Bradman/Tendulkar: How Do You Rate The Greatest Ever?

Sir Don Bradman

The Compulsive Hooker read an article in yesterday’s Times* sports section written by that excellent and usually cogent journalist, Simon Barnes, on the subject of ‘greatest ever’ players and the difficulties of comparing across the eras. It is a rare sport after all that has not changed dramatically in certain ways and, in some, almost completely so that the form of  the game is unrecognisable from its humble beginnings.

The main example used in Barnes’ article is the very topical comparison of the highest international run scorer of all time, Sachin Tendulkar, to the the batsman most would consider to be the unparalleled example of this craft, Sir Donald Bradman. Before we get any further we would like to say that this article is not supposed to be a piece looking at the two players relative merits in any great depth; but to question the arguments used in the Times piece in question.

Comparing players across the ages is of course something that any sports fan will have indulged in at some stage – usually in a bar and often quite vociferously. Indeed we at the Compulsive Hooker are eminently guilty of this having only recently taken the time (and not an inconsiderable amount of it either) to pick our Test Cricket All Time World XI. On a website in which our average article garners only three or four comments and responses currently, the fact that this piece has so far gained twenty seven responses says it all. These are frequently thorny subjects as not a small amount of partisanship inevitably comes into it; along with the fact that there are relatively few eye witnesses around today who, in this instance, would have seen both Bradman and Tendulkar at their peaks (and most importantly perhaps, been able to judge).

Sachin Tendulkar

The conclusion of the article is eminently sensible and one with which we heartily agree; Barnes deciding that ‘we must at least entertain the possibility that in different eras, Bradman, [George] Best and [Jim] Clark would have been lesser figures.” (For those who might not know the other two names George Best was a footballer from Northern Ireland and Manchester United, whilst Jim Clark was the dominant Formula 1 Racing driver from the ’60’s).

What Barnes is not saying is that Tendulkar is better than Bradman – rather that we must consider the possibility of this being the case. It is also not this possibility (which we agree could be so) that has got us thinking but, instead, it is the methods with which people compare these greats from across the ages that has prompted us to write this article.

The old arguments regarding the speed and quality of modern day bowling; how Bradman would have fared with a helmet; how the improved standards of fielding would have affected his ability to score; the higher stakes nature of modern cricket and many more reasons have been trotted out like a faithful old hound. Yet, equally, this can be reversed by asking whether Tendulkar would have fared as well in Bradman’s time – an era of difficult and uncovered pitches making batting tricky; batting without a helmet against the fast bowlers of the day (and there were some to rank up with anything around in the modern game – think Larwood, Lindwall et al); using a bat that weighed closed to two pounds rather than his modern day monster which cause even defensive shots go for four – the list goes on.

In our opinion, whilst obviously a method which has its own flaws, the best way – and really the only way – is to compare how a player rates against their contemporaries and from that compare the all time greats.

We must acknowledge of course that one thing modern science and training techniques have given sport is a narrowing at the top – something that can be seen most emphatically in something as easily quantifiable as athletics. There are more people operating in that top three or four per cent than there used to be but it still remains very rare that a Beamon-esque (or perhaps Usain Bolt like) moment occurs.

Beamon and Bolt have at different moments over the last 50 years annihilated (for that is the only word) the previous records by such a distance that they could undoubtedly be considered amongst the greatest, if not perhaps, the greatest ever. Beamon’s 1968 long jump record has of course since been broken but the point remains – perhaps given modern training methods and techniques, Beamon could have even improved further on that mark and could therefore conceivably have been the greatest long jumper in history.

What is certain is that Bradman was so far ahead of his contemporaries and indeed, so far ahead of anyone in the game ever statistically, that it seems reasonable to us to call him the best ever. Tendulkar, for all his brilliance (and don’t take us the wrong way on this) is not even reckoned by some to have been the best player of his era. Brian Lara, for example, is someone who could reasonably challenge for this honour. For the record our money is on Tendulkar, but, if he is not unanimously rated as the best of his era, it is unlikely he is the best of all time – that is of course unless Lara is also challenging for the very same honour…

Therefore suggesting Bradman would not have been as good as Tendulkar in the modern era for the reasons given by Barnes (not that he himself is actually suggesting this is the case) assumes that automatically Tendulkar would have been as fine a player then as he is now – something that in our opinion is simply not a given. It is a different argument as to whether Bradman could have survived in the modern game or Tendulkar in the cricket of the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s.

The Compulsive Hooker’s view is that we would back both Tendulkar and Bradman to adjust their games to the demands of either era; or put differently, had they been born in reverse order still to be up there with similar records that you see today. It is conceivable, as Barnes rightly suggests, that Bradman might have found the physical demands tougher which could perhaps have affected his record downwards slightly and, likewise, potentially Tendulkar’s may have gone up – but the difference is so big to start with that, for us at least, it is still Bradman.

Ultimately, we would like to say that we are not suggesting that people stop having these discussions – that would obviously be highly hypocritical – but to realise that the argument; ‘he wouldn’t have fared so well in todays game’ is moot when talking about best ever elevens.

Fun – but still moot!

*Due to the Times incredibly annoying habit of  making you pay to view their articles, we cannot find the article itself to link to so you’re going to have to trust us that we have been fair to the piece in question!