• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bradman is to Graeme Pollock as Pollock is to.....

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Okay so the wrestler is Aleksandr karelin his record is 887-2 with one of those losses still giving him Olympic silver in 2000 on the quest for a 4th consecutive gold in that event. Not bad
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
just had a cheeky look at Vengsarkar because I heard he had a ridic golden patch


hit ~1800 runs, averaged 101 over 20 tests from Dec '85 to Nov '88
So didn't even score 100 runs a Test in that period - suggests a very red-inked contrived stat to me.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
And it sounds bloody silly to do that, if you were to grade players fairly you'd give Sachin a 9 and Bradman a 10 unless you want to give him a 14 out of 10. So basically, because he's an outlier we have to look at batting in a different light
Cribbage once ran a set of 'standardised' batting averages taking high and low scoring eras and countries into account, and then multplied them by how long a career they had to get an overall 'value' rating. I'll try and find the thread later if I can. I remember it pretty much ended up with a score of 0-5 for batsmen where 0-1 was for players who weren't really batsmen, 1-2 if they were a good international player, 2-3 if they were among the best in the world and 3-5 if they were a genuine legend of the game. Bradman was 11.

edit: it's here I don't completely agree with him but found it a memorable exercise anyway
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
what are some other examples of such superiority? phar lap?
George Digweed won the clay-shooting world championship 26 times over a period of 30 years.
Raymond Ceulemans won the three-cushion billiards world championship 23 times over a period of 38 years.
Phil Taylor won the darts world championship 16 times over a period of 23 years.
Joe Davis won the snooker world championship 15 times over a period of 19 years.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
Cribbage once ran a set of 'standardised' batting averages taking high and low scoring eras and countries into account, and then multplied them by how long a career they had to get an overall 'value' rating. I'll try and find the thread later if I can. I remember it pretty much ended up with a score of 0-5 for batsmen where 0-1 was for players who weren't really batsmen, 1-2 if they were a good international player, 2-3 if they were among the best in the world and 3-5 if they were a genuine legend of the game. Bradman was 11.

edit: it's here I don't completely agree with him but found it a memorable exercise anyway
fred spofforth should not average more than m vijay

i know it's the past but this is an injustice
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So didn't even score 100 runs a Test in that period - suggests a very red-inked contrived stat to me.
that's a fair call


Mo-Yo got 2348 @ 90 from Nov '05 to Oct '07 and in only 16 tests too. just shy of 2 years and way less not outs than Dilip
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
True, but I think this shows quite how good Bradman was - the best that can be found to rival him is over a fraction of the time he lasted for and still only comes up to 90% of his overall career...
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
How do the numbers work in statistics? They usually say you need twenty innings to be significant, as we saw recently with Vogues. Bradman has 80 innings' so I'm sure that is way into being significant enough to shut up. Then we have another 300 first class games where the same pattern is seen as oddly superior to everyone else. Bradman is no statistical anomaly. He is a human anomaly.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How do the numbers work in statistics? They usually say you need twenty innings to be significant, as we saw recently with Vogues. Bradman has 80 innings' so I'm sure that is way into being significant enough to shut up. Then we have another 300 first class games where the same pattern is seen as oddly superior to everyone else. Bradman is no statistical anomaly. He is a human anomaly.
Hammer. Nail. Head.
 

CharlesLara

U19 12th Man
How do the numbers work in statistics? They usually say you need twenty innings to be significant, as we saw recently with Vogues. Bradman has 80 innings' so I'm sure that is way into being significant enough to shut up. Then we have another 300 first class games where the same pattern is seen as oddly superior to everyone else. Bradman is no statistical anomaly. He is a human anomaly.
Pretty much. I'm not sure why people are trying to prove otherwise. FFS the guy averaged 99.94, like everytime I quote that the mind still boggles. I remmeber reading in cricket satire magazine Googly (which is some of the best cricket satire I have ever read) mentioning Lara's ridiculous county run at Warwickshire amongst THAT purple patch, and to think there was a guy doing this in TEST matches on uncovered pitches...astonishing. Saying Bradman is a once in a lifetime player is even doing him a disservice, which says a lot. I look at guy like Lara who to me in a once in generation type player and think "**** me, how good was Bradman?".
 

Top