Bradman played 10/52 test i.e almost 20% tests against the weakest teams of his time[India and SA] with an avg of 190.25
Tendulkar played 14/171 i.e 8% of his tests against the weakest two teams of his time[Bangladesh and zimbabwe] with an avg of 91.47
Every players loves to play against one quality attack,Bradman loved English attack be it at home or in England. He has played 37/52 tests i.e. 71% of his matches against a single familiar opponent. so if V Shewag had played 71% of all his 82 test against his most favourite attack i.e Pakistan[He has an avg of 91 against them], his career avg would have been 80.43.
Bradman's avg had fallen considerably againt quality West Indian attack[74.50] or in bodyline series[55].Bodyline searies indicates one aspect that had he played in today's time with so much techno;ogy around opposition team would have definitely found some chinks or area of discomfort for Bradman, which he mostly escaped in that era.
The point is simple in todays age and time if Bradman had played he would have an avg of around 70 certainly nt 99.94 which was a sheer accident of time.
Had tendulkar played in similar type i.e more matches against the weakest teams or more matches against his favourite attack or only in India and Australian wicket year after year, his avg will also be somewhere near 70.
Also when Tendulkar is playing as a member of one of the finest batting line up where Shewag/Laxman/Dravid is diverting the focus of
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.
Does writer knows that during Bradman's era, there was no LBW virtualy . That means, out of 280 innings which Sachin has played, 67innings are LBW, 14 innings bowled..that means Sachin in those ocassion he can be not out.
It's like some one comparing a person who scored 90 marks in Science, but never appear in Math, Chemistry called as best student (he may best in Science but no body knows what he would ve scored in other two subjects, where as another student who is scoring 60 plus in all 3 subjects is calling as 2nd best in a class where 100 students are studying in compare to 10 students with student A). Please dont compare like a stupid.
Who knows if he would ve played 280 innings, his avg may be dropped to 60 or 70..
