How does Tendulkar rate against Bradman and Gavaskar?
By sheek, 20 Mar 2012 sheek is a Roar Guru
109 Have your say
Tendulkar became the first batsman to score 200 runs in a One Day International. AP Photo/Gurinder Osan
Related coverage
In the aftermath of Sachin Tendulkar’s eventual achievement of 100 test/one-day centuries some discussion has turned to the great Sir Donald Bradman and Tendulkar’s fellow countryman Sunil Gavaskar.
Bradman and Gavaskar are inextricably tied because it was Gavaskar who eventually passed Bradman’s record of most test centuries, which now lies in the possession of Tendulkar.
One of my good mates is a huge Gavaskar fan. What made Gavaskar so great was the fact that he played a good portion of his career before helmets were introduced into Test cricket. Plus the quality of pacemen he faced were very great, especially those from the Windies.
Helmets were first introduced into Test cricket between 1976 and 1978, but there is some discrepancy whether it was Dennis Amiss facing the Windies in 1976 or Graeme Yallop also facing the Windies in 1978 who wore the first official Test helmet. I’m inclined to think it was Yallop.
In any case, I will assume Gavaskar did not wear a helmet until after the 1977/78 series against Australia. At this point he was still less than a third into his eventual haul of 125 tests.
At this point, Gavaskar had played 37 tests, and was averaging a respectable 47.36 for his 11 centuries. But he obviously got better, finishing with an eventual 125 tests, averaging 51.12 with 34 centuries.
Bradman scored his 29 centuries in just 52 tests (one century every 1.79 tests). Gavaskar’s 34 centuries came at a rate of one per 3.77 tests. Tendulkar, with 49 centuries in 188 tests, has a strike rate of one century every 3.84 tests.
For the curious, Gavaskar’s equalling 29th century came in his 95th test, and his 30th century (236no) came in his 99th test. Both theses centuries were scored in a torrid series against the Windies in 1983/84.
Who were the great fast bowlers Gavaskar faced? The fast bowler who appeared most against Sonny was England’s Bob Willis, in 17 tests.
Imran Khan was next with 16 Tests, followed by Mike Holding (15), Malcolm Marshall and Ian Botham (both 14), Tony Greig (13) and Chris Old and Andy Roberts (both 11).
Sonny didn’t face Lillee or Thomson much. He played against Thomson in five Tests in 1977/78 and against Lillee and Pascoe in three tests each in 1980/81. That was it. The Aussie paceman he faced most often was Rodney Hogg (8 Tests).
Interestingly, Gavaskar’s last five tests in 1987 (against Pakistan) were also the first five tests for the young Wasim Akram. This was the only time they would cross paths in Test cricket.
There are also questions as to the quality of pacemen faced by Bradman. The fast bowlers who appeared most against Bradman were of course Harold Larwood, and the English all-rounder Gubby Allen, who each played him 11 times.
Apart from 1932/33, Larwood didn’t really do much, but this has more to do with the poor manner in which he was used by his English captains and authorities (Jardine excepted), rather than his true ability.
Allen was quite fast apparently and, apart from Ken Farnes, was probably the next fastest after Larwood. Farnes only played Bradman eight times, veteran all-rounder Maurice Tate nine times. Bill Voce and Alec Bedser played against Bradman 10 times each.
Of the non-Enlishman, South Africa’s Sandy Bell and Windies Herman Griffith each played Bradman five times.
Interestingly, Bradman averaged 105.72 from his 15 Tests after WW2, when there was an immediate dearth of great fast bowlers (Australia excepted). Bradman’s batting average at the outbreak of war in 1939 was 97.94 from 37 tests.
Curiously, he improved that by an even two batting points to an eventual 99.94.
So what does any of this tell us about either Bradman or Gavaskar? Bradman played against some fine pacemen in his career, without any of them being top-drawer, except for Larwood.
Even allowing for this fact, Bradman is still way in front of any other batsman to play Test cricket.
Gavaskar’s opposition of pacemen is quite compelling, even allowing for the fact he played more than two-thirds of his career with a helmet, or that he rarely appeared against either Lillee or Thomson.
Needless to say, Willis, Imran, Holding, Marshall, Botham, Greig, Old and Roberts are some of the biggest names in fast bowling ranks to grace the cricket turf.
Gavaskar is India’s greatest opener, but Tendulkar perhaps pips him as India’s best batsman in any position.
In my all-time selections, Bradman would be in the First XI, while both Gavaskar and Tendulkar would probably be in the Second XI, and only because of the quality of competition for places.
I used to think I was a pretty good rugby lock, but now realise I was deluded. My nickname is a truncation of my surname, so I'm not Arabic - phew! However, sometimes I imagine myself as a Beau Geste in the French Foreign Legion, fighting evil, righting wrongs, promoting good and rescuing damsels in distress.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (109) | Page 2 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (127)
- Australia needs to bench Nathan Lyon for Ashes success (84)
- DIZZY: Australian bowlers look the goods for the Ashes (76)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- Clarke take note: England has some weak points for Ashes (48)
- Who will Sam Robson represent: Australia or England? (47)
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (46)
- IPL stars refused bail over spot fixing
- DIZZY: It’s time for the Aussie batsmen to fulfill potential (40)
- Has cricket corruption been filed in the ‘too hard’ basket? (2)
- IPL has been ripe for the taking since its arrival
- Cricket’s all-time alphabetical G team (16)
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (167)
- Warner in cricket hearing on Wednesday (2)
- Has cricket corruption been filed in the ‘too hard’ basket? (2)
- Cricket’s all-time alphabetical G team (16)
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (167)
- David Warner and Australian cricket’s ‘Siege Mentality’ (29)
- Could Bird be the difference in the Ashes? (30)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- Cricket’s all-time alphabetical F team (35)
Recommend this story.

March 20th 2012 @ 1:25pm
PeterK said | March 20th 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
I believe the best measurements of players is the ICC rankings system as opposed to just battaing averages or bowling averages.
This measures the performance against the quality of the opposition AND the performance against your own players ie scoring a 50 on a batting friendly pitch where a few get centuries is not worth as much. Modern conditions favour batsman with the bats with gaint sweet spots, a forward prod gets you a 4, the roped in boundaries, the helmets, the picthes in a lot of cases are docile.
Look at Bradman he is rated no 1 for most of his career. He also has a top rating of 961 the best ever by any player EVER.
Gavaskar comes in at 20 and Tendulkar at 26. Indian batsman get to bat a lot on batsman friendly pitches at home and increasingly away at Sri lanks, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Hutton and Hobbs deserve to be way ahead of the other modern batsamn as 2 and 3 in the world. Of course people favour the players they have seen play as has ben noted.
Out of todays modern players Gavsakar is better than Tendular, but so was Lara, Viv Richards. (Sobers best West Indian batsman of course).
Kallis is about equal to Tendulkar looking at the ICC rankings over a long period. Ponting not as good.
Greg Chappel better than Ponting in terms of ranking over a long period and behind Ponting on best ever rating. IMO Greg Chappel was better since he was a far better player of spin.
March 20th 2012 @ 1:38pm
Pope Paul VII said | March 20th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Despite the English obsession with Bradman during the 1930 series, the results table, good old stats, show that Australia were not super dominant winning 2-1. Again England only went down 2-1 in 1934, post bodyline. Then in 36/37 England lead 2-0 before being totally Bradmanned with a bit of help from the weather. Then in 1938 it was 1-1. I’ve often wondered how Braddles might have gone had he been fit to chase England’s 7 for 903? Looking back the English reaction to Bradman seems in proportion to his talent, twice as good, but out of proportion to series results.
March 20th 2012 @ 2:12pm
Jason said | March 20th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
” I’ve often wondered how Braddles might have gone had he been fit to chase England’s 7 for 903? ”
He might still be batting.
March 20th 2012 @ 3:01pm
Goldcoast said | March 20th 2012 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Had Bradman played in today’s era of being computer analysed his average would have been in the 50s. Had he a following and pressure like Tendulkar, it would have gone down even further to high 40s. I think Bradman certainly is a great but he doesnt come close to Tendulkar in terms of talent. I have watched his videos on youtube and I cant say I saw something spectacular.
March 20th 2012 @ 3:39pm
formeropenside said | March 20th 2012 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Sir, I hate to cavil with the mastery of the game you have doubtless gained from youtube, but I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
March 20th 2012 @ 4:46pm
Pope Paul VII said | March 20th 2012 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
I’m not a big Bradman fan and am fascinated by those rare moments of mortality such as Bodyline. However it’s fair to say he played under tremendous pressure. He had a massive following but many critics. Ironically the english public love him best. Apart from being targetted by bodyline, he endured personal tragedy, business suspicions and was definately not revered by all of his teammates. Whereas Sachin seems to be well supported by his boys.
I agree the existing footage doesn’t really do justice to the legend.
He was very competive. He famously stood his ground when apparently caught at second slip by Ikin in 1946, his first test back after ww2. The poms were astounded when he didn’t walk as you would. The umpy didn’t give him out, Bradman maintained he chopped it into the ground.Love to see if that’s on youtube.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:24pm
sheek said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
Except JohnB,
Today’s batsmen going back to the 1930s, would have to learn to bat on their wits without a helmet, & also on uncovered wickets.
I seriously doubt their averages would be any better, but most probably worse!
March 21st 2012 @ 2:26pm
JohnB said | March 21st 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Sheek, if you’re responding to my comment below, directed to Goldcoast, that he would presumably conclude that modern day batsmen who now average in the 50s would on going back in time average in the 90s – I was attempting a little irony to point out how silly Goldcoast’s views appeared to me to be, so actually I substantially agree with you. My view is that a champion in one era would most likely be a champion in another era – they would adapt to the different conditions and training regimens, and the qualities that made them champions would still come through. I think it’s much less likely that shifting eras would make someone greatly more or less successful than they were in their own era. Perhaps that might not apply in all sports – maybe for example in one era you have to be a giant, where previously you didn’t – but the more that skill is the criterion, the more it does apply I think.
March 21st 2012 @ 3:48pm
sheek said | March 21st 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
JohnB,
I was actually agreeing with you. I think today’s numerous 50-plus batting averages must be viewed with some healthy suspicion.
I don’t know how many runs it is worth to a batsman, knowing a helmet will protect him from serious injury. Conversely, we should show respect to today’s fast bowlers, especially someone like Steyn, who aren’t able to apply the fear factor when bowling to modern day batsmen.
March 21st 2012 @ 7:12pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 21st 2012 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Its also been a long time since a batsman has needed to face a turning wicket.
Lets take, for example, Shakib, who pretty much bowls on the roads we call modern cricket pitches all the time, and so is a useful line-and-length SLA with a bit of drift.
On the other hand, when he got a pitch that turned at Lords for Worcs against Middlesex in 2010, he took 7-32, dismissing Hampshire for 66 when they were chasing a mere 177.
From the way modern batsmen go to water when the pitch does anything, I suspect that the old timers could teach them a lot on batting on a greentop, a dustbowl or a sticky.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/countycricket2010/engine/current/match/435537.html
March 22nd 2012 @ 12:18pm
Bayman said | March 22nd 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Ian,
“From the way modern batsmen go to water when the pitch does anything, I suspect that the old timers could teach them a lot on batting on a greentop, a dustbowl or a sticky”.
Amen to that.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:30pm
sheek said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
PP7,
For gawd’s sake, let it rest. The whole incident (1946 test) happened in a split second. Each side is entitled to believe their version in that split second was correct without anyone losing their integrity over it.
If you were playing against Bradman, you’d be psyched up to believe any minute chance was the real deal. Desperate men will believe desperate things.
How many times have modern batsmen stood their ground & been given the benefit of the doubt by the umpire, only for the replay to show they were actually out. What makes Bradman such a devil compared to anyone else?
March 21st 2012 @ 11:26am
Pope Paul VII said | March 21st 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
I’m actually on your side. I was trying to illustrate to the Tendulkar crowd that in no way did Bradman have it easy, nor was he a mythical shining knight, which is often how Tendulkar is portrayed. This is not to denigrate Tendulkar and Gavaskar, who are in the top flight.
Someone mentioned that Braddles had it easy because the fielding was inferior. This doesn’t explain why the other batsmen couldn’t cash in. The batsman also played with skinny pads and gloves.
The Ikin incident is fascinating because it was unusual at that time to stand your ground. I think it enhances Bradman’s image as a one of a kind. As ever he was resolute. It’s also interesting because of the various views of the incident. It’s worth noting in those days before big screen replays a lot of people watched very closely with the binocs, commentators particularly. Also many were keen to see Bradman knocked down a peg or two.
In regard to playing on uncovered and sticky wickets the modern player has the advantage. However, it was common practice on stickies to reverse the order to preserve the better bats so they got the better of the wicket.
All things being relative, Bradman was not perfect he was just much much better. Not only that he has the will to back his talent. He would have been markedly superior in any era.
March 21st 2012 @ 3:49pm
sheek said | March 21st 2012 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
PP7,
In that case I misread you & I apologise.
March 21st 2012 @ 4:16pm
Pope Paul VII said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Not necessary Sheek, your stuff is tops.
March 20th 2012 @ 7:15pm
JohnB said | March 20th 2012 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
So on that basis you presumably would also conclude that all other batsmen in the period 1928 to 1948 would average in the 20s or low 30s, at best? And that if any of the modern day batsment who average in the 50s were transported back to that time, they’d average in the 90s?
March 22nd 2012 @ 1:46pm
Bayman said | March 22nd 2012 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Computer analyse all you want, Goldcoast. That nasty Bradman had an infuriating habit of hitting the ball into gaps – wherever they were. Put a fieldsman there and open up another gap – there goes the ball. Do it again and…well, you get the picture.
You are right about one thing. There is a gap between the talents of Bradman and Tendulkar – no argument there!
March 20th 2012 @ 8:54pm
donquixote said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Some excellent points from everyone. I am an Indian and so excuse my bias a bit
.
IMHO comparing Gavaskar , Bradman and Tendulkar makes no sense. Regardless of the country and era we should be celebrating all these three guys and many more. Just coz Sachin has so many records , doesnt make someone like Ponting look bad.. Bradman was a genius and played under difficult conditions. So did Gavaskar and so did Tendulkar. No one is perfect. One could argue if Sachin was so great why didnt he break the 400 run record in tests .. What about Gavaskar’s shameful act of threatening to cancel the game when he was given out.
Gavaskar and Bradman might have been better batsmen but there is one thing that stands out for me that makes Sachin special-
If you look at all sporting greats- Ali, Pele, Maradona, Bradman, Johnson , Schumacher, Woods, Tyson,Bubka and many more, each one of them were brilliant and dominated their field at peak.. Some went down due to personal issues ( drugs, sex , fame , power). Some reigned for 5- 7 yrs. I cannot think of a single player in any sport except Sachin who has dominated a game for 22 years , under immense pressure and spotlight , delivered consistently and yet remained so humble. For this reason only Sachin is the greatest there ever will be !
March 20th 2012 @ 11:59pm
Jason said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
“I cannot think of a single player in any sport except Sachin who has dominated a game for 22 years , under immense pressure and spotlight , delivered consistently and yet remained so humble. For this reason only Sachin is the greatest there ever will be !”
Bradman scored his first test century in 1928 and his last in 1948.
Tendulkar scored his first test century in 1990 and his last in 2011.
Looks like pretty similar periods of “dominance” to me.
If you look at double centuries, Bradman got his first in 1930 and his last in 1948. Sachin got his first in 1999 and his last in 2010.
Some of the greatest baseball players ever had careers which matched and even exceeded Tendulkar’s – Hank Aaron (until recently the all time HR hitter) played for 23 seasons; Nolan Ryan (the all time strike out leader and no hitter leader) played for 27 seasons; Pete Rose (the all time hits leader) played for 24 seasons which covered over 3500 games; Babe Ruth dominated the sport for about 22 seasons as well.
Jack Hobbs scored his last first class century 29 years after his first. He scored 99 first class centuries AFTER the age of 40.
Kelly Slater has won world surfing titles 20 seasons apart (with 9 others in between).
If Manchester United win the Premier League this year, the Ryan Giggs would have Premiership titles 19 seasons apart (with another 11 in between).
Steve Redgrave won gold medals in 5 consecutive Olympics.
Jack Nicklaus won his last major 24 years after his first.
Even Pele, whom you discarded, played for 19 seasons in Brazil and then another 3 in New York. He was easily the most famous soccer player in the world for that period.
And so on.
So Sachin maybe isn’t a special as you might think.
March 22nd 2012 @ 1:54pm
Bayman said | March 22nd 2012 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Jason,
I reckon that just about covers it although donquixote is right about one thing – we should just enjoy the fact that these guys played the game.
The problem starts when those pesky Indian fans, tired after decades of under-achievement, wish to make foolish comments in regard to the relative merits of Sachin and DGB – in the hope that they can finally be number one at something. As if it would be them personally who are number one. Decades of under-achievement must be a terrible thing. I wonder what its like?
I tell you what, why don’t we concede that Tendulkar has made more Test runs than Bradman and that Bradman has no hope of catching him. Personally, I’m prepared to let them have that one.
March 21st 2012 @ 4:27pm
PLANKO said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
Going to say this slowly. Nobody talks about Matthew Hayden massive total against Bangladesh do they so why should it count when you bat on Autobahns most of your career and get your runs against players who not get a run in the First Grade Sydney Comp….
March 21st 2012 @ 4:44pm
Jason said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Which massive total was that against Bangladesh?
March 21st 2012 @ 4:58pm
PLANKO said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Looked it up it was Zimbabwe … But who counts scores against either of them ?
380 622 437 38 11 86.95 2 caught 1 v Zimbabwe Perth 9 Oct 2003 Test # 1661
March 21st 2012 @ 7:04pm
Ian Whitchurch said | March 21st 2012 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Im going to say this slowly,
If. You. Cant. Be. Bothered. To. Know. Your. Stuff. Or. Check. First. Dont. Make. Stupid. Claims.
Oh yeah, and Fatullah 2006. Geez, that was a dominating win.
And the first time Australia helps the development of cricket anywhere else will be the first time.
March 22nd 2012 @ 2:34pm
Jason said | March 22nd 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Bayman is on the rampage today!
Good fun.
March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm
marees said | March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Sheek,
In the Indian context Tendulkar will be in any best Indian XI. World XI is an altogether different story
I dont agree with you that except Bradman,Sobers all the other batting positions are open. If you look at Ananthanarayanan’s analysis(“It Figures”) in cricinfo, you can clearly see that Richards and Steve Waugh have an unassailable case. (Only complaint I have on Waugh is that being the captain he had the luxury of being able to pick his spot. Given his batting avg, he maybe could have batted higher). That leaves the openers, who I believe should be chosen as a pair. Again Hobbs/Sutcliffe are clear outliers. they are helped by the fact that England is the most difficult place for openers. Even their 1-drop batsmen are converted plodding openers (Trott for ex.)
So the batting line-up of World Test XI can be like
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Richards
Waugh
Sobers
to be followed by
Adam Gilchrist
Malcolm Marshall / Joel Garner
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee / McGrath
Where is the scope for Sachin Tendulkar here? He is clearly not an outlier in any parameter, except for Longevity. That singular achievement is due to two things. His Temparament and his ability of being the best player in the XI for almost 2 decades continuously. But that doesn’t buy him an automatic place in all-time World test XI. But he is my no1 pick in World ODI XI.
March 25th 2012 @ 12:03am
amazonfan said | March 25th 2012 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Tendulkar’s success wasn’t entirely due to longevity. It was also due to consistency and long-term dominance. Steve Waugh, on the other hand, was mostly due to longevity.
BTW, here are my thoughts on Cricinfo’s World XI:
Hobbs/Hutton: Hobbs is a certainty (just as much as any other of the great certainties), but with Hutton, you could replace him with Sutcliffe or Gavaskar. However, it wouldn’t make any difference as all three of Hutton, Sutcliffe, & Gavaskar were among the very greatest opening batsmen of all time. No selector who picks from one of these three could make a bad call.
Bradman: of course.
Tendulkar: a certainty. I consider Tendulkar to be the second greatest batsman of all time and I can’t take seriously any team that doesn’t feature him. We mock obsessive Tendulkar fans such as Tendulkar Fan, but too many Aussie cricket fans act in a similarly delusional manner when trying to lessen his brilliance.
Richards: yes, one could make a case for several cricketers ahead of him. But why would one want to? He was the epitome of cool and intimidation.
Sobers: obviously.
Gilchrist: no. For a teamer with such a great batting lineup, it doesn’t need a batsman/keeper. I would have Knott instead. He was a vastly superior keeper, and a pretty good batsman. The bowlers would prefer to bowl to him than to Gilchrist.
Marshall: no arguments from me.
Warne: an automatic selection
Akram: I’m a huge fan, however I accept that there are a few bowlers who could replace him. If he has to be replaced, I won’t like it, but so be it.
Lillee: A completely deserved selection.
March 24th 2012 @ 5:43pm
Loggit said | March 24th 2012 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Are u blokes smokin crack to compare Sachin to the Don? Just do the maths ……take Sachins all 50 Test century’s and also make up the rest to equal The Dons total innings with all 50s……what average do u come up with?….???
March 25th 2012 @ 12:13am
amazonfan said | March 25th 2012 @ 12:13am | Report comment
I don’t really want to do the maths, however I don’t think any batsman can be seriously compared to Bradman. That said, I think you’ll find that only a couple of posters at most think Tendulkar can be compared to Bradman.
March 24th 2012 @ 5:44pm
Loggit said | March 24th 2012 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Oh by the way the little master is the second best batsman the game has ever produced
March 25th 2012 @ 12:15am
amazonfan said | March 25th 2012 @ 12:15am | Report comment
Completely agree!!!
March 25th 2012 @ 8:53am
Jason said | March 25th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
I don’t. Hobbs and Sobers at least are clearly ahead of him.
March 25th 2012 @ 9:02am
amazonfan said | March 25th 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
I think that Sobers was a superior cricketer, but as a batsman Tendulkar was IMO superior to both Hobbs & Sobers. Furthermore, I don’t think you can say that either of these batsmen were clearly ahead of the others. The difference in quality between the three would be minimal.
March 25th 2012 @ 9:58am
Ian Whitchurch said | March 25th 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
The other name that deserves mentioning in this discussion is the Good Doctor – WG Grace.
If 21st century pitches are roads, the Good Doctor scored his on barely marked bush tracks.
March 27th 2012 @ 12:13am
Bayman said | March 27th 2012 @ 12:13am | Report comment
Amazon,
With respect, I suspect you never actually saw Sobers play (apologies if I’m wrong). I can happily tell you that I never saw Hobbs play.
However, I have talked to those who did see Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar. I saw two of the three. If I trust their judgement of Tendulkar I must also trust their judgement of Sobers and, in turn, Hobbs.
Sachin has a wonderful international record set over two decades. To accomplish this a player must be of the highest quality to still be among the first picked twenty years after his debut. Likewise with Hobbs and Sobers.
As I said, I never saw Hobbs. However, in trying to identify greatness, or talent, we should perhaps look at the the idea of which player would you prefer to see at his absolute best. In my case, Sobers wins that battle with Tendulkar.
I’ve seen Sachin play several great innings but I’ve never seen him be simply breathtaking. I have with Sobers and more than once. He also spent a lot more time bowling than Sachin ever has or ever will. We will never know how great Sobers’ record may have been if he had not been able to bowl as well as he did – quick, swing, finger and wrist spin. As it is, his batting average is still higher than Sachin’s.
Tendulkar’s greatest asset is that he is “current”. He is what people know. Those who have only seen Tendulkar cannot imagine anyone better. It is a mistake made with every generation. In twenty or thirty years when the next “big thing” is about and getting rave reviews these same people will be saying, “Yep, he’s pretty good but don’t forget Tendulkar”. Then they might understand, maybe, the opinions of those today who saw Sobers, Hutton, May, Gavaskar, Richards and Greg Chappell. And Bradman.
March 28th 2012 @ 5:16am
marees said | March 28th 2012 @ 5:16am | Report comment
@amazonfan,
dont you think the World’s best test batsmen should have scored atleast 1 triple century?
how do you explain Tendulkar’s lack of appetite for big scores?
March 26th 2012 @ 9:32pm
PeterK said | March 26th 2012 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
If you look at the ICC Player ratings and rankings, which are the best to compare over time, and it takes into account the quality of the opposition.
Far more accurate than just averages etc.
These ratings show Tendulkar is nowwhere near the second best batsman ever. He did not dominate the no 1 ranking anywhere near as long as others and his best ever rating is udner 900, only the 26th best ever.
I think Tendulkar is seen with the common bias that todays best are the best ever syndrome.