The morning news across the media did their rounds of analysis in various formats about Sir Donald Bradman (Sir DB) and Sir Sachin Tendulkar (Sir ST). They are both great in their own contexts. But in reality Sir DB is the teacher and Sir ST is an ardent student. Any teacher will be happy to have his student emulate him and in this case too that has what has happened. When I say they are incomparable there are wide reasons from my point of view which I have discussed below, please post your views, so we could form a consensus on the issue.
Three days before the Boxing Day Test - where Tendulkar will continue his quest for a hundredth international hundred as a four-Test series with Australia gets under way. A researcher at Queensland's Griffith University claims Tendulkar is now the greatest batsman of all time, slightly eclipsing Bradman on a ranking system he devised applying economic principles to batting scores. Dr Rohde's said it was possible that Tendulkar and Bradman could swap their places many times before the Indian retires as a dip in form would affect his standing.
The 38-year-old Tendulkar has a world-record 15,183 runs from 184 Tests at an average of 56.02 since making his debut in 1989. Bradman, on the other hand, played 52 Tests from 1928 to 1948, scoring 6996 runs at an astonishing average of 99.94. He died in 2001 aged 92.
Well now the argument extended by me comes into ploy. I personally feel comparing between the two is unwarranted, by doing so the end result would tilt the scales to one side as that is what stats are meant for. But by doing so we are depriving the pride to one of the stalwarts who have played in two different eras and set standards in their own eras.
The primary aspect the longevity of the play of individual players Sir ST has spent over twenty years on the field and played maximum number of tests when compared to Sir DB. True but Sir DB had been deprived of seven long years of prime time game to World War II. On the other hand statisticians will say taking the average of the seniors play then the senior would have scored more runs. But realty matters as the junior has played the long innings even after resting frequently from injuries and every time he recovers and comes on to the field it is like starting from the scratch.
Next major issue is the senior played only against England, as in those times, but the junior has trotted the globe wielding his willow in climates that were far from his origin country. That makes a difference.
The last is the versatility expressed by the junior, who has played all formats of the game. The senior was fairly deprived of the shorter versions. A comparison of the duo is really unwarranted. Yes of course one can compare the styles of the Guru and Shishya in wielding their willows. When I talk about styles a sweet memory from the senior’s memoirs is clipped in for your reference.
To recall Bradman's tale about watching Tendulkar on television, told to Ray Martin in 1996, became the stuff of legend. Five years before his death he told Martin that he noticed similarities between the way the then 23-year-old Indian played and himself after seeing him bat in one-day internationals. ''I was very, very struck by his technique, so I asked my wife to come look at him,'' Bradman said. ''Now I never saw myself play, but I feel that this fellow is playing much the same as I used to play, and she looked at him on the television and said yes, there is a similarity between the two. ''To me it's his compactness, his technique, his stroke production; it all seemed to gel as far as I was concerned … that was how I felt.''
On whatever pretexts the comparison in any other format will not even be appreciated by Sachin too. Because Sachin respects the Don as his mentor and God of cricket and cricket fans across the world feel Sachin is the University of Modern Cricket. This one is for my young daughter who is a die-hard fan of both the Emperors of cricket. --- (Aarkay)
