The stats do not do him justice!

[pako007]

ok my post above was off topic tbf. now about the topic. i think those players are:

Imran Nazir: 1 of the most gifted openers of the game.

Basit Ali: Great Batsman not that great of stats, also didn`t get the chance 100+ vs windies was memorable.

Saqlain Mushtaq: Wizard of off-spin inventor of the doosra even the teesra, a genius for sure, his strike rate is too high for his quality same for the average.

Vinod Kambli: in his days i rate him one of the most stylish batsman of all time, great talent went for waste.

Sourav Ganguly: averages only 40+ in tests he is far better than that.

Paul Harris: crap record, but always picks up the wickets of the players with big names.

Dilhara Fernando: i really like this bowler as a test bowler, but not the records to show.



this is my list love to hear you reactions

 

[zaremba]

he played a lot of matches against england same sort of bowling everytime he didn`t face bowlers like jeff thompson, curtley ambrose, shoaib akhtar, mendis, murali, etc.

Well the England teams he played against did contain some of the finest bowlers in the game's history: Larwood, Tate, Bedser, Voce, Verity, Laker; and he faced some pretty handy bowlers in domestic first-class cricket in Australia, in which he also averaged over 90.

It's obviously very hard to compare across eras obviously but, make no mistake, these were great bowlers.

 

[pako007]

Wow im new to this site but already i see craziness abounds. Much respect to Sachin Tendulkar but he is no where near to Bradman. I cant think of a significant accomplishment that Tendulkar has achieved that couldnt be easily emulated and surpassed by Bradman and many other batsmen tbh. Do people realise that Bradman averaged 56 in the bodyline series designed specifically to counter his domination? Im not going to delude myself, I accept that teams like India, WI and South Africa of his times were rubbish but they werent any worse than the Zimbabwes and Bangladeshes of these times that Tendulkar has 'cashed' in on. Wow Tendulkar> Bradman LOL.

Tendulkar averages 137 against bangladesh... and about 80 against Zimbabwe and believe me the teams of bangladesh and zimbabwe are much better then the south africa england etc. of that time. it is like tendulkar playing against my team, he will score 500 evry match. but it is near to impossible to flawlessly deal with a swinging ball at 140-150 kmph i dont think Bradman had ever to face that challenge that tendulkar had to face quite regularly. i think he got lucky to be playing in that era, in this era he might be some1 like michael clarke or ian bell.

 

[zaremba]

believe me the teams of bangladesh and zimbabwe are much better then the south africa england etc. of that time.

If you think that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of today are much better than England in the 1920s to the 1940s, you might want to read up on some cricket history. Have a look on cricinfo at the bowlers I mentioned in my previous post and you might change your opinion.

 

[MrIncredible]

But Tendulkar hasnt even scored 250 in test cricket against ne one, how on earth is he goin to score 500?? And Tendulkar was hardly successful against the best attacks of his time.

 

[pako007]

i actually think zim and ban are better, they are far superior in level like say evry aspect of the game the coaching and fielding in particular. you cant compare it i heard that bradman was dropped a lot in the field etc. so the fielding wasn`t very special it was highly unproffesional. the level of cricket is far superior to what it was with camera footages coaches everything. i would like to see Bradman face a say dale steyn or shoaib akhtar at best on a green pitch and let him make 300 good luck sir don.

 

[pako007]

But Tendulkar hasnt even scored 250 in test cricket against ne one, how on earth is he goin to score 500?? And Tendulkar was hardly successful against the best attacks of his time.

that doesn`t say **** the best of tendulkars time and bradmans time is a mile of a difference

 

[MrIncredible]

I know a WUM when i see one and u my friend r definitely one. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe better than England of Bradmans time?? Seriously I thought this site was full of posters who had well thought out arguments but wow!!!

 

[zaremba]

i actually think zim and ban are better, they are far superior in level like say evry aspect of the game the coaching and fielding in particular. you cant compare it i heard that bradman was dropped a lot in the field etc. so the fielding wasn`t very special it was highly unproffesional. the level of cricket is far superior to what it was with camera footages coaches everything. i would like to see Bradman face a say dale steyn or shoaib akhtar at best on a green pitch and let him make 300 good luck sir don.

It looks like it's pako007 and rivera213 in one camp here, everyone else in the other.

 

[Luffers]

Mike Gatting, averaged 35 in tests. This doesn't do him justice, he was far better than that. He had a poor start to his Test career but rapidly improved after 20-30 tests.

 

[Jamee999]

It looks like it's pako007 and rivera213 in one camp here, everyone else in the other.

Don't rule out the possibility that every other cricket follower is a moron instead.

 

[pako007]

do notice i am a pakistani fan, and i do by no means support indian cricket players but i just have to say what i said, great journalist and experts agree with this opinion.

 

[zaremba]

great journalist and experts agree with this opinion.

Yep. You and rivera213.

And tbf I don't think that even rivera213 would try to claim that England of the '20s - '40s was far worse than Bangladesh or Zimbabwe are today.

 

[Burgey]

i actually think zim and ban are better, they are far superior in level like say evry aspect of the game the coaching and fielding in particular. you cant compare it i heard that bradman was dropped a lot in the field etc. so the fielding wasn`t very special it was highly unproffesional. the level of cricket is far superior to what it was with camera footages coaches everything. i would like to see Bradman face a say dale steyn or shoaib akhtar at best on a green pitch and let him make 300 good luck sir don.

You're right of course, because if Bradman had modern training/ nutrition etc he wouldn't improve at all, would he?
As for your 300 vs Steyn or whoever, I don't see Tendulkar as having scored that many either.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, but I'm afraid yours suggests your head is up your own arse on this issue.

Bradman himself said he saw a lot of players who were better than him, but they just kept getting out. Tendulkar and myriad other great players may well fall into this category.

 

[Swervy]

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.

This might inspire me to start posting on here again. Superb

 

[MrIncredible]

I can understand Rivera's argument to a point because i myself have wondered similar things about BRadman. Definitely the South African , Indian, and West Indian bowlig attacks of Bradmans time were poor. Also Bradman never faced any of these poor teams away. Actually in retrospect Rivera's point might not be that far fetched when we also consider that the best bowling attack of the time were Bradmans teammates. But then Bradman was just so far ahead of his peers and no one has come with in striking distance of not just his average but his century to matches ratio, doubles to matches ratio, number of 500 series, his 974 run series etc.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!

Fair enough comment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and IMO, Bell is a really watchable player when batting well.

 

[Matt79]

Tendulkar flatters to deceive though. When you watch him in full flight it seems as though he will never, ever get out, when the fact is he gets out once for about every fifty runs he scores. Your eyes tell you one thing but the facts say another.

Important to note that averages aren't a measure of how good someone is, that's much too abstract to assign a number to. They're a measure of how many runs he scores for every time he gets out. Against good teams, against bad teams, in easy conditions or hard conditions, his average is the mathematical sum of all of his performances. I don't really see how it can fail to do him justice.

Uppercut explains my point in this thread, using one third of the words, for thrice the effect. WAG.

 

[Sanz]

Tendulkar averages 137 against bangladesh... and about 80 against Zimbabwe and believe me the teams of bangladesh and zimbabwe are much better then the south africa england etc. of that time. it is like tendulkar playing against my team, he will score 500 evry match. but it is near to impossible to flawlessly deal with a swinging ball at 140-150 kmph i dont think Bradman had ever to face that challenge that tendulkar had to face quite regularly. i think he got lucky to be playing in that era, in this era he might be some1 like michael clarke or ian bell.

This is just plain idiocy. Go Away.

 

[Top_Cat]

Precam, you can't make a completely unfounded claim then respond to my counter-claim asking for proof.

"Madness? THIS IS CRICKET WEEEEEEEEEB!"

*kicks Uppercut onto a steaming pile of pure mass-debate*