I can't believe there are people that actually think that Tendulkar is better than Bradman... Seriously??
If anything bowlers back then were better and he didn't have all the technology available (improved bats and protection) that modern players have. Anybody that knows cricket knows that
In the context of chosing a batman that is going to make the biggest impact I would go for Viv Richards. Helped W.I. dominate world cricket. Rather than just compiling runs while the team draws the test match.
I think Sachin is far better than Don Bradman because those days when bradman existed you had bowlers with less variations and Sachin is a batsmen of an era where you have variations like doosra,reverse swing and alot of pace which goes till 161 kmph!
In my opinion, when sachin retires he will be considered among the ranks of sir donald bradman...whether it is above him or beside him. And I say that with the upmost respect.
Who cares who's the best. 99% talking about Bradman never saw him hit a shot. So please stop talking shit. It's impossible to compare. By the way i'm indian.
@osawaexprss. bradman played at a time when bowlers were medium pacers. the fastest bowler of his time will not be faster than brian mcmillan of south africa.
he may have been 'so' much better than his contemporaries and tendulkar only 'so' much better than his contemporaries. but that does nothing to settle the argument who is better between the two. the players of that era were just a degre better than women cricketers of today. thats not an outrageous point. athletes in all sports are.
Double-centuries remain rare and confirm a batsman's stamina, skill and supremacy. To score a triple-century in the highest company is to become a batsman apart. After all it's been done only 24 times in 1999 matches and roughly 50,000 outings. -Peter Roebuck
How many 300's did Bradman get? Don't know? don't post!
Bradman was better than his opponents by far...Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Richards, Waugh, etc battle for number one- how could you morons not see? No one has been that far ahead of the pack like Bradman was.
I only ever heard ritchie say one wrong thing ever---he said phil hughes was very very good, and would perform well against england---but i forgive him because he is the best and most knowledgable man on cricket there has ever been, and i miss him being on british tv
@James 1238uk. I really dont know what you are talking about. If modern day batsmen have tougher oppositions, then they also have the privilige of protection gears. Remember "Bodyline" took up because of Bradman,90% of the deliveries skidded upto you at 90mph and above at chest hight and above and yet Bradman managed an average of 56 in such a controversial series. Besides the same bowlers he faced kept batsmen like Hammond, Hobbs, McCabe at check for a batting avg marginally more or below 50
Lifeless tracks like in Australia and England, look at the stats in those countries then look at the scores made in India and see which country has the lifeless tracks.
No your joking right? you do know Bradman played agianst teams alot worse and weaker than the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe's of today, i.e West Indies, India and even England, who he played against so many times
The umpires of Bradmans era were biased in Bradmans favour because people wanted to see him bat.
The game was very ametuer, there was no diving in the field and no fitness like today.
How would Bradman faired against the pace and spin of today or the 90's? average 45 at best.
@james1238uk Your joking right?Id like to see Tendulker play on some of the horrific wickets Bradman played on, instead of the flat lifeless Indian tracks he feasts on. And Bradman didnt play joke tests against teams like Banladesh, Zimbabwe - he play 99% of his tests against the best side in the world. It was much harder for Bradman to average 99 than for Tendulker to average 55 - he would feast on the pitches and modern standard of bowling nowadays
I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT HIS COMMENT HE IS VERY OLD AND WISE SACHIN MIGHT BE THE BEST BUT SIR DON BRADMAN WILL STILL BE CONSIDERED AS THE BEST BESIDES HE IS KNOWN AS THE FATHER OF CRICKET
Undoubtedly a great batsman but for me would still give the vote (marginally) to Brian Lara as I think Lara was the best batsman with the tail I've ever seen, and more often than not Lara was having to single handedly prop up a fairly ordinary batting line up Sarwan and Gayle not withstanding. I think however it is a privilege that both Tendulkar and Lara were prolific in 'my' era! Two batsmen who revolutionised the game and gave English bowlers more headaches than I'd care to remember!
I think Gary Sobers was the best batsman I've seen. I think because Sobers is widely regarded as the greatest all-rounder there is a reluctance to also class him as the greatest batsman, too, but I think he was.Tendulkar would be my no. 2 greatest ever bat.
Richie..you have to put Viv Richards at another level he wasnt a bastmen he wanst a cricketer Viv Richards wasa genius.he was a superman..and cannot even mention Viv Richards..in the same sentence specially considering he faced attacks such as lilee and thomo perhaps sobers then ..bradman ..and perhaps lara equal with tendulkar a distant 4 or 5th..
Richie..you have to put Viv Richards at another level he wasnt a bastmen he wanst a cricketer Viv Richards wasa genius.he was a superman..and cannot even mention Viv Richards..in the same sentence specially considering he faced attacks such as lilee and thomo perhaps sobers then ..bradman ..and perhaps lara equal with tendulkar a distant 4 or 5th..
What you have to consider is that in Bradman's time, there were many factors, he had to take a 3 year break for WWII, it's not easy coming back after 3 years and picking up where you left off. He also had to face Bodyline, Bradman averaged 55 or so in Bodyline, Tendulkar's average WITHOUT Bodyline is about that, not to mention that the modern day game's pitches and rules suit batsman significant;y more than bowlers, pls the inclusion of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as Test nations.
@aznfratboy what inculsion of zim or bangladesh u talking about zimbabwe is playing cricket from 1980s... in bradman times also... teams like india were and WI were introduced they came in cricket after bradman debut...
and what about SA they were also minnow of that period who use to play very less cricket...
Sachin's Bowling stat in comparision with Sir Don Bradman. Actually its not fair 2 compare because "The Don" took 2 wickets, whereas Sachin has bowled all forms of games. To begin with tests BBI 3/10, 5,32 in ODIs.
Sir DOn Bradman picked 3/35 in FC
Sachin picked 3/10 in FC
Above all, Sir never faced pressure of carrying one billion people expectations when he went out to bat. With all due respect once again I am saying "I GIVE RESPECT TO SIR DON BRADMAN" but Sachin is a pinch higher.
I respect Sir Don Bradman, but I personally think Sachin is a pinch higher than him. yes I do agree Sir had way better average 99.94 but as Richie says bowlers of that era weren't capable enough of testing him. Whereas in Sachin's case most bowlers questioned his batting quality in different forms of game. please not that the below listed bowlers where of very high quality. Another impressive thing is the Little Master's fitness for more than 2 decades and still behaving like sweet 16!!!
@alllman2000 did thhis guy bluekiaser understands or not is he still arguing on 1 thing he dont understand about that 1999 tour.. and the most funny thing i ever heared from him in my life is tendulkar didnt play against great bowlers while almost every bowler of this era has acceptd that is best batsman they have ever bowl to....
@DocBrewster yea formula1 real good game, you must be joking all you see is cars going around in circles all day, one rear smash, waste of fuel... and oh yea Ferrari is the winner...dumb ass.
What - whereas in cricket you see a ball flying around, huh? HAAA
UFC and Formula 1 aren't games you fool - they are HARD CORE FRINGE EXTREMIST ACTS. Cricket belongs with tiddlywinks and tea with the sunday school girls choir.
There's more fighter pilots than F1 drivers its so exclusive. And I suppose you will say "Jet fighter pilots are nothing - all you see is a plane go past". What moronic reasoning.
WRONG - all sports are NOT equal! F1 has been described as "the most extreme act outside of war" and "the most extreme activity known to man". 28 F1 drivers have been KILLED engaged in this ON THE RAGGED EDGE activity (and almost another one last night if you check the news).
You cannot compare ballgames, tiddlywinks and knitting with this SPORT OF THE TITANS - FORMULA 1
@alllman2000 Imagine Tendulkar on those rough, hard, weedy wickets. Imagine Tendulkar on a ship for 5 months and to play a full test two days off a boat. Imagine Tendulkar averaging 99.94 on long boundaries with thick cut brush outfields. Imagine 28,000 first class runs! Now, take your hand off your d'''k and listen to someone who has seen them both, Richie Benaud. And don't be a ignorant c''k in future.
As. re . the Oh so tough opposition of Eng in those days ,there were other batsmen such as Morris, Headley etc who avg well above 70 against them in Eng ...so much for sticky wickets
Pls use your OWN brain instead of the standard garbage ...if your little brain is capable of interchanging Tendulkar and Bradman try to do so..lets see how Bradman fares among the pros in this day and age.
@alllman2000 No, never mastered sticky wickets means he wasn't that good at playing on pitches that had rain on them, because pitches were uncovered then, a flat track bully is someone who dishes it out to weak teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, like Jacques Kallis, but oh wait, THOSE TEAMS DIDN'T EXIST IN BRADMAN'S TIME.
Oh , Bradman was the greatest minnow basher of all time.
Sure they did have Ban and Zim then...only thing is at that time they went by the names India, South Africa etc...England was the only half decent team around.
@alllman2000 holy shit, you don't actually believe the shit that just came out of your mouth do you? I cant believe your actually suggesting that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh went by the names South Africa and India, if that was the case where were the actually teams from India and SA, if your going to argue at least have the decency not to insult my intelligence and actually bring a logical debate.
@1212yuvi if the bowlers were all amateurs than where are all the other batsman with high averages, there are none, no one in Bradman's era comes close and no one in this era comes close, the conditions back then were best for bowling, not batting.
@DyingSID666 Cause all the batsmen back then were amateur and crap as well, its just Bradman was good among those crap and amateur players now fuck off. If you have a problem go cry about it, and if you wish to reply to this comment then go ahead but still fuck you i dont care cause i wont respond.
screw everything else...don bradman has kicked the bucket a decade ago....
Sachin tendulkar is the best bastman alive....
Screw Ponting, screw Jayasuriya , Screw Gilly, Hayden or any other batsman being compared to him...
He is the highest run scorer, has the maximum hundreds, has the highest one day score and has carried the burden of batting for India for 21 freakin years...let's see a Aussie do that...
The thing thats different between Tendulkar and Bradman is that there werent as many good cricketers around in Bradman's era.... which is why he was "best by far" Bradman in the modern era would also be best by "that much"
@NikPnchl7 - That's a surmise based upon a numerical assumption. Great players are always few and far between, irrespective of era. The whole point about Bradman was that he was so much more successful than acknowledged contemporary greats like Hobbs, Hammond, Woodfull. He was the most consistently successful run getter and the most frequent century maker in the history of Test Cricket, and by a huge margin. By any 'measuring stick' he was, and probably always will be, the best.
@oshawaxpress Thats a matter of opinion and like anything can be subjectively twisted to ones own preferences.... which is why going the objective numerical route is the most unbiased.
@NikPnchl7 IN BRADMAN'S ERA WICKETS WERE MORE SUITED 2 THE BOWLERS, SO EVEN THOUGH THE BOWLERS WERNT TOO FAST IN HIS TIME, HE STILL IS BY FAR THE GREATEST EVER... AREAL GENIUS....HIS LOWEST EVER AVERAGE IN A SERIES IS 56.5 IN THE BODY LINE SERIES... LOL.... THAT SOUNDS GENIUS.... IF BRADMAN WERE 2 PLAY IN THE MODERN ERA, I BET HE WUDVE AVRGED 200!!
@NikPnchl7 if the bowlers weren't that good then where are the other batsman that have high averages from that era, no one from that era has averages even in the 60s, no one came close then, and they played on uncovered pitches that would have made batting extremely difficult, no easy beat teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and they had smaller bats, face facts, Bradman had the greatest batting skills of all time.
It is great that you have admitted most experts believe Bradman is the greatest and Indian fans may overrate Tendulkar.
In summary, I am a passionate Bradman supporter, enjoy and respect cricket history, so I will jump in and defend Bradman when I read any batsman is greater. If I had to name my top 5 batsmen of all-time, I would consider Tendulkar as my number 2. I am not a Tendulkar hater. Far from it.
@36pratham I am asked "why was he [Tendulkar] given man of the series" in 99? Right, If you do not suffer from Tendulkar Brain, read and learn. I believe Tendulkar is an all time great ... but over-rated. I believe McGrath had the better of him. So in reply to the question regarding man of the series; Tendulkar scored 278 runs and averaged 46.33. Ponting 375runs avg 125 McGrath took 18wickets with an average of 13.77.
Hmm, so am I a racist, anti-Tendulkar blinded cricket analyst ... or NOT?
So, in the OTHER 12 inn if some other bowler got him out....that means mcgrath didn t (and this includes as i mentioned around 33% nonsensical decisions/luck)......that further means that tendulkar scored off mcgrath and got out to another bowler.
How can you further ASSUME (which all you seem to be doing in the GUISE of "stats") that he wouldnt have scored MORE of mcgrath if he hadnt got dismissed by a third bowler?????????????
1) Great . For ONCE you have started to admit things like "it is not conclusive", "it seems to me", "next best thing" etc. Not good, but at least a start after all those explanations of mine
2) In the space of say 18 inn vs Mcgrath , As i've explained there at least 5 contentious,poor decisions/unlucky dismissals. Almost 33 %/
@alllman2000 It is all so easy for you isn't it. Dismiss the evidence with excuses of bad umpiring decisions. I thought that I had heard it all. After posting the "not conclusive" stats averages, I did further research which shows me that, when looking at runs scored against McGrath's bowling, Tendulkar averaged about 25runs for his 6 dismissals in the 9 matches they played. Enough said, I KNOW Tendulkar struggled against McGrath in test cricket. I waste no more time on something so obvious.
@Blue yeh rt voce player 20 odd test matches larwood played 21 and and alec played 15 lols... in these test matches about todays players u cant even say that these fix in test matches are not wow what a great bowlers these are against whome bradman played just 15, 20 matches lols... there are few else who have even played less then matches... lols.... i would say even bowlers like vitori, srinath, mohmad asif, caddick, darren gough etc are better then them...
@007dalal like australia and soth africa... thats why he maintained such high avg... remove such conditions from lara he will give better avg then bradman , so it clearly prooved player like BRADMAN, SRT, LARA belongs to same class its just that they belong to diffrent era and peaple are unfair to these greats....
@007dalal while head to head wi and SL are equal still lara has better avg , now add teams minnow teams like india and WI of bradman period needless to say what will be lara avg around 105 or 110 , according to this he is best... but the diffrence is bradman never played in so many diffrent countries , in so many diffrent pitches,no great bowler , but lara played all, bradman never played so many teams, most important bradman never many diffrent bowlers and teams which are far strong then his
@007dalal and if u think that only indians voted than u funny may be majority in indians but there must be atleast 25% australians too and what abou the interviews of australians who accepted and some saying i am emotionaly attached to bradman but my unbias mind says its SRT ... ohk leave sachin forgot him , i said peaple are unfair to todays greats i am saying brian lara is best... his avg vs sri lanka 1 team is 86, while bradman avg against eng was 82 head to head aus was far strong then eng
sachin is the greatest of this era. bradman was the greatest of an era where the was uncovered pitches and bats that were twigs compared to these days. no one can say either is better than the other
@BlueKiaser the best spinners since the ‘90s Warne, Murali, Saqlain, Kumble, Vettori, Harbhajan: We get the foll. avgs: SRT : 54.7 Lara: 49.4 Kalli:52.5 express pace bowlers. Consistently above 140ks : Donald, Akram, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Lee,Shoaib, Steyn SRT : 51.5 Lara: 38.0 Kalli: 46.0 AGAIN, i REPEAT for the infinite time,..these averages may have an intrinsic error, the % of which we just dont know. I dont know ,why inspite of UMPTEEN explanations you cannot comprehend this
@36pratham the best spinners since the ‘90s Warne, Murali, Saqlain, Kumble, Vettori, Harbhajan: We get the foll. avgs: SRT : 54.7 Lara: 49.4 Kalli:52.5 express pace bowlers. Consistently above 140ks : Donald, Akram, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Lee,Shoaib, Steyn SRT : 51.5 Lara: 38.0 Kalli: 46.0 AGAIN, i REPEAT for the infinite time,..these averages may have an intrinsic error, the % of which we just dont know. I dont know ,why inspite of UMPTEEN explanations you cannot comprehend this
If the "median" is say an avg of 50, we do NOT know the deviation involved with a small sample size relative to entire career, the "impact" of unfortunate decisions, the impact of "other" bowlers getting tendulkar out (esp for low scores) which would impact his average for All bowlers "involved" etc etc
5)even in the 18 inn span there were at least 5 poor umpiring "decisions", unfortunate dismissals. A few off the top of my hat- caught off the silly points shoulder when a ball richocheted off by ponting, "shoulder" before wicket, warne bat/pad caught and bowled- (Daylight on tv reviews) etc.
So, in 18 inn...in Tendulkars case there isnt time for events to "equalise"...as happened with lara (46)inn vs.mcgrath over time NUMEROUS other eg.(As i rem before with Donald/cronje etc)
This is such a silly argument. Don Bradman was half as good again as the very, very best of his generation. With all due respects to Sachin, who is most definitely a great, he doesn't dominate his contemporaries to the same extent. Nor was there a shortage of great batsmen back then. Guys like Hammond, Sutcliffe, Hobbs etc. were greats in their own right.
@Bigguohk dude 1st tell me how many players were there in bradman's era how many good teams were in bradman era that they can produce great crickters.... dont talk about the players of the era 1890s to 1928 because they never played against minnows like WI and india , sa use to play regularly that era may be weak team but use to play regularly but thy stoped playing during bradman era or use to play very less
@Bigguohk so tell me how many players were there in bradman era let say 4 players from aus and 4 from eng or let say 10 from aus and 10 from eng max.. so offcourse with such less options what u get , so bradman is best among these players... and about sachin dude 1st look at how vast his sachin's era , how professional and how many teams... now today we 1000s of players he is best best among these and there are few that belong to his class...
@Biggu another que pls tell me how many great teams did bradman scored runs put teams like wi , sa india side, only establish team that time was eng and everyone knows aus is far better side then eng , let say even if eng had great bowling attack , 1st of all no team can have all the 5 bowlers as great , let say just 2 or 3 were great so u mean to say the guy who played against 2, 3 great bowlers and too is just assumption according to u that person is the best batsman ever thats funny,,
@Biggus63 Vs the only half decent Common team then-(other Morris stats for periods of a decade) Vs England Headley avg. :71.2 Don avg : 89.8 For the ’90s (again EXcluding Ban and Zim) for players who have played THROUGHOUT the decade: SRT : avg. 59.4 Steve: 51.8 Lara: avg. 51.6 Again , SRT is 15 % above the “next best”……..excluding minnows, for an entire decade. Similarly Morris avg. some 80 vs England for his best decade
@alllman2000 WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! Look here idiot. Without all your pathetic selective criteria, which I have proven wrong (ie. SL were bigger minnows that SA), the real data, without crappy selection criteria is;
For 1990, SRT best decade avg: 58, vs S Waugh 53.1 = 9%.
For 1930, Bradman best decade avg: 102.77 vs Hutton 67.25 = 53%
Now if you want to exclude minnows, WI & Ind for the 30's and Zim and Bang for the 90's. Results still overwhelming for Bradman's domination.
@BlueKiaser out of 8 matches against mcgrath he had 2 100s and 5 50s what else u want to be dominated u want him to score 50+ in every match u funny... wts the big deal taking wicket if u cant stop him scoring those 50s and 100, its cricket and batsman do got and bowler everytime has chance to wicket u idiot have some sense of cricket and ur batsman got out to best best bowlers wts a big deal... any idiot will say that mcgrath dominated sachin...
@36pratham Tendulkar's 2 centuries; 116, McGrath's figures 18.1 overs 3/39. 126, 36 overs 3/75. In the 9 Test matches, 18 innings, my best estimate is Tendulkar scored less than 150 runs off McGrath. McGrath dismissed him 6 times. That is, McGrath's Test bowling average vs Tendulkar < 25.00. I am no idiot for saying McGrath dominated Tendulkar. The data supports my belief. Enough said.
@BlueK this clearly shows u can have edge against one team... when u score against them most of the time... and definately andy flower is one of the great player if he would played for any other team like aus , india, sri lanka then he wouldnt have definately belong to league of sachin , lara or kallis... its just his bad luck that he played for zim.. and the thing is these great players scored against great teams good bowlers but not same with bradman he scored everytime against minnows...
@36pratham It's so easy to pretend that Bradman played on easy pitches and only faced easy bowling and minnow countries. Even though he averaged 95 in first class cricket against Australia's best bowlers and faced the likes of international English great bowlers, Bedser, Bowes, Verity, Larwood, Voce, Tait, etc ...
Right now and in the 2000's, runs have never been easier for batsmen. Look at the lists of highest scores and number of batsman averaging > 50 right now. You're a complete ignoramus.
@BlueKiaser and dude he was the highest scorer in all these knocks and and in these knocks 5 times no other player even scored a 50+ and supported him... is it his mistake , the thing if any would had supported him he would had played bigger and better inngs but still 7 50+ knocks in 8 matches when no one supported is a big thing but u wont understand because ur great players like bradman and ponting always played with great players and got full support from them,
@36pratham Give up on this theory of batsman needing team support to be great. It is a dud of a theory and virtually nothing to do with a Tendulkar / Bradman comparison.
Cripes, if there is any truth to your theory, then you must think Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) is a much better batsman than Tendulkar, especially given his avg of 94.83 vs India (9 matches in India 92-02).
@BlueKiaser pls tell me how many great inngs punter has played after retirement of great players like gilly, mcgrath, warne hayden, i guess now days he has even forgotton scoring 100s as well...
If one looks at the highest team aggregates, one will see that the biggest scores, in both Tests and ODI's have come from the most recent decades. This implies that cricket pitches are now far better batting wickets than they were in the 20's, 30's & 40's (Bradman's era). ODI's have been around for 40 years now and the majority of the biggest team and individual scores have occurred recently, on batsman friendly pitches.
Also to remind u all that Sachin is the only Batsman who suceeded in both form of the game i.eTest and One day.Is there any batsman like him.Not even near.And at this ripe age he is going better and better in terms of scoring,fitness and what to say "The most good mannered cricketer ".Not like the rascist whites like Australian who think they are the best.There is a saying in India.Too much pride make a person fall.Remember it.
@bedanta87 Also to remind you ... ODI's did not exist during Bradman's era. But Test cricket and First class cricket did, and Bradman's statistics are far superior to Tendulkar's in both forms of that cricket. Bradman's strike rate is also far superior than Tendulkar's which makes one believe that Bradman would have excelled at ODI and T20 cricket, if it did exist during his era.
Sachin is the number one batsman because of his ability to dominate bowlers.Also sachin has many shot selection which other cricketers lack.We can say he contributed much to cricket especially in batting techniques.Sachin is great.Those who dont regard him as best they dont know anything about cricket especially in batting.
Sachin is the number one batsman because of his ability to dominate bowlers.Also sachin has many shot selection which other cricketers lack.We can say he contributed much to cricket especially in batting techniques.Sachin is great.Those who dont regard him as best they dont know anything about cricket especially in batting.
Sachin is in his own league for longevity as a batsman and total runs scored, but that's it. Bradman, Sobers, Kallis were/are better cricketers and contributors to a team's chance of winning a game. Comparatively, from a batting average and statistical analysis, Sachin is no better than several other current era batsmen. Bradman was clearly better than all his peers.
Tehui1974 - To be fair, when Bradman was playing there was only a few countries that would field a side againts the english. Back then the most imortant first class games where England v Australia. If the other cricket power houses like India, Pakistan, Etc had of been playing, then Bradman would of slogged all those countries as well. Tendulkar is the best in my eyes, however Bradman could of and would killed every bowler no matter what country, in his day. I hope i got my point across
@Rballaj I agree with you entirely. The only limitation when comparing Bradman's career to the modern day international, is that a player today has to succeed on all different types of conditions - including the dry dusty tracks on the subcontinent. However, Bradman's statistics so far exceed everybody else's (including his contemporaries) that no other player even comes close.
The idea to call a batsman who scored 99% of his 99 average against 1 team in only Australia and England the "greatest" is laughable.
Would you honestly call a player today the greatest ever if he only produced against 1 country? You wouldn't even call him good if he only scored at home! Yet Bradman is glorified to no end. He was a good player, who scored against England. End of story.
That's not even true. Nevertheless, he did play in more than 1 country on a variety of pitches. Few would dispute that.
Your boy Bradman though, played in 2 countries and scored against 1 team. From a strictly statistical point of view, his results are not as meaningful.
sachin has performed superbly in all forms of cricket and has played with many more countries and players than bradman...!! bradman has mostly played with england..and that too test...!!! so no doubts...!! sachin is the best....
sachin has performed superbly in all forms of cricket and has played with many more countries and players than bradman...!! bradman has mostly played with england..and that too test...!!! so no doubts...!! sachin is the best..
@593aj No one should ever be compared to Bradman, Simple. He is out on his own. People should really stop comparing players with him because to put it simply, NO ONE stacks up against him. Talk about Sachin with Richards or Lara or Ponting or Pollock etc. but Bradman sits far, far atop the tree looking down at everyone else.
Richie sums it up nicely... Bradman by an absolute mile that no one could ever really get near. Sachin best since then but you might as well throw a bunch of names in a hat and pick one out really.
If youre an Indian, even if you did know everything you could ever know about cricket you saying Tendulkar is the best means nothing at all. If people from other countries also believe Sachin to be the best then it does mean something. Just a thought!
sachin is no doubt d best player ever,don has mostly played tests only or some ODIs i m not sure but sachin has ruled both ODIs and tests. Infact he also holds the record of holding most records. This is what i call greater than greatest.
if u see punter he is considered as one of the best batsmen but look at his avg in india just in 20s... u never know if don would had played in such conditions with so many diffrent countries and in diffrent count. wht his avg would had been.. and if bradman has 99.99 avg thing then sachin has 97 intern. 100s thing and at the end of his carrier it will be definately around 115 , while punter and kallis will end 75 or max 80 which is a big diff from sachin..
@36pratham why you are looking at only Pontings average in India Look at Mathew hayden Jaques Kallis ,etc Even many players who are not known to be great players have succedded in India .Only Ponting is only great who failed in India otherwise India have been a batting paradise .Even kevin Peiterson succedded in India
@007dal dude by ponting i just gave the example like kallis has avg of just 29 in eng 33 vs sri lanka , lara has avg of just 33 in india 36 in NZ , and if hayden has high avg vs india then he has avg of just 34 in eng , 28 in nz , and there are many examples like that.. while if u see sachin never had avg of less then 40 against any team and in any country... and about bradman i asked one quesion to a bradman fan bluekiaser u can see his reply but still he failed to provide ans to my question..
@007dalal wrong get ur stat rt dude sachin avg against pak and SA is 42. so 1st go get ur stats rt check at cricinfo 1st then talk , sachin never had avg low then 40 against any team... ohk... and about bradman 299 that came against SA so i dont rate that one anything great SA was minnow that who use to play very less cricket during that period , just tell his such type of inngs against england and even if u say the one in which second highest scorer was 72..
@36pratham I didnt get my stats updated after South Africa series.Before that series his average was just 38 .It got inflated by those two centuries . Prior to it onlly Ponting was batsman who averaged above 40 against everyone he still the only player to average above 45 against every team
@007dalal many such inngs where second higst scorr was just in 50 + , pls show his those type of inngs like sachin played in perth where where no other scored even 50 and he was only to score 50 or 100+ , like scored 122 against englang no other player even scored a 20 in that inngs , ya u heared rt nt even 20 , so provide me such inngs of bradman pls... and sachin has played many such ings where he does not.... and about ganguly and azar they are good player but not great test players
@36pratham WRONG AGAIN! In 177 matches Tendulkar has been the only centurion in a match 7 times. In 52 matches Bradman was the only centurion in the match 7 times. That would suggest the opposite of what you are implying. You make a big deal about Tendulkar's 122 vs Eng, stating no other player even scored a 20, when only 24 hours earlier, Hussain for Eng scored 128 with the next highest score in that inns being 34. The data you use to show Tendulkar's Greatness is pathetic.
@007dal may be u can reply i all the 100 and 50+ runs that bradman scored he got well support from his fellow players when ever he score a 50 or 100+ there are others who scored 50+ and 100+ with supported him well there just 1 or 2 inngs of him where he scored a 50 or 100 and others didnt support him otherwise i failed to find any where he performed and others didnt scored while there are numerous sachin inngs in which he didnt get support played alone... this is where sachin is greater..
@36pratham Bradman once remained not out on 299 when all his team got out.His 270 is rated best amongst all the innings played He scored a triple century when second highest score was just 72.And taliking about lone ranger Brain Lara has most innings without a substantial support from other batsman. Bradman scored about 22 % of his team runs .Whereas Sachin runs are less than 15 percent.
@007dal dude if sachin would had got that support from his fellow batsman specialy during 90s when he was at his peak he would had scored atleast 10 more 100s and 10 more 50s and his avg would had been around 65 or 70 but unfortunately he didnt get that support....ok i ask u another question why sachin's avg is around 80 in last 3,4 years the reason is simple now team is much stronger and he is getting full support from other players and u can see his avg...
@36pratham You must be joking India produced many fine batsman apart from Sachin .It is a joke that Sachin didnt get a support .You are just insulting other Indian greats like Azharuddin,Ganguly ,Laxman,Sidhu etc. I dont find you an Indian fan but only a Sachin fan
@007dal ohk another question and its for all bradman suffering brain specialy like bluekiaser , do u know brian lara avg against sri lanka is 86 , now cut other teams from his carrier just sri lanka and two more team who debuted even after his debut say like india and WI debuted even after bradman debut say here ireland and nambia now what his avg would be needless to say offcourse around 110 then according to this brian lara is the best batsmen ever if remove other teams from the scene..
@36pratham Brain Lara is not a player who can be judged by his stats only.When he scores he scores big.Many of his innings have come against best bowlers when his team failed to win
@007dalal azar avg in aus 27 , in SA 23 in wi 19 this show is just ohk test player... and tell me how many great knocks ganaguly had played in test matches till 2000 the only good series he had was once in englang in 96 and once against sri lanka in 97 just look at his record against aus... and about laxman yeah he is great test player bu the is he lacks consistency , he has played some memorable inngs but when it comes to consistency he is that great... and he showed his class from 2000...
@007dalal till 2000 we never had good test batsman and in odis just saurav is good... rest of others sucks... and dude go and see every bradman inngs he always got well support from team player when ever he use to come to bat the batsman above him had scored a century and score is always around 150 or 200+ for 1... while 90% of inngs sachin played in his life he use to come bat early india were always less then 30 for 2 wickets... a
@36pratham WRONG! Where do you get this stuff from. I almost choked when I read your comment about Tendulkar 90% of inns going in at 2 wickets down for less than 30, whereas Bradman had it easy.
I, unlike you, went and checked your belief against the data. I looked at the top 10 scores for both Tendulkar and Bradman. Tendulkar only once came in at 1/24. All other 9 inns, the score was over 30. 7 times over 100. Whereas Bradman came in with less the 10 on the scoreboard 4 times. 5 times under 30.
@BlueK so things do changes according to condition... like bowling conditions , type of partners u playing , type of bowlers u have etc...offcourse when u have strong partners with u to support u ur performance enhances wheather its batsman or bowlers.... dude use ur brain i am not talking about match i am talking about inngs... because that matters more , u talking about 24 hours , dude pitches do changes in 1 day ex recent test series against SA
@36pratham You continue to try to find pathetic excuses for the differences between Bradman and Tendulkars statistics. Each time, I show you are wrong. But you just continue on with irrelevant crap. Show some real data, some reals stats. Put up or shut up. Opinions and guess of 90% carry NO weight in this discussion, unless you can back them up with good stats or examples. Go have a look at the all time ICC batsman ratings. Where's Bradman & where's Tendulkar. Belly laughs.
@Blue india got all out for 132 and next day when SA came out to bat it became o flat that they scored 500 in the same match even india scored 400+ in last inngs , and there are many examples as such.. so things do changes according to condition... like bowling conditions , type of partners u playing , type of bowlers u have etc...offcourse when u have strong partners with u to support u ur performance enhances wheather its batsman or bowlers....
@Blue dude just because of u i checked each and every inngs of bradman and in that i find 3 times he has scored 50 or 100+ while no other player scored a 50 , 131 in 1930 , 103 in 1932 and 103 in 1938 , just 3 times , and 2 times when there is only one player scored 50 with him and rest failed , rest 2 times may be in that no other scored a 100 but 2,3 players well supported him by scoring 50s and 70s..ok now let me tell u few of sachin where he is the only one to score a 50 or 100+
@BlueK where no other supported him 114 at perth in 1990, 111 at jhonsburg in 92 no one scored 25+, 122, 74 at nottingham in 96 ,113 at wellington 98, 116 and 52 vs aus in aus in 99, 97 vs SA 2000, 76 and 65 vs aus in 2001. these are the 10 but till 2001 as i am little tired now of providing and till 2011 there are many more, and his performance when only one player scored a 50+ and rest all failed its too many even more then the above one i provide... while bradman has just 2 times
@BlueK so just 5 times he didnt get the support other wise he get the full support of his fellow players whenever bradman scored a 50+ or 100+ they scored 100+ with him...
@36pratham I don't even understand the logic of this argument. What are you suggesting? That it is harder to score runs if you don't have a good batsman up the other end and that accounts for the difference of Bradman's 99.94 avg vs Tendulkar's 56.94? You have to be kidding me. You have no data to support this argument and I have already shown that Bradman has been the only centurion in a match as many times as Tendulkar. In 52 matches vs Tendulkar's 177. Enough time wasted on this one.
@Blue dude i am not saying the reason of diffrence in there avg is this , its just one point where sachin stands more then , offcourse when u have better team and players to perform with u ur performance enhances... when a player know that he is key and everything depends on u .. dude there was a time when we just use to match when sachin was in 90s specialy and its famous till sachin is playing something is match as soon as sachin goes out its over for india....
@Blue as soon as sachin got out everyone use to switch off tv... i gave u example u know from 1990 to 2011 india has one total 14 cups out of them sachin has played in 12 and he performed in 11 out of them just once failed in 2002 vs england natwest... this is the team india who always dependent on one player... tell me what u call sachin team sachin scored a century with injured back no one supported him and when he got out india need just 17 runs and half of the team
@Blue i gave u example of wc .. in 1996 sachin was the higest run scorrer in the tounrment sachin and in semi final when tendulkar was only one to score 50 + and when he got out team was 100 for 1 and team made 117 in that match this is the team infia of 90s , in 99 wc sachin didnt played against zim because of his father' death and we lose to team like zim and it became reason for our early exit , in 2003 he played well through out the tournment failed in 1 match in final and india lost
@Blue this is the great team india which depend so much on this player and this is what called pressure which bradman never faced.... he never faced the pressure of playing in so many diffrent countries... he never faced sych pressure of cricism and performing every time media coverage etc being a player of india that hat has indian fans is itself a bigdeal
@36pratham You are beating general principle.It is said that number 3 is most difficult spot to bat on.If batting down order is criteria than Allan Border is best batsman ever because he came at number 5 with no other class batsman
@007dalal and yeah i agree with u brian lara is a class batmsan and dude his avg of 86 is perfect example why bradman has such a high avg and if he would had played in this era he was also had avg of around 50+ and if u think brian lara did not played with great batsman u are wrong , chanderpaul is one of the finest batsman avg of 48 better then ganguy or azar.. carl hoopar another good batmsan, richradson , , he played with ricrds to in initial period of his carrier....
@36pratham Sachin played with Azharuddin ,Dravid,Ganguly,Laxman who are much better than Chanderpaul. Chanderpaul average got inflated in some previous years. Otherwise he averaged in 40s
@007dalal so u didnt get ur stats updated lols.. anyways what about pak anyways leave it ... anyways when did i question lara pls read excactly what i said dont read half and misunderstood , i said that sachin lara and bradman belongs to same class... i rate sachin slighlty higher than lara because of his consistency and logetivity.. but it doesnt mean i rate lara any lesser.. to me lara sachin and kalllis are 3 best batsman of this era..
@007dalal and if u talk about that sachin has not played much big inngs then dude personal record of scoring big inngs doesnt matter much its consistency that matters much if lara has big inngs things then sachin has longetivity and consistency with him, even if u know know lara has said this many time its good to hold personal record but i wish i would have much consistent like srt, and about 300 thing many players have scored that mark taylor, jaisurya , hayden, jayawardhane etc
@36pratham i never said that sachin is not consistent . if there ever will be the list of most inconsistent great Lara will top in it.Sachin scores above lara in this context.I am bigger fan SRT and i know Sachin is more consistent .You questioned about lara there fore i answered it
@007dalal does that make him greater then sachin , if u see kallis just has 1 double hundred in his carrier but 1 question him rate him one of the best batsman infact know its this thing going sachon or kallis... so its the consistency that matters not the big scores...
@007dalal so if anyone talking side of sachin its insult to others greats thats funny, dude i never insulted bradman infact i even said bradman is the best batmsn of his era and to me rating todays greats like sachin , lara below him is insult to todays greats , i rate both of them equal to me both are greats and after knowing everything that bradman never played against strong teams , never played in so many countreys , never players so many diffrent bowlers always get well support
@36pratham You questioned Bradmans greatness dude.So you were insulting him.To prove Sachin great you were degrading other greats like lara. Let me tell you Bradman is an icon of cricket.All great feats in batting is called bradmanesque. His average is reagarded greatest achievement. Sachin is great but to prove him great no need to insult others.I never said that lara is above him But you were sying that he is an oridnary batsman. Sachin and lara were different kinds cant compare them
@007dalal from his fellow players and many others thing i would say u never know what they have done if they would played in eachothers era... and there is always a question mark on that so the thing is rating anyone low is unfair with other great....
@36pratham in this sense you are ryt to some context .To compare 2 players must see their childhood training.,Sceintific development,coaching types .but many players agree that given training in this era,sceintific development ,coaching methods Bradman would have same if not better success in this era. After all he had just one golf stick to practise with
@007dal now when everyone see his record against other countries and found low avg of just 41 in aus , 34 vs india , 36 in nz and 46 in SA one can say after watching his record that after playing with so many stronger teams and in diffrent countries he his among best players but not the best... the thing is bradman belongs to same class of sachin , lara and kallis just that his luck he born in that era and didnt get chance to play so many teams stronger then his own...
I can't believe there are people that actually think that Tendulkar is better than Bradman... Seriously??
If anything bowlers back then were better and he didn't have all the technology available (improved bats and protection) that modern players have. Anybody that knows cricket knows that
Bradman > Tendulkar
sydneymassive 5 days ago
In the context of chosing a batman that is going to make the biggest impact I would go for Viv Richards. Helped W.I. dominate world cricket. Rather than just compiling runs while the team draws the test match.
sarantakis 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Cricket is Religion , Sachin Is GOD !
I think Sachin is far better than Don Bradman because those days when bradman existed you had bowlers with less variations and Sachin is a batsmen of an era where you have variations like doosra,reverse swing and alot of pace which goes till 161 kmph!
Sachin Is Great !
iiiiHunKiiii 1 month ago
If bradman would have played in modern era even he would not have averaged 20.
livefreealws 1 month ago
@livefreealws you cant compare players from different eras, simple.
MrOssumAnt 3 weeks ago
In my opinion, when sachin retires he will be considered among the ranks of sir donald bradman...whether it is above him or beside him. And I say that with the upmost respect.
GMPro24 1 month ago
The debate is settled. thanks richie
TheMaverickanupam 2 months ago
SACHIN IS THE BEST, NO DOUBT!
SuperMettalicafan 3 months ago
Who cares who's the best. 99% talking about Bradman never saw him hit a shot. So please stop talking shit. It's impossible to compare. By the way i'm indian.
zing9753 3 months ago 8
watch?v=MC1oI2SVLlo
Must watch video for Sachin fans!!! :)
a133936 5 months ago
@osawaexprss. bradman played at a time when bowlers were medium pacers. the fastest bowler of his time will not be faster than brian mcmillan of south africa.
he may have been 'so' much better than his contemporaries and tendulkar only 'so' much better than his contemporaries. but that does nothing to settle the argument who is better between the two. the players of that era were just a degre better than women cricketers of today. thats not an outrageous point. athletes in all sports are.
ashokatibrewal 5 months ago
@ashokatibrewal yeah man, cause by your logic Glenn Mcgrath isn't as good as Shaun Tait, pace isn't everything bud.
DyingSID666 3 weeks ago
Double-centuries remain rare and confirm a batsman's stamina, skill and supremacy. To score a triple-century in the highest company is to become a batsman apart. After all it's been done only 24 times in 1999 matches and roughly 50,000 outings. -Peter Roebuck
How many 300's did Bradman get? Don't know? don't post!
handsandheels 5 months ago
Bradman was better than his opponents by far...Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Richards, Waugh, etc battle for number one- how could you morons not see? No one has been that far ahead of the pack like Bradman was.
handsandheels 6 months ago
I only ever heard ritchie say one wrong thing ever---he said phil hughes was very very good, and would perform well against england---but i forgive him because he is the best and most knowledgable man on cricket there has ever been, and i miss him being on british tv
bullysgod 6 months ago
what about viv ? ian chappell ? greenidge ?
Sachin is all hype . But in all fairness he is a thorough professional and unlike his fanbase makes more sense in cricketing matters.
murkygreen 6 months ago
@James 1238uk. I really dont know what you are talking about. If modern day batsmen have tougher oppositions, then they also have the privilige of protection gears. Remember "Bodyline" took up because of Bradman,90% of the deliveries skidded upto you at 90mph and above at chest hight and above and yet Bradman managed an average of 56 in such a controversial series. Besides the same bowlers he faced kept batsmen like Hammond, Hobbs, McCabe at check for a batting avg marginally more or below 50
farazzubair 6 months ago
Lifeless tracks like in Australia and England, look at the stats in those countries then look at the scores made in India and see which country has the lifeless tracks.
james1238uk 6 months ago
No your joking right? you do know Bradman played agianst teams alot worse and weaker than the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe's of today, i.e West Indies, India and even England, who he played against so many times
The umpires of Bradmans era were biased in Bradmans favour because people wanted to see him bat.
The game was very ametuer, there was no diving in the field and no fitness like today.
How would Bradman faired against the pace and spin of today or the 90's? average 45 at best.
james1238uk 6 months ago
@james1238uk looks like you can't digest the truth
proudindian4u 6 months ago
I liked to have seen Bradman face the bowlers and biased umpires that Tendulkar has, also Bradman played against weak teams and a poor England team.
It is absolute 100% true Tendulkar is the greatest bat of all time, Bradman would have averaged 45 at best in the modern game.
james1238uk 6 months ago
@james1238uk Your joking right?Id like to see Tendulker play on some of the horrific wickets Bradman played on, instead of the flat lifeless Indian tracks he feasts on. And Bradman didnt play joke tests against teams like Banladesh, Zimbabwe - he play 99% of his tests against the best side in the world. It was much harder for Bradman to average 99 than for Tendulker to average 55 - he would feast on the pitches and modern standard of bowling nowadays
norths8 6 months ago
I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT HIS COMMENT HE IS VERY OLD AND WISE SACHIN MIGHT BE THE BEST BUT SIR DON BRADMAN WILL STILL BE CONSIDERED AS THE BEST BESIDES HE IS KNOWN AS THE FATHER OF CRICKET
Truth846 6 months ago
leave the taks...shastri looks man with moustache but he looks gay clean shaven
navneetsohanpal 6 months ago
Undoubtedly a great batsman but for me would still give the vote (marginally) to Brian Lara as I think Lara was the best batsman with the tail I've ever seen, and more often than not Lara was having to single handedly prop up a fairly ordinary batting line up Sarwan and Gayle not withstanding. I think however it is a privilege that both Tendulkar and Lara were prolific in 'my' era! Two batsmen who revolutionised the game and gave English bowlers more headaches than I'd care to remember!
84cats 7 months ago
I think Gary Sobers was the best batsman I've seen. I think because Sobers is widely regarded as the greatest all-rounder there is a reluctance to also class him as the greatest batsman, too, but I think he was.Tendulkar would be my no. 2 greatest ever bat.
adp1070 7 months ago
Fuck you Richie! Your fucking old cunt!
RRRRRIIIICCCCHHHHHYYYYYYYYYY!
0zx0zx 7 months ago
@0zx0zx dont fuck with richie
jatpattat 6 months ago
The man knows his shit.
Tendulkar is the best ever. Stacks of runs year after year over a career spanning 2 decades. Can't argue with that.
FlyingPig1902 7 months ago 3
Richie..you have to put Viv Richards at another level he wasnt a bastmen he wanst a cricketer Viv Richards wasa genius.he was a superman..and cannot even mention Viv Richards..in the same sentence specially considering he faced attacks such as lilee and thomo perhaps sobers then ..bradman ..and perhaps lara equal with tendulkar a distant 4 or 5th..
letsgowin 8 months ago
Richie..you have to put Viv Richards at another level he wasnt a bastmen he wanst a cricketer Viv Richards wasa genius.he was a superman..and cannot even mention Viv Richards..in the same sentence specially considering he faced attacks such as lilee and thomo perhaps sobers then ..bradman ..and perhaps lara equal with tendulkar a distant 4 or 5th..
letsgowin 8 months ago
when richie talks, you listen !
blastitude 8 months ago 6
What you have to consider is that in Bradman's time, there were many factors, he had to take a 3 year break for WWII, it's not easy coming back after 3 years and picking up where you left off. He also had to face Bodyline, Bradman averaged 55 or so in Bodyline, Tendulkar's average WITHOUT Bodyline is about that, not to mention that the modern day game's pitches and rules suit batsman significant;y more than bowlers, pls the inclusion of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as Test nations.
aznfratboy 9 months ago
@aznfratboy what inculsion of zim or bangladesh u talking about zimbabwe is playing cricket from 1980s... in bradman times also... teams like india were and WI were introduced they came in cricket after bradman debut...
and what about SA they were also minnow of that period who use to play very less cricket...
36pratham 8 months ago
@aznfratboy not three years, 10 years! Tests stopped from 1938 to 1948., TEN years of no test cricket.
mistersmith6000 8 months ago
sachin is greatest since bradman ...........no one can be compared with bradman
proudindian4u 9 months ago
Sachin's Bowling stat in comparision with Sir Don Bradman. Actually its not fair 2 compare because "The Don" took 2 wickets, whereas Sachin has bowled all forms of games. To begin with tests BBI 3/10, 5,32 in ODIs.
Sir DOn Bradman picked 3/35 in FC
Sachin picked 3/10 in FC
Above all, Sir never faced pressure of carrying one billion people expectations when he went out to bat. With all due respect once again I am saying "I GIVE RESPECT TO SIR DON BRADMAN" but Sachin is a pinch higher.
vigneshbabut 9 months ago
I respect Sir Don Bradman, but I personally think Sachin is a pinch higher than him. yes I do agree Sir had way better average 99.94 but as Richie says bowlers of that era weren't capable enough of testing him. Whereas in Sachin's case most bowlers questioned his batting quality in different forms of game. please not that the below listed bowlers where of very high quality. Another impressive thing is the Little Master's fitness for more than 2 decades and still behaving like sweet 16!!!
vigneshbabut 9 months ago
Bowlers faced by Sachin:
Pace: Courtney Walsh,Curtly Ambrose, Brett Lee, Shoaib Akthar
Medium Pace: Glenn Mcgrath, Wasim Akram, Waquar Younis, Shaun Pollock, Alan Donald
Captains :P : Steve Waugh, Sanath Jayasuriya, Imran Khan, Hansie Cronje, Heath Streak, Brian Lara
All Rounders: Jaques Kallis, Lance Klusener, Andrew Flintoff, Abdur Razzaq, Chirs Cairns, Scott Styris
Spinners: Muttaih Muralitharan, Shane Warne, Daniel Vettori, Saqlain Mushtaq
Apart frm dis, he is still fit n playin :)
vigneshbabut 9 months ago 2
@axnasia1
Cheerio
always loved Japan BTW
hope the situations under control
alllman2000 9 months ago
@alllman2000 did thhis guy bluekiaser understands or not is he still arguing on 1 thing he dont understand about that 1999 tour.. and the most funny thing i ever heared from him in my life is tendulkar didnt play against great bowlers while almost every bowler of this era has acceptd that is best batsman they have ever bowl to....
36pratham 9 months ago
@36pratham
Who cares?
He doesn't understand the most basic point:
Bradman best among AMATEURS
Tendulkar best among PROS
It is THAT simple
alllman2000 9 months ago 43
@alllman2000 Who cares? Its just cricket.
Step up to the real game- Formula 1 - Ayrton Senna the F1 UBERMAN makes cricket's Bramdan and Tenderkar look like schoolgirls!
Cricket - girls.
UFC - men
Formula 1 - GODS!
DocBrewster 9 months ago
@DocBrewster
Hey man...
just fun for me too...
just that this Daft ass bluekiaser is so shortsighted and blinded he wouldnt recognise genius even if it slaps him in the face
Yeah- Ayrton was COOL
alllman2000 9 months ago 2
@DocBrewster yea formula1 real good game, you must be joking all you see is cars going around in circles all day, one rear smash, waste of fuel... and oh yea Ferrari is the winner...dumb ass.
vikr4m 9 months ago
@vikr4m "All you see is cars going round?"
What is your IQ - 75?
What - whereas in cricket you see a ball flying around, huh? HAAA
UFC and Formula 1 aren't games you fool - they are HARD CORE FRINGE EXTREMIST ACTS. Cricket belongs with tiddlywinks and tea with the sunday school girls choir.
There's more fighter pilots than F1 drivers its so exclusive. And I suppose you will say "Jet fighter pilots are nothing - all you see is a plane go past". What moronic reasoning.
DocBrewster 9 months ago
@DocBrewster the fact you need to downtalk cricket to make ureself feel good is sad =\
all sport at a high lvl requires hard effort and training... learn some respect
treeboy83 8 months ago
@treeboy83
WRONG - all sports are NOT equal! F1 has been described as "the most extreme act outside of war" and "the most extreme activity known to man". 28 F1 drivers have been KILLED engaged in this ON THE RAGGED EDGE activity (and almost another one last night if you check the news).
You cannot compare ballgames, tiddlywinks and knitting with this SPORT OF THE TITANS - FORMULA 1
DocBrewster 8 months ago
@alllman2000 Imagine Tendulkar on those rough, hard, weedy wickets. Imagine Tendulkar on a ship for 5 months and to play a full test two days off a boat. Imagine Tendulkar averaging 99.94 on long boundaries with thick cut brush outfields. Imagine 28,000 first class runs! Now, take your hand off your d'''k and listen to someone who has seen them both, Richie Benaud. And don't be a ignorant c''k in future.
handsandheels 6 months ago
@handsandheels
Wisden "Bradman never mastered sticky wickets"
(Nice way of saying flat track bully)
As. re . the Oh so tough opposition of Eng in those days ,there were other batsmen such as Morris, Headley etc who avg well above 70 against them in Eng ...so much for sticky wickets
Pls use your OWN brain instead of the standard garbage ...if your little brain is capable of interchanging Tendulkar and Bradman try to do so..lets see how Bradman fares among the pros in this day and age.
alllman2000 5 months ago
@alllman2000 No, never mastered sticky wickets means he wasn't that good at playing on pitches that had rain on them, because pitches were uncovered then, a flat track bully is someone who dishes it out to weak teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, like Jacques Kallis, but oh wait, THOSE TEAMS DIDN'T EXIST IN BRADMAN'S TIME.
DyingSID666 3 weeks ago
@DyingSID666
Oh , Bradman was the greatest minnow basher of all time.
Sure they did have Ban and Zim then...only thing is at that time they went by the names India, South Africa etc...England was the only half decent team around.
alllman2000 2 weeks ago
@alllman2000 holy shit, you don't actually believe the shit that just came out of your mouth do you? I cant believe your actually suggesting that Zimbabwe and Bangladesh went by the names South Africa and India, if that was the case where were the actually teams from India and SA, if your going to argue at least have the decency not to insult my intelligence and actually bring a logical debate.
DyingSID666 2 weeks ago
@DyingSID666
Holy shit,
You seriously dont have a clue do you?
Read my comment again.
As regards insulting your intelligence - the implicit assumption in such a statement is that you possess of any intelligence in the first place.
Reading your inane garbage this doesnt seem to be the case.
Ciao
alllman2000 1 week ago
@alllman2000 - Strange how none of the 'pros' can match 'the amateur's' achievements, n'est pas?
oshawaxpress 5 months ago
@oshawaxpress When he said Bradman was best among amateurs he also meant the bowlers were amateurs.
1212yuvi 1 month ago
@1212yuvi if the bowlers were all amateurs than where are all the other batsman with high averages, there are none, no one in Bradman's era comes close and no one in this era comes close, the conditions back then were best for bowling, not batting.
DyingSID666 3 weeks ago
@DyingSID666 Cause all the batsmen back then were amateur and crap as well, its just Bradman was good among those crap and amateur players now fuck off. If you have a problem go cry about it, and if you wish to reply to this comment then go ahead but still fuck you i dont care cause i wont respond.
1212yuvi 3 weeks ago
@alllman2000 Whatever this point might be, Bradman is the best ever :P
perrotthill 3 months ago
screw everything else...don bradman has kicked the bucket a decade ago....
Sachin tendulkar is the best bastman alive....
Screw Ponting, screw Jayasuriya , Screw Gilly, Hayden or any other batsman being compared to him...
He is the highest run scorer, has the maximum hundreds, has the highest one day score and has carried the burden of batting for India for 21 freakin years...let's see a Aussie do that...
Sachin is the best. Period.
vegapunkboy 10 months ago
sachin is great batsman and great humen being
parmod814 10 months ago
The thing thats different between Tendulkar and Bradman is that there werent as many good cricketers around in Bradman's era.... which is why he was "best by far" Bradman in the modern era would also be best by "that much"
NikPnchl7 10 months ago 21
@NikPnchl7 - That's a surmise based upon a numerical assumption. Great players are always few and far between, irrespective of era. The whole point about Bradman was that he was so much more successful than acknowledged contemporary greats like Hobbs, Hammond, Woodfull. He was the most consistently successful run getter and the most frequent century maker in the history of Test Cricket, and by a huge margin. By any 'measuring stick' he was, and probably always will be, the best.
oshawaxpress 5 months ago
@oshawaxpress Thats a matter of opinion and like anything can be subjectively twisted to ones own preferences.... which is why going the objective numerical route is the most unbiased.
NikPnchl7 5 months ago
@NikPnchl7 IN BRADMAN'S ERA WICKETS WERE MORE SUITED 2 THE BOWLERS, SO EVEN THOUGH THE BOWLERS WERNT TOO FAST IN HIS TIME, HE STILL IS BY FAR THE GREATEST EVER... AREAL GENIUS....HIS LOWEST EVER AVERAGE IN A SERIES IS 56.5 IN THE BODY LINE SERIES... LOL.... THAT SOUNDS GENIUS.... IF BRADMAN WERE 2 PLAY IN THE MODERN ERA, I BET HE WUDVE AVRGED 200!!
khalidengineyear 5 months ago in playlist Interviews
@NikPnchl7 if the bowlers weren't that good then where are the other batsman that have high averages from that era, no one from that era has averages even in the 60s, no one came close then, and they played on uncovered pitches that would have made batting extremely difficult, no easy beat teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and they had smaller bats, face facts, Bradman had the greatest batting skills of all time.
DyingSID666 3 weeks ago
@alllman2000
It is great that you have admitted most experts believe Bradman is the greatest and Indian fans may overrate Tendulkar.
In summary, I am a passionate Bradman supporter, enjoy and respect cricket history, so I will jump in and defend Bradman when I read any batsman is greater. If I had to name my top 5 batsmen of all-time, I would consider Tendulkar as my number 2. I am not a Tendulkar hater. Far from it.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@36pratham I am asked "why was he [Tendulkar] given man of the series" in 99? Right, If you do not suffer from Tendulkar Brain, read and learn. I believe Tendulkar is an all time great ... but over-rated. I believe McGrath had the better of him. So in reply to the question regarding man of the series; Tendulkar scored 278 runs and averaged 46.33. Ponting 375runs avg 125 McGrath took 18wickets with an average of 13.77.
Hmm, so am I a racist, anti-Tendulkar blinded cricket analyst ... or NOT?
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@36pratham they never said that sachin is greatest ever
007dalal 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser
This is HILARIOUS.
So, in the OTHER 12 inn if some other bowler got him out....that means mcgrath didn t (and this includes as i mentioned around 33% nonsensical decisions/luck)......that further means that tendulkar scored off mcgrath and got out to another bowler.
How can you further ASSUME (which all you seem to be doing in the GUISE of "stats") that he wouldnt have scored MORE of mcgrath if he hadnt got dismissed by a third bowler?????????????
alllman2000 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser
1) Great . For ONCE you have started to admit things like "it is not conclusive", "it seems to me", "next best thing" etc. Not good, but at least a start after all those explanations of mine
2) In the space of say 18 inn vs Mcgrath , As i've explained there at least 5 contentious,poor decisions/unlucky dismissals. Almost 33 %/
alllman2000 10 months ago
@alllman2000 It is all so easy for you isn't it. Dismiss the evidence with excuses of bad umpiring decisions. I thought that I had heard it all. After posting the "not conclusive" stats averages, I did further research which shows me that, when looking at runs scored against McGrath's bowling, Tendulkar averaged about 25runs for his 6 dismissals in the 9 matches they played. Enough said, I KNOW Tendulkar struggled against McGrath in test cricket. I waste no more time on something so obvious.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@Blue yeh rt voce player 20 odd test matches larwood played 21 and and alec played 15 lols... in these test matches about todays players u cant even say that these fix in test matches are not wow what a great bowlers these are against whome bradman played just 15, 20 matches lols... there are few else who have even played less then matches... lols.... i would say even bowlers like vitori, srinath, mohmad asif, caddick, darren gough etc are better then them...
36pratham 10 months ago
@Biggus63 man reply about my querry regarding brian lara...
36pratham 10 months ago
@007dalal like australia and soth africa... thats why he maintained such high avg... remove such conditions from lara he will give better avg then bradman , so it clearly prooved player like BRADMAN, SRT, LARA belongs to same class its just that they belong to diffrent era and peaple are unfair to these greats....
36pratham 10 months ago
@007dalal while head to head wi and SL are equal still lara has better avg , now add teams minnow teams like india and WI of bradman period needless to say what will be lara avg around 105 or 110 , according to this he is best... but the diffrence is bradman never played in so many diffrent countries , in so many diffrent pitches,no great bowler , but lara played all, bradman never played so many teams, most important bradman never many diffrent bowlers and teams which are far strong then his
36pratham 10 months ago
@007dalal and if u think that only indians voted than u funny may be majority in indians but there must be atleast 25% australians too and what abou the interviews of australians who accepted and some saying i am emotionaly attached to bradman but my unbias mind says its SRT ... ohk leave sachin forgot him , i said peaple are unfair to todays greats i am saying brian lara is best... his avg vs sri lanka 1 team is 86, while bradman avg against eng was 82 head to head aus was far strong then eng
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham which Australians.the survey you are talking about Many Indians are setteled in Australia
007dalal 10 months ago
sachin is the greatest of this era. bradman was the greatest of an era where the was uncovered pitches and bats that were twigs compared to these days. no one can say either is better than the other
damo24now 10 months ago
alllman2000 10 months ago
alllman2000 10 months ago
@alllman2000 99 int. 100s and 30k+ runs and better avg then any other player...
36pratham 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser
So, the point is that the "deviation" is UNKNOWN.
If the "median" is say an avg of 50, we do NOT know the deviation involved with a small sample size relative to entire career, the "impact" of unfortunate decisions, the impact of "other" bowlers getting tendulkar out (esp for low scores) which would impact his average for All bowlers "involved" etc etc
alllman2000 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser
5)even in the 18 inn span there were at least 5 poor umpiring "decisions", unfortunate dismissals. A few off the top of my hat- caught off the silly points shoulder when a ball richocheted off by ponting, "shoulder" before wicket, warne bat/pad caught and bowled- (Daylight on tv reviews) etc.
So, in 18 inn...in Tendulkars case there isnt time for events to "equalise"...as happened with lara (46)inn vs.mcgrath over time NUMEROUS other eg.(As i rem before with Donald/cronje etc)
alllman2000 10 months ago
@Biggus63
Man- another one of you.
By another token comparing 33000 international runs to 6996 is insane.
depends on the yardstick of your choice
I could go on- but whats the point
alllman2000 10 months ago
just think what could have they felt when they have seen such things these are the crazy things he has gone through...
36pratham 10 months ago
criticism*
36pratham 10 months ago
This is such a silly argument. Don Bradman was half as good again as the very, very best of his generation. With all due respects to Sachin, who is most definitely a great, he doesn't dominate his contemporaries to the same extent. Nor was there a shortage of great batsmen back then. Guys like Hammond, Sutcliffe, Hobbs etc. were greats in their own right.
Biggus63 10 months ago
@Bigguohk dude 1st tell me how many players were there in bradman's era how many good teams were in bradman era that they can produce great crickters.... dont talk about the players of the era 1890s to 1928 because they never played against minnows like WI and india , sa use to play regularly that era may be weak team but use to play regularly but thy stoped playing during bradman era or use to play very less
36pratham 10 months ago
@Bigguohk so tell me how many players were there in bradman era let say 4 players from aus and 4 from eng or let say 10 from aus and 10 from eng max.. so offcourse with such less options what u get , so bradman is best among these players... and about sachin dude 1st look at how vast his sachin's era , how professional and how many teams... now today we 1000s of players he is best best among these and there are few that belong to his class...
36pratham 10 months ago
@Biggu another que pls tell me how many great teams did bradman scored runs put teams like wi , sa india side, only establish team that time was eng and everyone knows aus is far better side then eng , let say even if eng had great bowling attack , 1st of all no team can have all the 5 bowlers as great , let say just 2 or 3 were great so u mean to say the guy who played against 2, 3 great bowlers and too is just assumption according to u that person is the best batsman ever thats funny,,
36pratham 10 months ago
alllman2000 10 months ago
@alllman2000 WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! Look here idiot. Without all your pathetic selective criteria, which I have proven wrong (ie. SL were bigger minnows that SA), the real data, without crappy selection criteria is;
For 1990, SRT best decade avg: 58, vs S Waugh 53.1 = 9%.
For 1930, Bradman best decade avg: 102.77 vs Hutton 67.25 = 53%
Now if you want to exclude minnows, WI & Ind for the 30's and Zim and Bang for the 90's. Results still overwhelming for Bradman's domination.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser
Duh
Minus minnows 59.4 vs. Steve 51.6
(We can argue about who the "bigger" minnows were...but Ban and Zim were certainly minnows)
alllman2000 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser out of 8 matches against mcgrath he had 2 100s and 5 50s what else u want to be dominated u want him to score 50+ in every match u funny... wts the big deal taking wicket if u cant stop him scoring those 50s and 100, its cricket and batsman do got and bowler everytime has chance to wicket u idiot have some sense of cricket and ur batsman got out to best best bowlers wts a big deal... any idiot will say that mcgrath dominated sachin...
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham Tendulkar's 2 centuries; 116, McGrath's figures 18.1 overs 3/39. 126, 36 overs 3/75. In the 9 Test matches, 18 innings, my best estimate is Tendulkar scored less than 150 runs off McGrath. McGrath dismissed him 6 times. That is, McGrath's Test bowling average vs Tendulkar < 25.00. I am no idiot for saying McGrath dominated Tendulkar. The data supports my belief. Enough said.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueK this clearly shows u can have edge against one team... when u score against them most of the time... and definately andy flower is one of the great player if he would played for any other team like aus , india, sri lanka then he wouldnt have definately belong to league of sachin , lara or kallis... its just his bad luck that he played for zim.. and the thing is these great players scored against great teams good bowlers but not same with bradman he scored everytime against minnows...
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham It's so easy to pretend that Bradman played on easy pitches and only faced easy bowling and minnow countries. Even though he averaged 95 in first class cricket against Australia's best bowlers and faced the likes of international English great bowlers, Bedser, Bowes, Verity, Larwood, Voce, Tait, etc ...
Right now and in the 2000's, runs have never been easier for batsmen. Look at the lists of highest scores and number of batsman averaging > 50 right now. You're a complete ignoramus.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser and dude he was the highest scorer in all these knocks and and in these knocks 5 times no other player even scored a 50+ and supported him... is it his mistake , the thing if any would had supported him he would had played bigger and better inngs but still 7 50+ knocks in 8 matches when no one supported is a big thing but u wont understand because ur great players like bradman and ponting always played with great players and got full support from them,
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham Give up on this theory of batsman needing team support to be great. It is a dud of a theory and virtually nothing to do with a Tendulkar / Bradman comparison.
Cripes, if there is any truth to your theory, then you must think Andy Flower (Zimbabwe) is a much better batsman than Tendulkar, especially given his avg of 94.83 vs India (9 matches in India 92-02).
v India 1992-2002 9 1138 232* 94.83
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser Correction, avg 94.83 vs India 9 matches were not all in India (5 matches were in India avg 117)
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueKiaser pls tell me how many great inngs punter has played after retirement of great players like gilly, mcgrath, warne hayden, i guess now days he has even forgotton scoring 100s as well...
36pratham 10 months ago
If one looks at the highest team aggregates, one will see that the biggest scores, in both Tests and ODI's have come from the most recent decades. This implies that cricket pitches are now far better batting wickets than they were in the 20's, 30's & 40's (Bradman's era). ODI's have been around for 40 years now and the majority of the biggest team and individual scores have occurred recently, on batsman friendly pitches.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
Also to remind u all that Sachin is the only Batsman who suceeded in both form of the game i.eTest and One day.Is there any batsman like him.Not even near.And at this ripe age he is going better and better in terms of scoring,fitness and what to say "The most good mannered cricketer ".Not like the rascist whites like Australian who think they are the best.There is a saying in India.Too much pride make a person fall.Remember it.
bedanta87 11 months ago
@bedanta87 Also to remind you ... ODI's did not exist during Bradman's era. But Test cricket and First class cricket did, and Bradman's statistics are far superior to Tendulkar's in both forms of that cricket. Bradman's strike rate is also far superior than Tendulkar's which makes one believe that Bradman would have excelled at ODI and T20 cricket, if it did exist during his era.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sachin is the number one batsman because of his ability to dominate bowlers.Also sachin has many shot selection which other cricketers lack.We can say he contributed much to cricket especially in batting techniques.Sachin is great.Those who dont regard him as best they dont know anything about cricket especially in batting.
bedanta87 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sachin is the number one batsman because of his ability to dominate bowlers.Also sachin has many shot selection which other cricketers lack.We can say he contributed much to cricket especially in batting techniques.Sachin is great.Those who dont regard him as best they dont know anything about cricket especially in batting.
bedanta87 11 months ago
Sachin is in his own league for longevity as a batsman and total runs scored, but that's it. Bradman, Sobers, Kallis were/are better cricketers and contributors to a team's chance of winning a game. Comparatively, from a batting average and statistical analysis, Sachin is no better than several other current era batsmen. Bradman was clearly better than all his peers.
BlueKiaser 11 months ago
i didn't see bradman so i cannot compare among these players..thats it
jasonvoorees 1 year ago
1. Bradman Average 99.94
2. Sobers Average 57.78
3. Kallis Average 57.44
4. Tendulkar Average 56.95
LIst of batsman per average. But if i was a bowler lara would be the person i wouldnt wanna bowl too.
n1ck822 1 year ago
Tehui1974 - To be fair, when Bradman was playing there was only a few countries that would field a side againts the english. Back then the most imortant first class games where England v Australia. If the other cricket power houses like India, Pakistan, Etc had of been playing, then Bradman would of slogged all those countries as well. Tendulkar is the best in my eyes, however Bradman could of and would killed every bowler no matter what country, in his day. I hope i got my point across
Rballaj 1 year ago 2
@Rballaj I agree with you entirely. The only limitation when comparing Bradman's career to the modern day international, is that a player today has to succeed on all different types of conditions - including the dry dusty tracks on the subcontinent. However, Bradman's statistics so far exceed everybody else's (including his contemporaries) that no other player even comes close.
Tehui1974 1 year ago
Benaud - a gentleman & scholar of the game of the cricket.
Tehui1974 1 year ago
The idea to call a batsman who scored 99% of his 99 average against 1 team in only Australia and England the "greatest" is laughable.
Would you honestly call a player today the greatest ever if he only produced against 1 country? You wouldn't even call him good if he only scored at home! Yet Bradman is glorified to no end. He was a good player, who scored against England. End of story.
malikpa83 1 year ago 2
@malikpa83 you mean like how murali gets most of his wickets against teams like bangladesh and zimbabwe
youbetzler 1 year ago
@youbetzler
That's not even true. Nevertheless, he did play in more than 1 country on a variety of pitches. Few would dispute that.
Your boy Bradman though, played in 2 countries and scored against 1 team. From a strictly statistical point of view, his results are not as meaningful.
malikpa83 1 year ago
sachin has performed superbly in all forms of cricket and has played with many more countries and players than bradman...!! bradman has mostly played with england..and that too test...!!! so no doubts...!! sachin is the best....
593aj 1 year ago 2
sachin has performed superbly in all forms of cricket and has played with many more countries and players than bradman...!! bradman has mostly played with england..and that too test...!!! so no doubts...!! sachin is the best..
593aj 1 year ago
@593aj No one should ever be compared to Bradman, Simple. He is out on his own. People should really stop comparing players with him because to put it simply, NO ONE stacks up against him. Talk about Sachin with Richards or Lara or Ponting or Pollock etc. but Bradman sits far, far atop the tree looking down at everyone else.
prwilkinson 1 year ago
Richie sums it up nicely... Bradman by an absolute mile that no one could ever really get near. Sachin best since then but you might as well throw a bunch of names in a hat and pick one out really.
prwilkinson 1 year ago
If youre an Indian, even if you did know everything you could ever know about cricket you saying Tendulkar is the best means nothing at all. If people from other countries also believe Sachin to be the best then it does mean something. Just a thought!
bhriguaneja 1 year ago
sachin is no doubt d best player ever,don has mostly played tests only or some ODIs i m not sure but sachin has ruled both ODIs and tests. Infact he also holds the record of holding most records. This is what i call greater than greatest.
007vishaldon 1 year ago
I uploaded this video. According to me -
1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Richards
4. Hobbs
5. Tendulkar
bubluhbk 1 year ago
but i still say both are best of there own era's and its stupid to compare 2 totally diffrent era's...
36pratham 1 year ago
if u see punter he is considered as one of the best batsmen but look at his avg in india just in 20s... u never know if don would had played in such conditions with so many diffrent countries and in diffrent count. wht his avg would had been.. and if bradman has 99.99 avg thing then sachin has 97 intern. 100s thing and at the end of his carrier it will be definately around 115 , while punter and kallis will end 75 or max 80 which is a big diff from sachin..
36pratham 1 year ago
@36pratham why you are looking at only Pontings average in India Look at Mathew hayden Jaques Kallis ,etc Even many players who are not known to be great players have succedded in India .Only Ponting is only great who failed in India otherwise India have been a batting paradise .Even kevin Peiterson succedded in India
007dalal 11 months ago
@007dal dude by ponting i just gave the example like kallis has avg of just 29 in eng 33 vs sri lanka , lara has avg of just 33 in india 36 in NZ , and if hayden has high avg vs india then he has avg of just 34 in eng , 28 in nz , and there are many examples like that.. while if u see sachin never had avg of less then 40 against any team and in any country... and about bradman i asked one quesion to a bradman fan bluekiaser u can see his reply but still he failed to provide ans to my question..
36pratham 11 months ago
@36pratham Saxhin averaged less than 40 against South Africa.And also in low 40s against Pakistan
007dalal 11 months ago
@007dalal wrong get ur stat rt dude sachin avg against pak and SA is 42. so 1st go get ur stats rt check at cricinfo 1st then talk , sachin never had avg low then 40 against any team... ohk... and about bradman 299 that came against SA so i dont rate that one anything great SA was minnow that who use to play very less cricket during that period , just tell his such type of inngs against england and even if u say the one in which second highest scorer was 72..
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham I didnt get my stats updated after South Africa series.Before that series his average was just 38 .It got inflated by those two centuries . Prior to it onlly Ponting was batsman who averaged above 40 against everyone he still the only player to average above 45 against every team
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal many such inngs where second higst scorr was just in 50 + , pls show his those type of inngs like sachin played in perth where where no other scored even 50 and he was only to score 50 or 100+ , like scored 122 against englang no other player even scored a 20 in that inngs , ya u heared rt nt even 20 , so provide me such inngs of bradman pls... and sachin has played many such ings where he does not.... and about ganguly and azar they are good player but not great test players
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham WRONG AGAIN! In 177 matches Tendulkar has been the only centurion in a match 7 times. In 52 matches Bradman was the only centurion in the match 7 times. That would suggest the opposite of what you are implying. You make a big deal about Tendulkar's 122 vs Eng, stating no other player even scored a 20, when only 24 hours earlier, Hussain for Eng scored 128 with the next highest score in that inns being 34. The data you use to show Tendulkar's Greatness is pathetic.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@007dal may be u can reply i all the 100 and 50+ runs that bradman scored he got well support from his fellow players when ever he score a 50 or 100+ there are others who scored 50+ and 100+ with supported him well there just 1 or 2 inngs of him where he scored a 50 or 100 and others didnt support him otherwise i failed to find any where he performed and others didnt scored while there are numerous sachin inngs in which he didnt get support played alone... this is where sachin is greater..
36pratham 11 months ago
@36pratham Bradman once remained not out on 299 when all his team got out.His 270 is rated best amongst all the innings played He scored a triple century when second highest score was just 72.And taliking about lone ranger Brain Lara has most innings without a substantial support from other batsman. Bradman scored about 22 % of his team runs .Whereas Sachin runs are less than 15 percent.
007dalal 11 months ago
@007dal dude if sachin would had got that support from his fellow batsman specialy during 90s when he was at his peak he would had scored atleast 10 more 100s and 10 more 50s and his avg would had been around 65 or 70 but unfortunately he didnt get that support....ok i ask u another question why sachin's avg is around 80 in last 3,4 years the reason is simple now team is much stronger and he is getting full support from other players and u can see his avg...
36pratham 11 months ago
@36pratham You must be joking India produced many fine batsman apart from Sachin .It is a joke that Sachin didnt get a support .You are just insulting other Indian greats like Azharuddin,Ganguly ,Laxman,Sidhu etc. I dont find you an Indian fan but only a Sachin fan
007dalal 11 months ago
@007dal ohk another question and its for all bradman suffering brain specialy like bluekiaser , do u know brian lara avg against sri lanka is 86 , now cut other teams from his carrier just sri lanka and two more team who debuted even after his debut say like india and WI debuted even after bradman debut say here ireland and nambia now what his avg would be needless to say offcourse around 110 then according to this brian lara is the best batsmen ever if remove other teams from the scene..
36pratham 11 months ago
@36pratham Brain Lara is not a player who can be judged by his stats only.When he scores he scores big.Many of his innings have come against best bowlers when his team failed to win
007dalal 11 months ago
@007dalal azar avg in aus 27 , in SA 23 in wi 19 this show is just ohk test player... and tell me how many great knocks ganaguly had played in test matches till 2000 the only good series he had was once in englang in 96 and once against sri lanka in 97 just look at his record against aus... and about laxman yeah he is great test player bu the is he lacks consistency , he has played some memorable inngs but when it comes to consistency he is that great... and he showed his class from 2000...
36pratham 10 months ago
@007dalal till 2000 we never had good test batsman and in odis just saurav is good... rest of others sucks... and dude go and see every bradman inngs he always got well support from team player when ever he use to come to bat the batsman above him had scored a century and score is always around 150 or 200+ for 1... while 90% of inngs sachin played in his life he use to come bat early india were always less then 30 for 2 wickets... a
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham WRONG! Where do you get this stuff from. I almost choked when I read your comment about Tendulkar 90% of inns going in at 2 wickets down for less than 30, whereas Bradman had it easy.
I, unlike you, went and checked your belief against the data. I looked at the top 10 scores for both Tendulkar and Bradman. Tendulkar only once came in at 1/24. All other 9 inns, the score was over 30. 7 times over 100. Whereas Bradman came in with less the 10 on the scoreboard 4 times. 5 times under 30.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@BlueK so things do changes according to condition... like bowling conditions , type of partners u playing , type of bowlers u have etc...offcourse when u have strong partners with u to support u ur performance enhances wheather its batsman or bowlers.... dude use ur brain i am not talking about match i am talking about inngs... because that matters more , u talking about 24 hours , dude pitches do changes in 1 day ex recent test series against SA
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham You continue to try to find pathetic excuses for the differences between Bradman and Tendulkars statistics. Each time, I show you are wrong. But you just continue on with irrelevant crap. Show some real data, some reals stats. Put up or shut up. Opinions and guess of 90% carry NO weight in this discussion, unless you can back them up with good stats or examples. Go have a look at the all time ICC batsman ratings. Where's Bradman & where's Tendulkar. Belly laughs.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@Blue india got all out for 132 and next day when SA came out to bat it became o flat that they scored 500 in the same match even india scored 400+ in last inngs , and there are many examples as such.. so things do changes according to condition... like bowling conditions , type of partners u playing , type of bowlers u have etc...offcourse when u have strong partners with u to support u ur performance enhances wheather its batsman or bowlers....
36pratham 10 months ago
@Blue dude just because of u i checked each and every inngs of bradman and in that i find 3 times he has scored 50 or 100+ while no other player scored a 50 , 131 in 1930 , 103 in 1932 and 103 in 1938 , just 3 times , and 2 times when there is only one player scored 50 with him and rest failed , rest 2 times may be in that no other scored a 100 but 2,3 players well supported him by scoring 50s and 70s..ok now let me tell u few of sachin where he is the only one to score a 50 or 100+
36pratham 10 months ago
@BlueK where no other supported him 114 at perth in 1990, 111 at jhonsburg in 92 no one scored 25+, 122, 74 at nottingham in 96 ,113 at wellington 98, 116 and 52 vs aus in aus in 99, 97 vs SA 2000, 76 and 65 vs aus in 2001. these are the 10 but till 2001 as i am little tired now of providing and till 2011 there are many more, and his performance when only one player scored a 50+ and rest all failed its too many even more then the above one i provide... while bradman has just 2 times
36pratham 10 months ago
@BlueK so just 5 times he didnt get the support other wise he get the full support of his fellow players whenever bradman scored a 50+ or 100+ they scored 100+ with him...
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham I don't even understand the logic of this argument. What are you suggesting? That it is harder to score runs if you don't have a good batsman up the other end and that accounts for the difference of Bradman's 99.94 avg vs Tendulkar's 56.94? You have to be kidding me. You have no data to support this argument and I have already shown that Bradman has been the only centurion in a match as many times as Tendulkar. In 52 matches vs Tendulkar's 177. Enough time wasted on this one.
BlueKiaser 10 months ago
@Blue dude i am not saying the reason of diffrence in there avg is this , its just one point where sachin stands more then , offcourse when u have better team and players to perform with u ur performance enhances... when a player know that he is key and everything depends on u .. dude there was a time when we just use to match when sachin was in 90s specialy and its famous till sachin is playing something is match as soon as sachin goes out its over for india....
36pratham 10 months ago
@Blue as soon as sachin got out everyone use to switch off tv... i gave u example u know from 1990 to 2011 india has one total 14 cups out of them sachin has played in 12 and he performed in 11 out of them just once failed in 2002 vs england natwest... this is the team india who always dependent on one player... tell me what u call sachin team sachin scored a century with injured back no one supported him and when he got out india need just 17 runs and half of the team
36pratham 10 months ago
@Blue even didnt able to made that remaing 17 runs what will call such team
36pratham 10 months ago
@Blue i gave u example of wc .. in 1996 sachin was the higest run scorrer in the tounrment sachin and in semi final when tendulkar was only one to score 50 + and when he got out team was 100 for 1 and team made 117 in that match this is the team infia of 90s , in 99 wc sachin didnt played against zim because of his father' death and we lose to team like zim and it became reason for our early exit , in 2003 he played well through out the tournment failed in 1 match in final and india lost
36pratham 10 months ago
@Blue this is the great team india which depend so much on this player and this is what called pressure which bradman never faced.... he never faced the pressure of playing in so many diffrent countries... he never faced sych pressure of cricism and performing every time media coverage etc being a player of india that hat has indian fans is itself a bigdeal
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham You are beating general principle.It is said that number 3 is most difficult spot to bat on.If batting down order is criteria than Allan Border is best batsman ever because he came at number 5 with no other class batsman
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal and yeah i agree with u brian lara is a class batmsan and dude his avg of 86 is perfect example why bradman has such a high avg and if he would had played in this era he was also had avg of around 50+ and if u think brian lara did not played with great batsman u are wrong , chanderpaul is one of the finest batsman avg of 48 better then ganguy or azar.. carl hoopar another good batmsan, richradson , , he played with ricrds to in initial period of his carrier....
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham Sachin played with Azharuddin ,Dravid,Ganguly,Laxman who are much better than Chanderpaul. Chanderpaul average got inflated in some previous years. Otherwise he averaged in 40s
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal so u didnt get ur stats updated lols.. anyways what about pak anyways leave it ... anyways when did i question lara pls read excactly what i said dont read half and misunderstood , i said that sachin lara and bradman belongs to same class... i rate sachin slighlty higher than lara because of his consistency and logetivity.. but it doesnt mean i rate lara any lesser.. to me lara sachin and kalllis are 3 best batsman of this era..
36pratham 10 months ago
@007dalal and if u talk about that sachin has not played much big inngs then dude personal record of scoring big inngs doesnt matter much its consistency that matters much if lara has big inngs things then sachin has longetivity and consistency with him, even if u know know lara has said this many time its good to hold personal record but i wish i would have much consistent like srt, and about 300 thing many players have scored that mark taylor, jaisurya , hayden, jayawardhane etc
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham i never said that sachin is not consistent . if there ever will be the list of most inconsistent great Lara will top in it.Sachin scores above lara in this context.I am bigger fan SRT and i know Sachin is more consistent .You questioned about lara there fore i answered it
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal does that make him greater then sachin , if u see kallis just has 1 double hundred in his carrier but 1 question him rate him one of the best batsman infact know its this thing going sachon or kallis... so its the consistency that matters not the big scores...
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham i mean no 1 question him (kallis)*
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham I never said that lara is greater than Sachin
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal so if anyone talking side of sachin its insult to others greats thats funny, dude i never insulted bradman infact i even said bradman is the best batmsn of his era and to me rating todays greats like sachin , lara below him is insult to todays greats , i rate both of them equal to me both are greats and after knowing everything that bradman never played against strong teams , never played in so many countreys , never players so many diffrent bowlers always get well support
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham You questioned Bradmans greatness dude.So you were insulting him.To prove Sachin great you were degrading other greats like lara. Let me tell you Bradman is an icon of cricket.All great feats in batting is called bradmanesque. His average is reagarded greatest achievement. Sachin is great but to prove him great no need to insult others.I never said that lara is above him But you were sying that he is an oridnary batsman. Sachin and lara were different kinds cant compare them
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dalal from his fellow players and many others thing i would say u never know what they have done if they would played in eachothers era... and there is always a question mark on that so the thing is rating anyone low is unfair with other great....
36pratham 10 months ago
@36pratham in this sense you are ryt to some context .To compare 2 players must see their childhood training.,Sceintific development,coaching types .but many players agree that given training in this era,sceintific development ,coaching methods Bradman would have same if not better success in this era. After all he had just one golf stick to practise with
007dalal 10 months ago
@007dal now when everyone see his record against other countries and found low avg of just 41 in aus , 34 vs india , 36 in nz and 46 in SA one can say after watching his record that after playing with so many stronger teams and in diffrent countries he his among best players but not the best... the thing is bradman belongs to same class of sachin , lara and kallis just that his luck he born in that era and didnt get chance to play so many teams stronger then his own...
36pratham 11 months ago