I included Richards and Tendulkar as candidates, did I not? Hammond performed very well against Australia, which had a far from "club level" bowling attack, and to call it such a thing shows the lack of respect you have for performances of players from an entire era you have dismissed without just cause. Bradman alone rated him as one of the best he had seen.
I said barring OZ... yes, i rate the OZ unit of Lindwall-Miller-Johnston-Grimmett-O'Reiley and Beanaud highly. Rest were all whatever.
Grimmett bowled largely in an era when OZ bowling was akin to SL ( pre 1930)- 1 great/good bowler in grimmett, rest all club standard.
With the emergence of O'Reiley in the 30s, OZ attack had any semblance of respectablity compared to the 1960s and beyond era.
And against a decent/great OZ attack what did Hammond average ? 51.85. That includes his humongous debut series against AUS where he pulverised an aussie attack which can count only Grimmett amongst good/great category.Against a bangladesh-esque new zealand he averaged 112. Against a zimbabwe-esque South Africa he averaged 62. Against a 1980s sri lanka-esque IND he averaged 79. Enough said about his so-called quality. Facing one quality attack against whom you've had success whilst facing 3rd class bowling for over 60% of your career doesnt make you great in my books. Doesnt even make you 'excellent'.
And no, barring a few exceptions ( Bradman, Grimmett, O'Reiley, Ranji, FS Jackson and maybe one or two players here and there), i have very little respect for the pre-war era cricket.
I've been interested in sociology for a while and actually after 99-00 year i spent a year studying sociology.... read in detail the sociological framework and nature of the society you are talkin about (pre war), including sports.
As far as world cricket goes, the consistency was very fractuous. You had the few professional minded players playing alongside players who were amatuers, rich people/nobility who played the sport as a passtime.
Result is you have a pool of players stupendously overachieving ( Babe Ruth scenario) because they get to over-emphasiese their greatness based on exploits that involve both good and horribly sub standard - a standard which is below even the average bangladeshi/zimbabwe player of today. Which is why i think every single player who did excellently in the pre war period would take a hit career-number wise if they played in the post 60s era. For now, your easy wickets are removed as the field quality is a LOT closer.
no longer does your 7fer haul consist of 2-3 batsmen who are high school standard and no longer does your triple century come against a bowling unit who count one or two players with the skill/commitment level of a sunday league player.
Tendulkar is a great batsman, but his tendancy for making the easy runs and not showing up when the game is on the line does count against him.
I think that is a ridiculous comment. Take a so-called pressure player like Steve Waugh.He does better than Steve Waugh in the second team innings where the pitch condition is harder. Tugga has an ordinary 32 average while Tendy has a very good 46 average. He also trumps tugga while chasing a target- when pressure is most on a batsman.
34 average as opposed to 25. Even a so-called great pressure player like Lara averages just a scant 5 pts more than Tendy and whilst lara and steve waugh are so-called pressure players, tendy is a choker. Go figure.
Tendy has numerous knocks where he singlehandedly propped up the side or atleast, made the lion's share of the contribution. I dont need to quote reference to this- just analysing his performance throught he 90s is proof positive enough.
He also averages better than ANYBODY in the post 80s against quality attacks.
NO ONE has played as much as tendulkar and has a higher average against McGrath-Warne-Gillespie-Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop-Akram-Younis-Saqlain-Mushie-Imran-Qadir-Donald-Pollock-deVillers.
in terms of quality opposition faced, Tendy ranks as one of the top - he has faced more quality bowlers than Lara (who didnt have to face his WI bowlers of the 90s) or Waugh (who didnt have to face McGrath-Warne).
So in short, your assertion that tendulkar makes easy runs is quiete ridiculous.
Infact, he has made more runs around the world in more trying circumstances than many of the so-called pressure players like waugh,lara, etc.
As per not thriving when the game is on the line, i would ask you to take a look at hsi performance against PAK in 1999 match.
The only difference between lara's 153 or waugh's 200 is that they had the bowling attack to make it count and the rest didnt fold after one of em left.
To me, Tendulkar is a much better batsman allround than anyone save Bradman. Period.
Lara, Richards, Waugh, Ponting,Dravid etc. all take a backseat to him and dibbly dobblies like hobbs, hammond, woodfull, ponsford etc. dont even figure anywhere.
