100 100's - Finally it has come. Take a bow Master!

[yashwanth kumar]

Yes i am sure he will

 

[ballers101]

Because of Bradman we can only have two players behind square on the legside in test cricket.

Ritchie Benaud saw Bradman play even interviewed him, so if he says he effected the game more then would you believe him? Because he has his say on him in a book, worth a read.

Bradman and his effect of the game is more than you know, he was the greatest cricketer of all time with only Garfield Sobers as someone anywhere near him. He was an example of class and awe. Bradman got kids playing the game as well but not only that but then he had a myriad of official and unofficial roles in the game and his comments on the game are taken with the utmost respect, absolutely second to none.

That is why people use Bradman and his description of Sachin Tendulkar to confirm what a great player he is.

Read this, a little example of what Richie Benaud says about the man. Richie Benaud, another whose comments for the game are given the utmost respect and someone who rates Sachin as number 2 to the Don.

Is Don, is good - and always will be, say legends - Cricket - Sport - smh.com.au

I understand that but see I just said it before and people avoid it over and over again, how can you delegate that Bradman was the greatest when you personally have never seen his game. The problem is that your getting all your info from other people's perception on the Don not your own perception on him. I am not saying he is NOT the greatest, I am saying that you cannot say he is the greatest because everyone here does not know how good he truly was. If he played in today's society like I said before he would not be as big of a player in my eyes. I know that is a big statement but that's my personal opinion on that matter and unless you have an ability to show what would happen if the Don played in today's society and he average nearly 100, you won't change that view on me.

Okay, now yes because of him there are only allowed two players behind the square on the leg side. However, cricketers today are probably influenced by Bradman in a way but the style that cricketers play today in my perspective is almost identical to Tendulkar's ways. Cricketers are trying to imitate him because he has been so successful as a cricketer. And also, I think he has become that Perfect Image, I mean he is in my eyes the greatest cricketer off the field. A respectful character who is thought about as a great personality in a place where is so hated like in....Pakistan (the team I follow).

To say that Sobers is the ONLY player to get close to his level in class and awe is a difficult statement to make. Now first off, you must explain the context of the word class, because if your saying on a techinical cricket standpoint. Sobers was more talented as a tests batsmen I would agree to that but, Tendulkar has everything as a batsmen. This is also confusing, because if you say that Sobers is the only player to get close to Bradman's class and awe then you must take back what Benaud said about Bradman.

Someone who rates Sachin as number 2 to the Don

If Sachin is rated 2nd to Bradman in Benaud's eyes then that means that Tendulkar should at least have more class and awe than Sobers in Benaud's eyes. If you were to say no to that statement than you are clearly contridicting yourself, either you take Benaud's opinion to the fullest or you don't take his opinion at all. Now your trying to prove Bradman has had a larger impact so I guess you need to keep his opinion because he has seen him play.

Now back to who has a greater impact, Tendulkar is definitely the largest impact player in Southern East Asia. You also, have to think about something Bradman like I said has only played in England and Australia. He may be the largest impact player in England and Australia. However, Bradman is not the largest impact player in the rest of the world because he never got the opportunity to show his abilities to the rest of the world. How can you say that a player has affected the WORLD of cricket if they never saw him play. What I am trying to say is that if West Indies never got the opportunity to see Bradman bat then how can their batting be similar to his. They never got the chance to imitate how Bradman bats and develop those skills that he had.

 

[stereotype]

Richie says he rates Sachin as the number 2 batsman behind Bradman, not the number 2 cricketer. Sobers being an all rounder is much more than simply his batting average of 58.

Bradman again had so much influence on the game after his retirement officially and unofficially that for Sachin to have a similar impact on the game off the field he would have to also have some kind of role like that probably until he passes on. When Bradman played if he lost his wicket it would be front page news the next day, his impact on what was then the cricketing world is far superior to what Sachin and his impact is on todays game.

For all we know Sachin may slip into the ether come retirement and try to find something that resembles a private life. Tendulkar has the largest impact of any player in the sub continent, yes I can easily agree with that. I could say that Shane Warne has had a bigger impact in the UK, SA and Australia and his name on an international level is as big as Sachin Tendulkar and will probably end up 2nd only to Bradman as far as his name and legacy is concerned from an Australian perspective.

What I am trying to say is that Bradman who was born 102 years ago is still as big of a name in cricket as anyone. If you ask any player from any country that plays test cricket who Bradman is they will be able to tell you. In 102 years time will Sachin have the same legacy?

Just because I haven't seen someone play doesn't mean you cannot have an opinion of him or can't use others opinions as fact.

 

[Fatal Shot]

I am saying that you cannot say he is the greatest because everyone here does not know how good he truly was.

Bradman played without a helmet, on some very dodgy pitches, and his stats were in a whole different league itself, despite all of that. An average of 99.94 is truly remarkable and a feat which we will probably never see again. The fact that he was so much greater than his peers just shows how great a batsman he was. We don't have to see him play, to know how good he was. If someone in this century averages around 70+, then and only then can we say, that they might be better than Bradman, but even there would be doubts over who was better, which just shows how highly Bradman was rated.

Also I don't rate Sachin as the second best batsman of all time either. That belongs to Jack Hobbs for me.

 

[rahuldravidfan]

He can, and he will!

 

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Here's a video on youtube of Richie Benaud giving his opinion on who he believes is the best batsman after Bradman. He picks Tendulkar -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthfSPF_LCw

 

[stereotype]

Yes he does, that doesn't mean there isn't a gulf between the two and doesn't make him a better overall cricketer than guys like Sobers, Lillee, Warne etc.

 

[CaptainOZ]

I just hope Sachin gets beyond 50 Test centuries. That will be sweet. And I hope Ponting doesn't reach or pass him.

 

[pcfan123]

Ponting will easily pass him and Ponting's centuries will have been mostly on much touger batting tracks against much tougher opponents.

 

[TumTum]

Ponting will easily pass him and Ponting's centuries will have been mostly on much touger batting tracks against much tougher opponents.

Take cover :shout

 

[AkshayS]

45+46=91
only 9 centuries he has to make more.
I think he can surely do it.


and for ponting it's difficult to pass his record.

 

[stereotype]

Ponting should catch his test hundreds if he ends up playing the same amount of tests but can't see him getting anywhere near his ODI century tally.

 

[TumTum]

and for ponting it's difficult to pass his record.

He meant the Test record.

But anyways Ponting centuries v Tendulkar centuries is very debatable. Both have got centuries in almost about every country.

IMO Ponting has been the more dominant one when in form VS Sachin who has been the more consistant one.

Both are equal in Tests.

 

[AkshayS]

Ponting is 23 tests & 7 centuries behind.
so he.........?

while average of both is equal in tests of 55.-.

 

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Ponting is 23 tests & 7 centuries behind.
so he.........?

while average of both is equal in tests of 55.-.

Screw the number of Tests, it's the number of innings that counts. Ponting is 30 innings and 7 centuries behind. That's 1 century per 4.28 innings.