Who's greatest? Sachin or Bradman

[1]

Who is greatest batsmen of all time? Is it Sachin Tendulkar or Don Bradman? That's the question which has been uppermost on the minds of cricket fans all over the world. Sachin has been the run machine, amassing 100 tons in international cricket, while Bradman recorded an average of 99.94 in Test cricket. Here's a look at statistics to determine who's the greatest batsmen of all time:

1) Let us assume that there is a batsman who plays only one Test innings, scores 100 runs and then never plays cricket again, for some reason. Experts would calculate his Test average as 100, which will be .06 above Bradman’s average of 99.94, a misleading and erroneous inference. Ironically, experts would say Bradman  had  played only 70 Test  innings to get  an average of 99.94, whereas Tendulkar as on March 9, 2013 had played 290 innings (excluding the 33 times he was 'not out' from the total number of 323 innings he played) with an average of 54.29. This is also a highly misleading conclusion. (It may be pointed out that the average is obtained by dividing the total runs scored by a batsman by the number of innings he played, excluding the number of times he was unbeaten)2) To assess relative performance and batting ability in Tests, one has to draw the line somewhere and choose a minimum number of innings a batsman ought to have played. Analysts would be quite justified in taking 80 innings as a benchmark. Taking into consideration factors such as average, the total number of innings played and the number of centuries made, and extrapolating the statistics, we would arrive at a figure of 117.08 Test centuries for Bradman, had he played 323 test innings like Tendulkar, as on March 9, 2013 (In 80 Test innings, Bradman scored 29 centuries. The figure of 117.08 for Bradman is arrived at by dividing 323 by 80 and multiplying the figure obtained by 29 - the number of centuries scored by Bradman in just 80 innings).On the other hand, if we use this yardstick, Tendulkar, Lara, and Ponting would register a figure between 10 and 13 centuries only, had  they played just 80 innings like Bradman (this figure is arrived at by first dividing the number of innings they played by the number of innings Bradman played, and then dividing the centuries they scored by the figure so obtained). They would all register only a total number of between 3500 and 4400 runs (this figure is obtained by multiplying the average runs with the number of innings Bradman played) as against Bradman’s 6996 runs. While Bradman’s average is 99.94, the next best is that of Graeme Pollock at  60.97, which is 38. 97 below that of Bradman. Averages of only three other cricketers - George Headley, Herbert Sutcliffe and Adam Gilchrist - fall in the narrow range between 60 and 61.Besides, there are only about 17 other batsmen whose averages fall between 50 and 60. This means Bradman made 40-50  more runs per innings than any other cricketers having an average of below 61. This huge gap in average score can never by bridged by anybody as long as cricket is played, a truly astonishing revelation.3. In 70 Test innings (80 innings less the number of times he was unbeaten -- 10), Bradman scored 6,996 runs at an average of 99.94. He scored 29 Test centuries, which means one century every 2.75 innings or times he went in to bat. A higher figure naturally represents a lower rate of scoring centuries! Bradman’s 29 Test centuries included 12 double centuries, two of which were triple centuries and another 299 not out. Lara with nine scores of 200 or more in Test cricket comes next followed by Hammond with seven double centuries to his credit.In Tests, as on March 9, 2013, Tendulkar had scored 15,746 runs playing 290 innings (excluding the number of 33 innings he was unbeaten from the total number of 323 innings he played) and secured an average of 54.29 runs. This is a huge figure of 45.35 below Bradman’s average of 99.94. He had scored 51 centuries. His rate of scoring centuries is 6.33, i.e. 3.58 higher than Bradman’s which indicates a much lower rate of scoring.Another significant criterion is the fact the despite having played 323 test innings as on March 9, 2013, Tendulkar had not scored a single triple century in Test cricket. In addition, he had scored only 6 double centuries, half of what Bradman hit in 80 test innings.4. In first class matches, including tests, Bradman scored 28,067 runs in 295 innings (excluding the 43 Innings he was unbeaten) at an average of 95.14 runs. He scored 117 centuries at the rate of one ton every 2.88 times he went in to bat. He scored 37 double-centuries including 5 triple centuries and a quadruple century (452 not out). One of the 37 double centuries was a score of 299 not out in a Test match.On the other hand, in first class matches, including tests, Tendulkar had scored, as on March 9, 2013, only 24,997 runs (which is 3,070 runs less than Bradman) in 432 innings (excluding the 49 innings he was unbeaten), though he had played 137 innings more than Bradman. He also scored only 80 Test centuries, which is 37 centuries less than Bradman’s 117 centuries. His average is a pathetic 57.86, which is 37.28 runs below Bradman’s figure. The rate of centuries is 6.01 (one in every 6.01 innings), which is 3.13  above Bradman’s (A higher figure indicates a lower rate of scoring centuries).5) In first class matches, excluding tests, Bradman played 258 innings of which he was unbeaten in 33 innings. He scored 21,071 runs and 88 centuries. So, his average works out to be 93.64. The rate of centuries works out to 2.93, which means a ton every 2.93 Innings.On the other hand, in first class matches, excluding tests, Tendulkar scored 9,251 runs in 142 innings, excluding the 16 Innings in which he was unbeaten, averaging 65.14 runs, 30 runs below Bradman. The total number of centuries is 29 at the rate of one every 5.44 Innings.Thus, it can be seen that in all three formats, Test innings, first class innings including Tests, and first class innings excluding Tests, Bradman is miles ahead of Tendulkar.6) If any good batsman plays a stupendous number of innings, he will accumulate more centuries than any other batsman playing a far lower number of innings. This is exactly what has happened in the case of Tendulkar. As stated above as, on March 9, 2012 Tendulkar had played a huge number of 323 innings in Tests. No wonder he had been able to score 51 centuries. However, in the Australian tour in 2011, his performance had been dismal throughout. Since April 2011, he had not scored, for about an year, a single century and his average kept hovering around about 30 runs. Against a weak Bangladesh side, he scored a century on March 16, 2012. But if he continues to play indefinitely without retiring, he is likely to score a few more centuries but it would quite obviously be no indication of his superior batting ability.7) The pro-Tendulkar lobby is also erroneously equating Tendulkar’s 100th international ton with Bradman's Test average of 99.94. A Test average is different from the total number of international tons. Test average is the true indication of the batting ability of a batsman, whereas international tons keep increasing if a batsman continues to play without retiring. The so called 'cricket experts' conveniently ignore the fact that the term 'international hundreds' does not include hundreds in first class matches, but includes hundreds in a format known as One Day International (ODI) being played these days, but was unknown in Bradman’sera. (The 100 international hundreds of Tendulkar includes 49 tons in ODIs). ODIs are short matches of 50 overs, hurriedly played for a few hours on a single day. Their outcome depends on luck, and requires no great batting ability. Therefore, using performance in the ODIs as a yardstick for comparing the relative merits of two batsmen is incorrect. First class matches, which like Test matches, are spread over a few days and also have two innings, reflecting a batsman's skill. In that format also, Bradman’s record is far superior to Tendulkar’s. The figures speak for themselves. There are no doubts about the Don’s superiority.