Not a single Australian in my 2010 cricket Test XI

Real classy top six India has, best in the world. I suppose Dravid and Tendulkar getting to double figures must count for something though. How many balls did Sehwag last?

Quite informative and interesting piece. Well done, Kersi. Rajesh Kumar

With Cook scoring another century and Anderson taking a 4 fer in Adelaide and Chris Gayle getting a firstball duck against Sri Lanka, my World Test 2010 Test team remains intact so far. In batting order: Sehwag, Cook, Amla, Tendulkar, Kallis, Laxman, Dhoni (capt., wk), Swann, Zaheer Khan, Steyn and Anderson.

That Bradman story usually has one of the England touring teams (91/92 maybe?) as the butt of the joke, rather than the Windies Sheek! Your main point is right though. How is Lara qualified to make that judgement? He can have an opinion but what does he base it on? Why does he think someone who was outstandingly better than his contemporaries in his day would be back with the field in another era. There were other great players around when Bradman played - and none of them could average more than the low 60s. That has to mean something.

Thank you, Prar. Jimmy Anderson took 2 wickets without conceding a run this morning in the Adelaide Test. Perhaps he was trying to justify his spot in The Roar's 2010 World XI !

Kersi, I'm afraid I am not qualified to comment on Hammond and co. at all. I guess my pompous rantings make me seem like some sort of cricket connoisseur- that if far from the truth. I have actually watched cricket regularly only from around the late '80s when Television gave us the opportunity. Any cricket viewing prior to that would be random video clips here and there. I can realistically comment only on cricketers from around Viv's era onwards. This is why we require to take into account the views of people who have actually watched and have firsthand experience of cricket over longer periods of time. Most folk generally use some random "thumb rules"...such as "oh those guys played without helmets" or on "uncovered pitches" etc etc.....making it out as if conditions were entirely unplayable without actually having a clue as to how things were really like. There was an interesting World XI exercise conducted by Cricinfo a while back....the all-time batsman rankings effectively were: Bradman....Tendulkar...................................The rest. Importantly, the jury consisted of 12 very experienced cricketers, journos etc more than half of whom were Test captains of their countries at some point. I would agree with these results (But ONLY as far as the modern batsmen are concerned- I am simply in no position to comment on batsmen of yesteryear). Jason may make a comment like “many people would rate Tendulkar inferior to Lara".......well, the only reply to that would be that "Many MORE people would rate Tendulkar above Lara"......and that doesn't only apply to the heaving masses but to connoisseurs of the game as well. In any case- we got sidetracked because of Lara's comment “Tendulkar is the Bradman of our day. Bradman wouldn't have averaged 99 nowadays" etc.... Some people seem to have taken this personally and as a great offence. My take is that Lara is correct...and a legend like Lara would have a far better feel for these issues than us arm chair critics. As rgds Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe etc- I will pass coz as mentioned I am simply in no position to comment....2 minute video clip highlights don't qualify for such an exercise.

I'll come out of retirement for this one Kersi. Lawrence Rowewas more elegant than Viv Richards, Junior more elegant than Tugga.

Prar, may I request you to come out of your "retirement" and give valid comparisons between Bradman and Hammond? Some critics rank Hammond higher, claiming he was more elegant to watch.

Georgie McHugh and Tamil, Thank you for clarifying the infinity / indeterminate issue. My uncle Kharshed M-H was only joking about his only Test innings of 0 not out (India v. England, Manchester 1936) and giving it a positive spin. He had kept wickets to the great Wally Hammond as he scored 167 runs in that drawn Test. Uncle Kharshed told me much later: "Don't you believe that Hammond could play only off-side strokes. We (Nissar, Amar Singh, CS Nayudu) bowled on his leg stump or outside the leg stump and not one ball cme to me behind the stumps." Also thanks to all the contributors / commenters, especially Prar and Jason.

bradman is all time most overrated/overhyped batsman I've seen his batting clips in youtube,... outdated techniques, many shots are by cross bat. modern bowlers will uproot his stumps before he leans down & may killed him if he don't wear helmet. Fastest bowlers are belongs to modern era. pros & cons are there in every generation, so there is no all time great player unless he plays all time which is next to impossible. But I can safely say one thing, i.e SACHIN is the most worshipped batsman ever played the game, cricket. No other batsman have ever faced such a burden of expectation.

zero by zero is indeterminate. any other number by zero is infinity

Oh Well, to use some of Robert Shiller's logic: He reckons that excessive number crunching has made economists believe that it is a "science". In his view academic departments are“creating idiot savants, who get a sense of authority from work that contains lots of data. Sport is very much like Economics- i.e the use of good ol' fashioned judgement ,experience etc are always required to "make sense" of the stats. Here's a useful article from one of the few people who have actually WATCHED both Bradman and Tendulka- John Woodcock , the venerated ex-cricket columnist of the Times: "Only Sachin Tendulkar can equal Don Bradman"- (google it). The other guy who also has actually watched cricket for over half a decade- guy by the name of Richie Benaud too picks Tendulkar as the best batsman he has ever seen.And I'm pretty sure you are aware of who the best batsmen of the generation ( Lara,Punter, Steve etc) think is the best. But , that's enough of Tendulkar- I'm fed up of the topic too. P.S: As rgds Laxman, yes I would have him at No.6. Again , you seem to imply that no other batsman plays under "Pressure". Laxman has had his share of failures just like every one else. And I maintain that the odd innings here and there is no criteria in picking a team- If there exist such innings in addition to a solid ,consistent performances- great. But a host of flops with one "pressure" innings to show for it doesn't count for much. And now ,I"m Outta here........had my fill of comments

So is VVS in your team or not. We might disagree about solid all round performances v consistently brilliant performances when the real pressure is on interspersed with generally disinterested performance when there is no pressure. To be honest, VVS is my first batsman picked in this side. As for Tendulkar relative to Bradman, the problem I have when people start to say that the gap between Tendulkar and Bradman is far less than the mere averages show is that Tendulkar is barely better than his contemporaries (and many will argue he is inferior to Lara at least). If you then say start to say that Tendulkar closer to Bradman than the averages say, then that implicitly means that the likes of Hammond, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton etc (Bradman's greatest contemporaries) are about as good as Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell and that the likes of Bill Ponsofrd, Stan McCabe and Arthur Morris are about as good as Marcus North.

Jason, Please don't misinterpret my rantings....Bradman is the best ever. The debate is as to "how much" better than Tendulkar he was. Also, as you yourself point out.....It is instructive to note that Bradman's Test average was higher than his First Class average. As rgds Laxman, you have a point. Not just on the basis of some isolated innings...But his overrall record. An innings here or there does not qualify one for this team...We need some solid ,allround performances through the year.

Don't just look at Bradman's Test average, consider his first class average of 95+ in scoring nearly 30000 runs. Anyway, back to the main thread here - it is inconceivable that VVS could be left out of a World XI for 2010 - he played probably the two best match winning innings of the year and under enourmous pressure. But the depressing thing is looking at that bowling line up. Steyn is the only bowler currently in world cricket who could go down as a Great of the game. 15 years ago you had the likes of McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Warne, Kumble and Murali who could all lay claim to that status, let alone other outstanding bowlers like McDermott, Gough, Fraser, Bishop, Srinath etc.

Kersi, Ha Ha, "Thank you kindly" ! My basic point is simply that stats must be taken as "relative" indicators, and not "absolute" indicators. That is the only way to "equalise" across generations. So, either we move Tendulkar and co. "back" to the '30/40s or we move Bradman "ahead" to the '90s in which case we simply have to assume he played hundreds of matches more including ODIs. The easiest way to do this is look at how the "next best" guy peformed- over a goodish period of time when the batsman in question was at his relative peak and importantly in the modern context- INJURY free. One cannot compare an injured thoroughbred to even a fit donkey. In this case, Bradman was 43% better than the "next best"- Morris. However, the obvious flaw in the argument is that we are implicitly assuming that Morris=Tendulkar.

Prar, I thought I was a good cricket statistician but you beat me 6-2, 6-3, 6-2.

Kersi, Bradman is undoubtedly THE greatest batsman ever. That is unarguable. The thing is for eg. From '93 to 2003 Tendulkar avg 62.3 . The next best was Steve with an avg. of 55.1. i.e for a Decade Tendulkar avg. 13 % over the "next best" . This is the highest ever "differential" for an entire decade with the exception of Bradman. In the '90s just 3 batsmen avg. 50+ : Tendulkar - 59, Steve -53, Lara- 52 ( for batsmen who have played through the ENTIRE '90s and not just some fraction of it)...which goes to show how much more difficult run scoring was in the '90s. In the 1930s Bradman avg. 102.8, the next best (with a decent amount of matches played) was Hutton at 67.25. i.e 53 % better than the "next best". In the 1940s Bradman avg. 105.7 , the "next best" was Artur Morris at 74.1 . This time 43 % better than the "next best". So, a lot of stats show that EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT BRADMAN......other good batsmen have averaged 70+ over entire decades! So, for all the talk about helmets, uncovered pitches etc etc.....a case may be made that the 30s/40s were among the best periods to be a batsman. A little further extrapolation- if we assume that at his best the Don was 43% above the "next best" that would give us an avg. of approx 80 as compared to Tendulkar's current 56. Add on several hundred more Tests and ODIs, inevitable injuries/surgeries ala Tendulkar.........and I am thinking you would end up with an avg of 65/70. Still, WAY above any batsmen EVER. But a little perspecive never hurt. And simply dishing poor Lara coz he says or believes something which doesn't quite accord with our particular world view doesn't quite cut it.

I was dumbfounded by that quote from Lara too. In recent days we've had Barry Richards come out and say that the game has swung too far in favour of the batsmen, so just imagine what Our Don would have made of attacks today. Tendulkar is number two though for me. Although it's hard to choose between he and that other Richards, Viv.