WHY do they say this?

[GIMH]

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.

As regards to the second point, your post is there for everyone to see, so I wish not elaborate on that further.

Scoring 100 hundreds is no certainly mean thing, and having a gap of 33 hundreds with the second best, certainly is right up there with being called Bradmanly. What is there so flimsy about that? Do not please endeavour to speak on behalf of subcontinental fans. To call Sachin as the best batsman to have played the game, carries exactly the same merit as to call Bradman the best batsman. Both are opinions, statements and have their own justifications. That they may or may not to be your liking is your issue, but no need to rubbish them in such manner as you did.

Yes, my post is there for all to see. And I did not say subcontinental fans are stupid, or attack them. I said I can understand why fans of low intelligence hold such an opinion; as I have also stated that I do not believe most India fans - certainly of those I have encountered on here - hold said opinion, then it's pretty clear that you are producing a straw man argument. Bravo champ.

Onto your claiming that number of hundreds is a Bradmanlike comparison to make. Well no, it isn't. Maybe if you tried hundreds per innings we'd be on the road to somewhere logical. Alas, without checking, one suspects the Don would top that quite comfortably.

That is not to demean Tendulkar's wonderful achievement but number of hundreds is not a reflection of dominance in the same way batting average is.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Let's put it this way. If Bradman had the same level of professional training as Tendulkar, then he would have been even better.
As for Wasim and Marshall, well Marshall may be the better bowler, in fact he is the greatest fast bowler ever. However Wasim is unmatched in terms of skill.

 

[hang on]

while bradman is an outlier, the argument generally goes the opposite way, agent.

the rise in quality and professionalism across the board would almost certainly ensure that there would be no bradman today. or, bradman would not have been so far ahead of his peers.

this is the stephen jay gould argument in baseball transposed to cricket. give it a gander. quite interesting.

 

[bagapath]

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.

 

[Ikki]

Darren Bent probably isn't one of the best 100 players of his generation. That's why the analogy doesn't work.

But I am not talking about their stature in the game as I clearly stated in football we have no Bradman equivalent. I am merely referring to the distance between the players. You want to mention someone a bit better than Bent; be my guest. My point is it is not close.

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.

That stat is just absolutely irrelevant. You may praise Tendulkar's longevity, but it has little to do with real batting ability that the 2nd is 67 - it is a question of opportunity in that instance. Tendulkar doesn't score 100s or runs in general, for that matter, much more than any other all-time great with the bat. Bradman is untouchable with that consideration.

To say that the comparison cannot exist is ridiculous and smacks of arrogance mostly purporated by the Media of 2 countries hyping up cricket and certain legends for so long.

The comparison should not exist. It really is that ridiculous. You may as well compare Sami with Marshall.

while bradman is an outlier, the argument generally goes the opposite way, agent.

the rise in quality and professionalism across the board would almost certainly ensure that there would be no bradman today. or, bradman would not have been so far ahead of his peers.

this is the stephen jay gould argument in baseball transposed to cricket. give it a gander. quite interesting.

It's an interesting point, but I disagree. I could agree if you were talking about Grace, for example, but not Bradman. Cricket had progressed enough at that point. The way Bradman was so ahead of his contemporaries and of all subsequent batsmen in history show that he is what he is - a freak that you're unlikely to see for many generations yet.

 

[Teja.]

To say that the comparison cannot exist is ridiculous and smacks of arrogance mostly purporated by the Media of 2 countries hyping up cricket and certain legends for so long.

No.

 

[GIMH]

Well done Ikki, excellent post

 

[GIMH]

No.

WAFG

 

[Weezy]

that's just perfect, then, champ.

time for u to trot off back there.

woof woof

bad doggy

 

[hang on]

It's an interesting point, but I disagree. I could agree if you were talking about Grace, for example, but not Bradman. Cricket had progressed enough at that point. The way Bradman was so ahead of his contemporaries and of all subsequent batsmen in history show that he is what he is - a freak that you're unlikely to see for many generations yet.

i am sure that bradman would have been comfortably ahead of his peers. but probably not that far ahead. difficult to quantify by how much but i imagine that it would be something unequivocally significant, if not exactly mindboggling.

(i am pretty sure that the gould analysis also dealt with players from essentially that period, or perhaps a little earlier. not sure of the top of my head)

 

[Howe_zat]

Fact: It's impossible to correctly pronounce "indubitably" without a monocle.

 

[Sanz]

I hide none of my disdain for this comparison. The day people seriously start discussing this all over the cricket world is the day the sport is dead and we are pandering to the masses. Tendulkar is not even clearly the best batsman of his own era, let alone even being near Bradman. The difference between the players is so large it is akin to comparing Darrent Bent with Pele.

This is the poll on the fox-sports site with the Hughes article:

A ****ing travesty.

That was then, here it is how it looks now :-

Whos is the greatest batsman of all time?

Sir Donald Bradman 48.03%


Sachin Tendulkar 51.97%

 

[Agent Nationaux]

That was then, here it is how it looks now :-

Whos is the greatest batsman of all time?

Sir Donald Bradman 48.03%


Sachin Tendulkar 51.97%

Lol, this will make Ikki really mad. Shows how much Sachin means to the Indian fans. I have to rate their support for him despite the fact that there isn't much of a comparison between him and the Don.

Bradman may be the greatest and a statistical anomaly, but I personally think that one day there will certainly be a cricketer who will outdo him. Records are always being broken over time, and his record is no exception.

 

[Sanz]

Lol, this will make Ikki really mad. Shows how much Sachin means to the Indian fans. I have to rate their support for him despite the fact that there isn't much of a comparison between him and the Don.

That's right !! There isn't much of a competition.

32000+ and 6996 runs, 99 & 29 100s.

Also you are assuming that it is only Indian fans voting in favor of Tendy. Don't forget the article wasn't written by an Indian.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, my post is there for all to see. And I did not say subcontinental fans are stupid, or attack them. I said I can understand why fans of low intelligence hold such an opinion; as I have also stated that I do not believe most India fans - certainly of those I have encountered on here - hold said opinion, then it's pretty clear that you are producing a straw man argument. Bravo champ.

Onto your claiming that number of hundreds is a Bradmanlike comparison to make. Well no, it isn't. Maybe if you tried hundreds per innings we'd be on the road to somewhere logical. Alas, without checking, one suspects the Don would top that quite comfortably.

That is not to demean Tendulkar's wonderful achievement but number of hundreds is not a reflection of dominance in the same way batting average is.

When was the last time a cricketer had that long an International Career with almost same consistency through out ? Not saying Tendulkar is better or even comparable than Sir Don, but let's not make it is that one and only stat that should count is the average.

No one is asking you to change your opinion of how great Sir Don was.

 

[Athlai]

TBH Bradman is just a myth for pretty much everyone who hasn't seen him play. He was the best there ever was and it just isn't fathomable for another player to be that good.

When people say player x is better than Bradman they're just saying he is the best that I have ever seen. Bradman's name holds a lot of power in cricket but practically no one has a real grasp of the quality he actually played with. While no one may actually be "better than Bradman" it is the highest compliment you can give a batsman, because it means you are better than the best.

 

[Cruxdude]

While I don't think Sachin is better than Bradman, I do not agree with posters trivializing Sachin's 99 centuries saying it is just a by-product of playing longer than everyone else. Playing for 20 years with such high output is incredible. Over such a long career he still has a gap of 1.6 innings per century over another prolific player Ponting.

 

[Sanz]

Didn't Sir Richard Hadlee and Nasser Hussain also say the same thing about Sachin ?

Sir Don Himself :-

“I saw him playing on television and was struck by his technique, so I asked my wife to come look at him. Now I never saw myself play, but I feel that this bloke is playing much the same as I used to play, and she looked at him on Television and said yes, there is a similarity between the two: his compactness, technique, stroke production, it all seemed to gel, he is a little bonzer”

 

[Bun]

That stat is just absolutely irrelevant. You may praise Tendulkar's longevity, but it has little to do with real batting ability that the 2nd is 67 - it is a question of opportunity in that instance. Tendulkar doesn't score 100s or runs in general, for that matter, much more than any other all-time great with the bat. Bradman is untouchable with that consideration.

Lol, absolutely irrelevant?

Longetivity is as equally important in the modern game (the age of Taits, Bonds, Trescos) if not more. A really good batsman at his peak (for 3-4 years) can turn around batting numbers similar to even the Don (Ponting comes to mind), but to carry on that form across 20 plus years, has been achieved so far only by a single individual in the history of cricket. And that is Sachin.

What is with the talk of opportunity I don't understand. Tendulkar gets to play in the same amount of matches as his country plays, isnt it? His number of 100s aren't result of India having played a lot of matches, but that he has endured through two decades to play in that many number of matches, and score runs. No special privelage was granted to him to get to that landmark, he fought the hard battle as anyone out there.

The landmark of 99(100 possibly if not more) international hundreds isn't going to be broken probably ever, just like the 99.96 set up by the Don. That shows the brilliance of the respective domination.

To amplify the relevance of batting average is understandable, but to downgrade an other equally important batting stat as "irrelevant" is not really justifiable. It shows a selective mind at application.

 

[Bun]

While I don't think Sachin is better than Bradman, I do not agree with posters trivializing Sachin's 99 centuries saying it is just a by-product of playing longer than everyone else. Playing for 20 years with such high output is incredible. Over such a long career he still has a gap of 1.6 innings per century over another prolific player Ponting.

exactly, especially in this age of guys who are getting burnt up really fast, Tendulkar (to some extent Ponting as well) stands tall among others. A truly gargantuan effort and one that probably will go unmatched ever.