Who is the best batsman since Bradman?

Huh...ok...Chanders and dravid can be put up in the same league.Then i would surely go in with Sir Viv for the tests.I love dravid's style of play and the way he decimated the opposition with his class was awesome.He didn't score big,but a perfect placement of shot can hurt a team.
Tendulkar was good too,but he mostly scored against the subcontinent teams and his avg against Eng,Aus,SA were all at 40..Considering his overall avg and batting position,this is quite low.

* Dravid was pretty to watch---but his strike rate was in the low 40s----that means he was too TIMID----he didn't dominate bowlers.

* The same thing with Shiv----his strike rate is currently 43----he is too TIMID.

* So even though Dravid and Shiv average 52+----they are not perceived as elite or extraordinary greats

---

TIMIDITY was their issue.

* Elite and extraordinary greats are dominant batsmen----they demonstrate boldness and audacity at the wicket.

* Lara and Richards, for example, both ended their careers with 60+ strike rates and 50+ average


RE: TENDULKAR

* He is the only Indian batsman to average 50 against non subcontinent teams(Aus, SA, ENG, NZ and WI).

Rev

Why's not having so many away tests so massive an issue? He deserves all the credit for merely the 99+ average, which has remained unmatched for anyone who's played a reasonable number of matches, EVER. Whatever advantage they've had. And to back this, he's also averaged well over 95 in his FC career spanning over 200 matches. No one has matched that before or after, have they?

Secondly - of course the obvious - uncovered pitches, no helmets etc. weighs in when you consider any batsmen of that era, and that applies to Bradman too. I would say his position is not even disputable.

Is strike rate rellay a concern in test..I am just asking.It is about wearing down bowlers right.If you plan to attack a bowler in ODI's,you are termed as a legend,but in tests isn't patience important and that is why i stated that..
Also,sry about the facts on sachin....Got those stats wrong...Apologize for the same..!!

* All great batsmen average 50+ in tests.

* But the elite or extraordinary greats are dominant batsmen---there is a boldness and audacity about them.

* The ordinary greats are TIMID.

* Strike rate is used as a barometer to measure dominance or TIMIDITY.

* Batsmen like Dravid, Kallis, SWaugh, Border and Chanderpaul have 50+ test averages----but their Strike rate was in the 40s.

* Batsmen like Richards and Lara also averaged in the 50s----but their strike rate was 60+

Rev

look man, fack all stats!

Rohan Babullal Kanhai is the best since Bradman!

Albert Baldeo agrees with me:

* The great Rohan Babulall played 53 tests against Australia and England and averaged a massive 43.52 with 10 hundreds and 19 fifties. ;D

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/i...results;type=batting

* But you are right googs---stats don't apply to the Babu.

Rev

look here Rev, if you want stats here is one:  the Babu is the fuss West Indian to have a century in each inning against Australia!  Even Bradman was amazed. 

deh keep going on and on about this issue?

impse an dem have nutten better to do.  and who is this idiot here ::confused::

Lara is it...not Sangy.

  all of the best, fair-minded bowlers..not  jackass Shane Warne.. say it openly: LARA, LARA, LARA.....

Lara dealt with them they say, like no other batsman.  they could not beat him, they were no problem to him but they were very problematic to every other batsman they bowled to.

that's what they say! 

I say look at what Lara did often:  SCORE AND SCORE AND SCORE...  but it is how he scored.  Lara could bat days at a time and SCORE. 

when Lara scored 400 not out he had been batting for  2 and half days.  yet allyuh go back and look at the end of that innings..look at when he passed 380 celebrating.  LARA LOOKED AS FRESH AS WHEN HE STARTED.  HE COULD HAVE GONE ON IF HE WANTED TO.....EASILY

Incredible!  I don't know of any batsman , anywhere, any time who could have done that...i.e bat like that for so long and not be exhausted.  Lara's strike rate in that innings was even greater than sixty if I recall correctly.  correct me if I am wrong.  but he beat the hell out of the english and was still ready to go more.  but the game had to go on and a declaration was necessary.

that kind of batting power I had never seen before, nor ever read about by anyone...nor seen since.  people like Len Hutton and Wally Hammond sat at the wicket for days, motionless, blocking, taking no risks, hardly scoring.  not Lara!  Lara never did that. it was always lixx like peas when he scored big..and he always scored big.

Lara was even beyond Sobers whose triple was achieved  against a weakened bowling attack

Lara's big scores were achieved against full attacks, unencumbered by injury or any malady we ever saw or knew of

forget about it.  Lara is arguing up there for the best batsman of all time..not just "since Bradman"    he is up in Bradman's face.  Bradman has a fight on his hands.

until they outdo Lara and Bradman..it is the both of them at the top and #2 vacant.  then the argument for #3 can begin
::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL::
::LOL:: ::LOL::
::LOL::

As far as I am concerned the premise of the question is absurd since I  do not consider Bradman as the greatest batsman ever