How can average not be a good measure of how good a player is? I mean Bradman averaged 99 in 52 Test matches. That is a ratio of runs per game better than any batsman that's ever played the game by a country mile, including Sachin Tendulkar. Not to mention playing on uncovered wickets. It is far too difficult to compare the generations and different conditions players where accustomed to in their careers but look at it this way:
Bradman was far and away the best batsman in his era, with a far superior average, ratio of runs per game and ratio of centuries scored per game than the player closest to him (I do not know who that is). Those are without doubt the barometers used to determine a good batsman and that average of 99 in 52 Test matches is astronomical compared to anyone else who has ever played the game of cricket in any generation. I had to look this one up but he also in 234 First class games, averaged 95!! That is F***ing insane.
Tendulkar on the other hand, is almost definitely the second greatest batsman to play the game. He holds the record for most runs and centuries in all forms of the game, and has been the best batsman in the world for a very long time. But in his generation he has had players close(closish) to matching him. For example, Jacques Kallis has a better average than him...that would suggest that perhaps Kallis scores runs at a better ratio per game than Tendulkar considering they've both played well over 100 Test matches.
I am not demeaning Tendulkar's achievements in any way because to me he is an amazing player, the best in the world at the minute and IMO the second best ever to play the game. I know that Indian's worship him, and rightly so, but its hard to believe that any sane person could diminish Bradman's achievements in favour of any other player, even if that other player is Sachin Tendulkar.
And I shall leave it there. Close the thread, the World Cup is over.
Logged