Tendulkar's gone past Bradman

[Ghostwriter]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this and irregardless if Sachin gets another ton, he's 89 not out atm, but the 50 Test tons at a better than 50 average does it for me, Bradmans average would've come down if he played more Tests, so the 99.96 argument falls short.
I'll be surprised if Sachin doesn't get to 100 Test and ODI tons, he's on 96 atm.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Tendulkar plays in a very batsman friendly era. And Bradmans average almost doubles Tendulkars.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Righteo]

Irregardless?

Rubbish thread.

 

[damochandler]

neither are better than the other. 2 totally different eras. end of story

 

[Jimthegreat]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this and irregardless if Sachin gets another ton, he's 89 not out atm, but the 50 Test tons at a better than 50 average does it for me, Bradmans average would've come down if he played more Tests, so the 99.96 argument falls short.
I'll be surprised if Sachin doesn't get to 100 Test and ODI tons, he's on 96 atm.

Bradman's only 45 runs ahead on average. Not really that far short of double Tendulkar. Bradman would've averaged a million if he was a sub-continent player on those roads. Greg Chappell was better than Tendulkar. Averaged 53 often on more bowler friendly wickets in the days of those big, fast West Indian quicks, without helmets, who were intend on killing you as much as getting you out.

Besides, there is a thread on this elsewhere.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Bradman's only 45 runs ahead on average. Not really that far short of double Tendulkar. Bradman would've averaged a million if he was a sub-continent player on those roads. Greg Chappell was better than Tendulkar. Averaged 53 often on more bowler friendly wickets in the days of those big, fast West Indian quicks, without helmets, who were intend on killing you as much as getting you out.

Besides, there is a thread on this elsewhere.

But Tendulkar's got 50 Test tons and 46 ODI tons, 3 times as many International tons as Bradman. The rest of your post is opinion.
Bradman was also suspect against the short ball.

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

OP is either an idiot or from the Subcontinent.

Probably both.

 

[Bodicifer]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this and irregardless if Sachin gets another ton, he's 89 not out atm, but the 50 Test tons at a better than 50 average does it for me, Bradmans average would've come down if he played more Tests, so the 99.96 argument falls short.
I'll be surprised if Sachin doesn't get to 100 Test and ODI tons, he's on 96 atm.

Some people know very little about sport yet still manage to believe their own crap.

 

[courtjester]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this and irregardless if Sachin gets another ton, he's 89 not out atm, but the 50 Test tons at a better than 50 average does it for me, Bradmans average would've come down if he played more Tests, so the 99.96 argument falls short.
I'll be surprised if Sachin doesn't get to 100 Test and ODI tons, he's on 96 atm.

Tendulkar IS NOT better than Bradman. No more rubbish threads.

Bradman is the most dominant sport person in any sport, ever. He is so far ahead of the next best it's ridiculous.

Tendulkar is great, but he is on par with about 6 other blokes for 2nd best.

 

[benny_cousins]

Bradman played in an era of uncovered pitches, slow outfields and long boundries. He is by far the greatest. Followed by daylight.

 

[damochandler]

But Tendulkar's got 50 Test tons and 46 ODI tons, 3 times as many International tons as Bradman. The rest of your post is opinion.

and tendulkar has played 100+ morer tests than bradman and 444 more odis than bradman. give it up and you can't say is better than the other. idiot

 

[OzBomber]

Yeah... nah. Even if he did play more tests it still would've been head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[Groucho]

Bradman is so far beyond being compared to other cricketers the only argument is whether the dominance of his sport is greater than the dominance displayed by any other sportsperson in theirs.

 

[Father Jack]

Is Tendulkar as far ahead of his contemparies as Bradman was his?

 

[rickyp]

apologies if there's already a thread on this and irregardless if sachin gets another ton, he's 89 not out atm, but the 50 test tons at a better than 50 average does it for me, bradmans average would've come down if he played more tests, so the 99.96 argument falls short.
I'll be surprised if sachin doesn't get to 100 test and odi tons, he's on 96 atm.

ahh!!!

 

[Ghostwriter]

and tendulkar has played 100+ morer tests than bradman and 444 more odis than bradman. give it up and you can't say is better than the other. idiot

If Bradman played the same amount of tests as Sachin would his average still be 99.96?

 

[Father Jack]

If Bradman played the same amount of tests as Sachin would his average still be 99.96?

more than likely. He missed a few of his peak years due to WW2 after all.

 

[buddyruff]

OP is either an idiot or from the Subcontinent.

Probably both.

Pretty sure they go hand in hand

 

[damochandler]

If Bradman played the same amount of tests as Sachin would his average still be 99.96?

of course not.

they played 2 different eras. you can't say who is better than the other. played different totally different conditions

 

[DaRick]

Another thing about Bradman is that he was as dominant at 40 - after several years away from the game - as he was at 20.

 

[Jolldo87]

If Bradman played the same amount of tests as Sachin would his average still be 99.96?

Nah, you're right. He would've had 6 years extra in his prime so probably would've averaged 115-120.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Another thing about Bradman is that he was as dominant at 40 - after several years away from the game - as he was at 20.

And Tendulkar's not?

 

[SwampCreature]

jozeph plz go

 

[sherb]

But Tendulkar's got 50 Test tons and 46 ODI tons, 3 times as many International tons as Bradman. The rest of your post is opinion.

In approximately 12 times as many international matches as Bradman, (Tendulkar 619 matches, Bradman 52).

Say no more.

 

[Ghostwriter]

more than likely. He missed a few of his peak years due to WW2 after all.

So you're saying that had Bradman played 150+ Tests he would have an average of 99 give or take, what do you base this assumption on?