WHY do they say this?

[Sanz]

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.

The point is if there comes an individual who could play that many tests (For Example :- Cook ), it is easy to break that records, although I will agree that it will be very unlikely that one single individual will get anywhere close to both the records.

But it is impossible for someone to have Bradman's average. Just Impossible.

 

[robelinda]

Agree with the above. 99.94 is impossible. Playing 500 one dayers, 200 tests, not impossible......

 

[hang on]

what exactly are the 100 per innings - in both forms of the game - differential between tendulkar and the others who have played a significant number of tests and/or odis ie richards, miandad, sobers, lara, kallis, ponting et al?

is there a significant enough difference for it to qualify as 'big'? and hence for him to be adjudged much better than them?

 

[GotSpin]

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.

No one will ever outdo Bradman IMO. He was just too good, and is too far ahead of anyone. Some sports haven't had a Bradman yet, let alone cricket having him twice.

 

[GotSpin]

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...

Sigh. Such a woeful post.

Technically cricket was still at an amateur level until the 1970s.

 

[hang on]

this thread has gone down predictable lines, though with very little venom and invective and trolling. that's certainly heartening though it is also basically a reprise of the same arguments made in different ways countless times in the past. but, no worries....carry on...it has been entertaining as well as enlightening.

but, some more on the reasons why these comparisons with bradman have become the norm rather than the exception would be nice. why would some one as far removed from hyperbole as hadlee come up with those kinds of statements? and why would the sky sports pundits also bring up something similar during the 3rd test between south africa and india earlier this year. not sure who it was....rob key? they are not being followed by indians, i would presume, and so there really is no need to pander to indian sentiments....

btw, anyone capable of pulling up the john woodcock article that appeared in the times as bradman's obit (or part of the series of articles that followed his passing)? the sage of longparish has long been one of my favourite cricket writers, but his concluding comment - something along the lines of "at the risk of committing lese majeste.......i believe that tendulkar would have done just as well as bradman had be played in his time" struck me as more than passing strange by sheer dint of its hyperbole! i have tried to look it up again to check whether my mind was playing tricks but haven't managed to. much obliged to those who have the nous to circumvent murdoch's paywall.

 

[GotSpin]

Because praising Tendulkar is the in thing. Why do you think cricinfo had to change their top 100 test centuries to make sure he was included.

If it would have been so easy for Tendulkar to average the same as Bradman did why have generations of batsmen who average similar to Tendulkar not done so too?

Tendulkar is not some statistical anomaly. The fact is he has an average the same as a whole group of batsmen.

 

[TumTum]

wow this place is even less fun than PlanetCricket

Do I know you?

 

[Spark]

I will be brutally honest and say that I think we'll see about five Tendulkars before we see another Murali or Warne.

 

[Jono]

Tendulkar is not some statistical anomaly. The fact is he has an average the same as a whole group of batsmen.

I'll put a disclaimer on my post first saying obviously Bradman was better than Tendulkar, but this concentration on average when discussing Tendulkar is so stupid.

Hughes' article is talking about longevity too. Tendulkar will never average 99, but until someone averages as much as he does over the same period of time, he will be a step ahead of his generation.

Hughes pointed out that Sachin has 99 centuries. He'll likely get more. That is a long long way ahead of the competition.

His amount of runs, centuries and longevity isn't as large as an anomaly as Bradman is, but it's getting close to being one nevertheless. The guy is arguably better than he's ever been!

 

[Spark]

The problem for mine is that the thing that has caused Tendulkar to separate from his contemporaries such as Ponting and Lara has been more or less the last two years. Two!

 

[hang on]

The problem for mine is that the thing that has caused Tendulkar to separate from his contemporaries such as Ponting and Lara has been more or less the last two years. Two!

while u are basically right about that, i distinctly remember that, around the turn of the century, it was also fashionable to anoint tendulkar the next best after bradman, if not the best ever. the wisden article titled 'tendulkar the great, and getting greater' (in which he was rated the 2nd best ever batsman in both formats of the game), the woodcock obituary referred to in my previous post being just 2 examples of this.

perhaps it is because many pundits' faith in his being the best has again been vindicated....after a period when it seemed that they might have been off the mark? just a thought. the combination of the need for heroes and the need to be right, perhaps?

 

[Cruxdude]

The problem for mine is that the thing that has caused Tendulkar to separate from his contemporaries such as Ponting and Lara has been more or less the last two years. Two!

Not true his purple patch is from after the 2007 WC and is just a bit shorter than the period that took Ponting to be talked along with Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[GIMH]

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.

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.

I'll put a disclaimer on my post first saying obviously Bradman was better than Tendulkar, but this concentration on average when discussing Tendulkar is so stupid.

Hughes' article is talking about longevity too. Tendulkar will never average 99, but until someone averages as much as he does over the same period of time, he will be a step ahead of his generation.

Hughes pointed out that Sachin has 99 centuries. He'll likely get more. That is a long long way ahead of the competition.

His amount of runs, centuries and longevity isn't as large as an anomaly as Bradman is, but it's getting close to being one nevertheless. The guy is arguably better than he's ever been!

I think I came across too negative towards Sachin in my post; my intention is not to demean him. His achievements are amazing and he is an automatic entry into my AT XI. His number of centuries is incredible and my point (as you guys have largely acknowledged) is simply that is not comparable to Bradman"s level of dominance.

Longevity is not to be sniffed at though, and it is why these days I would place Sachin above Ponting, whereas a couple of years back I don't think I would have.

 

[Spark]

Not true his purple patch is from after the 2007 WC and is just a bit shorter than the period that took Ponting to be talked along with Tendulkar and Lara.

The two-year period is more to do with Ponting's decline than anything else.

 

[hang on]

possibly, spark. but, equally, it could be argued that ponting's golden period - from 03 thru 06 - coincided with tendulkar's temporary decline.

 

[centurymaker]

Sigh. Such a woeful post.

Technically cricket was still at an amateur level until the 1970s.

Thats what i was saying..........

 

[Spark]

possibly, spark. but, equally, it could be argued that ponting's golden period - from 03 thru 06 - coincided with tendulkar's temporary decline.

Which is very true, but Ponting's golden period was longer than that. In fact that period there contains an extended below-average period for him through 2004. (and my word was it golden. There was one - one of a few like this - period between the 05 and 06/7 Ashes where one felt genuinely sorry for any attack who had to bowl to him. He was merciless, absolutely merciless)

The point remains that the fact it's only been in the last two years that Tendulkar has pulled away speaks to the fact that the gap between him and his great contemporaries is not that big at all.

I mean, if you accept that Bradman is miles ahead of Ponting, Lara etc. etc. and Tendulkar is distinctly but only moderately ahead of the aforementioned - a proposition that doesn't even have unanimous agreement in this thread! - then that makes it pretty clear what the order is.

Anyway it's a pointless topic to discuss anyway, and either leads to appallingly flawed or contradictory arguments or necessitates people having to demean Tendulkar which is not something anyone likes doing.

 

[Sanz]

I will be brutally honest and say that I think we'll see about five Tendulkars before we see another Murali or Warne.

Honestly, there is a bigger chance of a spinner breaking Warne's record than a batsman breaking Tendy's record.

Bhajji will defintely break all bowling records and remember Bhajji and Afridi never get old.

 

[Burgey]

better start minding your language, sunshine.

Why do you constantly try to pseudo moderate threads? It's not your place mate.