Coming straight to the point; who's better?
Statistically Bradman comes on top with his whopping average of 99.94.
But can two legends be compared purely on their batting average stats alone?
Here is an insight to some of the other stats that must be considered before jumping to some premature conclusion.
The number of test matches played by Sir Don Bradman is a meagre 52 in his career spanning nearly 20 years. Sachin on the other hand has played close to 165 Tests and 450 One Dayers in a similar span of time.
What this means is, on an average the Don went killing 12 days a year whereas the Little Master has to constantly battle for almost 65 days a year; and this is discounting the fact that he also plays in other matches like the IPL, Champions League, etc. This surely has to count for a lot.
To keep oneself motivated for so long and consistently perform was a rare feat achieved by both but the frequency at which Sachin performs clearly outclasses Bradman.
A brief glimpse into the history of cricket would tell us that Bradman played at a time when cricket was hardly 50 years old and still in its early evolving stages. The number of games were few, media coverage almost nil, competition was minimal, controversies were unknown and almost everything was a silent affair. Compare this with modern cricket where the number of competitions are achingly high, professionalism exists in every department and cricketers are constantly under the radar be it for the Ferraris they get or their opinion of playing for country over state.
Cricket has often been called as a greater mind game than a physical game; and when it comes to batsmen it is 100 percent true. A small lapse in concentration means one has to give up his wicket. So while all Bradman had to think of while batting was a few bouncers in a particular 'Bodyline' series, Sachin has to play bouncers and doosras and chinamen and what not while the ever increasing pressure of a 1200 million demanding population creeps up on him. A series without runs implies a shift in the demand supply curve of the 20 odd products that he endorses.
Bradman was an excellent Test Player but his prowess in ODIs can only be left to imagination. Sachin, on the other hand has played cricket par excellence in all formats of the game. The recently emerged, still evolving T20 format is an evidence. Sachin fits in like a hand in a glove even in this format as if he has been playing T20 matches forever.
While detractors will still say Bradman played in a time of no helmets, they forget that this also was a time of no media, hype, hooplah and moolah which are important factors that cannot be ignored. The arguments are endless but one good thing that emerges from the Sachin vs Bradman debate is the fact that it rubbishes some earlier rather hapless comparisons with a Lara or a Ponting.
To conclude, here is a quote by one of the most popular players of today who was very recently compared to the Master himself by some ludicrous 'statistical and stochastic' survey conducted by some Mathematical geeks,
"Sachin Tendulkar is bigger than Don Bradman"
- Virender Sehwag
(courtesy: http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_sachin-tendulkar-is-bigger-than-don-bradman-virender-sehwag_1352713)
What this means is, on an average the Don went killing 12 days a year whereas the Little Master has to constantly battle for almost 65 days a year; and this is discounting the fact that he also plays in other matches like the IPL, Champions League, etc. This surely has to count for a lot.
To keep oneself motivated for so long and consistently perform was a rare feat achieved by both but the frequency at which Sachin performs clearly outclasses Bradman.
A brief glimpse into the history of cricket would tell us that Bradman played at a time when cricket was hardly 50 years old and still in its early evolving stages. The number of games were few, media coverage almost nil, competition was minimal, controversies were unknown and almost everything was a silent affair. Compare this with modern cricket where the number of competitions are achingly high, professionalism exists in every department and cricketers are constantly under the radar be it for the Ferraris they get or their opinion of playing for country over state.
Cricket has often been called as a greater mind game than a physical game; and when it comes to batsmen it is 100 percent true. A small lapse in concentration means one has to give up his wicket. So while all Bradman had to think of while batting was a few bouncers in a particular 'Bodyline' series, Sachin has to play bouncers and doosras and chinamen and what not while the ever increasing pressure of a 1200 million demanding population creeps up on him. A series without runs implies a shift in the demand supply curve of the 20 odd products that he endorses.
Bradman was an excellent Test Player but his prowess in ODIs can only be left to imagination. Sachin, on the other hand has played cricket par excellence in all formats of the game. The recently emerged, still evolving T20 format is an evidence. Sachin fits in like a hand in a glove even in this format as if he has been playing T20 matches forever.
While detractors will still say Bradman played in a time of no helmets, they forget that this also was a time of no media, hype, hooplah and moolah which are important factors that cannot be ignored. The arguments are endless but one good thing that emerges from the Sachin vs Bradman debate is the fact that it rubbishes some earlier rather hapless comparisons with a Lara or a Ponting.
To conclude, here is a quote by one of the most popular players of today who was very recently compared to the Master himself by some ludicrous 'statistical and stochastic' survey conducted by some Mathematical geeks,
"Sachin Tendulkar is bigger than Don Bradman"
- Virender Sehwag
(courtesy: http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_sachin-tendulkar-is-bigger-than-don-bradman-virender-sehwag_1352713)
Nicely compiled. Super like it.^_^
ReplyDeleteBut are these the only factore which govern the "greatness" of a player ?
For example, if you consider that pitches were uncovered in those days and outfields slower, it's difficult to understand how batting might have been easier then.
Sachin is surely the greatest batsmen ever, but Bradman was no less a dominant player.
Also,Bradman too played under pressure all the time. Think of the expectations on him. Kings used to come to watch him play.
Again, most of Bradman's runs; around 90% of them came against England.
In the end, just to conclude :Better not to compare greats from different eras. :)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-Aussies-are-saying-it/articleshow/6743155.cms
ReplyDelete