Test match Records that will never be broken !!

[Maximus0723]

Can't say I understand your point though. Most people accept that around 20 Tests is as decent a place for a cut-off as any. We obviously don't use just one or two Tests because you need a number of games over a decent length of time to get an idea of how good a player is. Can't believe I'm having to explain this to anyone on a cricket site, tbh.

Look, if Bradman averaged 99.94 from 20 Tests, you might have a case in saying he's overhyped. From 48 (IIRC) Tests though, over a 20 year time span, there's not much you can say. Not sure why I should be defending the man with the average almost twice as good as anyone else (after a reasonable period of time, FFS); tbh, if you're going to be accusing him of being overhyped, surely you should be providing something other than a one-Test-wonder.

In one line,
Bradman's data is statistically significant while others' isn't.

 

[The Sean]

I think one can pretty safely say that every record that Sachin holds to his name in test cricket is very unlikely to be broken, Murali's 800 is also a feat that I can't see any bowler even coming close to.
Don's career average though is something that might get eclipsed in the future by a very good batsman, becuase I can only see the wickets getting flatter and hence bowling attacks becoming even more toothless around the world, mind you it still would be some achievement.
Australia's record streak of 16 wins in a row is something though that I can't see no team replicating any time soon.

Seriously? You think that pitches will flatten out and bowlers become toothless to such an extent that someone could possibly average 100+ in Test cricket - but that Sachin's runs/centuries records are unassailable? If someone can top Bradman's average over a full-length career, they can break any other record they like as well.

 

[zaremba]

You are waaaaaaay off the topic I am afraid. People here say Bradman has the highest CAREER average, which is not true. Where is the guy who averaged 112 in his test career in your graph?

Your graph has added a filter. Once you filter data, records can be tricky, because your filter is as arbitrary as mine.

The world is flat if you take a narrow enough view. Ergo - the world is flat.

If you can point to one respect - just one, and you are free to select it - in which that batting average graph can seriously be said to be misleading, then you win.

 

[Jarquis]

I've only read Migara's first point on the matter but wasn't he basically saying that Bradman is the best batsman ever, granted, but to say he holds the world record for career highest batting average is statistically incorrect with no qualifications and that if you were to apply an arbitrary number of Tests to qualify that 20 is no different from his suggestion of 60?

 

[zaremba]

In fairness, I've no idea, and have come to this discussion late, and should probably wind my neck in

 

[Howe_zat]

Technically speaking Miagra is right - Bradman's average is obviously unique but it isn't really a record.

 

[marc71178]

It's only not a record to a complete pedant.

 

[Prince EWS]

Technically speaking Miagra is right - Bradman's average is obviously unique but it isn't really a record.

Well, it is. He holds the record for the highest Test batting average after a career of more than one innings. It's a wordy record but it's still a record. Sutcliffe holds the record for the highest Test batting average after a career of more than eighty innings. Again wordy, but again a record.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You are waaaaaaay off the topic I am afraid. People here say Bradman has the highest CAREER average, which is not true. Where is the guy who averaged 112 in his test career in your graph?

Your graph has added a filter. Once you filter data, records can be tricky, because your filter is as arbitrary as mine.

They are as arbitary as each other, but one of them obviously makes a lot more sense than the other one and I think you know this, but are being pedantic for some reason.

Obviously the more tests you use as the cut-off, the less likely it is that the high average is due to chance and therefore, the more impressive it is.

 

[Contra]

What about when he helped (5-23) bowl out India for 70 odd and then AB de Villiers gets a double hundred and South Africa win by an innings? Wicket can’t have changed much as India batted 20 overs...

Well it kinda did. Ahemdabad is an been an absolute road over the last few years apart from the first session of day 1 (India were 32/4 against SL in 09 as well). In that particular test there was a significant amount of help for the quicks (more than usual) and it flattened out soon after. So even that spell (as good as it was) cannot be considered owning on a flat deck.. because it wasn't flat when he got his 5-fer. I'm not trying to bring down Steyn here. Nor am I saying he needs to rip through a good batting line up on an absolute road (this is the same as asking a batsmen to get a century on a greentop). Just saying that IMO he hasn't owned India on a flat deck so far. I have no problem if people want to consider that Nagpur spell as running through us on a flat deck though. It was an awesome spell regardless of the change of ball mid innings.

 

[Burgey]

I hear suicide bombers get 72 consecutive maidens tbh.

Heh.

 

[Bun]

Technically speaking Miagra is right - Bradman's average is obviously unique but it isn't really a record.

This. It isn't an absolute record by definition, as filters like min 20 innings etc need to be applied.

 

[Migara]

Can't say I understand your point though. Most people accept that around 20 Tests is as decent a place for a cut-off as any. We obviously don't use just one or two Tests because you need a number of games over a decent length of time to get an idea of how good a player is. Can't believe I'm having to explain this to anyone on a cricket site, tbh.

That is of course true when you come to judge how great a player is. But the task in our hand is clearly not to judge how good was Bradman, but whether his career average was the highest or not, and whether record belongs to him or not.

Look, if Bradman averaged 99.94 from 20 Tests, you might have a case in saying he's overhyped. From 48 (IIRC) Tests though, over a 20 year time span, there's not much you can say. Not sure why I should be defending the man with the average almost twice as good as anyone else (after a reasonable period of time, FFS); tbh, if you're going to be accusing him of being overhyped, surely you should be providing something other than a one-Test-wonder.

Now once again you are off the rail. I coudn't understand how Bradman' averaged is haled as the highest career average for a player, with regards to contents of this thread, even after showing that a particular player has a higher average. I am not foolish to say that Bradman's run making is overhyphed (or may be to a degree). This thread speaks of records, and records are not bound by statistical significances. Just save that for your statistical analysis.

 

[Migara]

Well, it is. He holds the record for the highest Test batting average after a career of more than one innings. It's a wordy record but it's still a record. Sutcliffe holds the record for the highest Test batting average after a career of more than eighty innings. Again wordy, but again a record.

Yeah, then can say Sobers had the record for highest average from 90+ test matches. Will be having the same weight when just the record is taken in to account.

 

[Migara]

It's only not a record to a complete pedant.

Records my friend, is ALWAYS pedantic. Otherwise they won't be records.

 

[Migara]

This. It isn't an absolute record by definition, as filters like min 20 innings etc need to be applied.

Once you include a filter you just open a can of worms. Now how to decide what is the value of the filter?

Once you apply a filter, it's no longer a "true" record. It's like saying Mr. Smith is the fastest runner with 11.2s in 100m among people who has a BMI of 35 or more.

 

[Migara]

The world is flat if you take a narrow enough view. Ergo - the world is flat.

If you can point to one respect - just one, and you are free to select it - in which that batting average graph can seriously be said to be misleading, then you win.

Sorry, you are off it so far. Not even worth responding.

 

[TumTum]

Migara some common sense needs to be applied here. Technically speaking you are absolutely correct, but get real.

 

[Migara]

Migara some common sense needs to be applied here. Technically speaking you are absolutely correct, but get real.

Records are technical, left to right, top to bottom. There is no question that Bradman is the best batsman ever. But equally, there's no question that he doesn't hold the record for the highest average as well. Common sense will tell you that highest average and best batsman is not synonymous.

 

[TumTum]

Records are technical, left to right, top to bottom. There is no question that Bradman is the best batsman ever. But equally, there's no question that he doesn't hold the record for the highest average as well. Common sense will tell you that highest average and best batsman is not synonymous.

Ok you can think of it that way, but this discussion is quite pointless because nobody works with that kind of logic. As far as anybody else is concerned, Bradman does have the highest average.