The stats do not do him justice!

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Tendulkar for me, based on what I've seen (and I've seen all the bad of Tendulkar whereas I've only seen the good from Pollock, both Richards, Sobers, Bradman, Gavaskar etc and no play and misses, no mistimed shots etc. Only the dismissals) is No.1 and IMO deserves a much greater average than all of those I mentioned.

Tendulkar deserves a much higher average than Don Bradman?

[subshakerz]

Michael Atherton. 37 doesn't reflect his quality.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Or else was spared playing against the best pace attacks of that period - Australia, SA, and Pakistan.

DAWTA. He did fine enough with the chances he got against Australia.

[Smith]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

DAWTA. He did fine enough with the chances he got against Australia.

And hardly got to play Pakistan at his peak.

[Matt79]

Tbf, I hardly called his relative lack of play against Aus and Pak a blot on his record or suggested it downgraded his record. I simply said that in this case, as in all similar ones, for almost every argument as to why a player has been unlucky there will be an argument as to why that's not the case. You're assuming that Sachin's peak would have been as good if he had played more against the better attacks in that period - but maybe it would have been slighty less good. I don't believe that he was playing so well that the quality of bowling made absolutely no difference to him.

I don't think there's any problem with Sachins record reflecting how great he's been. It shows he's scored more runs and more 100s than anyone else, in all countries and conditions, over two decade, at an average better than anyone else who has played so many matches. Pollock and Headley's career averages are normally asterisked because they played so few games (through no fault of their own). Lara's average is comparable, which is fair enough as many fans who saw both are torn on who was better. Ponting still has a way to go in his career, but I'll be surprised if his average ends up being better than Tendulkars by the time they both are finished.

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Tendulkar deserves a much higher average than Don Bradman?

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.

Originally Posted by subshakerz

Michael Atherton. 37 doesn't reflect his quality.

No, but 43.83 against South Africa and a certain Allan Donald does when he's running in bowling ca 90-95mph.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by rivera213

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.




No, but 43.83 against South Africa and a certain Allan Donald does when he's running in bowling ca 90-95mph.

If the captain declared after a lead was reached, Bradman's average may well be higher, with the number of not outs he'd achieve.

Look, Tendulkar is a great player, of that there can be no question. He certainly belongs in the group of the finest players I've ever seen, and he'd be towards the top of that group, if not leading it.

But it's not the sheer size of Bradman's average which alone sets him apart. Look at the difference between his average and the next best of his time, or indeed of all time, who played a large enough number of tests to count. It's ridiculous the difference in the numbers. True it is he did not play against as many opponents as Tendulkar, but he played a large percentage of his tests vs the best opposition of his time, namely England.

Were Tendulkar's average greater by a similar margin than the other great players of his time I would accept the premise of your argument. Say Tendulkar averaged 60-odd, and the Laras, Pontings, Waughs, Kallises et al were around the 40-odd mark, then I could countenance this argument.

But really there is no comparison because, frankly, Bradman is incomparable.

[Smith]

Shane Warne. Deserved a sub 24 bowling average, and definitely atleast a 1 against his 100s column.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by rivera213

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.

Tendulkar's the best batsman I've ever seen, but he isn't half as good as what the Don was. Bradman's arguably easily the best sportsmen of alltime - No cricketer even comes remotely close to Bradman. Not Sobers, not Tendulkar, not anyone.

Players like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards, although unfortunate, should not be held anywhere near the same regard as Bradman. Also, Garry Sobers batted a fair chunk of his career down the order. Anyone who bats lower-order for the majority of their career and averages 50, should not be held in the same regard as someone who bats in the top 4 and averages 50.

[Goughy]

Fair to say that the Don was more successful at Headingley than Tendulkar was

[andyc]

Originally Posted by rivera213

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.




No, but 43.83 against South Africa and a certain Allan Donald does when he's running in bowling ca 90-95mph.

Haha, shocker of a post. First of all, Sachin isn't even clearly the best of his time, let alone better than Bradman. People like Lara, Kallis, Dravid and Ponting all have a decent claim to that title as well. He's definitely not head and shoulders above like Bradman was. Your SR point is the worst though; find me a test player with an average above 50 and an SR of 90+. The fact is, Bradman was a very attacking player - his team chased down 400+ in a day to win, FFS. You'd hardly ever see a team going for that today, despite the fact that 'winning means so much more.' And as it is, Australia won 30 of Bradman's 52 tests, with Bradman averaging over 130 in them; it's not as if he only scored in draws (of which he only played in 10).

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Umar Gul is an excellent limited overs bowler. I don't think he is great in the test format imo, though he can swing the ball and is much better now than when we faced him in 2006.

I don't know when the next schedule series against Pakistan is, but I'm sure he'll be more of a handful this time around.

------

As for the issue of stats showing what happened, I disagree. Stats do not take into account things such as match situations, pressure (especially in Sachin's case since he is bigger than Hinduism in India! Lol), quality of bowling faced etc.

Stats also don't tell you how fine a player a person was. I'm talking simply aesthetics but also the ability to time the first good length ball for a drive down the ground, being able to completely smother the best spinners of all time on a turning dust bucket etc.

Tendulkar for me, based on what I've seen (and I've seen all the bad of Tendulkar whereas I've only seen the good from Pollock, both Richards, Sobers, Bradman, Gavaskar etc and no play and misses, no mistimed shots etc. Only the dismissals) is No.1 and IMO deserves a much greater average than all of those I mentioned.

He at the very least deserves an average way above that of Ricky Ponting who has only cashed in during the batting era and after a great start from the openers more often than not.

I kind of agree with Richard on the subject of Ian Bell. I think aesthetically he is better than PIetersen (and even Viv Richards) when he's driving good length deliveries as though it's second nature.

I think KP and Viv are more talented since both can/could take a ball on a good length from outside off stump and whip it through the leg side. That requires a lot of skill. But either of those were as pleasing on the eye through the off side as Bell (on form) is IMHO.

Tendulkar flatters to deceive though. When you watch him in full flight it seems as though he will never, ever get out, when the fact is he gets out once for about every fifty runs he scores. Your eyes tell you one thing but the facts say another.

Important to note that averages aren't a measure of how good someone is, that's much too abstract to assign a number to. They're a measure of how many runs he scores for every time he gets out. Against good teams, against bad teams, in easy conditions or hard conditions, his average is the mathematical sum of all of his performances. I don't really see how it can fail to do him justice.

[jondavluc]

Originally Posted by rivera213

As for the issue of stats showing what happened, I disagree. Stats do not take into account things such as match situations, pressure (especially in Sachin's case since he is bigger than Hinduism in India! Lol), quality of bowling faced etc.

Stats also don't tell you how fine a player a person was. I'm talking simply aesthetics but also the ability to time the first good length ball for a drive down the ground, being able to completely smother the best spinners of all time on a turning dust bucket etc.

Tendulkar for me, based on what I've seen (and I've seen all the bad of Tendulkar whereas I've only seen the good from Pollock, both Richards, Sobers, Bradman, Gavaskar etc and no play and misses, no mistimed shots etc. Only the dismissals) is No.1 and IMO deserves a much greater average than all of those I mentioned.

He at the very least deserves an average way above that of Ricky Ponting who has only cashed in during the batting era and after a great start from the openers more often than not.

If we're basing how good a batsman's average should be on how good a batsmen he was/is then yes.

Tendulkar is everybit as good, and better a batsman than Bradman for me. I'm not taking away from Bradman's record and it's astonishing, but I completely disagree with the "he is beyond doubt the greatest ever" BS just because he has the greatest average. Best of his time? For sure, by miles but best of all time?....... not sure about that.

As I said in my OP, there are so many factors that stats do not take into account. Most of all in Bradman's time- the lack of depth in bowling. Sure the best of his time were possibly as good as the best of any other time (though not for as long I suspect), but there's no doubt the strength in depth of bowling attacks has been greater in Tendulkar's time than Bradman's.

Also, It would be impossible for a man to have a run averae of near 90 nowadays (even on the batting strips) since winning means so much more. Bradman's strike rate was excellent, but it wasn't career 90+ so he was out there for a long time. You'd find if he played nowadays his average would be much less simply because the captain would declare after a lead was reached etc.

I actually think Graeme Pollock, Garry Sobers and Barry Richards should have at least as good an average too.

Though no-one, even if they're twice as good as Bradman or Tendulkar were at peak will average anywhere near 85+ runs unless their strike rate is akin to that of ODI's.

a good page worth of crap .

[Smith]

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 the best batsman of the modern era, even above players like Lara, Ponting etc.

[wpdavid]

Hussain springs to mind. Not because of some vaguely nebulous 'he's really better than an average of 37' but because how often his contributions were at absolutely critical stages of matches & series, often in really tough situations. There's a piece somewhere in the CW archives circa May 2004 that lists them