Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows

[ankitj]

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian



Why are they giving fodder to Tendulkar fanatics?

"Essentially each player is scored according to their career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accrue over the same number of innings.
.
.
.
The diminutive right-handers are ranked very tightly together at the top with scores of just over 4000, but are a couple of pitch lengths ahead of the rest of the batting pack, led by current South African player Jacques Kallis a further 1000 points in arrears.

Allan Border (seven) and Steve Waugh (nine) are the other Australian batsmen in Dr Rohde's historical top 10.

A relatively poor 2011 for former Australian skipper Ricky Ponting (11) cost him a top 10 spot.

It's not all bad news for The Don, however, in Dr Rohde's cricket laboratory.

The "live" nature of the table's calculation means Tendulkar could give up his place at the top if his run-scoring ways desert him.

Dr Rohde's said it was possible that the two players could, in fact, switch places many times before Tendulkar retires.

Top 10.

Sachin Tendulkar (IND)

Sir Donald Bradman (AUS)

Jacques Kallis (SA)

Rahul Dravid (IND)

Brian Lara (WI)

Sir Garfield Sobers (WI)

Allan Border (AUS)

Sunil Gavaskar (IND)

Steve Waugh (AUS)

Javed Miandad (PAK)

 

[Spark]

this is why smart people don't read the australian



but seriously - economic theory applied to cricket? wtf?

 

[Ruckus]

umm isn't that just skewed massively towards batsmen that have played **** loads of cricket?

 

[Spikey]

Meanwhile CricInfo still shows Don Bradman averages 99.94 over 80 innings.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, this "study" forgets to divide the scores by number of innings. Tendulkar and Bradman are placed tightly together despite Tendulkar playing thrice as many innings!

By the way, how are these stories received by a casual cricket follower in Australia (not the maniac ones like us)?

 

[MrPrez]

Biggest load of rubbish ever - Tendulkar got pushed in when he was young, that's the only reason he has so many runs.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Gets a reaction, I guess. Probably why they give them the time of air pretty regularly, they'll get some publicity for their own paper.

 

[Ruckus]

I like this theory better:

Let Bradman play the same amount of innings as Tendulkar has and then compare stats.

Bradman 30281 runs, with approx. 109 centuries, 45 being double centuries

 

[Daemon]

Yeah but he didn't. Suck it Don.

 

[Hurricane]

In b4 the lock.

 

[fredfertang]

Why doesn't someone just work out their respective First Chance Averages and be done with it

 

[ganeshran]

I like this theory better:

Let Bradman play the same amount of innings as Tendulkar has and then compare stats.

Bradman 30281 runs, with approx. 109 centuries, 45 being double centuries

That is a direct extrapolation - it is not correct statistically since it doesnt take into account factors like slump in form etc.

 

[Jayzamann]

Dismal.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That is a direct extrapolation - it is not correct statistically since it doesnt take into account factors like slump in form etc.

Reckon he would have had some dips in form, over a 20 year career...

 

[GotSpin]

Deary me

 

[Cruxdude]

I thought comparisons with Don should only be made after Sachin got past the made-up 100th ton milestone.

 

[ganeshran]

Reckon he would have had some dips in form, over a 20 year career...

I didnt post about what he already played, but rather predictions if he played n innings more. And it wasnt a point specifically about Bradman but rather any batsman.

If he played x innings and scored y runs, then saying that his score in z innings would (z*y)/x doesnt have statistical basis.

 

[MrPrez]

inb4 Indian fanboi

 

[Ruckus]

That is a direct extrapolation - it is not correct statistically since it doesnt take into account factors like slump in form etc.

I was joking bro. It is essentially the opposite in nature to what Mr Economic Theory genius did though, and places too little significance on the amount of innings (as opposed to far too much). Actually reckon the stats are probably closer to the truth though than his silly rankings, but as always the best answer would lie somewhere in the ------> <------.

 

[Hurricane]

I want to do my thesis then on Tendulkar vs Bradman.