Ruckus
International Captain
Didn't know Jadeja was that good.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Greatest Cricketer Ever
- Thread starter vishnukumar
- Start date
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
vishnukumar
Banned
Is Bradman scored 100 from 30 balls in your dream? he never score 100 that fast.. i am sure.
Bradman never batted in different pitches like sachin did. Just 2 different surface and 4 opposition ( 3 are minnows at that time , so mainly against 1 nation). Can i take 1 nation ,2 different surface and show sachin got better SR ?
Agreed. He never scored a 100 involving Ambrose. He scored 92 ( bishop got him) and 88 (run out by Walsh). But he has scored 100 involving Walsh actually. Don't know why Ambrose hasn't played in that matches
Ask Lara... he will say the truth
That guy never scored 100 100's , over 10000 runs in both format , played 21 years of intl cricket or infront of 1 billion people pressure.
anything more?
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeah he didn't, it was 24 balls Rewind to 1931: Bradman scores a hundred in three overs | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo.
vishnukumar
Banned
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
In those years , considering only AUS and ENG played lot of cricket... there are good enough batsmen played.
Sachin in his years had many players playing but still got more runs than anyone. I am sure! its hard for anyone to come break sachin record.
Ruckus
International Captain
Score so many runs at such a high average, I should say.
vishnukumar
Banned
comen! i am talking only intl cricket...
vishnukumar
Banned
As I already said , he played against 1 nation predominantly and 2 different condtions...Sehwag averaged 91 against PAK , if he plays more he might even go above 100 ... is that makes him better than bradman?
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
Averages of batsmen who played that same time against the same teams that Bradman played against.
This is both home and away and 5 matches minimum ,while Bradman played SA,India and England only at home.
I think i showed a while back that if you remove the last 2/3 years and away tours to Newzealand and South Africa from Sutcliffe's record then he averaged about 75 to 80 ,i think in 40 tests or something.
,,,,,,,,.....
I agree that Bradman is the best, but stats can be twisted there too .
And don't think it is mandatory not to compare someone to him.
Averages of batsmen who played that same time against the same teams that Bradman played against.
This is both home and away and 5 matches minimum ,while Bradman played SA,India and England only at home.
I think i showed a while back that if you remove the last 2/3 years and away tours to Newzealand and South Africa from Sutcliffe's record then he averaged about 75 to 80 ,i think in 40 tests or something.
,,,,,,,,.....
I agree that Bradman is the best, but stats can be twisted there too .
And don't think it is mandatory not to compare someone to him.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I reckon that table strengthens rather than weakens Bradman's argument, TBH.
Why would you do that?
Ruckus
International Captain
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Some more points in favor of Tendulkar being better than Bradman:
1. My grandmother could bowl better than Harold Larwood. And Hedley Verity took bowling lessons from my aunt's aunt. They were not half the bowlers that the great Mohammad Sami, Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Abdul Razzaq are.
2. Sachin Tendulkar's test average is 57, Donald Bradman's was 100. But this difference is due to the era in which Bradman played. 2 other great batsmen of that era Hammond, Headley etc. were much much worse than Yuvraj Singh. That's why Yuvraj's average is much closer to Headley's and Hammond's than Sachin's is to Bradman's. Probably Hammond and Headley were batsmen of Chris Martin's standard tbh.
3. Sachin Tendulkar's average in Ranji Trophy is lower than Bradman's average in test matches. Why? Of course, because the great Ranji Trophy bowlers were much better than Larwood, Verity, Voce, Tate etc. Did Sachin have a better average in school cricket than Bradman had in test cricket? I don't know. But if the answer is 'No', then those school cricket bowlers were much better than Verity and Larwood.
4. Bradman scored 29 centuries in 52 tests. Sachin 51 in 174. That means Bradman couldn't have made 22 more centuries if he played 122 more tests. Of course he couldn't. You have doubts? And who stopped Bradman from playing those 122 more matches? Of course he could arrange for some test matches in his backyard if he wanted.
5. Bradman didn't play ODIs. He was not talented enough for that. You need special talent like Michael Bevan to be successful in ODIs. Bradman wasn't half as talented as Bevan. Test cricket is crap, ODIs are the ultimate test.
In fact, Tendulkar is sooo much better than Bradman ever was that this discussion is funny.
1. My grandmother could bowl better than Harold Larwood. And Hedley Verity took bowling lessons from my aunt's aunt. They were not half the bowlers that the great Mohammad Sami, Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Abdul Razzaq are.
2. Sachin Tendulkar's test average is 57, Donald Bradman's was 100. But this difference is due to the era in which Bradman played. 2 other great batsmen of that era Hammond, Headley etc. were much much worse than Yuvraj Singh. That's why Yuvraj's average is much closer to Headley's and Hammond's than Sachin's is to Bradman's. Probably Hammond and Headley were batsmen of Chris Martin's standard tbh.
3. Sachin Tendulkar's average in Ranji Trophy is lower than Bradman's average in test matches. Why? Of course, because the great Ranji Trophy bowlers were much better than Larwood, Verity, Voce, Tate etc. Did Sachin have a better average in school cricket than Bradman had in test cricket? I don't know. But if the answer is 'No', then those school cricket bowlers were much better than Verity and Larwood.
4. Bradman scored 29 centuries in 52 tests. Sachin 51 in 174. That means Bradman couldn't have made 22 more centuries if he played 122 more tests. Of course he couldn't. You have doubts? And who stopped Bradman from playing those 122 more matches? Of course he could arrange for some test matches in his backyard if he wanted.
5. Bradman didn't play ODIs. He was not talented enough for that. You need special talent like Michael Bevan to be successful in ODIs. Bradman wasn't half as talented as Bevan. Test cricket is crap, ODIs are the ultimate test.
In fact, Tendulkar is sooo much better than Bradman ever was that this discussion is funny.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah I know mate, just ribbing you. Just shows that it was much harder to play 20 Tests in those days, even in an extended period.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
29 actually.
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeah exactly. That's something that should be factored against Tendulkar. Imagine going by boat every time you want to play in England.
Seriously people back in those days must have had balls of steel, with all the stuff they had to put up with. Pressure of a billion people haha, what a joke.
Seriously people back in those days must have had balls of steel, with all the stuff they had to put up with. Pressure of a billion people haha, what a joke.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
lol, (ya of course-post corrected)...still the argument holds true...even if he scored 52 centuries in 52 matches, Sachin would still have been better...29 actually.