Sachin Tendulkar vs Sir Donald Bradman

yahya khan (visitor), Aug 1,2009 at 13:38

although sachin is a great batsmen but don bradman was more than a mere batsman,he was a fiction.he was a god of cricket,while sachin is only a player.

meeran (visitor), Aug 6,2009 at 09:23

Yaha khan, i bring it into ur notice that it is sachin WHU IS RESPONSIBLE 4 MAKING CRICKET A RELIGION IN INDIA. SACHIN is the greatest of all times............ KEEP UP D GOOD WORK SACHIN, India cant imagine cricket without u you

CRICKET (visitor), Aug 10,2009 at 02:37

OFCOURSE DON BRADMAN HAVE GOOD AVERAGE ABUSLLY IS THE HIGHER THAN SACHIN TENDULKAR BUT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER 1THINK TATS BRAD MAN PLYED ONLY IN FEW NO OF GROUND AND HE HAD ADOPPEDED TO THEM MOST OF THE MATCH HE PLYED IN SLF COUNTY ONLY BUT SACHIN PLYEING IN SOMANY DIFFERENT STADIUM AND HE HAS TO ADJUSTED TO OHER NATION CLIMATE ITS TOO DIFFICULT TO ANY PLYER WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FACT TO CONCIDER TO DICIDE WHO IS BETTER BETWEEN THEM AS MY OPENION BOTHR R EQUEL LEGEND IN WORLD CRIKET

karthik (visitor), Aug 10,2009 at 13:58

ofcourse bradman is great but he played only tests and sachin adapts himself to the various forms of the game.

prasad (visitor), Feb 24,2010 at 11:57

sachin is the best

eminem (visitor), Feb 24,2010 at 11:58

sachin sachin sachin sachin

50 cent (visitor), Feb 24,2010 at 11:58

i love sachin very much

Joydip (visitor), Feb 25,2010 at 05:46

Sachin is the best batsman cricket has ever seen. He is way ahead of even Sir Don Bradman. It is foolish to compare Sachin with anyone in this world. Sachin is Sachin - always ahead.

Vangmay Jayant (visitor), Feb 26,2010 at 00:55

hey u c on 24th feb 2010 (2 days earlier) he scored 200* which is the highest score in ODI's of ALL TIME.Both legends have record sustained. Sachin has 47 centuries but Donald Bradman is a GREATER LEGEND than Sachin although he has only 29 centuries. Sir Bradman made these in 52 tests and sachin made these in 166 tests.Hey if this sounded funny then please let your mind know that im only an 11 year old

Zeeshan (visitor), Feb 26,2010 at 03:13

I think Tendulkar is better than Sir. Bradman as he played 166 test matches as compare to his 52 with half career timeless with almost 450 one days too.

Bradman only faced two bowlers in his career with 100 or more wickets. Fastest bowler with height 5 feet 8 inches grabbing 78 wickets in career, highest wicket taker with 82 wickets in fast bowling that is Allen.

He played cricket on flat pitches with absence of well known bowlers like top ten leg spinners he faced none. Leading fast bowlers he faced none. Top class spinners like Murli and others he faced none and many other facts.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui (visitor), Feb 26,2010 at 04:47

Legend Bradman played cricket in ten different grounds in two countries with 5 grounds in Australia and five in England.

He played 52 test matches in 20 years with 26 time less matches against one strong opponent and three weak opponents.

Tendulkar played cricket in 50-60 different grounds in ten countries with 13 grounds in India in five different continents.

Tendulkar played 166 test matches in 20 years against six strong opponents and three weak opponents.

If we take assumption that his 3 one day = 1 test match burden then it means he took pressure of international cricket six times more than him but if we include different conditions also then it become almost 8-10 times more than him.

He scored more than 30,000 runs in same period as compare to his 6996 runs in limited circle.

Now choice is yours own who is better.

Mohammad Omair (visitor), Mar 8,2010 at 01:57

I think Tendulkar is better. He scored 30000 runs in same period while his only 6996 runs in two countries only. Mostly medium pacer were there, presence of seamless bowling, timeless matches, flat pitches, five test matches in every two years, 80% Innings against same team and also long distance fielding were there. Who says Bradman in best, I do not think so. Has he proved himself against best bowling.

Only two bowlers he faced after they completed their 100 wickets in test Tate and Verity. Overall he faced only six bowlers who completed 100 or more in their entire career. For leading 30, he faced none, for 50 one, for 70 only two and for 100 leading wicket takers only five and then for 150 only seven.

There is no Marshall, Garner, Robert, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh. Also no Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Dev, Akram, Waqar and so on. Also no Warn no Murli so how can we say he is the best. Without playing quality bowlers. Fast bowlers were Allen 82, Larwood 78, Foxx 60 and Constantine 58.

For those who say not too many cricket, please answer how Hammond played 85 test matches in 20 years from 1927 to 1947 even after loosing several years due to World War II. See Sobers in same period 93, Imran Khan 88 and Gooch 118. If Hammond played 85 why not others 50 test matches from same team. Reason is that they were not professionals. Why these bowlers were unable to take even 100 wickets in their entire career if they were talented.

Zeeshan Ahmed (visitor), Mar 13,2010 at 01:44

There is no parameter to judge either Tendulkar is better or Sir. Don Bradman. Bradman started his career after great depression of twenties when cricket was not globally recognized. Only two teams were there or you may say that cricket was actually playing in two countries only.

Legend Bradman played on ten grounds in two countries whereas he played on almost 50 grounds in test in ten countries. Bradman played 79% of his inning against England and Tendulkar only 14.4% against them.

Bradman runs per inning against England is 79.8 whereas him only 55.12. If Tendulkar scored 2150 runs against them then Don 3113 runs in same way without any adjustment. (Multiply 39 innings in both cases) but Tendulkar took England one out of nine.

Don never faced any regular bowler with member of club of 50 or more test matches, only one bowler Bedser joined 50 test matches club later on after his retirement.

Only six bowlers took 100 or more in his case then one bowler Bedser to 200 wickets and in case of Tendulkar, almost 50 bowlers took 100 or more then 25-30 to 200 and so on to 708 Warne and then Murli to 793.

Don faced Verity in 17 test matches, Bedser in 10 test matches, Tate in nine, Wright in nine, Mankad in five and Laker in three test matches.

In his contemporaries, Hertbert Sutcliff batting average was 66.85 against strong bowling of Australia as compare to his Headley whose batting average against Australia was 37.33. Hertbert faced Mailey, Grimmett, Reilly (three leg spinners), Iron Monger and Gregory. Headley batting average was 71.23 against England with only one timeless match as compare to Bradman average 89.78 against them with several timeless matches. If he got more timeless matches then he could definitely improve his batting average further. It means average of Herbert Sutcliff 66.85 against strong bowling of Australia is near to Bradman average 89.78 against England. Beside England, Don batting average was 140.57 against other opponents.

Even with these facts, Don will remain legend in cricket due to batting average 99.94.

T.K. Bhattacharya (visitor), Mar 15,2010 at 02:26

Honestly feeling the comparison between past and present is not the brilliant idea,both are great and achieved the highest laurels by prooving themselves
beyond imagination.Sir Bradman faced different conditions and challenges. At present Sachin is also facing the challanges with different conditions and different type of cricket.In Bradman's era all the contemporary cricketers felt that nobody can perform and entertain better than Sir DONALD BRADMAN.The same way feelings on Sachin is on high note,as Andy Flower once said "There are two types of batsmen , one is Sachin and the other is the rest.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Mar 15,2010 at 02:51

Dear Bhattacharya, you are right as comparison is not good idea. Both batsmen played in different conditions.

Bradman is best among his peers and now Tendulkar is the best one. But saying that his average is 99.94 and others not thats why he is best is not justice in my eyes.

Don played against amateurs of England's bowlers and Tendulkar against pure professional bowlers like Murli, Warne, Walsh, Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Wasim, Waqar and so on.

42 bowlers in England took 100 or more in test and he faced only five of them, although it is not his fault but when anyone asked for the best then we should count every aspect not batting average.

Also he never faced any quality leg spinner nor fast bowler, again it is not his fault. Those days cricket was easy. Fast medium only two bowlers, Tate and Bedser.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Mar 16,2010 at 06:58

Both are favourite batsmen of different eras. It is very difficult to judge which one is exact better although it seems that Tendulkar has more achivements and his average is highest.

From India, he faced only one bowler with 100 or more in his career that is Mankad when he started his career. 16 BOWLERS took 100 or more wickets in India in test matches. 1 / 16.

From England 42 + 16 from India = 58, he faced 6 out of 58 bowlers with 100 or more 6 / 58. 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test it means he faced only six of them totally 6 / 148. It was not his fault as cricket was not globalized those days.

There was no Hall, Croft, Marshall, Garner, Robert, Micheal, Ambrose, Walsh or Bishop in his case.

Also no Lillee, Richard, Khan, Dev, Wasim, Waqar, Snow, Botham, Wills or Trueman in his case.

Also no Warne, no Macgill, no Benaud, no Mailey, Grimmett, no Reilly, only one leg spinner named Wright with bowling average near to 40.

Who is the best, it is very difficult to judge but both are legend of two different periods.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Mar 17,2010 at 02:59

If we say both are equivalent then I think debate is finished who is better. When Bradman was playing, he did not know about coming cricket.

Bradman played against England, India, S. Africa and W. Indies. In S. Africa, 12 took 100 or more wickets in test totally then in W. Indies 18 bowlers, in India 16 and England 42. So 88 bowlers took 100 or more wickets in these countries, he faced only six of them.

So how can we judge his 99.9 is better or Tendulkar 55.5 as there is no exact parameter to judge it.

He played 80 innings in same period with half career timeless matche whereas Tendulkar 271 innings else he played 442 one day too.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Mar 18,2010 at 03:29

Sachin actually scored 2150 runs against England with runs per inning 55.12 in 39 innings (2150/39 = 55.12)and Don 79.8 in 63 innings with run scored 5028.

So ratio stands .7 : 1, (55.12 : 79.8) but Tendulkar played them 1 / 9.

See some assumptions in same manner.

1. If Tendulkar scored 1050 runs against them then Don 1515.
2. If Tendulkar scored 2040 runs against them then Don 2955.

3. If Tendulkar scored 3030 runs against them then Don 4390.
4. If Tendulkar scored 4025 runs against them then Don 5825.

Please note there is no ratio of 1 : 1.75. If Tendulkar played 80% of his cricket agains England then he could improve his runs per inning to how much we do not know although I think he could surpass Don. I am saying it in the light of his all achievements. Also give him timeless matches on flat pitches.

That's why I am saying that his average is 99.94 as compare to him 55.5 is not justice in my eyes as we cannot compare batsman on pure statistic basis.

Second option is that end of debate with two legends in two different eras or another one both are equivalent but I think his achievments are more than DON BRADMAN.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui (visitor), Mar 19,2010 at 04:23

This is too my last comments on it.

Bradman faced Hammond in 31 test matches whereas all other bowlers were unable to play even 20 test matches against him like Larwood only 15. Hammond took 83 wickets also in test matches.

For 100 or more wicket takers in test matches, Don faced Verity in 17 test matches, Bedser in 10 test matches after world war II, Tate in 9, Wright in 9, Mankad in 5 after world war IIand Laker in 3 test matches AFTER WORLD WAR II.

For those who think that Headley is better than Sutcliff are negelecting the fact that beside seeing both averages (Headley is slightly more than him), please see their averages against Australia like Headley only 37.33 and Herbert 66.85.

Herbert played 50% of his career against Australia with best average against them of those days.

Zeeshan (visitor), Mar 20,2010 at 04:38

Sober said Gavaskar is better than Tendulkar and he is the best according to him. Please see his comparison with Sir Don from bowling point of view.

1. Bradman scored 42 fifty plus innings in which two innings are 80 plus to 99. Then 29 hundred plus in which 150 plus are 18 and two of them are 175plus to 199 then twelve are 200 plus and in which 300 plus are two with 6297 runs scored in 50plus innings.

We can compare it with Sunil Gavaskar as he had also managed 42 (22 are fifty plus and 20 are hundred plus) fifty or plus innings in his first 52 test matches with run scored 5007 at 27 grounds in four continents in which seven grounds are in India with 50 or plus 4205 runs scored.

2. Gavaskar faced bowlers like Derek Underwood, Imran Khan, Micheal Holding, Ian Botham and Malcom Marshall.

He lost his wickets 50 (12+11+11+8+8) times by these five bowlers in his career and faced others like Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee, Denis Lillee, Joel Garner, Andy Robert, Bob Willis, John Snow, Thomson, Craig McDermot, Merv Hughes, Lance Gibbs, Abdul Qadir and Garry Sober in his whole career. All eighteen are like jewels of cricket bowling history and all took at least 200 wickets in test cricket in which four are spinners.

Bramdan lost his wickets 50 times by Verity, Bedser, Larwood, Tates, Bowes, Hammond, Yardley, Geary and then twice by Allen, Voce, Wright, Farnes, Griffith, Hazare (8+6+5+5+5+3+3+3+2+2+2+2+2+2=50) in which twelve bowlers from England and Griffith from West Indies and Hazare from India.

3. Only four are related to 100 wickets club and two bowlers are related to 50 Test matches Club in their career that are Hammond and Bedser.

In Gavaskar case, all these bowlers played at least 50 test matches except John Snow 49 and Andy Robert 47. Kindly see the difference of bowler as well.

So debate who is actual best is still unsolved? Although Don, Sunil and Tendulkar all are one of the best.

Mohammad Omair (visitor), Mar 24,2010 at 07:53

This is to my last comments on it. One ponint came in my mind which I am putting here.

Sir Don runs per innings against England is 79.8 (5028 / 63)as compare to Herbert Sutcliff 59.58 against Australia and Headley runs per innings against England is 63.86.

Batting average of Headley is 60.83 as compare to Herbert 60.73.

Herbert faced Mailey, Grimmett, Reilly (three great leg spinners), Iron Monger and Gregory.

From statistic it seems HEADLEY is better than HERBERT. But he played 50% of his career agains Australia with runs per inning 59.58 as compare Headley 33.6 against them. Ratio stands .57 / 1 or 1 : 1.75.

So from my point of view take big picture and then see then you will realize Herbert is better than Headley by proving himself more STRONG against BEST bowling of Australia in that era.

Compare Herbert with Bradman he played 54 test matches on 16 grounds in three continents in eleven years in four countries. Bradman played 52 test matches in 20 years without facing BEST bowling line on ten grounds in two countries.

Actual difference is 59.58 to 79.8 (.74 : 1) but Herbert faced better bowling as compare to Bradman.

If Headley maintained runs per inning against England 63.86 with facing one timeless matches as compare to Bradman several timeless matches, why not Hertbert could maintained runs per inning 75 or more, if he was playing against England instead of Australia.

MY QUESTION IS THAT WHO IS ACTUAL BEST OF THAT ERA, EITHER IT IS DON OR it is HERBERT, although pure statistic suggests Sir. Don.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 8,2010 at 01:47

I always think please do not compare batsman of two different eras as requirements are entirely different and players are adjusted themselves accordingly.

In my opinion statistic alone cannot judge the exact like Yousuf batting average against England is 70 as compare to Sehwag against Australia 51. Can we say that he is better than Sehwag due to this better average against England as compare to him only 51.

Please apply same formula to Don and Herbert case, Don against England is 89.78 and him only 66.85 but facing best bowling of his era.

Yousuf scored six centuries in 20 innings. Can we say that he played England better than Viv Richard as he scored only 8 centuries in 50 innings. All agree that most destuctive batsman of all time for fast bowling is Sir Richard so I think main important thing is destruction, not average.

Don runs per inning against England is 79.8 and Viv only 57.3 against England but main thing is that he is best in destruction of any genuine fast bowling. Is it fair to say Bradman is no. 1 due to average. In this case, Viv is no. 1 due to destruction.

In my opinion Lara, Tendulkar, Bradman, Gavaskar and Viv Ricard any one would be no. 1. We have not exact parameter to judge who is actual best.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 17,2010 at 04:07

Please note that there are 42 bowlers from England took 100 or more in which
5 are fast, 14 fast medium, 4 are medium fast, 2 are medium, 16 are off break / slow left arm and one is only leg break.

Sir Bradman faced no fast bowler, no fast
medium, one medium fast, one medium, three off break / slow left arm and one leg break out of 42.

Totally 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test in which 38 are fast, 45 fast medium, 6 are medium fast, 5 are medium, 41 are off break / slow left arm and 13 are leg break /Chinaman. He faced only six of them in which three came after world war II in two countries only.

For leading 56, he faced only one medium fast bowler, Alec Bedser after world war II. 56 bowlers took 200 or more in test like Gavaskar faced 18-20.

I think one who is most complete and no. 1 in test is only Brian Lara with elegancy with high back lift, records like 19 times 150 or plus, quintuple in first class, situation like 213 and 153, master piece innings like 400 and 375, ability to play against all types of bowlers in all types of conditions, ability of play main bowlers, best ability to transform innings into big knocks 82 50 or plus into 34 centuries then 19 150 or plus then 9 double then two triples and then one quadruple.

I THINK HE IS NO. 1.

Praan (visitor), Apr 21,2010 at 08:31

Sir Donald Bradman is best. Records are made to break but nobody can break the records set by Sir Donald Bradman (Especially scoring runs with avg 99.94).

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 22,2010 at 02:15

Dear Pran, yes he made record of 99.94 but against whom is also important and which type of bowling did he face.

Another thing why he is not best is due to he was not stylish batsman like Trumper and also Trumper was far better than him on rain affected pitches. Alan Kippax and Jackson were also stylish. He never became highest runs scorer in test matches.

At one time, Lara held records at a time like highest runs scorer, 400 runs in test, quintuple in first class, 19 times 150 or plus, highest no. of fours in test and so many other records. It never happened in cricket that one person hold eight to ten such records at a time.

He started after great depression of twenties or you may say that it was one portion of cricket, just in two countries. Minimum level for any game at international level. Due to depression cricket had very limited talent that's why his average is 99.94, without facing quality bowlers.

Imposing his average to overall history of cricket is not justice in my eye due to one portion of cricket. For leading 50 wicket takers he faced only one like Gavaskar faced 18-20 that is why Sobers and Croft said he is best in their eyes.

Even if you take the history of England, he faced only five out of 42 (100 wickets club). Before world war II, he faced only two bowlers with 100 or more wickets.

He also faced difficulties to play leg break bowlers. Lara was best to play leg break and off break bowlers. His complete domination of Murli and Warne make him very special, not his average.

At home Lara runs per innings is higher than Don Bradman that is 71.45 against England as compare to him 71.33 but Lara faced England one out of nine countries. 58.49 to 79.8 so ratio stands .75 : 1. His two highest scores are 400 and 375 as compare to him 270 and 234.

If statistic is the only criteria then Lohman is the best bowler with bowling average 10.75. Verity bowling average in first class was less 15. Can you say he is better than Murli due to better average.

ninjoshi (visitor), Apr 23,2010 at 22:55

don bradman playing today may not be a his strike rate is below 60 logically could he make even 100 in odi and sachin made 200 don bradman best in test yup it can be but he will not match abywhere to sachin in odi.today's fielder compare to older, bowler with 150km speed then only about 125km or less.I respect sir bradman but he is always second in batsmen and sachin no. one given u the reason talent at that time was no where to today's talent.Okay still not agree than why not lara not the biggest 400 runs, don't consider old things when cricket was not at high talent.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 24,2010 at 02:06

Please note that Don Bradman will remain the legend of cricket and he is one of the best in history but putting his average in other case like Tendulkar is not justice. On pure statistic basis we cannot compare 99.9 to 55.5.

Mostly people think that Don is best due to average are neglecting the fact that he has played cricket against amatuers, seamless bowling, absence of fast bowlers, fast medium too and then leg break bowlers also. Half career Timeless matches, mat over concrete pitches, all matches in two countries, 52 matches in 20 years and so may other facts.

For leading 25 fast bowlers, Don faced none.

For leading 20 fast medium, he faced none.

For leading 20 off break / slow left arm orthodox, he faced two to them.

For leading 15 leg break he faced one.

For leading 150 bowlers he faced only seven of them including Voce with 98 wickets.

According to Sobers and Colin Croft, Gavaskar is all time best. He scored 13 centuries against W. Indies. From same period Allan Border scored 3 centuries against them.

SPIKES (visitor), Apr 24,2010 at 07:14

THE LINES PROVIDED ARE NOT ENOUGH TO SAY ABOUT THE "LEGEND"
"SACHIN"

pawnesh chauhan (visitor), Apr 25,2010 at 17:03

sachin is the best in world

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 28,2010 at 03:02

For leading 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test matches.
38 + 45 + 6 + 5 + 41 + 13=148.
0+ 0 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 6/148.

Totally he faced six of them. Tendulkar faced 40-50 of them.

For Sir. Bradman, category wise leading bowlers in histroy as per follow.

1. For leading 38 fast bowlers, Don faced none.

2. For leading 45 fast medium, he faced none.

3. For leading 6 medium fast , he faced one.

4. For leading 5 medium, he faced one.

5. For leading 41 off break / slow left arm orthodox, he faced three of them.

6. For leading 13 leg break he faced one.

As per me both are equivalent from talent point of view and both are legend from two entire different eras.

I hope you all enjoy these comments as I have written too much knowledge about them in different ways.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), Apr 29,2010 at 02:05

Details of bowlers which Bradman faced with 100 or more wickets in test.

1. Tate (1924-35) took 32 wickets against Australia from 1928 to onward with bowling average 39.71. He was medium bowler. He took 155 wickets in test.

2. Hedley Verity (1931-1939) took 144 and then in 1943 he died during War. Actually he was an army officer. He totally took 21 wickets in Australia against them with bowling average 34.57 throughout his career. His striking rate 113.1 in Australia. He was slow left arm othrodox.

3. Wright (1938-51) took 108 wickets maintaining career bowling average 39.11. He is the only leg break bowler that he faced with 100 or more wickets in test.

4. Alec Bedser was medium fast bowler came after war (1946-1955). His average was 46 at end of 1948. Later on he became better bowler. He took 236 wickets in test.

5. Jim Laker (1948-59) came after World War II when he was planning to retire. Jim Laker took 9 wickets with bowling average 52.44 in only three test matches, which he faced against Bradman in 1948, later on he became better bowler. He was off break bowler.

6. Vinoo Mankad (1946-1959) of India took 162 wickets in career with average 32.32. His average was 52.5 with grabbing 12 wickets in five test matches against Bradman throughout his career in the start of his own career in 1947-48. So in list of 148 leading bowlers he faced only six bowlers.

On the contra hand, Tendulkar played all types of bowlers on all types of conditions in almost 50 grounds. In Bradman case, fast and fast medium are absent for 100 or more. Fastest one is Larwood and highest wicket taker is Allen with 82 wickets. He played cricket on ten grounds only.

I have a request for all of you to please go through from these comments if you want a comprehensvie knowledge regarding two legends Sir. Bradman and Tendulak. You will get too much and I hope you will enjoy it also. It is for cricket lovers only.

Moeenuddin (visitor), Apr 30,2010 at 14:56

Who is actual best in both. It is impossible to decide. I think both are equal batsmen.

Tendulkar proved himself in all formats including in all conditions against all types of bowlers.

Bradman played in two countries only against almost same team against amateurs bowlers of those days in few grounds. Total cricket in Australia and England only.

Those days there was no Hall, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Robert, Croft, Ambrose, Walsh or Bishop.

There was no Hadlee, Lillee, Kapel Dev, Botham, Wills or Trueman.

There was no Wasim (King of swing), Waqar and many others like Allan Donald, Mcgrath (seam bowler), Pollock or Vaas.

Then no Warne or Kumble or Macgill or Gupte or Abdul Qadir and many others.

No spin quartet of India like Bedi and others.

No fastest bowlers like Shoib Akhtar, Lee or Thomson.

How we know that he was capable enough to prove himself in other countries although statistically he is the best. He is also a legend as well.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 2,2010 at 04:44

Comparison of Tendulkar is not possible with Bradman as both faced entire different conditions. His comparison with Lara is possible.

They are the best batsmen of this generation. If someone has valid points for Tendulkar better than Lara, I have no problem to accept them.

1. Compare both at double hundreds. Lara 9 times and Tendulkar 4 times. Lara had not scored any double against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. For triple hundreds Lara two and Tendulkar none.

2. Compare both at 150 or plus innings. Lara 19 times and Tendulkar 18 times.

3. Compare both at highest individual innings like Lara 400.

4. Compare both are highest situational innings like Lara 153 and 213.

5. Compare both at master piece innings like Lara 375 and many others.

6. Compare both against Australia and S. Africa and Sri Lanka, again Lara has a clear edge.

7. Compare both against Pakistan and England.

8. Compare both continent wise, Lara average is more than 40 in all continents which is not the case of Tendulkar like his average is less than 40 in Africa.

9. Lara scored three double hundreds against Australia, Tendulkar one.

10. Compare both from records in test matches, Lara again peerless in this point also. Scored quintuple in first class, Tendulkar unable to score even triple hundred in first class.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 2,2010 at 15:25

He born in 1908 and died in 2001.
Don Bradman career span is from 1928-1948.

For leading 150 bowlers in test matches. Don faced seven of them.
148 took 100 or more and then 56 took 200 or more.
Remaining two 99 wickets, Mailey leg break and Voce Fast Medium.

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Off Break / Slow Left arm Orthodox+ Leg Break / Slow Left arm Chinaman

F+ FM + MF + M + O / SLAO + LB / SLAC

38 + 46 + 6 + 5 + 41 + 13=150.

0+ 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 7/150.

For leading 38 fast bowlers, no one.

For leading 46 fast medium, only one, Voce.

For leading 6 medium fast, one only, after world war II, Bedser.

For leading 5 medium, one only, Tate.

For leading 41 off break / slow left arm orthodox, three only in which two came after world war II and one died during it. Verity, Laker and Mankad from India.

For leading 14 leg break one only, Wright.

For leading 56 with 200 or more wickets, he faced only Bedser, Medium Fast. He came after world war II.

For me, Lara, Gavaskar, Viv Richard, Tendulkar and Bradman are best of five of all time greatest batsman.

M. Ashraf (visitor), May 3,2010 at 07:19

Comparison of Tendulkar is not justice with Bradman on statistic basis as both faced entire different types of bowlers.

Bradman scored his runs in an era of uncovered pitch but faced weak bowlers in which medium bowler Maurice Tate, was went from his prime time in bowling when Bradman started his career in 1928.

Second one Larwood grabbing 78 wickets with career finished after bodyline series in 1932-33.

Then till the end of his career in 1948, he faced only pace and spin bowlers who were unable to take place in top bowlers of all time.

Tendulkar faced the fast bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Allan Donald and Lee.

In fast medium Mcgrath, Pollock, Vaas, Harmison and many other English bowlers. Then he faced two greatest spinners of all time, Shane Warne and Murali and so many other bowlers.

I would rate Tendulkar above Bradman. Pleaes see all facts and then decide it. I think achievements of him are far more than Sir. Bradman.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 3,2010 at 16:44

Tendulkar faced totally 56 bowlers with 100 or more wickets in test matches on 50 or more grounds in ten countries.

11 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 9 + 8 + 6 + 1 + 13 = 56.

From Australia, totally 11 with 100 or more.
Mcgrath, Gellispe, Lee, Warne, Johnson, KasprowicZ, Mecdermott, Fleming, Macgill, Reiffeil and Reid.

From Bangladesh only one, Rafique.

Two from Sril Lanka, Murli and Vaas.

Five from New Zealand, Vettori, Morrison, Carins, Bracewell, Hadlee.

Nine from Pakistan.
Shoaib, Saqlain, Razzaq, Imran, Kaneria, Wasim, Qadir, Waqar, Mushtaq,

Eight form S. Africa.
Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Adams, Steyn, Boje and Nel.

Six from West Indies.
Collin, Bishop, Dillon, Walsh, Hooper and Ambrose.

From Zimbabwe, only one, Streak.

From England, 13 only.
Anderson, Hoggard, Flintoff, Panesar, Cork, Caddick, Giles, Malcom, Fraser, Tufnell, Harmison, Defreites and Emburey.

Please see the difference of bowlers and then decide who is better. Now choice is yours own but both are legend from two different eras.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 4,2010 at 15:05

Tendulkar faced totally 28 bowlers with 200 or more wickets in test matches on 50 or more grounds in ten countries as compare to one BOWLER in case of Bradman after world war II.

6 + 2 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 4 = 28.

From Australia, totally 6 with 200 or more. Mcgrath, Gellispe, Lee, Warne, Mecdermott and Macgill

Two from Sril Lanka, Murli and Vaas.

Three from New Zealand, Vettori, Carins and Hadlee.

Six from Pakistan. Saqlain, Imran, Kaneria, Wasim, Qadir and Waqar

Four form S. Africa. Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis,

TWO from West Indies. Walsh and Ambrose.

From Zimbabwe, only one, Streak.

From England, 4 only. Hoggard, Flintoff, Caddick, Harmison,

Now viewers, you have too much options if you want to debate who is better either Don or Tendulkar.

Please go through from all comments. You can get the exact, what you want without surfing huge websites.

For me both are equivalent from talent point of view.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 5,2010 at 03:25

Tendulkar faced totally 15 bowlers with 300 or more wickets in test matches on 50 or more grounds in ten countries.

3 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 15.

For 400 wickets only seven and 500 wickets only four.

From Australia, totally 3 with 300 or more. Mcgrath, Lee, Warne

Two from Sril Lanka, Murli and Vaas.

Two from New Zealand, Vettori and Hadlee.

Three from Pakistan. Imran, Wasim and Waqar.

Three form S. Africa. Donald, Pollock, Ntini

TWO from West Indies. Walsh and Ambrose.

Please go through from this website plus comments. You can get the exact, what you want without surfing huge websites.

It is gift for all cricket lovers who want to seek more knowledge regarding legends.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), May 6,2010 at 05:38

Tendulkar faced totally 57 bowlers with 100 or more wickets in test matches.

Fast + Fast Medium + Off break + Leg Break
18 + 22 + 11 + 6 = 57

For Fast Bowling, he faced 18 bowlers

Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Ambrose,
Ntini, Waqar, Imran, Donald,
Lee, Macdermott, Gillespie, Flintoff, Hughes, Styen, Johnson, Shoiab,
Bishop and Malcom.

For Fast Medium bowling, he faced 22 bowlers

Mcgrath, Pollock, Vaas, Kallis,
Hoggard, Caddick, Harmison, Carins, Streaks, Martin, Fraser, Morrison,
Nel, Dillion, Anderson, Cork,
Defreites, Kasprowic, Reifel, Reid, Collin and Razzaq.

For Off Spinner / Slow left arm orthodox

Murli, Vettori, Saqlain, Emburrrey, Panesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hooper, Bracewell, Boje and Rafique,

For Leg Break / Slow left arm Chinaman

Warne, Kaneria, Qadir, Macgill, Mushtaq, Adams.

I think he faced all types like best leg break Warne and Qadir, Off break Murli, best left arm Wasim (Sultan) and also Waqar too, most difficult Ambrose, Best African Donald and Pollock, consistent like Walsh or McGrath and many many others.

Mohsin Khan (visitor), May 6,2010 at 06:56

Now we can conclude it the debate.

Tendulkar played on 57 different grounds in which 14 grounds in his own country in ten different countries against 57 bowlers took 100 or more.

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Off break + Leg Break
18 + 22 + 0 + 0 + 11 + 6 = 57

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Off break + Leg Break
0 + 0 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 6

Bradman played on 10 different grounds in which 5 in his own country in two countries against 6 bowlers took 100 or more.

How anyone can say Bradman is better due to average, please go through from all the comments on this websites and then decide.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 6,2010 at 17:00

Career span 1928 - 1948.

Bradman played on 10 different grounds in which 5 in England and 5 in Australia against just only 6 bowlers took 100 or more with 26 timeless matches in which three bowlers came after world war II, one just before it, one died during it, Verity.

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Off break + Leg Break

0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 6

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Off break + Leg Break

17 + 22 + 0 + 0 + 11 + 6 = 56

Tendulkar played on almost 60 different grounds in which 14 grounds in India in ten different countries against 56 bowlers took 100 or more.

Tendulkar played 39 fast and fast medium bowlers as compare to Don none. Off break eleven as compare to him only three and then leg break 6 as compare to his only one, Wright with bowling average 39.

Neither Bradman is no. 1 nor there is any justification that his 99.94 against amateurs can prove better than others by dragging others to his average without playing leading bowlers.

Please go through from all above comments and then decide.

M. Ashraf (visitor), May 7,2010 at 07:45

1. Tendulkar scored more than 30000 runs as compare to him only 6996 in limited circumstances against amatuers like Verity was army officer.

2. Tendulkar scored 93 centuries at international level as compare to him 29.

3. Tendulkar played on 57 grounds, Don only 10 only. Tendulkar played on 14 grounds at home which is more than his overall grounds.

4. Tendulkar never played timeless match, Don 26 timeless matches.

5. Total cricket in ten countries and Don only in two, minimum level for any game at international level.

6. Almost 60 bowlers took 100 or more then 28 to 200 then 15 to 300.
Only six bowlers 100 or more in which on only to 200, medium fast bowler.

7. Tendulkar average 55.5 and his 99.9.

8. All types of bowler on all type of conditions. Never played quality bowling.

9. Only 15% innings against England and his 80%.

10. Batting average 62.14 against England and his 89.78 with several timeless matches.

I can conclude both are equivalent with legends in two different eras.

Don average is more but see how limited cricket he played as he played after great despression so talent was very limited those days with same team on same pitches.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 7,2010 at 15:56

Totally 13 right arm leg spinners took 100 or more.

Warne 708, Kumble 619, Dinesh 254,
Benuad 248, Chandrashekar 242, Qadir 236, Grimmett 216, Macgill 208, Mushtaq 185, Gupte 149, Reilly 144, Intikhab 125 and Wright 108.

Tendulkar faced Warne, Dinesh, Qadir, Macgill, Mushtaq. 6 out of 13 means he faced half history of leg spinners.

Don faced only one Wright. 1 out of 13. He faced difficulties to play Peeble leg break bowler, also in last inning he was unable to understand googly of Hollies and out for zero.

His words for Ian Peeble

"When I got to the crease I found Peebles bowling extraordinarily well, and ... I may as well admit that for the first time in my life I was unable to detect a bowler's leg break from his "bosey" (googly).

sanchit sharma (visitor), May 10,2010 at 11:39

we can say that sachin had scored runs lesser than braman so we can say bradman is best.

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 10,2010 at 15:52

1. Tendulkar scored 31000 runs at international level as compare to him 6996 runs against amateurs in same period to 20 years.

2. Don scored only 22% runs in same period.

3. In same period he scored 93 centuries as compare to his 29 only 30% centuries.

4. He faced 57 bowlers to 100 or more in test as compare to him only six.

5. He faced cricket as a profession with globalization. Don faced as an amateur in two countries only against 30 to 50 years, amateurs.

Every one know England and Australia had same culture so there was no difficulty to adjust in both countries. But Headley faced too much difficulties to adjust in England and Australia but when he faced England at home, his batting average was near to 95, before world war II.

Could they had any intention to slide, dive to save the runs. So let us leave Bradman out from professional cricket.
There is a big difference between professional and amateur cricket.

Batting averages are never considered criteria for judging a batsman. It just shows about the opposition bowlers strength.

Gavaskar played W. Indies of 70s and 80s and Don played amateurs of 30s and 40s. Can we say that he is better due to 99.94. Please think and make valid decision.

Pavan (visitor), May 13,2010 at 02:06

I think Sir Bradman is more better than sachin because sir has scored 6996 runs in just 52 matches with an average of 99.94 and just four short of his carrer averge of 100.If it happens its truly phenomenal but still he is the greatest batsmen of all time........and sachin is the second best of all time..........

Moeenuddin (visitor), May 13,2010 at 13:29

I think people still believe in average only.

Sobers said Gavaskar is the best.

Croft prefer Lara on Bradman.

Nasir Hussian said Tendulkar is better than Bradman.

Many said like Waseem Akram and others that best batsman for destroying fast bowling is Viv Richard.

For you, is destruction is important or batting average is. Viv if belongs to that era, his destruction might be more than Bradman because he proved best against genuine fast bowling.

For me Lara is the most complete and all time best test batsman with each and every thing in him like elegant, records like five times 1000 or more in test, five double hundreds against five different test playing nations, ability to play on situation, big knocks, master piece innings, 19 times 150 or plus, ability to play in aggressive and defensive mode both. Ability to play fast and spin bowling like his complete domination on Warne and Murli.

Then Gavaskar, Viv Richard, Tendulkar and then Bradman. See big picture instead of focusing on averages only.

M. Ashraf (visitor), May 17,2010 at 00:43

How he can say that he is best of the best without playing quality bowlers. Evern if someone says that he is better than Tendulkar. I am unable to understand it because Tendulkar proved himself in all sort of batting conditions.

He never faced fastest bowlers like Shoaib Akhtar, Lee and Thomson.

Never faced Hadlee, Dev, Botham, Imran Khan, Sobers or Kallis and many many others. (All rounders)

Never faced Bob Wills, Trueman, Barnes, Snow, Sthatham and many many others.

Never faced Hall, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Robert, Colin Croft, Ambrose, Walsh or Bishop. Not even a single quality bowler from West Indies.

Neve faced Wasim, Waqar, Allan Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Steyn, McGrath, Hughes, Macdermott and many many others.

In leg spinners, no Warne, Kumble or Gupte, Macgill or Benaud or Grimett, Abdul Qadir or Mushtaq Ahmed or Kaneria. In 14 leg spinners with 100 or more, he faced only one.

Never faced Murli, Libbs or Underwood and other quality spinners. Jim Laker against him only played three test matches against him.

rudra (visitor), May 18,2010 at 05:36

gandi nav sachin j best kevay

salo sachin hi best hai....

sachin is the best okayyyyy

Zeeshan (visitor), May 20,2010 at 07:23

Tendulkar faced the best verity of bowlers which are as follow, countrywise for 100 or more wickets in test.

9+ 12 + 13 + 8 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 1= 57.

Nine from Pakistan
Imrran, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Kaneria, Qadir, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed and Razzaq.

Twelve from Australia
Warne, McGrath, Lee, Gillespie, Macdermott,Hughes, MacGill, Johnson, Kasprowic, Reifel, Reid

Thirteen from England
Flintoff, Malcom, Hoggard, Caddick,Harmison, Fraser, Anderson, Cork, Defreites, Emburrrey, Panesar, Giles and Tufnell.

Eight from Africa.
Ntini, Donald, Styen, Pollock, Kallis, Nel, Boje and Adams.

Five from New Zealand
Hadlee, Vettori, Carins, Morrison and Bracewell

Six from W. Indies
Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Dillion, Collin and Hooper

From Sri Lanka two and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe one each Murli, Vaas, Rafique and Streak.

Zeeshan (visitor), May 21,2010 at 06:05

People arguing he is the best unable to understand the level of bowling which Don faced in very limited circle with total cricket in two countries, minimum level for any sport or game. He is one of the best batsman.

Bradman scored his runs in 1928-1948 on uncovered pitch but faced very ordinary bowlers in which Tate was better but the actual time was left in bowling when Bradman started his career. Tate played nine test matches against Don.

Another fine bowler was Larwood, came in 1926 and left the cricket in 1932.-33 after body line series. He played 11 test matches against him.

Bradman then onward to career end in 1948, faced pace and spin bowlers who were very ordinary.

Before his career end, he faced another quality seamer Alec Bedser only, medium fast only. He came in 1946. He played 10 test matches against him.

Jim Laker started his career and played only 3 test against Don.

Total four fine bowlers he faced in his career.

In Sir Bradman case, fast bowlers were Larwood, fastest one and Gabby Allen, highest wicket taker in fast bowling totally 82 wickets in his career.

Totally he faced six bowlers who took 100 or more.

Tate, Verity, Wright, Bedser, Laker and Mankad.

It means he faced 5 / 6 bowlers from same country. If someone is saying best of the best then criteria should be for best, not only average against amatuers bowlers.

Zeeshan (visitor), May 22,2010 at 03:42

Arguably better than Bradman. One of the finest batsman in test cricket and best batsman of this century.

Sachin Tendulkar has played cricket on 57 grounds in which

29 are in Asia, 6 in Europe,
10 in Oceania, 7 in Africa
5 in America in test cricket.

Continent-wise
Asia + Europe + Oceania + Africa + America = 57
29 + 6 + 10 + 7 + 5 = 57.

Country-wise
In Asia, 14 in India, 6 in Pakistan, 5 in Sri lanka and 4 in Bangladesh
India + Pakistan + Sri Lanka + Bangladesh = 29.
14 + 6 + 5 + 4 = 29.

Europe in England 6 grounds totally.

Oceania in Australia and New Zealand 5 each.
Australia + New Zealand, 5 + 5 = 10

Africa, South Africa 5 and Zimbabwe 2
S. Africa + Zimbabwe = 5 + 2 = 7.

In America, West Indies 5 grounds only,

For those who argue Bradman is better due to 99.9 are neglecting the fact that he played on ten grounds in two countries with six took 100 wickets or more as compare to Tendulkar 57 grounds in ten countries with 57 took 100 or more then 28 to 200 to so on to Murli 792 wickets.

Adnan Khan (visitor), May 24,2010 at 03:13

I cannot understand why people are giving too much focus on average.

Don average is 99.94 but against whom is more important.

In my opinion no one is best of the best without playing highest level of bowlers and proved himself on all batting conditons with playing all sort of bowlers.

In twenty years he played only 52 test matches. 26 timeless matches, mat over concrete pitches, amatuers bowlers, seamless bowlers, long distance fielding, actually only two teams in which Australia was strong. No fast or fast medium bowler took 100 or more. Never faced any quality leg spinner.

Best one was Verity whose striking rate was 113 in Australia. If he was so good why he did proved himself in Australia.

We may also say that he played cricket on only two portions with facing bowlers of 30 to 50 years old.

Scoring against weak bowlers are very easy as compare to score against bowlers like Marshall, Wasim, Hadlee, Lillee, Imran and other fast bowlers.

Even if we took best fifty in bowling he faced only two after world war II.

See an example to Gavaskar, scored runs against fast battery of W. Indies. Best against real fast bowlers in defensive mode.

So many says Viv is king and most destructive against real fast bowling so average is important or his destruction.

Zeeshan (visitor), May 25,2010 at 04:15

Now if some one wants to pick comprehensive knowledge regarding two greats Don Bradman and Tendulkar, he can pick it from this website including comments.

Bradman played only one fastest bowler Larwood, who could be among the fastest bowlers.

He could bowl over 100 mph, a fastest one just like Jeff Thomson. From England, Frank Tyson, fastest one. Other speed guns like Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan who had ability to cross 100 mph.

Bradman, scored 974 runs in the 1930 test series in England against Larwood with support of aging Maurice Tate, who was better bowler in 1920, Another amatuer fast bowler, Gabby Allen was also there. Highest wicket taker in fast bowling in Bradman case, 82 wickets.

After body line series 1932-33 Lawrood left and then through the rest of his entire career, almost batting against England only, he faced that pace attacks in which no one could be called fast and then he faced Alec Bedser in 1946-48, medium fast seam bowler but he was quality bowler.

Slow left arm orthodox in the style of Underwood, Hedley Verity was also there. Verity proved himself only once against Australia on sticky wicket of England where he took 15 wickets. But in Australia, Verity’s record was poor with striking rate 113 with bowling average 34.57.

Others spinners are Peebles, Wright, Hollies or Smith. I think all of them were average or below average bowlers. Jim Laker was also there but played only three test matches against Don at initial level.

The best spinners of his era are Grimmet and O’Reilly who could only played against Bradman in domestic seasons only on Australian pitches which hardly favoured spinners. If Bradman faced these two greats on English pitches, it would have tested all his skills against leg spinners.

Please see the big picture and then decide it. But there is no doubt he is one of the best and he is a legend in cricket but I think he is not best of the best. Mostly people unable to understand the facts of cricket.

M. Ashraf (visitor), May 26,2010 at 03:54

1. In 20 years, Bradman played 52 test matches in which 26 timeless matches. It means in one year maximum three test matches then there were no one day.

2. Only two teams in actual with all England's bowlers were amatuers. No quality leg spinner, no quality fast bowler, no quality fast medium. How can we judge his scoring ability.

3. His total cricket was in two countries without concept of globalization against all amatuers bowlers after great depression of twenties.

4. In Bradman's times they could get rest of one week before any test match and then another match started. He played on ten different grounds only.

5. Now burden is changed to 10 Test and 30 ODI per year. It means too much pressure now a days.

6. In 20 years Sachin played 166 test plus 442 one day matches. All professional bowlers are there. He played on 55-60 different grounds.

7. Almost 60 bowlers took 100 or more as compare to Don only six bowlers took 100 or more in which five from same country that was England.

Now choice is your own who is better either Tendulkar or Bradman.

Adnan Khan (visitor), May 27,2010 at 01:47

Please do not compare Sir Don with others due to 99.9.

1. He played cricket aginst amatuer bowlers.
2. 80% innings against the same team. 63 / 80.
3. Only six bowler took 100 or more in which five from England.

4. In these six bowler, Tate, Alec Bedser, Jim Laker are quality bowlers only.
5. Total cricket in ten grounds and 26 test matches timeless matches.

6. Mat over concrrete pitches with seamless bowling.
7. Never played any fast or fast medium bowler with 100 or more wickets.
8. Faced only one leg spinner, Wright it means 1 out of 13 leg spinners.

9. 41 Off spinners took 100 or more, he faced only three of them.

10. All cricket in two countries with facing bowlers who were army officers like Verity lost his life in world war II. His striking rate was 113.1 in Australia with bowling average 34.5.

Ali Bhai (visitor), May 28,2010 at 03:45

Please do not compare Sir Don with others. He has his own importance and he is a legend of cricket. He is a best batsman of his era.

Yes it is true that he played cricket against amatuers bowlers. Bowlers are of 30 to 50 year old with long distance fielding. Even captain were not professional.

No proper rule for LBW without leg umpire. Timeless matches were there. Seamless bowlers were there. Fast and fast medium were not there. Although Larwood was there but he was unable to take 100 wickets. Same case of Allen, grabbing 82 wickets.

Actually cricket was emerging those days. It was not his fault that cricket was very easy those days. Cricket was not a profession those days. After 1962, it become profession in England.

He could only played those bowlers who were in England. It was not his responsiblity to make them proper. He was only responsible for his batting for which he proved himself.

It is not possible to judge either Sir Don is better or Tendulkar. Both played two different eras. Please do not compare them with averages. See impact of them in cricket like Viv Richard destruction against genuine fast bowling make him one of the best.

Tendulkar played against pure professional bowlers with swing, seam, leg spin, off spin all types and all verities on different pitches.

He played cricket against best captains also so strategy to use bowlers are also become excellent.

When we look at Tendulkar's runs it looks like two batsmen are playing one in test cricket and another one in one day cricket. Highest runs gutter in both forms of cricket.

Ali Bhai (visitor), May 29,2010 at 04:54

After 1962, cricket became profession in England region. Before it, it is an amatuer cricket. I think do not compare amatuer cricket with professoinal cricket. In amatuer cricket, bowlers were very easy.

Tendulkar scored more than 30000 runs is itself a big achievement against professional bowlers.

He is highest run gutter of all time cricket in both version. Don never become highest run gutter in test cricket even playing after amatuers and also getting timeless matches.

According to Naser Hussian Tendulkar is better than Bradman.

Sober said Gavaskar is the best. When asked about Sir Don, he said he played another type of cricket.

Sir Don is a big name in cricket but if someone says that he is better than Gavaskar then how can he set any parameter. Don faced one and Gavaskar faced almost 20 bowlers who took 200 or more like Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Botham, Wills, Snow, Garner, Hodling, Marshall and Robert and many others.

Adnan Khan (visitor), May 31,2010 at 03:39

Please see some facts.

1. 80% innings against the same team.
2. All amatuer bowlers
3. Almost all bowlers from same team.

4. Only six bowlers took 100 or more in five from same team. It means 85% amatuer bowlers from same team.
5. Only ten grounds totally.

6. Total cricket in two countries.
7. Not played against all types of bowlers in all types of conditions.
8. Tate, Larwood and only Bedser were quality bowlers in which Tate prime time finished when he started, Larwood left after body-line series and Bedser started his career when he faced him.
9. Half career timeless matches with four, five and six days test matches.
10. Except Melbourne, he played less than 10 test matches on other nine grounds in 20 years.

How can we justify him no. 1 without playing professional cricket, without playing quality bowlers, without playing all types of conditions.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Jun 1,2010 at 05:06

Tendulkar is highest runs scorer in test and in one day too.

He played highest no. of one day matches and in test highest no. of innings. He played second highest no. of test matches right now.

He scored 50 or plus more than 100 times in test cricket. Else he scored 93 centuries at international level.

In test 55-60 bowlers who took 100 or more. Seam, swing, wrist spin, finger spin all types and all varities.

Sir Don even not highest run scorer in test cricket.42 bowlers in England took 100 or more in test in history and he faced only five of them. These bowlers were amatuers so how we know he could play against professsionals like Lara complete domination on Murli.

Batting conditons on all ten pitches were almost same due to mat over concrete pitches.

If someone say Bradman is no. 1, I think it is not true. I think Tendulkar achivements are far more than him.

M. Ashraf (visitor), Jun 8,2010 at 03:15

Bradman is a great, but it is very difficult to say he is best of the best or better batsman than Sobers, Viv, Lara or Tendulkar or Gavaskar.

Most complete batsman Brian Lara has held the world record two times 375 and 400*, but his 213 & 153* were better than these scores. Like his 80 not out turned the series in his team favour against Sri Lanka.

Giles 17 not out in 117 balls against Sri Lanka turned match into draw in Galle. So 17 runs important or turning match is important.

Bradman is great and one of the best but call him the best of all-time is perhaps not fair. May be we could call him as statistically the best, but I would always prefer Lara and Tendulkar as compare to him.

Like total 148 bowlers took 100 or more and Don faced only six of them in which five from same country.

Guddu (visitor), Jun 14,2010 at 12:21

I think sachin is the best batsman than bradman because sachin can play better in all forms of cricket.

Ram (visitor), Jun 14,2010 at 14:58

Please compare the averages of Bradman and the second best player of his era. The difference in average is almost 40! Sachin does not dominate his peers to the extent. Almost every great player of his era like Ponting, Lara, Dravid have averages and capabilities pretty close to Sachin.

There were some respects in which playing during Bradman's days were easier. Fielding was substandard compared to our times. No TV umpires, and close decisions always went in favour of the batsmen. No one did extensive study of the opposition teams using technology.

But it was also difficult to play during the time of Bradman where they played on uncovered pitches. Unlike the modern players who travel by flight, Bradman had to travel by ship which was a long and tedious journey and between matches too the journey was tedious. No helmets and such things and it was a challenge to face even 130kph bowlers. Even during the bodyline series Bradman had an incredible average of 56! Ask Sachin to take off his helmet when facing fast bowlers and let us see if he can maintain that average!

Comparing players of different eras is very difficult. But players can be compared to other great players of their own era. That is where Bradman wins hands down. Had Bradman played today he would been much ahead of his peers. He might have averaged in the nineties or even 100+ even today because batting averages for top batsmen of all eras have been between 50-60 and Bradman is a freak exception.

Bradman scored at such a phenomenal rate in test cricket that he would have been an exceptional one day player. If Bradman can score 309 in one day in a test match just imagine what he would do in a oneday match.

Zeeshan Siddiqui (visitor), Jun 15,2010 at 03:49

1. Dear Ram, please go through from all or few comments on this website.
If his batting is 99.9 does not mean he is better than Tendulkar.

Lohmann bowling average is 10.75. Can we say that he is better than Marshall and Wasim due to average. His average is twice better than others.

If he scored 309 in one day but against whom is also important. Saeed scored 194 and Conventry against Banglades and Saeed against India. Can we say both innings are equivalent because of same score.

See Verity, if he was so good why his striking rate was 113.1 in Australia.

2. What about his peers, those days cricket started after great depression without concept of globalization with all cricket against same team with amatuer bowlers.
63 INN against same team out of 80.
26 TIMELESS matches, mat over concrete pitches.

When any field starts in first step, anyone can get first position without concept of proper competition. After that with passage of time, it become very difficult to compete.

3. Only his team players could get same advantage in average like Headley when played against England maintained batting average 71.23 but against Australia only 37.33 because of quality bowlers. Every opposite team had to face Australia.

4. Don scored runs but against whom is also important. 148 bowlers took 100 or more and he faced only six of them. Not even any fast bowler or fast medium took 100 or more. Don not even faced best bowling of his era.

5. Totally cricket in two countries.

6. No proper captain in opponent team like Jardine and others.

7. Always had a problem to face googly, although those days not a proper wrist spinners were there.

8. From supreme bowlers fast, fast medium and medium fast, he faced only Bedser, medium fast seamer.

9. At home Lara runs per inning against England is 71.45 is more than Bradman 71.33 but Lara faced England one out of nine countries. If he was playing against only England against amatuers, he could improve it to how much we donot know but I think 100 or might be more.

10. He is one of best but I think he is not the best of the best.
Like Sobers said Gavaskar is best due to proved himself against best attack of the world.
Nasir Hussain said Tendulkar is best. Wasim Akram said Viv is the best against the geniune fast bowlers.

M. Ashraf (visitor), Jun 15,2010 at 06:44

1. Dear Ram, if you are saying those bowlers speed was 130 or plus, please list the name of those bowlers faced by DON.

2. Those days cricket was very easy so there was no need to wear helmet. After 8-10 days, another test match started so proper rest were there.

3. Don was not the only one to travel by ship. All had to do the same so concept that they are tired after it is not trure in my eyes.

In ship every one had cabins so they could get proper rest even during journey. In plane it is not easy to get proper rest.

4. Even after traveling by ship, pace of matches were very slow like he played 52 test in 20 years. So blaming that he travelled by ship was very difficult is not justice in my eyes.

5. Now burden is changed to 10 Test and 30 ODI per year. It means too much pressure now a days. In 20 years Sachin played 166 test plus 442 one day matches. All professional bowlers are there. He played on 57 different grounds in test matches only. He played on ten grounds with 52 test matches.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Jun 15,2010 at 07:36

Don played in two countries only so total travelling was from England to Australia or vice versa. Unable to undertand how he became tired by travelling in two countries only without concept of globalization.

Had he travelled to Africa or any other country. Answer is no. So argument that he was tired is not true.

Your argument due to not travelling by plane, it was difficult is not true because had he faced after travelling 10 test matches plus 30 one day matches per year. Answer is no, only five test in two years against same team.

In body line series his average was 56. Does it mean due to this average he is better than Tendulkar because 56 is more than 55.5. He played Larwood and Allen in fast bowling, amatuer bowlers in this series, another bowler Verity was slow left arm orthodox in this series. Tendulkar played 57 bowlers who took 100 or more in test.

Uncovered pitches were there but these picthes were matt over concrete picthes in which straight bowl on the bat. On uncovered picthes only became difficult after rain. He never managed any master inning on rain affected pitches. Like Trumper was better batsman than him on these type of picthes. So argument for uncovered picthes is finished due to this reason.

Moeenuddin (visitor), Jun 15,2010 at 16:48

Dear Ram, please see big picture instead of focusing on average only. Yes Bradman had to travel by ship from Australia to England only but his average is more in England as compare to Australia against England.

In ships all facilities are there like you can take bath, change your clothes, you can sleep etc as you have one portion in ships (cabins). Even you can take siesta also.

The culture is almost same in both countries so there was no problem for anyone to adjust who went to England to play.

His average in body line series does mean due to 56 he is better than these professional batsman like Tendulkar and Lara. They played against fast, medium fast, wrist spinners, finger spinners all sort of bowlers.

Taking one series and imposing it on the career of others is 100% injustice. Lara scored 688 runs in one series. Can I put this series on overall career of Sir Viv. Is it justice.

In body line series all bowlers were amateurs like Verity was an army officer so how you know that his 56 is better than others average. Had he played this series against best bowlers of the all time greatest.

Tendulkar played against professional bowlers in test matches on ten different countries by plane and Don against amateurs against same team on same route by ship.

The bowlers faced by Don can even not get the chance in first class cricket in Australia now. So imposing his 99.9 to others is meaningless according to me.

How he is best without playing genuine bowlers. If he scored 309 runs in one day against amateurs of England, does it mean he could play Marshall, Garner, Holding and Robert at a time.

Adnan Khan (visitor), Jun 16,2010 at 01:36

Please do not say that his 99.9 against amatuers of same team make sense to today cricket. Even now first class bowlers are better than those amatuers of England of Don era.

If Bradman scored 309 in one day against amatuers does it means he can score runs against professional bowlers of modern era. He totally faced six bowler who took 100 or more in which five from same country. Totally 148 bowlers took 100 or more.

Lara scored two triple and Don also two BOTH against the same team. But Lara faced England one out of nine. If his total cricket like Don against England then he could score 5 to 6 triple hundreds as taking one team out of nine is very difficult.

Someone said that if Bradman belongs to modern cricket, he could score 15000 runs or more. Please note a man never become highest runs gutter in test, how it is possible. Even now he is no. 10 in his own country in term of runs making. Overall in test now near to 40.

People are talking baseless things like he did not wear helmet, travelling by ship etc. If he did not wear, did other wear of his era. He was not the only one to travel by ship. One more important thing is that his total cricket was in two countries was it very difficult to travel from Australia to England. I do not think so.

In today cricket there is even not any guarantee that he can maintained batting average 50 due to professional cricket.

He played body line series against army officers if he had to play it against fast battery of W. Indies then I think 56 could change 20 or may be less because captain would also changed from Jardine to Clive Llyod. Larwood height was only 5 feet 8 inches but Garner height is 6 feet 8 inches.

M. Omair (visitor), Jun 16,2010 at 03:31

Please compare the averages of Bradman and the second best player of his era. The difference in average is almost 40.

Reason: Those days only Australia could take advantage of England weakest bowling. I think this bowling of England is all time weakest bowling of them. Like Herbert 66.85 is against Australia strong bowling. Which one is better Don 89.78 against England or his 66.85 against strong Australia.

Bradman had to travel by ship which was a long and tedious journey and between matches too the journey was tedious. No helmets and such things and it was a challenge to face even 130kph bowlers.

Reason: Travelling by ship is a pleasure instead of tedious journey. It look very good if you are travelling once in every two years. If you are conintously travelling then it is very difficult like 15-20 visits per year.

Facing 130kph is only assumption as he never faced any fast, fast medium bowler with 100 or more wickets. No wrist, no finger quality spinner. Jim Laker only played three test matches against him.

Please tell us the name of those bowlers with speed 130 kph, if they were so good why they were unable to take 100 or more.

Those days Hammond career span from 1927-1947 and he played 85 test matches like Sobers 93 in 20 years and so many other players. If these bowlers were so good why they were unable to play even 40 test matches.

Reason is that their main focus was not a cricket. You may say that they were playing cricket for only enjoyment. In same period Allen played only 25 test matches as compare to Hammond 85 test matches.

Ali Bhai (visitor), Jun 16,2010 at 06:57

Sir Don is one of the best, no doubt about it and no one has batting average like him but when we compare two batsmen, average is not the only criteria.

Bowling amatuers of England faced by Don is no doubut one of the weakest bowling attack of England cricket ever produced.

Can we compare this attack with fast battery of W. Indies, Lillee's attack, Warne's attack, quartet of India, two Ws attack with 100% master in swing bowling, Allan Donald's, Kumble or so many other attack.

Tendulkar should face bowlers without helmet is something baseless because Don faced without helmet.

Ram can I ask you all others in Don's era did the same. Should all others of Tendulkar's era do the same. Should all of them play without helmet.

The fastest bowler faced by him only 5 feet 8 inches. Now normally height of fast bowler is 6 feet 1 or more inches.

In W. Indies height of Garner is 6 feet 8 inches, Holding 6 feet 4 inches, Robert 6 feet 2 inches and Marshall 5 feet 9 inches. Was it joke to face them altogether like Gavaskar did and scored 13 centuries against W. Indies.

It is just like in city there are 10 teams but at initial stage only two and someone statistically achieved highest average due to luck and we say he is the best in city due to average.

Question is that without playing other 8 teams in their regions too. How we know he is the best.

I think best means who proved himself against all teams in all regions.

hitesh (visitor), Jun 16,2010 at 07:48

also note the fielding in 1928-1948 is so bad

now see the fielding standard.

Moeenuddin (visitor), Jun 16,2010 at 10:47

Yes you are right, now you are on right path, if I have a chance to choose who is better I think Tendulkar is better than Don. Please do not compare 55.5 to 99.9.

Those days amateur bowlers of England were of 30 to 50 year old because cricket started after great depression of twenties. So overall there is no meaning for comparing Don with his peers. Not only Tendulkar, even Gavaskar and Lara are far better than Don.

He faced only six bowlers who took 100 or more in which three came after world war II. One died during it, one just before world war II. Remaining one left the cricket in early thirties. So in real sense he faced only one bowler with 100 or more that is Verity who died in world war II.

Zeeshan Siddiqui (visitor), Jun 17,2010 at 00:53

Another way to change the data according to them that is Bradman and other batsman difference is 40 in batting average.

Bradman average is 99.9 but when played against England it was 89.7 as other teams were less than today's Zimbabwe. Headley average was 60.8 but against England it was 71.2 so actual difference was 18.5 only. (89.7 - 71.2). But

Headley had to face Australia. In those days it looks like that two Shane Warne were playing in one team. (Grimett and Reilly). In these matches anyone had 100% disadvantage who were not in Australia.

Even it is not true he played only one timeless match as compare to Sir Don several.

Headley came from W. Indies and had to adjust against England. Don had 100% advantage in this point also as Australia and England have the same culture.

For example if cricket started from Pakistan and India and someone came from England, had he advantage to understand the conditions of these countries easily. No same case of Headley was. He had to suffer to much difficulties to adopt the new conditions.

With timeless matches advantage and also other advantages his difference with Headley is only 18.5.

There is question who is better in actual either Don or Headley, remain unsolved.

M. Omair (visitor), Jun 17,2010 at 06:44

In those days it looks like that two Shane Warne were playing in one team. Grimmett and Reilly). It looks like not two it was three.

Reason:
Warne overs per match is 46 in test.
Grimett overs per match is 66 in test.
Reilly overs per match is 62 in test.

66+ 62 = 128, 46 * 3 = 138.
Ten over more but in timeless matches both bowlers had bowling spells comprised more than 66 and 62. I think it would be near to or more than 70 and 75 overs.

75 + 70 = 145, 46 * 3 = 138.

It means other had to face three Shane Warne at a time.

Also note according to Sir. Don Reilly is better than Warne. He gave priority to him as compare to Warne and gave him place in his dream team and 12th man in his dream team is Grimmett.

Now you can easily understand why his average is 99.9 and other could not had. Others had to face near about 150 overs for genuine leg spinners.

Also Ironmonger and Gregory were very good bowlers from same era.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Jun 17,2010 at 07:18

Mr. Ram please note the following facts which you sbould understand.

Sir Don only played cricket in Australia and England. So by ship he could only went to England to play.

In 20 years he went to England only 4 times.
1930, 1934, 1938 and in 1948.

Bradman had to travel by ship which was a long and tedious journey and between matches too the journey was tedious.

Only 4 times in his career and you are making it in that manner that he was exhausted and tired due to travel by ship.

Dear viewers, please note only 4 times in his life and Mr. Ram is saying it is very difficult to arrange. It means in every 5 years only one time.

Zeeshan Siddiqui (visitor), Jun 18,2010 at 01:15

Please accept the reality that Tendulkar is better batsman than Sir Don.

Due to this website alongwith all of the comments, I have come to this point to conclude that Tendulkar is better than Don.

In 20 years he went to England only 4 times.
1930, 1934, 1938 and in 1948.
I think he enjoyed every journey by ship because he went there only four times.

He played less than 10 test matches on other all grounds in 20 years, except Melbourne.

Never faced any fast or fast medium bowler who took 100 or more. For Medium fast only one, Alec Bedser. Now a days medium fast bowlers are not available. Highest wicket taker in fast bowling was Allen grabbing 82 wickets. Fastest one was Larwood, 78 only. If they were capable than why there were unable to prolong their career. In same time Hammond played 85 test matches. It means matches were there but their intentions to prove themselves was not like a professionals.

Don faced one of the weakest bowling attack of England.

If we are going to count the limitations of Sir Don era, I think one small booklet will be there.

Abhijeet (visitor), Jun 18,2010 at 07:45

After going from this website, I can say that Tenduklar is better than Sir Bradman. Thanks for all of you guys who provided the actual knowledge.

At initial stage I was unable to undertand due to 99.94 average.

Now I have comprehensive knowledge. It seems amazing that Sir Bradman never faced any fast or fast medium bowler with 100 or more wickets in test matches.

Only one leg spinner, Wright with bowling average near to 40. One medium fast and three off break bowlers.

Can we compare Larwood and Allen with Marshall and others like Wasim and many many more.

I think instead of focusing one bowler, we should discuss it as one bowling attack like four spinners from India. Shane Warne attack in which one leg spinner, two seamers (McGrath and Gellispe) and one swing bowler Lee were there.

I also agreed that attack of England faced by Bradman was one the weakest attack ever produced by England.

Also agreed Hammond played cricket on 20 grounds in four continents and he only 10 grounds in two continents.

Hammond had to face strong bowling of Australia too. In timeless matches, attack with Grimmett and Reilly became impossible to face.

Mian Bilal (visitor), Jun 18,2010 at 14:52

First of all, I want to say Sir Bradman is legend and one of the best test batsman.

Yes achievement of Tendulkar is at-least twice or thrice more than him but those days there were no concept of one day cricket. I think from talent point of view, both are equivalent or Tendulkar is slight more talented.

Tendulkar not only highest runs scorer in both versions at a time but also highest number of century maker too in both version at a time. Highest no. of fours (chokay) in both versions at a time.

At one occasion Sir Don said his average might be 65 in current test cricket. On another occasion Gavaskar said Tendulkar average might be 65, if he was only player of test cricket. In this way both are equivalent, although it is an imaginary situation.

Mr. Ram traveling by plane is more difficult in current cricket as compare to journey by ship in old days.

It is due to Sir Don only travel once in four to five year as compare to him. Tendulkar have to travel whole year for proving himself in Test and also one day cricket. He have to travel in nine other countries as compare to him only Australia to England.

His burden of cricket is five to six times more than Sir Don. He scored 31000 runs in cricket as compare to him 6996. It means only he scored 22% of Sir Tendulkar.

Zeeshan Siddiqui (visitor), Jun 19,2010 at 04:00

Just have a look for advantages of Sir Don as compare to his peers. Even his average is 99.9 as compare to his peers in not actual truth.

1. Never faced best bowling attack of his era that was Australia due to same team.

2. All cricket in two countries like Hammond played not only in other countries but also in other continents too. Hammond played on 20 different grounds in five countries and Bradman only 10 grounds. Also Hammond had to face Australia mostly, another disadvantage of him.

3. Batsmen who faced bowling attack of Australia, it was very difficult for them to tackle it.

4. Others average is low becuase they had to face Australia like Headley faced at a time England and Australia. (Two best teams of those days) whereas Bradman had to face only amatuers of England on same circumstances.

5. Due to limited cricket by Don, he had to travel from Australia to England only whereas batsmen of other team had not only to travel by ship from England to Australia but also in other continents too like in Headley case he had to travel from W. Indies to Australia but also from W. Indies to England too.

6. More than 90% timeless matches organized by Australia only. So he had not only advantage of timeless matches but also home ground advantage and also weak bowling attacks of others too.

Australian bowling attack became very difficult for others in timeless matches like in case of Grimmett and Reilly together, others had to face 150 to 175 overs for genuine leg spin bowlers per match.

7. Headley batting average is 71.2 against England but batting average of Australian batsmen except Bradman was 40-50 only against England. They had advantage of same culture but unable to creat big scores like Headley or Don.

8. Only Australian batsmen could have same advantage like Sir Don but they were unable to take advantage.

9. His team mates played cricket in three countries as compare to him only two. You can check it from websites.

10. Actual his batting average was 89.7 against England and Headley 71.2 so only difference is 18.5. Even it is not true, he played several timeless matches against them and Headley only one. He also had same culture advantage too. Headley had to come from W. Indies and then adopt the conditions of England which was entire different from his culture.

Jahan Zada Buneri (visitor), Jun 25,2010 at 03:14

Look at comparison of Bradman with Wally Hammond. Here I am not saying who is better. Just putting the facts only.

Sir Don played cricket in two countries in Australia and in England on ten grounds in which 26 matches timeless too. Mostly matches against same team on same conditions against amatuers of England. 63 / 80 = 80% approx. innings against same team.

In 20 years he travelled by ship only four times from Australia to England. 1930, 1934, 1938 and in 1948.

Hammond played cricket in five countries in four continents against five countries on twenty grounds.

Mostly matches against not same team on same conditions. Like 58 innings against Australia and 42 against S. Africa out of 140 innings.

In twenty years of his career, he travelled by ship ten times from England to other countries.
1927, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1946 and 1947.

I think now you can understand that statistic alone is not the exact parameter to judge two batsmen.

Nitin Vishwakarma (visitor), Jul 16,2010 at 00:03

Sachin tendulkar is the best player in world cricket we can call him god of cricket...
We can't compare any cricketer to Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar bcoz Sachin is also best we can say don bradman was a gud player or best player in cricket history bt sachin is best cricketer then sir donald bradman...
Sachin is god of cricket and he willbe always best to any cricketer...
Sachin is Sachin...

Zeeshan Siddiqui (visitor), Jul 19,2010 at 04:10

Tendulkar is ahead of Ponting and many others.

Rahul Dravid is also very important batsman of INDIA. He is anchor of his team in batting. Why he is anchor becuase his world record for 81 century partnerships means he is a team man.

Also he is blocker too like Laxman is Grafter in batting in test matches for his team.

Suppose Dravid scored 38 runs in One day, he would face 50 - 54 balls and overall 120 balls totally. It means normally his stay is 20 or more overs plus blocker for his wicket too like if he came after 15 over then lost his wicket in 35th over. Team can build inning on his runs.

I think we should also give more respect to him.

raw (visitor), Jul 23,2010 at 09:44

sachin is god of cricket !
no discusions please
who say he is not the best must get their minds checked"

raw (visitor), Jul 23,2010 at 09:46

u cant compare with the likes of lara, ponting ,jayasuriya or even bradman
bcaus u cant compare a lion with a cat!

Faisal P Rasheed (visitor), Jul 29,2010 at 08:09

Sachin is the no.1 batsman in the world because he is the only one batsman has most
records in cricket history and also terrific player in all formats of the game. the era of sachin there were many legendary bowlers like warne murali akram mcgrath etc he dominated all bowlers bowled against him