Rank these 5 Test openers in order ( Boycott, Greenidge, Hayden, Sehwag, G Smith )

[kyear2]

Sachin Tendulkar over his career batted in the '90's, one of the 4 toughest eras to bat in, if we look through a top 20 list of the greatest bowlers of all time, we see more than a smattering of the guys he faced. Warne
Muralitharan
Ambrose
Donald
Wasim
Waqar etc etc etc....

The notion that people think that Bradman was twice the batsman that Sachin was blows my mind. The pitches, variety of opponents and conditions, the quality of bowlers, there's literally no comparison.

 

[kyear2]

Strangely, it's Alec Stewart according to my list (whom I rate much higher than Atherton).... with Langer being 107th and Vengsarkar 108th. So long story short, Stewart closer to Tendulkar than Tendulkar to Bradman.

Based on?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Based on?

....... Performance.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I changed it to Thorpe but yea not exactly sure who is around that 100-110 level since I haven’t done a list.

Thorpe is definitely much better. Has really solid record across conditions as well. Top 80 territory easily.

 

[Thala_0710]

Sachin Tendulkar over his career batted in the '90's, one of the 4 toughest eras to bat in, if we look through a top 20 list of the greatest bowlers of all time, we see more than a smattering of the guys he faced. Warne
Muralitharan
Ambrose
Donald
Wasim
Waqar etc etc etc....

The notion that people think that Bradman was twice the batsman that Sachin was blows my mind. The pitches, variety of opponents and conditions, the quality of bowlers, there's literally no comparison.

Agree with this take fully. No way Bradman is twice the batsman Sachin (or Lara, Smith etc for that matter) was. Just because Bradman was much better to his peers or had a 99.94 avg can't justify such a big gap imo. Batting in the modern and much more professional era for 24 years facing arguably the toughest pitches, pace attacks etc. merits more respect. Sachin avgs 40+ in all test 10 playing nations of his era (many more conditions) and carried a much weaker India compared to the Aus of Bradman. Facing significantly higher pace, skills such as reverse swing and spin against the two greatest spinners ever is a much much tougher task than whatever Bradman had to put up with, while also playing ODIs and much more exertion. No way Bradman avgs this high or has such a big gap in the modern era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Agree with this take fully. No way Bradman is twice the batsman Sachin (or Lara, Smith etc for that matter) was. Just because Bradman was much better to his peers or had a 99.94 avg can't justify such a big gap imo. Batting in the modern and much more professional era for 24 years facing arguably the toughest pitches, pace attacks etc. merits more respect. Sachin avgs 40+ in all test 10 playing nations of his era (many more conditions) and carried a much weaker India compared to the Aus of Bradman. Facing significantly higher pace, skills such as reverse swing and spin against the two greatest spinners ever is a much much tougher task than whatever Bradman had to put up with, while also playing ODIs and much more exertion. No way Bradman avgs this high or has such a big gap in the modern era.

How exactly??? From mid 90s he had Dravid and Ganguly (and Azharuddin, Vengsarkar early on as well) and with Laxman and Sehwag coming in; India arguably had the best batting line-up of all time in the 2000s.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Agree with this take fully. No way Bradman is twice the batsman Sachin (or Lara, Smith etc for that matter) was. Just because Bradman was much better to his peers or had a 99.94 avg can't justify such a big gap imo. Batting in the modern and much more professional era for 24 years facing arguably the toughest pitches, pace attacks etc. merits more respect. Sachin avgs 40+ in all test 10 playing nations of his era (many more conditions) and carried a much weaker India compared to the Aus of Bradman. Facing significantly higher pace, skills such as reverse swing and spin against the two greatest spinners ever is a much much tougher task than whatever Bradman had to put up with, while also playing ODIs and much more exertion. No way Bradman avgs this high or has such a big gap in the modern era.

Regarding the second point, ofcourse Bradman doesn't averages 100 in the modern era and no one is saying he is twice as good as Sachin, Lara or even Jayawardene for that matter. But you can't have Hammond, Headley and Sutcliffe in Top 15 batsmen and still think it's anything but close between Don and anyone else.

 

[Thala_0710]

How exactly??? From mid 90s he had Dravid and Ganguly (and Azharuddin, Vengsarkar early on as well) and with Laxman and Sehwag coming in; India arguably had the best batting line-up of all time in the 2000s.

Was talking about India as an overall team relative to the era. There was quite a while in the mid 90s where it felt like Sachin was the only one keeping India competitive whereas Bradman's team was clearly the best of his era.

 

[Bolo.]

Sachin Tendulkar over his career batted in the '90's, one of the 4 toughest eras to bat in, if we look through a top 20 list of the greatest bowlers of all time, we see more than a smattering of the guys he faced. Warne
Muralitharan
Ambrose
Donald
Wasim
Waqar etc etc etc....

The notion that people think that Bradman was twice the batsman that Sachin was blows my mind. The pitches, variety of opponents and conditions, the quality of bowlers, there's literally no comparison.

Other than assessing lost value through replacement (under which Bradman is obviously far more than twice the bat Sachin is), who suggests Bradman is twice the bat Sachin is? Total strawman.

He's just a way better bat, even accounting for stuff like era. Unless you want to ignore all all premodern cricketers entirely, you would need to compare Sachin to a tailender before this comparison (arguably) had any validity.

There have been a bunch of suggestions for the 108th best bat who also faced these bowlers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was talking about India as an overall team relative to the era. There was quite a while in the mid 90s where it felt like Sachin was the only one keeping India competitive whereas Bradman's team was clearly the best of his era.

Actually Bradman's team wasn't the best of his era. England and Australia were pretty neck and neck. Hammond, Sutcliffe, Hendren, Paynter, Leyland, Jardine, Woolley, Ames earlier Hobbs himself alongside Mead and later on Hutton, Compton and Hardstaff; English batting actually matched Australia for the most part as a unit. Though Aussies also had McCabe, Ponsford and Woodfull in periods; it was largely Don making the two teams competitive. England also had better bowlers, as while Australia had 2 ATG spinners, their pace attack was highly lackluster compared to England.

 

[Coronis]

I think most people here don’t think he’s necessarily twice as good as the second best batsman ever, but he is certainly ahead by a far wider margin that is really properly conceivable.

Just trying to find a close example of two batsmen who played at a similar time to show what we mean… (based this somewhat roughly off of a certain forum member’s statistical analysis)

Its akin to saying that say, the difference between Bradman and Tendulkar is less than the difference between Sangakkara and Misbah. Or the difference between Smith and Warner.

Its just makes no sense.

 

[kyear2]

Regarding the second point, ofcourse Bradman doesn't averages 100 in the modern era and no one is saying he is twice as good as Sachin, Lara or even Jayawardene for that matter. But you can't have Hammond, Headley and Sutcliffe in Top 15 batsmen and still think it's anything but close between Don and anyone else.

First off, thanks for clarifying your position, but... There are persons who believe he would have averaged 100 in the modern era , even the 80's and 90's, and that's crazy to me.

With regards to the second point. Becuse of the limited amount of good teams and the dominance of two of them, and basically having the only two ATG bowlers on the same team, it's near impossible to compare Bradman to anyone other than his own team mates.

Headley only got to play the two (only good) teams of his era, and mostly on the road, while being the only one who definitely had to carry the load for what would barely qualify as a first class batting lineup.

Hammond again faced the only two great bowlers of the era, in an era mind you of unrivalled flat pitches where the pace bowlers had little impact (outside of bodyline).

Yes Bradman was better than Hammond, easily so, but for quite a few reasons I'm also not as high on him as others are. But at least he faced the WI in the Caribbean.

Sutcliffe, well we all know I'm not his biggest fan.

 

[kyear2]

Other than assessing lost value through replacement (under which Bradman is obviously far more than twice the bat Sachin is), who suggests Bradman is twice the bat Sachin is? Total strawman.

He's just a way better bat, even accounting for stuff like era. Unless you want to ignore all all premodern cricketers entirely, you would need to compare Sachin to a tailender before this comparison (arguably) had any validity.

There have been a bunch of suggestions for the 108th best bat who also faced these bowlers.

I beg to differ, there are many here and in the past who argued that not only is Bradman twice the batsman that Tendulkar and co are, that he would have averaged the same in every era.

Nothing impacts a batsman's numbers like great bowlers, he didn't face any. You can't in a million years compare what Sachin and Lara faced in the 90's or what Viv faced in the 70's and 80's to what Bradman did. That's not even mentioning the conditions.

 

[kyear2]

I think most people here don’t think he’s necessarily twice as good as the second best batsman ever, but he is certainly ahead by a far wider margin that is really properly conceivable.

Just trying to find a close example of two batsmen who played at a similar time to show what we mean… (based this somewhat roughly off of a certain forum member’s statistical analysis)

Its akin to saying that say, the difference between Bradman and Tendulkar is less than the difference between Sangakkara and Misbah. Or the difference between Smith and Warner.

Its just makes no sense.

And I greatly disagree.

I want to make clear, I make no argument to say that he isn't the undisputed greatest batsman of all time, there's no argument for that. But the twice as good, or inconceivable gap thing is a no for me.

My no. 1 factor for rating batsmen is who did they do it against, then we get into the rest (conditions, s/r etc), and Bradman looses a ton there.

If that brings down Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe etc, so be it, though Headley played a vastly different game to the other 3. He didn't get to face one decent attack or the next and the crap otherwise. He faced both decent attacks, including Grum, and none of the rest. Nor to add being in an abysmal team. But his 22 tests already count against him, so do as you wish.

 

[Coronis]

And I greatly disagree.

I want to make clear, I make no argument to say that he isn't the undisputed greatest batsman of all time, there's no argument for that. But the twice as good, or inconceivable gap thing is a no for me.

My no. 1 factor for rating batsmen is who did they do it against, then we get into the rest (conditions, s/r etc), and Bradman looses a ton there.

If that brings down Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe etc, so be it, though Headley played a vastly different game to the other 3. He didn't get to face one decent attack or the next and the crap otherwise. He faced both decent attacks, including Grum, and none of the rest. Nor to add being in an abysmal team. But his 22 tests already count against him, so do as you wish.

lol. So now you’re just going to try discount the interwar period just to push this narrative, whilst still somehow trying to push Headley. Impressive.

So lets take away the entire weaker attacks.

So Bradman, against the best attack of his time, played 37 matches for 5028 @ 89.78 with 18 tons, over a period of almost 20 years.

But this probably doesn’t count. For some reason or another.

 

[Bolo.]

I beg to differ, there are many here and in the past who argued that not only is Bradman twice the batsman that Tendulkar and co are, that he would have averaged the same in every era.

Nothing impacts a batsman's numbers like great bowlers, he didn't face any. You can't in a million years compare what Sachin and Lara faced in the 90's or what Viv faced in the 70's and 80's to what Bradman did. That's not even mentioning the conditions.

There is nobody here arguing that. Everyone is saying the opposite.

Seeing as Sobers started this off, why do you think points about Bradman having it easy in relation to some modern bats don't apply to Sobers? Both played predominantly in an era of soft pitches/weak bowlers. The averages of the WIs bats suggest that Sobers had an easier ride at home. Sobers faced more quality bowlers across his career, but this is mostly a function of facing a lot more bowlers. 40% of his games were against the bottom 3 teams of his era, and he didn't play 2 of the top ones. 70% of Bradman's games were against England, and he only skipped 1 top one.

IDK if Sobers or Bradman had it easier. But I know if you are arguing for a rating system that puts Sachin within X tiers of Bradman, you should also be arguing that Sachin is a tier or two above Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

lol. So now you’re just going to try discount the interwar period just to push this narrative, whilst still somehow trying to push Headley. Impressive.

So lets take away the entire weaker attacks.

So Bradman, against the best attack of his time, played 37 matches for 5028 @ 89.78 with 18 tons, over a period of almost 20 years.

But this probably doesn’t count. For some reason or another.

I'm not remotely saying discredit them, you're the one who said how can we have top 15 guys who played the same era as he did. I was simply responding to your argument.

Headley has his issues as well which has been extensively litigated.

The era was for all intents and purposes a viable one. It also happened to be the 2000's on steroids, literally the flattest set of pitches ever seen, added to limited viable competition and one of, if not the weakest era for pace bowling in history.

And re Bradman's stats, impressive yes, the man's the GOAT, before the war Headley had 14 tests vs England @ 78 with 8 hundreds and 5 fifties, while being the only test standard batsman in a very weak line up. Not to mention that dispute playing only 22 tests, he played in as many countries as Bradman, 3.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not remotely saying discredit them, you're the one who said how can we have top 15 guys who played the same era as he did. I was simply responding to your argument.

Headley has his issues as well which has been extensively litigated.

The era was for all intents and purposes a viable one. It also happened to be the 2000's on steroids, literally the flattest set of pitches ever seen, added to limited viable competition and one of, if not the weakest era for pace bowling in history.

And re Bradman's stats, impressive yes, the man's the GOAT, before the war Headley had 14 tests vs England @ 78 with 8 hundreds and 5 fifties, while being the only test standard batsman in a very weak line up. Not to mention that dispute playing only 22 tests, he played in as many countries as Bradman, 3.

I don't think you will like to bring in Headley's India record; not to mention sweeping his mediocre Australian one under the rug OR the small fact that among those 14 matches around half was against the English B team.

 

[kyear2]

There is nobody here arguing that. Everyone is saying the opposite.

Seeing as Sobers started this off, why do you think points about Bradman having it easy in relation to some modern bats don't apply to Sobers? Both played predominantly in an era of soft pitches/weak bowlers. The averages of the WIs bats suggest that Sobers had an easier ride at home. Sobers faced more quality bowlers across his career, but this is mostly a function of facing a lot more bowlers. 40% of his games were against the bottom 3 teams of his era, and he didn't play 2 of the top ones. 70% of Bradman's games were against England, and he only skipped 1 top one.

IDK if Sobers or Bradman had it easier. But I know if you are arguing for a rating system that puts Sachin within X tiers of Bradman, you should also be arguing that Sachin is a tier or two above Sobers.

Ok, let's take this one point / paragraph at a time.

One, Sobers started off his career in the 50's, which was, outside of the Caribbean one of the roughest batting eras of the game. So yes, in the 50's he had an "easier ride" (not that India has ever been a paradise for pacers either) at home, but what separated him from the 3Ws was how he performed away.
He faced Lindwall and Miller (even as an opener a couple times), Trueman etc. This isn't to mention that he entered the game at a spinner batting I believe at no. 10.

Over the course of his career Sobers faced, Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Lillee, Snow, the Indian quartet, Underwood, Willis, Benaud, Davidson, Fazal, Statham, Laker, Lock and that's just off the top of my head. So to say he only faced quality bowlers as a consequence of facing more bowlers is kinda disingenuous. He faced much better bowlers in his career, period.

With regards to facing the weaker 3, he failed vs NZ, Pakistan has Fazal and India for a decent amount of those matches had a couple members of the quartet.

So yes I rate Sobers, Viv and Tendulkar, not tiers, but the tier below Bradman, and don't see the argument of how Sachin is tiers above Sobers. Sachin also had easier home conditions, and yes while he played in the 90's, like everyone else he filled his coffers during the 2000's as well. No to mention also having his way vs the minnows of his day. Like Sobers he wasn't facing McGrath, Donald and Wasim every match either.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ok, let's take this one point / paragraph at a time.

One, Sobers started off his career in the 50's, which was, outside of the Caribbean one of the roughest batting eras of the game. So yes, in the 50's he had an "easier ride" (not that India has ever been a paradise for pacers either) at home, but what separated him from the 3Ws was how he performed away.
He faced Lindwall and Miller (even as an opener a couple times), Trueman etc. This isn't to mention that he entered the game at a spinner batting I believe at no. 10.

Over the course of his career Sobers faced, Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Lillee, Snow, the Indian quartet, Underwood, Willis, Benaud, Davidson, Fazal, Statham, Laker, Lock and that's just off the top of my head. So to say he only faced quality bowlers as a consequence of facing more bowlers is kinda disingenuous. He faced much better bowlers in his career, period.

With regards to facing the weaker 3, he failed vs NZ, Pakistan has Fazal and India for a decent amount of those matches had a couple members of the quartet.

So yes I rate Sobers, Viv and Tendulkar, not tiers, but the tier below Bradman, and don't see the argument of how Sachin is tiers above Sobers. Sachin also had easier home conditions, and yes while he played in the 90's, like everyone else he filled his coffers during the 2000's as well. No to mention also having his way vs the minnows of his day. Like Sobers he wasn't facing McGrath, Donald and Wasim every match either.

Sobers in the 50s wasn't a world beater though, far from it. He had one massive year off of a massive 365, but overall, his 50s record is just alright. Sobers faced Gupte 2 or 3 times in India and as far as I remember, not much of Mankad or even Ahmed as well. Definitely very poor attack, hardly better than the India Don played. Overall, Sobers did faced a much weaker bowlers than Sachin. Don played against Bedser, Larwood, Verity, Tate, Freeman, Voce, Bowes, Farnes, etc. Many of them like Bowes and Farnes had very short careers, but definitely delivered the goods on that time frame. Also played a pretty good WI pace attack.