there is no way two players in different era can be compared , What most of us know about bradman is just awritten records , but what we know about tendulakr is 20 years of great services not only to indian cricket but the whole cricket world.. definatly cricket in this era is much more physically demanding then it was in yester years , pressure of a billion can somtimes kill you .. tell me how many players like sachin played for 20 years with consistency and with remarkable sportsman spirit..I never felt that if sachin is on crease India can lose..but in case of dravid yes .. he can bring down run rate easily :) Thats the pressure he carries a burden of hope of 1B people... no bradmans no pontings n lara can come even close ... People said he is playing for records he s playing for something .. he is not performing in finals are actually losers.. i wud say some people in this world finds fault in god too .. I would say leave those people to their own losing fate and move on and enjoy sachin batting .. because he know s how to quite those people who just know how to belittle someone...
Re: Both are great ..
by Setu Madhavan on Dec 24, 2010 04:23 AM
"...no bradmans no pontings n lara can come even close"
What are you smoking. No bradman can come close?!
Friend, Bradman was 40 runs ahead of other frontline players of his era in terms of average. Tendulkar is in the same ballpark as Ponting, Kallis, Dravid in terms of his average.
Ask yourself. If Tendulkar was not Indian, would you have been idolizing him as much claiming outlandishly that 'No bradman can even come close to Tendulkar'.
There is something to be said about Lara too. He scored huge innings several times...375 to break Sobers' long standing test record of 365, and then scored 400 to reclaim the record from Hayden.
Similarly Lara scored 501 in first class cricket to show how prolific he was in scoring at the highest level.
Just happens that Lara is not from India. Else we Indians would have been jumping up and down screaming from the rooftops that 'No bradman can come close to Lara'.
Re: Re: Both are great ..
by rajratan2323@rediffmail.com on Dec 24, 2010 04:43 AM
My friend I totally agree with you. The point here is rediff is exploiting minds of young Indians. (0 % of the people visiting websites are 25 years and below and they get fascinated by this facts. It is not even highlighted that he is not Captain but just normal batsman.Actually even arguing that Nations expectations are only on his shoulders is looking for excuses. Sachin no doubt is a very very very good batsman just like many other international players,but if he was captain for Indian Team for about 10 years now his performance would not even have been half of what it is . In fact it is also acknowledged by Sachin himself that not being Captain has helped but the media and fans are behaving rabid.
Re: Re: Re: Both are great ..
by rajratan2323@rediffmail.com on Dec 24, 2010 04:44 AM
My friend I totally agree with you. The point here is rediff is exploiting minds of young Indians. 90 % of the people visiting websites are 25 years and below and they get fascinated by this facts. It is not even highlighted that he is not Captain but just normal batsman.Actually even arguing that Nations expectations are only on his shoulders is looking for excuses. Sachin no doubt is a very very very good batsman just like many other international players,but if he was captain for Indian Team for about 10 years now his performance would not even have been half of what it is . In fact it is also acknowledged by Sachin himself that not being Captain has helped but the media and fans are behaving rabid.
Re: Re: Both are great ..
by India First on Dec 24, 2010 05:57 AM
Setu - he is taking about pressure he carried since 20 years nobody ever did ... adn his records are way ahead then Laras /brdmans.. fogive bradman he was grat in his era .. 29 test matches is nothing no w a days .. wiith pressure of odis and t20ss
period,no further discussion on this topic,my only complain to media is we have some other great players also in the team who had given very valuable and memorable performances just acknowledge them too
ACCORDING TO ME THE COMPARISON ITSELF IS OUT OF PLACE AS BOTH ARE "LEGENDS" OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TIMES !SANIA MIRZA HAS RIGHTLY SAID:I AM PROUD TO BE BORN IN SACHIN'S ERA !
Re: ...............
by Chrysanthemum sxaz on Dec 24, 2010 01:30 AM
Bradman played for 20 years with the WWII intervening and he faced India and other nations as well, inlcuding SA.
Pressure of being Bradman must have been unique indeed.
Clubbing 20-20 & ODI to bolster an argument is specious as then the only comparison would be from Bradman's time be first class matches. That hardly impacts Test cighest in comparson. BTW Bradman's highest in 1st class is 453 and in Tests he has 12 double centrutirs and 2 triple. amazingly Sachin has no triple yet is considered the all time greatest, by what measure is baffling!
Re: ...............
by vijay on Dec 24, 2010 01:13 AM
8) Bradman didnt have the pressure of 1 billion. In india, 1 billion pray that SRT scores big every time he walks out.
9) No media to rip Bradman. While aajtak,and other crappy channels blast tendulkar for any failure.
10) Tendulkar didnt have the support of a good batting order, and remember him playing with likes of somasundran,bharadwaj,noel david,ramesh,ss das and stuff. Bradman was part of invincibles, so batting was shared.
11) Finally tendulkar is a known partnership breaker..150 ODI wickets. A true genious indeed!!
12) Also playing for so many years and so many matches like Tendulkar is staggering. To survive the fitness aspect itself is awesome. Bradman had the luxury to play far fewer matches and remain fit. Tendulkar lost some avg due to fitness.Bradman didnt play 22 years non stop but tendulkar is doing just that and that too with such consistency which is remarkable.
13) and in bradman's era fielding was very poor ,no conscious diving efforts to save 4s n even singles as it happens nowdays.
Re: ...............
by rajratan2323@rediffmail.com on Dec 24, 2010 04:57 AM
During Bradman's time Cricket was the No.1 game in Britain hence the passion for game was as strong as how it is in India now. England was very very strong team. Infact even now if the best English Talent goes for Cricket and not Football,Rugby than England will be such a strong team that it is unimaginable. Even when Australia was no 1, the passion for Cricket was not even half what it is in India. In India , Cricketers are the richest in the world even when so many Indians are starving. In NZ and other countries cricketers have to do a second job to survive. So think broadly, Cricket is actually popular only in Indian Subcontinent. In SA also Cricket is no.3 game after Football and rugby. Despite this India looses.
Given today's 365 day's of cricket, round the year, a good batsmen will never lose his form. It was a different thing years ago when great players of the past played. They used to get just 3 or 4 months of cricket every year. Just remember how Don used to travel by ship to other countries to play tests and other matches. In fact, he used to spend 2 months on ship just to travel from one country to the other. It was great that he never lost his form even after playing just three month's cricket. In fact, he did not play from 1939 to 1947 when scored more than 1500 test runs in just a year and a half! He even scored a 100 in just 28 balls!
But, now SRT can travel very quickly from one place to the other to play all types of matches. How does he lose his form then!
In today's cricketing environment, he looks like an alien from outer space with all those body saving parts! Compare to this to the past cricketers! Who told that there were no good bowlers in the past! I can give a long list. Watch out for more on bowlers.
Has SRT played against the quality of Roberts, Thomson, Lillie, Sir Hadlee, Imran, Snow, Willis, Holding, Marshal, Garner, Croft, Pascoe, Calrke and others?
Has he played a single match on uncovered wickets?
Has he played any match without wearing a helmet that too against super quick like the ones mentioned above?
What is contribution to the fourth innings score of India. Fourth innings batting means defeat or dra
Re: SRT vs DB
by cricketfan on Dec 23, 2010 10:10 PM
Yes,in fact,if you see his innings wise average,there's a gradual decline from the 1st to the 4th innings.This means the fellow is more comfortable playing in the first innings when batting is easier.
Re: Re: SRT vs DB
by cricketfan on Dec 23, 2010 10:18 PM
Also,out of his 50 centuries, 37 have come in the first and second innings and only 3 centuries in the 4th innings. Whereas, Rahul Dravid has got a more consistent average from the first to 4th iinings.
Re: Re: Re: SRT vs DB
by srikanth hegde on Dec 23, 2010 10:30 PM
Sunil Gavaskar has the best 4th innings achievement in test cricket. He has scored about 1400 runs in just 33 innings with 4 centuries and 8 fifties and 53 av
Compare this to SRT:
52 innings, 1357 runs, 3 centuries and 3 50's and 38.77 av
Re: SRT vs DB
by Arup Sinha on Dec 24, 2010 01:26 AM
Neither did Don Brad played against the bowlers mentioned by you.
But SRT played againt the greats like Marshal, Imran, Walsh, Ambrose, Waker, Wasim, Donald, McGrath, McDarmot, Warny, Murali, Lee, Akhtar, Pollock, Steyn.... and so on.....
Given today's 365 day's of cricket, round the year, a good batsmen will never lose his form. It was a different thing years ago when great players of the past played. They used to get just 3 or 4 months of cricket every year. Just remember how Don used to travel by ship to other countries to play tests and other matches. In fact, he used to spend 2 months on ship just to travel from one country to the other. It was great that he never lost his form even after playing just three month's cricket. In fact, he did not play from 1939 to 1947 when scored more than 1500 test runs in just a year and a half! He even scored a 100 in just 28 balls!
But, now SRT can travel very quickly from one place to the other to play all types of matches. How does he lose his form then!
In today's cricketing environment, he looks like an alien from outer space with all those body saving parts! Compare to this to the past cricketers! Who told that there were no good bowlers in the past! I can give a long list. Watch out for more on bowlers.
Has SRT played against the quality of Roberts, Thomson, Lillie, Sir Hadlee, Imran, Snow, Willis, Holding, Marshal, Garner, Croft, Pascoe, Calrke and others?
Has he played a single match on uncovered wickets?
Has he played any match without wearing a helmet that too against super quick like the ones mentioned above?
What is contribution to the fourth innings score of India. Fourth innings batting means defeat or draw.
Re: SRT vs DB
by Nilanjan Basu on Dec 23, 2010 10:57 PM
hello...how many games have you yourself seen that Sir Don had played...??? if you are questioning about playing less games...then what about the fatigue that occurs when you are playing 365 days a year with so much of cricket...so much of traveling to do in addition...so many different conditions 2 adjust to...are you really taking into consideration all these things...and one more thing Sir Don didn't have to play so much of fast paced cricket like that of One Day international and Twenty20 and neither he had to deal with so much of non playing stuffs like contract...ad buffs pressure of 100 million people etc...before making such comments...???
Re: Tendulkar Vs Bradman Who is Best ?
by wizardo id on Dec 23, 2010 09:57 PM
greatest ever who never played outside of his comfort zone. he never travelled the sub continent. never got tested with varying team combination, mad politics, and all the crazy pressures tendulkar had to endure.
you sir are incompetent to even critique - given your grandstanding.
Re: Tendulkar Vs Bradman Who is Best ?
by murugan on Dec 23, 2010 11:35 PM
i think you hav never wathced cricket if you had you cant say sachin is kid .how could you say a batsman with each and every record in the batting under his belt first you watch cricket , you learn who sachin is then give the comment........
Re: Tendulkar Vs Bradman Who is Best ?
by Rajesh SHENOY on Dec 23, 2010 09:58 PM
You assh*le. Did you ever watch bradman bat in all forms of cricket? No.. So dont give your expert comments. You may like Bradman, that's your bloody personal choice. It cannot be considered as the public opinion, neither do you have veto power :)).
Re: Re: Tendulkar Vs Bradman Who is Best ?
by Samir on Dec 23, 2010 10:04 PM
Bradman played without helmet and other protection gear. he played only test cricket since that was the only format at that time. yet his average is higher than tendulkar's one day average, leave alone test average. Tendulkar has advantage of technology, can watch replays and also the science behind aerodynamics of the ball. Bradman had none. Tendulkar gets to play more often so more practice but bradman didnt have that luxury either. last but not least, Tendulkar is quantity but Bradman was quality
