[Update: 1/26/2011 Corrections were made after some errors were pointed out by the readers. The corrections are highlighted using superscript numbers. Thank you readers.]
Comparisons are inevitable. It’s an integral part of a sports aficionado’s life. That’s what makes following sports more thrilling, sometimes even draining as was the case with me. A good part of my adolescence was eaten up by the Sachin vs Lara and Agassi vs Sampras debates. Damn Andre – well, that’s a story for another day. We had fun; we had heated arguments with even the odd use of fists at times; diverted hours and hours of our homework time into these debates. What did we gain? Looking back, it’s easier to say nothing much, but that’s missing the point.
As exciting as comparisons can be, they are also tricky. Expressing your passion is one thing, but to disrespect players in the process is entirely another, especially when comparisons are done across eras. Sachin vs Sunny was not too uncommon a debate at home, and a typically tricky one. How do you compare the two? Do you ever win in this argument? Eventually, we would all agree that Sachin is better and then add Sunny was no lesser! Compromises…
The problem with comparisons across eras is that there will always be a certain bias on either side. The player from the past is often romanticized too much. My Dad would talk as if Richards never had a failure and that Holding was consistently unplayable all the time. The bias in favour of the present players is that, every generation wants to feel privileged that they have perhaps seen the greatest player ever. So whoever is the best of that generation would typically have staked a claim to be the greatest ever at some stage.
In Tennis, Laver was considered the greatest, then Sampras came along and just when Federer seemed to have sealed the debate, Rafa is asking a few uncomfortable questions. So long as the present generation player achieves a certain peak, the question is always begging to be asked. Think of all the sports that you know and check if there is an active GOAT debate about a current player taking place. My bet is that it should be happening in most sports. And with better coaching, fitness and technology the results are getting better and better as well. How do you make all these factors neutral and then compare across eras?
Sachin is at that stage of his career, where he has achieved all that’s possible for a modern day batsman to achieve. He’s arguably the most complete batsman Cricket has seen. When he eventually retires, he would leave behind a record that’s out of reach of a few generations to come at least. And given the way he’s worshiped in India and elsewhere, it’s hardly surprising that one topic is revisited every time he achieves a new landmark. He scores 35 Test hundreds, the question is asked. Gets past Lara, scores an ODI double hundred, completes 50 test centuries – on all these occasions this quintessential question is asked. Is Sachin the greatest batsman ever?
Unlike most other Sports, Cricket has been rather unfortunate not to be pondering about this question more frequently. For nearly 60 years, the question was hardly revisited. Perhaps, no other Sport has a benchmark like Bradman. In many ways, it’s appropriate that Sachin has triggered this question. If at all there’s any heir apparent to Bradman in Cricket, it has to be Sachin, and Don himself had provided an open endorsement for the same. In terms of being a national icon, in fact even playing a part in molding the country’s identity, their stature in the game, the value of their wicket to the opponent – Sachin merely seems to be a modern day avatar of Don.
Having said that, that’s where the indulgence should stop. To take it any more seriously is rude, crass and tasteless. To say that Sachin has played against a lot more countries, in more formats and has been equally successful across all, to tilt the argument in his favor is obnoxious.That Don Bradman is a statistical marvel is merely a post scriptum. He was the single most important figure in Cricket during his time. If Sachin played his part in making Cricket richer, Don made it bigger. He captured the imagination of people in all the cricket playing countries and beyond. For a nation finding its feet, he was a hero without an equal. He almost shaped their identity in many ways. In a country where you may spot a sporting hero in every alternate lane, Australia still vibrates with an unparalleled obsession to Bradman, after more than 60 years since he last played for Australia. How many of our younger generation even know CK Nayudu? As CLR James famously said: “Who will write a biography of Sir Donald Bradman, must be able to write a history of Australia in the same period”
It’s a bit unfortunate that Bradman’s career is etched in our memory primarily in terms of his average. It’s a shame even. He was so far ahead of his contemporaries on so many dimensions. To score nearly 100 in every innings is stupendous enough. But to do that, not just in 54 Tests but in 234 First Class matches (95.14 is as incredible as 99.94) is inhuman. And his average was even higher in his non-FC matches played in North America too. So what if he played in only two countries and against 4 opponents, that’s all that he could have done. He couldn’t have time-travelled to future and played in 10 countries. Now let’s look at it backwards, If Sachin had to play against just 4 teams in 2 countries, would he have been as successful?
The best way to highlight the gulf is to look at how both of them have fared against their respective peers during their era. [Bradman .Sachin]. The top 5 in Sachin’s era are very close to each other. In fact one is even an all-rounder. Wasim Akram had this famous theory that if you get Sachin out, the match is nearly won. That is quite a compliment. But consider this: an entire team was built around the idea of attacking Bradman. Every strategy, every thought conceived for the tour was with a view to dismiss Bradman, as if the rest of the team didn’t matter. And the rest are no ordinary men either, they count some of the greatest of the game among them. Not that the strategy was entirely legitimate, at least far from sporting. Outside of match-fixing, Bodyline is perhaps the only controversy which shook the Cricket establishment completely. And despite that his record in that series is comparable with all the modern day greats’ career averages. His worst is others’ median. That’s the measure of the man.
If he had a maniacal appetite to pile up big scores, he had a Sehwag’ian (there you go, my bias in favor of the contemporary!) attitude to go with it. Even Sehwag hasn’t a scored a century in a session yet (though he came mighty close once), but Bradman nearly did that thrice in the same day. Now, hold your breath and think again – scored a hundred in the first two sessions and nearly one in the third as well (105, 115 and 89). If Brabourne felt a massacre for the Sri Lankans, what do you call this2? He even scored a 452 n.o in 415 minutes in FC cricket against Queensland. That’s almost a run a ball3. There you go, here was a batsman who was Sachin, CK Nayudu and Sehwag all rolled into one and then a little more.
He broke every possible batting record that there was (though Wally Hammond crossed his aggregate runs a few months after he retired1). What would have been the scale of his achievement if not for war intervening his career, is beyond mortals’ imagination. He was the first one to be knighted for his cricketing achievements alone. He wrote extensively on the game, in his own way liberated the game from the rigidness of the English methods, had his share of tiffs with the management. In fact, he even went on a cricketing tour to USA and Canada after his marriage, after one of his many tiffs with the administrators. The entire tour was marketed around Bradman, he was presented as the face of the game. He was dubbed the “Babe Ruth of Cricket”. In fact, the legends even met each other once during that tour. All this in a country which is as foreign to Cricket as BCCI is to transparency and integrity. Now, contrast that with Mohali when Sachin surpassed Lara.
So, the next time Sachin crosses another landmark, maybe when he completes hundred international centuries, let’s get overjoyed, indulge ourselves and celebrate him as the second greatest batsman of all time. Let’s draw the line there. Not an inch more.
The equivalent of 2 great batsmen; a highly successful captain; a national icon beyond parallel; Sir Donald Bradman – with due respect to Sir Garfield Sobers – is not merely the greatest batsman but perhaps the greatest Cricketer ever.
——
1 – had earlier presumed that Bradman didn’t hold the record for aggregate runs at the time of his retirement, thanks to@fromthegully’s comments below.
2 – erroneously mentioned that Don scored hundreds in each of the 3 sessions. Thanks again to @fromthegully for pointing it out.
3 – had presumed it was better than run a ball. David Barry points out in his comment below that it was scored in 465 balls.
—————————
Guest Article by Mahesh Sethuraman
Mahesh started out as India’s answer to Michael Holding and the work is still in progress 15 years hence ; wanted to be an Ilayaraja – but since he was more interested in cappuccino than kaapi, it reached a dead end soon; wanted to become a Roger Federer – his respect for him stopped him from insulting him anymore; Thought would become a Stephen Henry – only to find out that Snooker was too expensive to pursue. Then finally decided to settle for something less – did an MBA and is currently looking for funds to set up his hedge fund. Investors may tweet him @cornerd and so can others. He blogs at http://cornerd.posterus.com
Masuud Qazi
January 17, 2011
That is sheer top drawer stuff. One, to come up with such thorough work and to compile it is brilliant. Second, to constantly maintain the equilibrium of comparison with some great points was just a pleasure to read.
Sometimes (well tbh, most of the times), this very debate has been touched fruitlessly and with way too much prejudice. Suffice to say, with logic, negation of not comparing eras and personalities, and keeping the context of the game and its history it encompasses, we should not trudge on to the subject which doesn’t need to be insulted by talking on it. And if done, such comprehensive yet compact pieces should be the answer. One of the very best posts on clear cricket, surely.
David Barry
January 17, 2011
Just a nitpick: remember that over-rates were much, much higher in Bradman’s time than they are today. His 452 not out was scored off 465 balls, and his 334 off 448 balls. His Test career strike rate was about 61. Sehwag scores much faster in terms of runs per ball than Bradman did.
Having said that, overall run rates were much lower in Bradman’s time, so he was almost as far ahead of his peers as Sehwag. The overall batting strike rate in Bradman’s era (excluding Bradman) was about 41.54. The overall batting strike rate in Sehwag’s era has been 52.20. Bradman’s SR of 61 is therefore about 1.47 times that of his peers, whereas Sehwag is at 1.57 times.
[Technical note: those overall strike rates are calculated from the bowling figures, so they probably include a few stray no-balls and wides.]
ManInBeige
January 17, 2011
One of the most interesting and thoughtful articles on the Bradman/Tendulkar debate I’ve ever read – thank you. I hadn’t appreciated Bradman’s FC average before – or the number of games it was compiled over. Truly astonishing statistics.
cornerd
January 17, 2011
@Masuus and @ManInBeige Thanks for the appreciative words.
@DavidBarry
Hah! I was a tad casual in assuming that innings would have been better than a run a ball. Thanks for pointing it out. Interesting to know that we have strike rates of players (derived I would guess) for that period. Any source on how these strike rates were arrived at? Thanks.
David Barry
January 17, 2011
Any source on how these strike rates were arrived at?
For Bradman there’s actually only 11 of his Test innings where the balls faced isn’t recorded in the Cricinfo scorecards, so the easiest estimate of his career strike rate is to just use those innings, which gives a SR of 58.6.
But the minutes are recorded for all of his innings, so what we can do is to work out the relationship between minutes and balls faced (ie, make a scatterplot of balls faced against minutes, and find the regression line) and use that to estimate the balls faced in the remaining 11 innings. Doing this gives Bradman a SR of 61.4.
Charles Davis has done much, much more work than that – he’s consulted the original scorebooks and cross-checked with newspaper reports, etc. to get accurate balls-faced data or at least decent estimates for every major batsman in Test history. The results of his work are summarised here. Davis’s is the definitive work on this topic.
clearcricket
January 17, 2011
Dave,
Thank you very much for the input. I have sent you an email. Could you respond to it, please?
Cheers.
-Editor.
knowledge_eater
January 18, 2011
The thing is, I have really hard time believing in Ghosts, Aliens and Gods unless I see one. Does anyone thinks Donald Bradman look like Kevin Spacey little bit?
fromthegully
January 18, 2011
Excellent stuff!
A couple of minor points –
Bradman scored 105, 115 and 89 for 309 runs in a day during his knock of 334 (Leeds 1930).
I am not aware if he scored centuries in each session in his other triple hundred.
I think he did hold the record for run aggregate briefly till Hammond surpassed him.
To my knowledge only Jahangir Khan’s 5 year unbeaten record in squash matches the level of dominance established by Bradman in batting.
David Barry
January 18, 2011
Wayne Gretzky in the NHL has a similar level of dominance – 2857 regular season points, with Mark Messier second on the all-time list with 1887.
cornerd
January 18, 2011
@fromthegully
That was a ridiculously silly mistake from me. Sorry! I remember reading the break up of runs per session of his 309 in a day in cricinfo. I wrote those numbers out of memory and this was bad memory (I told you we romanticize the past too much :))….
Bingo on the Hammod point again. Hammond had 6817 when Bradman retired. I did the wrong filter in Cricinfo. searched for data from Bradman’s first match till Dec 31 1948, instead of Aug 1948 when Bradman retired 🙂 http://bit.ly/f7ax3Z – here is the correct filter.
Thanks for pointing them out. I hope every reads all the comments as well. else I should add a PS with these corrections.
Jahangir Khan was absolutely terrific. Unbeaten for 5 years and more than 500 matches on the trot! I remember Wasim Akram picking him as one of the 3 greatest sportsmen ever in one of the chat shows on ESPN. But I am not sure if that’s comparable with Bradman in Cricket. Winning streak is sort of very different from raising the standards of a common metric so to say, isn’t it?
fromthegully
January 19, 2011
Agree that winning streak is different from raising the standards of a common metric as you put it. I was only comparing levels of dominance. Bradman in batting and Jahangir Khan in squash over respective contemporaries. Admittedly not a comparable yardstick given that Bradman dominated one aspect of a team game and Jahangir Khan dominated the sport in an individual game.
As for the article, I do agree with the overall picture. Indeed it annoys me when people refuse to see beyond their nose while casually dismissing all past achievements. Too bad most of them, in this debate atleast, are fellow countrymen. I expect 20 years hence there will be a bunch of people trashing SRT!
cornerd
January 19, 2011
Exactly. maybe 50 years later someone would end up scoring 25000 T-20 runs agt 25 different countries at a strike rate of 150 and a decent test record to boot. Imagine the thought of someone asking if he’s better than Sachin. Stretching it a bit far, but a scary thought nevertheless!
Having said that, in a way it’s also apt that Sachin has made people revisit this question. In fact, that in itself is a huge compliment. But again, that’s where I would draw the line.
knowledge_eater
January 19, 2011
That’s when the New Cornerd will appear and write an exceptional article like this even without seeing Bradman Bat 😀
It’s goona happen surely, that’s when I will shake my head, and say “these kids, what have they seen! They have seen nothing.” 🙂
cornerd
January 20, 2011
Hahaha. Good one.
Golandaaz
January 19, 2011
Absolute top class article. Comparison with peers, is something that is essential and always overlooked in this debate. It was a pleasure reading this post!