All things considered, is Tendulkar as good as Bradman?

SRT is the greatest ODI batsman of all time..

SRT is also probably the 2nd greatest LIVING batsman after Faisal Iqbal

He's better than Lara, I think. The weight of runs and stats now does it for me.

Bradman? Hell yeah. As of now, even I'm better than Bradman.

Has Bradman ever faced Mohammad Sami on a dry wicket in Rawalpindi and come out of it alive?

No?

That pretty much settles it then doesn't it

Until a batsman averages over 80 in both FC and test matches spanning over a long career then any comparisons should deservedly be laughed at.

Bradman was clearly in a different league to anyone else who has ever played the game, no one comes close.

bradmans average was a statistical anomaly. he was, and is, the greatest.

Ash wrote:bradmans average was a statistical anomaly. he was, and is, the greatest.

Indeed. Anyone claiming any different is clueless, frankly. I'm staggered at Nasser's comments.

Meh...they were just caught in the moment when they said it.

Bradman was a freak...enough said.

sage from prasad . . . these comparisons come up each time something special occurs . . . and not just with SRT . . .

So when you're in your mum's basement and "something special" occurs, do they say you're better than Bradman?

furriner wrote:So when you're in your mum's basement and "something special" occurs, do they say you're better than Bradman?

well I laughed

In any sport it is almost impossible to compare players of one era to another. Everything is different some aspects get easier others go the otherway. Such comparisons invariably tend to get emotional. There are similar claims that Federer is the best ever tennis player.

We should just enjoy the feats of champions like Federer and Tendulakar without having to compare them to players in the past.

Henry wrote:Bradman wasn't great at hitting the ball in the air. Just like Michael Slater, just like VVS Laxman. This makes his ability to be a great ODI and T20 player doubtful.

That's just a myth. Choosing not to hit the ball in the air is different to being crap at it. Bradman hit plenty of sixes when he was in the mood.

Yet another mistake by trev

furriner wrote:So when you're in your mum's basement and "something special" occurs, do they say you're better than Bradman?

your wife does . . . .

I still cannot watch Tendulkar bat with the same joy as when I watch(ed) Lara bat, and whilst I appreciate the technical, mechanical brilliance that Tendu represents, until yesterday I never felt that any of his feats were particularly noteworthy in a great batsman because I am sure, had others been presented with the opportunity to play as many matches as he had, they could well have competed with his various records (Bradman is an obvious name but the likes of Headley, Hammond, Weekes and Ian Bell immediately come to mind). That 200 certainly didn't eclipse Lara's 365 or 400* and for great Test innings you'd have to scour the furrows of your mind long and hard for great Test innings from Tendulkar. The statistics will always say that Tendulkar is a better batsman and perhaps in time that shall be accepted as fact but I'm a Lara man to the hilt and it's not because of any agenda other than pure cricketing appreciation.

Test Cricket >>>>>>> any limited-overs form of the game.

Feats in Test cricket >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feats in any limited-overs form of the game

Zat wrote:Test Cricket >>>>>>> any limited-overs form of the game.

Feats in Test cricket >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feats in any limited-overs form of the game


Feats outside the subcontinent in test cricket>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need I go on?

sage

There's a whole 'modern-day roads v old-time (occasionallly sticky) pitches argument that has hardly been touched upon.

I'd be interested to see an 'all-star' game of modern 'greats' played with old equipment, on old pitches left uncovered, and at the pace played in the 30s or 40s.

Yeah. Sure, the first ever 200 in a Men's JAMODI (yes, a chick had already achieved the feat) is an outstanding effort, but hardly justifies Naz's orgasms.

Naz is Trev?

It is amazing watching the old WSC thingies that Fox show as fillers. Guys like SOD and Greenidge belt the bejeezus out of the ball and it bounces 20 yards inside the boundary. These days you see GSC seemingly top edge one and it goes 30 rows back.

Them was proper cricketers. These modern gimps don't know they're born.

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:So when you're in your mum's basement and "something special" occurs, do they say you're better than Bradman?

your wife does . . . .

The b!tch isn't that old...

Henry wrote:Bradman wasn't great at hitting the ball in the air. Just like Michael Slater, just like VVS Laxman. This makes his ability to be a great ODI and T20 player doubtful.

You idiot.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:I still cannot watch Tendulkar bat with the same joy as when I watch(ed) Lara bat, and whilst I appreciate the technical, mechanical brilliance that Tendu represents, until yesterday I never felt that any of his feats were particularly noteworthy in a great batsman because I am sure, had others been presented with the opportunity to play as many matches as he had, they could well have competed with his various records (Bradman is an obvious name but the likes of Headley, Hammond, Weekes and Ian Bell immediately come to mind). That 200 certainly didn't eclipse Lara's 365 or 400* and for great Test innings you'd have to scour the furrows of your mind long and hard for great Test innings from Tendulkar. The statistics will always say that Tendulkar is a better batsman and perhaps in time that shall be accepted as fact but I'm a Lara man to the hilt and it's not because of any agenda other than pure cricketing appreciation.

Hmm...for the very same reasons you mentioned, I prefer Tendy.

Strange that!!

you prefer Tendy because "none of his feats are particularly noteworthy" and "because you'd have to scour the furrows of your mind long and hard for great Test innings from Tendulkar"?????