Is Tendulkar a better batsman than Bradman
Shoaib Ahmed01-Aug-2002Is Tendulkar a better batsman than Bradman? Was Garfield Sobers a superior all-rounder in comparison to Ian Botham? Or does Shoaib Akhtar generate more sheer pace than Imran Khan? Or Freddie Spofforth a bigger demon than Waqar?The above are questions that perplex young enthusiasts of the game all over the world. Unfortunately for them (and also for the game of cricket) the yardstick, which these youngsters choose as their reference of comparison, is the statistical analysis of these players.By the above I do not wish to run down or devalue the importance of statistics in the game of cricket. Indeed the study of facts and figures forms an integral part of the cricketing canvas. Probably no other sport in the world lays as much stress and importance on statistics as the game of cricket. The amount of time, research and printed space allotted to statistics by the world of cricket is immense, to the extent of being phenomenal. Indeed the grasp of cricketing records and their implications on performances and merits is of pivotal importance for any cricketing academy but the problem begins when an overdose of importance is attached to statistics alone and other factors are neglected.For me to write on such a topic is more difficult than most would imagine. Not only because I myself started in the field of cricket writing as a statistician but more so because my favourite cricketing scribes have been the great statistician of our times. I am sure that I am not the only one who has based the foundations of his academic cricketing interests on the statistics of the game. But after having remained a chronic addict of facts and figures for so long, I feel that there is a limit to where numbers can guide us in our cricketing queries.Can we really call Taslim Arif the best ever batsman ever produced by Pakistan just because he has an average of 62.62? Can we forget the daredevil cavalier style of Maqsood Ahmed who won the title of ‘MERRY MAX’ on the merit of his aggressive batting in England but never managed a Test century?Is it just for us to call Zaheer Abbas a better batsman than Hanif Mohammad only because ‘ZED’ has more Test runs to his credit? Was Bob Willis a greater bowler than Fred Trueman just because he overtook Fred in the tally of Test scalps?All these are questions whose answer can never be found in the record books.Cricket may well be a numerical analysts’ dream come true but even then it is primarily the domain of the romantists and idealists.The rhythm, which flowed from the bat of Majid Khan in the 1976-77 series against New Zealand; or the sting of Imran’s swing and patience of Hanif’s marathon innings against the West Indies in 1957-58 can never be measured quantitatively.The stature of W.G. Grace, the sting of Fred Spofforth, the bite of Wes Hall, the charm of Bradman and the mastery of Garry Sobers is for posterity to remember. Their impact can neither be measured numerically nor can their performances be compared with those of current cricketers.As with Einstein’s theory of relativity so with cricket; the correct impact can only be ascertained in an environment.Bradman playing against Shoaib Akhtar would face as much of handicap as Tendulkar’s facing S.F. Barnes. Even if Shahid Afridi hits six sixes in an over today, he would neither be better nor worse a cricketer than Sir Garfield Sobers. Even if the record books say that Border, Gavaskar, Steve Waugh, Javed Miandad and Graham Gooch have more runs to their credit than Bradman it certainly does not imply that the latter was not as great a cricketing giant as the others.Drawing parallels in any field of life is a tricky business but in cricket it becomes all the more arduous since here we tend to overestimate the potentials of cricketing records. Indeed records are a great asset but let us not forget the statistics. Let us give due respect to those who create new records but then let us not forget those who created the original records in a time when doing so was a much more difficult and much less profitable exercise.