Thanks everyone.

The Warne-McGrath partnership was fascinating and fruitful in many ways because it was built on mutual respect and admiration, for their very contrasting approaches. One often gave the other credit. McGrath made no secret of the fact that sometimes batsmen softened up by Warne ended up his victims and vice versa.

The point about Ray Lindwall is also fascinating. But in terms of comparable challenge to the Test-bowling arm? Lindwall averaged 23.03, Garner 20.97. Even if Lindwall was tested by having to bowl 481 more deliveries than Garner’s 13,169 deliveries, Garner still managed 31 more wickets than Lindwall. And Garner was just one corn in a paddy-field of pacers! Neither had to bowl an additional 16,000 or so Test deliveries (worth more than another pacer’s entire career) to fairly be compared with the figures that McGrath held for so long?

The unlucky 1990s and early 2000s batsmen who faced McGrath perhaps complained about a lot as he ran in at them, on nearly 50 Test grounds across the globe. Hard to say whether their excuses for getting out included boredom.

Thanks again and best wishes to all for a fab (and roaring) New Year!

A few expert perspectives below. Their point being not so much about achievement but about playing context. Emburey perhaps most precise. But enduring greatness has never been bestowed on a “what if” – always on the basis of what was actually resisted and overcome. Not that it makes a difference to those who’ve made up their mind! But for others, a new viewpoint maybe worth examining if not embracing:

“I played against Sachin…When you score as many runs as he has in Test and one-day cricket and score as many centuries and half centuries as he has done, it makes him arguably the greatest player ever in the history of the game.’” – Tendulkar the greatest – Richard Hadlee, ESPNcricinfo, 3 April 2009​

“He (Sachin) is the greatest player and batsman to have ever played.”
Dennis Lillee quoted in a Press Trust of India report in The Indian Express, 27 June 2012

“Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time. Better than Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting…….Better than Sir Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border. And I would even say better than Sir Don Bradman himself.”
Nasser Hussain in the Daily Mail, UK, 25 February 2010, Mighty Sachin Tendulkar even tops Lara, Ponting and The Don!

“It may be sacrilegious to say this, especially to Australians, but Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman who ever took guard.”
Simon Hughes in The Telegraph, UK, 29 March 2011, India v Pakistan: Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman ever to play cricket

“….Tendulkar has been tested in ways that Bradman didn’t have the opportunity to be, and in many more different conditions. I’ve bowled against Sachin……so I know from experience just how good he is.”
Tendulkar has claim to be better than Bradman: John Emburey in the Cricketer (home of the Sofa), 19 July 2011

“I am one of those fortunate people who have seen Bradman and Tendulkar bat in my lifetime and in my opinion Tendulkar is the best batsman I have seen in my life. I have never seen a more complete player..”
Hanif Mohammad rates Sachin over Bradman, The Hindu, 25 December 2012​

“We are too close to Tendulkar to be able to say, as we should, that he is the greatest batsman in the history of the game, greater than Bradman, greater than Hobbs, greater than anybody. This is the tyranny of proximity….. there is something about that unique century of centuries. If that doesn’t automatically place him above everybody else, what will? We must hurry up and let the man know.” -Suresh Menon, In the realms of divinity, Sportstar, 29 March 2012​ (Suresh is Editor of The Wisden Indian Almanack)

As someone said, greatness is not what you become (your achievement, your stats), it’s what you overcome.

It’s not only by how far a player beats the crowd (he may well be twice as good as the field) but how competitive that crowd really was. His stats may well put him ahead of the pack – in a given period. Not his fault if the game wasn’t as competitive at the time but it’s no one else’s either. Bradman was better than Grace because he excelled in a far fiercer environment. Not Grace’s fault. Nor does it in anyway belittle Grace’s achievement or stats.Grace still stands tall for what he did, when he did it. As does Bradman.

The point isn’t about chronology – contemporary is better than classical, or modern greater than vintage. The point is about competitiveness. The greatest bowlers in cricket history are coaching or in the commentary box. So at least some batsmen playing today are going to struggle to claim ENDURING greatness no matter how far their fours go or high their sixes – not their fault but no one else’s either. That doesn’t mean they’re not great, prolific, versatile, exciting players. It’s just that it may be harder for their greatness to transcend their epoch. Their playing after 20th century players doesn’t automatically mean they’re better than those who came before them any more than Bradman was automatically better than those who came before him. Playing context – resistance faced – is key.

When considering a cricket history of over 2000 Tests that context, that perspective is often lost. Yes stats are important but context is even more important.

Murali is one of the greatest bowlers – if not the greatest. The article queries whether the Bradman epithet is actually appropriate for Murali because of the relative ferocity of his playing environment. Someone else called him ‘the Don Bradman of bowlers’ – the article invites a little introspection.

Many ‘experts’ – Australian or not – violently disagree with Bradman’s considered assessment of Murali (link below).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/135717.html

Not surprising but it is a pity. My other piece about Murali (link in the article above) explores why the ‘chucker’ chorus may want to check their song-sheets.

For those who hurried past that sentence, here it is again: ‘Bradman was the greatest of his era – NOTHING LESS’. And why he’s rightly, revered – because the levels of skill and temperament at the time didn’t match his. But only a handful of players at the time lasted more than 25-35 Tests, let alone Bradman’s 50 Tests. It was only post-War that words such as ‘international’, ‘career’, ‘world’ class, ‘enduring’, ‘experienced’, ‘proven’, ‘tested’ came into their own. Of course these words were used pre-War but they really came to life only post-War. Given his opposition, Bradman was superb. But with a history of over 2000 Tests behind us, no harm in asking now and then (as Duncan Hamilton and Gideon Haigh did) how biting, how varied that opposition really was?

‘Experts’ dismiss comparison – across epochs – as futile, stupid. That’s disingenuous. It’s also lazy. They’re the ones grinning as they crash the ‘comparison party’! Those who start sentences with a sanctimonious ‘we shouldn’t – can’t – compare across epochs’, somehow finish those sentences with a sacrilegious ‘Bradman is the greatest across epochs, across all sport and everyone else please shut up’. Spit, polish, spit, polish, spit. Again, not surprising but it is a pity.

Thanks David, thoughtful piece and you’ve compiled amazing stats. You’re right the benchmark is Sachin. But that isn’t just about his runs but the resistance he overcame for every run against his name – the sheer range and ferocity of the bowling challenge. VRcric – thanks for drawing attention to this.

Sadly, not the first comparison relying purely on stats but without wider context http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/youngest-8000-test-runs-alastair-cook-nowhere-sachin-tendulkar-greatness

Or the only such comparison http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/statistics-kumar-sangakkara-sachin-tendulkar-greatest-bradman

The point isn’t ‘if Cook gets to play long enough he’ll beat Sachin’. The point is ‘Like Sangakkara,Cook is probably never going to get the chance because the greatest Test/ODI bowlers are long gone’. Cook’s runs – and they will be many – virtually irrelevant.

Longevity (not years played, but actual innings played) is under-rated. Chris Kettlewell – thanks for the point about Bradman’s average; one that many historians and analysts have overlooked.

Richie B: thanks, I was struck by your perspective on Sachin Tendulkar – I know not many share that view. If you’ve not read the two articles I’ve posted (above in this string), you’ll enjoy reading them. Both pieces encourage analysts looking at ODI history, to look afresh.

Liked your piece Sambeet; many thanks. If you haven’t read Duncan Hamilton’s book “Harold Larwood”, I’m sure you’ll love it. It is the most authoritative account of what cricket was really like in the 1920s and 30s. It brings home several truths, also several misconceptions – especially about the challenge that batsmen faced. Most 21st century readers, mistakenly, believe that the lone Bodyline series was representative of cricket at the time. Hamilton’s book superbly demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, Depression era cricket was far, far easier for batsmen (like Bradman) than it was for bowlers (like Larwood). There’s a sample here..

http://www.greaterthanbradman.com/playing-context.html

Thanks Ronan.

Thoughtful piece Ronan, thanks. Agree that it’s definitely not Sanga. For what it’s worth I’ve written here about why my vote is for Sachin (not Viv).

http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/viv-richards-sachin-tendulkar-batting-average-strike-rate-other-myths

http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/greatest-odi-cricketer-some-stats-dont-lie-do-hide-truth

Nice one Pankaj. Agree with Kumar Abhishek though; not sure that aggression and Dravid go together – just wasn’t his style. Determination and doggedness, yes.

Dravid was hard to get out (or get out on a duck) because of his incurably cautious, defensive style. He lightened up a bit in later years but for most of his career preferred defensive, predominantly terrestrial stroke-play to the predominantly extra terrestrial cricket of Sehwag and Sachin. Naturally, they scored more runs than Dravid off fewer deliveries, even if he ended up with a far higher tally than Sehwag for instance. Dravid’s strike-rate picked up only in his later years as he grew more confident, more relaxed. But for a number of his early years (dot ball phase), it was actually a bit of a choke on the non-strikers who scored more confidently, more freely and were raring to go.

Not sure about Dravid being ‘the only batsman to have scored a century against all Test-playing nations’ – as this Ask Steven page shows, it’s a bit of a club actually http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/208547.html

The whole team counted on Dravid in some very trying circumstances and he came good. During the latter half of his career, alongside some others Dravid powered the team superbly. His temperament, an example to everyone in the side. He gave some of his best years to India’s Test record. Thanks for the stats on keeper/batting; very interesting.

Nice one Dennis. You’re working fans (and fanatics) into a sweat even before the series!

A while back, when England were chest thumping (a bit too much) and Australia were feeling down in the dumps (a bit too much) I tried to offer a bit of perspective. Link below, in case of interest…….It was half-serious. Can’t seem to recall which half wasn’t.
http://www.alloutcricket.com/cricket/blogs/on-the-underdog

Very nice and thoughtful piece Pankaj, especially your extremely wise reference to ‘modern cricket’.

ABD, as I’ve written separately in an earlier piece, is definitely right up there in the short format. His speed, reflexes, agility, stamina and cool head make him a formidable athlete – and not just on the cricket field. He is a true sportsman and player, not just a cricketer. His cheerful, friendly demeanour endears him to mates and rivals alike. His feats (and accompanying stats) put him among the highest short-form achievers of his era.

Not ABD’s fault that he hasn’t been tested long enough, differently enough and consistently enough by the greatest short-form bowlers. But he just hasn’t. And that’s always going to make it difficult for his greatness to transcend the era/format that he has dominated. If the ferocity of his bowling challenge suddenly increases and tests him for longer into the future, he still has a chance. Until then we must joyfully cheer his extraordinary prowess. In many ways, his bat has gone where no bat has gone before and we must celebrate that.

Thoughtful Daniel.

If you’re interested, there was a similar discussion recently where two cricket writers suggested – and I’m paraphrasing – that balance be damned.

No contest, no sport: The balance between bat and ball

The point is less about getting the balance down to micro-fraction perfection. The point is to try and retain that semblance of balance, even if the scales tilt every few years or seasons.

A vast majority of fans, fresh from the heat of this World Cup don’t agree that the overall quality, depth and range of bowling has fallen when compared to 1990s and early 2000s ODI bowling greats. But it’s worth a thought while reflecting on the more obvious rule changes and fielding tweaks that seem to have made it easier for batsmen. The quality of the bowling challenge remains one of the key bits of ‘resistance’ that a batsman has to overcome, to be called good or great. Yes, there’s bowling resistance sparking every now and then but it seems to lack the ferocity and effectiveness (especially in containing) that we’ve seen in previous years.

Thanks Bearfax & Aransan. Final points, if I may. Bradman was the greatest ‘in his era’. No one disputes that. But ‘enduring’ greatness demands a little more than ‘leader of your pack by a long shot’, especially in a game that’s over 200 years old. Leader of your pack only means others in that era just couldn’t catch up, for whatever reason – nothing less. Importantly, nothing more.

The speculation, of greatness across generations, gets tougher if you ask – what if Bradman had played only 40 Tests, only 30 Tests, only 20, only 10 and still averaged what he did. Should he still be crowned the greatest ever? Point is, enduring greatness, across generations isn’t decided on speculation – what a player ‘could have’ or ‘would have’ done had he faced a stronger, wider, deeper opposition but on the fact that he has indeed faced the strongest, widest, deepest opposition.

The ‘greatest ever’ title is usually bestowed on someone who has been tested in the widest possible conditions, for the longest possible time. First Class cricket is good fun and welcome practice to hone skill but there’s a reason why Test cricket is called thus – it is a ‘test’ in a way that First Class isn’t. No matter how compelling they appear to neighbourhood teams, it is simply not in the same league as international cricket.

And considering over 2100 Tests and 3600 ODIs, Bradman just didn’t have the opportunity to be tested that way and therefore has, shall we say, more limited claim to the title than has been suggested all along. Not his fault. No one else’s either. Many thanks again for the interesting points raised.

Thanks Bearfax…and I understand your reluctance. But for those who think they know all about Bradman and his playing context, it may help to think again? This isn’t the place to elaborate on my book but I’ve found the extent of comment here fascinating because the Bradman/enduring greatness theme still holds such interest across generations. So, I’ll offer just two tiny illustrations.

There are at least a couple of confident/casual references in the article and comments above, to Bradman’s “52 Tests”. Actually, he played in only 50. It seems trivial but it helps to reflect – do we really know all there is to know? If he’d played 300 and you get the figure wrong by a Test or two that’s fine as it’s unlikely to threaten a sacred average by much but if he played only 50, it probably matters slightly more?

The 99.94 stat is easy to embrace; hence the many references here to “an average of 100” almost implying that every time he went out to bat afresh, he scored 100. It’s tougher to accept though that for about a fourth of his international career (22 out of 80 innings) Bradman scored 18 or fewer runs and for close to half his career (35 out of 80 innings) he scored 40 or fewer runs.

My point being not so much about fact (vs fiction) but an inexplicable reluctance to take a closer look.

“….based on facts available”. Yes, but are all of them “available” (immediately obvious)? Or are some hidden?

As I’ve said, for those whose minds are made up, it’s all pointless. But for those who are open…..who knows, they just might discover something new? Of course I could be wrong………

Fascinating question zacbrygel and some gripping, if heated, discussion in the comment section. For those interested, my book “Greater than Bradman” tries to demonstrate why Bradman isn’t the greatest batsman ever and why many who succeeded him were greater. But the book isn’t for those whose minds are made up! It’s meant instead for those who agree that Bradman was the greatest ‘of his era’ but who are also wondering – nearly 70 years after he quit, is he still the greatest ‘in cricket history’?

There is a tiny – but steadily growing – group of experts who have begun to question Bradman’s rank and they include Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, Simon Hughes, Nasser Hussain, John Emburey and Hanif Mohammad. Both sides of the debate are here http://www.greaterthanbradman.com/the-debate.html

Insightful comments Julian King, thank you. Especially your point about captaincy. You’re right. An evolving game demands creativity, innovation and each era has brought out the best of these across nations, across formats. As Chris Kettlewell rightly says, the ebb and flow takes care of these things anyway.

What’s disturbing is the implication in the two articles highlighted – that a) there’s never been any balance between bat/ball when as Chris says – there has been a see-saw every that keeps the game challenging and interesting, b) since almost everyone wants bat to rule, why not sit back and enjoy; forget about ball/bowler, after all it’s batsmen who win matches when as b and Joel have pointed out – bowlers too help win matches, c) the point of cricket is to just score as many runs as you can when as I’ve said – ODIs are about containing too.

On ‘best ever’, ‘all-time’ batting greats BBC’s Jonathan Agnew once said Sangakkara’s Test “career average of 58.53 is superior to any of his illustrious peers”. Here’s why (link below) it’s harder for late 2000s and otherwise brilliant contemporary batsmen (AB and his peers) to become ‘all-time’ greats…… just yet.
http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/statistics-kumar-sangakkara-sachin-tendulkar-greatest-bradman

Sadly yes, Prosenjit. One chance he does have is if the breadth, strength and depth of his bowling challenge picks up considerably. There seems little chance of that happening, yet, but it’s not impossible. Thing is, success, as Charles Lindbergh put it, is “not measured by what a man accomplishes, but by the opposition he has encountered and the courage with which he has maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds”. At the moment, there’s simply no sign of ‘struggle’ or ‘overwhelming’ odds because the horde of great ODI bowlers has vanished. If you’re interested, my book explores this theme (recording and rewarding greatness on the cricket field).

Extremely bold, but thought-through. Thanks

Thanks Vikram. If you’re referring to my Sachin/Cook piece a while back, yes, the same logic applies as do the stats. Absolutely no problem comparing AB with other contemporary bats (Dhoni, Amla, Kohli), but things get out of hand the moment you use those same stats across generations. Stats without perspective is at best, misguided; at its worst it’s outright myth.

Thanks Prosenjit Majumdar. The point isn’t so much whether AB is good or great in his generation – he probably is the best (or one of the best) batsman around and probably has an enviable average/SR. With all that contemporary bowlers could throw at him in different formats he’s come out ahead, consistently and brilliantly. Praise there is richly deserved. AB needs to be celebrated. The point is more about cricket writers, former cricketers rushing to anoint him the greatest/best across generations or to rank his peers with their predecessors stat by stat. That requires looking beyond stats. It requires looking more closely at resistance and field combat. The bowling challenge over the last few years (that AB and his peers have faced) has been, shall we say, relatively timid. So it’s a tad premature to rank any contemporary batsman – not just AB – with the more tested greats from the 1990s and early 2000s.

Thanks Vas Venkatramani. Agree – different challenges in different generations. You’re right about stats rarely telling the full story. That’s why it’s dangerous to embrace stats (at the expense of understanding challenges faced/defeated) – the point of the Sangakkara piece above. You’re also right about players who change the game not always being given due credit.

Thanks Harvey Wilson. Don’t think anyone is (or should be) suggesting that good players/teams are not good. In any era it’s easy to separate great from good. It’s when someone claims that a player/team transcends his/their era (‘greatest’, ‘of all time’) that one needs to be more careful. That’s where depth, strength, consistency and range of resistance is key.

Thanks biltongbek & BBA. As BBA says, not sure there are 50+ avges across formats so AB & Amla are special indeed. And as BBA says, the key for them will be to hold on to those averages as they play 100+, 120+, 130+. It isn’t their fault that the bowling of their era is….less challenging.