Sachin Tendulkar vs. Sir Donald Bradman: Who is best?

Obviously Sir Bradman. You can't compare Bradman with Tendulkar. Bradman is the legend.

Who is better Brian Lara or Don Bradman ?

BRIAN LARA :- Two times more than 300 score in tests

with 400 not out...

wat about bradman ....

now tell who is more consistent in test

leave about ODIs...

think and then compare Sachin "THE GOD OF CRICKET" and the rest...

sir don also scored 2 tripal hundreds!!!!!!!!! but i m agree that there is no comparison between sir Don & Sachin "THE GOD OF CRICKET" coz SACHIN is d best dats y he is GOD of cricket

IF ANYONE says that Sachin Tendulkar played with HUGE EXPECTATIONS on him and was overburden pressure. Then he was supposed to get out in the first over itself due to his not-able to play well situation because of pressure. Sachin must also should have stop taking tension after a century or double and must be made a TRIPLE and absorb the pressure. But THE TRUTH IS.. EXPECTATIONS OR PRESSURE wont help a bowler to deliver an unplayable delivery to Tendulkar. IF Tendulkar had NERVES OF STEEL, then EXPECTATIONS & PRESSURE would not have felt him at all. All great players played with HUGE EXPECTATIONS.. Lets take Sir DON BRADMAN's case, he too played with HUGE Expectations always and he Managed to score 29 Hundreds (which include 2 Triple Hundreds) in as less as 52 Tests. Just check how many tests were needed for this Indian Great to go past Sir Don's Record of 29 Hundreds. Sachin already played 22 years of International Cricket (180+ tests) and still awaiting his first 300 in tests. Virender Sehwag with his risky shots and unorthodox game has scored almost 3 Triples (one is a 290+ score) within his 12year career and only half amount of tests that Sachin played. Virender Sehwag did not allow the 200 Fluke Score of Tendulkar in ODI to even stay for 2 years. SO VIRENDER SEHWAG IS THE GOD OF SACHIN IN CRICKET.

Dude.. Ur Lack of logic is stunning!!Check the number of times Sehwag scored below 10 in his 12 years career, and also check his average. 200 of Sachin was not fluke, he scored theze runs against South Africa which had one of the best bowling line ups in world cricket. Instead i would say that 200* of Sachine was more deserving than 219 of Virender Sehwag because Sehwag was dropped on 169.

Sachin Tendulkar is yet to make a 300 in Tests after playing 22 years of International Cricket that too mostly in the batting friendly pitches of the Indian Subcontinent. If anyone says sub-continental pitches favour SPIN then Indians are considered the best players of Spin and Sachin is regarded as the Best Indian Batsman around. So Subcontinental pitches are INDEED batting friendly pitches for Indians. Now dont say statistics dont proove the greatness of a player. If the Great cant get into great stats after the longest possible career then HE IS NOT GREAT AT ALL. Sir Don Bradman have scored 2 Triple Hundreds in as less as 52 Tests and scored in Pacy English Wicket of Leeds. Brian Lara Scored 2 big Triples out of which - one is a 400 not out to proove his class. Even our silly Virender Sehwag with his risky shots and unorthodox game has scored almost 3 triple hundreds in the Subcontinent (one is a 290+ score). When will this FAKE GOD OF INDIAN CRICKET is going to achieve that feat. Even a single Triple or even I will consider a 290 as a Triple Hundred.

if bradman is legend sachin is the father of legend.........

bradman is next only to sachin THE "CRICKET GOD"

Sachin doesn't even have has good a record as Kallis & Sangakkaara. How can he be better than Bradman who scored a century every second time he went out to bat?

SACHIN IS UNCOMPARABLE..........

Speak with some logic...bradman is way ahead of sachin or any other batsman...just compare his complete batting record with sachins complete batting record...then u will come to know...I am also an indian and like sachin but no one can rule out the fact that bradman is the greatest ever...saching will come second after him and that too very far dude...

wrong

Sachin is the best

i think sachin is the greatest player in the cricketing history of all time because the pressure which he takes of indian people and plays consistently is simply remarkable. where as bradman didnt had any pressure at that time. and it is not easy for any person to take that pressure and play for his country like INDIA where cricket has become relgion.I dont think SIR DON BRADMAN could have handled this pressure. simply not a joke.

Ever heard about World war 2 and great depression... Don played in that era... Stop this **** about Tendulkar being gr8est, and not being able to handle the pressure... Keeping that in mind Dhoni played a match winner with all the pressure in WC final, so he should be d greatest... start making sense...

You're so stupid, Sir Donald Bradman played during WWII and the Great Depression. He had a lot more pressure than Sachin Tendulkar.

i think sachin is the greatest player in the cricketing history of all time because the pressure which he takes of indian people and plays consistently is simply remarkable. where as bradman didnt had any pressure at that time. and it is not easy for any person to take that pressure and play for his country like INDIA where cricket has become relgion.

Its difficult thing to compare two players of different periods. But on the whole Bradman is definitely better than Sachin

never

sachin is much much better

u r completely wrong dude!!! sachin (god) Tendulkar played each & every part of the world!!!!!!!In different conditions where sir don played most of their matches only aus, eng & sa!!!!!

Please check the record of Tendulkar and compare em with Don's in those countries u mentioned and pls take averages...

Sachin is d GOD OF CRICKET. Bradman was only a player in cricket where Sachin is d GOD.

you can not do comparision between sachin and bradman ,bradman is the best

mad

did sachin discovered cricket. he can't be god of cricket. he took 89 matches to hit first century........

sachin started playing when he was 16, give the kid a break it takes time to get mature, bowlers were already scared of him at that age.

which bowlers?

your dad!!!

wrong

glenn mcgrath

lolz

well he had 89 different bowlers bowling at him not as bradman facing the same few bowlers every match, and one more thing dude one who invents somethng doesnt become a god one who preaches it to everyone becomes a god.

99.94 is an answer to everything. Sachin averages only 42 vs Pakistan, because Pakistan has greatest bowling talent over the years, Lara is much better than Sachin as he averages 53 against Pakistan with the same atatck, go figure. Vs SOuth Africa he averages 38, again a nation with great pace atatck over the years.

definate biased pakistani speaking here. Just because pakistan cant find anyone close to tendulkar and the only time they find someone with any talent he ends up being a cheating money driven scumbag. im english btw

well said buddy.......

Go and check the poll result man

so what is'nt he master blaster

78 matches dude be correct in history

that's right

bradman is wounderful player he was the don of cricket you not forget don test batting averige 99.99

he played in less than half the innings of the matches he actually played, nothing to be taken away from him but things have changed bradman did not have to deal with the pressure sachin deals with

what pressure, in the first 15 years of Sachin's career, Lara was way ahead, Sachin only surpassed when Lara hung his boots!

what a knowledge u have got man? great !!!!......by the way dont say this to anyone

He played during the Great Depression and WWII. He had much more pressure. You know nothing of what happened in the rest of the world do you?

1st u learn English then come here!!!!!!!!average not averige!!!!!!!!! & u even know the whole name of sir don?????? u saw him playing?????so how can u say he is greatest player!!!!!!!!

For all thsoe who think Don bradman is best... He has only seen one side of cricket, he has played only test matches and that too very few test matches. He has not played ODI and T20. And those days bowling speed was so very less. Were in Sachin has played Test, ODI and T20 for so many years and has been top in all the seasons through out his life. He has never been out of form. He is truly legend. I do not think if Bradman had played as many matches as sachin played he would have had good average. SACHIN IS LEGEND!!!!

Test crikcet is the real test, ODIs and T20s are mere jokes. Don scored at a faster rate in tests than one can imagine even in an ODI. That too without helmets and additonal saftey gear that Sachin enjoys. Sachin comes out as if he is a soldier in a warfiled, all packed.

i knw i knw y u so against god of cricket!!!!!!!!coz pakistan cricket sucks big tym!!!!!!! v r world champions, v r no.1 test side, v have IPL, v r reachest board in d world...... & who is pakistan?????just a team who lost the semi final against their arch rivals INDIA for 5th tym!!!!!& all 5tyms there is sachin with his bat to slap u r asses!!!!!!!!

Can you people go and get f***** off. You know what?… You do not understand anything about the game of cricket. When you talk about players from the past era including Mr. bradman then you must take into account the most important thing which, for sure, is the LEVEL OF COMPETITIVENESS in the sport in that particular era, or decade, or period. I cannot help myself but laugh at the fact that there are people with some weird imagination who bring up a list of top 20 or top 10 batsmen from the mere details that he was able to seek by surfing internet or reading. Or may be giving it the cover of a scientific analysis. With time cricket has seen drastic and better changes which makes the game more difficult, more competitive. How many teams did Bradman’s side played against? What was the fastest delivery in his time? Who were his competitors? Did the fielders in his time ever made that extra effort to do something electric apart from just being a mere onlooker. Therefore his average of 99.94 does not impress me. People talked about Ponting as the best batsman for three glorious years. But what about Ponting now. I guess he is all nuts and crazy cursing himself to have hoped that he could equal Tendulkar. Mike Hussey emerged as if he was going to beat Bradman in terms of test batting average however it seems that he has resigned to the fact that it is quite an easy task to sparkle in the early years but not not quite so to sustain the sparkles within. The same is true for Mr Bradman. After 50 odd test he averaged 99.something, after 50 more it would have been 40.nothing. I beleive that you cannot compare those undemanding runs scored against amateurs in the 30's and 40's to Sachin's, scored against the modern era fast bowlers and real spinners. The Don scored most of his runs against bumbling, clumsy, inept, limited, unfit, sometimes ageing upper class twits with speed on a par with today's club cricketers. There was no Marshall, Ambrose or Walsh. There was no Hadlee, McGrath or Lillee. There was no Akram or Waqar and there certainly was no Warne or Muralitharan to face so how can you measure his runs reasonably? You cannot! Look at Graeme 'flat pitch bully' Hick's record in county cricket compared to Test cricket and you will understand what I mean. Watching videos of The Don I was struck by the amount of runs scored by the horizontal bat and Wisden noted that he never never truly mastered batting on sticky wickets. Wisden commented, "if there really is a blemish on his amazing record it is the absence of a significant innings on one of those 'sticky dogs' of old" We all have a common belief and understanding that batting in pressure situation is quite the reverse of just batting alone. I wonder if all the names that I have mentioned before ever had to really bat in pressure against the hopes of billion people expecting you to perform.. He has faced bowlers of the likes of Malcomm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Shaun Pollock, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Imran Khan, Abdul Qadir, Shoaib Akhtar, Bret Lee, Glenn Mcgrath, Shane Warne, Muttaih Murlitharan, Dale Steyn, Mkhaya Ntini and endless. He holds the record for most number of runs in both version of the game leading by miles. He already has the number of centuries that cannot be surpassed ever. And he has played the most modern and recent version of the game and is still scoring as heavilly as ever. It is true that Ponting reached his peak when Tendulkar was not doing great and possibly we can see that as his worst phase in his cricketing career. But in a career spreaded in two long long decades that does happen and I hope we understand that. But as great players do, he is back to his way of scoring runs. And if he is to play for the next two years, forget Ponting or anyone else ever fancying chances of coming closer to his staggering record. AND therefore there is only one great batsman, a genius, a legend, and the name is Sachin Tendulkar.

sorry bikram Sir Bradman is always legend is average to be rethink what about the body line imagine there was no development those days. yeah i accept sachin is good , great if he thinks he can create the history but he never played for the records best things yet to come from sachin, if he decided i hope bowlers are not born to get his wicket just see lara records what is highest score why cant sachin do that i want to see that and i am waiting.....

When you name the bowlers, try to research Sachini's avergae against Pak in tests, it is mere 42, vs his overall avg of 55. Bradman did not wear helmets or any protective gears, bowlers were as fast as today, i would think faster, because people were uner less stress before and generally more fit. He had to face body-line. The rules are so much in batsman's favor these days and there are no uncovered wkts. Flat dirty tracks to keep on batting. Batting has never been as easy it has been during the last decade. The number two in the era of Don is a distant second with 60 avg, which shows batting was still difficult in those days and only Don was leading the pack and that too with distinction. You have to admit it, Sachin can never be the greatest batsmen in the history if he does not surpass the avg of 99.94, the day Sachin hits 99.95, I would salute him, till then tell him, it is much betetr time to better his avergae against Pakistanis, as M Amir is out, otherwise that would have been another mightmare for Sachin. Poor average of 42 vs Pak, Lara has an avg of 53 against the same atatcks and over the years, I knew Lara was the one player who would always take the game away single handedly from Pak. Sachin could never do that, maybe I would give him some marks in the one off innings he played in 2003 WC. 1996 WC quarterfinal, Sachin played like a **** with only 32 to his names out of 93 deliveries he faced, without Akram in the bowling ine-up

I think u right like this due to nations, Sachin is from India and may be u dont like Indian. I can show ur attitude in this wrightin. here we r talking about sachin and Sir Don Bradman. F**k in ba****d go away from here , rasist

hey dude u u even know the full name of sir don?????? u saw him playing?????so dont f**k our mind &F**k off from here..........

if protective gears were not made even today then sachin would also have not been wearing them. what stupid argument it is about protective gears. Players train themselves according to situation. Bradman was great in his era and Sachin in his . Everyone who is comparing them is really dumb. comparing apples to oranges is of no use. Stats don't tell the whole story. Sachin is Sachin and Bradman Bradman. And those who consider Bradman great without even watching him need to take a break. Both shouldn't be compared. you can't compare 100 m runner to marathon runner. IF that is the case then with speed of 36 kmph ( 9.6 s for 100 m) of usain bolt one could run 100 km in less than 3 hours but world record if of more than 6 hours. so people of different era's cannot be compared.Let us respect Bradman and enjoy sachin's game

Ur an idiot, fair dinkum.

totally correct! best answer of the lot.

Sorry my man but 'the Don' played on uncovered pitches. Do you know what that means. Do you remember a little something called the body line series. Please who even had an average of more than 40 in the 'don's' era. He was more than twice as good as any cricketer of his or any other era, it is impossible to compare players of different eras, Sachin is an amazing player but he can not be compared with Donald Bradmen. Cricket is all about stats, and there's only one worth looking at 99.94!

Had Sir Don Bradman played bowling verities like zooter of Warne, doosra of Murli and Saqlain, flipper of Kumble, googly of Kaneria. He mostly scored against Medium pacer by flicking them. Totally more than 150 bowlers took 100 or more in test. He faced only six bowlers who took 100 or more in which three came after world war II. One died during it, one just before world war II. Remaining one left the cricket in early thirties. So in real sense he faced only one bowler with 100 or more that is Verity who died in world war II. Tendulkar faced 57 bowlers with 100 or more wickets in test. He not even played single quality fast bowler. Only played amatuer bowlers of England like Verity was an army officer. Larwood took 78 wickets totally. Without bodyline only 45 wickets with average 35. Although we can accept him as a legend but saying that he is best of the best is not true. If anyone says that he played club cricket at international level. Yes it is true. See all facts than you can say Tendulkar is better than him.

thats wrong. You are saying as if you were in all the matches played by Don. I saw some videos and dude the bowlers were really nasty then, they would attack your body to kill you not to take your wicket. Tell Sachin to come out without helmet and all the prtective gear he wears on. Batting is not about hitting shots, it is about facing that killer bomb coming at you at 90 mph, with one wrong move, you are dead, Sachin has the comfort of sitting behind visors and helmets. The bouncer that hit tendulkar, bowled by Akhtar, would have surely killed Tendulkar without helmet. Don is always the greatest until someone makes 99.95 avg

f**ck off please faisal you clearly just a bitter racist Akhtar was just quick and now he's fat and rubbish and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as tendulkar. Pakistan cricket is a disgrace at the moment full of cheats and money grabbers so please go away and face it India are now three times better then pakistan

you are all looser indians, never accept the argues..

why shouldn't discuss Akhtar in this discussion?? go and see His track record vs Sachin

he Dismissed him 14 times out of 18 times he faced him..

As far as the cricket is being played.. whenever the people will talk about Sachin, they will remember Akhtar as the night mare..

& how can u compare Sachin With DON.. never

can u tell me any bowler who used to be his night mare at Don's time

If Sachin use to face more than 50 different varieties of fast bowlers.. then DON used to play without any safety measurements

DON is far superiour than any of the batsmen

but YES there is one batsmen with the name of whom u can atleast write DON's name.. and that is LARA.. but even than u cant compare both

DON is again far superour

Akthar ! nightmare for tendulkar ! This is the biggest joke i have ever heard ....even akthar would laugh at this.......

maa k lode sale musalman bhosdi k chup, sale gaandu

Sir Don Bradman is not only the greatest cricket player but aswell on of ther greatest sports man......In that time where was no cricket... less matches.. no footworks....and the main thang the pitches was very dusty and was poor to bat on it......he averaged 99.94 and sachin has played his 70% of his matches in india which is called the batting paradise.....and sachin started playing since 16 both are the greatest...but bradman is legend of the legends.....

Tendulkar played only more than 40% innings in India only so 70% is wrong by Mr. Samar. Sir Don played cricket on matt over concrete pitches only and these pitches were only difficult to play after rain only and he never played any master inning on these sticky dogs. If someone played Jason Krejza without halmet, does it mean that he could play Shane Warne with helmet with same domination. People are talking baseless things like Bradman played without helmet as those days everyone played without helmet. In his whole career he travelled only Four times from Australia to England in 20 years. Tendulkar travelled 34 times in 20 years for test cricket burden only beside one day cricket. His average 99.94 is due to he was the batsman of best team. Flipper specialist Grimmett and others were in his team. In timeless matches mostly arranged by Australia. O Reilly (best) and Grimmett delivered more than 1000-1200 or more balls so for others it became almost impossible to survive. It mean you were facing two Kumble and two Warne at a time. In England, conditions favour to both leg spinners and it became impossible to face them and scored big knocks against them. Sir Don is only one of the best test batsman of his era only like Sutcliff managed 66.85 against prime bowlers of Australia. No one could become best by playing only amatuers of England. It means he played only club bowlers at international level. Even if some said he played coloney cricket at international level. It is also true as Australia was a coloney of England those days. His 99.94 is due to all cricket in two countries with same culture. On this bases, his comparison with Tendulkar is useless as he proved himself against the genuine bowling attacks..

Sachin can never be the best batsmen, because he has failed to take his team over the ropes, when it really mattered. When he plays an innings of the calbire of Ponting (2003 WC final) then I would consider him great, a- that innings took the match away from the opposition, b- it was a high profile match, c - it was WC final, when it mattered most, now Sachin did what in that innings, go figure, he came and McGrath wasted no time in sending him back, did you listen to his walk back to the pavilion, he was the most hated guy that day in the world, Indians cursed him,

haha sachin hv it now

If Bradman was there then 4 Hs (Hobbs, Herbert, Headley and Hammond) were also there with same or more impact on cricket too. Headley batting average was 91.38 at home versus England before world war II as compare to Sir Don only 72.78 WITH SEVERAL TIMELESS MATCHES. Also Headley batting average was 37.33 against Australia and Herbert 66.85. It means he was almost 30 better average than him against Australia. After 1932, Hammond average declined from 78.28 to 66.85 due to Bill O Reilly emergance in cricket. He maintained average 66.85 with facing Mailey (Googly), Grimmett (Flipper Specialist) and O Reilly (Topspinner too). Hobb was most stylish batsman of those days as compare to Sir Don without style. Also he scored 197 First class centuries and more than 60,000 runs too. Hammond travelled 11 times to other countries as compare Sir Don only four times in twenty years. Hammond was also bowler with grabbing 83 wickets in test cricket too. He played only 58 innings against prime bowling of Australia out of 140 innings. In England, it became almost impossible to everyone to face O Reilly and Grimmett together and in Australia due to timeless matches, these spinners delivered more than 1000 or more balls in many matches which is equivalent to 4 - 5 leg spinners at a time. So argument to compare his average 99.9 against Hammond only 58.5 of same era is not true. Also Hammond had to face IronMonger too with bowling average 17.97 in entire his career. All five are the best test batsmen of those days. It means Bradman was only one of the best test batsmen with lucky to play amatuer bowlers of England which was not the case of others.

then what about Sachin's greatness, he averages 42 s Pak attack over the years vs his overall avg of 55, Sachin failed in the same way then as Don, if we had to go about your logic.

so u by ur logiv aus never had good bowling attack becauz his avg hi 55 ,,,,,,england also never had good bowling attack becauz he avh merely 73 both in aus and eng soil not in india

Shane warne

Shane warne had said that sachin is the greatest batsman he had ever faced.

very weak bowler and very weak side????????

Brett LEE

Brett lee had said that sachin is the greatest batsman he had ever faced.

very weak bowler and very weak side????????

Gillchrist

Gillchrist had said that sachin is the greatest batsman of his era.

very weak player and very weak side????????

donald

sachin is greatest

very weak player and very weak side????????

andy flower

there are 2 type of batsman one sachin rest others

very weak player and very weak side????????

Top five leading bowlers in test cricket faced by Sir Don Bradman were Gubby Allen 82, Larwood 78, Ken Farnes 60, Constaintine 58 and Charlie Griffith 44. Fast Medium Voce 98, Bowes 68, White 49, Bell 48 and Geary 46. Leg Break Wright 108, Walter Robbin 64, Peebles 45, Hollies 44 and Macmillan 36 and Off Break / SLAO Laker 193, Mankad 152, Verity 144, Vincent 84 and one more. In Tendulkar case FAST are Walsh 519, Hadlee 431, Wasim 414, Ambroze 405, Ntini 390. Fast Medium McGrath 563, Pollock 421, Vaas 355, Kallis 261 and Hoggard 248. Leg Break Warne 708, Kaneria 261, Qadir 237, MacGill 208, Mushtaq 185 Off Break / SLAO Murli 800, Vettori 325, Saqlain 208, Emburrey 147 and Panesar 126. See the difference between bowling faced by two legends from different era.

but that is not the point, achin averages 42 against Pakistan, that means he could not handle them properly and failed. Averges tell the whole story, dont come back with one innings here and there,

u knw wht pakistan cricket sucks.... u suck!!!!!!this is just a frustration bcoz pakistan never produce great batsman lyk sachin or not even close to him!!!!!Sachin kicked pakistan cricket players **** 5tyms in the world cups!!!!!!so shut u r f**king mouth!!!!!!!& go away.......

ek number sachin ani sachin is sachin ayillaaaa

in his era there was the war the depression, he had a country on his shoulders too, they didnt have one dayers back then, they played fewer tests, and they played on uncovered wickets, the don is the best and there is no way sachin is even near him, in saying that sachin in unbelievable he is a player who as he has got older hs played less shots become smarter never gives his wicket away and is an absouloute pleasure to watch and pretty much most bowlers in the world think he is the hardest person to bowl at, but the don he is the best, statistcaly the greatest achievment ever in any sport, only played less games cause of the war and they didnt play as many back then.

sachin is god of cricket. sachin scored 200 in odi. sachin are most man of the matches and most man of the series. he scored higest world cup scorer.higest century in tesrt 4 odi.higest run in test&ooi.he is the master blaster. he scored 31000 runs in int circket.brdman have only average. so sachin big boss of cricket

that is because he keeps on playing, but his average is mediocre. He has an upper hand in age, as he started early. Lots of meaningless matches, the day he scores 100 in WC final, I will salute him. I consider Inzimam a better player because Inzimam delivered when it mattered most. Semi Final of 1992, that one innings is equal to Tendulkar's 50 meaningless innings.

abe kattale...kattue...pakistani madarchod randikhane ki upaj...bas ab aur mat likhiyo...warna teri gand me garam sariya india ki taraf se...

dude...u know what...u dnt deserve to write about sachin...so bttr fck

saala desh drohi

Agree Sachin is one of the greatest cricketers in India. He broke all the records. But, can he win matches on his own? and the answer is a big NO.

So, why are you guys bragging about Sachin Tendulkar all the time, he is not even close to his peers like Inzamam-ul-Haq and Ricky Ponting. Test match winning percentage of Inzamam-ul-Haq is 68, Ricky Ponting is 63 and finally Sachin Tendulkar is 38.

At the end of the day, winning matters the most.

Gentleman, Sachin has passed the era when out of 11, only Sachin used to score. Once sachin got out, we used to see a total collapse in Indian batting, whereas this was not the case with other international players. If his 31000 runs could make the country win for only 38% of his matches, then the question should be what the other players were doing. And this fact certainly have mounted some more pressure on sachin. So under this heavy responsibility and greatest expectations from this cricket crazy nation, no other can perform better than Sachin.

Dear Carnes, please note Dravid scored 11707 runs in test cricket plus 10765 runs in one day means 22472 runs at same time. Then Sehwag scored 7326 runs in test plus 7380 runs in one day means 14706 runs at international level. See Laxman who is best finisher in team and we can say that man of crises and very very special. He scored 7326 runs in test and 2338 runs in one day means near to 10000 runs. These four guys including Tendulkar scored 78732 runs totally. So your argument what other is doing is not valid. If we add runs of Ganguly as well then it become totally 97307 runs. Including Dhoni, it become 105674 runs at international level. If Tendulkar is there then Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly and Dhoni all are there too.

Also note that Kumble took 619 wickets in test matches plus 337 wickets in one day means 956 wickets. Then Harbhajan 369 in test plus 242 in one day means 611 wickets. Zaheer Khan 257 + 241 = 498 wickets. Srinath 236 + 315 = 551. Pathan 100 + 152 = 252. Agarkar 58 + 288 = 346. Prasad 96 + 196 = 292. Nehra 44 + 146 = 190. Totally 3696 wickets taken by these bowlers. So argument what others are doing is not valid. Sometime teams are not performing but that does not mean they are doing nothing. Any one at international level of cricket for many years means he has ability that is why he is playing at highest level. Including wickets of Ganguly, Tendulkar and Sehwag as bowlers, it is now more than 4000 wickets at international level.

You stole the words from my mouth. These people think about stats, and are makng him unnecessarily a god, for the sake of it, so no reason to argue with them. It really matters when players win matches. Like you said, Inzi and Ponting and for that matter Lara is way above Tendulkar in winning matches on their own when the chips were down. As an example, this little guy played very well all through the 2003 WC tournament, but failed when it mattered most, a duck in the final, on the other hand, Ponting starred when it really mattered, he shut India out of the Final. Inzi played a masterclass in Semi Finals of 1992 WC and then again in final of that world cup. These are known as big match players, Sachin is not big match player. Even Miandad was better in this reagrds, he was a pillar and architect of 1992 WC win of Pakistan with 5 fifties, and over 500 runs in the tournament, but he did not fail in the final, scored a half century with upset stocmah. Tendulkar is not a fighter. Any day I will have Inzi or POnting in my team, then this stats guy Tendliya. He never impressed me all these years because he never took India over the rope single handedly.

yeh guys,there is only one legend in cricket,thats great Sachin

wrong, Don is the best, then I have others in my book ahead of Sachin. Viv is peerless, Lara always a big matchwinner than Sachin.

faisal g salaam i saw ur ur all comments,,, 1 thing is there ,,,, thet aap nay sachin kay saath kitnay player sko compere kiya ??????????????dosra fact aap pakistani ho ,,,,, teesra aap nay kaha lara is best than sachin bieng a match winner ,, so just study lara's recrod or phir aap batana ,,, dunya ka sab say bara player or sab say ziyada haray huway match lara kay hain ,,,, u know??????? or aik or baat,, aap mujhay dunya ka koi aik opening player bata dain kay jo match winning player ho ?????? agar sachin nahin hay to ?ok ? jahan tak rahi baat pakistani bowlers ko face karnay ki to wo wc 2003 main aap ko bata chuka hay hay ,,, ok or 5 hundereds hain us kay paksitan kay khilaf or 16 fifties bhi 2500 runs bhi ,, kaaafi hain yaa or bhi chahiyien ,,, teesra us ka aik aisa mujfarid record sun lain janab jo sun kar shayed aap chinkay **** bhi or shayed sachin kay fan bhi ho jayen **** ,,,, anqareeeb wo dunya ka sab say ziyada match winning hundrerds karnay wala player bannay wala hay , aabhi ponting or wo barabar hain ,,, 53 & 53 kay figure kay saath ok ?agar mazeed koi sawal hay to plz u can ,,,, or bradman ki baat hay jahan tak ,, no doubt kay woh baray player hay test main sachin say ,, laikin aaap sachin ko compere kar hi nahin saktay dbm say ,,, shayed woh odi main bhi sachin say baray hotay laikin ,, filhal nahin hain ,,, so aik baat to aap ko manana paray gi kay test kay dbm is better than sachin ,, an oveall sachin,,,,, mananna paray ga bhai aap ko ,,, laikin nahin aap nahin mano **** cz aap pakistani ho ,,, sachin agar kissi or team ka player hota to aap kay comments bhi dunya ki tarha sachin kay liye hotay ,, fi amaan ALLAH hopoe silsila jari rahay ga gap shap ka,,, Usman

or haan agar sachin bradman say bara nahin to kam bhi nahin ,,, cz hamari or aap ki baaton say to faisla nahin ho ga na , jabkay dbm sahab khud sachin ko apnay ghar par apni birth day par bula kar tribite or us ko kahailta daikh kar apno aap ko mehsoos karnay jaisay jumlon say nawaza hay ,,, us waqt lara bhi tha ponting bhi tha saeed anwar bhi tha inzimam bhi tha steve waugh bhi tha mark waugh bhi tha jaques kallis bhi tha ,, or bhi bohat bari list hay barbaray batsmans ki ,, laikin sachin hi kiyun ?????????? is swala ka jawab shayed nahin yaqeenan sirf sir don bradman kay paas hi hay ,, m sorry aap shayed sahi kah rahay hain ,,, sir don hotay to shayed wohi behter bata saktay

All time ever best cricketer is BRADMAN only. sachin is a good player but can never be compared to BRADMAN, he's legend of legends..

Can't compare Bradman to Tendulkar ... its an insult to Bradman!!!!

Tendulkar is best since Bradman ... at least in batting for sure. Bradman's test average is an "outlier" in cricket or any major sport. He's average is 75% better than Sachin ... its too great a gap to allow for argument.

Bradman's peers at the time and players since have not been able to average more than 60 ... it is simply remarkable his average of 99.94!!!!

The fields are much smaller these days with ropes etc. and cricket bats are much improved. This surely benefits Sachin's batting record.

I would place Steve Waugh ahead of Sachin as all round cricketer ... because of his amazing captaincy record where he WON 76% of test matches as captain.

Sachin is a cricketing great but no way is he the best.

Why people think that Don Bradman (1928-1948) is best due to average are neglecting the fact that he has played cricket against amateurs, seamless bowling, absence of fast bowlers, fast medium too and then leg break bowlers also. Half career Timeless matches, mat over concrete pitches, all matches in two countries, 52 matches in 20 years, 80% innings against the same team and so may other facts. No proper rule for LBW before 1934.

F FM MF M OB / SLAO LG / SLACH

38 45 6 5 41 13=148.

0 0 1 1 3 1 = 6/148.

1. For leading 38 fast bowlers, Don faced none.

2. For leading 46 fast medium, he faced none.

3. For leading 6 medium fast , he faced one.

4. For leading 5 medium, he faced one.

5. For leading 41 off break / slow left arm orthodox, he faced three of them.

6. For leading 14 leg break he faced one.

Now more than 150 bowlers took 100 or more in which he faced only six of them. For leading 150 he faced six of them.

From 1931 to 1937, he faced no bowler with 100 or more wickets in test matches. Before it, only one bowler Tate with decline in his bowling. It happened only two times in his career that bowler was bowling him with 100 test wickets to them. Second time Verity in 1937 and it never happened in his career. Only played one experience bowler.

If someone says that he played club cricket at international level, even it is not 100 % false. Yes, it is true that he only played amateurs of England and on the basis it we cannot say he is the best due to limited circle.

How we know, how can he tackle fast battery of W. Indies. Yes he is one of the best test batsman and legend too but he had not faced reverse swings, yorkers and toecrushers of Waqar, In swing and outswings of Wasim, Flipper of Kumble, Zooter of Wanre and so on.

Some of what you said may be true .... there are probably considerations for both players that made it easier or harder for each.

However, no one before or since has come close in terms of Bradman's test average and the difference is too much to argue against. The only thing not negotiable are the statistics ... and no one ever has come close to Bradman. Bradman's average is 75% higher than Sachin's!!!!

In baseball as in cricket, averages remain consistent over time and are a true reflection of the individual performances and take into account the nuances that existed between eras. Statistics are a reliable comparison.

No one in baseball for example has ever had a batting average that is so far ahead of any one else in history.

It is only self assumption that Bradman is the best. Actual his runs per inning against the amateurs of England was 79.8 and Tendulkar 55.12. So there is no concept of 75% better. Tendulkar took England one out of nine teams and Bradman 80% innings against them. Beside it, Tendulkar hold pressure of one day cricket. His burden of cricket is 8 to 10 times more than Bradman. I am unable to understand why people want to deny the facts. Tendulkar scored near to 32000 runs at international career as compare to him 6996 runs in very limited circle. So Don Bradman only scored 20% of Tendulkar. 6996 / 32000 = .2.

No one now has batting average 99.9 because no one can get amateurs of England on mat over concrete pitches now. If we say Bradman play colony cricket even it is not 100% wrong. Also note that in such a limited circle he was unable to become highest run maker, how can he tackle Tendulkar if he was in this era. Tendulkar at a time, highest run maker in test but also in one day too. Also he played highest no. of test and one day matches. Bradman only find a path, how to maintain average. So leave the topic with acceptance that Tendulkar is batter than Bradman.

Great explanation. I wish I can give 100 kudos for this comment, but this site allows one kudo per user. Sachin is the best. Please click Kudos on the right side of the comment box if you are fan of Sachin.

Thanks Raj, I have sent kudos for you. Some more point are

1. If those days uncovered pitches were so difficult then how teams scored more than 500 runs in so many innings.

2. There were no helmets during the Bradman era but how often were bouncers bowled to him. I think during Body-line series only and then it never happened.

3. See example of Ponting against quality spin bowling in Asia, he is struggling only. How can we believe that the Don would have proved himself as excellent as Tendulkar, Lara and off-course Laxman against the giants like Murali, Warne, Saqlain or Kumble? In last two days in India and Sri Lanka. He played his all cricket in 2 countries.

4. Australia is basically the part of England, if we say he played only colony cricket even it is not false or same nation. Means both team have same culture so overall talent were at very initial stage. Also note that England batsmen had to face Milley, Grimmett (Flipper), O Reilly (Top-spin)in so many matches together with more than 1000 balls per match due to timeless matches. It means you are facing two Warne and two Kumble at a time. In England, conditions helped leg spin bowling and they got wickets of them. Then IronMonger, Gregory and others were there. See example of Herbert who maintained batting average 66.85 against prime bowling of Australia as compare to him 89.78 against England. From quality point of view, we cannot say who is better.

5. Level of competition and standard of cricket after 1925 were at very initial stage. Presence of Amateurs, small talent pool with all great bowlers in same team of Don like Grimmett and Reilly were responsible for making his average 99.94. For those who arguing for peer comparison is useless due to these points. Only Bradman team batsmen could have same advantage.

Details of bowlers which Bradman faced with 100 or more wickets in test. 1. Tate (1924-35) took 32 wickets against Australia from 1928 to onward with bowling average 39.71. He was medium bowler. He took 155 wickets in test. 2. Hedley Verity (1931-1939) took 144 and then in 1943 he died during War. Actually he was an army officer. He totally took 21 wickets in Australia against them with bowling average 34.57 throughout his career. His striking rate 113.1 in Australia. He was slow left arm othrodox. 3. Wright (1938-51) took 108 wickets maintaining career bowling average 39.11. He was the only leg break bowler that he faced with 100 or more wickets in test. 4. Alec Bedser was medium fast bowler came after war (1946-1955). His average was 46 at end of 1948. Later on he became better bowler. He took 236 wickets in test. 5. Jim Laker (1948-59) came after World War II when he was planning to retire. Jim Laker took 9 wickets with bowling average 52.44 in only three test matches, which he faced against Bradman in 1948, later on he became better bowler. He was off break bowler. 6. Vinoo Mankad (1946-1959) of India took 162 wickets in career with average 32.32. His average was 52.5 with grabbing 12 wickets in five test matches against Bradman throughout his career in the start of his own career in 1947-48. So in list of 150 leading bowlers he faced only six bowlers. On the contra hand, Tendulkar played all types of bowlers on all types of conditions on 57 grounds with 57 bowlers took 100 or more in test cricket. In Bradman case, fast and fast medium are absent for 100 or more. Fastest one was Larwood and highest wicket taker in fast bowling was Allen with 82 wickets. He played cricket on ten grounds only with six bowlers took 100 or more. Now anyone can decide by him who is better. I have provided too much knowledge for all. Please make unbiased judgement on the basis of reality and truth. In my opinion, not necessary you will agree that Tendulkar has clear edge over Bradman. Also I think Bradman is one of the best test batsmen and legend in cricket but not best of the best.

Gavaskar played the best attacks of fast bowling and Tendulkar played the best verities in bowling. Fast + Fast Medium + Finger + Wrist = 57 18 + 22 + 11 + 6 = 57. For Fast Bowling, he faced 18 bowlers Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Ambrose, Ntini, Waqar, Imran, Donald, Lee, Macdermott, Gillespie, Flintoff, Hughes, Styen, Johnson, Shoiab, Bishop and Malcom. For Fast Medium bowling, he faced 22 bowlers Mcgrath, Pollock, Vaas, Kallis, Hoggard, Caddick, Harmison, Carins, Streaks, Martin, Fraser, Morrison, Nel, Dillion, Anderson, Cork, Defreites, Kasprowic, Reifel, Reid, Collin and Razzaq. For Off Spinner / Slow left arm orthodox, he faced 11 of them. Murli, Vettori, Saqlain, Emburrrey, Panesar, Giles, Tufnell, Hooper, Bracewell, Boje and Rafique For Leg Break / Slow left arm Chinaman, he faced six. Warne, Kaneria, Qadir, Macgill, Mushtaq, Adams.

Fast + Fast Medium + Medium Fast + Medium + Finger + Wrist = 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 6. For Fast Bowling, he faced none. For Fast Medium bowling, he faced none. For Medium fast one Alec Bedser. For Medium only one again Maurice Tate. For Off Spinner / Slow left arm orthodox, he faced 3 Verity, Laker and Mankad. For Leg Break / Slow left arm Chinaman, he faced only one Douglas Wright. I think now Tendulkar's fans have valid reasons for clear edge of Tendulkar over Bradman. Also enjoy all knowledge which I think is interesting for cricket lovers. Also I am not deny the fact that both are legend in two different eras.

Tendulkar actually scored 2150 runs against England with runs per inning 55.1 in 39 innings (2150 / 39 = 55.1)and Don 79.8 in 63 innings with runs scored 5028. 5028 / 63 = 79.8.

So ratio stands .7 : 1, (55.1 : 79.8) but Tendulkar took England one out of nine teams and Bradman almost same team in his entire career.

See some assumptions in same manner.

1. If Tendulkar scored 1050 runs against England then Don 1515.

2. If Tendulkar scored 2040 runs against them then Don 2955.

3. If Tendulkar scored 3030 runs against them then Don 4390.

4. If Tendulkar scored 4025 runs against them then Don 5825.

There is no ratio of 1 : 1.75. If Tendulkar played 80% of his cricket against England then he could improve his runs per inning to how much we do not know although I think he could surpass Don. I am saying it in the light of his all achievements. Also give him timeless matches on flat pitches with such a limited cricket against same team. There is no culture difference between England and Australia.

Sir Bradman played in two countries with 79% innings against the England.

There is no speed guns like ****Akhtar, Lee, Thomson or Frank Tyson.

No Richard Hadlee, Lillee, Dev, Botham, Imran Khan, Bob Wills and Trueman and many many others.

No Marshall, Garner, Holding, Robert, Colin Croft, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop and Hall. Not a single great bowler from W. Indies.

No Wasim, Waqar, Allan Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Steyn, McGrath, Hughes and others.

No Warne, Kumble or Gupte, Macgill or Benaud, Abdul Qadir or Mushtaq Ahmed or Kaneria.

No Murli or Underwood, Gibbs and other quality spinners. Jim Laker is there but he played only three test matches against Don after World war.

He is legend and one of the best and finest batsman but placing him the best of best due to 99.94 is highly debatable.

One peer of Sir Don Bradman, Hertbert Sutcliff (1924-1935) batting average was 78.28 in first 32 innings against prime bowling of Australia but after arrival of O Reilly in 1932, his average declined to 66.85 at the end of career. Bradman overall batting average was 89.78 against England. Argument Bradman batting average was matchless among his peers was becauase Sutcliff had to face prime bowlers like three leg spinners Mailey (leg break + Googly), Grimmett and O Reilly then Iron Monger Slow Left arm Orthodox and then Gregory too. Playing Grimmett and Reilly in one test was very difficult, Grimmett flipper specialist like Anil Kumble and O Reilly topspinner with both could delivered leg break and googly. It looks like you are facing 2 Kumble and 2 Warne at a time due to timeless matches as Sir Don rated O Reilly and Grimmett better than Shane Warne. One timeless test match started from 3 January 1933 between Aus and Eng, both Aus leg spinners delivered more than 1300 balls in this match. It means you are facing 4 leg spinnners in one match as Shane Warne overs per match is 47 and Kumble 52 only. 40750 balls / 145 = 47 and 40850 balls / 132 = 52. Another timeless match in 18 August 1934, both leg spinner delivered 1078 balls in this match (took 12 wickets in the same match and won the match) which is equal 180 overs for nowadays. It means you were facing almost 2 Kumble and 2 Warne in one match.

Uncovered pitches were difficult after rain only. Victor Trumper was better than Bradman on these sort of sticky dogs.

Else his elegant batting plus ability to play on sticky wickets also put seasonal observers that Trumper was better than Brdaman. Also SEASONAL OBSERVERS think that Hobbs was better than him due to same two points. Trumper lost his wicket so many time on these rain affected pitches and also due to SF Barnes on other end plus rain affected pitches.

Barnes took his wicket 13 times as he was mostly time victim of Barnes. Then Clem Hill lost his wicket 11 times to Barnes.

If statistic is not the only criteria then Sir Don is maximum one of the best test batsman of his era only.

Neither he is elegant nor he is master to play on rain affected pitches. Bouncers were problem for him plus facing difficulty to play googly. Also due to the best team, he had not face prime attack of his time but only amateurs of England. Although I think he is legend in cricket.

why could no one else in bradman's era come close to his average?