The best batsman ever?

[shakibrulz]

For me the one and only Tendulkar the god of cricket.

Poll added. Also explain why.

[Tiger444]

Thats really tough actually but I believe it boils down to Lara and Tendulkar..average wise Tendulkar is better but Lara does have the record scoring a 400 in a test match..I like Lara's style better but ya its very tough to say who is the best ever batsman..

[Equinox]

Where is the poll?

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by Equinox
Where is the poll?

Added, vote.

[Neel Here]

I really don't think you can make a proper comparison between eras. therefore I am not going to vote.
if a gun is held to my head and asked I will name sachin and bradman. the fact that bradman faced the same team in known circumstances year after year, brings him to god level from supergod level in my eyes. richards, hobbs, gavaskar and lara are very close behind. as is ponting, as much as I dislike him as a person, for both his on and off field antics.
gavaskar makes the list because of his superhuman performances against the windies bowling attack (and others as well), which I consider to be the most potent ever to have taken the cricket field in history.

p.s. but lara had the most beautiful batsmanship for any player in the above list !

[Imteaz]

Interesting.

Bradman.

ODI: Tendulkar.

[Miraz]

Sachin is well ahead of any other batsmen in terms of endurance and consistency. However, Lara will be the best batsman to score runs in crucial circumstances. Laxman comes close (when the match is against Australia), but Tendulkar will be well behind in such scenarios. This is why Tendulkar has team 2nd innigs average (3rd or 4th innings of match) in lower 40's (3rd innings) or upper 30s (4th innings) while Lara and Laxman has much better averages (lower 50s or upper 40s) in the 2nd innings of the team.


In ODI cricket, Tendulkar will be well ahead of Lara.

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by Miraz
Sachin is well ahead of any other batsmen in terms of endurance and consistency. However, Lara will be the best batsman to score runs in crucial circumstances. Laxman comes close (when the match is against Australia), but Tendulkar will be well behind in such scenarios. This is why Tendulkar has team 2nd innigs average (3rd or 4th innings of match) in lower 40's (3rd innings) or upper 30s (4th innings) while Lara and Laxman has much better averages (lower 50s or upper 40s) in the 2nd innings of the team.


In ODI cricket, Tendulkar will be well ahead of Lara.

That's a misconception. Tendulkar although has been a bit on the lower side in the second innings that doesn't mean that he's a poor pressure player compared to the above two. He has played plenty of under pressure knocks - way more than Lara. Laxy is a second innings specialist

[_Rafi_]

Bradman! No one yet get close to him.

[MohammedC]

(Others)

Tamim Iqbal Khan

[Miraz]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
That's a misconception. Tendulkar although has been a bit on the lower side in the second innings that doesn't mean that he's a poor pressure player compared to the above two. He has played plenty of under pressure knocks - way more than Lara. Laxy is a second innings specialist

Stats don't lie my friend. Lara avearges about 10 more than Tendulkar in the 2nd innings of the team.

Tendulkar undoubtedly is a great batsman. Much better than Lara in the first innings of the team.

[zman]

for me Bradman is number one. although he did play most of his matches against england, many people don't realize he averaged a whopping 140+ in the 15 matches he played against India, South Africa and the West Indies, vs. his 90 avg in 37 matches against England.

modern day cricket has become more of a batsman's game with easier pitches for batting, smaller boundaries, powerful bats, restriction on bouncers, et al, which easily negates the advantage Bradman may have gained by playing against familiar opponents frequently.

Sachin is a clear cut number two for me. he was nowhere near that in my book until recently when he decided to elevate his game to the level of Bradman at the mind boggling age of 37!!! Bradman gets the nod only because he was able to sustain it for a longer period, but make no mistake if the little master is able to maintain his scintillating form for couple more years I may have to change my view once again.

[Dilscoop]

Tendulkar scores a lot and everything, but he comes out as a very selfish batsman at the end of the day. Eg last test. It's Dravid, Lax, and Ganguly who has won games for India, and performed under pressure the most. But they were all overshadowed by Sachin's 100 on random times. We don't realize this, but once all of them are done playing, this will come out.

Even though Ponting's form has gone down a bit, I'd love to be some one like Ponting. He won Aus a lot of matches, he lead the team from the front. And he is a badass captain.

And when was the last time Tendulkar played outside of flatland in last 2 years?

[cricket_king]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
That's a misconception. Tendulkar although has been a bit on the lower side in the second innings that doesn't mean that he's a poor pressure player compared to the above two. He has played plenty of under pressure knocks - way more than Lara. Laxy is a second innings specialist

And your proof of this?

I'd say it's a toss up between Lara, Tendulkar and Richards. Each had their own aura when they stepped into the crease. Technically perfect is obviously Tendulkar. Embodies the ideal batsman. But I remember watching when Lara was on song - my god. Now that was something to witness. He would demoralise a side to the point where they'd kneel in frustration. I didn't get a chance to watch many of Richards' innings, but of the few that I have, it's clear that he hits the ball harder than the other two. Unfortunately, I can't decide. But if it came to consistency, it'd have to be Tendulkar.

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by Miraz
Stats don't lie my friend. Lara avearges about 10 more than Tendulkar in the 2nd innings of the team.

Tendulkar undoubtedly is a great batsman. Much better than Lara in the first innings of the team.

Stats DO lie. You can easily inflate your average by scoring a few not outs, that doesn't say anything about his ability to play under pressure.

For instance how about - Sachins average of 37.5 is better than Lara's 35?

Fourth innings stats can be often misleading.

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by zman
for me Bradman is number one. although he did play most of his matches against england, many people don't realize he averaged a whopping 140+ in the 15 matches he played against India, South Africa and the West Indies, vs. his 90 avg in 37 matches against England.

Sachin faced almost all the best bowlers of all time. Which of them did bradman face? And SA, India, etc were minnows during bradman era, if I'm not wrong.

[Tigers_eye]

In order:
Bradman (I can give 99 reasons, yet just one should be enough)
Viv Richards (If bowlers/(Op. fans) feared any batsmen that would have been him)
Sachin (there is no doubt, first innings, second innings, any innings)

Others:
Hanif, Gavaskar, Miadad, Lara, Amla (let him finish his career), De Silva and lots of 20's to 60's players.

Yes, I am biased. Sue me!!

[zman]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
Sachin faced almost all the best bowlers of all time. Which of them did Bradman face? And SA, India, etc were minnows during bradman era, if I'm not wrong.

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.

[_Rafi_]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
Sachin faced almost all the best bowlers of all time. Which of them did bradman face? And SA, India, etc were minnows during bradman era, if I'm not wrong.

What is the average of Sachin against minnow BD? It is not 99.94 I believe.
How much difference of average between Sachin and other good batsmen playing in his era. Its I believe not more than 4 runs. What was the average difference between Bradman and the next best batsmen of his era? It must be 40-50 runs. And please dont compare 4 runs with 40 runs. There should not be question of different era...it will go against Sachin. We all know how cricket pitch is behaving in last 5 or 6 years and how batters like Samraweera, Trott averaging more than 50.

[shakibrulz]

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.

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by _Rafi_
What is the average of Sachin against minnow BD? It is not 99.94 I believe.

What does it prove? Gosh. Cricketing standards have improved a LOT. The skill level required now to score those runs are much more difficult than in bradmans Era.

How much difference of average between Sachin and other good batsmen playing in his era. Its I believe not more than 4 runs. What was the average difference between Bradman and the next best batsmen of his era? It must be 40-50 runs. And please dont compare 4 runs with 40 runs. There should not be question of different era...it will go against Sachin. We all know how cricket pitch is behaving in last 5 or 6 years and how batters like Samraweera, Trott averaging more than 50.

Yes, if you compare home and away averages of those batsmen, you can easily find who is the best.

And the key point you are missing here is that sachin is here since 1989, playing a whopping 177 tests averaging 56 - and still Samaraweeras or trotts can hardly catch up to the average!

Flattest of pitches is only in subcontinent, and Samaraweera averages that much because he plays most games at home, something that you could relate to bradman not to tends

[shakibrulz]

Ok for your convenience, I'm listing my points here.
a. Facing more competitive bowlers - Tendulkar
b. Facing Reverse swing and Doosra - Tendulkar
c. Facing More minnows - Bradman
d. Having the convenience of playing at only 2 venues - Bradman
e. Lenient LBW decisions in favor of batsman
and there are more...

Now if any questions, feel free to post.

[Equinox]

Missed out Sir Garry...

[zman]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
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.

in absolute terms the modern day athlete is obviously going to be better than their predecessors. that's the reason why we resort to benchmarks and statistics in sports.

Michael Phelps broke all the records set forth by Mark Spitz. now is that enough to conclude he's the best swimmer of all time? not enough data according to my analysis. part of it can be attributed to his greatness, part of it has a lot to do with advancements in medical science and technology. however, when I see Michael Phelps beating out the best swimmers of his time in almost every significant statistical category on a regular basis in addition to breaking Spitz's records, for me that's what makes him a candidate for the best ever swimmer.

in absolute terms Tendulkar is the most consistent batsman no doubt. that doesn't necessarily make him the most clutch or greatest match winner, does it?

known fact: Tendulkar averaged 40 against Pakistan's bowling attack in Pakistan. I can't tell you the exact number off the top of my head but I can assure you even at that point in his career his avg wasn't far off from where it is today. in other words, he hasn't really gotten significantly better since then (until very recently of course). how much easier batting has become ever since is well documented. sometimes I wonder if Lara rues the missed opportunity to significantly increase his average and run totals on flat tracks and easy batting conditions had he stuck around for few more years. we'll never know, will we? just as we'll never know for sure how Bradman would've performed against the doosra or the reverse swing!

so if we go by your line of reasoning, there's no "best ever" but only "arguably best in a given category" and this is precisely the reason why these arguments seldom lead to any concesus.

[_Rafi_]

I feel detested after reading those arguments provided by Shakibrulz vai. This is too much obsession of Sachin.