Australia v India 2011-12 January 7, 2012

The Sachin v Don debate

Andrew Hughes reluctantly wades in and offers his two-bit
87

Wednesday, 4th January Catching up with old news today, I came across something I’d missed just before the holidays. It was a piece of work by an Australian economist. Now, normally speaking I’d give no more credence to the analysis of an economist than I would to the man who predicted that the world would end last May or to the theory that all the major nations are secretly ruled by moustachioed reptiles from another planet.

This is because, as far as I can tell, economics is about as scientific as water divining, creationism or the sticking-a-pin-in-the-sports-pages method of betting on the horses (a method which, coincidentally, is very popular in Wall Street stock-trading circles).

But this economist wasn’t banging on about the usual mumbo jumbo; fiscal restraint, quantitative easing and suchlike. He was talking about something that really mattered: namely, whether or not Sachin Tendulkar or Don Bradman was the best.

Now I know this is a subject that can get some people lathered up and I have generally steered clear of it. As a neutral, it has often struck me that to wade into this particular squabble would be as foolish as intervening in a fight between two angry cats. Unless one of the cats happens to be yours, it’s sensible to leave them to it.

But economists are made of sterner stuff. The plucky chap had decided to settle things statistically by using mechanisms called “opportunity cost” and “supernormal profit”, which sound like horrendous torture devices designed to torment undergraduates, but which, when applied to the facts, told him definitively that Sachin is best.

And who knows, perhaps he is. But there is one statistic that refuses to go away, the enormous iceberg in the water that threatens to sink the pro-Sachin argument. 99.94. If you rate Sachin’s undoubtedly splendid average of 56.03 as the more impressive, then where does this leave Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Ponsford, McCabe and all the others who were utterly dwarfed statistically by the Don?

And if he benefited from fewer opponents, easier pitches or the absence of post-match interviews with Mark Nicholas, then how was it that not one of those other fine players of legend were able to benefit from the same conditions and all trailed in his wake statistically, like little boys trying to keep pace with a marathon runner.

But, perhaps, before we take these findings too seriously, we need to know more about the record of the man responsible. Specifically, we need to know whether this particular economist predicted the credit crunch and the global economic crisis. And if he didn’t, then perhaps we need not worry too much about his cricket analysis.

Thursday, 5th January Whilst I don’t often feel sympathy for the lot of the professional cricketer, I feel compelled to defend Mr Kohli. I didn’t see the incident live but one Indian channel helpfully provided a photograph of his Sydney gesticulation, with the naughty digit deliberately blurred to spare our feelings. Or perhaps there’s something intrinsically offensive about Virat’s middle finger? At any rate, we got the picture.

Now, of course, in the normal run of events, a professional on duty should not be doing such things. And yes, we spectators are not mere cheerleaders; we pay our money and we are entitled to air our views, even if we slur some of the words.

But if you aim abuse at a fellow human being, then you should expect abuse in return. If you or I were to approach Virat in a shopping mall and, from a distance of a few yards away, shout that we thought his hair looked silly, that he can’t throw for toffee and that his mother’s tea was undrinkable, we should expect that he may want to come over and offer us the benefit of his opinion.

So why do some people think that the possession of a match ticket, a t-shirt with a witless slogan and a large foam finger exempts them from the normal rules of civilised society? If I had any money, I’d happily pay Virat’s fine.

Andrew Hughes is a writer currently based in England

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • S V Mohan on January 16, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    Bradman was bradman and Sachin is Sachin. Both are great. No doubt about it. whether Don was greater or Sachin was greater - well it is only for eyeballs and media hype. Surely Don did not ask whther he is greater or Sachin. Likewise Sachin also never said he is bigger than Don. Peole may say 1000 things about Lara, Kaillis etc but the fact remains that Sachin has scored more runs, more centuries tahn anybody else so far. That's a record nobody can steal. Let kallis, Lara etc score so many runs and then be compared. I think it is only his skin color that is making people jealous. Having said that India itself boasted some better batsmenthan Sachin G.R.Vishwanath, Dravid and VVS. They were legends in their own right. Far more dependable batsmen than Sachin ever could be. It is sad that age has diminished the reflexes of Dravid the wall and Very very special VVS.

  • EngCric on January 10, 2012, 18:10 GMT

    Ok Guys,

    Enough of this comparision without putting facts; world expert are not calling Tendulkar great among current generation and past generation just based on test cricket; looks like everyone here in discussion missing big records and impact he has on 50 over format....or may be intentionally ignoring to prove their point, who can come close to him in 50 over format? and now if you combined both then it is Himalaya for anyone including Don Bradman......

    So stop fulling yourself by just judging him based on test cricket...

    Enough said.

    Cheers

  • waterbuffalo on January 10, 2012, 4:29 GMT

    India's problems will be all over if they open with Dravid and Gambhir, build a solid start, then put Sachin in at 3, he is in decent form, then stick Kohli at 4, then R. Sharma at 5 and Sehwag at 6, all you drop is VVS, for Sharma, Dhoni at 7, and four bowlers. Problem solved, have a proper opener who is defensive opening, that is Rahul Dravid. Put Sehwag where he belongs, at 6, he can open against weaker teams , not against strong teams in tough conditions anymore, even his big score was courtesy of 3 lives. Wake up, India! Good Luck! (if you follow my suggestion)

  • mohankumar on January 9, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    It is very unfair to compare batsman of different era. DON is the greatest as his statistics are too compelling to suggest otherwise. However, there a few areas in which Sachin scores very highly over Bradman. 1. The pressure of being SACHIN can be understood only if ur either living in India or have played here for some time. It is PHENOMENAL. Cricket is as much a game of the mind as it is a game of skill. Judged against this standard, the factor sachin gets a huge bonus.2. The injuries suffered by sachin, specially the elbow would have resulted in severe technical adjustments; a slightly lesser batsman would have gone under. 3. The analyses carried out by opponent coaches are extraordinary today. 4. Don never faced neutral umpires or television replays or hotspots or trackers.There is no doubt that sachin is the greatest player of this era, taking the above into account; Whether he is the greatest? lets put it this way- who would not love to have both in his side!!!

  • Yusuf on January 8, 2012, 17:50 GMT

    In the final analysis, it has to be about the matches you won for your team as cricket is a team game. If someone co-relates big Sachin scores with India wins, it should prove that Lara, Ponting, Miandad, Sanga, and particularly Inzi and of course the Don, stood up for their teams when it counted most.

  • pandimi on January 8, 2012, 16:56 GMT

    Both Sachin and Roger Federer are products of media and a lot of chatter by fans. Neither is the best player of his own era. I wonder why some people think they are best players of all time. Their longevity and the ability to sustain increased match days per year need not be taken into account. We should also discount the array of strokes they possess which can't be statistically measured in any case. Does it matter that they bring people across the globe to watch them ply their trade? I personally believe that sportsmen have no business being role models. Whether these two manage to keep their nose clean publicly should never be taken into account. These two deserve to be shamed by citing how they have failed on numerous occasions. Failed to be at very top, that is.

  • Rakim on January 8, 2012, 16:25 GMT

    **Don Bradman** Best of all times. How can you possibly debate that Sachin is better than him. Players like Lara, Viv, Ponting, Inzi, Miandad are way better than Sachin.

  • Arvind on January 8, 2012, 14:10 GMT

    I completely agree with the fact that Sachin has faced infinite times more pressure than the don.and i agree with terry, sachin has been much more prolific.As of the best batsman of this era, its Sachin Tendulkar above all else. Kallis might be a fine allrounder, but his batting prowess is nowhere near sachin's, look at his recent pair!!

  • Dakar on January 8, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    Those who say Bradman played only against one or two teams, think again! Harsh conditions for a batsman all round: grassy pitches in Eng! Hard bouncy tracks in Aus. Mostly rained on uncovered pitches, flat strok-less bats n heavy grass outfield. Today cricket is all in fav of batting, fm rules to conditions, no big deal then if many hv runs and hundreds more than Bradman. When someone will score 30 test tons in 52 matches, I will compare him to Bradman. Question u must ask urslf: if it was all so easy for Bradman, why no one else could do it till date? U answer this question honestly, u hv a true comparison. I hv met SRT n no doubt he is the most humble cricket legend I hv ever met, certainly not the best batsman!

  • Luke on January 8, 2012, 11:15 GMT

    Predictable most people have gone for talking about the Sachin vs Bradman debate. As if there could be anything in cricket less subjective and less interesting.

    I just wanted to post in support of your comments about Virat. As an Australian cricket fan I was absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the people who heckled Virat and would have been happy to give them a smack in the face on his behalf. We were there to watch two great teams play a game we all love, not insult visitors to our country. Just pathetic.

  • S V Mohan on January 16, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    Bradman was bradman and Sachin is Sachin. Both are great. No doubt about it. whether Don was greater or Sachin was greater - well it is only for eyeballs and media hype. Surely Don did not ask whther he is greater or Sachin. Likewise Sachin also never said he is bigger than Don. Peole may say 1000 things about Lara, Kaillis etc but the fact remains that Sachin has scored more runs, more centuries tahn anybody else so far. That's a record nobody can steal. Let kallis, Lara etc score so many runs and then be compared. I think it is only his skin color that is making people jealous. Having said that India itself boasted some better batsmenthan Sachin G.R.Vishwanath, Dravid and VVS. They were legends in their own right. Far more dependable batsmen than Sachin ever could be. It is sad that age has diminished the reflexes of Dravid the wall and Very very special VVS.

  • EngCric on January 10, 2012, 18:10 GMT

    Ok Guys,

    Enough of this comparision without putting facts; world expert are not calling Tendulkar great among current generation and past generation just based on test cricket; looks like everyone here in discussion missing big records and impact he has on 50 over format....or may be intentionally ignoring to prove their point, who can come close to him in 50 over format? and now if you combined both then it is Himalaya for anyone including Don Bradman......

    So stop fulling yourself by just judging him based on test cricket...

    Enough said.

    Cheers

  • waterbuffalo on January 10, 2012, 4:29 GMT

    India's problems will be all over if they open with Dravid and Gambhir, build a solid start, then put Sachin in at 3, he is in decent form, then stick Kohli at 4, then R. Sharma at 5 and Sehwag at 6, all you drop is VVS, for Sharma, Dhoni at 7, and four bowlers. Problem solved, have a proper opener who is defensive opening, that is Rahul Dravid. Put Sehwag where he belongs, at 6, he can open against weaker teams , not against strong teams in tough conditions anymore, even his big score was courtesy of 3 lives. Wake up, India! Good Luck! (if you follow my suggestion)

  • mohankumar on January 9, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    It is very unfair to compare batsman of different era. DON is the greatest as his statistics are too compelling to suggest otherwise. However, there a few areas in which Sachin scores very highly over Bradman. 1. The pressure of being SACHIN can be understood only if ur either living in India or have played here for some time. It is PHENOMENAL. Cricket is as much a game of the mind as it is a game of skill. Judged against this standard, the factor sachin gets a huge bonus.2. The injuries suffered by sachin, specially the elbow would have resulted in severe technical adjustments; a slightly lesser batsman would have gone under. 3. The analyses carried out by opponent coaches are extraordinary today. 4. Don never faced neutral umpires or television replays or hotspots or trackers.There is no doubt that sachin is the greatest player of this era, taking the above into account; Whether he is the greatest? lets put it this way- who would not love to have both in his side!!!

  • Yusuf on January 8, 2012, 17:50 GMT

    In the final analysis, it has to be about the matches you won for your team as cricket is a team game. If someone co-relates big Sachin scores with India wins, it should prove that Lara, Ponting, Miandad, Sanga, and particularly Inzi and of course the Don, stood up for their teams when it counted most.

  • pandimi on January 8, 2012, 16:56 GMT

    Both Sachin and Roger Federer are products of media and a lot of chatter by fans. Neither is the best player of his own era. I wonder why some people think they are best players of all time. Their longevity and the ability to sustain increased match days per year need not be taken into account. We should also discount the array of strokes they possess which can't be statistically measured in any case. Does it matter that they bring people across the globe to watch them ply their trade? I personally believe that sportsmen have no business being role models. Whether these two manage to keep their nose clean publicly should never be taken into account. These two deserve to be shamed by citing how they have failed on numerous occasions. Failed to be at very top, that is.

  • Rakim on January 8, 2012, 16:25 GMT

    **Don Bradman** Best of all times. How can you possibly debate that Sachin is better than him. Players like Lara, Viv, Ponting, Inzi, Miandad are way better than Sachin.

  • Arvind on January 8, 2012, 14:10 GMT

    I completely agree with the fact that Sachin has faced infinite times more pressure than the don.and i agree with terry, sachin has been much more prolific.As of the best batsman of this era, its Sachin Tendulkar above all else. Kallis might be a fine allrounder, but his batting prowess is nowhere near sachin's, look at his recent pair!!

  • Dakar on January 8, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    Those who say Bradman played only against one or two teams, think again! Harsh conditions for a batsman all round: grassy pitches in Eng! Hard bouncy tracks in Aus. Mostly rained on uncovered pitches, flat strok-less bats n heavy grass outfield. Today cricket is all in fav of batting, fm rules to conditions, no big deal then if many hv runs and hundreds more than Bradman. When someone will score 30 test tons in 52 matches, I will compare him to Bradman. Question u must ask urslf: if it was all so easy for Bradman, why no one else could do it till date? U answer this question honestly, u hv a true comparison. I hv met SRT n no doubt he is the most humble cricket legend I hv ever met, certainly not the best batsman!

  • Luke on January 8, 2012, 11:15 GMT

    Predictable most people have gone for talking about the Sachin vs Bradman debate. As if there could be anything in cricket less subjective and less interesting.

    I just wanted to post in support of your comments about Virat. As an Australian cricket fan I was absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the people who heckled Virat and would have been happy to give them a smack in the face on his behalf. We were there to watch two great teams play a game we all love, not insult visitors to our country. Just pathetic.

  • sam on January 8, 2012, 10:01 GMT

    @mark "A batsman who plays against a generation of cricketers will have fresh tearaways bowling at him every 5-6 years than someone like Don who played only his generation" Bradman made his debu in 1929 and played his last test match in 48 thats 19 years

    oh and also something else everyone seems to have forgoten is that unlike tandulker and all other modern players he also had to work full time whereas all a modern batsman has to do is play/ train for cricket

  • Terry on January 8, 2012, 7:01 GMT

    Huh! Sir Don Bradman played most of his matches against England and a few against SA. Sachin played and scored against all cricketing nations and obviuosly with the pressures of media, ineternet, high expectations of the public and politics and a large variety of bowlers. Well, Sir Don Bradman played against the same bowlers over and over again, like meeting with your mates and having a game in your back yard, during those years, cricket was just a very gentlemanly sunday sport (baring Body Line) credit to Sir - with no post and pre match press conferences, internet, blogs, travel, so called experts (Chappel, Slats, M Taylor and not forgetting Heals - all a Joke) , blha blha blha, blha blha blha bla.

    Have Fun guys!

  • Lasa on January 8, 2012, 6:20 GMT

    In my books great players are who can win crucial games under pressure. Does not matter how many centuries you score. How many high pressure games Sachin won for india? I guess is not many.Lara is way better he won so many games like that with no great players around him.

  • landl47 on January 8, 2012, 6:07 GMT

    Having never seen Bradman, I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on where he would stand in relation to Tendulkar. I will, however, say that the finest batsman I've ever seen is not Tendulkar. Sir Garry Sobers was head and shoulders above anyone else I've seen. Not only was he the most wonderful batsman to watch but his average was higher than Tendulkar's and he didn't get to pad his numbers against the weaker teams as Tendulkar has. His highest score, 365*, is also way above Tendulkar's and he was the first batsman to hit 6 sixes in an over, a feat Tendulkar has never achieved. He was also a great bowler and fielder. Tendulkar is very good, but anyone who saw them both would acknowledge that Sobers was better. I'm English, by the way, so this is a neutral view.

  • Don Mathews on January 8, 2012, 5:56 GMT

    i would rate don much above sachin, not because we have the same names. Sachin could be much more complete batsman than don, but have always succumbed to pressure times. The greatness of batsman lies in his ability to reverse the pressure situation from the batting side to the bowlers and to create a fear or helplessnes into the bowler. Kallis , Ponting ,Sangakkara and to an extend mike hussy for present examples. I would not put Sehwag into the list , cause his 2nd innings stats prohibit me. Me being an Indian have my fingers crossed for Rohit to be the best and complete batsman.

  • who is it on January 8, 2012, 4:59 GMT

    People, while it is completely wrong to compare players who are 3 generations apart, Sachin is the all time greatest cricketer for many reasons..Don played for much shorter duration, mostly against 1 team (england) and only test cricket...no pressure from TV or other media..no one-day games..was supported by bowlers to win matches..but Sachin has been THE only man india depends on for the last 22 years. Can You imagine how much pressure he handles every time he goes out to bat? How many times was he supported by other batsmen in the team or the bowlers in the team to win matches? How much pressure the media and people put on him to score big runs every time he goes out? some one said Kallis is better than Sachin..Does Kallis even handles 10% of the pressure that Sachin handles?? Does any one in SA care if Kallis goes for a duck? But that is not the case for Sachin..There have been may great players in in the history of cricket..but Sachin is unique..no one can be compared with him.

  • Anup Das on January 8, 2012, 4:56 GMT

    I see no comparison between Sir Don and Sachin Tendulkar. They played in differeent eras, different playing conditions, under different rules and even with different gears. Statstics and averages mean nothing to me. Sir Don will have HIS own place and the rest can have theirs.

  • Mark on January 8, 2012, 4:39 GMT

    By the way who did Don play other than the English, and a tour or two against a couple of teams barely coming to terms with cricket. He played the English all the time to an extent there's nothing he didnt know about them.

    A batsman who plays against a generation of cricketers will have fresh tearaways bowling at him every 5-6 years than someone like Don who played only his generation who grew old and weathered away, barely getting the ball across with time.

    Sachin's performance across different formats: Tests, and One Day Internationals is a big +.

    With 48 100s and 95 50s in One Day Intls. means a 50+ score in every 3rd match. And the small matter of 154 One Day Wkts. Who's close to thsoe figures. Not Kallis, not Ponting, not Lara. So who?

    As for Sachin not being the best of his generation, here's how Ponting stacks up against India in India:

    Tests: 14. Inns: 25. Centuries: 1. Avg. 26.48. Take away that one 100, and Ponting averages: 22.4 in India. Wow.

  • Big Fan on January 8, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    I love how witty you are. You are like a whimsical cross between Mark Twain and Dane Cook. Keep up the good writing.

  • Ishfaq on January 8, 2012, 3:53 GMT

    Don is d gr8est cricketer ever and sachin not even of his time. Sachin has played many matches on flat tracks..he is not even d best player of his team...india depend more on sehwag....he is not d one fm whom bowlers r feared....lara is much better dan sachin,lara scored runs ven no other scored...but sachin scores ven every1 has scored...many players hv more 200s dan sachin...

  • trunk9 on January 8, 2012, 3:52 GMT

    I guess "Anonymous" needs to be reminded that Aus were whitewashed when they paid a visit to India last time around, albeit it was a 2 test match series

  • KC on January 8, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    There shouldn't be any doubt that Don is clearly best cricketer ever and noone (till date) comes anywhere near him.

    I'm a huge fan of Sachin. He was world's best batsman in late 90's. I think he didn't fully use his talent, else he would have been a clear second. Looking at combined Tests and ODI career , he is among the best in recent times. I would rate Kallis and Sachin as first two and then Lara and Ponting. Hard to compare though. Lara was treat to watch , but that doesn't make him greatest. Both kallis and Sachin are consistent. In talent , I would rate Sachin and Lara as top two...Debat never ends. Ponting was best for 3 years, but to be honest, he made most of those scores when it was worst time for bowlers in world cricket. I rate performances of Dravid and Steve Waugh (only in tests) very high.

  • Suresh on January 8, 2012, 3:28 GMT

    I fail to understand y people start comparing Bradman and SRT. Tendulkar started playing when Bradman was 81+ in age. They belong to altogether different time periods of cricket. Giving silly arguements of body line, no helmet or saying if Bradman had played 307 test innings like SRT he would have scored 30,600 test runs and 111 test centuries and on and on, is not needed. How would you know that he would not have had ups and downs like every other cricketer especially over a very long career or whether it was even going to be a possibility that he would have been able to maintain that kind of longevity to play. And, then even Bradman himself once said to his wife that if there was some one like him in cricket, that was Tendulkar. It did not make him any smaller but actually made Bradman the greatest. Other views about Tendulkar's 48 'test' centuries, allowing certain countries' teams to play only domestic sides only smack of jealousy towards India's and other countries' success.

  • Graham on January 8, 2012, 3:28 GMT

    Warren is spot on with his analysis. I would only add that back in Bradman's day they did not have the training and coaching aids that are available to the players of today, e.g. instant replay video, etc, etc. I shudder to think what "The Don" might have accomplished in this day and age.

  • Anthony on January 8, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    Let us also have a look at The Don's first class career. 234 matches, 338 innings, 117 hundreds and 95.14 average.

    Tendulkar only averages 59 in first class...

    Enough said overall I think. Bradman bullied everybody, plain and simple. The fact that his 100s doubles his 50s in his test career (and close in his first class career) just shows that when he started, he scored big. Sachin has shown lately that he has not the same class as that.

  • Etiquette on January 8, 2012, 3:05 GMT

    Kallis and Ponting are million times better cricketers than Sachin in every category of cricket game. Botton line and period.

  • Raj on January 8, 2012, 2:26 GMT

    I have never been a great fan of Sachin as I have never seen him coming to the rescue of his team, particularly in recent times. Most of his big scores were scored in easier and less challenging and stressful circumstances. Dravid is a much better team player than this plunderer of runs on easy pitches and undemanding circumstances. I think he is a well hyped player from a country that loves to venerates individuals, be they crooked politicians or untalented movie stars or any Indian who has been written about by the western media.

    The man should never be venerated with any further honors, endorsement contracts etc.

  • David on January 8, 2012, 2:26 GMT

    It's silly to compare players from different eras - both of them deserve the term "great". The "greatest" is personal preference, clearly some people think Kallis other Sachin or Bradman. It doesn't matter. I feel priveleged to be able watch and enjoy each of them. Kohli? Yes, he probably shouldn't have done it but crowds all around the world are morons and us Aussies are probably the msot moronic - sad but true. As for the idiot "anonymous" - I think even the most one eyed Indian supporter wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for that crap. I seem to remember Australia failing to reach 50 against the number 3 ranked team in the world - should that have been reason to cancel the current Indian tour as they are ranked 2?

  • Niraj on January 8, 2012, 2:20 GMT

    To even compare Sachin to the late Don is laughable. Cant remember one series (except one ODI series in Sharjah) where Sachin has won it for the team. If anything, Sachin makes Don look even greater - if a guy at 56 avg is considered great, just imagine what would be a guy scoring at 99! Sachin is just an output of some good Indian media and marketing, who are bolstered by BCCI's rich coffers. Give me Kallis, or even Dravid, any day - much more of team players. Theonly thing where Sachin would score over anyone is his being humble and down to earth - you just cant take tha away from him

  • Dawar on January 8, 2012, 2:12 GMT

    There is a 10 years or so gap between two eras of Bradman on either side of WWii. No change in his stats either side. Give him those ten years as well, will we still be making this comparison with Sachin? Ya you know the answer!!

  • rachit on January 8, 2012, 1:37 GMT

    sachin is worshipped..many instances to prove that..it takes a lot to play for 21years..his best record is against teams like australia nd england..he has even scored 200 at sydney without playing a single stroke on off side..he has never been into any nuisances off or on the field..scoring 99hundreds nd silencing the critics with his bat..if thats not enough,he is the only player who recieves standin ovation everytime he goes out to play irrespective of the country..words are not enough guys.. Respect,courage nd passion..Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar

  • TRex on January 8, 2012, 1:30 GMT

    The picture's caption sums it up for comments and the author- booze, sun and cricket have made him (and commenters here) slightly more intelligent than George Bush. Unfortunately basic knowledge of statistics and econometrics is not needed for writing articles at Cricinfo and neither for posting comments. The Aussie researcher who used econometric analysis may have actually done a great job. His analysis which is standard practice in high quality academic econometric analysis allows for:

    1) Controlling for differences across eras which takes care of arguments such as Bradman playing on green tops without helmets, world war-2; or Sachin playing in multiple forms of cricket/ locations/teams/against best bowlers of any era (Warne, Murali, McGrath, Ambrose) studiously studying his weakness through videos.

    2) The fact that most of upper end averages occurred (Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Ponsford, McCabe) in the past, not now.

    3) Kallis' higher proportion of not-outs etc.

  • Faisal Khan on January 8, 2012, 0:16 GMT

    Bradman played only 2 sides on probably 3 different countries. Sachin has played 3 times as many sides in 3 times as many countries (hugely greater diversity of opposition on all kinds of conditions and pitches). He excelled in all 3 format of the games (Bradman played only 1) in an age of insense media presuure (Brdman had negilible). He is 3 times better than Bradman. This is from a Pakistani.

  • Tim on January 8, 2012, 0:10 GMT

    I think the Sachin v Lara v Kallis v Ponting debate has a lot more merit and is far more interesting that any comparison with Bradman.

  • Al on January 7, 2012, 23:54 GMT

    Warren's right and makes his point brilliantly. There is no debate. What IS an interesting debate is whether there is any other sportsman who towers over his/her sport in the way that Bradman does through his staggering record. I can't think of any. For the sake of those who get hot under the collar about anyone suggesting Tendulkar's not the best, I will offer a crumb of comfort - his ODI record is definitely better than the Don's.

  • Rom on January 7, 2012, 23:09 GMT

    If someone could come up with some magic formula to compare Bradman in this current era where Tendulkar dominates.......I would suggest that Bradman's average would have been around 70. Still great, but not so many miles ahead of everyone else. And by the way, Kallis has a great record but he is so boring to watch. I'd much rather see Tendulkar score 25 than see Kallis make a hundred.

  • John Sunder on January 7, 2012, 22:31 GMT

    @ Anonymous, the first poster...

    Ask yourself the same question when Aus/Eng play in the sub continent. The local batsmen and the 3rd rated spinners calve them everytime and the national sides follow suit, so where are we heading here ?

  • SRT_GENIUS on January 7, 2012, 22:19 GMT

    This is just my opinion : Sachin, Lara and Mark Waugh are top batsmen of the modern era. Ponting, Kallis and Dravid come next. Comparing players across eras is pointless. But if I had to bet all my money on one player, it would be Sir Don.

  • Cheech on January 7, 2012, 22:16 GMT

    I think it is pointless trying to compare the two, Bradman played in an era where the pitches were non as as flat as the ones that the modern players play on, plus these guys played with no protection. I am not an aussie but Bradman's stats are head and shoulders above anybodies else. I would also like to say that India's pitches are more batter friendly therefore not taking anything away from Tendulkar because he has performed abroad, but would so many Indians have such high averages and runs if it was not for this aspect of it? Their latest failures in England, Australia are witness to this and to some aspect their performance in SA. I honestly do not see India winning one test in Australia, I see them dropping to No 4 in the ranking very soon. I think Kallis is the most under appreciated player in world cricket and I think overall, he is the best player ever in the game, his batting, bowling and fielding combined are second to no one.

  • simon on January 7, 2012, 22:07 GMT

    sure, sachins effort of playing in nearly 200 test matches and scoring so many runs is very good. and he is definitely one of the modern greats. but greatness does not come from merely playing more matches and scoring more runs or even having more fans. statistically the don beats sachin in every aspect. as do many others.

  • cricket boy on January 7, 2012, 21:55 GMT

    Indians use statistics to argue sachin's greatness. Statiscally Kallis is better than Sachin. I dont judge a player by statistics alone, for me the greatest batsman was Viv Richards. Other favorites include , greg chappel, ricky ponting, greenridge, abbas, majid khan, waugh, border, miandad and dravid.

  • Anonymous on January 7, 2012, 21:52 GMT

    bradman has only played 52 tests sachin has played 186 and has all the records which no one will come close to his records . no disrespect to bradman he is a legend but sachin's better

  • Victoria Baptiste on January 7, 2012, 21:46 GMT

    The Tendulkar vs Bradman comparison is always one of the most stupid debates that occurs in any sporting field. In fact, Bradman is the only sportsman who retired fom his specific sporting field and left the impression that he was almost 'perfect' in his department. If Tendulkar has to be compared with Bradman, it would only be based on their test cricket performances, in which there is no comparison whatsoever - Tendulkar needs his ODI performances to match up with most of his contemporaries - Bradman has never played ODIs. Then if test cricket is the format for comparisons, Tendulkar has to first match up against Lara; because both of them commenced their careers almost simultaneously, in the 1989/90 season. So if anyone wants to know how good Tendulkar is, let them compare the statistics for he and Lara during the 16 seasons that they competed against each other around the world: against the same opponents, in the same playing conditions, subjected to the same set of rules, etc. It is the only genuine comparison that could be made between arguably the two best batsmen after Bradman. It is out of place to include Bradman in such a debate.

  • Gajji on January 7, 2012, 21:24 GMT

    Simply laughable trying to compare Sachin to Don Bradman. But what i find most funny about indians is that what ever topic of cricket u discuss they end up talking about Sachin..... My sympathies for this nation who tries to cover all the bad past of team performance by just applauding the work of a single individual who also isnt the only great of his time let alone the entire cricket history.

  • Anonymous on January 7, 2012, 21:08 GMT

    @above i wonder if you do understand cricket

  • Joseph on January 7, 2012, 20:09 GMT

    Just to side with Warren's point - the very idea of a debate about the respective merits of Tendulkar and Bradman is preposterous. And as a few other commentators have suggested, Tendulkar is by no means obviously even the best player of his generation (unlike Bradman, whom no one denies was head and shoulders above any of his contemporaries). I for one think Lara's highs considerably higher than Tendulkar's (e.g. against Australia in 1998-99), and I would rather watch Lara, although Tendulkar has been more consistent over the course of his career. There is of course no question that he is a great player, and one of the greatest batsmen ever to have played the game. But there's only one serious candidate for the greatest.

  • Arvind on January 7, 2012, 19:52 GMT

    I completely agree with your second post.players should not be fined just because they reacted to crowd abuse. And as for sachin vs. bradman, i'd say that bradman is better, i mean look at his average!! But bradman only played 52 matches. If he had played the 182 that sachin has played his average would definitely be much much worse.We can't just extrapolate his average and say that if he had played as many matches as sachin he would have scored much more runs. It simply does not work that way.

  • ravi on January 7, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    Anyone who is allowed to play cricket for 22 years would equal or maybe surpass most of Sachin's records. Bradman on the other hand is God.

  • Scorp on January 7, 2012, 19:03 GMT

    Well, I am somebody who would never agree in comparing players of different era's. Till now people considered Bradman as the greatest. But, now there are people who started arguing that...That in itself tells the greatness of Sachin. Someday Kallis might overtake Sachin's records. He already has better average. However, nobody seem to bother that. Is there a perticular reason? I believe that it's the way you play the game is more important than the law of averages...

  • Aadhil on January 7, 2012, 18:24 GMT

    No! NO! It Should Be Sachin Vs Sanga, Bradman Was A LEGEND THAT CANNOT BE UNMATCHED!

  • Ditej Garg on January 7, 2012, 18:20 GMT

    This whole debate is just a waste of time. Both the greats had their share of cake. Bradman dominated an ra where technology didn't play any part in the game. Batsmen ere never considered run outs until they were half way down, no DRS..as you can see so many decisions given by umpires being over-turned by DRS. There were not too many tours and that is the only reason there were always green tops and fresh conditions. Moreover Bradman played majorly in 2 countires i.e. Australia and England. How can one question Sachin's talent? He performed brilliantly in the most pressure absorbing tournaments for 6 times i.e. World cups. He has played enormous amount of cricket in his career in more than 10 countries and specially in front of fans 10 times more than Sir Don. Did Sir Don started playing at the age of 16 for a team who was weak and vulnerable with zero Pace battery? He always had bowlers to back him up. And what about the pressure of reaching an average of 100?

  • Aus Lover on January 7, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    Sachin is the best. the don played against mostly vs england and mostly in a couple of countries........ 100 million fans behind sachin . can bradman take this pressure???? u have to be in india to know how much pressure sachin is under everytime he comes to bat...... for 2 decades he has been able to provide joy to millions ....... so decide ppl

  • Krishna on January 7, 2012, 17:54 GMT

    Mr. Andrew: I am from India. This comparision is ridiculous. Sachin is not bothered about being the greatest. It is we the fans and media seems to be bothered. Sir Don Bradman is the perfectionist. That is why his average is 99 plus. It is very very difficult to be such a perfectionist. They are made special. Time waits for no one. 40 years back people would have compared Sir Garfield Sobers to the great man. There are so many great cricketers and sachin is one of them. Comparision will lead to conflicts. This is the reason Aussies fans abuse tendulkar at every single opportunity. Why they do not abuse others? Sachin is a very humble man and i have seen enough interviews of him to come to this conclusion. One matter though. Indian fans know the greatness of Sir Don. But we all live in the present moment and that is why we appreciate a Tendulkar. Otherwise we will always be critical of anyone just by comparision to Sir Don. Sachin himself has never ever said that he is great

  • hsp on January 7, 2012, 17:32 GMT

    Come on, isn't this page-2? wasn't it suppose to be funny? no one sane would believe any economist can find out the best batsman of all time. but you sir, mr. hughes, please do justice to your fame in field of cricket humor writing. (atleast when writing for page-2)

  • Brad on January 7, 2012, 17:28 GMT

    Sachin for sure is the best batsman of all-time.Cricket wasn't the same,say professional,back then as it is today.We just can't compare the primitive form of cricket belonging to the Don's era to professional,wide-reaching modern era.Not undermining the phenomenal average of Don;bowling and fielding wasn't high quality as it's been in modern era(well,atleast till 2001)... Sachin's career spanned 3 decades,faced a variety of bowling,pitches and was under constant focus of attention. To all those people saying SRT achieved this because of longevity,you need to check his record in depth revealing his phenomenal run in 90s which was one of the toughest decades to bat on when he averaged close to 60s which no other batsman was close to him...his matches/tons ratio is second only to Don I pity those who compare kallis to sachin,when kallis is mediocre abroad, especially in ENG and AUS...talking about superficial stats then King VIV is nowhere to be seen in any top 10 list.isn't he an ATG?

  • Brent on January 7, 2012, 17:26 GMT

    Nah Sachin is best if you take into account the variety of bowlers and conditions he faced. Agree Don dwarfed all his great counterparts in his era, but to succeed across 20 years across many countries and conditions is something not many can dream of.

  • Tabitha Gupta on January 7, 2012, 17:26 GMT

    Andrew needs to be very very careful when comparing Sachin Tendulkar and Don Bradman. He need to think very very deeply regarding this question who is better in the context of what?

  • Hammad Ali on January 7, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    I dont feel sachin has such caliber like Viv Richards, Miandad, Crowe etc because he is not feared hitter like ViV, not match winner like Miandad/Imran Khan, sorry he is just going for records not winning for his country. He is a very good player but not greatest.

  • Sankar on January 7, 2012, 17:11 GMT

    It is not just about averages. SRT's average is very good , no doubt and so is Kallis' average or for that matter Ponting's average. Just watch SRT , kallis and Ponting batting at their best. You would know the difference. SRT is not hurried in his shot making, relaxed, inventive ( upper cut , paddle sweep), tight in defence and a more compact player than both Kallis and Ponting.

  • Amir Fayyaz on January 7, 2012, 17:06 GMT

    Bradman is the best. There is no doubt about that. But guys in Bradman days there were no Mcgrath, Ambrose, Warne, Wasim, Waqar and Murali etc. So we have to give credit to Sachin for bravely facing these greats and dominating against them. Also he is playing all formats of cricket, test, ODI and 20/20. Still at 38 he looks like a young guy in cricket. So, I think Bradman is best in his own era and Sachin has played in different era where you have to face reverse swing and leg spin of Warne.

  • Eric Lugay on January 7, 2012, 16:22 GMT

    Lara was better than Sachin. More double centuries than Tendulkar, played under more pressure.

  • Fayez Sohail on January 7, 2012, 16:21 GMT

    frankly, check the records bradman has played better from the start, he was so good a special technique called bodyline was created to defeat him. sachin on the other hand has never performed match winners, he always got out just before and has not nearly hit a century for a year he is over rated, lara and kallis are definitely better than him

  • Richard on January 7, 2012, 16:20 GMT

    Sachin isn't even acknowledged universally to be the best player of his time let alone ever. I would regard it as an insult to Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Barry Richards, Jack Hobbs to name only a handful.

  • pankaj on January 7, 2012, 16:14 GMT

    besides everything else the pleasure of seeing SRT bat, his shot making, his poise at the crease is uncomparable and no batsman comes ever near to that..no wonder Don bradman saw himself in him.

  • pankaj on January 7, 2012, 16:09 GMT

    no doubt, india's performance has been absolutely abysmal to say the least but that does not make them an object of complete derision..dont forget its much easier to adjust to slow and low turning wickets for a player used to bouncy and faster wickets much more difficult vice versa.. as far as comparison between players of different eras is concerned its absolutely unfair to do such a comparison as comparison can only logically be done between players of same era.. we always have our personal preferences about the best player of an era but nothing can compare as the views of the peers of the players and when it comes to tendulkar the views of his rivals are enough to clear any doubt about who is the most dominating, devastating etc. batsman of this era.. apart from that the weaknesses of kallis and ponting in front of quality spinner is well seen and documented, remember kallis used to be an easy victim of shane warne and what happened to ponting on his indian tour against harbhajan..

  • KCP on January 7, 2012, 15:46 GMT

    Good to read that Kallis is 3rd and Lara is 4th...the calculations are beyond my grasp, but my heart always said that there must be some logic ! Difference between Bradman & Tendulkar is 0.69% ! Kallis is 23.36% behing the 1st rank and Lara is 29.61 !! Scores - 4067.10 , 4038.94, 3116.88, 2862.65 Tendulkars points were done when he had 14532 runs & Kallis, when he had 11677

    REFERENCES : Dawson, P. and Dobson, S. (2002), ‘Managerial Efficiency and Human Capital: An Application to English Association Football’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 23, 471–86. Fraser, A. (2008), ‘Bewildered Batsmen Lose Sight of Big Score’, The Independent, 11 March. Available at: http:// www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/bewildered-batsmen-lose-sight-of-big-score-794009.html. Hofler, R. and Payne, J. (2006), ‘Efficiency in the National Basketball Association: A Stochastic Frontier Approach With Panel Data And ofcourse cricinfo !

  • Bolans Boy on January 7, 2012, 15:40 GMT

    It is pointless to talk of a player with 8000 runs not in the class of one with 16000 runs when the 8000-runs player averages 86 runs per match played while the 16000-runs player averages 80 runs per match played. The important stat is not the aggregate but the average. A player with 25 hundreds in 100 games makes a hundred every 4 games. One with 50 hundreds in 250 games averages a century every 5 matches. Yet the 50-centuries man is considered greater than the 25-hundreds player. This is nonsense. It is not the aggregate that is important but the mean (average). Not-outs should not be subtracted from the number of innings to figure the batting average. The player batted. He was at the wicket, even if he did not face a ball. In baseball when a batter hits a homerun it still counts as an "at bat" to figure his batting average. That is why cricket batting averages are so "inflated." Averages per inning and match, frequency of 100 and 50, and strike rate are the important stats.

  • Chris on January 7, 2012, 15:37 GMT

    Debate? Unlikely.

    Nobody, not even those who claim to profess it, actually believe that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.

    When Tendulkar's average is 40 points ahead of his contemporaries, we'll talk. It's just that simple.

  • bader on January 7, 2012, 15:32 GMT

    sachin vs the don

    no way - chris gayle says chris gayle is better than both.

  • Potter on January 7, 2012, 15:30 GMT

    Come on, it's really not a debate. Sachin is, if anything, the greatest batsman of the modern era, but even then, only perhaps by a slim margin. Even statistically he's not that much better than Ponting, Kallis, and Lara. But Bradman is ahead by miles. Not saying Sachin is the greatest ever takes nothing away from a brilliant cricketer. One thing Sachin does have is an equally outstanding ODI career.

  • Bang_La on January 7, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    Its IDIOTIC to highlight Sachin to the level of Don Bradman. If Sachin was near to Bradman material, he wouldn't fail so many times to make his centennial century long time back (Bradman succeeded against Bodyline). Indian corporate world is eagerly awaiting with new products on Sachin's 100th century and Sachin kept them disappointed. How sad.

  • Commenter on January 7, 2012, 15:27 GMT

    Response to Anonymous Last season England beat Aus by an innings in 3 tests. Do you think Aus should only play county teams?

  • prasun on January 7, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    "Better" is a subjective term unless defined as a metric. If you define it as career average then there is no debate - just look up statsguru. If you want to account for the difference in quality of opposition etc please come up with a metric. If you define it as "quality of strokeplay" etc then it become very subjective and no amount of debate will settle the matter.

  • Spannapigs on January 7, 2012, 15:06 GMT

    Sobers is the best batsman of all time, counting Bradman.Others are comparable but Sobers stands above them.Don's stats are a freak of the sport never to be repeated.He would not have done anywhere near as well against some of the great, quality quicks of the modern era, particularly the Windies great quicks, regardless of what he himself said (that he would have averaged - I forgot the figure - against the Windies at age 80-something. One statistic that needs to be much more recognized officially is the frequency with which a batsman makes a century.Of all the modern greats, only Hayden tops Sobers in this area.A very few batsmen top Sobers in one statistical area only.He tops most of them in all others.To me the only statistical categories critical to assessing greatness are: the batting average per inning, the batting average per match, the frequency of centuries, and, maybe, fifties.No one has better stats than Garry across the board.Not outs should count in calculating averages.

  • uday on January 7, 2012, 15:05 GMT

    Sachin cannot be compared with the don or not even lara,Viv or Kallis.At best we can compare him younis khan,inzy,Aravinda or Sangakkara.

  • Steve Smith on January 7, 2012, 14:59 GMT

    The real question of interest is why Tendulkar hasn't scored more runs. Watching him one would think he at least had the potential to average 100... Any shrinks with an explanation?

  • narinder on January 7, 2012, 14:52 GMT

    I have never liked the idea of comparing two players from different era..let alone a difference of 40 yrs in one haging his boots and other one coming to play. When we talk about marketing a player..did don get paid to call Sachin closest to himself?Did Sir Viv get paid to call Sachin 99.50% perfect or did Warne get paid to rate him as best he played with or against?Are you people trying to say that the comments from all those greats paid?Get a life..Not even best of his era?Name one other batsman with atleast 30 tests who averaged 40 plus under all conditions during Sachin's era..40 is above what we tend to call a batsman good but below avg..Isn't it? Rate Lara ahead with 41 average in Aust, the best team of Sachin and Lara era?Or u rate him for 33 avg in India, so called flat tracks?Or may be for New Zealand?Kallis is greatest allrounder ever..but still not best batter as we can see in Eng or Sri Lanka.Still I loved both Lara and Kallis as much as i Love Sachin..but they r not bettr.

  • Jackson Lado on January 7, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    Don Bradman is the best, Sachin is not even the dust on his shoes. Look at the Average, 99.94 on sticky pitches, bodyline bowling, no rules on beamers and bouncer, thin willow bats, and balls that swing and spin like hell. Sachin plays on Dead Indian pitches, even playing on a road extracts more spin and bounce then indian pitches. He has thick willow bats, 1 bouncer per over, NO BEAMERS!!! IT is so much easier. And if Bradman played the same number of innings as Tendulkar, He would have over 70,000 runs and over 179 centuries.

  • Raghu Chadalavada on January 7, 2012, 14:41 GMT

    I agree with Paul Collins on the Don issue. sachin is not even a consideration with Bradman as he is not even the best player in his time. The best thing about Sachin is he is the best run accumulator the cricketing world has seen. He made it possible by being a cry baby as a opener in ODi where as he has never raised his hand to be an opener in tests whenever India needed in the last ten years. It was always Dravid who was brave enough to come as opener in england, SA to save Indias blushes.

  • Anonymous on January 7, 2012, 13:36 GMT

    india should start playing the domestic sides of the countries they visit............if by chance they succeed then they should b allowed to play against that country's international side.....................even if india had played against the sides of westren australia,victoria or new south wales the result would have been the same so they should not be allowed to play australia.......teams like bangladesh,india,srilanka and zimbabwe should only be allowed to play against the domestic sides then they should play test cricket in that country.....................one sided matches that give results in 3 or 4 days are not going to do any good for test cricket.........!!!

  • Nash on January 7, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    There is no debate. Sachin isn't even the best player of his time. He's not even the most feared player on his own team. He is very well marketed and surely the highest earning player of all time. That's about it.

  • vishal bharadwaj on January 7, 2012, 13:03 GMT

    For me, Sachin is always the best... no offence to great sir Donald Bradman, but Sachin is the best...

  • Warren on January 7, 2012, 12:13 GMT

    I find the 'debate' laughable to be honest. Sachins only claim to fame is around longevity - a fantastic feat in itself, but not enough to make him the greatest. In Bradmans favour you have uncovered green top pitches, hand made balls with square cores - causing more swing, no rules preventing lbws from balls pitching outside leg, an unlimited number of bouncers per over - and an average over 50 in the bodyline series when no one had ever seen short pitched fast bowling before. He scored a test century ever 2.76 innings, which means that if he had the benefit of playing 307 test innings like SRT has, hed have 30 600 test runs and 111 test centuries. So are we now saying that Sachin is greater because he played more test matches and had the benefit of flat track ODI pitches that contributed 48 test hundreds for some made up statistic of 100 international hundreds - that is somehow meanto be comparable to a test average of 99.94? SRT scores a test hundred every 6.02 innings - enough said

  • anil on January 7, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    If sachin's record is to be debated then where does this leave other greats???? If Sachin had left bradman in the dust then these other greats are left in the garbage. Let us not discuss this for once, there was never any ICC and Wisden who tore their hair from the bottom to find reasons to dwarf bradman as many do today. There was no media, internet and even TV to telecast or else Bradman would have scored 99 runs in his entire career and not 99.996 average.

  • Sanjiv on January 7, 2012, 10:59 GMT

    Personally speaking, I would like to see Tendulkar's av. moving upwards.........at least in 60s, so that he atleast remains above from all others who are around him. Well, technically possible but difficult to achieve by the time he hangs his boots down.

  • Jake on January 7, 2012, 10:55 GMT

    I agree with your second post (5/1/11). If the crowd are giving players a rough time, why can't they at least tell that person to nick off? He/she is probably too drunk anyway (in Australia, generally :p). I mean, players have been struck by bricks, cans and whatnot. I guess, if the player saw where the hurled object came from, should they have the right to throw it back? Or is that asking for more trouble than it's worth? Justice doesn't exist everywhere, I guess...

  • Paul Collins on January 7, 2012, 8:54 GMT

    You missed the obvious argument against Sachin being "better than Bradman". Jacques Kallis. There is some doubt that Sachin is even the best batsman of his era, let alone all-time. Bradman dominated his era. Sachin has not dominated his. I personally rate Kallis above Sachin, and I rated Lara above him as well, as do many, many others. As Kallis' career average is greater than Sachin's, then where does this economist rate Kallis in this argument?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Paul Collins on January 7, 2012, 8:54 GMT

    You missed the obvious argument against Sachin being "better than Bradman". Jacques Kallis. There is some doubt that Sachin is even the best batsman of his era, let alone all-time. Bradman dominated his era. Sachin has not dominated his. I personally rate Kallis above Sachin, and I rated Lara above him as well, as do many, many others. As Kallis' career average is greater than Sachin's, then where does this economist rate Kallis in this argument?

  • Jake on January 7, 2012, 10:55 GMT

    I agree with your second post (5/1/11). If the crowd are giving players a rough time, why can't they at least tell that person to nick off? He/she is probably too drunk anyway (in Australia, generally :p). I mean, players have been struck by bricks, cans and whatnot. I guess, if the player saw where the hurled object came from, should they have the right to throw it back? Or is that asking for more trouble than it's worth? Justice doesn't exist everywhere, I guess...

  • Sanjiv on January 7, 2012, 10:59 GMT

    Personally speaking, I would like to see Tendulkar's av. moving upwards.........at least in 60s, so that he atleast remains above from all others who are around him. Well, technically possible but difficult to achieve by the time he hangs his boots down.

  • anil on January 7, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    If sachin's record is to be debated then where does this leave other greats???? If Sachin had left bradman in the dust then these other greats are left in the garbage. Let us not discuss this for once, there was never any ICC and Wisden who tore their hair from the bottom to find reasons to dwarf bradman as many do today. There was no media, internet and even TV to telecast or else Bradman would have scored 99 runs in his entire career and not 99.996 average.

  • Warren on January 7, 2012, 12:13 GMT

    I find the 'debate' laughable to be honest. Sachins only claim to fame is around longevity - a fantastic feat in itself, but not enough to make him the greatest. In Bradmans favour you have uncovered green top pitches, hand made balls with square cores - causing more swing, no rules preventing lbws from balls pitching outside leg, an unlimited number of bouncers per over - and an average over 50 in the bodyline series when no one had ever seen short pitched fast bowling before. He scored a test century ever 2.76 innings, which means that if he had the benefit of playing 307 test innings like SRT has, hed have 30 600 test runs and 111 test centuries. So are we now saying that Sachin is greater because he played more test matches and had the benefit of flat track ODI pitches that contributed 48 test hundreds for some made up statistic of 100 international hundreds - that is somehow meanto be comparable to a test average of 99.94? SRT scores a test hundred every 6.02 innings - enough said

  • vishal bharadwaj on January 7, 2012, 13:03 GMT

    For me, Sachin is always the best... no offence to great sir Donald Bradman, but Sachin is the best...

  • Nash on January 7, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    There is no debate. Sachin isn't even the best player of his time. He's not even the most feared player on his own team. He is very well marketed and surely the highest earning player of all time. That's about it.

  • Anonymous on January 7, 2012, 13:36 GMT

    india should start playing the domestic sides of the countries they visit............if by chance they succeed then they should b allowed to play against that country's international side.....................even if india had played against the sides of westren australia,victoria or new south wales the result would have been the same so they should not be allowed to play australia.......teams like bangladesh,india,srilanka and zimbabwe should only be allowed to play against the domestic sides then they should play test cricket in that country.....................one sided matches that give results in 3 or 4 days are not going to do any good for test cricket.........!!!

  • Raghu Chadalavada on January 7, 2012, 14:41 GMT

    I agree with Paul Collins on the Don issue. sachin is not even a consideration with Bradman as he is not even the best player in his time. The best thing about Sachin is he is the best run accumulator the cricketing world has seen. He made it possible by being a cry baby as a opener in ODi where as he has never raised his hand to be an opener in tests whenever India needed in the last ten years. It was always Dravid who was brave enough to come as opener in england, SA to save Indias blushes.

  • Jackson Lado on January 7, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    Don Bradman is the best, Sachin is not even the dust on his shoes. Look at the Average, 99.94 on sticky pitches, bodyline bowling, no rules on beamers and bouncer, thin willow bats, and balls that swing and spin like hell. Sachin plays on Dead Indian pitches, even playing on a road extracts more spin and bounce then indian pitches. He has thick willow bats, 1 bouncer per over, NO BEAMERS!!! IT is so much easier. And if Bradman played the same number of innings as Tendulkar, He would have over 70,000 runs and over 179 centuries.