Tennis vs Cricket

[chandu612]

"cricket" I guess is more relevant here and make us think if most number of slams can be used as single big factor in determining GOAT.

In Cricket, Bradman is widely considered as GOAT. Even though you a lot of people make a case for Tendulkar. Both played some 50 years apart.Here are the numbers.
Tendulkar made 16,000+ runs and still counting over 198 matches, averaging 55 per innings.
(A player with 10,000+ averaging above 50 is considered an altime great. Also playing 100 matches is a feat in itself)

Bradman played 50 matches, scored some 5000 runs averaging 100.

Also there is a newer most popular version of the game which was not played in Bradman's era.
Tendulkar made some 18,000+ runs, over some 463 matches averaging 45 per innings.
(A player playing 300+ matches or having 10,000+ runs at average of 40 is considered as an all time great)
On top of that Tendulkar made 100 centuries and counting to Bradman's 34.


Still Bradman who played mostly against one team in one type of conditions compared to 10+ teams Tendulkar played against on all sorts of conditions,
is widely and almost officially considered the GOAT.

Here is the list of records by Tendulkar. He is a child prodigy and also a trademark of consistency for almost 2.5 decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieve...chin_Tendulkar

So can we really call Federer based on 17 slams and other records?
__________________

[Bobby Jr]

But Bradman didn't have to compete against others using polyester cricket bats.

Seriously, cricket comparisons over such a long period of time have many issues, just like tennis. In Bradman's era the one-day format didn't exist yet so Tendulkar has split his career efforts over the two formats (20/20 not included for obvious reasons), one of which is much more risk-oriented and therefore great batsmen tend to have a broader spread of scores than their peers from years gone by.

[chandu612]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

But Bradman didn't have to compete against others using polyester cricket bats.

Seriously, cricket comparisons over such a long period of time have many issues, just like tennis. In Bradman's era the one-day format didn't exist yet so Tendulkar has split his career efforts over the two formats (20/20 not included for obvious reasons), one of which is much more risk-oriented and therefore great batsmen tend to have a broader spread of scores than their peers from years gone by.

Yes..but the point is Tendulkar was a prodigy at the age of 16...and was world no.1 when he was 37..He has more than 10,000+ runs more than the second best...His 100 centuries to 70 of the second best..Single-handedly, almost won the world cup in 1996 and 2003 being part of a mediocre team and finally succedeed in 2011..Was a nightmare to the best teams in the world for decades.

And then you have the GOAT Bradman, who averaged 100 over 50 matches.
The experts seemed to vote for Brilliance over consistency. Mind you it takes a different sort for brilliance to maintain the top level for 25 years.

Why is it seen so differently in tennis?

[Goosehead]

Tendulkar averages 53 in tests..less than kallis, and kallis has 285 wks,

Tendulkar is too scared to retire and the selectors are too scared to drop him..he is abysmal now.

[Rock Strongo]

Cricket... The sport with unbelievably complicated rules for anyone not living in the Commonwealth.

[tennisaddict]

In cricket, measure of greatness is average. Bradman is highest.

In tennis, measure of greatness is majors. Federer is highest.

Hence they both are GOATS and all the others deserve honorable mention.

[HughJars]

Relative to anyone else in their particular era - Bradman is and will be the best that has ever been. They played on uncovered pitches in his day, using toothpick cricket bats, no helmets and barely any protection. And the bowlers (eg: Larwood) still bowled around 140km/h. He carried a nation, and led his side to victory after victory. He is a national treasure, and a symbolism of the Australian fighting spirit. He set a precedent for Australia to perform outside of its means (i.e population/resources). Look at all the success we've had in cricket, Olympics, previously in tennis, rugby etc considering our tiny population.

Tendulkar - well he's had great longetivity and consistency. Amazing, although why he is still playing beats me. But in his era, India hasn't performed remarkably well for a consistent period, even though he has been in the team.

The stupid sizes of modern bats, the tiny outfields and the flat and slow nature of the Indian pitches he batted on for a large portion of his career as far as I'm concerned nullifies his claim as best ever. Plus he wasn't a great captain.

Kallis (amazing record as an all-rounder, with a higher test batting average!) and Ponting (batting and captaincy records) would rate higher than him I would think.

Bradman........................................... Daylight..................

[sureshs]

Well, cricket is not just about batting

[Bartelby]

They have baseball on late night tv and I can assure everyone that it makes test cricket on even a bad day look like a fast-paced, exciting game and I don't watch cricket.

[Goosehead]

ooooooohh jimmy jimmy......

..jimmy jimmy jimmy Jimmy Anderson.

[chandu612]

Originally Posted by HughJars

.

They played on uncovered pitches in his day, using toothpick cricket bats, no helmets and barely any protection.

They also didnt have LBWs for the first part of his career, tech to analyze batsman before hand etc...Also how do you know the quality of bowlers is not below par in that era when cricket is not the only profession of most most players..Lara once said, he was told Bradman faced poor bowling. He milked India which is like current day Bermuda team then for 1000 runs.
Apart from that he mostly played against just 1 team ie, Eng. Imagine if we tell Sachin that he has to play against the same 4 fast bowlers and 1 spinner in the next 10 years, and that too in two countries. You cant really compare play of two eras.

He carried a nation, and led his side to victory after victory
So did Tendulkar. He has the record for MOMs. And every time we beat Aus in the last two decades is coz of Tendulkar. Can we say the same about kallis?

although why he is still playing beats me.
What was Pontings avg in the last three years of retirement? Did you feel the same about Ponting then?

flat and slow nature of the Indian pitches
Why did Ponting and Lara fail miserably in those flat, slow pitches?

he batted on for a large portion of his career
You better check the records again there

Kallis and Ponting would rate higher than him I would think.
All ex cricketers, sports journalists and pundits came up with all time great primary and secondry teams. Both of them dont figure in the teams where Sachin makes the primary team. You pick those two. So?

Also Sachin is 2nd best Test batsman and 2 nd Best ODI best batsman in Wisdens all time list. May be coz he succeeded in both, some can make a GOAT case for him? He also tops Warnes list and many other greats lists.

Scoring 5000 runs in 50 tests is amazing but doable. Hussey almost averaged 90 for 30 tests. We have seen players average 100 overs a span for 20 tests. To break sachins records, you need someone to come at the age of 16-17 and play till 40 all he while being in top 10. And exceed in both formats playing around 700 matches not 50. Which I cant see happening in 100s of years.

But I agree, the current consensus is more titlted towards Bradman who was brilliant over 50 tests. Why is the same not applied to tennis? Basically its finding out who is best in their peak even if the GOAT has less than half the number of titles of the most successful.

[Nitish]

Originally Posted by chandu612

They played on uncovered pitches in his day, using toothpick cricket bats, no helmets and barely any protection.

They also didnt have LBWs for the first part of his career, tech to analyze batsman before hand etc...Also how do you know the quality of bowlers is not below par in that era when cricket is not the only profession of most most players..Lara once said, he was told Bradman faced poor bowling. He milked India which is like current day Bermuda team then for 1000 runs.
Apart from that he mostly played against just 1 team ie, Eng. Imagine if we tell Sachin that he has to play against the same 4 fast bowlers and 1 spinner in the next 10 years, and that too in two countries. You cant really compare play of two eras.

He carried a nation, and led his side to victory after victory
So did Tendulkar. He has the record for MOMs. And every time we beat Aus in the last two decades is coz of Tendulkar. Can we say the same about kallis?

although why he is still playing beats me.
What was Pontings avg in the last three years of retirement? Did you feel the same about Ponting then?

flat and slow nature of the Indian pitches
Why did Ponting and Lara fail miserably in those flat, slow pitches?

he batted on for a large portion of his career
You better check the records again there

Kallis and Ponting would rate higher than him I would think.
All ex cricketers, sports journalists and pundits came up with all time great primary and secondry teams. Both of them dont figure in the teams where Sachin makes the primary team. You pick those two. So?

Also Sachin is 2nd best Test batsman and 2 nd Best ODI best batsman in Wisdens all time list. May be coz he succeeded in both, some can make a GOAT case for him? He also tops Warnes list and many other greats lists.

Scoring 5000 runs in 50 tests is amazing but doable. Hussey almost averaged 90 for 30 tests. We have seen players average 100 overs a span for 20 tests. To break sachins records, you need someone to come at the age of 16-17 and play till 40 all he while being in top 10. And exceed in both formats playing around 700 matches not 50. Which I cant see happening in 100s of years.

But I agree, the current consensus is more titlted towards Bradman who was brilliant over 50 tests. Why is the same not applied to tennis? Basically its finding out who is best in their peak even if the GOAT has less than half the number of titles of the most successful.

Good points all around but if you consider just the peak level then a guy like safin would be ahead of both fed and nadal.Its about sustaining that peak level of play for a certain period of time.regarding the tendulkar-bradman debate its impossible to compare eras but tendulkars longevity and consistency is often overlooked.Feds peak level of play was better than nadal IMO,fed managed to bagel nadal on three separate occasions but he was unable to maintain that level.If you look at their matches(when they were competitive)fed usually pulls away to an early lead but rafa just waits the storm out and comes back.This is a quote from Rafa's autobiography
“You’re not
going to beat him on talent, on the brilliance of your shot-making. He’ll
always be more able to make a winner out of nothing than you. So you
have to press him all the time, force him to play at the very limit of his
abilities.”
When its all said and done i think nadal will have the better records.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by chandu612

Yes..but the point is Tendulkar was a prodigy at the age of 16...and was world no.1 when he was 37..He has more than 10,000+ runs more than the second best...His 100 centuries to 70 of the second best..Single-handedly, almost won the world cup in 1996 and 2003 being part of a mediocre team and finally succedeed in 2011..Was a nightmare to the best teams in the world for decades.

And then you have the GOAT Bradman, who averaged 100 over 50 matches.
The experts seemed to vote for Brilliance over consistency. Mind you it takes a different sort for brilliance to maintain the top level for 25 years.

Why is it seen so differently in tennis?

Tendulkar isn't ahead of his peers to the same ridiculous extent that Bradman was. It was actually absurd how much better Bradman was than anybody else. Tendulkar probably is the greatest player of the last 25 or so years but guys like Kallis, Muralitharan, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Lara, are not a million miles away, and those batsman even have a comparable or better average score than Tendulkar in test matches. Anyway about the brilliance VS longevity, it isn't like Bradman had a short career, but as you know they didn't play test matches at such a furious frequency back then as they do today.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Basically the peak vs longevity argument is a valid and excellent point of discussion but so also is the sort of gap one has separated himself between him and his peers.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Rock Strongo

Cricket... The sport with unbelievably complicated rules for anyone not living in the Commonwealth.

It's an *amazing* sport.

[Dark Magician]

Originally Posted by chandu612

They played on uncovered pitches in his day, using toothpick cricket bats, no helmets and barely any protection.

They also didnt have LBWs for the first part of his career, tech to analyze batsman before hand etc...Also how do you know the quality of bowlers is not below par in that era when cricket is not the only profession of most most players..Lara once said, he was told Bradman faced poor bowling. He milked India which is like current day Bermuda team then for 1000 runs.
Apart from that he mostly played against just 1 team ie, Eng. Imagine if we tell Sachin that he has to play against the same 4 fast bowlers and 1 spinner in the next 10 years, and that too in two countries. You cant really compare play of two eras.

He carried a nation, and led his side to victory after victory
So did Tendulkar. He has the record for MOMs. And every time we beat Aus in the last two decades is coz of Tendulkar. Can we say the same about kallis?

although why he is still playing beats me.
What was Pontings avg in the last three years of retirement? Did you feel the same about Ponting then?

flat and slow nature of the Indian pitches
Why did Ponting and Lara fail miserably in those flat, slow pitches?

he batted on for a large portion of his career
You better check the records again there

Kallis and Ponting would rate higher than him I would think.
All ex cricketers, sports journalists and pundits came up with all time great primary and secondry teams. Both of them dont figure in the teams where Sachin makes the primary team. You pick those two. So?

Also Sachin is 2nd best Test batsman and 2 nd Best ODI best batsman in Wisdens all time list. May be coz he succeeded in both, some can make a GOAT case for him? He also tops Warnes list and many other greats lists.

Scoring 5000 runs in 50 tests is amazing but doable. Hussey almost averaged 90 for 30 tests. We have seen players average 100 overs a span for 20 tests. To break sachins records, you need someone to come at the age of 16-17 and play till 40 all he while being in top 10. And exceed in both formats playing around 700 matches not 50. Which I cant see happening in 100s of years.

But I agree, the current consensus is more titlted towards Bradman who was brilliant over 50 tests. Why is the same not applied to tennis? Basically its finding out who is best in their peak even if the GOAT has less than half the number of titles of the most successful.

Agree totally. Though i will say just like in tennis its difficult to compare players like roger to laver. Tendulkar and Don can't be compared so easily. Plus i think Tendulkar's ODI record deteriorates just a little bit due to his beginning i.e. Playing in middle order for 60 matches when top order had failed. It was only after him asking to open for the team,he showed his true caliber.

[diggler]

How can Bradman be criticised for longevity? He played test cricket from 1928 to 1948. He lost a few years because of that war thing. That's Hitler's fault, not Bradman's.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by diggler

How can Bradman be criticised for longevity? He played test cricket from 1928 to 1948. He lost a few years because of that war thing. That's Hitler's fault, not Bradman's.

Yeh, they just didn't play tests with as much frequency back then.

[Hitman]

Why should only batting stats be taken into account when determing the GOAT in cricket? Isn't the bowler just as influential in the deciding the fate of a match?

I guess the true GOAT would have to take bowling stats, number of wickets taken etc into play, just as much as batting and making runs stats.

And what about catches?

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Why should only batting stats be taken into account when determing the GOAT in cricket? Isn't the bowler just as influential in the deciding the fate of a match?

I guess the true GOAT would have to take bowling stats, number of wickets taken etc into play, just as much as batting and making runs stats.

And what about catches?

Yes, and this is a big part of why Sobers is often seen as one who challenges Bradman as the best ever, with his fantastic all round skills with bat, ball and in the field. Bradman's average though was as such that he made up TWO top tier batsman, quite literally. Just think about that for a moment... in-sanity.

However I am of the opinion that the true greatest of cricket will end up being an all rounder. Sobers has his argument, Kallis' career efficiency has been amazing and I rate Imran Khan EXTREMELY highly, who was a truly elite bowler rather than just being a good bowler for all rounder standards PLUS he was rather useful with the bat in hand, not to mention that he is one of the greatest captains ever. Imran Khan, my softest spot goes for him.