Re: All things considered, is Tendulkar as good as Bradman?

by Gary 111 Mon 01 Mar 2010, 14:38

Bradman played 52 Test Matches, of these 37 were against England (averaging 89.78) and 5 against India (178.75), 5 against South Africa (201.50) and 5 against the West Indies (74.50).

It has to be said that the India side was as weak as any around today (it took them 20 years to win their first Test Match) and the West Indies weren't especially strong either (especially on their travels) when Bradman played them in 1931. 10 of Bradman's Tests against England also were following World War 2 which had claimed the lives of key players like Verity and Farnes and had prevented other younger players breaking through because of the burden placed on the country.

Of the bowlers of Bradman's era who took more than 40 Test wickets - only 8 had a bowling average of under 27. When you consider the majority of these (6) were Australian Bradman only had to play against Bill Bowes and Hedley Verity that fall into this category. Bowes famously was the second bowler to dismiss Bradman for a duck in a Test (after Herman Griffith) and Verity took his wicket more than any other bowler.

Do a similar check on Sachin Tendulkar and there are many more bowlers with an average of under 27 - 27 in total (Reid, Ambrose, McGrath, Bond, Donald, Murali, Wasim, Shabbir, Pollock, Asif, Steyn, Marshall, Waqar, Clark, de Villiers, Bishop, Walsh, Warne, Shoaib, Fleming, Hughes, Gillespie, Miller, Alderman, McDermott, Fraser & Reiffel). None of these bowlers played for India.

The talent is spread far wider and because of the regularity of matches it is harder to be significantly better than the opposition. Whereas now teams will ruthlessly analyse their opponants to identify weaknesses back in Bradman's era this was rare. Partly what enabled Bradman to score 300 in a day was the fact opposing captains would maintain attacking fields for the entire innings. A captain would never insruct his spinner to bowl outside leg stump with 6 men back on the boundary like Ashley Giles would to Tendulkar. The only real attempt to counter Bradman was led by Jardine and Larwood in 1932/33 and the backlash meant Larwood was never allowed to play against Bradman again.

What does this mean?

Is Bradman better than Tendulkar? Yes, undoubtably. Bradman was significantly better than his contemporaries, whereas there is little to choose between the achievements of Tendulkar and Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Sangakkara and Kallis.

Is it harder to be a stand out batsman in the modern era? Yes, because of the depth of talent, and level of analysis no batsman will ever average 25 runs more than his nearest competitor.

I don't think Bradman's 99.94 would have translated to the same average had he played in Tendulkar's era though. Even to average 70 nowadays over a full career when the peak seems to be 55 would be a remarkable achievement that is probably beyond any man.

by The One Mon 01 Mar 2010, 14:46

how do you make that table? the table function in this forum seems mighty time consuming. is there a quicker way?

by Gary 111 Mon 01 Mar 2010, 15:20

The One wrote:how do you make that table? the table function in this forum seems mighty time consuming. is there a quicker way?

I used the table code on using the buttons at the top

... and then wrote in the gaps

by The One Mon 01 Mar 2010, 15:51

hmm, yeah thats the only way to do it here. takes too much time

the old code function was so much easier. cut and paste

by Josh Carney Tue 02 Mar 2010, 02:34

Gary 111 wrote:Bradman played 52 Test Matches, of these 37 were against England (averaging 89.78) and 5 against India (178.75), 5 against South Africa (201.50) and 5 against the West Indies (74.50).

It has to be said that the India side was as weak as any around today (it took them 20 years to win their first Test Match) and the West Indies weren't especially strong either (especially on their travels) when Bradman played them in 1931. 10 of Bradman's Tests against England also were following World War 2 which had claimed the lives of key players like Verity and Farnes and had prevented other younger players breaking through because of the burden placed on the country.

Of the bowlers of Bradman's era who took more than 40 Test wickets - only 8 had a bowling average of under 27. When you consider the majority of these (6) were Australian Bradman only had to play against Bill Bowes and Hedley Verity that fall into this category. Bowes famously was the second bowler to dismiss Bradman for a duck in a Test (after Herman Griffith) and Verity took his wicket more than any other bowler.

Do a similar check on Sachin Tendulkar and there are many more bowlers with an average of under 27 - 27 in total (Reid, Ambrose, McGrath, Bond, Donald, Murali, Wasim, Shabbir, Pollock, Asif, Steyn, Marshall, Waqar, Clark, de Villiers, Bishop, Walsh, Warne, Shoaib, Fleming, Hughes, Gillespie, Miller, Alderman, McDermott, Fraser & Reiffel). None of these bowlers played for India.

The talent is spread far wider and because of the regularity of matches it is harder to be significantly better than the opposition. Whereas now teams will ruthlessly analyse their opponants to identify weaknesses back in Bradman's era this was rare. Partly what enabled Bradman to score 300 in a day was the fact opposing captains would maintain attacking fields for the entire innings. A captain would never insruct his spinner to bowl outside leg stump with 6 men back on the boundary like Ashley Giles would to Tendulkar. The only real attempt to counter Bradman was led by Jardine and Larwood in 1932/33 and the backlash meant Larwood was never allowed to play against Bradman again.

What does this mean?

Is Bradman better than Tendulkar? Yes, undoubtably. Bradman was significantly better than his contemporaries, whereas there is little to choose between the achievements of Tendulkar and Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Sangakkara and Kallis.

Is it harder to be a stand out batsman in the modern era? Yes, because of the depth of talent, and level of analysis no batsman will ever average 25 runs more than his nearest competitor.

I don't think Bradman's 99.94 would have translated to the same average had he played in Tendulkar's era though. Even to average 70 nowadays over a full career when the peak seems to be 55 would be a remarkable achievement that is probably beyond any man.

That is a pretty good post Gary and a different way of looking at the whole question.

by Zat Tue 02 Mar 2010, 03:11

Gary 111 wrote:Is Bradman better than Tendulkar? Yes, undoubtably. Bradman was significantly better than his contemporaries, whereas there is little to choose between the achievements of Tendulkar and Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Sangakkara and Kallis.

Is it harder to be a stand out batsman in the modern era? Yes, because of the depth of talent, and level of analysis no batsman will ever average 25 runs more than his nearest competitor.

Well put, and thanks for doing the analysis. That's pretty close to what I was looking at doing. Of course Trev will never look at that and see sense, he'll probably sook off like the pathetic whingeing qunt he is haveing been proven way wrong.

I don't think Bradman's 99.94 would have translated to the same average had he played in Tendulkar's era though. Even to average 70 nowadays over a full career when the peak seems to be 55 would be a remarkable achievement that is probably beyond any man.

One of the great imponderables, but given how far ahead of the rest DGB was of his contemporaries, I'd suggest he still would have averaged 80+

The One wrote:how do you make that table? the table function in this forum seems mighty time consuming. is there a quicker way?

It is a bit painful, you can speed it up by copying and pasting to notepad, it gives a better sense of the layout you'll end up with.

by WideWally Tue 02 Mar 2010, 04:05

Gary 111 wrote:..... and the West Indies weren't especially strong either (especially on their travels) when Bradman played them in 1931.

The batting might not have been strong but the fast bowling attack of Herman Griffith, Learie Constantine & George Francis was top class.

by JGK Tue 02 Mar 2010, 04:33

Gary's analysis makes some good points but if DGB is only about a 70-75 average in the modern era, that would mean the likes of Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Headley, Hammond etc are only about as good as Andrew Strauss.

The fact is that the very very best batsmen from all eras since Hobbs started in 1905 have failed to average more than 60 in their careers - except Bradman.

by Josh Carney Tue 02 Mar 2010, 06:11

Several psychological factors normally influence such debates.
For most the best music was what they were exposed to as part of growing up. Easy to find huge numbers of highly opinionated people who swear that the music from their particular decade was the best and can never be surpassed.
Also at play here is the nationalism aspect.

Very rarely do such debates ever change people's minds, it is one of I am stuck to mine and hence I will construct arguments / logic and data to defend it.

Would be interesting to ask somebody like Richie Benaud who has played the game and actually seen both players at work. Again this needs to be away from the glare of the press or TV where quite often people tell people what the masses want to hear.

by tac Tue 02 Mar 2010, 06:50

Another point which I think might be sometimes overlooked is the over rate . . . if modern bowlers had to bowl 110+ overs a day (not each, of course, smerky) many of today's batsmen would probably average a few runs more by feeding on tiring bowlers, putting them level with the other great bats from Bradman's era . . .but not really getting them anywhere near ther Don

by Zat Tue 02 Mar 2010, 08:30

Josh Carney wrote:Would be interesting to ask somebody like Richie Benaud who has played the game and actually seen both players at work.

I suspect Richie was saying exzactly what he meant when he chose this XI:

Opening batsmen
• Jack Hobbs England
• Sunil Gavaskar India

Number 3
• Don Bradman Australia (Captain)

Numbers 4 & 5
• Sachin Tendulkar India
• Viv Richards West Indies

All Rounders
• Imran Khan Pakistan
• Gary Sobers West Indies

Wicket-keeper
• Adam Gilchrist Australia

Spin bowlers
• Shane Warne Australia

Fast bowlers
• Sydney Barnes England
• Dennis Lillee Australia

Twelfth man: Keith Miller Australia

Manager: Frank Worrell West Indies

Benaud says on the DVD that Bradman was the best. Ever.

by JGK Tue 02 Mar 2010, 12:36

I was at a function where Richie spoke and he was talking to Tiger O'Reilly about Bradman.

Apparently Richie said "I wish I had a chance to bowl at him" to which Tiger replied "No you don't".

by Brass Monkey Wed 03 Mar 2010, 12:32

WideWally wrote:The batting might not have been strong but the fast bowling attack of Herman Griffith, Learie Constantine & George Francis was top class.

Definitely.

by DJ_Smerk Wed 03 Mar 2010, 16:00

tac wrote:Another point which I think might be sometimes overlooked is the over rate . . . if modern bowlers had to bowl 110+ overs a day (not each, of course, smerky) many of today's batsmen would probably average a few runs more by feeding on tiring bowlers, putting them level with the other great bats from Bradman's era . . .but not really getting them anywhere near ther Don

Thanks for the clarification. Cool

by Josh Carney Thu 04 Mar 2010, 00:20

Sobers sees it differently

by Zat Thu 04 Mar 2010, 01:59

Sobers speaks a lot of sense in some parts of that article.

"People try to compare between the players of the past and the present, but the conditions under which the (Donald) Bradmans and the (Dennis) Comptons played were different," said Sobers.

The left-handed great said there were no restrictions on the number of bouncers per over, beamers were not outlawed and bowlers delivered from two yards closer by dragging their feet as the back-foot no-ball rule was in operation.

His mention of 72 overs a day relates more to the 70s or 80s. Over rates in the 30s were much higher than they are today.

by tac Thu 04 Mar 2010, 06:15

Has Sobers got business interests in the sub-incontinent?

by embee Thu 04 Mar 2010, 06:19

72 eight ball overs equates to 96 six ball overs

by Zat Thu 04 Mar 2010, 07:14

Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

by taipan Thu 04 Mar 2010, 21:57

Zat wrote:Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

Even in Aus?

by tac Thu 04 Mar 2010, 22:13

taipan wrote:
Zat wrote:Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

Even in Aus?

[LLL]Nigel in having no farkin idea what universal means shock, yet he moans like a bitch about my honest mistake over "hearsay"[/LLL]

by Guest Thu 04 Mar 2010, 22:31

tac wrote:
taipan wrote:
Zat wrote:Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

Even in Aus?

[LLL]Nigel in having no farkin idea what universal means shock, yet he moans like a bitch about my honest mistake over "hearsay"[/LLL]

Whatever happened to Laura?

by Zat Thu 04 Mar 2010, 22:32

taipan wrote:
Zat wrote:Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

Even in Aus?

What? I know Australia is the best place in the universe (except for the true paradise that is Planet Zog) but that makes no sense.

by G.Wood Thu 04 Mar 2010, 22:43

Clamson wrote:
tac wrote:
taipan wrote:
Zat wrote:Eight ball overs weren't universal in the 70s.

Even in Aus?

[LLL]Nigel in having no farkin idea what universal means shock, yet he moans like a bitch about my honest mistake over "hearsay"[/LLL]

Whatever happened to Laura?

Now posts as Shoeshine All things considered, is Tendulkar as good as Bradman? - Page 4 Icon_wink

by tac Thu 04 Mar 2010, 22:53

Ouch!

by Sponsored content