Sachin Tendulkar or Donald Bradman - Who is the greatest?

"Better than Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting, the other two great players of my era. Better than Sir Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border. And I would even say better than Sir Don Bradman himself."

Nasser Hussain

Four days on and the main subject of discussion amongst cricket commentators, bloggers and fans alike is Sachin Tendulkar's momentous feat of scoring a double hundred in a one day international. The Little Master's 93rd international hundred has reignited debate as to his position in the batting pantheon with the inevitable question being whether he is greater than The Don himself. Passions are certainly running high and opinion seems to be fairly evenly split.

Last summer, like many other cricket lovers before me, I wrote an article naming who in my opinion were the top 20 batsman of all time (see part 1 (20-11) and part 2 (10-1) here). As an amateur historian, I combined the knowledge gained from 30 years as a cricket follower, plus research encompassing both primary and secondary sources before arriving at my choice. I added several caveats explaining that it is extremely difficult to compare batsmen from different eras and that the game had changed and evolved throughout its wonderful history. I also based my choices primarily on test cricket given that the first ODI was in 1971 and that tests always have been the best barometer of a batsman's true quality.

Bradman came top of my list with Tendulkar 11th, which naturally provoked a lot of criticism and ire from those that read it both in and outside India; especially as I had ranked both Ponting and Lara higher than the Little Master. Whilst I believe I was right in most of the choices within my top 20, I believe I may have erred somewhat in placing Tendulkar outside the top 10.

However, this post is not about revising my previous choice, but a contrary one that suggests that comparing the two is perhaps unnecessary. Is it not better to merely argue that as Bradman was the greatest in his era, Sachin is the greatest in his? 93 international centuries spread over a 20 year career suggests he is and I belatedly concur that he shades Ponting and Lara for this accolade.

Comparisons with Bradman are difficult. Bradman played on sticky dogs but had more latitude with the LBW laws prior to 1934 and only faced one other team (England, against whom The Don still averaged 89.78) that was really competitive against Australia. But at the same time, Bradman played at the same time as a number of other all-time batting greats like Hobbs, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley, Ponsford and McCabe and averaged at least 40 runs more than any of them. Like Sachin, every time he went to the crease he had the additional pressure of a nation's expectations sitting on his shoulder, albeit far less than the billion souls perched along Tendulkar's collarbone.

Maybe it is simply better to celebrate the many similarities between the two. Both have faced down and bettered the best bowlers of their time, whether it be pace (Ambrose, Wasim and McGrath versus Larwood and Bedser) or spin (Warne and Murali against Verity). Furthermore, both have achieved milestones in the game that will never be equalled. No other batsman will ever get close to Bradman's immortal 99.94, but at the same time no other batsman is likely to score 100 international hundreds, which the Indian Master will probably achieve in the next 18 months; maybe fittingly in the 2011 World Cup Final?

I've come to the conclusion that debates as to who is the greater between Bradman and Tendulkar are irrelevant and basically a waste of time. It is time for cricket followers to just celebrate that two such legends have played this wonderful game of ours. A place on the Mount Olympus cricket field is there for both of them. Bradman believed that Tendulkar reminded him of himself and that is maybe a good place to leave this particular argument. 

 

 

Comments

[Vicus Scurra]

I agree about the pointlessness of the comparison, but that won't stop us from compiling lists will it?

One of the criticisms of Bradman is that he played little of his cricket on sticky wickets - whereas Hobbs relished them. This does not detract from his being the best, just an observation.

[The Reverse Sweep]

Thanks for your comments Vicus. You are totally right that it won't stop us compiling our lists and opinions are one of the things that makes cricket such a wonderful game. It's true that Bradman played on less stickies than other greats like Hobbs and indeed his reputation on these type of wickets is not as good as others like Trumper, Sutcliffe and of course Hobbs.

I suppose with Bradman it is the 99.94 and the 29 100s in 52 tests that makes most people consider him the greatest and it is hard to argue otherwise.

[credit repair affiliate]

Sachin is God of the Cricket and he is also Master Blaster and he is also Run machine.Sachin means record .He is first person to complete 200 run in one ODI in Gwaliyer and this is big history.

[Cosmic Cricket]

I've written the article on the same topic and
the responds I got from people are quite surprising. Some people write off Bradman's greatness on the fact that he didn't face quality bowling that we have in today's cricket. There are lots of variations in bowling now, e.g. doosra, googly, that weren't available in the past. In this circumstance, Sachin Tendulkar is regarded better than Sir Don Bradman. Follow the link to read the article.
http://sportales.com/cricket/sir-donald-bradman-vs-sachin-tendulkar/

[The Reverse Sweep]

Bradman did face some great bowlers - Larwood and Verity to name but two. It was a different era and as such is is very difficult to say who is the better batsman. However, the gap between Bradman and the next best batsmen in his era like Headley, Hammond and Sutcliffe is far greater than that between Sachin and his contemporaries like Lara, Ponting and Kallis. Id always plump for Bradman as the greatest, but Sachin is the best of his era - as his annus mirabilis of 2010 undoubtedly proved.