Best After The Don

[Coronis]

What could Bradman have done differently? Be born in a different era?

 

[watson]

What could Bradman have done differently? Be born in a different era?

Obviously not.

 

[Victor Ian]

Bradman's average is about 1.67 times better than the next best (I think a few got 60ish)
So the be as great, based on career length, Tendulkar should play 1.67*168 = 280 odd tests. (I think S.Waugh and Ponting had 168)
Or have a career year span of 1.67*20=33 odd years. (Didn't a few codgers have 20 year spans? Didn't Hobbs have 40?)

 

[Red]

Mike Coward makes some very good points IMO;

For all his greatness and his mind-numbing average of 99.94...BLAH BLAH BLAH

As soon as I read something like that, I tune out. Bradman averaged 100 FFS. Tendulkar averages 54 (which Coward says is "imposing"). BUT BRADMAN AVERAGED 100. Tendulkar didn't. It doesn't matter if Tendulkar played on 5000 different grounds over 80 years and played 1000 tests, his average is NOT really imposing at 54. Hammond, Chappell, Waugh, Weekes, Walcott, Lara, Viv etc etc all average THE SAME AS TENDULKAR.


Bradman is **** loads better than everyone else. Then you can argue for second. But seriously, I'm so sick of people trying to explain away Bradman's average by saying he only played in Eng and Aust blah blah blah. HE AVERAGED 100!!!!

And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.


*sorry about the caps. Got my Danny Katz on.

 

[the big bambino]

I respect Coward's nomination as SRT is definately a contender imo. But thats about as much as I can say I respect about Coward. Frankly I cant shake the suspicion he is a lickspittle and would write a piece praising the humanity of Mao if cricket was run by the Chinese. Quite often you find with people who ask the rest of us to embrace the new world order is to accept its own iniquities without question. In this case SRT's candidature is authentic even though it is put forward by someone who doesn't mind writing to please his master and audience.

 

[Satyanash89]

Tendulkar is a very worthy contender for the No.2 spot but that article didn't do a good job of explaining why imo.

 

[Satyanash89]

As soon as I read something like that, I tune out. Bradman averaged 100 FFS. Tendulkar averages 54 (which Coward says is "imposing"). BUT BRADMAN AVERAGED 100. Tendulkar didn't. It doesn't matter if Tendulkar player on 5000 different grounds over 80 years and played 1000 tests, his average is NOT really imposing at 54. Hammond, Chappell, Waugh, Weekes, Walcott, Lara, Viv etc etc all average THE SAME AS TENDULKAR.


Bradman is **** loads better than everyone else. Then you can argue for second. But seriously, I'm so sick of people trying to explain away Bradman's average by saying he only played in Eng and Aust blah blah blah. HE AVERAGED 100!!!!

And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.


*sorry about the caps. Got my Danny Katz on.

To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman. It's a series of articles to make a case for the second best AFTER bradman. He simply was pointing out Tendulkar's workload in the modern era and variety of opposition and conditions he faced, which is a fair point but not unique to him, as other greats like Lara, Ponting , Kallis faced the same conditions.
The fact that Tendulkar's resume is almost completely spotless is a very good point imo. He averages 40+ against every country in every country over 24 years, which I find absolutely remarkable. He can attack and defend equally effectively, has played several great counterattacking knocks as well as some great rearguards and superb defensive innings, plus he looks a million bucks while doing it.

 

[harsh.ag]

To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman. It's a series of articles to make a case for the second best AFTER bradman. He simply was pointing out Tendulkar's workload in the modern era and variety of opposition and conditions he faced, which is a fair point but not unique to him, as other greats like Lara, Ponting , Kallis faced the same conditions.
The fact that Tendulkar's resume is almost completely spotless is a very good point imo. He averages 40+ against every country in every country over 24 years, which I find absolutely remarkable. He can attack and defend equally effectively, has played several great counterattacking knocks as well as some great rearguards and superb defensive innings, plus he looks a million bucks while doing it.

As much as I hate to be seen as a Sachin fan boy, I completely agree with the above, and have a slight problem with Monk's assertion that Tendulkar is not guaranteed a place in the top 5. If Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, George Headley, Walter Hammond, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards and Brian Lara are considered to be in the top 5, then Sachin has to be there. I am sorry. This is as unflattering as people saying Bradman wasn't all that good. I am pretty sure Bradman wasn't as pretty to look at as Lara or Sobers either. Most accounts of his batting point to that. And it's not because of BCCI (not saying this for monk, just to be clear).

 

[Satyanash89]

And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.

Apart from Bradman at No.1, no one is guaranteed a spot

 

[Red]

To be fair to Coward, nowhere in his article did he say Tendulkar was better than Bradman.

I know. However, he did assert that Bradman's 99.94 average is less valuable than it would seem because it was apparently made in less arduous conditions than Tendulkar's "imposing" average of 54. That word (imposing) in Coward's article really ****s me, along with his swipe at Bradman's average..."it must be remember that Bradman played..."

As much as I hate to be seen as a Sachin fan boy, I completely agree with the above, and have a slight problem with Monk's assertion that Tendulkar is not guaranteed a place in the top 5. If Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, George Headley, Walter Hammond, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards and Brian Lara are considered to be in the top 5, then Sachin has to be there. I am sorry.

Mathematics suggests otherwise. 9 don't fit in to 5.

 

[harsh.ag]

Mathematics suggests otherwise. 9 don't fit in to 5.

True

 

[watson]

As soon as I read something like that, I tune out. Bradman averaged 100 FFS. Tendulkar averages 54 (which Coward says is "imposing"). BUT BRADMAN AVERAGED 100. Tendulkar didn't. It doesn't matter if Tendulkar played on 5000 different grounds over 80 years and played 1000 tests, his average is NOT really imposing at 54. Hammond, Chappell, Waugh, Weekes, Walcott, Lara, Viv etc etc all average THE SAME AS TENDULKAR.


Bradman is **** loads better than everyone else. Then you can argue for second. But seriously, I'm so sick of people trying to explain away Bradman's average by saying he only played in Eng and Aust blah blah blah. HE AVERAGED 100!!!!

And Tendulkar is not even guaranteed a spot in the top 5 batsmen all time imo.


*sorry about the caps. Got my Danny Katz on.

Batting averages are relative to each other. They are not absolute numbers in their own right because each score made by a batsman has a context.

The simple fact is, Tendulakar's imposing and difficult schedule adds extra value to the runs he scored relative to Bradman's less imposing and less difficult schedule. Hence, their gap in averages DOES close. It HAS to, but by much I couldn't say. That's up to the experts.

This is sort of relative thinking is not unsual. For example, most historians would agree that the 80 runs (Jo'burg 1953) made by Bert Sutcliffe after he had been badly wounded by an Adcock bouncer on a terrible pitch is one of cricket's greatest innings. In other words, those 80 runs have more intrinsic value than 160 runs (double) made against mediocre bowling on a 'featherbed'.

Averages aren't everything, and they only tell a partial story.

 

[Red]

Batting averages are relative to each other. They are not absolute numbers in their own right because each score made by a batsman has a context.

The simple fact is, Tendulakar's imposing and difficult schedule adds extra value to the runs he scored relative to Bradman's less imposing and less difficult schedule. Hence, their gap in averages DOES close. It HAS to, but by much I couldn't say. That's up to the experts.

Bradman averaged 99. The next best batsman of his era averaged 58 (Hammond).

Tendulkar averages 54. The other two great batsmen of his era average 52 and 56 (Lara and Kallis).


Seriously, enough with the crap trying to find ways to denigrate Bradman and boost Tendulkar. Tendulkar probably isn't even the best batsman of his generation. Tendulkar's "imposing" and "difficult" schedule is no different to any other modern batsman, and some of them have been arguably better than him. No one was even close to being arguably as good as Bradman in his era.

 

[harsh.ag]

Tendulkar averages 54. The other two great batsmen of his era average 52 and 56 (Lara and Kallis).

Love how you so effortlessly erased Ponting from the narrative

 

[Red]

Love how you so effortlessly erased Ponting from the narrative

Would've included Waugh and Ponting, but didn't want to be seen as jingoistic!


Could have also included Sangakkara, Dravid and Inzy as batsman who are arguably better than (or as good as) Tendulkar in this era.

 

[Satyanash89]

Bradman averaged 99. The next best batsman of his era averaged 58 (Hammond).

Tendulkar averages 54. The other two great batsmen of his era average 52 and 56 (Lara and Kallis).


Seriously, enough with the crap trying to find ways to denigrate Bradman and boost Tendulkar. Tendulkar probably isn't even the best batsman of his generation. Tendulkar's "imposing" and "difficult" schedule is no different to any other modern batsman, and some of them have been arguably better than him. No one was even close to being arguably as good as Bradman in his era.

Probably missing the point here. He didn't say the imposing and difficult schedule is exclusive to Tendulkar. All modern batsmen have that problem. I don't think he was trying to "denigrate" Bradman and "boost" Tendulkar at all. Just adding a bit of perspective by saying modern cricketers' schedules are more demanding, and they are... that's just a fact. Hell, I picked Bradman as the greatest cricketer in that poll and have defended his record against people who won't admit he was far ahead of the rest of the pack... but schedule wise, players of old certainly had it a tad easier.
That doesn't change the fact that Bradman was the greatest by a country mile.

 

[Satyanash89]

Could have also included Sangakkara, Dravid and Inzy as batsman who are arguably better than (or as good as) Tendulkar in this era.

Surely those three are a good distance behind Tendulkar .
Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis lead the generation with the rest a tier below in my opinion

 

[watson]

About the only thing that I can say at this point is that we can be reasonably certain that Bradman could not maintain his 100 average if he had to duplicate Tendulkar's schedule. To do so would be beyond normal human endurance - both physical and mental;

At the time of writing Tendulkar is in his 24th year in the international arena and had played 198 Test matches on 59 Test match grounds in 14 countries, if you respect the sovereignty of the constituents of the West Indies Cricket Board. He has complemented this with 463 one-day internationals and captivated crowds everywhere with 100 international hundreds and an imposing Test average of 53.86.

But by the same token, I believe that Hammond could replicate his average of 50 something if he followed in Tendulkar's footsteps. Maintaining an average of 50 is one thing, doubling it, then keeping it there is a completely different thing in the long-haul.

Indeed, it could be that an average of 50-60 is the absolute ceiling in a modern setting no matter how brilliant the batsman. And the only time that anyone is going to get close to Bradman's average ever again is if cricketing conditions return to the 1930s. Then the Tendulkar's, Lara's, and Pontings of this world might have a sporting chance

 

[Red]

Probably missing the point here. He didn't say the imposing and difficult schedule is exclusive to Tendulkar. All modern batsmen have that problem. I don't think he was trying to "denigrate" Bradman and "boost" Tendulkar at all.

I think that was his intention actually. Specifically. He pointed out the things that detract from Bradman's legacy, and pointed out the things that boost Tendulkar's legacy.

Just adding a bit of perspective by saying modern cricketers' schedules are more demanding, and they are... that's just a fact. Hell, I picked Bradman as the greatest cricketer in that poll and have defended his record against people who won't admit he was far ahead of the rest of the pack... but schedule wise, players of old certainly had it a tad easier.
That doesn't change the fact that Bradman was the greatest by a country mile.

Saying modern cricketers schedules are "more demanding" is such a load of **** imo. Modern cricketers are pampered beyond belief (dieticians, physios, masseuses, psychologists, personal coaches, massive wages), they play cricket for very few actual days of the year, they fly to their destinations in 1st class planes, they fly out again once the game is done, they stay in 1st class accomodation, they don't have to work "real" jobs.

Cricketers in Bradman's era had to earn a wage outside of cricket, had to travel for months by boat to get to England, away from family and friends for months and months (no Watson little flight home for tanty/baby reasons) had to go to a **** load of social engagements and other crap for free, were paid next to nothing to play cricket, had to play heaps more tour matches, nearly died from appendicitis, etc etc.

Really, the modern cricketers schedule is NOT more gruelling than a cricketer in Bradman's era.

 

[Red]

About the only thing that I can say at this point is that we can be reasonably certain that Bradman could not maintain his 100 average if he had to duplicate Tendulkar's schedule. To do so would be beyond normal human endurance - both physical and mental;

But by the same token, I believe that Hammond could replicate his average of 50 something if he followed in Tendulkar's footsteps. Maintaining an average of 50 is one thing, doubling it, then keeping it there is a completely different thing in the long-haul.

Indeed, it could be that an average of 50-60 is the absolute ceiling in a modern setting no matter how brilliant the batsman. And the only time that anyone is going to get close to Bradman's average ever again is if cricketing conditions return to the 1930s. Then the Tendulkar's, Lara's, and Pontings of this world might have a sporting chance

None of this makes any sense to me.