Extras September 3, 2008

Why Kumar doesn't worship the Don

Cricinfo
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
47

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

  • Geoffrey Plumridge 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.

  • Ashok Sridharan 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.

  • Geoffrey Plumridge 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.

  • Charanjit 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.

  • Thomas Lawlor 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!

  • RanjithSuma 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................

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

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

  • Ravi 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.

  • KOVILAN MOODLEY 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.

  • Mahesh (wishes he had the 'Yo' prefix) 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.

  • Geoffrey Plumridge 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.

  • Ashok Sridharan 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.

  • Geoffrey Plumridge 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.

  • Charanjit 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.

  • Thomas Lawlor 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!

  • RanjithSuma 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................

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

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

  • Ravi 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.

  • KOVILAN MOODLEY 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.

  • Mahesh (wishes he had the 'Yo' prefix) 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.

  • pat on September 5, 2008, 1:40 GMT

    What biased rubbish. As an aussie, I will 'get off my high horse for you'. Why don't we let Sachin travel on a boat for months at a time to go play cricket, keep him from his family for months on end, make him run a business in order to be able to survive and support his family - in return he can play in only 2 countries - India and Australia (the two best sides of the age) - make him stop playing for 8 years due to war - we'll see how his average finishes up. Undoubtedly Sachin is a special talent, and we are lucky to have him - but better than the Don? Dream on

  • sachin on September 4, 2008, 23:39 GMT

    Don is the greatest -- I get it from all the players and pundits of the game... I think Sachin is the best batsman (still) in our era -- in an era where ODIs have dominated Test match cricket; he has proved time and again that he can cope with whatever the opposition comes up with -- the way he played in Australia comes to mind from recent past. Ponting and Mohammed Yosuf does not compare with Sachin to be honest -- agreed he has had rough patches of injuries and form, but he is an all time great.

  • R Sivasubramaniam on September 4, 2008, 23:27 GMT

    There was a time, when people thought that the earth was flat and that the earth was the centre of the universe - now we have some who think that cricket = India. The Don's greatness has been acclaimed universally, the public don't need SWOT analysis to confirm his greatness. By all means Richards, Gavaskar, Tendulkar are all great players - it is not necessary to denigrate the Don. Sivasubramaniam from Singapore

  • Shantan on September 4, 2008, 20:10 GMT

    Suresh, wow man! I've got to give it to you... this is one of the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. Not a single cricketer worth his salt will agree with you even in passing!

    And when did you see "bouncy" tracks in the West Indies? Not in the last decade that I can remember... a one-off pitch when India were shot out for 82 doesn't make it a country of "bouncy" pitches. If you want to say Sachin is great, say it... but don't embarrass yourself in public by saying Don is not the greatest of all time. If you talk to super slo-mos and error-prone umpires, Bradman also had error-prone umpires and uncovered pitches with no helmets. Ask Sachin and he'll tell you that Bradman is the greatest there can ever be. I doubt our grand children will celebrate Sachin's 100th birthday in 2073 like we're talking of Bradman in 2008.

    Thanks, Shantan

  • Sumit on September 4, 2008, 18:25 GMT

    Mr. Kumar, a couple of points.One, how about the dubious favourable finger works by the sub continent umpires through which Sachin got many of his centuries and Two, how many tests did the Don or for that matter most other great cricketers, including Lara, play against Zimbabwe and Bangaladesh. Please do not reduce cricket writing to a sycophantic post in a site like cricinfo.

  • ketu29 on September 4, 2008, 17:23 GMT

    let's just say the Don was the greatest in his era and perhaps the greatest ever given his batting stats. odious comparisons with sachin, lara,richards etc will never fly. sachin in my opinion is great but there have been other people (dravid,gavaskar from india itself)who have been more accomplished batsmen.

  • TheTruth on September 4, 2008, 17:09 GMT

    You are basing on umpiring flaw!! Did you see all the clips of DON? Did you know the kind of wicket they used to play on in the past? BTW: He didn't play against Zim and Bangladesh. Also he didn't face the flat sub continent wickets, where pace bowlers overpitch to get extra movement!! What good are Tendulkar's records when he couldn't even make to a single top 100 wisden innning. What good is he, if he couldn't score more than 500 runs in a series. What good is it, when his century don't account for wins. How can you call him great, when people can only come up 5, lets say 10 best innings test and odi combined!! Go look at number of games he has played, give me a break!!! then you say nobody can play like that for a long duration. Off course, train him against Bangladesh and Weak bowling WI and Eng and grome him to make come back after 2 yrs. No body in international cricket gets a silver platter like him. In today's era Lara (6 notouts) and Dravid are much better.

  • john on September 4, 2008, 16:00 GMT

    Does anyone who disrespects sachin even follow his career he has played many match winning innings its a negative perception that he hasn't scored when his team needed it because he was in a very weak bowling side for so long you don't make more hundreds than anyone else in the history of cricket without being one of the all time greats if you disagree go over all of sachins hundreds and tell me then how many of those matches were won quite a few I reckon

  • Pradeep on September 4, 2008, 14:03 GMT

    Sachin is the greatest ever! Shane Warne' Brian Lara and Donald Bradman think so. Who are we mortals to disagree?

  • Avinash on September 4, 2008, 13:43 GMT

    Bradman is the greatest batsman ever. Period.

    Dravid is the greatest Indian batsman ever. Period.

  • Ashok Sridharan on September 4, 2008, 10:18 GMT

    I think it would be impossible to judge for sure just how good Bradman really was. We only know that he was several notches above any batsman of his time.

    It would be fair to say that he was an exceptional batsman and for sure, he would have scored runs in any era. I'm sure a batsman who could have done what he did would have adjusted to he conditions of any day and age.

    Having said that, I would go on to add that I'm sure he would not have averaged 99.94 in this day and age. With just 90 overs a day (as compared to over 120 a day in his time), Bradman would have had far fewer balls to score off- apart from the fact that he would not have had the luxury of batting in timeless tests and captains would be hurrying to declare.

  • Rikaz Sheriff on September 4, 2008, 8:52 GMT

    I feel Mr Kumar like any other individual has his right of opinion & I am quite sure that the Cricinfo Statistics team will now conjure up something about how the Don would have played spin in the subcontinent using virtual reality maybe! But one fact is lost in this war of words... that both The Don and Sachin have done more to lift the spirit & capture the imagination of their respective nations than any other sportsmen in their era. So I think we should be celebrating their combined genius instead of pitting their stats against each other. The gentle souls that they are/were Im sure they would not like such mudslinging to take place.

  • Brendanvio on September 4, 2008, 7:50 GMT

    I read the first paragraph and expected a good arguement. This doesn't even rate. While I would concede you making a valid arguement about some aspects of their careers, you failed to even that and could not help sledging umpires for being solely responsible for being even greater than he already is.

    Get over yourself sunshine. Tendulkar is considered on the of the greatest middle order bats in history (I consider him the best after Bradman, even ahead of his Vivness, Lara and Pollock), but it is extremely difficult to compare him against a player who was not only way ahead of his peers, but stands head and shoulders above all who followed.

    Note that I have never criticised Sachin's claim to greatness, nor have I called him overrated. He deserves to be immortalised because he is great. As is the Don.

    Suresh, can you please read back what you've written and deny you've been slightly biased?

  • Michael on September 4, 2008, 7:38 GMT

    What unbelievable drivel. It amazes me how blind (or perhaps one-eyed?) idiots write nonsense actually believing it makes sense, and even convince others to agree!

    Batsmen today have it all their way - the rules benefit them, they have all the safety gear in the world, the pitches they play on are usually a batsman's paradise and they get pampered like superstars (largely because of fans like Kumar). With all these trimmings, Sachin's average against the real test playing countries is 51.24.

    Contrast this to Bradman. Uncovered pitches (these were the days were teams would come out and get bowled out for 40 because pitches were wet & uneven), crappy travel arrangements, minimal safety gear, bodyline bowling, and he averaged 99.94 and won countless games off his own bat (unlike Sachin). He didn't play against other countries because they were crap - as evidenced by his 180 average vs India! If he played against everyone regularly, his average would have been closer to 200!

  • Shanu on September 4, 2008, 6:42 GMT

    Bravo Anil,

    Absolutely agree with you. Sachin is not even the best batsman that India ever produced. The honour could go to Dravid or Gavaskar. Well said.

  • Chunqx on September 4, 2008, 6:40 GMT

    Perhaps we should be worshipping God instead of people. Kumar, get a life. Its amazing how so many indians set themselves up for a fall by putting one person (or 4) on a pedestal and wonder why they crash and burn when they do. *Newsflash* cricketers are humans too. You set one up as a "god" and you will find that the "god" you have set up may suddenly do ungod-like things like fail. You don't see too many Aussies treating their world champs as "gods".

  • Nandun Senanayake on September 4, 2008, 6:11 GMT

    I totally agree with Kumar on the Don not being the greatest cricketer of all time. But I dont believe Sachin is either.

    The Don never played in different tracks, and in such an advanced era where cricket they watch, record, analyse and create plans against players. Also while Australia is one of the smarter teams in cricket, england isnt. So obviously not many tactics would have been brought upon. Also I watched a repeat match between Pak Vs Aus '92 where they had replays but not yet third umpire. So many run outs and stumps was given not out because they werent sure. Just imagine how many "the Don" would have got passed.

    As for the best player in this era, I believe Ricky Ponting is bludy close to it with his superb averages in both test and ODI cricket. Kumar Sangakkara is another but not so much in ODI cricket.

  • Anil on September 4, 2008, 5:40 GMT

    I am absolutely amazed at how people actually compare Sachin with Bradman. If we look at overall careers, Sachin is not even the best batsman in his team, that honour belongs to Rahul Dravid. Consider the fact that Sachin's century in Headingley test in 2002 (after more than a decade in the game) was his first in a winning cause outside the subcontinent. This, too, had come after Dravid had done all the hard work in dfiicult conditions with a superb ton. Think about major Indian wins abroad- Headingley 2002, Adelaide 2003, Rawalpindi 2004, West Indies 2006, and we'll find that the stand out performer is none other than Dravid. We will be hard pressed to find a single innigs Sachin played that defined or changed the course of a test match. Sachin's performance as a matchwinner is over rated and more often than not, media hype has been instrumental in building his greatness.

  • Vishal on September 4, 2008, 5:11 GMT

    Comparing players from two different eras is stupid. Only thing one can do is to compare various factors in the different eras like pitch conditions, bowling attacks, amount & intensity of cricket........

    Some will go in favour of Don and some of Sachin. Its upto an individual how much weightage he wants to give to these factors.

    For me whatever 'disadvantages' Sachin has because of playing in this era, are not sufficient to consider that he would have averaged double of what he averages now.

  • Arif Khairuddin on September 4, 2008, 4:44 GMT

    Based on the quality of cricket, the variety of opposition and decimation of opposition, I would rate Sir Vivian Richards as the greatest batsman of all time.

  • Randy one on September 4, 2008, 4:34 GMT

    Your kidding right??? The Don played against the best of his time and ended up with an average of 99.94, he played on uncovered pitches and had a carrer that spanned from the 1930's to the early 50's. Sachin is a great player, maybe the best of the modern era but he is no where near the Don's class, Sachin even said that himself

  • Rai on September 4, 2008, 3:47 GMT

    oye khote, if sir don have played few more test matches in Indian sub-continent his average would have been more than 115. You take out series against Zimbabwe and BanglaDesh Sachin average will drop below 50. Please use your brain before writing, if you have.

  • Looch on September 4, 2008, 3:43 GMT

    In response to Rahat, Bradman played against the best of his era and was significantly better than all of them. As you said "Context is everything". And finally, I would like to say "Stay in your high horse. It's sometimes okay to be close minded and mute."

    Your first point, forget all limited over matches, they have played about the same number of first class matches. Whose figures are better? Second point, Bradman played against England, West Indies, South Africa and India. The only test playing nation he did not play against was New Zealand

  • Abhi on September 4, 2008, 3:30 GMT

    The SWOT analysis is a good point which you have brought up. But never the less, Don was way above the rest in his era, so i think its right in saying he is the best batsman to ever have played international cricket.

  • Looch on September 4, 2008, 3:17 GMT

    A terrible post. I thought we were going to get us an intelligent argument, but it degenerated into some childish rubbish about umpires. The statement "but for dubious finger works by umpires like Darrel Hair and Steve Bucknor, Sachin's average would have been much more better" is, at best, hopeful speculation. Why, using this method you could say that Sunil Gavaskar's average is much higher than it should be, because home umpires during the 70's and the 80's were so biased they just did not want to give him out! See how stupid that sounds! It appears to me that the author is indugding in some blind hero worship and does not want to acknowledge that Bradman played against the BEST of his era and excelled to a greater extent than any other player before or since.

  • Rahat on September 4, 2008, 2:43 GMT

    Please, Bradman fans and aussies in general do not reply. Stay in your high horse. It's sometimes okay to be close minded and mute.

    Thanks Kumar for a nice point. Here are couple more points: 1. Bradman's career spanned about 20 years, in which he's played 234 FCs. Tendulkar (just one of modern greats) has "so far" played 250 FCs, 504 List As and a few T20s in about 20 years. Yeah, we can argue about the possibility of Tendulkar averaging more if he played less during the 20 years, or Bradman keeping up his 100 average if he played as many matches as Tendulkar. But we'll never know. And here I am not just trying to point out a fatigue factor, but also the possibility of carelessness creeping in from playing the quicker formats. 2. The argument about Bradman being much better than his peers. So, how many peers did Bradman have, in a total of 2-3 test playing nations? There is a higher quantity of better bowlers and batsmen, due in part to higher # of cricketers.

    Context is everything.

  • REDNECK on September 4, 2008, 2:01 GMT

    right on nathan! if you look at the pitches used in those times compaired to today... i mean no current cricketer has played on a sticky wicket or anything close to some of the tracks of old! also bradman couldnt help that england where really the only opposition in those days, in fact im sure if he did tour india, pakistan, south africa, and where ever else back then his average would be well above 100 due to the quality of those nations cricket back then! if anyone doubts the dons greatness look at the highest scores at headingly (one of the few tracks left in the world that are bowler friendly) and you will see that his score has stood the test of time dispite regular tests played there. which says to me its a hell of a lot harder to make runs in england than say india just look at the avg score for india v s africa held there earlyer this year compaired to the avg england v s africa that finished a few weeks ago! hell even i could make 100 on some of those indian wickets!

  • Daves on September 4, 2008, 1:46 GMT

    Rightly so, I just check the stats. he has played whopping 63 of his innings against England. Just 6 against India. And not much against WI. Then again we don't know how he would have fared in India/WI/Pak for that matter. All I can say is, in those times, very few matches were played, ODIs didnt exist. Given that circumstances maybe Don can be credited. I don't think we can say anyone as all time great because with times rules/environments etc keep changing. Bet u got my point.

  • Nathan on September 4, 2008, 0:40 GMT

    Idiot. Regardless of the points you raise, the fact that the Don has an average so significantly far and away above anyone else who has played the game (including other players of his era who also only played in few countries) would indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence how superior Sir Donald was with the bat. But yeah, maybe if it wasn't for Hair and Bucknor (are you guys born with chips on both shoulders!?!?) 'Sachin's average would have been much more better (sic)'. I am sure those umpires have cost Sachin the 40+ runs he needs to get his average anywhere near the Don's. And I'm not sure how many times Sachin has played on uncovered wickets, but why let facts enter the debate. To reiterate, you are an idiot!

  • Ameet on September 3, 2008, 23:42 GMT

    Don Bradman did tour India once after the world war and scored heavily. His average in that series was 178.75. Tendulkar in the latter part of his career is proving to be so mediocre that he is no longer mentioned in the same breath as even Ponting. Each era has a great and the Don was magnificent in his time. He may have been so with a little help from Aussie umpires, but then none of his compatriots or peers in his or in contemporary times come close to his record.

  • Mustafa Fayyaz on September 3, 2008, 21:03 GMT

    Suresh,

    Don't compare eras, that never works, Bradman did what was given to him, we cannot imagine nor extrapolate what could have been, or what would have been had such and such happened. Sachin did what was given to him, Bradman did what was given to him.

    Bradman was part of an invincible side, and yet he stood out. That is not easy.

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:21 GMT

    I too believe that average is not the 'only' measure of greatness or genius of the batsman. It was not just his average, but his scoring pace, his domination of the bowlers, reliability and insatiablity that make him the 'greatest' package. See!, I haven't made Sachin appear lesser god.. rather I have just defended Bradman's greatness. Do some homework, buddy. I hope you understand what I mean. In case you don't, stop writing.

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    You argue that one cannot assess the greatness of Bradman, or any lesser soul, who played in just two countries.. seems to be a cogent argument on paper. But seriously, tell me how many players average 90.94 in their own country alone (in either international or domestic cricket)? "Get Sachin out" in the last paragraph, to put it mildly, sounds ridiculous. I suppose, it implies that world cricketing body or players are 'deliberately' trying to make Sachin appear 'less-greater-legend'! If that's what you mean, I would ask you.. what would have been Bradman's average, had he not played 'Bodyline' series? Such is the greatness of the Bradman that England specially devised 'Bodyline' to slow him down. 'Bodyline' though with some success, failed.... Bradman prevailed.

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    I felt an extreme urge to pee after reading what you wrote. As for your 'dubious finger' argument, I would ask you to kindly let me know how 'much better' would have been Sachin's average? 60, 70, 80, 90 or for that matter 99.94?

  • Pradeep on September 3, 2008, 18:08 GMT

    Kumar, Great piece-precisely what I was thinking about writing on--you wouldnt believe it,only last night! I certainly believe that the Don is a little overrated and Sachin has accomplished a lot more than the Don has. 52 tests is not enough of a time period to elevate him to a godly status and resign Sachin to second best. Also like you said, he has not played in any other conditions and did not have to face the quality of bowling Sachin has had to encounter over the years. To do it consistently over two different formats as well is no mean feat.

    Hats off man! You have echoed my sentiments,lets keep in touch!

  • Gokul on September 3, 2008, 18:07 GMT

    The point in favor of Bradman is that he was way ahead of his peers when he played (and this was so for his entire career). In contrast, there was only a 4-5 year period in Tendulkar's career when he shared the #1 spot with Lara. In the last 7-8 years, while he was still there in the Top-10 he has definitely not been the best batsman in the world even for a series.

  • Tikkaraju on September 3, 2008, 16:02 GMT

    Right on Kumar.

    The fact remains that the Don played ONLY in Oz and England.

    Greatness based on slim pickings.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Tikkaraju on September 3, 2008, 16:02 GMT

    Right on Kumar.

    The fact remains that the Don played ONLY in Oz and England.

    Greatness based on slim pickings.

  • Gokul on September 3, 2008, 18:07 GMT

    The point in favor of Bradman is that he was way ahead of his peers when he played (and this was so for his entire career). In contrast, there was only a 4-5 year period in Tendulkar's career when he shared the #1 spot with Lara. In the last 7-8 years, while he was still there in the Top-10 he has definitely not been the best batsman in the world even for a series.

  • Pradeep on September 3, 2008, 18:08 GMT

    Kumar, Great piece-precisely what I was thinking about writing on--you wouldnt believe it,only last night! I certainly believe that the Don is a little overrated and Sachin has accomplished a lot more than the Don has. 52 tests is not enough of a time period to elevate him to a godly status and resign Sachin to second best. Also like you said, he has not played in any other conditions and did not have to face the quality of bowling Sachin has had to encounter over the years. To do it consistently over two different formats as well is no mean feat.

    Hats off man! You have echoed my sentiments,lets keep in touch!

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    I felt an extreme urge to pee after reading what you wrote. As for your 'dubious finger' argument, I would ask you to kindly let me know how 'much better' would have been Sachin's average? 60, 70, 80, 90 or for that matter 99.94?

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:20 GMT

    You argue that one cannot assess the greatness of Bradman, or any lesser soul, who played in just two countries.. seems to be a cogent argument on paper. But seriously, tell me how many players average 90.94 in their own country alone (in either international or domestic cricket)? "Get Sachin out" in the last paragraph, to put it mildly, sounds ridiculous. I suppose, it implies that world cricketing body or players are 'deliberately' trying to make Sachin appear 'less-greater-legend'! If that's what you mean, I would ask you.. what would have been Bradman's average, had he not played 'Bodyline' series? Such is the greatness of the Bradman that England specially devised 'Bodyline' to slow him down. 'Bodyline' though with some success, failed.... Bradman prevailed.

  • Hasan on September 3, 2008, 20:21 GMT

    I too believe that average is not the 'only' measure of greatness or genius of the batsman. It was not just his average, but his scoring pace, his domination of the bowlers, reliability and insatiablity that make him the 'greatest' package. See!, I haven't made Sachin appear lesser god.. rather I have just defended Bradman's greatness. Do some homework, buddy. I hope you understand what I mean. In case you don't, stop writing.

  • Mustafa Fayyaz on September 3, 2008, 21:03 GMT

    Suresh,

    Don't compare eras, that never works, Bradman did what was given to him, we cannot imagine nor extrapolate what could have been, or what would have been had such and such happened. Sachin did what was given to him, Bradman did what was given to him.

    Bradman was part of an invincible side, and yet he stood out. That is not easy.

  • Ameet on September 3, 2008, 23:42 GMT

    Don Bradman did tour India once after the world war and scored heavily. His average in that series was 178.75. Tendulkar in the latter part of his career is proving to be so mediocre that he is no longer mentioned in the same breath as even Ponting. Each era has a great and the Don was magnificent in his time. He may have been so with a little help from Aussie umpires, but then none of his compatriots or peers in his or in contemporary times come close to his record.

  • Nathan on September 4, 2008, 0:40 GMT

    Idiot. Regardless of the points you raise, the fact that the Don has an average so significantly far and away above anyone else who has played the game (including other players of his era who also only played in few countries) would indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence how superior Sir Donald was with the bat. But yeah, maybe if it wasn't for Hair and Bucknor (are you guys born with chips on both shoulders!?!?) 'Sachin's average would have been much more better (sic)'. I am sure those umpires have cost Sachin the 40+ runs he needs to get his average anywhere near the Don's. And I'm not sure how many times Sachin has played on uncovered wickets, but why let facts enter the debate. To reiterate, you are an idiot!

  • Daves on September 4, 2008, 1:46 GMT

    Rightly so, I just check the stats. he has played whopping 63 of his innings against England. Just 6 against India. And not much against WI. Then again we don't know how he would have fared in India/WI/Pak for that matter. All I can say is, in those times, very few matches were played, ODIs didnt exist. Given that circumstances maybe Don can be credited. I don't think we can say anyone as all time great because with times rules/environments etc keep changing. Bet u got my point.