Best After The Don

[Coronis]

How do they expect me to take that article seriously when they say he's dominated to the extent Bradman has?

 

[Dan]

Just out of interest, here's some numbers for you (they don't mean anything, tbh).

Taking the career of Wally Hammond, he played 634 FC games. Taking an average of 4 days apiece (since there were obviously a mix in there), that equates to 2536 days on the cricket field. That's approximately 7 years on the field in a 26 year period (I've removed 5 years to account for the war). Not to mention travel and training.

Tendulkar has, so far, played 307 FC games. And 550 List A matches, and 81 T20s. That equates (taking a List A as 1 and T20 as half a day), to 1768 days on the park. That's just under 5 years in a 25 year period.

Obviously Hammond's number would be somewhat less than that (and Tendulkar's slightly higher given the proportion of Tests to FC games), but even accounting for that, Hammond played far more cricket than Tendulkar did.

Or take Frank Woolley even, 10.7 years on the field out of 32.
Jack Hobbs: 9 years in 29.
Wilfred Rhodes: around 12 years in 32 (9 years if you take 3 days as an FC match)

Once again, hardly accurate calculations, but it goes to show that schedules weren't necessarily "easy" back in the day. Cricket has always been demanding.

 

[Slifer]

If Sachin is the Bradman of this era, then what the hell are the batsmen like Lara, Kallis etc ?? Some of these men had similar records to Sachin and excelled in both formats as well. I guess they all must be better than Bradman as well. I'm just gonna be frank, ne one who thinks Sachin or Viv or whomever is remotely comparable to the Don aint got no sense !!!

 

[Satyanash89]

Awful article. Only biased or oblivious fools would say that Tendulkar has dominated the modern era like Bradman did.
Absolute tripe articles like these are the reason why some Indians keep bringing up that "Tendulkar played on 100 grounds, Bradman on 10" as if that's some reason to say that Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Who cares how many ****ing grounds they played in FFS, how is that relevant? Bradman was a mile ahead of the other great batsmen of his era, Tendulkar is NOT. What's relevant is the raw numbers which Bradman has, which are almost twice as good as Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis or any other great batsman of the modern era.

I just need to stop, was about to post a much longer rant but won't. What ****es me off the most is that those deluded people who believe Tendulkar is better than Bradman now have another stupid article which they can point to to back up their opinion. How cricinfo allowed such crap to be published I have no idea

 

[Red]

By Suresh Menon

All things considered - longevity, domination in more than one format, stamp on more grounds in more countries around the world, pressures of travel and media - there is an argument for placing Sachin Tendulkar above Don Bradman in the pantheon. Bradman played 52 international matches over 20 years, at an average of 2.6 matches per year. Tendulkar's combined total of 662 international matches in 25 years means he has played an average of 26.5 matches annually. While Bradman played on just ten grounds in two countries, Tendulkar has played on 105 grounds in 16 countries. As CLR James said in another context, "You need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them."...........

Bradman retired in 1948. Sixty-five years later, the game has changed so much that it is difficult to believe a single player can dominate it to quite the extent he did. Yet, Tendulkar, in a career spanning nearly a quarter of a century has done exactly that. He is the don of the post-Bradman era.

 

[harsh.ag]

If Sachin is the Bradman of this era, then what the hell are the batsmen like Lara, Kallis etc ?? Some of these men had similar records to Sachin and excelled in both formats as well. I guess they all must be better than Bradman as well. I'm just gonna be frank, ne one who thinks Sachin or Viv or whomever is remotely comparable to the Don ain't got no sense !!!

Completely agree with you. But I have one thing to add, which we might want to argue on. When we talk about "Sachin's era", I don't think we can put any other batsman in that. Lara followed him till 2004, and Ponting, Dravid and Kallis have followed him since 2001 approx, but there is nobody who has any claim for dominance in the Tendulkar era, i.e. 1992-2013 apart from him. And as good as Lara and Ponting's claims are in the ODI format, Sachin is unparalleled. Only Viv was better.

Awful article. Only biased or oblivious fools would say that Tendulkar has dominated the modern era like Bradman did.
Absolute tripe articles like these are the reason why some Indians keep bringing up that "Tendulkar played on 100 grounds, Bradman on 10" as if that's some reason to say that Tendulkar is better than Bradman. Who cares how many ****ing grounds they played in FFS, how is that relevant? Bradman was a mile ahead of the other great batsmen of his era, Tendulkar is NOT. What's relevant is the raw numbers which Bradman has, which are almost twice as good as Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis or any other great batsman of the modern era.

I just need to stop, was about to post a much longer rant but won't. What ****es me off the most is that those deluded people who believe Tendulkar is better than Bradman now have another stupid article which they can point to to back up their opinion. How cricinfo allowed such crap to be published I have no idea

Right on.

 

[Red]

That's the worst opinion piece I've ever read on cricinfo, and the editors should be ashamed it was published.

 

[harsh.ag]

That's the worst opinion piece I've ever read on cricinfo, and the editors should be ashamed it was published.

Although I agree with you, I don't think the editors had a choice, since they must have invited a panel of writers to contribute to this new section "The Best After Don", and since it was on invitation, they couldn't reject it. Something like that. Plus he does admit later in the article that "99.94" is a conversation stopper. Though it is a truly terrible way of putting it, rather as a drag, than a celebratory thing.

 

[kyear2]

Yea, thats the kind of article that spurs the Sachin fanboyism on the internet that in turn, unfortunately initiates the Sachin hate, which unfortunately he is not responsible for.

It is unreasonable for anyone to try to suggest that anyone is legitimately better than Bradman especially considering the anticipated response and backlash that it would create.

Yea, Cricinfo really should have thought this one through.

 

[archie mac]

Thank you. It is becoming impossible to be a Tendulkar supporter on this forum without being dragged into something or the other.

I have a request. When you try to make any point about Bradman regarding modern comparisons, please just make it with Lara, Ponting or Kallis. Even bringing SRT's name forward (even if it comes naturally to your mind because you might consider him the foremost modern batsman) results in a barrage of SRT hate (and the thing is, it will only be SRT hate; it will not be Lara or Kallis hate even if their names are mentioned with SRT). Just don't use his name. Its better that way. The debates are healthier, more focussed, and we don't end up insulting a great.

SRT fans bring this on themselves, with their silly arguments. I don't see anyone on here writing SRT is anything other than an all time great

Yea, thats the kind of article that spurs the Sachin fanboyism on the internet that in turn, unfortunately initiates the Sachin hate, which unfortunately he is not responsible for.



It is unreasonable for anyone to try to suggest that anyone is legitimately better than Bradman especially considering the anticipated response and backlash that it would create.

Yea, Cricinfo really should have thought this one through.

Very true Sachin just plays great cricket, I am sure he would never claim to be the equal of the Don.

Agree Cricinfo should not publish this sort of tripe

 

[watson]

Realistically though, what are the Cricinfo people supposed to do?

To ask a respected cricket journalist for an opinion piece, get the opinion piece, and then tell the journalist to shove it means that Cricinfo ends up looking like the Thought Police. That's a bit Kim Jon-un for mine?

 

[Ikki]

If Sachin is the Bradman of this era, then what the hell are the batsmen like Lara, Kallis etc ?? Some of these men had similar records to Sachin and excelled in both formats as well. I guess they all must be better than Bradman as well. I'm just gonna be frank, ne one who thinks Sachin or Viv or whomever is remotely comparable to the Don aint got no sense !!!

And yet this is the line that has been consistently pushed in the last few years on sites like Cricinfo. They should be ashamed to even post such non-sense. The way they talk about Tendulkar as the clear #2 in itself is pretty ridiculous...now he is the Bradman of his own era?

 

[sledger]

Not even the Bradman of his own side.

 

[Jono]

Not even the Bradman of his own side.

You're right about that:

 

[sledger]

 

[Jono]

dem eyebrows.

 

[ankitj]

And yet this is the line that has been consistently pushed in the last few years on sites like Cricinfo.

That's plain wrong. This opinion of a journalist aside, nowhere have cricinfo endorsed Tendulkar equal or better than Bradman view in their editorials. Not on Tendulkar profile page, not in the ESPNCricinfo all time XI series, not in the ESPN legends of cricket series, nowhere. That's why cricinfo remains a more respectable site.

 

[kyear2]

Not meant to be inflamatory, but looking at Ikki's signature why are those comments not seen as equally rediculous specifically Haigh's and Botham's?

 

[Satyanash89]

Not meant to be inflamatory, but looking at Ikki's signature why are those comments not seen as equally rediculous specifically Haigh's and Botham's?

Good point

 

[smash84]

Not meant to be inflamatory, but looking at Ikki's signature why are those comments not seen as equally rediculous specifically Haigh's and Botham's?