Page 4 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 740

Thread: The stats do not do him justice!

  1. #46
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,839
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by zaremba; 14-06-2009 at 10:58 AM.

  2. #47
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,199
    Michael Atherton. 37 doesn't reflect his quality.

  3. #48
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    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.

  4. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Smithsonian
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    DAWTA. He did fine enough with the chances he got against Australia.
    And hardly got to play Pakistan at his peak.


  5. #50
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  6. #51
    U19 Vice-Captain rivera213's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    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.
    All-Time Test XI:
    Gavaskar, Boycott, Tendulkar, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Waqar/Wasim, Lillee, Ambrose.

  7. #52
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,402
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  8. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Smithsonian
    Posts
    641
    Shane Warne. Deserved a sub 24 bowling average, and definitely atleast a 1 against his 100s column.

  9. #54
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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.

  10. #55
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,027
    Fair to say that the Don was more successful at Headingley than Tendulkar was
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  11. #56
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,827
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  12. #57
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,055
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  13. #58
    State Regular jondavluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Westside of that big light blub thingy
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by rivera213 View Post
    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 .
    Quote Originally Posted by Death
    Dumb I told him"the serpent that never dies is dead I took her life three thousend years ago! the never ending battle has ended"

    Awesome Test XI

    Tillekeratne Dilshan
    Simon Katich
    Ricky Ponting (c)
    Michael Hussey
    Michael Clarke
    AB de Villiers
    Brad Haddin (k)
    Daniel Vettori
    Peter Siddle
    Dong Bollinger
    Ben Hilfenhaus

  14. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Smithsonian
    Posts
    641
    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.

  15. #60
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,593
    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

Page 4 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cricket Web - Stats Spider
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:38 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-01-2007, 12:40 PM
  3. Cricket Web - Stats Spider
    By James in forum Cricket Web Forum Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29-12-2006, 04:53 AM
  4. Help with Stats
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23-04-2006, 09:38 PM
  5. Player Stats
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-01-2005, 03:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •