Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman?

[sifter132]

^Ok I had some boredom to fill...so I ran some stats on Tendulkar vs Lara going by this criteria

with BOTH Wasim and Waqar in opposition
Tendulkar vs Pak in Ind: 4 inns, 171 runs, 42.75 ave, 1 100.
Tendulkar vs Pak in Pak: 3 inns, 107 runs, 35.66 ave, 0 100s.
Lara vs Pak in WI: 5 inns, 216 runs, 43.20 ave, 0 100s.
Lara vs Pak in Pak: 6 inns, 138 runs, 23.00 ave, 0 100s.

with BOTH Donald and Pollock in opposition
Tendulkar vs SA in Ind: 4 inns, 146 runs, 36.50 ave, 0 100s.
Tendulkar vs SA in SA: 6 inns, 241 runs, 40.16 ave, 1 100.
Lara vs SA in WI: 8 inns, 290 runs, 36.25 ave, 0 100s.
Lara vs SA in SA: 10 inns, 310 runs, 31.00 ave, 0 100s.

with BOTH McGrath and Gillespie in opposition
Tendulkar vs Aus in Ind: 10 inns, 374 runs, 37.40 ave, 1 100.
Tendulkar vs Aus in Aus: N/A!!! (never faced both in the same Test in Aus)
Lara vs Aus in WI: 9 inns, 623 runs, 77.87 ave, 2 100s.
Lara vs Aus in Aus: 12 inns, 324 runs, 27.00 ave, 1 100.

I also did Tendulkar against both Ambrose and Walsh as well:
Tendulkar vs WI in Ind: N/A!!!
Tendulkar vs WI in WI: 4 inns, 193 runs, 64.33 ave, 0 100s.

A couple of things jump out...1) neither are particularly impressive to be frank, excepting Lara vs McGrath and Gillespie at home (the legendary 1999 series), and 2) for the guy who's played more Test cricket than anyone else, Tendulkar hasn't really been tested much against these highly rated pairs. That's only 31 innings where he had to face 2 excellent pacemen out of his 327 in Test cricket.

The obvious follow up is against spin...

Against Australia when Warne played:
Tendulkar in India: 13 inns, 760 runs, 63.33 ave, 3 100s.
Tendulkar in Australia: 9 inns, 449 runs, 56.12 ave, 2 100s.
Lara in West Indies: 13 inns, 747 runs, 67.90 ave, 2 100s.
Lara in Australia: 23 inns, 1090 runs, 47.39 ave, 3 100s.

Against Sri Lanka when Murali played:
Tendulkar in India: 14 inns, 668 runs, 51.38 ave, 3 100s.
Tendulkar in Sri Lanka: 12 inns, 548 runs, 45.66 ave, 2 100s.
Lara in West Indies: 7 inns, 419 runs, 69.83 ave, 2 100s.
Lara in Sri Lanka: 9 inns, 747 runs, 83.00 ave, 3 100s.

Now we're talking. Tendulkar forged his rep as one of the greats after pummelling Warne in 97/98, Lara did even better vs Murali in 2001.


Hard to spot much difference between the 2 to be honest

 

[Epic]

Ain't that odd... the right-hander doing well against the leg spinner and the left-hander doing well against the off spinner, guess that's what makes them two legendary.

 

[AkshayC]

I'd say Rahul Dravid, AB de Villiers & Mike Hussey are the best.

 

[Aislabie]

For me, it has to be George Headley. The Black Bradman, they called him, and the West Indian earned the accolade. In 22 Tests, he clocked up 2190 runs at 60.83 including ten centuries. He hit a century every 2.2 Tests, every four Test innings and converted two out of every three half-centuries. He had longevity too, his 22 Tests being spread across 24 years and both sides of a World War. In First Class cricket, he averaged a sixth of a run shy of seventy. He is the second best, perhaps of the same level as the great man himself.

 

[Cricketman]

I am not going to comment on batsman I have not seen. I guess that doesn't really help much... but over the last two decades few batsmen have gotten close to Sachin Tendulkar. The only batsmen in the same league are Ponting and Lara.

It is not only the amount of runs that these guys have scored but also the way they have scored them. Each player dominated attacks while at the same time occupied the crease for long periods of time. They did not have individual flashes of brilliance but maintained this form throughout their careers. Sachin has been at least in the worlds top 20 batsman for like 20 years now... the length of his career and the level he has maintained alone is a bradmanesque feat. I doubt even Bradman would have been able to maintain his dominance over two and a half decades.

I'm biased but I have a massive admiration for Rahul Dravid. In terms of value to the Indian team, I would put him equal if not higher than Sachin. However, in terms of pure genius/brilliance, it is hard to look past Sachin.

 

[shravi]

I doubt even Bradman would have been able to maintain his dominance over two and a half decades.

That's because his definition of 'dominance' was averaging 99. If he didn't maintain that, he'd just have averaged as much as Sachin averages right now .

 

[sifter132]

Bradman did pretty well on the 1948 Ashes (only averaged 72 with 2 100s) and that was 20 years after he scored his first Test century. To say he wouldn't be able to maintain performances for 24 years like Tendulkar is an ambitious theory. And is it really that important? Since when does excellence over a mere 20 years mean a guy isn't good enough?

 

[War]

I think using the argument to say you think Tendulkar is the best just because you did not "see other other great players play" is a bit of a cop out statement.

For example in other facets in life like political history, health history. science history etc etc many so called modern experts in these fields may not have seen aspects of how these respective area's developed in the beginning. But yet they their wisdom is consistently solicited when seeking advice on modern solutions.

Similar if one takes the time to read up on the game and listen to esteemed opinions of people who had the great privilege to see a lot great players before Tendulkar bat - then it doesn't make cricket sense IMO if you to this to rate Tendulkar as the 2nd best after Bradman.

 

[SaiSrini]

Tendulkar is the best I've ever seen. For me, he is the best of my generation. The only person who can rate the best ever in cricket history is the one who is living since the inception of cricket. And there isn't one like that! As far as opinions, we all know how varied it can be and how it can be influenced by emotions and other partial reasons.

You can never rate the best ever cricketer or best ever batsmen, etc. If you try it, u're just doing it according to your own tastes.

 

[War]

Nah i don't agree with that. Great cricket historians like John Arlott, EW Swanton, Tony Cozier, David Firth, CLR James, Neville Cardus, Harsha Bhogle, Gideon Haigh, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Jim Maxwell etc etc etc who obviously did not see every cricketer since the sports inception clearly whether in their writing or commentary did not profess their views on the game & players based on personal tastes.

Alot of their opinions coincide because they understood the dynamics of the game better than most of fans & came to conclusion on players that especially for the aforementioned men who are now dead, people today use as clear guide to judge players who we did not see.

I read most of these guys books in my lifetime & its a bit insulting to their brilliant work for one to suggest it was only done via such a limited prism.

 

[sifter132]

I think using the argument to say you think Tendulkar is the best just because you did not "see other other great players play" is a bit of a cop out statement.

For example in other facets in life like political history, health history. science history etc etc many so called modern experts in these fields may not have seen aspects of how these respective area's developed in the beginning. But yet they their wisdom is consistently solicited when seeking advice on modern solutions.

Similar if one takes the time to read up on the game and listen to esteemed opinions of people who had the great privilege to see a lot great players before Tendulkar bat - then it doesn't make cricket sense IMO if you to this to rate Tendulkar as the 2nd best after Bradman.

Yeah fair enough. I copped out Although gun to my head, I'd gladly make a selection. Jack Hobbs. Then Ponting. Closely followed by an inseparable gaggle of Lara, Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Len Hutton and Garry Sobers. I'd particularly highlight Len Hutton, a man who is not mentioned enough in the conversation about great batsmen.

One thing I'll add about expert opinion...I find that often when I listen to former players they always seem to agitate for players from THEIR ERA as the best players ever. I understand that sometimes their comments get mixed up between best players they played against and best players ever, but it annoys me to the point where I'm more cynical about the opinion of former players than I should be. eg. Ian Chappell supporting Garry Sobers as the next best after Bradman. Maybe he is, but it lessens Chappell's vote in my mind because he and Sobers were cricketing peers (and mates).

I like most of the guys you listed though: journalists who are largely unbiased and free from obvious prejudice. Generally, I'd rather listen to their views than former players.

 

[macintosh]

But why 'after Bradman'??
I don't understand this,
I don't think we are in the perfect position to compare, but this would be my order for all time great batsmen

1 Viv Richards
2 Lara, Sachin, Ponting, Kallis,etc.
3 Bradman, George Headley, Hobbs

 

[Aislabie]

Benjamin Aislabie

 

[Satan666]

That's because his definition of 'dominance' was averaging 99. If he didn't maintain that, he'd just have averaged as much as Sachin averages right now .

Bradman made 12 double hundreds in only 52 tests while Sachin has made a meager 6 in 198 appearances. Sachin has never gone past 250, Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Lara etc. have all passed 250. Certainly a grey area on Sachin's scorecard, and it is for this reason these guys are better than him!

 

[zeustrojanstark]

I have not seen many videos of Sir Jack Hobbs but from what i have read,what i have heard,what i have seen he looks like a batsman better than even Sir Bradman.And i have also read a lot about Sir William Gilbert Grace who i will rate as the third best batsman.I am a 90s kid and i grew up watching players like Dravid,Ponting,Sachin,Lara,Inzamam etc...and for me Rahul Dravid is the best.He has the temprament to play at any condition and at any position.He can adapt himself well.Dravid has certainly contributed more to the team than to his records and that is why his records dont look as fancy as Sachin's.Sachin is a brilliant batsman,none can deny that but personally myself and so many other people feel that he plays for records more.Dravid a team man and Sachin a record man.Thats the difference.Sachin has won matches for India without any doubt but never i have seen him be a team man.So for me:
1.Sir Jack Hobbs(ENGLAND)
2.Sir Donald Bradman(AUSSIE)
3.Sir William Gilbert Grace(ENGLAND)
4.Rahul Dravid(INDIA)
5.Sunil Gavaskar(INDIA)
6.Ricky Ponting(AUSSIE)
7.Sachin Tendulkar(INDIA)
8.Inzamam Ul Haq(PAKISTAN)
9.Gundappa Vishwanath(INDIA)
10.Mark Taylor(AUSSIE)

----------

Bradman made 12 double hundreds in only 52 tests while Sachin has made a meager 6 in 198 appearances. Sachin has never gone past 250, Bradman, Hammond, Richards and Lara etc. have all passed 250. Certainly a grey area on Sachin's scorecard, and it is for this reason these guys are better than him!

Rahul Dravid has also gone past 250 once,he made 270 against Pakistan in Pakistan.Ricky Ponting also made 257 against India in Australia.Also Sachin's best of 248* came against Bangladesh and i would certainly want him to score atleast 1 more run and erase that best score against Bangladesh which looks to me as a very dull part in his bright career.