THERE'S a new book out in India entitled Greater Than Bradmanwhich argues that Sachin Tendulkar was better than Don Bradman. We haven't read it yet, but we can assure you, the author is dreaming.
The theory in India, when Tendulkar was playing, was that the jury was out on the greatest batsman of all time. In truth, there was no jury. Not outside of India, anyway. There wasn't even a courtroom. Let the record show that there was never, and never will be, anyone better than Bradman.
That hasn't stopped author Rudolph Lambert Fernandez from cashing in on Tendulkar triumphalism in the wake of the Little Master's retirement in November last year.
Fernandez has penned what he calls a "first-of-its-kind forensic study" to prove why "Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, not Bradman, is the greatest".
The two great cricketers, pictured together here in 1998. Bradman famously said Tendulkar was the only batsman he'd ever seen who reminded him of himself. Pic: BRYAN/CHARLTON Source: News Corp Australia
"The book questions traditional measures of greatness that revolve around statistics while offering a more honest approach that respects a batsman's 'figures' but places them against the backdrop of his playing environment," Fernandez promises.
Well, let's break this thing down. Fernandez says India's man was better than ours. He says there are ways you can assess this beyond statistics.
Let's do a little off-the-cuff forensic analysis of our own, shall we? Here are eight really quick and simple ways you might rebuke the ridiculous claim that Tendulkar was better than Bradman.
Because, let's be honest, that's about as silly as suggesting the younger Minogue sister is the more talented of the two.
THE GROUNDS
Bradman played on uncovered pitches, which meant that he could never be 100 per cent confident in the nature of the pitch and the evenness of its bounce. Boundaries were also unroped in his era, so scoring was tougher. Tendulkar played in the era of covered pitches, and it's well known that India is home to many of the most batsman-friendly wickets in the world.
THE ADULATION
Crowds wanted a piece of The Don, too. Source: News Limited
But what about Bradman? He first arrived as a champion in depression era Australia, when a nation was desperate for a hero. There were two national sporting icons at the time. One was a horse called Phar Lap. The other a man called The Don. Though not in a mass media age, Bradman coped with adulation just as admirably as Tendulkar. Bear in mind they didn't have minders or gated communities in those days.
THE OPPOSITION
Bradman played predominantly against England, which was the strongest opposition in his day. There were no easybeats back then, except of course for the teams Australia beat easily because Bradman was part of the Australian team.
By contrast, Tendulkar made his highest Test score of 248 not out against Bangladesh and piled on the easy runs against Zimbabwe, too. He scored eight centuries in his 16 Tests against the two cricketing minnows, significantly boosting his average and with it, his legend.
VERSATILITY
Tendulkar reacts after scoring a double ton against South Africa in a one-dayer. Source: AP
This is a big one. It is often claimed by the pro-Tendulkar camp that The Don could concentrate on the long form of cricket because the shorter versions hadn't been dreamed up yet. Therefore, say Tendulkar's supporters, his 49 one-day international centuries prove he was superior because how many did Bradman ever score?
There are two pretty obvious rebuttals to that. The first is that, while Tendulkar was clearly an ODI genius, as evidenced by the fact he became the first to score a double century in said format, he had a ho-hum average of 44, which places him just 18th on the all-time list of those who played 20 or more innings.
More to the point, Bradman never played one-day cricket, but he did play an awful lot of first class cricket. In his day, state versus state was almost as important as Test matches, just like limited overs cricket is now. And in that format, his statistical freakishness continued. Bradman averaged 95 in first class cricket, with figures stunningly similar to his Test dominance. Quite simply, he never failed to dominate in the only form of cricket available to him. Full stop.
THE TRAVEL
Tendulkar travelled round the world staying in top hotels and flying at the pointy end of planes. Bradman used to get on boats for six weeks and play deck quoits to amuse himself.
Longevity
This was Tendulkar in the middle of his career, around 2003. Some say he stretched it a year or two beyond his use-by date in the quest for records. Source: News Limited
On this front Tendulkar wins. He stayed good for an extraordinarily long time, from 1989 to 2013 to be precise, in a career that spanned the careers of six Australian prime ministers. But his longevity is often overplayed in his favour. South Africa's Jacques Kallis went nearly as long and scored both his Test and ODI runs at a better average than Tendulkar. He also took 500 more wickets as a bowler than Tendulkar in both formats, yet Kallis never enters a discussion of who was better than Bradman. So how on earth does Sachin qualify just because he trundled along at an excellent (but distinctly unBradmanlike) level for two decades?
SUPERIORITY OVER HIS PEERS
And speaking of Kallis, who can be sure Tendulkar was even the best of his generation? Brian Lara was erratic, but holds some pretty significant records. Even if you give the nod to Tendulkar, as most do, it's not by much. But ask yourself, who was second in Bradman's era? We'll give you a clue, its name starts with "D".
Give up? It was daylight.
THE INNINGS THAT MATTERED
When Australia needed runs, he made them. Even at the low point of his career, the Bodyline Series, he averaged over 55. Bradman's lows were other people's highs. Source: News Limited
Former England skipper Nasser Hussain praised Tendulkar endlessly in a column in 2010 after witnessing Tendulkar's ground-breaking double century in an ODI. But even Hussain admitted there remains a a valid argument that Tendulkar has rarely played innings that overturned the order of world cricket.
Great players do more than perform well. They take a big occasion and make it theirs. Tendulkar had several chances to do that and failed. One example was the 2003 World Cup final. Ricky Ponting had made a huge century for Australia, now it was Sachin's turn. He failed, and with him, so did India. If Tendulkar really was so great, where was his Test series win against Australia in Australia? Admittedly he made huge scores here, but where was the knockout blow that tipped the balance for his team?
THE CRICINFO SUMMARY
The world's biggest and most trusted cricket website has this to say on the subject of a certain Sir Donald Bradman: "Unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game, arguably the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the finest sportsmen of all time, Don Bradman was so far ahead of the competition as to render comparisons meaningless and to transcend the game he graced."
We'll respectfully go with what they say.
THE BATTING AVERAGE
It's no toss of the coin. Bradman beats Tendulkar easily in our estimation. Source: News Limited
We've mentioned a few stats here and there in this piece after promising to look beyond them, but there's one pair of numbers you can't go past. Bradman averaged 99.94 in Tests, Tendulkar 53.78. Imagine this was your monthly pay packet. Would you rather $5,378 or $9,994? Thought so.
Nice try, Rudolph Fernandez, but objection overruled.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The ‘proof’ Tendulkar was better than Bradman
Dengan url
https://duniadiggi.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-aproofa-tendulkar-was-better-than_24.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The ‘proof’ Tendulkar was better than Bradman
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The ‘proof’ Tendulkar was better than Bradman
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar