Master of the game

@ fadooo "Its not fair to compare batsman from across eras, especially since the introduction of helmets. " -------------------- You correct about comparing across the era but wrong in suggesting that in modern era batting is easy. Along with helmets we now have computers too where batsman's single twitch is analyzed and a single flaw is exploited. We have no way of knowing how bradman would have stood against such scrutiny. Plus bowlers in last 20 years have been much ahead of what you had in bradman's time. Shoab, lee warne murali akram, mcgrath, donald all these are too good. We have no way of knowing how much bradman would have survived against all these. Anyway comparing across eras is not good. Bradman was no uno of his time. Sachin is num uno of his time.

I have to say I would support Fadooo here...I cannot support at all meaning less critics like pradeepplasantha and syedarbabahmed as their words convey only blind frustration.But at the same time just because Sachin is the most complete batsman IMO of the post helmet era, there is a big IF as to whether he is the all time best or atleast 2nd behind Bradman.This is because pre helmet era posed all together different challenges.Not only one needed super cricket skills, but super courage too.That's why with due respect to his greatness, i doubt whether Sachin could have been as succesful with cent percent surety.And that's exactly why I rate a proven master like Viv Richards & 99.96 avg: Bradman slightly above Sachin even though Sachin comes as the best even in expert IT analyst like Ananth Narayan's analysis.As we all know we cannot statistically measure this courage factor.So proven people like Viv Richards definitely have an edge here.

@SyedArbabAhmed ... perhaps you can define (i) match winning innings & (ii) winning tournaments. FYI, SRT helped Ind win ICC WC in 2002. Tournaments other than the World Cup matter. Check his record in those: for tournament finals, note down, just for starters, 138 vs SL in 2009 and 117* & 91 vs Aus in 2008 (all 3 are away innings). His 2009-10 ODI perfs that qualify as matchwinning for me: 163*, 46, 138, 96*, 200* ... look-up cricinfo for a fuller info on those! Finally, Anwar, Jaya etc. winning more trophies that SRT ... are you serious?

@shams, mate you're now clutching at non-existent straws by referring to away records! (1) Pls read my prior post on Away - Home performances...Tendulkar's Away performances easily trump Lara, Ponting, Inzamam. (2) Outside the subcontinent too Tendulkar's Test record is superior to Lara. Lara in Aus is av 42 with 4 100s, 4 50s; Sachin is av 59 with 6 100s, 5 50s. Lara in Eng is av 49 with 4 100s, 6 50s; Sachin is av 62 with 4 100s, 6 50s. Lara in NZ is av 37 with 1 100s, 3 50s; Sachin is av 50 with 2 100s, 5 50s. Lara in Ind is av 33 with 0 100s, 2 50s; Sachin in WI is av 48 with 1 100s, 5 50s. Lara in SA is av 47 with 2 100s, 5 50s; Sachin is av 40 with 3 100s, 3 50s. Further, while I too was mesmerized by Lara's 2001 run in SL, that came against the pre-doosra Murali! Aside from that series, Lara was hardly a major contributor in overseas series. And his 375 and 400* (both at home) were WRs, but both came on dodo-dead pitches (boring draws) & only served to inflate his numbers.

@pradeepplasantha, etc., U guys remind me a story.. There was once an International Frog exhibition. All the coutries' Frogs were put in glass cases covered with a lid.. but the Indian ones weren't.. when the Judge was amused.. the presenter said.. dont worry they are Indian.. even if a Frog tries to climb and jump out the others will hold its legs and PULL it to ground.. Had Sachin been born in Australia/England/NZ.. Sachin would have been in the same group as Sir Don, if not better.. Please don't even talk about Ponting in the same class as Sachin.. Hes been a person with personality disorder.. Imbiciles like you can only harp about the world cups and other trophies that Sachin couldn't WIN for India.. What u guys doing is comparing 11 Vs 1.. Ponting WON 3 world cups.. but work out the statistics and his contributions to the team... Australia won those cups not JUST because of Ponting.. but because of other players.. McGrath, Warne, Hydos, Gilchrist.. Y do u choose to ignore this?

@shams,HP_75-Outside the subcontinent and away from home against the major Test playing countries: Aus,SA,NZ,Eng. SRT : 92 inn. 4501@52.95, 15 100s BCL : 91 inn. ,3984 @44.26 ,11 100s….Oops, this is getting embarassing now.you know shams, this is actually an understandable problem of yours. Lara at his flashy best was awesome and possibly tendulkars equal. But overall, all aspects, all the time ,different conditions, locations, bowlers etc…Tendulkar is in a different league. As close to a combination of Gavaskar and Richards you will ever hope to find.

HP_75.dont bother about shams. like i said ,he will studiously pick and chose whatever data suits him after sufficient filtering..and discard whatever doesnt. Tenduklar was rated the 2nd best batsman of all time behind Bradman using an Icc model which also factors in several things. OF course ,you are right in that there are so many factors which go into a model, many of which are subjective and depends on the person creating the model. BUT still the icc model which shows Tendulkar as 2nd best of ALL time (with lara barely figuring in the top 10) is ignored for some other set of stats....this is the entire mode of operation of these ppl. like others have said- the basic point is that overral Tendulkar is MILES ahead of the pack...so the only hope is to filter away and get some combinations wherein others may have similar or better stats...you can apply the same approach to ALi,Pele,Federer etc....but of course it reveals more about the individuals mindset than anything else.

lara avg. well below 50 in Aus, NZ, SA, Eng.The ONLY place lara has done better than tendulkar is SA, and that too post Donald. Anyone who has watched cricket will be aware of how pathetic lara was against donald at his peak..again, tendulkars avg suffers there coz of his first 91 tour, whereas lara only improves post donald in the 2000s.and of course u conveniently forget murali in 01 was hardly post murali.also check murali vs any good lefties. In other places "outside the subcontinent" lara avg. vs Aus:41.97, Eng:48.76, NZ: 36.9…You know…you are only further suceeding in letting me know how poor lara really was. Lara indeed seems to be a home town bully who pumped up his stats in the juicy mid 2000 period….hmmm…you know the more you keep dissecting stats the more you will find 3 stats in favor of tendulkar for 1 stat in favor of lara, that's in Tests. In ODIs -forget it. Overall -forget it…

@shams.as per the icc tendulkar was the 2nd best batsman of all time behind bradman. these rankings used a similar model to what u refer to....lara was barely in the picture..im sure you are aware of this fact.

@HP_75 "any cricket connoisseur worth his salt would acknowledge that in the 1990s, Lara, Tendulkar and Steve Waugh were far more impactful than Gooch, Richardson and Miandad...and yet ICC ratings (according to you) put Gooch and richardson on top!"

Did you miss the point where I said that since player's ratings start from 0, players making debut in late 80s and 90s would be at a slight disadvantage in the 90s averages compared to others who debuted earlier?

However when you take entire career averages, it evens out for all players. As expected Bradman is far ahead of everyone else in that despite having played fewer matches than some of the others.

The Batsmen-Bowlers averages is the next best thing we have to actual player v player stats. It is strange that against Donald, Wasim, Waqar, etc Lara is still ahead in terms of average despite being conceived to be pathetic against pace!!! (btw, I did not post those stats here)