Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

[Tendulkar_200*]

Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time. In Bradman's era there was no video analysis technology, the umpiring was poor, the sport was not professional. Therefore he faced little challenge. In fact in this era his average would be below 60 for sure. Who knows he may have been "found out" and his average could be very low.

 

[fredfertang]

Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time. In Bradman's era there was no video analysis technology, the umpiring was poor, the sport was not professional. Therefore he faced little challenge. In fact in this era his average would be below 60 for sure. Who knows he may have been "found out" and his average could be very low.

What's the secret?

 

[Tendulkar_200*]

It's no big secret because he didn't face supremely talented bowlers that have appeared after the game became professional. Nor did he face mystery bowlers or bat on all surfaces.

He mainly played against one country too, that also when the sport was very much in it's infancy. He was never analysed the way modern players were.

Too small a sample. If anyone thinks he would average close to a ton in this era, they are deluded.

Tendulkar is called God of cricket the way Michael Jordan was described by a fellow player as God disguised as Jordan. Such level of talent is very rare.

 

[Viscount Tom]

You can't use the video analysis argument and then call bowlers 'mystery bowlers' in the modern era. Uncovered pitches mean there was a large vriety of surfaces on which he played.

Larwood was a better bowler than most of the ones Tendulkar played against not to mention bowlers like Verity and Bedser.

Cricketwasn't in its infancy, test criket had been going on for some time.

He's called the god of cricket because he's good at the game and has a massive fan base its nothing to do with him being the best ever batsman because quite clearly he isn't.

 

[Tendulkar_200*]

You can't use the video analysis argument and then call bowlers 'mystery bowlers' in the modern era.

I can actually. If mystery bowlers persist in this era to a smaller extent, how would things have been then?

Uncovered pitches mean there was a large vriety of surfaces on which he played.

Nope. Doesn't account whatsoever for the pitches now.

Larwood was a better bowler than most of the ones Tendulkar played against not to mention bowlers like Verity and Bedser.

Wrong again. Can't say for certainty. Tendulkar has faced some all time greats in the 90's on challenging pitches.

Cricket wasn't in its infancy, test cricket had been going on for some time.

Nope, it was FAR from professional.

He's called the god of cricket because he's good at the game and has a massive fan base its nothing to do with him being the best ever batsman because quite clearly he isn't.

Your argument of the Don is like saying Sehwag is the best for what he averaged against a couple of nations. Sehwag may be one of the best openers but best batsman belongs to Tendulkar. He is proficient with all shots on all surfaces against all bowlers with no obvious flaw. His longevity is also a sign of greatness and he was never "found out" until his own skills diminished due to age/injuries.

Again, if you think Bradman would average 100 in this era, fair enough!

 

[marc71178]

So if Tendulkar is so good, tell me why there are others in his own era who average more?

 

[Tendulkar_200*]

So if Tendulkar is so good, tell me why there are others in his own era who average more?

Look how many games he has played spanning how many years. He has an excellent record everywhere pretty much. That is despite having a weak team in the 90's and little practise of overseas pitches. He was averaging close to 60 and now he is decline for sure due to waning powers.

A lot of other players are flat track bullys. Or players who only do good in home conditions and not in the subcontinent. Others are ultra defensive such as Kallis, Dravid, Border, S Waugh. Tendulkar is more naturally gifted and you can see that in the shots he played and the fact he dominates all formats. He can adapt his skills for any situation, any format. If T20 had been around in his prime, he would have dominated this too.

For me only Lara comes close but he wasn't world class in ODI's. I didn't see Viv Richards. Ponting is a little behind.

Also 100 100's-some achievement.

 

[Viscount Tom]

I can actually. If mystery bowlers persist in this era to a smaller extent, how would things have been then?

Still mystery bowlers then which is the opposite of what your line or argument was.

Nope. Doesn't account whatsoever for the pitches now.

I wasn't aware you were a pitch curator when Bradman played care to elaborate or try to validate this opinion of yours.

Wrong again. Can't say for certainty. Tendulkar has faced some all time greats in the 90's on challenging pitches.

And Bradman faced some of the great bowlers of his day on challenging pitches so your just as wrong if your going by that argument.

Nope, it was FAR from professional.

What does that have to do with what I put. I'll answer that for you. Nothing.

Your argument of the Don is like saying Sehwag is the best for what he averaged against a couple of nations. Sehwag may be one of the best openers but best batsman belongs to Tendulkar. He is proficient with all shots on all surfaces against all bowlers with no obvious flaw. His longevity is also a sign of greatness and he was never "found out" until his own skills diminished due to age/injuries.

Again, if you think Bradman would average 100 in this era, fair enough!

So what's Bradman's obvious flaw.
You can't use longevity as a valid argument in these circumstances.

Sehwag isn't one of the best openers.

 

[centurymaker]

So if Tendulkar is so good, tell me why there are others in his own era who average more?

Tbh, thats only because tendulkar has now played a ridiculous amount of games so naturally his average has come down. He's just played on despite having diminished considerably in all facets.

As for Bradman, you can't compare him across eras. The best you can do is say that he was almost twice as good as his contemporaries.

 

[akilana]

Tbh, thats only because tendulkar has now played a ridiculous amount of games so naturally his average has come down. He's just played on despite having diminished considerably in all facets.

As for Bradman, you can't compare him across eras. The best you can do is say that he was almost twice as good as his contemporaries.

Your first point makes no sense.

 

[centurymaker]

Maybe you need to think a little to understand it.

I am not saying that having a better avg makes anyone better, just why his avg is now lower.

 

[Red]

It's no big secret because he didn't face supremely talented bowlers that have appeared after the game became professional. Nor did he face mystery bowlers or bat on all surfaces.

He mainly played against one country too, that also when the sport was very much in it's infancy. He was never analysed the way modern players were.

Too small a sample. If anyone thinks he would average close to a ton in this era, they are deluded.

Tendulkar is called God of cricket the way Michael Jordan was described by a fellow player as God disguised as Jordan. Such level of talent is very rare.

Do you realise that stuff like this makes people (non Indian fanbois) dislike Tendulkar a lot?

Tendulkar is a great batsman. But I throw up in my mouth every time someone starts banging on like this.

In actual fact, I think there are a lot of reasons to say ST is the second/third/fourth best batsman ever, but my natural reaction to him is repulsion because of the way Indian fans carry on about him.

 

[centurymaker]

Do you realise that stuff like this makes people (non Indian fanbois) dislike Tendulkar a lot?

Tendulkar is a great batsman. But I throw up in my mouth every time someone starts banging on like this.

In actual fact, I think there are a lot of reasons to say ST is the second/third/fourth best batsman ever, but my natural reaction to him is repulsion because of the way Indian fans carry on about him.

Why does this bother you and so many others? If they have got an IDOL then why should you despise that? If they think he's the best ever, then that's their opinion.

 

[centurymaker]

Need to try to see things from other people's perspective. All these fans have probably only grown up constantly hearing about the greatness of tendulkar year after year and him breaking records after another. Therefore they only see him as the best. You know, it's quite understandable why they are the way they are.

I don't know why Jono has a huge crush on Kohli though :P Can Jono or someone else explain that to me. How did he develop such a strong liking for Kohli?

 

[Red]

Why does this bother you and so many others? If they have got an IDOL then why should you despise that? If they think he's the best ever, then that's their opinion.

It's fine to have an opinion. It ****s some people when that opinion constantly blathered on about on every cricket forum online ad nauseum by a billion people who will jump at every opportunity to say why Bradman wasn't that great, but neglect to answer why Tendulkar doesn't have double the average of the other great players of his time.

 

[centurymaker]

You know most of those fans are just Teens, take it easy.

Anyone saying Bradman is the best or isn't doesn't change anything. Those are just opinions. The fact is he avg'd 99.

 

[Tendulkar_200*]

You know most of those fans are just Teens, take it easy.

Anyone saying Bradman is the best or isn't doesn't change anything. Those are just opinions. The fact is he avg'd 99.

Actually I have been watching since 97. Doesn't matter what Bradman averaged in that era tbh. What would he average now? Certainly half that, maybe even less.

 

[watson]

Actually I have been watching since 97. Doesn't matter what Bradman averaged in that era tbh. What would he average now? Certainly half that, maybe even less.

I think that we have sufficiently covered that ground.

 

[watson]

It's fine to have an opinion. It ****s some people when that opinion constantly blathered on about on every cricket forum online ad nauseum by a billion people who will jump at every opportunity to say why Bradman wasn't that great, but neglect to answer why Tendulkar doesn't have double the average of the other great players of his time.

When we deal with Tendulkar or Bradman (and Larwood for that matter) we are not really dealing with facts and figures, but rather we are dealing with mythology and some kind of 'religious experience'. So it really doesn't matter about how many runs or wickets they have chalked-up, it's more about the emotional affiliation the individual has with their 'demigod'. And you can't rationalise that using a textbook, you just have to accept it as it is.

 

[Red]

When we deal with Tendulkar or Bradman (and Larwood for that matter) we are not really dealing with facts and figures, but rather we are dealing with mythology and some kind of 'religious experience'. So it really doesn't matter about how many runs or wickets they have chalked-up, it's more about the emotional affiliation the individual has with their 'demigod'. And you can't rationalise that using a textbook, you just have to accept it as it is.

I'm not dealing with mythology or religious experience. At all. Bradman is the best. End of story. Tendulkar is an exceptional batsman, but there are about 20 other batsmen that are on par with him throughout cricket history. There is no one on par with Bradman.