Let’s get Bradman out of the way. Some will argue but the facts are inescapable.
So who is next? I don’t want to make a poll as I will surely miss some top candidates.
Some I will throw up:
Tendulkar- he will have a huge following.
Richards- Both Viv and Barry
Pollock- Graeme
Trumper- His stats don’t stack up these days, but he was regarded as the best by his peers
Lara- What a superb cover drive
Hutton- a total professional.
Let’s have your thoughts.
Gavaskar. Hammond. Hobbs.
Peope like Miandad, Greg Chappell Ponting, Border etc were outstanding in their time, but second best? Nah.
Almost any summary of Tendulkar’s career goes out of its way to state he is the “second greatest batsman” in the history of the sport, and people have been calling him that for quite a few years now. I would be interested in seeing a case made AGAINST what appears to be virtually universal concurrence, a concurrence supported by an extraordinary body of evidence.
Reading a summary of his career, frankly, he kind of sounds like Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods or Willie Mays, a man who seems to have been designed from the brain out to play a particular sport.
I hesitate to call Tendulkar the second best of all time, he is probably not the second greatest of his time. I have always rated Lara and Dravid and Ponting higher.
I started watching cricket from around 1996. Tendulkar is the best batsman for me. There is just no match for his longevity. I rate Ponting second best after him.
If we just see test cricket, then Dravid and Kallis are right up there as well.
If we add up overall record i.e. runs + wickets in all formats, then there is no match for Kallis. He is the greatest cricketer for me.
Lara was the most destructive batsman of all. Gilchrist also comes close.
Rickjay, I am sorry I missed your post. I am not clear as to the question you are asking- is it “Why is Tendulkar not regarded as the second best batsman ever?”
Truthseeker, sadly I have to admit I have been watching Test cricket for a couple of years more than you (roughly 30 years longer 
) and I will admit that is no indicator of capacity to judge players. I did see some of the Indian greats such as Gavaskar and I think Tendulkar was the best of the Indian batsmen. His longevity has certainly given him an advantage in terms of runs scored and Tests played- plus he was a pretty handy bowler.
Kallis is certainly a great all rounder. As was Botham. I never saw Keith Miller play but I have spoken to English county players who rated him the very best all rounder.
I would add that it is very difficult to compare players such as Victor Trumper and Dr Grace to modern players.
My question is; what’s the objective, evidence-based argument against Tendulkar not being the greatest batsman of his time, and likely the best ever besides Bradman?
Well he has failed on the big stage on occassion, he has played in two World Cup finals and been dismissed cheaply in each. Other than that, I got nothing; objectively speaking.
Hanif Muhammad, not exactly a bad batsman himself thinks Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
Finally, I will say it is great to have a N American participating in a thread like this.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html
His test batting average is lower than 2 of his contemporaries - Kallis and Sangakkara.
Kallis’ average is also ahead of Tendulkar’s for one day international cricket.
The argument for Tendulkar is that he is more aesthetically pleasing than Kallis. But on the raw numbers Kallis scores more in all cricket and Sangakkara scores more in tests.
I prefer Tendulkar personally. Making an aesthetic argument though is fraught with peril. Lara was at least as attractive and could be incredibly destructive too, scoring the world record for an innings in both tests and first class cricket, with scores far higher than Tendulkar managed. Who is to say Lara wasn’t better.
As for second best of all time: all modern players play at a time when pitches are covered, ball tampering is clamped down upon and bats are spring loaded. Batsmen in previous eras who had to deal with this stuff are as comparable, in my view, as dead ball era players are to live ball in baseball. Someone like Hobbs for instance, given modern advantages, would be a much different player. It also tells you that Bradman is even more of a statistical freak as he played in that era. Claiming that anyone from the modern era is the second best bat ever is, in my view, largely a product of people over rating the present, in the media especially, to gain more readers, page views and comments on their articles.
Tendulkar is a great, great player. One of the best ever. That is enough for me. A ranking exercise is not necessary and creates more problems than the relatively trivial one it solves.
Some have been made, and like AK84 says, they mostly revolve around his not having won India enough games. Besides the purely statistical rebuttal, I think such arguments miss the point. They’re rooted in the belief that sport is about winning the game. I think if you look a little deeper, sport is about winning respect. And to many Indians, even if they may not be able to express it as such, Tendulkar is great because he spearheaded our quest for respect as we emerged on to the world stage after years of self imposed semi-seclusion. And I doubt there are any who would argue he did not fulfill this purpose that we thrust upon him.
The thing is and I have heard several bowlers mention this, Tendulkar has certainly struggled at times against quality bowling. Look at last years Semi Final against Pakistan, he was completely at sea against Saeed Ajmal and was reprieved through some awful fielding and India supporting computers. I never saw Lara or Ponting or Dravid in similar situations. I saw Lara destroy Wasim and Waqar at their peak, dispatching 100 mph reverse swinging deliveries to all parts. I saw Dravid play innings of such calm and skill that you would think that the bowler needed a pistol to get rid of him. I never saw Tendulkar in that light. You always thought that the bowler could get him.
In other news. Pakistan wins the T20. Nice Christmas present.
agree with you mostly except ODI comparison.
In ODIs, Sachin has 18426 runs, avg. 44.83 and strike rate 86.23, while Kallis has 11498 runs, avg. 45.26 and strike rate 72.97. We can see the difference in total runs and strike rates is huge whereas the difference between averages is not too much.
thats great, n that makes you one of the most, if not the most, authentic voices on cricket forums:). I’d be very keen to know your thoughts on comparisons between Sobers, Imran Khan, Botham, Kapil Dev as allrounders .
Meh. No offence meant, but I’d call these observations confirmation bias. On your part as well as perhaps of the bowler involved. Many Indians(including myself) share this feeling you speak of(that the bowler can always ‘get’ him), but in my case at least I’m certain it springs from the desire that it not happen!
Congratulations on the victory, I didn’t watch the match myself. Do you/anybody happen to know what viewership was like in India and/or Pakistan? My personal read is that the matches aren’t drumming up a lot of interest, at least in India, but I could just be very out of touch.
Thanks, not much interest to be honest, the last week of the year means most people are on holiday.
Congrats AK84 for the win!!
News channels have mostly been showing women security issues for the past week. There’s not too much hype for this series. But people must be watching I guess.
I watched the match. Mohd Irfan bowled well - pace (90+mph) and bounce(7ft tall bowler). Ajmal chucked well as usual. Hafeez and Malik batted sensibly to take Pak through. In last over, 6 were required off last 3 balls, Malik hit a six off Jadeja to win it for Pak. From India, Bhuvnesh Kumar swung the ball beautifully, looks like a thinking bowler, pace is about 130kph…next match is on 28th, 7pm IST (1:30 GMT).
Sorry the match is today on 5pm IST(1130 GMT).
In other news, Australia thrash Sri Lanka by an innings and 201 runs and lead the 3 match series 2-0.
I stopped watching cricket years ago (mostly because you can’t in the US), so I would have said Lara without thinking about it. 501 fucking runs.
However, I vaguely started paying attention to cricket again during the last year or two, and I was frankly shocked to discover Tendulkar was still playing - and near the top of his game. Lara made his international debut a year later, and was already done by the time I stopped watching in 1996 (though I just looked it up and it appears he played in 1997 internationals).
Considering how much longer Tendulkar played for- 23 years of internationals!- I think he’s got to get the nod.
I’d say Graeme Pollock.
He had only just turned 26 when he played his last Test before South Africa were banned, so he most likely had the best years of his career ahead of him. And he still had a Test average of over 60 in the pre-helmet era.
That’s an interesting perspective.
I’d argue, though, that when people ask “is Tendulkar the second best batsman of all time” the assumption implicit in that question is that the standard is his level of play, e.g. how much he helped his team win as a batsman. That doesn’t necessarily mean India had to win every game he played in; after all, if without him they had won even fewer matches, clearly his presence enabled them to win many matches they otherwise would not have.
His greatness in terms of the impact he had on Indian cricket is a different sort of argument, I think, and defies any sort of “ranking” or really objective analysis. It’s like arguing where Jackie Robinson ranks on the list of all time baseball players, or where Muhammad Ali objective should be listed among boxers; such a question can’t be answered with a number.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that coming up with a ranking based on batting performance is necessarily easy, either. RNATB quickly illustrated this with the Lara/Tendulkar comparison; what’s better, a guy who is ridiculously dominant, or a guy who isn’t quite as ridiculous dominant but is dominant for over two decades?
Guys, sorry to take so long about getting back. Have been off colour and haven’t posted much.
re the argument against Tendulkar, many can be made, none terribly convincing.
However, as has been mentioned, he doesn’t have the second best average of all time- of players who have played 10 or more innings, I think he is about 20th on the list. And, batting averages have tended to rise while he has been in the game for a number of reasons.
I’m not sure about Bldysabba and the comments about Tendulkar spearheading respect etc- he was pretty much a nonentity as a captain and didn’t last long. That doesn’t indicate much respect among his team- though I do admit Indian cricket is a mine field of politics.
On figures I think Hammond or Sobers would be ahead although I’d love to nominate the two Richards (Viv and Barry) as the two best in my time. Lara though- he was something special in a team that often lacked talent and commitment.
AK84, I was trying to avoid the “Was Bradman the best debate”- it may be a good topic for another thread, although it has been done to death on a number of cricket sites. Maybe the wisdom here will be different 