• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Sachin or Bradman?

Status
Not open for further replies.
light

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Is an average better than every other batting record? Look at quality and variety of opposition each faced.

I'm backing Bradman to prevail on an aussie forum, but I wonder how many people will still remember Bradman once Sachin is long retired and the game has completely revolutionised again
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
This is pretty insulting to suggest Tendulkar is even comparable to Bradman, he wasn't just the greatest cricketer ever but the greatest sportsman ever.
 
Torn Hammy

Torn Hammy

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Joke question? In test cricket there are many variables but a billion people can't argue with the stats.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Torn Hammy said:
Joke question? In test cricket there are many variables but a billion people can't argue with the stats.
Click to expand...
Maybe they shouldn't, but they can and will!
All the arguments about better bowling attacks now v then, more strong countries (but incidentally, quite a few weak ones too) now v then are balanced by the fact the pitches were uncovered and often treacherous, and he was better than any of his peers by such a large quantum that cannot be ignored. Total number of centuries is not really relevant, as Tendulkar has played about 3 times the number of Tests for less than twice the number of centuries. Then you can start looking at the numbers of doubles and triples.
I have no doubt Tendulkar is one of the 2 or 3 best batsmen of all time, but Bradman was in a league far from anyone else.
 
Aussie D

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
Was Tendulkar even the greatest of his generation? Many would argue that Brian Lara or Ricky Ponting were as good if not better than Sachin.
 
light

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
whatty said:
Kallis?
Click to expand...

Exceptional average for an all-rounder, I rate him higher than Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar in terms of consistency over a period of time and quality of opposition. Tendulkar and Lara in particular scored a lot of their runs against weaker nations and only kept their positions in the team due to external politics.
 
namtrak

namtrak

Johnnie Wallace (23)
It's a matter of deciding which one of Tendulkar and Lara is daylight because its Bradman first and .........

To my mind Bradman with 99.94 is peerless - the measure of his success is such that he is not comparable with others in his sport but with the greats across all sports. Would Tendulkar or Lara sit comfortably in a list which includes Ali, Nicklaus, Ruth, Pele, Jordan, Phelps etc? I think not.
 
tigerland12

tigerland12

John Thornett (49)
I have no time for anyone who mentions Sachin and the Don in the same breathe.
Tendulkar does not have that great of an average (Kallis is higher), he played most of his cricket on flat decks against mediocore opposition. Yeh he is a good player but I certainly wouldn't have him even on the same level as Lara or Ponting
 
light

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Would Bradman's average still be 99.94 if he had played as many innings as Tendulkar?

I remember not so long ago when Mike Hussey was invincible and averaging in the 80's from '05-'07 that people were comparing him to the Don. Quality or Quantity?
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
Sachin is not even in the same league as Bradman. Sachin holds the record for the most ODI losses as well
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Selfish and all as the Don was, especially concerning money, he was always sensitive to the greater good of the game. What did he say? "Leave cricket better for your involvement", or words to that effect.

I very much doubt if that could ever be said about Tendulkar, his self-centred sticking around purely for statistical reasons is selfish in the extreme.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Do we actually know he's "sticking around for statistical reasons", though? I mean, he's known nothing but international cricket since the age of 16, and has still been pretty good at what he does.
 
DPK

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
cyclopath said:
Talk about over-hyped. Didn't he average 30-something?
Killer beard, though.
Kleeburger-esque.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 32-odd in Tests (only played 22) and 39-odd in First-class cricket.

Plus, only a miserly 54,000 runs in First-class...
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
I can't believe the question still gets raised. It has to be Bradman by a mile. In how many other sports is the top performer so statistically so far ahead of the next best? Maybe Kelly Slater? When nobody else who played a decent number of tests hasn't averaged over 60, that tells me the Don is the best batsman in the history of the game. Graeme Pollock is the closest, but his career was too short (not his fault of course).

And WG was overrated.
 
C

Cave Dweller

Guest
Use to love the battles he had with Shane Warne. Both great sportsman and they brought out the best out of each other
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top