Why we ae giving best batsman tag to all those old players who might have played in 2 pitches ?

Question

All Old players like Don Bradman are great no doubt.But If you look at a closer view,Bradman never played in sub-continent which is one of toughest tours of life for English and Australians.Present players have toured and Hayden,Graeme Smith have been succesful here.Sachin Tendulkar has also scored lots of runs all over the world in different pitches and different conditions.Compared to yesteryears,we have fiery fast bowlers like Brett Lee and wily spinners who can rackle any batsman.they are great but giving them best batsmen tag just by seeing record books and not watching them is purely wrong.

Answer 1

im totally agree with u.. this era's players face many many of difficult bowlers and now game is more innovative as ever

Answer 2

Tendulkar has scored most of his runs in batting paradises[taylor made wickets]and Sub Continent is known as  bowlers graveyard.

Earlier there were no restrictions on bowlers for bouncers,beamers,etc.now cricket is a batsmen friendly game to make it more interesting for the crowd.

The real cricket was played in the days of the legend the Don and the truth there is no batsman till date who can even be compared to the Lord of cricket.

Tendulkar is nothing more than a media hype.

Answer 3

yup, but he played without helmets, also played bodyline. whatever the pitch or conditions, flattest of flattest, making an average of 99+ for such a long duration of 6000 + runs in test cricket is next to impossible, even if you take some credit away for fast and furious cricket of today, then also he stands ahead of all ~

Bradman is the best!

Sachin is second best !

god bless!

hope it helps!

Edit : Hey, Donald B, you non sensical fella, you idiot, dumb peanut brain, Tendulkar is a great batsman, think before you utter c**p, he has thrashed you so many times at your bouncy tracks, just don't put me off !

tiger!

Answer 4

During the days of Bradman, there were no teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for him to hammer their bowling. Palyers did not wear helmets and all sorts of personal protective gear like the present players. The pitches were never tailor-made for batsmen to hammer poor bowlers all over the field so that more and more crowds would come to see the match, to help collections. Money was not a motivation to perform because there was no money in cricket.

Bradman played his test matches 60 to 80 years ago. Many of us would not have been even born at that time. So, how can any body say that they had seen Bradman playing ?

This is the reason why I developed a system that can go into those times and relatively rank players based on their domination. The domination by a player in each series is determined and given a number. Susequently, weighted average of all such performances is taken to assess the relative strengths of a batsman or bowler or a fielder or a player. One thing I am sure of - is that great players dominate. And this domination speaks itself in sheer numbers. For example, a batsman's performance is assessed based on how many runs he scored in a series, how many runs the others scored, what is the average per innings and average per match of this batsman and what is the same of other batsmen in the same series, what is the percent of runs scored by this batsman in his team's total as well as that of the totals of both the teams and what are the same numbers in case of other batsmen. Taking average does not appear OK because there are test matches in which only 400 runs were scored and there were matches in which 1,200 runs were scored. Hence average doesn't represent true performance.

Of course, this is my own developed system that has analysed every single test match and ODI played till date. On this scale, I measured performances and Don's came to 100. Sachin's came as 57.3. Before the Sri Lanka tour, he was at 58.1 and we know what happened to him in SRL. If Bradman took the 1st rank, Sachin has at 40th rank. Sachin is not even India's best, the credit for which should go to Gavaskar. There are some 38 batsmen in between Bradman and Sachin including Lara and Pietersen. It requires great study, mathematical application and computerisation to understand the levels of game played by each and every one of 2,516 test match players. Let us see some comparisions:

Runs per match: Bradman - 134.54; Sachin - 79.18

Runs per Innings: Bradman - 99.94; Sachin - 54.23

Percentage of runs scored in team total: Bradman: 24.35; Sachin - 15.78 (Gavaskar - 17.06, Hazare - 16.7, Dravid - 16.25, Sehwag - 15.9, Viswanath - 14.44)

Percentage of runs scored by both teams in series played: Bradman - 12.68; Sachin - 7.64 (Gavaskar - 8.48, Dravid - 7.85, Hazare - 7.81, Sehwag - 7.68, Viswanath - 7.06)

Test Matches lost: Bradman - 12 out of 52. Sachin - 43 out of 150.

PLEASE DON'T EVER SAY SACHIN IS BETTER THAN BRADMAN. WE MUST RESPECT BRADMAN FOR WHAT HE DID TO CRICKET. In modern times, Brian Lara is the nearest comparision to the Don in test match batting. Amongst players currently playing, Sangakkara is the nearest to Bradman.

Sachin is also great because of the enormity of the game he played - in ODIs, Tests and T20 matches and no player can match him in the contribution made to cricket, including Bradman.

Answer 5

Brett Lee for one would be shocked that you insult greats such as Bradman with this question. Brett is a stickler for tradition & wouldn't think of putting down those old player or dis-respecting them. Please think before you ask these Qs. I can only assume you must be very young as you don't seem to have any respect for tradition.

Answer 6

I think the points you are bringing up are good and they are debatable. There's two sides to this debate. SiNgH~ is KINNG also brings up some good points opposing you.

However you can debate and bring up points like this but i can only agree that you bring up good points.You can't take any respect away from Bradman he is what he is known as. He's a legend and i see that you admire him and all but there's no answer to what your saying.

But good question.

EDIT:

Jake G, i'm entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. I did not put down Bradman in any way. I said that whatever any one says Bradman will always be a legend, but the points braught up in this queston have some reasoning behind them.

You have no right to imply that i am not a true cricket fan.

Answer 7

Unlike Melanie I DON'T think it is a good question. You obviously don't know enough about cricket history to make such comments.The first two answerers have  it right. Those old players as you quaintly categorize them, didn't have the cushy conditions today's players enjoy.And they spent long months of tiring travel by ship, not to mention longer separations from their families & home.It seems to me, that you are subtly dismissing Bradman in several Qs here today for whatever reason.Please don't do that, it doesn't make you look good in the eyes of true cricket fans.