Here here.

Well, in Bradman's era, The LBW system was quite favouring the batsman, the pitch was easy to bat on and Bradman had to play the most of his match against the Only one side which is England (If tendulkar were to play against only England these days, nonwithstanding how mediocre they are, he would also be averaging the similar kind)
Also Bradman didnt have the expectation of A billion People to perform.
In those days, the fielding were quite sluggish,Bowling bouncer was not allowable (For eg,Bodyline series, he averaged only 50 odd,that tells you the story)
Also They had a plenty of match rest. And the test match were timeless.
No wonder why Bradmans average were that high.
I would regard Tendulkars 99 (and a lot more coming your way) international centuries much much higher than Bradman's 99 average.
Tendulkar would average 200 in those days.
P.S Bradman was a mediocre player of Spin bowling.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Also the article of your given site is quite biased in favour of Don Bradman.
And Cricket in those area was quite amateur sport.
Tendulkar is not called the God of Cricket for nothing.
A 70,000 people cheering on back of Bradman (as is the usual case for Tendulkar) would scare Bradman.Because ,Cricket is a pressure game and there would be no pressure in Bradman's era.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Indiasox, out of interest, how do you know what would scare Bradman or not, and how do u come to the conclusion that there was no pressure in his era, just out of interest i'd love to know.
Also the LBW law when he was playing heavily favored the bowler, not the batsmen.
However i don't think you can compare players from pre helmets and post helmets, different game altogether, i'd say Bradman, and although the article is not about SRT he was always going to come into it, are both wonderful players and who is better matters not

My Dad used onald Bradman used to practice by hitting a ball against individual iron railings........with ONE stump.

Sorry. My Dad told me that Donald etc.

The website of the article that this thread is based on, is completely biased in favour of Bradman. Sachin is the Greatest batsman by far. End of!

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Bet he ruined a few bats. Its a wonder he didnt blow his fingers off too.....A little far fetched and /or exaggerated i would suggest.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

the pitch was easy to bat on

Poppycock, pitches were unrolled and uncovered.

Bradman had to play the most of his match against the Only one side which is England

Yeh, but England were the Second best team in the world in those days, how good an Average would Tendu have if he only batted against Australia?

Bowling bouncer was not allowable (For eg,Bodyline series, he averaged only 50 odd,that tells you the story)

Wow, you just nuked your own argument, of course bouncers were allowed, how else would the England team have been able to implement Leg Theory?

I would regard Tendulkars 99 (and a lot more coming your way) international centuries much much higher than Bradman's 99 average.

And Ali Daei is the greatest footballer of all time beating, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff , Brazilian Ronaldo and Messi.

Tendulkar would average 200 in those days.
P.S Bradman was a mediocre player of Spin bowling.

Completely useless points with no basis in fact at all.

A 70,000 people cheering on back of Bradman (as is the usual case for Tendulkar) would scare Bradman.

Well, let's see, 100,000 people can currently fit in the MCG, all seated. The MCG used to get upwards of 120,000 when people were standing in the terraces, so again your are clueless and know absolutely nothing.

And to Neon, the story about Bradman practicing by hitting a golf ball against a garage wall with a cricket stump is true.

So...?? Yes he was greatest. Everyone acknowledges that.
But seriously, why this article ? Did his ghost wake you up today?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

england spinner hadley verity averaged i believe 17 in tests towards the end of bradman's era, that is a pretty dominating average wouldn't you say?

an i would suggest that the only reason that bradman era bowlers didn't take the 100s of wickets that modern bowlers do is they played a fraction of the amount of test cricket.

Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time. this is FACT, it is not up for discussion, anyone who even thinks of arguing with it, I consider to be moron.
Bradman is cricket's equivelant of Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretzky and Pele all roled into one. He will never be bettered. ever.

Hmm, the Australians of that era have some decent bowling averages. These averages are only between 1928 and 1948, the time span of Bradman's career:

Ironmonger 74 wickets at 17.97
Johnston 43 at 18.88
Lindwall 65 at 18.92
Toshack 47 at 21.04
Miller 40 at 21.60
O'Reilly 144 at 22.59

And we also have:

NZ Cowie 31 at 16.70
WI Martindale 37 at 21.72
ENG Freeman 51 at 22.03
ENG Bowes 68 at 22.33
SA Nupen 34 at 22.85

As you can see these are all exceptional averages by any standard. The volume of wickets is quite low due to the lack of teams playing at the time. One thing to point out might be that the lack of Englishmen dominating the list might have something to do with the fact they had to bowl against a guy who averages almost 100 runs more often than anyone else.

Also, it is amusing to read one of Indiasox's comment relating to bodyline, where he said Bradman "only" averaged 50 in the series, how good do you have to be for an average of 50 in a series to be considered your worst performance?

you forgot verity duncan, average of 17, amazing bowler

Remember also that bowling averages of around 15 grew less common from 1877 until the 1950s when sub 20 averages virtually disappeared due to the covering and rolling of pitches.

I haven't mentioned Sachin as yet, but let's have a little comparison since the Indians all seem so keen to compare the two.

I have split test cricket into pre 1970s and post 1970s as my two eras, mainly to give Sachin more of a chance.

Bradman compared to the next best averaging batsmen of his era who scored more than 2000 runs:

Bradman 6996 at 99.94
Headley 2190 at 60.83

Compare Sachin in the same way:

Tendulkar 15183 at 56.02
Sangakkara 9167 at 56.93
Kallis 12005 at 56.89

Wow, it's so obvious, I can clearly see why Sachin is obviously the best batsman ever even though it is a little unclear that he is even the best batsman of his era.

All these players not as good a test batting average as Andy Ganteaume - West Indies with 112.00.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Like I said previously..Bradman was the best batsman of his era...Sachin the best of his

--------------------

Bradman was unarguably the best of his era, Tendulkar, arguably the best of his.
There is the difference.

"Bradman was unarguably the best of his era, Tendulkar, arguably the best of his.
There is the difference."

Agree

Anyone here saw Bradman bat? If so, who in today's cricket resembles him in terms of technique and shot making?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Who know's but you can only compare players to their era and Bradman was miles better than anyone else.