It's Sachin the Supremo as more records tumble

Bradman's greatest rival for the supremacy of the best batsman was Sir Jack Hobbs.No batsman ever was so consistent on wet pitches and remember he scored half of his first -class centuries on treacherous wet pitches.Scoring 117 centuries after the war was phenomenal effort and Hobbs displayed greater consistency than Gavaskar or Tendulkar.His first class stas were stagering scoring 197 centuries and 61,237 runs.Scoring 12 centuries against Australia with the majority being match-winning efforts speaks for itself.It would have been fascinating watching Hobbs in the 1970's or in the last decade with the changes in the game.His centuries at the Oval and Melbourne on sticky wickets at the Oval and Melbourne in 1926 and 1929-30 are amongst the best centuries ever scored in the history of the game.I don't think Sachin Tendulkar posessed as graet temperament as Hobbs or abilty to be as prolific on bad wickets . George Headley,too could have overshadowed the likes of Tendulkar in the modern era with his outstanding consistency on wet tracks and his brilliant statistical record.Morally,he was better player than Bradman on wet tracks but the question is whether he would have matched the strike rate of the modern greats.In a crisis he may have ben the best of the modern times but would he have been as consistent a match-winner or dominated the bowling to the extent of Viv Richards,Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara.?Historically,Headley was responsible for the first ever series victory for West Indies in 1934-35 and drawn rubber in 1928-29.His average percentage score of the team's total is better than any modern great.Walter Hammond who is on par with Headley proved his ability to pulverise bowling and tore the best attacks of his day like a tiger tearing the flesh of his prey.No pre-war batsman played as mich like Viv Richards and Sehwag and Hammond was unfortunate to play in the era of Bradman.On pure stats had Headley had a full career he could have been Bradman's greatset rival and the greatset ever West Indian batsman but remember that he never proved his ability to tear apart great bowling. Gary Sobers did not play one day Cricket but was stll the most complete of all West Indian batsman,with greater consistency than Brian Lara or Viv Richards and sounder technique.Like Tendulkar he posessed every ingredient of a perfect batsman-consistency,technique,ability to save and win matches, and could dominate the best of bowling in all conditions.Viv and Lara may have had more flair.Soberswas not as destructive or punishing as Viv but was a better peformer when the chips were down ,which Viv hardly had a chance to prove.Sobers was better player of graet fast bolwing than Lara.His 254 against Rest of the World in 1972 is perhaps the greatest exhibtion ever in International Cricket when he treated great bolwing with the destructiveness of a bomber destroying an airbase.

When I re-analyse great batsman overall Sir Vivian Richards is at the top of the tree,with the exception of Bradman and Hobbs.No batsman has ever been as destructive against great pace bowling in both test and one day Cricket or made a greater impact.In full flow Viv Richards treated the best fast bowlers like cattle walking to a slaughterhouse and when walking to the crease literally resembled emperor Alexander carrying asword setting out to conquer every territory possible. Sadly his Packer stats have not been counted,where he scored 1281 runs at a 55 run average per innings.From 1976-81 Richards dominated pace bowling more than Bradman ,and since the Don no batsman was as merciless .In his first season in 1977-78 in World Series Cricket he scored 862 runs at 86.2 including averaging 100 runs agaisnt the World 11.In England in 1976 his batting reached Bradmanesque proportions scoring 829 runs at 118.42 average.He may not have posessed the grace of Worrel or the technique of Sobers but no batsman equalled him for sheer ferocity.Lara or Tendulkar have never equalled Viv's performances in the 1976 English season and his first year in Packer Cricket in Australia. In 1979-80 in Austrlia he butchered the likes of Lillee in a one-day game at Melbourne scoring 153 not out treating the bowling like an executioner beheading a convict.In 1979-80 Viv Dominate both the tseta nd one day arena like no batsman ever averaging 96.5 in the tests and 85 in the one-day games. Viv played for a champion team but remember he combated the likes of Imran,Lillee,and Hadlee like a champion ,with greater authority than Lara or Tendulakr played the likes of Glen Mcgrath or Wasim Akram,in recent times.Viv may not have posessed the creative genius and mammoth run scoring of Brian Lara ,or the technical excellence and consistency of Sachin Tendulkar ,but in full flow would have outplayed both of them.Imagine Viv batting on the placid pitches of today ,where the bolwing atacks are weaker.Since 2000 many more batsmen have avergaed over 50 runs,than in previous periods as the pitches have become slower.True Tendulkar and Lara faced graeter pressure,but remember they wore helmets and played in an era where there was a restriction of 2 bouncers per over.In the modern era Richards would have played many more games and had opportunities agaisnt Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.From 1976-1988 Viv average 55 runs ,which wasabove the likes of great players like Greg Chappell,Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad.In his era the number of batsman who averaged above 50 were three times less than today,or in the last decade. Richardsbest years were between 1976 and 1988. In 92 Tests during this period he scored 22 hundreds and was the only batsman to average more than 55 (among those who scored more than 4000). That was an era when several all-time greats were around - Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad are all listed in the table below - but Richards' average was marginally higher than theirs (though he obviously didn't have to face his own bowlers, who were easily the most fearsome attack during that period). He averaged more than 50 in 13 out of the 23 series he played during this period. Cricinfo stats The table below summarises Richard's' career series averages. Of the 29 series he played, 14 times he averaged more than 50, and less than 30 on just seven occasions, most of them coming either during the early years or at the end. Performance of top batsmen in Tests between 1976 and 1988 (Qual: 4000 runs) Batsman Matches Innings Runs Average 100 50 Viv Richards 92 135 7091 55.39 22 34 Greg Chappell 50 87 4233 54.97 13 18 Javed Miandad 95 146 7033 54.94 19 35 Allan Border 100 175 7670 52.17 23 35 Sunil Gavaskar 108 180 8655 51.51 29 36 Gordon Greenidge 83 139 6025 48.58 14 30 . In one day Cricket Viv posessed a phenomenal strike rate and great batting average,and in full flow he literally set thunder on the cricket field.His vaege of 47 runs paeks for itself as well as the impact of his 50''s and centuries.Viv Topped the averages in 2 World Cups in 1979 and 1987 and was very close to the top in 1983. In the cricinfo anlaysis Viv is rated 7th and adding Packers stats he edged out Jacques Kallis,taking into account Kallis''s stats upto June 2009.However I still don''t rate Tendulkar,Lara or Ponting better.It becomes a difficult equation.True it would have been easier for Lara to play for Clive Lloyd''s team or Tendulkar playing for a top team of the 1970''s ,but would they have combated the best pace bolwing without ahelmet,like Sir Viv Richards.I doubt it.Yes,agaisnt great spinbolwing they would have outscored Viv .Vice-versa had Viv Played for the recent West Indian team he wouldhave faced much more pressure but it may have made him deploy his talents further.Playing for a champion team is sometimes a disdavantage.No stats analysis can do justice for Viv Richards.In a stats analyis analysing all factors Sachin would definitely win scoring 51 test Centuries and almost 100 International Centuries.Morally,inspite of Tendulkar\'s recent herculean efforts I rate Viv Richards ahead,who resembled a gladiator walking to a stadium. Below I wish to reproduce some stats of Alticain,a blogger from cricweb " I can\'t recall a single full Test series of Sachin where his performance was similar to Richard\'s performance against Imran Khan & co. in Pakistan in 1980-81 (Windies batting total never crossed 300 in the entire series and Richards scored 350 runs at an average of 70 , more than twice the average (and runs) of the next best batsman, no other top-order West Indian batsman averaged above 30 in that series! The team\'s batting hung almost entirely on Richard\'s shoulders). And yet Sachin is hyped to have had no batting support whatsoever for a major part of his career, while Richards succeeded only because of the support of Haynes and Greenidge. What an irony. Contrastingly, Richards averages a healthy 47.61 in Tests against Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan (so much for Lillee-Imran effect on him). If you include Hadlee too, Richards averages a very decent 46.8. Interestingly Richards has scored more runs, at a better average against these bowlers (Imran,Lillee,Hadlee) than Gavaskar. Here is the link to the stats: Batsmen stats against Lillee, Imran and Hadlee Richards, at least, had a couple of towering away" series against both Imran (at his peak in 1980-81) and Lillee (in 1978-79). Even his performances against peak Lillee Thommo in 75-76 after he was asked to open the batting in Test match cricket (elevated from batting position 5 or 6) facing the fast bowlers when they were at their freshest and fastest, and the ball was its most new, were very good. He has had at least one high scoring series (300 runs) with a 50 average against each of Imran, Lillee and Hadlee.

Kersi,it is really interseting to read the debates and your viewpoints are most balanced which I saw on allrounders.I have throroughly enjoyed your blog.You correctly state that the btasman belonged to differenr eras and thus compariosn is unfair as the wickets,opposition nad the nature of bolwing differed.I wondered tentativly could we asses approximately how much Bradman would have avergaed had he played in the 1970's agaisnt the 4 pronged Carribean pace attack or Lille and Thomson,or similarly Lara .Ponting ,Kallis and Tendulkar facinfg the bolwing Gavaskar or Viv Richards did in the same era.In the modern era 3 times as many batsman average over 50 than in the 1960's or 1970's Imagine in the 1960's only Barrington,Sobers and Pollock averaged above 50.In the 1970's only Viv Richards,Greg Chappell and Sunil Gavaskar averaged above 50,with Border and Miandad following their path in the subsequent decade.In the modern era when the wickets are placid,the bowling easier ,many more matches played,with all protective headgear available ,the batsman have a advantage of possibly 3-4 runs than playesr of previous eras.Hobbs and Trumper negotiated the most treachorous pitches while Bradman and Hammond played on slower ,batting surfaces and not as devastating pace bolwing as Gavaskar,Viv Richards or Sobers faced.Infact bodyline troubled Bradman.However inspite of batting in easier conditions Lara and Tendulkar have faced more pressure than any other batting great ,bar George Headley.Infact Headley was superior batsman than the Don on wet pitches on which Jack Hobbs was too a champion.Taking all factors into consideration Kersi,this si my tentative list. 1.Bradman. 2.Hobbs 3.Viv Richards 4.Gary Sobers 5.Sachin Tendulkar 6.Brian lara 7.Walter Hammond 8.George Headley 9.Grame Pollock 10.Sunil Gavaskar 11.Len Hutton 12.Barry Richards 12.Everton Weekes 13.Greg Chappell 14..Ricky Ponting 15.Jacques Kallis 16.Allan Border 17.Javed Miandad 18 Virendra Sehwag 19.Rohan Kanhai 20 Victor Trumper 21.Steve Waugh 22 Arthur Morris 23.Matthew Hayden 24.Ken Barrington 25.Ian Chappell Bradman stats put him on another pedestal.Hobbs was champion batsman and match-winner on wet tracks and had a phenomenal number of centuries against Australia,in addition to scoring half of his 197 hundres above the age of 40.Viv Richards wa sthe best ever against pure pace who could change the complexion of agame more than any batsman;while Sobers was a brilliant matchwinner and a champion in a crisis .Tendulkar,adding test and one day stats the best batsman of all while .Lara was the most creative batsman of the modern age who bore the brunt of one of the weakest sides in test history and had the penchant to compile more mammoth scores than any other great batsman.Headley in the modern era he may well have eclipsed Tendulkar with his brilliance on wet pitches and his ability to hold together aweak batting side single-handedly.When the chips were down few could equal Allan Border,Kallis,Miandad ,Steve Waugh or Ian Chappell while for pure batting genius Kanhai eclipsed even Bradman.Had Hammond played in another era he may well have joined the Viv Richards,while no batsman were technically as sound as Hutton or Gavaskar.Had Barry Richards had a full career he may well have been second to Bradman,just like Pollock and Headley.

Yes, exactly, my post was quite sloppy (I was on my way out the door so I didn't have time to edit my post). :D Anyway I brought that up in reference to your saying 'Some critics wrote in 1940s that England’s Wally Hammond (7249 runs at 58.45 in 85 Tests) was superior to Bradman. Many old timers were of the opinion that England’s Jack Hobbs and Australia’s Vic Trumper were the greatest and better than Bradman.'

Headley was considered to be the 'White Bradman' however West Indians regarded Bradman as the 'White Bradman.' I agree that it is incredibly difficult to compare greats from different eras, however I would argue certain cricketers transcend their eras. Bradman is surely such a figure. Thus, I think Bradman can be compare (unsuccessfully) to different cricketers.

Cricket stump, golf ball, wall, and hours and hours of hand eye foot co-ordination, anyone can become Bradman !. Is hand-eye co-ordination genetic, or is it developed, can anyone remotely normal do it. IMO experience as a coach of young boys, some just love chasing a ball, and through playing a myriad of games that kids play, develop it....... but is that love of chasing, kicking, throwing balls etc genetically passed down.

Bradman wasn't light years ahead of his contemporaries -- his numbers were. In the same sense that Tendulkar isn't light years ahead of his contemporaries, he's simply scored more runs than them. Bradman has an iconic stature the same as Babe Ruth or any other national sporting icon. To say that plays no part in how he's regarded is silly. Look at what happens when someone breaks one of Bradman's records these days. Nobody gives a sh-t. When people put up Bradman numbers these days, people cringe.

Modern batsmen don't play under the same conditions as Bradman. I don't see how anyone can expect Tendulkar or any other modern batsman to average higher than Bradman over 175 test matches. It's Tendulkar, right now, who is setting the standard for what's possible over 175 test matches. To answer the question of why no-one has broken Bradman's records, it's important to consider why Bradman was able to set them in the first place. Bradman played Test cricket on ten grounds in two countries. He played 79% of his cricket against England (63 out of 80 test match innings) and only traveled there four times in 20 years. None of these things are Bradman's fault, they're simply things that helped shape his average. Look at the bowling he faced: he only faced six bowlers who took 100 wickets or more and none of them were fast bowlers. There's no comparison between the bowlers Bradman faced and the players Tendulkar has come up against in the course of his 20 year career. If truth be told, sticking Bradman in the English side in timeless tests against O'Reilly and Grimmett would've told the true story of Bradman's average. Look at what Sutcliff or Headley accomplished for a truer picture of what life might have been like for Bradman if he hadn't played for Australia. In 50 or 60 years time, if Tendulkar's records still stand then people will be in awe of him like they are Bradman. The big difference will be that practically all of Tendulkar's career will be available on film. The lack of footage of Don Bradman only adds to his mythos, and we see all this nonsense about how he plaeyd without a helmet (everyone did) and how he played on uncovered wickets when in fact uncovered wickets were only difficult after rain and he was noted for never playing a masterful innings on a sticky wicket. Bradman obviously had ability much like Wilt Chamberlain did in the 60s when he scored 100 points in a single game and averaged 50 for the season, but these things don't happen without a reason.

Yes amazon fan - the record not broken because the person who set it was better than anyone else. It isn't like track or swimming where standards, facilities, training etc improve everyone's performance. In cricket you compete against someone else, so it's more of a level playing field compared to current competitors. I would have thought Bradman was if anything MORE revered in the 50s and 60s, by those who saw him play or were alive when he did. The fact that people are arguing Tendulkar is better or as good, suggests it helps, rather than hinders, being in the modern era in front of people's eyes. You have to argue hard that Tendulkar is even the best batsman in the modern era, when you have other contemporaries (Lara, Ponting, Kallis) with similar records. If he's only arguably the best now, how can he be even considered with someone with almost double the record, who stood out like a beacon in his time?

But if we mostly revere Bradman because he was around before we were born, thus meaning that cricketers have had plenty of opportunites to break his records, why haven't they? Why has't his average been broken or even challenged? Why haven't anyone broken his record of 12 200+ scores or his century-to match ratio? I think there are some records which are yet to be broken solely because of the brilliance of the person who set it. These are such examples.

A large part of the reason why Bradman is so revered is because it happened before most of us were born. There's no denying Bradman's stature in the game but for every record in sport there are reasons why it hasn't been broken.

another thing that heavily favours bradman is the fact he played most of his matches against the one opposition. if you get to play against only one opponent then its fairly easy to tune yourself to their particular style and start to dominate. people criticise tendulkars record because he has played so many tests against the relative minnows of the game but completely forget about bradman playing the one team over and over. of course this doesnt negate the fact that he has to be good enough to learn and adapt and apply his talent to each game to take advantage, but again, the fact remains, bradman played most of his cricket against england and gained a massive advantage in doing so (irrespective of the strength of the english team). the beauty of sport is that we love the emotion that nostalgia gives us but its a bit of a stetch to say that any sportsman (and this term must be used loosely) from the early days of cricket, basketball, rugby whatever would be genuinely be able to compete now in their chosen sport, presumably there is a reason why there are amateur and professional athletes. in 50 years i would love to tell some young guppy that michael jordan was the greatest basketball player that ever lived but its just not going to be true. i would love to say that richie mccaw was the greatest AB ever (i like meads more though frankly) but its just not going to happen. is it easier to make runs get wickets etc if you are on a dominate team or if you are the lone gun on an average team? everyone must admit it is a whole lot easier to do what you do when you play as part of a domiante team.

I have to go in to bat for my Tigers here. First Test at Chittagong, 2010, first innings, Tendulkar gets 105. Rest of India gets 138. Without Sachin, or if we hold the catch against Sachin on 16, we roll them. But Sachin is Sachin, yes, and he did well enough and dragged his team back from the brink. He has class, he has humility, and while he is not Bradman, he can proudly stand with Hobbs and Hammond and Grace and Richards and Richards and Headley, in that very well starred assembly of second-rate batsmen. Ian Whitchurch

Why is it that Kallis can't be ranked that high? From my investigations on this topic, it seems far more to do with charisma (for want of a better word) than ability. The guy is a superstar of the game whose position in the game's history should be much higher than it is.

Thanks. :D