The stats do not do him justice!

[Top_Cat]

Or they didn't drop him (other than the once) because he wouldn't STFU about it if they did.

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Rivera, a few points.

First, I'm sorry for lumping you in together with pako007. A cheap shot, designed to provoke, and I apologise.

Second, with regard to bias, yes I admit I'm biased. I think that if we're all being honest most of us would admit to bias in our assessment of any player and indeed throughout life. It's part of human nature and it's an area of work in which I have a professional interest. However I hope that I can, to a degree at least, put that to one side when assessing the Bradman v Tendulkar thing.

Third, with regard to Bradman v Tendulkar, you make a series of valid points and you make them well, and there is force in the majority of them. However despite all this I'm afraid that I don't see sufficient evidence to support your assertion that Tendulkar deserves a much higher batting average than Don Bradman. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and I don't see anything like sufficiently extraordinary evidence in this instance. But I don't want to get involved in a lengthy debate with you about this because I fear that neither of us will manage to convince the other, and it will derail an interesting thread that you've started.

Finally, I do have a lot of respect for your readiness to go into battle against time-hardened monoliths of the game - eg "Bradman Is The Best Of All Time Full Stop". Have you read "The Willow Wand" by Derek Birley? Birley himself summed the book up by saying "If [the book] is critical of the sacred cows that have been allowed to stray on to the pitch, it is deeply respectful of the hallowed turf itself." If you haven't read it yet, let me recommend it to you - I think you'd really enjoy it.

Fair enough and well said.

I don't mind anyone saying Bradman is the best of all time if they've come to that decision independently. If you've done that then cool.

Thanks for the recc. I've read some great cricket books (on the subject of Bradman, the famous "Bodyline Autopsy" by David Frith is top notch. I'm sure most on here have read that though).

Originally Posted by Uppercut

So do you think Ponting is far better than Tendulkar on batsman-friendly pitches? Because if he's not scoring any on the tough ones and averages a decent bit more than him he must be pretty considerably more consistent on the "flat" tracks.

Well Ponting is great in Australia. On his own pitches he's possibly 2nd to Lara as the most devastating and not all the wickets are the same in Australia so I wouldn't say he was a flat-track bully or anything and definitely doesn't suck by any means but I normally look at how good a batsman is out of their comfort zone.

Tendulkar in fast and bouncy South Africa is pretty average (so that's his fault) but in seaming, swinging England he averages 62 and averages 58.53 in Australia (And as I said earlier played Warne as well as anyone could). Ponting on the other hand is poor in England and India.

Though I have to admit I was working in old currency, and meant he wasn't a 50 average compared to 40 being the test match standard. With the batting friendly tracks, I add 5 runs to the average so Ponting probably is a 50 run average compared to 45 being the norm.

I'd say Tendulkar (quality wise) would be 60 average and I'm sure B.Richards, Pollock and Bradman also would be 60 average batsmen in this era.

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

You didn't answer my question because you can't. No other batsman in the history has come even remotely close to averaging 100. Tendulkar wouldn't of averaged anywhere near 100 in any era he played in. No other batsman has even come close to Bradman's first-class average of 95.

But you're not taking into account quality of bowlers per era. There are so many factors, as I said before, which contribute to a player's stats.

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about. Do you not understand the impacts of the War or the Great Depression? Far worse then being hounded by bucket loads of media. I'd rather be in Tendulkar's life situation then Bradman's. Tendulkar lived in a more peaceful era. His not half as good as Bradman. Open your eyes, son.

Don't be a joker, I took my History GCSE @ 15 (though, that was 9 years ago so I'm an old man now) and was advised to take it up @ Uni level. The 2 main subjects of our GCSE are Medicine and WWII. I think I know a little bit about WWII. No need to be patronising, especially since you're younger than me and I could easily call you "kid", "junior" and stuff of that ilk.

And India, while great if you're rich has areas of poverty akin to that of the Great Depression. Not everyone in Mumbai are Bollywood stars with loads of dough, but the ones who have money (and not alot) spend it on watching Tendulkar. Especially in the 90's when he was king. And if you think media attention doesn't add pressure to a sportsman like no other then you're pretty naive.

Ponting plays every shot in the cricketing manuel and plays his shots as eligantly as what Tendulkar does. Many think (not me) that Ponting is better then Tendulkar, because he relied less on playing weak opposition.

No, Ponting doesn't have every shot in the manual (I'm not talking about being able to play it in the nets against an academy bowler) and can't play off-side shots half as elegantly as Sachin. I'm pretty sure most would agree Tendulkar is the far classier batsman regardless of the stats.

And btw against us and India, Ponting has been poor. Sachin in complete opposite conditions to what he faces at home averages 62.

That's because no one else has come close to their acchievements (Well atleast Bradman's anyways), so obviously, no one is even close to Bradman. Tendulkar only averaged 39 in the most bowling friendly conditions in world cricket during his career - South Africa, whilst Ponting averaged mid 50's.

Everyone has an Achilles' heel. Sachin's is the fast and bouncy wickets of South Africa. Not surprisingly since primarily he's a front-foot player.

But Ponting averages 54 in South Africa during the batting era and didn't face Donald and Pollock at full steam. Tendulkar faced both. Considering Saffie tracks were by far Sachin's weakness, 39 in an era where 40 was test quality isn't bad. Ponting on the other hand has poor stats in England and India.

That article would have to be a load of rubbish. Subcontient wickets are clearly the easiest to bat on in the entire world, so much so that it's like subcontient players have an extended home ground advantage, which doesn't give a clearcut view of how good a batsman is. Ponting has made difficult batting conditions look incredibly flat. His 101 & 99 @ MCG last year, 50 odd @ Sydney this year and 80 odd @ South Africa have all been under very difficult conditions and circumstances. To say Ponting benefitted from flat pitches is merely laughable.

Subcontinent wickets have been relatively easy to bat on since the early 00's, but not when Tendulkar was at peak.

And btw, you shot yourself in the foot saying that since Ponting averages 20.85 on "clearly the easiest wickets to bat on in the entire world".

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by rivera213

But you're not taking into account quality of bowlers per era. There are so many factors, as I said before, which contribute to a player's stats.

Despite the fact that Bradman faced bowlers will lower bowling averages then what Tendulkar did?

Originally Posted by rivera213

Don't be a joker, I took my History GCSE @ 15 (though, that was 9 years ago so I'm an old man now) and was advised to take it up @ Uni level. The 2 main subjects of our GCSE are Medicine and WWII. I think I know a little bit about WWII. No need to be patronising, especially since you're younger than me and I could easily call you "kid", "junior" and stuff of that ilk.

And India, while great if you're rich has areas of poverty akin to that of the Great Depression. Not everyone in Mumbai are Bollywood stars with loads of dough, but the ones who have money (and not alot) spend it on watching Tendulkar. Especially in the 90's when he was king. And if you think media attention doesn't add pressure to a sportsman like no other then you're pretty naive.

Bradman experienced the same thing as what Tendulkar did. Except probably 10 times harder. You told me to "Get Real" because I said that Bradman experienced the similar thing and you don't think that Bradman was under anywhere near as much pressure as what Tendulkar was, which is laughable. All I can say is, I bet Tendulkar's life is allot easier then Bradman's was during the period where he played cricket.

Originally Posted by rivera213

No, Ponting doesn't have every shot in the manual (I'm not talking about being able to play it in the nets against an academy bowler) and can't play off-side shots half as elegantly as Sachin. I'm pretty sure most would agree Tendulkar is the far classier batsman regardless of the stats.

And btw against us and India, Ponting has been poor. Sachin in complete opposite conditions to what he faces at home averages 62.

Tendulkar is better then Ponting, but not much seperates them. Tendulkar's eligance isn't above all anyway, as I've seen plenty of batsman play shots as eligant shots as Tendulkar. Tendulkar just gets the credit because his the best batsman in the world, but he is by no means above all when it comes to eligance as Ponting probably has a better looking on-drive then Tendulkar.

Originally Posted by rivera213

Everyone has an Achilles' heel. Sachin's is the fast and bouncy wickets of South Africa. Not surprisingly since primarily he's a front-foot player.

But Ponting averages 54 in South Africa during the batting era and didn't face Donald and Pollock at full steam. Tendulkar faced both. Considering Saffie tracks were by far Sachin's weakness, 39 in an era where 40 was test quality isn't bad. Ponting on the other hand has poor stats in England and India.

Tendulkar actually averaged a Atherton-esque 36 in South Africa during the 1990s, which suggests that he benefitted from the exit of Donald and the decline of Pollock.

Originally Posted by rivera213

Subcontinent wickets have been relatively easy to bat on since the early 00's, but not when Tendulkar was at peak.

From what I've heard, they haven't changed much.

Originally Posted by rivera213

And btw, you shot yourself in the foot saying that since Ponting averages 20.85 on "clearly the easiest wickets to bat on in the entire world".

Failing in favourable conditions is irrelevant when comparing 2 great batsman. It's like saying that a batsman can't be considered the best because they failed against Bangladesh, even though they performed better in the more difficult conditions.

[shankar]

Regarding Tendulkar, the main reason his average suffers is the fact that he's played for a period of 20 years. So when comparing him to most batsman who haven't played for anywhere near as long people just look at the overall average for his career. This is unfair because it expects Tendulkar to maintain the same high level of performance over two decades!

Over a period of 13 years since his debut he averages 58.73. This is a time period which is as long or more than the overall career of most other players. Also over a peak period from '93 to the end of 2001, he averages 64.4! This is a stupendous performance during a period when batting was far harder than it has been since 2001. So much so that average of all the 200+ batsmen who batted at positions 1-6 during this period is 5 points lesser than that during the period since 2002.

So his average suffers because despite not being as good as he was during his first 13 years he's still been good enough to continue playing for India. So something which should be a seen as an achievement is a drawback when it comes to overall career average.

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Despite the fact that Bradman faced bowlers will lower bowling averages then what Tendulkar did?

Again, lack of depth. The poor batsmen and poor bowlers were equally poor. Stats are all relative.

While Bradman would be succesful in any era cos of his technique, I'm pretty sure the bowlers of his time weren't anywhere near those of the 70's onwards (or even the 50's with Trueman, Statham)

Harold Larwood certainly gave Bradman a working over. I don't condone Bodyline and Larwood didn't get hm out everytime but he was the main aggressor and worked him over something rotten. The fact Bradman averaged 50-odd is more down to his pasting of the other bowlers. Larwood certainly got the better of him more times than the other way round (though granted, hard to dominate with a 7-2 leg side field).

Bradman experienced the same thing as what Tendulkar did. Except probably 10 times harder. You told me to "Get Real" because I said that Bradman experienced the similar thing and you don't think that Bradman was under anywhere near as much pressure as what Tendulkar was, which is laughable. All I can say is, I bet Tendulkar's life is allot easier then Bradman's was during the period where he played cricket.

No, he didn't. The depression was the same for every single person in that time (actually better for sportsmen). The added pressure of him being the most known sportsman isn't comparable to the mutli-billion business cricket is today- especially in India.

There's a huge difference between the social climate (which affects everyone) and the fishbowl surrounding a single person. There was nowhere near the amount of SPORTING pressure on Bradman.

I bet Sachin's life is better too, he drives a Ferrari, but again when he has bat in hand, he is under a microscope so intense you can see the bacteria growing on his skin.

Completely different kettle of fish.

Tendulkar is better then Ponting, but not much seperates them. Tendulkar's eligance isn't above all anyway, as I've seen plenty of batsman play shots as eligant shots as Tendulkar. Tendulkar just gets the credit because his the best batsman in the world, but he is by no means above all when it comes to eligance as Ponting probably has a better looking on-drive then Tendulkar.

See a couple of posts below for statistical comparison (which doesn't say everything but says alot in this instance).

And btw, on form there is no better looking batsman than Tendulkar. Ponting- come off it. That's pure Australian bias, especially any drive.

Pietersen and Bopara are both classier looking players than Ponting too- and that isn't English bias.

Tendulkar >> Bopara >> Pietersen >> Ponting

in regards to the on drive (in terms of aesthetics).

Tendulkar actually averaged a Atherton-esque 36 in South Africa during the 1990s, which suggests that he benefitted from the exit of Donald and the decline of Pollock.

Meaning what?

That the loss of 2 great bowlers meant Tendulkar benefitted by 3 runs per innings?

Surely that's natural?

But you can't compare Ponting's 54 in SA when he's batted against much lesser bowlers than Donald and Pollock to Sachin's 39 when he did.

From what I've heard, they haven't changed much.

Much flatter now and there doesn't seem to be the amount of turn as there used to be. Some places still turn, but there are a lot of extremely flat batting wickets in India- mainly because of the ODI format being viewed as much more important than tests in the eyes of the BCCI.

Failing in favourable conditions is irrelevant when comparing 2 great batsman. It's like saying that a batsman can't be considered the best because they failed against Bangladesh, even though they performed better in the more difficult conditions.

It's relevent when the team in question is India. 1 of the 3 biggest places to play for an international batsman.

If you're English, then Australia, West Indies and India were the bench marks.

South Africa, wasn't until the mid-90's (granted, not the fault of any of their players but it is what it is. I'm sure that would've changed with the Barlow-Richards-Pollock-Procter quartet in the 70's but history is history).

Ponting's miserable 20 means loads in comparisons between him and Tendulkar when Tendulkar averages over 50 in Australia.

The averages of the 2 players:

Tendulkar:
in Eng- 62 (22 Innings)
in Aus- 58.53 (30 Innings)
in WI- 47.69 (14 Innings)

Ponting:
in Eng- 42.63 (22 Innings)
in Ind- 20.85 (21 Innings)
in WI- 78 (33 Innings)- all coming post-Ambrose/Walsh dominance and batting 6th.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Again, lack of depth. The poor batsmen and poor bowlers were equally poor. Stats are all relative.

While Bradman would be succesful in any era cos of his technique, I'm pretty sure the bowlers of his time weren't anywhere near those of the 70's onwards (or even the 50's with Trueman, Statham)

Harold Larwood certainly gave Bradman a working over. I don't condone Bodyline and Larwood didn't get hm out everytime but he was the main aggressor and worked him over something rotten. The fact Bradman averaged 50-odd is more down to his pasting of the other bowlers. Larwood certainly got the better of him more times than the other way round (though granted, hard to dominate with a 7-2 leg side field).

Still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else has been so much better then anyone else at one point in time. You talk about Larwood getting the better of Bradman, despite Bradman averaging higher then Tendulkar's career average against him... what about McGrath's ownage of Tendulkar? McGrath got far better of Tendulkar then what Larwood did of Bradman. In Bradman's era, Tendulkar would've been as bout as successful as Walter Hammond. Both of whom, are very close in comparison, but both pale in comparison to Bradman.

No, he didn't. The depression was the same for every single person in that time (actually better for sportsmen). The added pressure of him being the most known sportsman isn't comparable to the mutli-billion business cricket is today- especially in India.

There's a huge difference between the social climate (which affects everyone) and the fishbowl surrounding a single person. There was nowhere near the amount of SPORTING pressure on Bradman.

I bet Sachin's life is better too, he drives a Ferrari, but again when he has bat in hand, he is under a microscope so intense you can see the bacteria growing on his skin.

Completely different kettle of fish.

Bradman was arguably the greatest sportsmen of alltime, Tendulkar was the best sportsmen in the history of India. Playing in the great depression, Bradman's batting brought happiness into many people's lives. Just became these people weren't psychotic like as some of the Indian fanbase, doesn't take away the pressures of living in the great depression and during the war. Bradman's ability to maintain an average of 100 is far more superior to the pressure that Tendulkar has had to carry and I'm sure Tendulkar would agree.

See a couple of posts below for statistical comparison (which doesn't say everything but says alot in this instance).

And btw, on form there is no better looking batsman than Tendulkar. Ponting- come off it. That's pure Australian bias, especially any drive.

Pietersen and Bopara are both classier looking players than Ponting too- and that isn't English bias.

Tendulkar >> Bopara >> Pietersen >> Ponting

in regards to the on drive (in terms of aesthetics).

You need to seriously open your eyes. Ponting has the best on-drive I've seen, but hell tons of players have played as graceful strokes as Tendulkar. Nothing seperates Tendulkar's gracefulness from anyone else. It's not as if Tendulkar plays graceful strokes that no one else is capable of being repeated by someone else because other batsman do play as graceful strokes, Tendulkar just plays them more often. It's pretty rich for you to be calling me bias when you claim Tendulkar to be better then Bradman.

Meaning what?

That the loss of 2 great bowlers meant Tendulkar benefitted by 3 runs per innings?

Surely that's natural?

But you can't compare Ponting's 54 in SA when he's batted against much lesser bowlers than Donald and Pollock to Sachin's 39 when he did.

Much lesser bowlers? You mean Pollock, Ntini and Steyn?

Much flatter now and there doesn't seem to be the amount of turn as there used to be. Some places still turn, but there are a lot of extremely flat batting wickets in India- mainly because of the ODI format being viewed as much more important than tests in the eyes of the BCCI.

Always still low and unfavourable for pace bowlers.

It's relevent when the team in question is India. 1 of the 3 biggest places to play for an international batsman.

If you're English, then Australia, West Indies and India were the bench marks.

South Africa, wasn't until the mid-90's (granted, not the fault of any of their players but it is what it is. I'm sure that would've changed with the Barlow-Richards-Pollock-Procter quartet in the 70's but history is history).

Ponting's miserable 20 means loads in comparisons between him and Tendulkar when Tendulkar averages over 50 in Australia.

The averages of the 2 players:

Tendulkar:
in Eng- 62 (22 Innings)
in Aus- 58.53 (30 Innings)
in WI- 47.69 (14 Innings)

Ponting:
in Eng- 42.63 (22 Innings)
in Ind- 20.85 (21 Innings)
in WI- 78 (33 Innings)- all coming post-Ambrose/Walsh dominance and batting 6th.

That statistical analysis is useless. You purposely didn't feature the South African stats because they proved you wrong and you made up some lame excuse to avoid the inevitiable. You talk about Ponting's failure in India and then you go and disclude South Africa, because "they weren't good enough" in the early 1990s in your books, even though in the early 1990's, Tendulkar averaged 25 in South Africa.

[MrIncredible]

Y has this topic turned into a Tendulkar vs debate.

Back on topic, if there was a batsman who I've seen who deserved a higher average than what he ended up with then it would be Martin Crowe and Aravinda Da Silva

[Shri]

In response to the thread title, Mohd. Azharuddin imo.

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Still doesn't take away from the fact that no one else has been so much better then anyone else at one point in time. You talk about Larwood getting the better of Bradman, despite Bradman averaging higher then Tendulkar's career average against him... what about McGrath's ownage of Tendulkar? McGrath got far better of Tendulkar then what Larwood did of Bradman. In Bradman's era, Tendulkar would've been as bout as successful as Walter Hammond. Both of whom, are very close in comparison, but both pale in comparison to Bradman.

Bradman didn't average 56 against Larwood, he averaged 56 in the whole series. Larwood averaged 19.5 in that series. He was by all accounts superb

Also, how can you assume 50+ back then is the equivalent to 50+ now.

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.

The 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.

Bradman was arguably the greatest sportsmen of alltime, Tendulkar was the best sportsmen in the history of India. Playing in the great depression, Bradman's batting brought happiness into many people's lives. Just became these people weren't psychotic like as some of the Indian fanbase, doesn't take away the pressures of living in the great depression and during the war. Bradman's ability to maintain an average of 100 is far more superior to the pressure that Tendulkar has had to carry and I'm sure Tendulkar would agree.

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.

You need to seriously open your eyes. Ponting has the best on-drive I've seen, but hell tons of players have played as graceful strokes as Tendulkar. Nothing seperates Tendulkar's gracefulness from anyone else. It's not as if Tendulkar plays graceful strokes that no one else is capable of being repeated by someone else because other batsman do play as graceful strokes, Tendulkar just plays them more often. It's pretty rich for you to be calling me bias when you claim Tendulkar to be better then Bradman.

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.

Much lesser bowlers? You mean Pollock, Ntini and Steyn?

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.

Always still low and unfavourable for pace bowlers.

Since when have India had an abundance of pacemen though?

For someone as great a player of spin as Tendulkar to also be great in swinging and seaming conditions says alot. Normally the 2 don't go hand in hand.

That statistical analysis is useless. You purposely didn't feature the South African stats because they proved you wrong and you made up some lame excuse to avoid the inevitiable. You talk about Ponting's failure in India and then you go and disclude South Africa, because "they weren't good enough" in the early 1990s in your books, even though in the early 1990's, Tendulkar averaged 25 in South Africa.

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.

Originally Posted by MrIncredible

Y has this topic turned into a Tendulkar vs debate.

Back on topic, if there was a batsman who I've seen who deserved a higher average than what he ended up with then it would be Martin Crowe and Aravinda Da Silva

Crowe was quality and classy. My type of batsman. He was great down the ground and leg side. Quality player. He would be lorded had he played for England or Australia. He was often a 1-man batting line up.

Originally Posted by metallics2006

In response to the thread title, Mohd. Azharuddin imo.

Yeah, fixing allegations aside he was a quality batsman. His conversion rate was superb. Definitely a 50 average batsman if Ponting and Kallis are imo.

[zaremba]

I don't want to get involved in this debate other than to say that Larwood wasn't the only great English bowler faced by Bradman - Tate and Verity and Bedser (and a young Jim Laker) were among others who he faced in Tests, and he scored lots of runs against them all.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It's interesting and I dunno if it stops at the Test side. MacGill was known as 'difficult' before he even played for WA. Personally, it's not so much the arrogance but the emotional outbursts. In a team culture that seems to prefer stoicism, people who outwardly express are in trouble. There's heaps of examples, really; the selection leniency shown towards Boon vs Dean Jones, Martyn being dropped after (really) one bad shot, Scott Muller, Zoehrer vs Healy, etc. Don't whine, keep your trap shut and you'll do well in Aussie.

Except Warne.

Warne always struck me as someone excellent at getting on the right side of people when he wanted to.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by rivera213

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.

He is though. No-one in the history of the game has come close to replicating what Bradman did.

Bradman took 80 Test innings to score all but 7,000 Test runs. Hammond is the fastest of all time to 7,000 runs, and it took him 131 innings. Tendulkar is 2nd on that all time list with 136 innings.

Bradman is one of only 3 batsmen in the history of the game to have scored 2 Test triple centuries in a career, is still miles out in front in terms of double hundreds scored with 12. In 2nd place is Brian Lara, who played almost 3 times the number of innings Bradman did, and made 9.

Looking at Bradman's First Class stats - Bradman has the highest all time career FC average (95) - well clear of 2nd placed Merchant on 71. Bradman also played 338 career FC innings and scored 117 hundreds, with 69 fifties. Again, no-one comes close to replicating those stats.

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.

Statistically speaking, Bradman is the greatest sportsman of all time. No-one in any other sport where talent can be reasonably measured statistically has been as dominant of his peers as Bradman has.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I don't want to get involved in this debate other than to say that Larwood wasn't the only great English bowler faced by Bradman - Tate and Verity and Bedser (and a young Jim Laker) were among others who he faced in Tests, and he scored lots of runs against them all.

I don't normally draw attention to this but in the interests of a balanced debate it's worth noting that Larwood got 4 wickets at 73 each in 1930 and picked up plenty of tap from Bradman along the way

[zaremba]

Apropos of nothing I wonder what Bradman would have achieved had he not been injured during England's 900 at the Oval in 1938. By the sound of it that was a road to end all roads on what was, IIRC, a timeless Test.

He might have got 1,000.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by rivera213

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.

Another way to look at it is to say that the 40 run difference is the same as the difference between Bradman and Hammond. Sounds flipping impossible, given that Hammond is by any reckoning an all-time great. And yet it happened; and Bradman and Hammond of course played in the same era and so their records can fairly be compared.