Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[vcs]

TBF to Mervyn Dhillon and Abmk, they did put forward some decent arguments.



I can't believe this is you Ikki. The more I read your posts in this thread the more you are beginning to sound like a bigot. It seems that you have a very narrow definition of what is a well reasoned argument and it seems to be pointing in the direction of "right is what I think is right"

Mervyn Dhillon!

 

[Blaze 18]

How did I miss it!

 

[cnerd123]

Have you seen Bradman play? How do you know that the bowlers back then weren't the equivalent to the sixteen year old grade cricketers of today? The question isn't who was/is the best in their respective times it is who is the better player. To definitively answer that we would have to actually see their techniques/mental attributes and compare them which we obviously can't do. People who vote for Tendulkar shouldn't be dismissed just like that. We could also consider the better coaching, technology that Tendulkar has received over his career perfecting what to do/what not to do and things of that nature.

Compare Tendulkar to his peers
Compare Bradman to his peers

Bradman wins.

I'm with Ikki on this. I can't respect anyone's opinion on the history of the game if they vote Sachin > Bradman. That's equivalent to calling the Earth flat or stating gravity doesn't exist. Or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or the 9/11 was a conspiracy.

It's ridiculous, founded on weak and flawed logic, and people who tend to argue these beliefs are stubborn and unwilling to change their view no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided to them. Basically they aren't worth talking to.

Sachin as the second best after Bradman? Over Viv, Hobbs, Lara, Ponting, Hammond, Barrington, Dravid? I can stand. Sachin as the best ever in ODIs? Fine. Sachin > Bradman...no way.

 

[Blaze 18]

Tendulkar > Bradman at bowling.

 

[Howe_zat]

People often disagree to things where it comes down to a certain amount of subjectivity and either opinion may be valid. It's different in things like art which are, for the most part, subjective, but when we are discussing sports you can be objective to a far greater extent IMO.

When you compare certain bowlers, for example, you know certain things can be valued more than other facets and what have you. You can legitimately argue for Lillee or Marshall either way and a difference in opinion may exist but the logical reasons suffice in one arguing either way. It is very easy to set up certain criteria which you hold dear and based on said criteria you can logically progress to rate one bowler better than another...even though the output of one is higher than the output of another. Because in your own mind you were being logical.

People who usually discuss things and have a semblance of sense usually have a healthy amount of respect for other people's opinions because they can fathom that people will have different value systems and rate things differently. You may even totally disagree with them but because you understand the aforementioned point you can move on from that discussion. You wouldn't even call them biased (in a pejorative sense) - merely that they hold different things to different values.

But if someone were trying to argue that Mohammad Sami is better than Malcolm Marshall because he swung it better (however they wish to define that) then they are taking the piss.

This is one discussion, IMO, where the question is so absurdly easy to answer that it takes incredible blindness to not see that most of the people voting for Tendulkar are doing so through sheer bias and/or willful ignorance. Now I am no Gandhi, I don't have endless patience to sift through crap. This is one discussion, IMO, where I can safely put aside anyone who votes for Tendulkar without regretting my decision an iota. The only answer that even gets near acceptable (and probably is acceptable actually) is something like yours where you may refuse to judge players you haven't seen. Even then, I think it's a very lazy answer but I can move on from it - this is not Trueman vs Lindwall...this is BRADMAN.

Now again, I am not as interested in the reasons because I know that I am not going to hear a truly worthy argument to Tendulkar's superiority. I am interested in who and how many. There's no grand plan.

I thought Shri's argument was perfect, largely because it wasn't really an argument. Obviously if someone comes along and says something like Bradman only played with a dozen mates that's ludicrous, but it's rather presumptuous to lump all fans of Tendulkar in that bracket.

We're dealing with something that's rather more than just figures here. I can't agree with Shri - I can't at all see where he's coming from tbh - but that's because I don't have that viewpoint into cricket. I respect his opinion and I respect him as a poster. If I blocked Shri because I disagree with him over this, that'd make me miss out on a lot of healthy discussion and a few laughs. He's a great guy to have around.

I don't see what you're trying to achieve in this thread. Seek out people with a different opinion to what, ignore permanently? Pick a fight with? What on earth are you achieving there? Are you really so sure that your perspective on cricket is the only one that makes any sense, at all, in any shape or form, that people with a different perspective must be an obnoxious troll?

That's closed-minded and it's hurtful to said posters. I'm not going to come in here again because I don't want to lose respect for you.

 

[Ikki]

Have you seen Bradman play? How do you know that the bowlers back then weren't the equivalent to the sixteen year old grade cricketers of today? The question isn't who was/is the best in their respective times it is who is the better player. To definitively answer that we would have to actually see their techniques/mental attributes and compare them which we obviously can't do. People who vote for Tendulkar shouldn't be dismissed just like that. We could also consider the better coaching, technology that Tendulkar has received over his career perfecting what to do/what not to do and things of that nature.

I said I won't argue points in this thread but I will address this point because it looks logical prima facie, but is clutching at straws once you delve further.

The standard of cricket from Bradman's time till now is very similar. Not only have averages remained pretty consistent through the eras of bowlers, but the same of batsmen. The best players always seem to average a certain average. More importantly, eras are not separate blocks of time. The eras of Bradman, Hammond, Miller, Hutton, Sobers, Gavaskar, Richards, Border, Tendulkar all overlap from one guy to the other. And yet the best batsmen never, ever, got a career average higher than 60, let alone close to 100.

For the standards to have shifted since Bradman's time to what it exists in what you may call "modern" times (like now), the sport would have to be unrecognisable to explain his 100 average. The difference between the 90s and the 00s between batting averages is about 3 points on average and yet we can vividly see the great difference between batsmen. Yet you would like us to believe that cricket has changed so much in this time and that it happened in such a fashion that we wouldn't notice it...yet it could account for a 40 point difference in averages between batsmen?

And that's the last point I will discuss on here because, it wasn't my intention to discuss points here and I do not want it to go down that road.

 

[Mike5181]

Compare Tendulkar to his peers
Compare Bradman to his peers

Bradman wins.

I'm with Ikki on this. I can't respect anyone's opinion on the history of the game if they vote Sachin > Bradman. That's equivalent to calling the Earth flat or stating gravity doesn't exist. Or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or the 9/11 was a conspiracy.

It's ridiculous, founded on weak and flawed logic, and people who tend to argue these beliefs are stubborn and unwilling to change their view no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided to them. Basically they aren't worth talking to.

Sachin as the second best after Bradman? Over Viv, Hobbs, Lara, Ponting, Hammond, Barrington, Dravid? I can stand. Sachin as the best ever in ODIs? Fine. Sachin > Bradman...no way.

Tendulkar peers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bradman's peers

Its the evolutionary way of life. We improve on what our fathers do etc all that stuff. We all know the game now is of far greater quality.

 

[benchmark00]

Tendulkar peers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bradman's peers

Its the evolutionary way of life. We improve on what our fathers do etc all that stuff. We all know the game now is of far greater quality.

Your Dad must be a **** of epic proportions then.

 

[Daemon]

What's the point of having two threads discussing the exact same thing..

 

[Ikki]

This makes sense. You might think that these points are not enough to rank Tendulkar above Bradman but conversely there might be individuals like Dhillon who actually think that these points are enough to rank Tendulkar above Bradman. How do you assign weights to these arguments. They are very subjective

It's not that hard TBF to roughly know the effect certain things will have on averages. Throughout cricket, the averages have remained largely the same. We argue now that pitches are flatter than they have been in decades, and whilst that is true, the difference in average between batsmen from the 00s between the 80s/90s is about 3 runs. People again bring up that there have hardly been any great bowlers in the 00s...but guess what: flatter pitches world-wide and few world-class bowlers - arguably the two most important facets to high scoring - have only lifted the entire average of batsmen in the decade by 3 runs. To explain the difference between averages with 40 points between them you effectively have to make out that cricket was a different sport back in the 1930s/40s.

Nevermind points that can go for and against both players - e.g. technology; Bradman could be studied better nowadays, yet he could also study the bowlers better as well.

 

[Teja.]

Your Dad must be a **** of epic proportions then.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't see what you're trying to achieve in this thread. Seek out people with a different opinion to what, ignore permanently? Pick a fight with? What on earth are you achieving there? Are you really so sure that your perspective on cricket is the only one that makes any sense, at all, in any shape or form, that people with a different perspective must be an obnoxious troll?

This is hardly opinion though. You can like Sachin better, he can be your favourite player, you might enjoy watching him bat more than anyone else...that's opinion, and perfectly valid.

Bradman > Sachin is pretty much almost a fact, because in any way you compare them statistically Bradman is the superior batsman. In pretty much every way.

Stating otherwise is just...ridiculous.

And as Ikki mentioned, if someone can come up with a reasonable, logical argument to why Sachin > Bradman, we'd beleive them. But we keep hearing the same, old, weak, already rebutted and dismissed arguments recycled and used again and again.

There is no current valid, logical argument for Sachin > Bradman. The only point I've heard is that fielding today is better than the past, and surely that cannot account for a difference of 40 points in batting average.

I can't respect people's opinions on cricket history if they honestly and truley believe that Sachin > Bradman is a fact that can be argued. If they'd rather have Sachin in their side or feel he's a better role model or player, fine, but if they put that forward as a fact and try to defend it...no way.

 

[smash84]

I'm with Ikki on this. I can't respect anyone's opinion on the history of the game if they vote Sachin > Bradman. Or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or the 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Technically isn't the sun revolving around the earth just as the earth is revolving around the sun????

 

[Blaze 18]

Your Dad must be a **** of epic proportions then.

 

[Mike5181]

I said I won't argue points in this thread but I will address this point because it looks logical prima facie, but is clutching at straws once you delve further.

The standard of cricket from Bradman's time till now is very similar. Not only have averages remained pretty consistent through the eras of bowlers, but the same of batsmen. The best players always seem to average a certain average. More importantly, eras are not separate blocks of time. The eras of Bradman, Hammond, Miller, Hutton, Sobers, Gavaskar, Richards, Border, Tendulkar all overlap from one guy to the other. And yet the best batsmen never, ever, got a career average higher than 60, let alone close to 100.

For the standards to have shifted since Bradman's time to what it exists in what you may call "modern" times (like now), the sport would have to be unrecognisable to explain his 100 average. The difference between the 90s and the 00s between batting averages is about 3 points on average and yet we can vividly see the great difference between batsmen. Yet you would like us to believe that cricket has changed so much in this time and that it happened in such a fashion that we wouldn't notice it...yet it could account for a 40 point difference in averages between batsmen?

And that's the last point I will discuss on here because, it wasn't my intention to discuss points here and I do not want it to go down that road.

Watch footage from the 1940s and then go watch a Shane Bond/Wasim Akram running into bowl. You seriously can't tell the difference between the quality of the different eras? Just because Bradman was a few generations ahead of his time does not mean Sachin Tendulkar of 2011 is a worse player.

I'll put it another way. One of the greatest boxers of all time Rocky Marciano had a record of 49-0 but if he were to fight the heavyweight champion now he would get absolutely massacred. Comparing statistics from such different periods can be misleading. Seriously cannot see how you don't understand this viewpoint. The boxers now are so technically perfected that they know how their opponents move before they even step into the ring through utilisation of what we have today video analysis etc. The same theory can be applied to cricket in what is an even more technique orientated game. Sachin Tendulkar has the benefit of these things and future players will no doubt have even more advanced things to help them achieve what never thought was possible now. It's just the way of life it's not taking away from Bradman's legend but to dismiss claims that Tendulkar may have a better batting technique than Bradman is a bit of a stretch.

 

[centurymaker]

9/11 was a conspiracy.

Bradman > Tendulkar statistically. IMO if Bradman had played in this era, he would've avg'd around the 75 mark. Thats all I have to say.

 

[Prince EWS]

Surely we could put CricketWeb's bandwidth to better use and compare batsmen of more similar quality, like Chris Martin v Viv Richards for example.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see what you're trying to achieve in this thread. Seek out people with a different opinion to what, ignore permanently? Pick a fight with? What on earth are you achieving there? Are you really so sure that your perspective on cricket is the only one that makes any sense, at all, in any shape or form, that people with a different perspective must be an obnoxious troll?

That's closed-minded and it's hurtful to said posters. I'm not going to come in here again because I don't want to lose respect for you.

I'm curious. As close-minded as I may seem, the point of the poll is in a round-about way my attempt at asking "so what's out there?". If there are enough posters, and they are the kinds of posters I'd generally regard, I would then start questioning them and then if their points are valid in questioning myself.

But first, I want to see just how many of these intelligent but differing posters they are. The hype these days has gotten me to questioning just how many people truly believe it these days.

Shri's answer was, for me, not even relevant because it was almost a refusal to compare. But if he is stating that the player playing now who is giving him enjoyment is relevant and nothing else, I imagine when Tendulkar retires and another player who is then playing and is the best in the world is then, by that criteria, going to be better than Tendulkar.

As much as I like Shri, that is a lazy and disingenuous answer. You don't have to have seen a player to truly gauge how good they are. That is why we keep score and statistics -otherwise, we'd only care about who won. It is a very good avenue to compare. One may have trouble comparing Lindwall to Lillee because even if they are so close statistically there is enough doubt about the far older bowler that it may seem logical to rate the person you've seen as better. But it doesn't take a great knowledge of the game to see just why that does not apply to Bradman. We are not quibbling over 1-2 or even 10 points in average here. You are talking about a player whose achievements are so grand that the heroes of other sports can't compare.

It's not something I am going to hold against him to the extent that I'd compare him to Bun or dhillon; but I will generally rate his understanding of the game less. I don't think that is unfair at all and perfectly valid. I think your mistake is thinking I consider my opinion so highly that I cannot possibly countenance someone disagreeing. You are wrong...there are so many players you can compare even if I thought one was distinctly better than the other (Hobbs v Sehwag; Richards v Dravid; Walsh v Hadlee) but we are talking about Bradman here. It is an insult to logic to disagree.

 

[benchmark00]

Surely we could put CricketWeb's bandwidth to better use and compare batsmen of more similar quality, like Chris Martin v Viv Richards for example.

Why don't we just sim the match up...

 

[ankitj]

Technically isn't the sun revolving around the earth just as the earth is revolving around the sun????

Technically, no. Because circular revolution is an accelerated motion.