Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zman
Good question. I don't know much about bowlers from pre 80s era, but from what I've seen in video footages of his batting, the quality of the opposition's bowling didn't seem below par at all. And even without much knowledge of the bowlers of that era we know Bradman was a proven match winner and also he was able to maintain an otherworldly avg almost twice as that of the next best batsman. For the sake of comparison, if we go back a decade or two we find another great batsman whose name also comes up in the conversation of all time greats. He is none other than the great Jack Hobbs and his avg is also a paltry 57 in comparison. I can't imagine the bowlers he faced being much better than those of Bradman's time.
Now tendulkar, as great as he's been throughout his career, faces stiff competition from his contemporary greats in almost every important category--clutchness, longevity, high avg, 4th inning performance, big innings, fear inspiring ability, et at--which isn't the case with Bradman.
In terms of clutchness I rate Lara, Ponting and even Inzi at the same level as if not higher than the little master. I agree with Tigers_eye in that nobody inspired as much fear in the opposition camp as did the great Richards. In terms of facing great bowlers, Sachin didn't have to face the fearsome West Indian pace battery of the 70s and 80s. If I'm not mistaken he faced Ambrose and Walsh only towards the end of their careers. Next best thing to the mighty West Indian bowling attack in my book is the Pakistani fast bowling attack of the 90s. And look up the stats and you'll see Tendulkar averages only about 40 in the 10 test matches he played in Pakistan. In terms of scoring against minnows Tendulkar averages around 95 against Bd and Zim, the minnows of his time, vs. Bradman's 140.
Despite all that Sachin's consistency over a long period of time has been so remarkable that I believe he deserves to be considered the quintessential batsman only second to the great Bradman who on the other hand is head and shoulders above the rest of the competition.
|
This so called greatness is subjective. And your example just shows that bradman is ahead of his contenders - but that 99 average is not suggestive of anything (from a career spanning just 55 tests). Not to mention that he had played only in England & Australia. He
About quality of the attacks:
Bradman didn't face reverse swing - which is the most lethal weapon for pacers since its invention. Not to mention the Doosra which a lot of (especially white
) batsmen struggle against.
And what sort of comparison is that BD one? Do you know how strong were the above mentioned teams then? Do you realised tendulkar mainly played BD away rather than at home? And the improvement in standards of bowling and fielding? Not to mention the umpiring and rules of LBW. Bradman has a Bowled to LBW ratio of 4.
Tendulkar averages 40 against pakistan then - he was in the initial stages of his career and still it's not a bad record at all. I bet you bradman would've never ever had his inflated average of 99 had he faced the Pak attack of Wasim and Waqar. Period.