Melbourne: Australian great Sir Don Bradman himself declared that Sachin Tendulkar reminded him of his own batting style but former English cricketer Tony Shillinglaw chooses to disagree. He has argued through a study that technique wise both the players are as different as chalk and cheese. Shillinglaw, who is a coach now, has conducted an extensive biomechanical study of Bradman's technique and claims that actually it is Pakistan's Inzamam-ul Haq, who comes close to Bradman's batting style. "It's almost become a myth that if you're watching Tendulkar, you're watching Bradman. Well, there is very little comparison when you do so. Tendulkar is basically textbook, whereas Bradman used a rotary method in preparing to hit the ball," Shillinglaw was quoted as saying in 'Sydney Morning Herald'. "What you get with that is it becomes just a human instinct to react to the ball, and in the end that's the basis of Bradman's method. It's a circular motion. He didn't learn to bat, he learned to control the ball." Bradman had said in an interview in 1996 that after being struck by Tendulkar's technique, he had asked his wife to look at the Indian's batting style and she also agreed that there were similarities. Shillinglaw, who analysed Bradman at length and had scientists at Liverpool's John Moores University recreate his strokes, accepts there are some facets of Bradman's batting that resonate in Tendulkar. But, technically, he says, they are very different. He argues that the only striking similarity between Bradman and Tendulkar is that both the players are good watchers of the ball but the Indian is actually confined by orthodoxy. "It does make sense to a degree. They were both small men, and Tendulkar wasn't taught to bat in a traditional way. Of course, being small and compact, he developed in his own way the skill of judging the ball and reacting to the ball", Shillinglaw said. "The similarity is that they were both expert at viewing the ball and playing it, but Tendulkar, I feel he is restricted by the confines of orthodoxy", he said. "It amazes me that with all modern technology nobody has really looked in-depth at [Bradman's] method and compared it with the likes of Tendulkar in particular because of his reputation, and Jacques Kallis, whose average is very similar. "They're both very highly skilled, technical players, and comparing Bradman with those two, I feel, is a way to establishing Bradman's differences." Asked if not Tendulkar then who is closest to the batting style of Bradman, Shillinglaw came up with a surprise choice. "Funnily enough, the nearest I've seen of all people is Inzamam-ul-Haq, even though he was a big bull of a man. His batting movements were the nearest I've seen to Bradman, and amazingly his timing and his foot movement for a big man - they were very quick," says Shillinglaw, who penned the book Bradman Revisited. http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news...n-tendulkar-close-to-don-bradmans-style-study
So I read the article and there was no "study". A dude who wrote on Bradman thought he was more similar to Inzi. That's not really a study that's just an observation.
While Indian batsmen are more technically correct and have racked up more runs , Pakistan has produced, imo, the greatest timers of the ball.
He was a ballet dancer at the crease (apart from when taking singles), used to effortlessly play Murali as if he was a club bowler and not the leading test bowler of all time. Extremely powerful too.
Inzi still scored more runs in Australia than Bradman did in Pakistan. I don't understand cherry picking stats. Warne averaged 47 in India. Saeed averaged 47 in Australia, and averages more vs Australia than Sachin. Does that make him more like Bradman? Ijaz averaged more in England than Sachin did. What do you make out of that? Sachin played 47 ODIs in Australia and only scored one century. Cherries = picked.
I've never seen Bradman bat but I'd rather watch Viv, Inzi, Mark Waugh, Laxman, Lara, etc making a century than Sachin. He was an accumulator in every sense of the word.
I've known this for a while. Its obvious that this x of this doesn't work. He needs "jk" or something universal. Can't just make up your own symbols and smileys x
He has done a lot of research into what made bradman great.He is author of the book bradman revisited. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bradman-Revisited-The-Legacy-Donald/dp/1903158389
ffs mate have you forgotten what the x means? it was a sarcastic comment but either way, Inzamam was woeful in Australian conditions and against the best of his time(Aus and SA) of course performances against the best increase your standing - we all know Ijaz was excellent in Australia, that is also why people still remember Wasim Raja because of his accomplishments against the great windies attacks and what many people say about Gavaskar, how he handled the windies quick bowlers It works both ways of course and is used against any 'western' batsman who failed to deliver in sub continent conditions maybe it should mean a little love for you because you are far too angry even by internet tough guy standards x
I'm sorry am I too angry? Did I scare you for a min there? I'll try not to be a meanie to you, you sensitive little flower. Want a hug? xoxo
about as scary as the pakistani batting lineup on a seaming wicket under grey skies on an english mid summers morning
