Extras September 3, 2008

Why Kumar doesn't worship the Don

From Suresh Kumar, India Today we have been finding lot of write ups and comments on the greatness of Sir Don Bradman's batsmanship, but with all due respects to the great Sir Don Bradman, I would like to know how a batsman who has not played in

From Suresh Kumar, India
Today we have been finding lot of write ups and comments on the greatness of Sir Don Bradman's batsmanship, but with all due respects to the great Sir Don Bradman, I would like to know how a batsman who has not played in any places other than Australia and England can become all time great batsman?

Can a batsman become all time great without facing a quality spin attack in the sub-continent and without playing on those bouncy tracks in West Indies. If you look at in the modern day's cricket you find one batsman who has done all that which Sir Don Bradman could not been able to do is Sachin Tendulkar, but for dubious finger works by umpires like Darrel Hair and Steve Bucknor, Sachin's average would have been much more better.

Today you have television replays which enable the opposition to do a SWOT analysis of the batsman and more than once the opposition teams have used these replays to get Sachin out. Yes I do agree Sir Don Bradman was the best batsman of his era but not the greatest of all time.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • testli5504537 on September 10, 2008, 2:37 GMT

    Jack Hobbs retired in 1934 so for 6 years he was a playing contemporary of Sir Donald. My point was that people like him, Sutcliffe, Hutton even Sid Barnes all averaged over 50 and were by any modern standards great batsman.

    To make the point that Sir Donald would be averaging 50 or 60 in todays cricket would be saying that these players would be getting 25 or 30 facing the same attack. And I think that is utterly ridiculous.

  • testli5504537 on September 9, 2008, 12:09 GMT

    I fear Hobbs doesn't really fall in the same era as Bradman. He played 28 of his 61 tests before world war I when pitches were appaling by any means and still averaged an astonishing 57.32 in those tests. To put it in perspective, only 1 batsman to have played all his test matches in the pre-war era averaged over 40.

    The placidity of inter-war pitches was a matter the Don himself was moved to comment on in the early 30s. Don's record is comparable with say Sutcliffe or Ponsford, who played all their cricket in the inter-war years. But the contention that Bradman and Hobbs played on similar pitches just doesn't hold water.

  • testli5504537 on September 9, 2008, 7:25 GMT

    I read above "context is everything".. well putting Tendulkar in his own context playing the same bowlers on the same wickets in the same era he would need to average 40 more than the next best (Kallis) in order to be as good as the Don.

    People that denigrate the Don don't have any idea of how many great players there were when he was playing..(Hobbs, Hutton, Ponsford) same wickets, same bowlers, same rules.. he was worth two top batsman in any side.

    Now when Tendulkar starts averaging 40 more than his nearest currently playing rival then put him in the same sentence as the Don. Otherwise it's just a fatally flawed argument.

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 12:49 GMT

    Did Sir Don Bradman got out on duck in his last innings misreading a googly and that too not from some Shane Warne? Oh no, googly was not the reason, it was pressure, anxiety. So is there anybody we know who plays the googly better, forget it, who plays well under lot more pressure.

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 12:31 GMT

    I can't believe someone would even attempt to put Tendulkar above Bradman. Tendulkar isn't even the best batsman of his own generation, never mind of all time. Lara was head and shoulders above Tendulkar and Ponting is at least his equal. As for blaming the umpires for his average being so much lower than the Don's, you could just as well blame the home umpires for it being as high as it is. If you had bothered to check the stats, Bradman also averaged about 180 against India and over 200 against South Africa. I bet he wishes he could have played India every week!

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 12:08 GMT

    Never mind Bradman or the averages, Tendulkar as an Indian has got far more decisions in his favour than against him - his average would have been far less and he would have scored less centuries too - In the last series in Sri Lanka he was clearly out off his glove but stood his ground and influenced the umpire to give him not out but thanks to the referral system (which must be implemented at any cost) Jayawardene used the third umpire to reverse the decision and give him out - Tendulkar is a cheat like all or most other indian cricketers and officials................

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 11:43 GMT

    Pat, throw in constant trouble with (non-cricket) employers... and the additional responsibility of feeding his family.

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 11:33 GMT

    "Bradman fans and aussies in general do not reply"... one fool writes a foolish piece and another does not want to hear how foolish the piece is. As an India fan, I find people like Kumar and Rahat very embarrassing.

    Like Rai points out, if Bradman had batted in Ind, SL and especially Pak, his avg would've topped 110. He played only 52 matches so what? A player can only play for so many years evren if he lives in an era when not many games are played. Point being that he beat what was in front of him for as many years as he could, and he did a bloody good job of it.

    Tendulkar has been fantastic but I hope he realises (like the Don) when to go, else he will keep his place in the side (BCCI won't kick him out because his presence is good for revenue) while getting more and more mediocre (he won't go because he is a fighter and wants to challenge his body and form).

    Like someone said earlier, Kumar you are an idiot.

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 9:58 GMT

    Everyone talks about Sachin as if he is so great but i think Sanath Jaysuriya is a way better batsman and managed to do one of the greatest feats every nation wants to achieve - The World Cup.Sachin and his team are nowhere near World Cup material.Watch out for Sri Lanka as they have some great upcoming players but as usual they will be under-rated but we all know they are a better team than India.

  • testli5504537 on September 5, 2008, 3:55 GMT

    This reminds me of the Delhi Daredevils batting lineup: a firecracking start followed by a complete damp squib. You had my attention until you mentioned Tendulkar. Great as he is, your argument would have been more sound had you mentioned Dravid, and even then as stable as Bambi on ice. Hell, Sehwag would be a deserving subject too - one of the few batsmen these days who can blitzkrieg an attack into submission.

    ara, Fingleton, Hobbs, Sobers, Pollock, Richards (both Viv and Barry), Gavaskar (we could even throw luminaries such as Ponting and Vishwanath) all would be good candidates. And what about the guy whose average comes closest - Mr. Cricket Hussey himself. Or even a man that strikes fear into the hearts of Aussies - Kevin Pietersen.

    But even if you did, the mere fact that the Don's average is so far above anyone else means you cannot refute his claim to being the best. Yes, timeless tests may have allowed him to set his own pace, but no one else averaged over 50 in bodyline.

  • No featured comments at the moment.