Because Lara and Ponting are arguably better then Tendulkar. No one comes close to Bradman.
Originally Posted by rivera213
I think you're making everyone laugh, because Bradman is 40 runs better then Tendulkar. You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that anyone, let alone Tendulkar is close to Bradman.
You're a joker if you think Bradman is 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar. Even if you think he is better, no way is he 40 runs better. That's the difference between Tendulkar and the typical No.9 or something. Don't make me laugh.
Bradman would've destroyed Trueman, Statham and Tyson though and he would've probably destroyed any bowler that's ever played the game - Tendulkar probably wouldn't. He got owned by all of the great seam bowlers and cashed in against the spinners.
he fact Bradman did so well against us probably points to our poor bowling overall (excluding the 32/33 series).
I'd be of a completely different opininon if he took bowlers like Trueman, Statham and Tyson to the cleaners but he obviously didn't face any of those.
To say Bradman would automatically average more than Tendulkar against the bowlers Tendulkar faced reeks of bias.
Bradman jumped on crap bowling as well as any other, but how much great bowling did he face is the debate.
I find it hilarious that you are calling others bias. :laugh:
No-one has matched Bradman's dominance in another sport. That's what makes him better then any other sportsmen. For someone to replicate Bradman's dominance in cricket, they'd have to play as much cricket as he did and average 10 with the ball or average 60 with the bat and 20 with the ball.
There isn't such thing as a greatest sportsman of all time.
How the hell do you compare cross-sports?!
If anything, Babe Ruth is the greatest since he did more for baseball than any other sportsman has done for their sport. But I still don't see how someone could pick, say, Pele over Wayne Gretzsky. It's impossible.
But regardless, sports nowadays is far more "important" than in any previous time. What you say about Bradman and the depression is very romantic but doesn't compare to the SPORTING pressure placed upon Tendulkar since he was still a kid. Cricket is a religion in India.
Tendulkar is the perfect gentleman and of course would say Bradman was under more pressure and is the better of the 2 batsmen, but that doesn't make it true.
The media is placed around everywhere in the world these days. Especially on struggling batsman, who are out of form. I suppose batsman who are able to overcome that are equal to Tendulkar?
Plenty of Indian batsman have debutted in this teens, less then a handful of Australians have debuted in their teens. Debutting at a younger age proves nothing but a countries optomisim. Ponting could've debuted for Australia when he was 15, when he was hooking 90mph bouncers off the bowling machine for fun, but that doesn't make him no Bradman.
Tendulkar wasn't carrying the hopes of the Indians, he wasn't under any pressure as a teenager, it wasn't until he become a star in the mid 90's where the pressure started to rise. I've seen Tendulkar bat as a teenager and he was no master and played some shocking shots. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that Tendulkar is close to Bradman, then perfection is needed and Tendulkar just doesn't have that.
A failure for Tendulkar is averaging in the 20s, whilst a failure for Bradman is averaging 1 or 2 runs more then Tendulkar's career average. Are you aware that when Bradman was in his 60s, he had a net session with the Australian team at the time, with no protective gear on and he smashed them to all parts? I doubt Tendulkar will be doing the same when his in his 60s.
I'm biased? I'm Australian and I've admitted that Tendulkar is a better batsman then Ponting, but assuming you are Indian, you think Tendulkar is better then Bradman? Typical Indian bias and trying to turn the truth the wrong way.
You mustn't have seen many on drives in that case.
Typical Aussie bias I'm afraid. It's not a bad on-drive, but not great. Of all the superlatives about Ponting, elegant isn't 1 that I'd use IAH. Compare him to Vaughan in the same test match in 2005. Come on. And Tendulkar is a classier player than Vaughan.
I can call you biased because I'm not Indian or particularly dislike Aussie sportsmen so I've come to my opinion from unbiased comparison. In Australia, I'm sure Bradman is the next step down from god and it's drilled in from an early age "he's the greatest" much like in America, Babe Ruth is the best ever baseball player and Jordan the best ever basketball player.
The fact that there may POSSIBLY be someone better than those players who's stats aren't as good (or in Sachin's case- nowhere near as good) is too much for some people to take.
As it happens, Gretzky for me IS the best Ice Hockey player ever (and happens to have the best stats) but I think Barry Bonds is a better hitter than Ruth by some distance. Technically the Babe is lacking whereas Barry has the ultimate poer swing. Griffey is the equivalent of Gower. The classiest player of his generation but for some reason or another not up there statistically.
I've seen them both play, they both hit the ball better then anyone else in this era. There is a certain class that holds them above all from the rest of the era and not much seperates Ponting & Tendulkar, but none of them compare to Bradman. Not even close.
So you think that the Indians bowlers are better then Donald & Pollock? :huh:
Pollock of the 00's, not the 90's.
But even he in the 00's was better than Ntini imo. Steyn has had 1 series against Ponting and wasn't exactly bowling great in that series either.
I'd take Donald over the Pollock of 00, Ntini and Steyn easily.
Plus, that was Sachin's Achilles heel. For him to average 39 compared to Ponting's 20 in his bogy country- India surely tells you alot. Even if you're too pig headed to see it.
What's history got to do with anything? It's about how good the team was at the present. So if a team with allot of history has a poor attack, you rate the runs against them higher then you would with a team with no history, but a quality attack?
No, I didn't include S.Africa because they don't have anywhere near the histroy of cricket as the other 4 nations.
It's pretty obvious England, Australia, India and West Indies are the big 4 of cricket.
S.Africa for no fault of the players don't have that rich history.
I didn't say South Africa weren't good enough, they were very good (especially at home in the 90's), that wasn't my point for excluding them. And I said earlier Ponting averages 54 against them and that they were/are Tendulkar's Achilles heel.
I'm not hiding anything.