Stop the bull crap about dead wickets as Tendulkar has dominated attacks having Akram, Waqar, Saqlain, Murali, Vaas, Mcgrath, Warne, McDermott, Hughes, Imran, Headley, Tait, Walsh, Ambrose, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Ntini, Steyn, Morkel, Brett Lee, Shoiab Akhtar, and on and on and on, on wickets suiting the bowlers. Who did Bradman face and dominate in conditions favouring the bowlers? Bradman played on just 9 grounds and on his favourite SCG, Tendulkar averages three times more than him. Had he not toured last time Tendulkar’s SCG average was 300 plus compared to Bradman’s 50. He is at 150 now but that means nothing as average is no metric. To have a great average is different than to being a great batsman. Bradman was a period great and so is Sehwag; Tendulkar had entered the lexicon of all-time greats before he was 19, which is after his first 5 Test series in Australia where he got two hundreds. Yes, you are right our team is average at the moment. And so is yours with only Michael Clarke coming on his own and staking a claim to be an all-time great.

What’s really interesting is to check out Bradman and Tendulkar in defeats. Mind you, Bradman played for the Number 1 side of the world for most of his career and Tendulkar for a side suspect against fast bowling and swinging, seaming and bouncy wickets. After his first away series in England, I don’t know why but Victor Richardson came out and said that, ”We could have played any side without Bradman but we couldn’t have played a blind school without Grimmett.” And you can check an old video where a sheepish and ingenious Bradman comes out and says how records are only byproducts and its the team that matters.

Now for surprise, surprise. Just 12 Test defeats and 22 innings for the losing side for Bradman while 56 Tests (Four more than Bradman played) and 112 innings in a losing cause for Tendulkar. That should reveal a lot. With two hundreds scored at modest strike-rates of less than 48 Bradman averages 43.27 and has six fifties and 3 ducks to his credit in matches lost. Tendulkar has 11 hundreds and 18 fifties and eight ducks at 37.16 and he’s struck them at a strike-rate of 70, 85 and 60 plus home and away dominating the some of the world’s best attacks while his team was floundering. He even flourished in matches we lost by innings. Do you see what I see? The most important nugget. No, you don’t. Else you would have been one of those who figure out the truth behind average. Tendulkar drops by 17 basis points and Bradman, Jesus Christ, by almost 57 points. That’s not the point though.

Look at the rate of drop and how fast it is in Bradman’s case. Tendulkar’s rate of drop is nothing compared to Bradman’s. What’s happened to Bradman; apart from a fifty or so he’s not even been on top of the bowling and he’s also behind Tendulkar where Tendulkar gets a hundred every 10 innings against a quality opponent in matches lost Bradman takes 11 innings for it. Both the hundreds are from before Bradman became famous, so that’s another nugget that he couldn’t perform against better attacks once his name brought pressure. He milked the minnows averaging close to 200 against them as his unorthodox style enabled him to shred attacks to pieces while conventional batsmen couldn’t match him. That’s the reason for the average and not batting superiority. Bowlers bowled 24 overs in an hour as opposed to 14 or 15 these days and fielding was lousy with no emphasis on containment. Set a Sehwag loose in that era he’ll give you an average of 200.

Tendulkar hammers great attacks in these matches just like he massacres them in some single-handed wins while Bradman is solid with his 131 at 45.64 at Trent Bridge in the absence of Larwood and is a nobody elsewhere. Bradman squeaks in these games while Tendulkar plays like a lion. Had Bradman been there for 12 more Test defeats his rate of drop may have taken his average to the twenties while Tendulkar would still be in his thirties. Bradman’s not even played enough games to be in contention. Think about it, it’s food for thought.

Sehwag averages 90 against the quality bowling attack of Pakistan in the past decade or so, Bradman averages 89 plus against the only half-decent attack of England barring one series where he was reduced to a blabbering wreck. The effect was noted by Wisden next year even though Larwood was over. Had Larwood remained or had there been different Testing conditions and sides for Bradman to contend with you would have been like Ian Chappell and RA Woolmer comparing Bradman to Sehwag and not to Tendulkar. Tendulkar has an exalted self-esteem and all he’s always maintained is that he’s never compared himself or his game to anyone. Why should he deny what he’s never entertained? It was Bradman who compared himself to Tendulkar and not the other way round. At some point Australia has to confront its myths and Bradman is its most-deeply embedded founding myths.

As for the Tendulkar vs. Bradman argument, Tendulkar has an average of ~57, this is true, but players such as Lara, Ponting, Dravid etc have similar averages and have played over comparable amounts of time. There was no-one who played in Bradman’s era with an average close to 99.94 – in fact most were not even half that. Needless to say that Bradman also captained a side, which is something Tendulkar failed to succeed at. Bradman’s career may not have included as many games as Tendulkar’s, but he also fought a war whilst there was no cricket being played, and later returned to continue playing. It is Tendulkar’s arrogance which means that he continues to allow the question of “are you better than Bradman?” – if his ego wasn’t so important to him, he would lay this questions to rest by denying the statement, and retire very soon in this woeful form slump he is in.

Brilliant article as as a whole. Now I think Bradman must not be a shoe-in in every one’s dream team.

Even when it’s not his territory Tendulkar is also known to have played some great defensive jewels like the one in Sydney in 2003-04 where he denied himself the cover drive and got 241 not out. For all that it matters Tendulkar roughly averages three times more than Donald George Bradman at the Sydney Cricket Ground, where in 9 innings Tendulkar has 785 runs at 157 with 241 not out as his highest score and a total of 3 hundreds and two fifties in 5 Tests. Bradman played 12 innings in 8 Tests for 703 runs at 58.58 with 234 as his highest score and a total of 2 hundreds, 2 fifties, and two ducks. And it’s a great achievement considering the fact that Bradman played in just 9 grounds and on this home ground that has a sort of a legend story Bradman even played half-decent sides that South Africa and India were at that time.

Lets not get selective while making arguments. Tendulkar is a good player, but to call him an all time “great” is just not on. Why should a Dravid or a Laxman not be considered better than Tendulkar? In fact, the best ever Indian win came due to Dravid and Laxman playing a symphony against the best attack in the world. Where was Tendulkar? How many of tendulkar’s innings – part from the chennai test against Pakistan- are actually gems? Not too many. He never occupied the No.3 position or open in Tests–the way Dravid did when the team needed him– so how can he be considered a ever shining beacon for generations of cricketer to follow.
And without the presence of a Dravid or a Laxman in the test team, has Tendulkar managed to carry India? No. In Fact, Pujara has done a better job than tendulkar in holding the Indian team together.