The stats do not do him justice!

[zaremba]

We appear to have different definitions of consistency - this is mine

Crikey

[rivera213]

This is mine: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

-------------

Anyways, this is getting boring- even for me.

I wont answer the next batch of Bradman quotes to try to keep (what I think) is a good thread topic alive.

-------------------------

Another player I think deserves a better batting average is Mark Boucher. While he is no Gilly, he is better (and more important to SA) than 29 runs. I know part of his role is staying there if a recognised batsman is in but I think he deserves an average of 35 which although only 6 runs extra, is above the 30 mark which seems to be a good limit for AR's.

[Richard]

I think you need to more thoroughly acquaint yourself with Mr Burge's sense of humour.

DWTA. He really does believe it. Haven't you seen his mints lark?

[Uppercut]

This is mine: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

-------------

Anyways, this is getting boring- even for me.

I wont answer the next batch of Bradman quotes to try to keep (what I think) is a good thread topic alive.

-------------------------

Another player I think deserves a better batting average is Mark Boucher. While he is no Gilly, he is better (and more important to SA) than 29 runs. I know part of his role is staying there if a recognised batsman is in but I think he deserves an average of 35 which although only 6 runs extra, is above the 30 mark which seems to be a good limit for AR's.

Mmm Boucher scored important runs, but he didn't score large amounts of runs consistently. His average is fair so long as you've watched him enough to know he was a man for the tough occasion.

[Burgey]

DWTA. He really does believe it. Haven't you seen his mints lark?

The mints scandal is no lark mate, it's one of the darker episodes in cricketing history

[MrIncredible]

But Jordan and Woods are not universally considered the greatest at their sports.

It is the difference between Bradman and the rest that makes him special. Noone else can replicate that in their sport.

Tiger Woods will be when he eventually overtakes Nicklaus' record of majors and Jordan is widely regarded as the only automatic pick for any all time starting 5. Obviously he faces stiffer competition from the likes of Oscar Robinson, Wilt, Kareem etc but thats just the nature of basketball. A team of XI Bradmans wont win many tests. A team of 5 jordans 9even in the low post could potentially dominate.

[NUFAN]

He isn't 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar even if people say he's better than Tendulkar.

In no footage of Bradman and Tendulkar is there a difference akin to that of the same between Tendulkar and a No.9.

Tendulkar has near perfect tehcnique including footwork 99% as good as the Don. His range of shots were as good, though in terms of innovation for his time, Bradman is way ahead (that's not to say he would always be an innovator. It doesn't work like that. Normally 1 batsmen sets the trend for a folowing generation and they continue it).

I can think of some footage which shows the difference. Every 55 or so runs Tendulkar gets out to a ball, that same ball Bradman doesn't - it's that simple!

Sachin doesn't look 40 worse, but Cricket in particular is a game where runs on the board is an extremely important measure and if Bradman makes Tendulkar look like a number 9 in terms of stats there is absolutely no way that Sachin can be better!

Rivera have you seen the CW Ranks the batsman thread, not that the rankings should be seen as gospel but I genuinely think you might like to read it.

[wfdu_ben91]

Lara arguably, though not IMO. Ponting nowhere near either of the 2. I'd take Kallis over Ponting too.

Kallis over Ponting?

He isn't 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar even if people say he's better than Tendulkar.

In no footage of Bradman and Tendulkar is there a difference akin to that of the same between Tendulkar and a No.9.

Tendulkar has near perfect tehcnique including footwork 99% as good as the Don. His range of shots were as good, though in terms of innovation for his time, Bradman is way ahead (that's not to say he would always be an innovator. It doesn't work like that. Normally 1 batsmen sets the trend for a folowing generation and they continue it).

He actually is 40 runs better then Tendulkar. He is twice as good as any other batsman that's ever played the game. Actually, his 45 runs better then Tendulkar.

None of Tendulkar's attributes are better then Bradman and the majority of his attributes aren't even close to Bradman. Tendulkar is no god and what he has acchieved pales in comparison to anything as what Bradman has done. Tendulkar wouldn't have been more successful then the Don in any era and Bradman would've outaveraged him by a mile.

Bradman scored at a rapid pace and still managed to average 99.94. No one past or present has been able to acchieve and Bradman's career spanned 20 years.

Nope, he wouldn't have destroyed Trueman and Statham since both were better than Larwood (definitely more consitent) and Larwood wasn't completely owned by Don.

And he certainly wouldn't have "destroyed" Wasim/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh, the fearsome foursome mk I and II, the Indian spin quartet, Imran, Hadlee, Donald/Pollock etc. He may very well have destroyed the lesser bowlers but great bowlers give great batsmen problems. And Bradman wasn't God in human form (as much as you'd like to think he was).

Also, Tendulkar never got "owned" by all the great seamers, it was just a great era for seam. They pretty much gave everyone problems. That's the downside of being a revisionist.

Averaging all but 100 in Test Cricket is almost god-like, considering that no one has ever come close. And all of those would've been destroyed by Bradman, seeing as Bradman overcome the most bowler-friendly tactic in cricketing history and still managed to average 56 whilst if put in the same position, without a helmet, Tendulkar would've averaged low 20's.

Gretzsky, Ruth, Pele, Chamberlain and Woods were/are all considerably better than their contemporaries actually.

The fact those sports have had more level playing fields in terms of talent is more to do with the lack of a single standout statistical leader.

You do realise that the competition today would've been similar to those in past generations? It wouldn't be as if, one cricketer tried and the rest were playing for the hell of it. The standard was equal, so it was equally as hard to standout from the rest then it is today, which makes Bradman's acchievements remarkable.

You don't know India at all man.

India (cricket) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rest of the World.

Burning effigies and mad crowds pale in comparison to the riggers of war and The Great Depression. You're talking out of your ass, the War and Great Depression ruined lives.

No Indian batsman has had the amount of pressure placed upon him as Tendulkar has. Have you purposely had your eyes shut for all your cricket watching life?

What does Ponting playing against a bowling machine have to do with him against real life bowlers?

Sure it gets you used to line, length and speed but not the subtleties a bowler has.

Well, if you hadn't noticed, Ponting averages 56 in Test Cricket.

It was in 1990 actually where he scored 119* @ Old Trafford as a 17 year old. Pretty young to carry the future of your team.

How come Tendulkar's own team mate, Rahul Dravid has been able to outaverage Tendulkar, during the same era that Tendulkar played in? And that's his own team mate. Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Hayden, Dravid, Sangakkara, etc, have all had a higher average then Tendulkar at some point and that's after they've played 50 Tests minimum.

I was aware, and I somewhat doubt they were going all out against a legend of the game and a man in his 60's. Could you imagine English bowlers going all-out against Boycott or even Gower?

It's called respect, they can take being smashed in a net session over injuring a legend and looking like a ****.

Bradman in his peak would not smash Brett Lee's fastest and most accurate deliveries. That's just common sense. You need a great eye to smash an express paceman and Bradman had poor eyesight. I don't think anyone would or could "smash" a guy bowling high 90's on a decent bowling wicket. That's nothing to do with talent, but human limitations. It's like expecting Woods to make a chip with an insane and inpredictable wind or Federer to hit a volley when it hits the net straight infront of him.

That bolded piece, has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Bradman had the best eye, concentration, hand & eye coordination and determination by a country mile in the history of the game. If players that average almost a 3rd of what Bradman did, can play shots off him then Bradman would have a field day. They obviously were bowling allout, because they suggested that Bradman should be playing in the next Test and don't make me laugh, Gower and Boycott are no Bradmans.

You haven't said Tendulkar is outright better than Ponting (even though he obviously is). Everytime you sort of admit it, you follow it up with something akin to the first quote in this post.

Tendulkar is a better batsman then Ponting, but only by the slighest margain.

Na. Sachin still (at 36) hits it better than everyone else but in terms of striking there are many batsmen better than Ponting- Pietersen & Sehwag being way above in that respect and many others- even Ian Bell who on form strike the ball more cleaner than "Punter2 could wish to do.

Nope, wrong, wrong and wrong. I won't bother repeating myself, as I've probably said it in previous posts.

No, I think they're worse which is why Ponting's 20 against them is shoddy in comparison to Tendulkar's 39 against SA.

Kumble is an all-time great but that's it.

As I said earlier, when you are comparing 2 great batsman, the easier the conditions is irrelevant, as they should be compared on how well they do in the more difficult conditions.

Because England, India, Australia and West Indies are benchmark tours. Nowadays people talk about South Africa but they are a "new" team so to speak.

Also, England never had "great" attacks against Bradman. There were generally 1 very good bowler, 1 good and a few crap. He never cashed in on Larwood in 32/33, but the other bowlers.

The "Benchmark" Tours. It's got nothing to do with the past, if the team of the present is completely rubbish, much like the modern day West Indies are.

You do realise that Bradman made a triple-century against Larwood. The attack featured Harold Larwood (78 wickets @ 28.35) Maurice Tate (155 wickets @ 26.16) and George Geary (46 wickets @ 29.41) - 3 bowlers that averaged under 30 with the ball. Tendulkar hasn't even made a triple century in his career, let alone against 3 bowlers averaging under 30 in Test Cricket.

Or how about Bradman's other triple-century? Featured Bill Bowes (68 wickets @ 22.33) and Hedley Verity (144 wickets @ 24.37).

I could go on all day about how many great innings the Don played that Tendulkar could only dream of playing...

[Top_Cat]

What is/are the criteria you're basing the comparison on when almost everything is different in the 2 eras we're talking about? (Asking genuinely).

Well, it's more of a research problem than a statistics one and depends on how deep you think you should go. If you're comparing players, you might want to come up with some objective criteria to rate the pitches players played on, the players in question, allow for changing playing conditions (fudge factors), etc.

To pick on one example, when allowing for pitches, do you give pitches a 'flatness score' for a period of time or do you do a calculation based on the rating of the pitch day-by-day for an overall score? What/how many criteria determines a score? What info do you collect to calculate it?

Etc., etc. There are a million and one questions you can ask but not without significant caveats nor will you get everyone agreeing with your answers. Point is, though, if you come up with a defensible model, it's consistent, etc. The actual statistical calculations aren't too difficult.

I think most staticians would say stats are only comparible (in terms of sport) in regards to their own eras.

God no. Just have to agree on the terms of the comparison.

DWTA. He really does believe it. Haven't you seen his mints lark?

Stand by my remarks even more now, really.

[0RI0N]

Wow, did someone actually devote a pageful to try and establish Tendulkar > Bradman?

Brave attempt I must say, like Don Quixote’s charge at the windmills.

Having said that, I regard Tendulkar as 3rd best test batsman of the modern era, Lara, Ponting.

/
agreed

[browncow]

graeme hick

[Jamee999]

Can you elaborate? I fear the fist more than I fear the truth.

It's ridiculous to see that someone took like 5 wickets @ 150 on the subcontinent, in like 3 tests, and decide from that that he is no good in subcontinental conditions - 3 test matches are not enough to see how good a player is in certain situations.

Don Bradman got a duck in his last ever innings, what a choker.

[NUFAN]

graeme hick

How now brown cow?

[BoyBrumby]

Kallis over Ponting?

I agree Ponting's better, but I don't think the suggestion is laughable. Could make a better case for Kallis>Ponting than, oh, say Sachin>Bradman, to pick another two players entirely at random.

[GingerFurball]

What is/are the criteria you're basing the comparison on when almost everything is different in the 2 eras we're talking about? (Asking genuinely).

I think most staticians would say stats are only comparible (in terms of sport) in regards to their own eras.

The stats I've given you (fastest to 100 FC 100s, fastest to 2,000, 3,000 etc. Test runs) compare batsmen from all eras of the game, and they show a reasonable consistency in the number of innings it's taken for great batsmen from all eras to pass them.

No-one has ever replicated what Bradman did, in any era.