Originally posted by ShadowKisses
@bhinder.thind: You are contradicting yourself by saying stats don't
tell the true story and simultaneously citing several of Tendulkar's
statistics (for me to infer from, I would assume). Bradman was, as I understand it, the true Colossus of the
game as he averaged 45 more runs that the players of his era. I don't think even Sachin has ever managed that over the entireity of his career.
Both Sachin and Bradman have considerable points that somehow favour one over the other.
1] In the era of Bradman, the one single test lasted for 9 days. The format was reduced to 5-day in 1945 after which he played only 6 tests at an average of 31.4. Bradman's stike rate was not more than 29.7.
2] He played only 4 spinners in his time- Clarie Grimmett, Headley Verity, Eric Hollies and Bill O'Reilly, none of whom he was comfortable against. In fact, he was bowled by a googly in his last match. Out of these, 2 spinners were of his own team. He played only Verity and O'Reilly in international matches.He admitted that playing spinners was the most tricky thing he faced in life. I highly doubt how he would fare against the spinners if they are available in plenty as in this era. We aren't sure of the quality of bowlers and their pace.
3] The fielders in his era were not even a quarter as athletic as they are today, the fielding standards were very poor. Most field placings were very aggressive, there were very less players on the boundaries. This explains his heavy dependence of runs on boundaries.
4] The competition wasn't as intense as it is now. High level of incompetent cricket explains why more matches resulted in draws rather than one of the teams winning.
5] He played only few teams, and at that point of time, it was clearly his team which was most dominant.
7] He played very less matches as compared to what they play today. Today, players need more stamina to survive all the formats. No wonder, either we see players retiring at a young age today or quitting the test format. He and others got adequate rest and time to prepare himself for further games.
8] Most people in his era didn't take cricket as seriously as he did. Cricket wasn't a profession then, so we can say why his average stands out against his contemporaries. Bradman himself was of the opinion that there were other batsmen, contemporaries of his, who had the talent to be just as prolific as he was but lacked the concentration. Stan McCabe, who needed a particular challenge to bring the best of him, was no doubt one of them. "I wish I could bat like that, he is the greatest ever batsman I have seen."
9} He never played limited overs cricket, where scoring at a brisk rate is a must.
10] There weren't as many rules at that time. Its said that his bat weighed 6 pounds, I don't know its legitimacy though.
11] The bodyline bowling, which is said as unsporting isn't a genuine reason that he should be rated highly. There are many more deliveries invented today, which could have been rendered as illegal or unsporting then.
12] Donald Bradman has more not outs per innings than other contemporaries, this is a very huge factor for his high average.
13] Bradman played only in 2 countries, England and Australia, the conditions were familiar.
1] Sachin played in an era where pitches were covered. The bounce was even. Strokemaking(and not runmaking) is easier today.
2] The protective gear is quite of a good quality, adequate, and much lighter today.
3] Players have all the infrastructure needed for practicing- nets, bowling machine etc
4] With the invention of video, one can actually study bowling techniques, no wonder Mendis has now been sorted out.
5] Sachin has had his share of innumerable injuries, many of them career threatening. This has quite affected his performance.
6} Not just average makes a batsman good. Bradman holds all the records associated with average, while Sachin in terms of quantity. It would have been interesting to know how much Sachin's contemporaries lag behind him in terms of runs scored in all the formats he has played.
Having said all this, there are for and against the motion. Thats what makes this such a wonderful debate, yet inconclusive. The debate is very much on, it does make sense, but as I said, it is inconclusive. Having said this, I'm slightly inclined towards Sachin Tendulkar because I have never seen Sir Donald Bradman bat, but I'm sure that he did justice to all the respect/appreciation that we have for him today.