin has nearly 100 hundreds in international cricket. The next? 67. Wierdly similarl to Bradman's average and that of the next best. I feel both stats are equally good indicators of one's dominance over the others.
However, I feel there is no real point in comparing players across generations, or even centuries like Bradman and Tendulkar. Each occupy their spaces in cricketing history. Undeniable, indelible placeholders are assigned to them.
BTW nicely trolled GeraintIsMyHero, if to say Sachin is better than Bradman is the hallmark of low intelligence (a not so subtle swipe at subcontinental fans), equally is the counterargument as well. They are just opinions.
I suggest you read my post again as you seem to have missed my point. Nowhere was I "comparing" averages and hundreds, but merely stating the extent of domination of the two in the respective indicators is staggering and yet similar, statistically.Firstly, are you seriously comparing number of centuries to average as a benchmark? Surely I don't have to point out how completely flawed your reasoning is?
And it was definitely not a swipe at subcontinental fans as most India fans I have encountered are embarassed by people trying to make flimsy arguments to put Sachin up there with Bradman (like you did). Do not tar all of your own people with a brush they do not wish to be tarred with.
Obviously the quality of cricket back then was pretty low. The game has advanced a long long way. Players back then were only part-time cricketers...We don't know for sure. It's stupid to compare players from different eras, unless we know what was the quality of cricket they played there.
Yeah.What is up with that?Some sponsorship thing?Or just poor taste in helmets?Sanga gets a point deducted for wearing that ******y ass helmet of his