Bradman, Tendulkar the greatest of all time

Failing to produce runs? Are you crazy? Does anyone not remember his two great centuries in Sharjah or WC 2003 semi against Pakistan? As far as tests, watch the 1999 Chennai test where he battled Pakistani bowlers on a deathtrap track for the last day and then India lost the match after he got out....India sucked as a team in those days. It was mostly a one man show.

Bradman never played against great bowlers like Akram, Imran, Mcgrath, Marshal (yes Sachin did face Marshal), Hadlee, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald, Warne, Muralitharan, Steyn, Brett Lee, Akhtar etc. etc. Tendulkar has buried them and standing tall on that grave. Only Mcgrath gave him trouble I think. The standard of field was also very poor. Although I concede Bradman played on uncovered pitches with no protection... it's hard to compare players from different eras.

Republican, Because the exercise of comparing players across generations is difficult, it is far from pointless. Should we cease to try simply because it's too hard? No-one with a sane mind believes that he can provide a definitive answer to the merits of players from different eras, but we can certainly arrive at a comprehensive comparison. Robust discussion is one way of arriving at a clearer picture. We all have rusted-on opinions, which in some cases may be totally wrong. It takes time to relieve some-one (me included) of a deeply dug-in perception. People have to be willing & flexible to concede that their position may be flawed. Real averages shift over time, favouring in turn either batsmen or bowlers, when one or the other is weaker in strength. You don't have to be a statistician to figure the eras when the bat or the ball dominated. You can figure them out by following the trends. One thing I've come to realise with cricket, is that people become lazy, & rely too much on the stats instead of balancing that with their intuition & live experience. In the football codes, there are less stats to rely on, so you have to pay attention to watching & following the matches more, & reading the history. This is also true of cricket. As Ian Whitchurch quite perceptively said in another thread: "stats are meaningless without context".

True Ian.

Sheek, Australia also had Eddie Gilbert, who was genuinely quick, but wasnt selected as he was Aboriginal (his FC bowling average was a shade better than Tim Walls).

Bayman, Well said regarding Miller. Miller survived a brutal war, & often told the story that 'real' pressure was being chased by a Messerschmidt fighter (he was a Mosquito fighter/bomber pilot himself). Consequently, playing test cricket was a walk in the park by comparison. For today's professionals, cricket is all they know, so it's everything to them. It didn't mean that much to Miller. He performed when he needed to.

Bayman, To answer your question, it is perhaps a bit of both. The 1930s were not kind to the traditional powers Australia & England in terms of genuine quality pacemen. Australia's best 30-34 was Tim Wall, & from 35-39 it was Ernie McCormack. Both were honest trundlers, but definitely not out of the top drawer either in pace or skill. England had Larwood, but apart from 32/33 used him poorly. There was also Bill Bowes, Bill Voce, Gubby Allen & Ken Farnes. Again honest types, but not sensational. South Africa had Sandy Bell, who was on a par with Wall & McCormack. The Windies had Learie Constantine & Manny Martindale, again of similar ilk to all the above bar Larwood. ironically, probably the 3 best & fastest pacemen of the 30s, apart from Larwood, came from the lesser lights of New Zealand & India. The Kiwis had Jack Cowie, who may have been the fastest & best apart from Larwood. India had Mohammed Nissar & Amar Singh. There were of course some outstanding spinners, such as Clarrie Grimmett & Bill O'Reilly from Australia, & Hedley Verity from England. So yes, the 1930s was probably batting friendly, but it made little difference to Bradman. Perhaps in another stronger bowling era, his batting average might have 'only' been 79.94, or maybe 69.94. Still better than anyone else!

I still remember Mark Taylor quote after the 1998 chennai test. "We didn't lose to a team called India but we lost to a man called Sachin". He won the match & the series for India. Double century in the recent Bangalore test against Oz?? Sachin has done more than enough for Indian cricket. Period.

Oh ,absolutely. My reply was simply to those who seem to insist that certain batsmen do not score runs when it "really counts". As you correctly mention, runs are for the most part runs...they all add up ,whenever they are scored. Again, It was not to put down Lara...but the 4th inn. thing is one of the key points the Lara fans use to leverage their so called argument. Cheers

Brendon, Just so you don't think I'm against you on principle - this time I agree! One thought, was it a batsmen friendly era during Bradman's time - or did he just make it look like it was?

Brett, In support I would just say that Kallis has a better Test average than Tendulkar - just. It is just a matter of someone lasting the distance. Of course, when the distance is twenty odd years it will take a remarkable player and that is what will make it a rare (if not unlikely) thing. The interesting thing about Bradman is that he made 6996 runs in 52 Tests over a twenty year period. It's easy to say he might have made treble that over 156 Tests - and he might have - but he would not have to play any longer than he actually did. Tendulkar has played 185 Tests in his time. Given Bradman was still scoring Test hundreds, and big Test hundreds, in his late thirties then age, presumably, would not have been an issue and he would still score those runs if it was his 50th Test or his 150th Test. When you talk of Bradman it's not just the ability but the desire that has to be taken into account. He loved batting like very few before or since. It's one reason why Keith Miller is difficult to rate compared to some modern all-rounders. Miller played seriously when he felt like it and many times he simply didn't see the need. This seriously impacted on his absolute figures and his average in both batting and bowling. This is why those who never saw Miller and just read the figures can never truly understand his rating or understand why some consider him second only to Sobers. It wasn't what he did every day but what he could do when necessary that elevated him to the top rank. In Bradman's case he did it every day because he wanted to.

Prar, I'm not quite sure of your point. If you're suggesting that Nicholas Rhode has categorically proved that Tendulkar is better than Bradman I suggest you buy my shares in the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He has indicated that longevity is more important than average based on Tendulkar's 180 odd Tests compared to Bradman's 52. It ignores, apparently, the fact that Bradman accumulated those Tests over a twenty year period - and lost about eight years of Test cricket, in his prime, to the Second World War. His record at age 38, 39, 40 was not too far removed from his peak average. Rhode may well be a top economist but his knowledge of cricket, and cricketers, is decidedly fallible. What separated Bradman from his peers was not so much his talent but his desire. His was a triumph of attitude as much as ability. Bradman freely admitted there were more talented players than him but there were not more dedicated players than him. Dedicated, that is, to success and the domination of bowlers. He did not take risks nor see the need to take them. If the ball is hit along the ground you cannot be caught. It's a simple game for those who want to make it simple and are prepared to do it for a lengthy period of time - remembering that most of Bradman's big hundreds were scored at better than a run a minute. For example, he rarely batted all day - he never had to - by the time he was out the damage had been done.

Prar, Assuming of course that only a hundred made in the second innings is "match winning". It may well be that Lara set up so many first innings that second innings were unneccessary. It is an interesting fact that despite Bradman's extraordinary record of 29 Test centuries in just 80 innings (10 not outs) he only made a Test hundred in each innings once (vs India in 1947/48). Largely because Bradman didn't have a lot of second innings compared with first innings. The same might be true of Lara - no, I haven't looked it up..... Just saying...... It may be worth commenting here that for many of my generation second innings hundreds were discounted because the tone of the match was often set. In other words, second innings hundreds were often seen as lacking the pressure associated with the first innings when the match was up for grabs. To put it another way, second innings hundreds were soft......compared to those scored in the first innings. So perhaps Sachin's second innings superiority over Lara is not, necessarily, a good thing!

Ian, With due respect, if you want to win you'll pick Sobers. I agree with Sheek on this one but then I saw a lot of Sobers. Kallis had an opportunity to give South Africa victory in Sydney a few years ago and wasted the chance while guaranteeing his own century. He simply took too long when he could have set up his team by giving them the time needed to bowl Australia out. Sobers would never have missed that opportunity. Sobers had a great record - but he didn't play for his record. I suspect there are times when Kallis does exactly that. Kallis is a match saver. Sobers was a match winner. It's a big difference.

I find these sorts of time tunnel type sporting analogies an exercise in futility to be perfectly frank. As with those comparisons of pugilists and racing equines over the years (the most recent being the pitting of the old bench mark, Pharlap v Black Caviar), there are simply way too many hypotheticals in offering any meaningful or accurate comparison. Both these players were and are the bench mark in batting of and for their respective eras.

Through the '90s when WI were a much superior team to India. Dravid, Lax only came into their own in the next decade. TAKING OUT Ban and Zim: SRT :5523 @ 59.4 with 22 100s in 105 inn. lara: 5573 @ 51.6 with 13 100s in 112 inn. Lara actually had his best consecutive years from around 2003 to retirement (precisely the time Tendulkar had perhaps his worst run due to a string of injuries)- this also was the time the WI were at its worst. Go Figure

Copy/pasting an earlier comment: This conventional nonsensense about Lara has become a convenient myth. Through the ’90s infact WI were a far superior team to India. Dravid,Lax and co. only came into their own in the 2000s. I think Brian Lara, bless his heart, was a great batsman. But he is held in such high regard partly because of his swashbuckling style and the fact that a few innings he has played were among the best ever. The truth is that he was nowhere near as consistently good as Tendulkar has been and still is. Consider this. In 4th innings, Brian averaged 4 runs lower than Sachin, and has 8 hundreds in winning causes vs Sachin’s 20. And apart from the 153*, he has done virtually nothing in 4th innings chases. But that innings has always been cited in a “what has sachin done?” argument. Before Sachin buried the idiots at Chennai , of course. And let’s not even bring ODIs into the picture. I’ll risk sounding like a troll and say that it’s ludicrous to me that anyone would look beyond Sachin as the greatest player in limited overs history. He has 33 hundreds in winning causes, has made runs eveywhere and in real pressure cooker situations (he averages 56 with 6 hundreds in ODI finals v Ponting’s 38 or Lara’s 28). The closest anyone comes in the ODI greatness stakes is Viv Richards, and Tendulkar has 11,000 more runs (say it out loud – ELEVEN THOUSAND), at a marginally (45 v 47) lower average and marginally lower strike rate. So, please, I beg of you fine folks, end this Sachin v Lara debate once and for all. I’ll get an aneurysm if I have to listen any more about Brian Lara winning more matches (all eight of them) or having been a better batsman than Sachin.

Since you may be unaware of this there is strong line of thought that reckons that if a batsman completed his N.O innings he would average more. Since you seem to have followed Lara's career closely (but not Tendulkar's) you would realise that when Lara got going he made sure to make it count- coz he knew the flops were round the corner. The more a batsman is "in" the easier it is for him to score.

So what? Maybe Lara just made sure to score big if and when he got going to make up for the innumerable flops? Maybe the Tests were drawn because Tendulkar managed to stay not out? Maybe completed N.Outs actually increase a players avg. ? Maybe if the Don hadn’t played in an amateur era against limited opposition in limited countries in limited formats he wouldn’t have averaged what he did? In major Test countries OUTSIDE the subcontinent : Aus : SRT – 59 , Lara -42 ; Eng – SRT - 54 , Lara -49 ; SA – SRT -46 ,Lara- 47 ; NZ –SRT -50 , Lara-37. With the exception of SA, where things are pretty similar- the bouncy,seaming wickets seem to suit Tendulkar more. And talk about huge scores in draws if you take out the 375 and 400 (not out)-both in draws, on the most tepid ground on the planet, the 2nd in a dead rubber after Lara avg. some 16 in the previous 3 “live” matches of the tour- Lara’s avg. drops to below 50. There’s a lot more- but may as well pass.

Adam S, With the sheer number of pointless one dayers, Twenty 20 games coming to the for and Test matches being squeezed in as an afterthought I doubt anyone will get close to Tendulkar unless they are from the subcontinent. Our "young" batsman seem to be plagued by bad backs that can't take the wear and tear. Toss, I would be interested in Tendulkar's stats outside the subcontinent and the dusty roads that are produced.