The stats do not do him justice!

[Top_Cat]

As far as the thread goes, he doesn't quite fit the thread because he wasn't given much of a chance at all but Stuart Law was a far, far better player than his Test/ODI career would indicate.

 

[rivera213]

Hmm, why do you think he does average 50? Interestingly, his stats take nowhere near the damage of his contemporaries when you remove the minnows.

There are a number of players who's average flatters them.

With Ponting, it helped for a long time being under limited pressure because you have openers by the names of Hayden and Langer before you.

It's also not a coincedence Ponting has only got 1,000 run test seasons since batsmen friendly wickets were brought to the fore.

His average of 42.63 in England and 20.85 in India is more telling. That 42 is more like 37 since all of the tests over here were played post-2002.

Including you. And yet you seem able to compare him to Tendulkar.

Awesome!

The suibtle difference is I'm willing to accept there could be someone better than Bradman, or at least as good as whereas those who haven't seen the bad of Don willing to accept he's the best regardless of doing any comparisons of their own.

I doubt you or anyone has compared Bradman to all other batsmen in an unbiased way. The romance of "The Don" seems too big for some people to get past.

In everything in life there is progression. From science to sport. Are you honestly saying cricket hasn't progressed AT ALL in terms of quality of batsmen and bowlers in 70 years cos that's what you're saying if you think the fellow batsmen of the Don's era and the bowlers of Don's era were as good as or better than those of the 90's.

I would be equally skeptical of someone saying Tendulkar is the best without having seen footage of Bradman, Pollock, Sobers, both Richards etc.

If someone averaged 120 on todays wickets, someone would say "the Don would've averaged 170 on these wickets" so no matter how good a batsman's record, the romance of Bradman and all which comes with it (like that of Babe Ruth and Pele) is too big for the majority to compare with an unbiased mind.

But Tendulkar hasnt even scored 250 in test cricket against ne one, how on earth is he goin to score 500?? And Tendulkar was hardly successful against the best attacks of his time.

No-one got on top of Shane Warne like Tendulkar. Ask Shane.

And what great attacks did Bradman get on top off?

I mean attacks, not just a single bowler.

It looks like it's pako007 and rivera213 in one camp here, everyone else in the other.

I'm in the unbiased camp, what camp are you in?

The camp which says stats are everything let's not take into account the other factors which contibute so much to a person's stats perhaps?

 

[andyc]

No-one got on top of Shane Warne like Tendulkar. Ask Shane.

And what great attacks did Bradman get on top off?

I mean attacks, not just a single bowler.

Going to go ahead and say all of them, considering the whole 'I average 99.94' thing. Also can't believe you managed to contradict yourself completely within three lines.

 

[NUFAN]

If someone averaged 120 on todays wickets, someone would say "the Don would've averaged 170 on these wickets" so no matter how good a batsman's record, the romance of Bradman and all which comes with it (like that of Babe Ruth and Pele) is too big for the majority to compare with an unbiased mind.

LOL - If someone averaged 120 today and no one else averaged above say 70-75 over an extended period I would say that they are better than Donald Bradman.

Who's it going to be though rivera, it's not that easy to get out for 108 looking dejected that your average is going to go down!

 

[Burgey]

Of course, Bradman's lowest average for a series (Bodyline) was as high or higher than Tendulkar's whole career average. Still though, he's clearly not as good as Tendy.

Likewise, I'd clearly have Irfan Pathan ahead of Alan Davidson, Ishant Sharma ahead of Larwood and Lindwall, and Harbhajan Singh would clearly **** all over Bill O'Reilly, Headley Verity et al.

I should also say that I think Graeme Wood > Tendulkar. Sure he averaged 30-odd per innings less than him, and Tendulkar was the best of his era, but there are really flat pitches now, Wood had to play against the WI attack and a good England one, as well as Pakistan with Imran. In fact, those attacks are superior to the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe attacks of this era (although not by much, because of new training techniques etc.).

 

[Goughy]

Re: OP

I said earlier in the thread that players get what they deserve. I still believe that but I think when careers are cut short or there are limited opportunities then records can be deceptive.

Take Bevan and his failures and supposed weakness against the short ball. Basically he was up and down the order and the 'weakness' used as an excuse to drop him in favour of one of the legion of talented batsmen lining up.

I think it was a fair decision (given the depth of quality) but, IMO, there is no way Bevan averages under 25 if he plays 50 Tests.

A couple of bad series, messed around in the order, get roughed up by Darren Gough and get dropped. Harsh but fair but not a true reflection on how good Bevan was.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tendulkar better than Bradman is a new low for sanity, surely? Makes some of Richard's more eccentric opinions seem positively run-of-the-mill.

Yeah - here it is fwiw.

Cricket Web - Nasser's Top Ten Tests

Great article, Nasser was very good under the pump. Never going to win any style awards, but could grind with the best of them. His average was rather spoilt by a dire trot he had whilst captain from the home Windies series in 2000 to the 2001 Ashes when, the Kandy ton aside (and from memory he was "out" about 4 times in that innings) he couldn't buy a run. Because we were winning tho no-one seemed to mind tho. Link.

 

[zaremba]

Rivera, a few points.

First, I'm sorry for lumping you in together with pako007. A cheap shot, designed to provoke, and I apologise.

Second, with regard to bias, yes I admit I'm biased. I think that if we're all being honest most of us would admit to bias in our assessment of any player and indeed throughout life. It's part of human nature and it's an area of work in which I have a professional interest. However I hope that I can, to a degree at least, put that to one side when assessing the Bradman v Tendulkar thing.

Third, with regard to Bradman v Tendulkar, you make a series of valid points and you make them well, and there is force in the majority of them. However despite all this I'm afraid that I don't see sufficient evidence to support your assertion that Tendulkar deserves a much higher batting average than Don Bradman. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and I don't see anything like sufficiently extraordinary evidence in this instance. But I don't want to get involved in a lengthy debate with you about this because I fear that neither of us will manage to convince the other, and it will derail an interesting thread that you've started.

Finally, I do have a lot of respect for your readiness to go into battle against time-hardened monoliths of the game - eg "Bradman Is The Best Of All Time Full Stop". Have you read "The Willow Wand" by Derek Birley? Birley himself summed the book up by saying "If [the book] is critical of the sacred cows that have been allowed to stray on to the pitch, it is deeply respectful of the hallowed turf itself." If you haven't read it yet, let me recommend it to you - I think you'd really enjoy it.

 

[zaremba]

Re: OP

I said earlier in the thread that players get what they deserve. I still believe that but I think when careers are cut short or there are limited opportunities then records can be deceptive.

Take Bevan and his failures and supposed weakness against the short ball. Basically he was up and down the order and the 'weakness' used as an excuse to drop him in favour of one of the legion of talented batsmen lining up.

I think it was a fair decision (given the depth of quality) but, IMO, there is no way Bevan averages under 25 if he plays 50 Tests.

A couple of bad series, messed around in the order, get roughed up by Darren Gough and get dropped. Harsh but fair but not a true reflection on how good Bevan was.

Great call. Bevan was an amazing player. You only need to look at his performances in Shield and County cricket as well as his ODI feats to see that. If he had played for a country with less competition for batting places, he would have played 100 Tests and had a very healthy average.

Not sure he was the easiest character in the world though, having read about his time at Sussex in Tony Cottey's book. Perhaps this counted against him?

 

[Uppercut]

There are a number of players who's average flatters them.

With Ponting, it helped for a long time being under limited pressure because you have openers by the names of Hayden and Langer before you.

It's also not a coincedence Ponting has only got 1,000 run test seasons since batsmen friendly wickets were brought to the fore.

His average of 42.63 in England and 20.85 in India is more telling. That 42 is more like 37 since all of the tests over here were played post-2002.

So do you think Ponting is far better than Tendulkar on batsman-friendly pitches? Because if he's not scoring any on the tough ones and averages a decent bit more than him he must be pretty considerably more consistent on the "flat" tracks.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I didn't say there were batsmen as good as Bradman in his own era, just in eras after his.

He's by far the best in his era but the lack of any other 99.94 average batsmen doesn't mean the bowling was good.

You didn't answer my question because you can't. No other batsman in the history has come even remotely close to averaging 100. Tendulkar wouldn't of averaged anywhere near 100 in any era he played in. No other batsman has even come close to Bradman's first-class average of 95.

Don't give me that BS. You seriously need to do some research on the Indian media. People in INdia, especially Bombay, pay especially to see Tendulkar to but there is a million times the media coverage 1990's onwards than in the 30's and 40's.

There's no comparison with what Bradman was under to Tendulkar. Get real.

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about. Do you not understand the impacts of the War or the Great Depression? Far worse then being hounded by bucket loads of media. I'd rather be in Tendulkar's life situation then Bradman's. Tendulkar lived in a more peaceful era. His not half as good as Bradman. Open your eyes, son.

Ponting isn't a 50 average player. He has nowhere near the range of shots, timing ability or adaptability Tendulkar (or even Lara) has/had.

Ponting plays every shot in the cricketing manuel and plays his shots as eligantly as what Tendulkar does. Many think (not me) that Ponting is better then Tendulkar, because he relied less on playing weak opposition.

People are always going to take the view that there is no better batsman than Bradman, no better footballer than Pele, no better baseball hitter than Ruth, no better pitcher than CY, no better hockey player than Gretzsky and no better basketball player than Jordan simply because of the romance.

That's because no one else has come close to their acchievements (Well atleast Bradman's anyways), so obviously, no one is even close to Bradman. Tendulkar only averaged 39 in the most bowling friendly conditions in world cricket during his career - South Africa, whilst Ponting averaged mid 50's.

Proof? There was an article in cricinfo some time back which proved contrary to notions, Australian grounds are far more conducive for batting.

That article would have to be a load of rubbish. Subcontient wickets are clearly the easiest to bat on in the entire world, so much so that it's like subcontient players have an extended home ground advantage, which doesn't give a clearcut view of how good a batsman is. Ponting has made difficult batting conditions look incredibly flat. His 101 & 99 @ MCG last year, 50 odd @ Sydney this year and 80 odd @ South Africa have all been under very difficult conditions and circumstances. To say Ponting benefitted from flat pitches is merely laughable.

Tendulkar averages 137 against bangladesh... and about 80 against Zimbabwe and believe me the teams of bangladesh and zimbabwe are much better then the south africa england etc. of that time. it is like tendulkar playing against my team, he will score 500 evry match. but it is near to impossible to flawlessly deal with a swinging ball at 140-150 kmph i dont think Bradman had ever to face that challenge that tendulkar had to face quite regularly. i think he got lucky to be playing in that era, in this era he might be some1 like michael clarke or ian bell.

Matthew Hayden averaged 250 against Zimbabwe. Hayden > Bradman > Tendulkar.

 

[zaremba]

every shot in the cricketing manuel

He opened the bowling for Barcelona, as I recall.

 

[Top_Cat]

Great call. Bevan was an amazing player. You only need to look at his performances in Shield and County cricket as well as his ODI feats to see that. If he had played for a country with less competition for batting places, he would have played 100 Tests and had a very healthy average.

Not sure he was the easiest character in the world though, having read about his time at Sussex in Tony Cottey's book. Perhaps this counted against him?

May not have been totally fair to drop Bevvo the first time 'round against England but after getting back, he was given full series' against WI in 1996, the following series against SA and 3 Tests in England in 1997. Not one ton in that time. Got two unbeaten 80's against the WI but the Adelaide knock was a shocking one (was dropped at least once and bowled off a no-ball), still dicked around and didn't get a hundred on a road against a thoroughly demoralised opponent. Was then found out against reasonable bowling line-ups in SA and England and absolutely deserved to be dropped for Ponting.

I know he was picked as a batting all-rounder so didn't bat very high in that time but had he scored runs, his bowling would have been immaterial. For all the rumours he was a difficult personality (and he was) Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor loved him. The whole short-ball thing was only an issue for selectors early on; his big technical issues were his angled bat and weak leg-side play. Was an open secret that to get him out, you basically bottled him up on his legs then throw the wide one and he'd pretty often obligingly nick the ball. Couldn't resist not scoring runs. By the time he started to look good again, his time had passed as it was around that time Katich and others started kicking on.

Personally, he had plenty of chances to show something, anything. Had he kicked on with one of his 80's against the WI and maybe gotten one score in SA, things might have been different. But by England 1997, he was just being put out of his misery.

 

[zaremba]

Interesting, TC, thanks for that. Can't say I was a big student of his technique but I always thought the short ball weakness which was commented on a lot in 1997 was a bit of a myth. I remember some Aussies commenting that the same lifters that he was now spooning to gully he would have smacked for 6 in Shield cricket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Great call. Bevan was an amazing player. You only need to look at his performances in Shield and County cricket as well as his ODI feats to see that. If he had played for a country with less competition for batting places, he would have played 100 Tests and had a very healthy average.

Not sure he was the easiest character in the world though, having read about his time at Sussex in Tony Cottey's book. Perhaps this counted against him?

It's possible, even probable but I don't think we can say with certainty. There's been quite a few examples of blokes who make hay in the FC arena and don't translate this into tests. Hick, for example, averaged 47 and a half for QLD, but famously never quite made it in tests and, whilst not in Bevan's league, was always a very useful ODI batsman.

Interesting point about Bev's personality tho, sometimes I think the Australian team isn't perhaps the most accomodating to those players without the (stereo)typical Ocker identikit dispositions. MacGill always seemed an outsider as does/did Symonds now. 20 years ago Symonds would've fitted right in perhaps, but now he's unwilling or unable to adjust.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah the example of Hick did occur to me. But Hick did play 65 Tests even after waiting 7 years to qualify for England; and his failure is regarded as pretty much exceptional (Ramps and Hooper being the only other 2 who spring to mind from that category).

Moreover Bevan was probably an even better player than Hick, with FC, List A and ODI averages all in excess of 57. He was also a handy bowler and a good fielder.

Anyhow I'd agree with you that you can't say with certainty, and your assessment of "possible, even probable" hits the nail on the head.

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting, TC, thanks for that. Can't say I was a big student of his technique but I always thought the short ball weakness which was commented on a lot in 1997 was a bit of a myth. I remember some Aussies commenting that the same lifters that he was now spooning to gully he would have smacked for 6 in Shield cricket.

Yeah for sure and around the time he got that short ball from Gough, several players expressed surprise at the assertion of a weakness against the short ones because he was routinely belting the same stuff from bowlers a yard quicker at state level.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's possible, even probable but I don't think we can say with certainty. There's been quite a few examples of blokes who make hay in the FC arena and don't translate this into tests. Hick, for example, averaged 47 and a half for QLD, but famously never quite made it in tests and, whilst not in Bevan's league, was always a very useful ODI batsman.

Goes the other way too; see Botham and QLD. Class player (obv) who didn't do so well there.

Just shows how important it is to view FC stats in context. Taking them as gospel in selecting a Test side is folly.

Interesting point about Bev's personality tho, sometimes I think the Australian team isn't perhaps the most accomodating to those players without the (stereo)typical Ocker identikit dispositions. MacGill always seemed an outsider as does/did Symonds now. 20 years ago Symonds would've fitted right in perhaps, but now he's unwilling or unable to adjust.

It's interesting and I dunno if it stops at the Test side. MacGill was known as 'difficult' before he even played for WA. Personally, it's not so much the arrogance but the emotional outbursts. In a team culture that seems to prefer stoicism, people who outwardly express are in trouble. There's heaps of examples, really; the selection leniency shown towards Boon vs Dean Jones, Martyn being dropped after (really) one bad shot, Scott Muller, Zoehrer vs Healy, etc. Don't whine, keep your trap shut and you'll do well in Aussie.

Except Warne.

 

[fredfertang]

Going back to Bradman/Tendulkar for my two penn'orth

I have in the past tried very hard to convince myself that there is an argument for saying that Bradman was not, by a distance, the greatest batsman of all time but despite a good deal of thought I never managed to put together a coherent argument.

The starting point for Bradman detractors is usually that he got to bat on pluperfect wickets and had very little in the way of fast bowling to deal with in Australian domestic cricket, the latter being a consequence of the former. It’s a fair point in that the wickets were generally excellent and playing conditions suited batsmen scoring big and many records survive to this day. It’s also true that Australian fast bowling was not up to much in those days but by the same token there were top class spinners around and the likes of O’Reilly and Grimmett seem not to have troubled him unduly.

The real problem with knocking him though is his record in England – he came on four tours, participated in many three day games, played full time, and had to put up with those nasty English conditions that encouraged the sort of sideways movement he seldom saw at home. He still managed to average 98, 84, 115 and 89 over those tours. In relation to the pre war years it seems to be generally accepted that Wally Hammond was England’s best batsman yet he managed “only” 53, 76 and 75 in the same seasons (Hammond was retired by ’48)

It must also be relevant that Bradman’s worst series, against Bodyline, still brought him a higher average than Sachin’s overall test average

As an aside Bradman did say once that Sachin reminded him of himself – I’m not aware he ever made a similar comment in respect of anyone else.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's interesting and I dunno if it stops at the Test side. MacGill was known as 'difficult' before he even played for WA. Personally, it's not so much the arrogance but the emotional outbursts. In a team culture that seems to prefer stoicism, people who outwardly express are in trouble. There's heaps of examples, really; the selection leniency shown towards Boon vs Dean Jones, Martyn being dropped after (really) one bad shot, Scott Muller, Zoehrer vs Healy, etc. Don't whine, keep your trap shut and you'll do well in Aussie.

Except Warne.

"Genius writes its own rules" to pilfer a rather good line.