Test match Records that will never be broken !!

[The Sean]

Bradman 99.94 to 58.33

58.78 actually - it was 49 more ducks after his last one.

 

[Cevno]

No Cevno, you've got this one wrong. Read my post again - I said if his final innings at the Oval was the start of the sequence - so 49 more ducks after that. Leaving him with an average of 58.78.

Try harder.

Then why did you say 120 innings ?

Bradman won't qualify if these are completed innings we are talking about.

And if you meant all innings then should have 129 inning.

 

[The Sean]

Then why did you say 120 innings ?

Bradman won't qualify if these are completed innings we are talking about.

And if you meant all innings then should have 129 inning.

Because 49 more ducks after his final one would leave him having played 129 innings (with 10 not-outs) and have an average of 58.78. Thus, the highest Test average of anyone who had played more than 120 innings.

FMD, can't believe I'm having to do this.

 

[Bun]

How many ducks have to be scored consecutively so that Bradman's average to fall below that of Sachin? (I meant both have to keep on getting ducks)

I know it is lolworthy but just can't help it.

 

[Cevno]

Because 49 more ducks after his final one would leave him having played 129 innings (with 10 not-outs) and have an average of 58.78. Thus, the highest Test average of anyone who had played more than 120 innings.

FMD, can't believe I'm having to do this.

Fair enough ,then.

I thought you were talking about completed innings.

Though don't know why are you being so selective.

 

[Debris]

The only really relevant part about all this to the original thread topic is that 50 test ducks in a row would actually be a really hard record to break.

 

[Cevno]

How many ducks have to be scored consecutively so that Bradman's average to fall below that of Sachin? (I meant both have to keep on getting ducks)

I know it is lolworthy but just can't help it.

101 consecutive ducks for both and then both's average will be at 40.91.

 

[Bun]

101 consecutive ducks for both and then both's average will be at 40.91.

Sachin's will be marginally better. Thanks mate.

 

[Cevno]

What is interesting is that after adding 100 consecutive ducks to each ,don't think anyone Matches up to Sachin and Bradman who come very close to each other at around a average of 41 point 1 and 2 something.

Only really kallis comes close among those with the top averages in sufficient matches at around 38.

 

[Cevno]

Sachin's will be marginally better. Thanks mate.

Yep and at 100 ducks ,Bradman's will be fractionally better.

 

[Burgey]

Every ****ing thread in CC turns into a dire bloody maths thread. Oooohhh how cool!! If I play with numbers as often as I play with my own balls, I can make anything happen.

****ing terrible. Just import the maths thread in here. I blame SS and his acolytes, who are mistakenly of the view maths is:

a. Interesting; and/ or
b. Cool.

If Chris Martin made 1* every innings, how many would it take for his average to surpass Bradman's? [Answer below]






















Who gives a flying ****?

 

[GIMH]

No Cevno, you've got this one wrong. Read my post again - I said if his final innings at the Oval was the start of the sequence - so 49 more ducks after that. Leaving him with an average of 58.78.

Try harder.

Because 49 more ducks after his final one would leave him having played 129 innings (with 10 not-outs) and have an average of 58.78. Thus, the highest Test average of anyone who had played more than 120 innings.

FMD, can't believe I'm having to do this.

There is something very nice about when someone rudely says 'you're wrong' and get owned. Well done Sean.

Every ****ing thread in CC turns into a dire bloody maths thread. Oooohhh how cool!! If I play with numbers as often as I play with my own balls, I can make anything happen.

****ing terrible. Just import the maths thread in here. I blame SS and his acolytes, who are mistakenly of the view maths is:

a. Interesting; and/ or
b. Cool.

If Chris Martin made 1* every innings, how many would it take for his average to surpass Bradman's? [Answer below]






















Who gives a flying ****?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Every ****ing thread in CC turns into a dire bloody maths thread. Oooohhh how cool!! If I play with numbers as often as I play with my own balls, I can make anything happen.

****ing terrible. Just import the maths thread in here. I blame SS and his acolytes, who are mistakenly of the view maths is:

a. Interesting; and/ or
b. Cool.

If Chris Martin made 1* every innings, how many would it take for his average to surpass Bradman's? [Answer below]






















Who gives a flying ****?

 

[_Ed_]

Best post I've seen in Cricket Chat for some time, that.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah, that's a record too. Sutcliffe and Sobers's high average records have a much greater chance of being beaten than Bradman's though; that's why Bradman's was being discussed in the thread.

 

[Cevno]

Every ****ing thread in CC turns into a dire bloody maths thread. Oooohhh how cool!! If I play with numbers as often as I play with my own balls, I can make anything happen.

****ing terrible. Just import the maths thread in here. I blame SS and his acolytes, who are mistakenly of the view maths is:

a. Interesting; and/ or
b. Cool.

If Chris Martin made 1* every innings, how many would it take for his average to surpass Bradman's? [Answer below]






















Who gives a flying ****?

Someone wasn't good at Maths in School.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Someone wasn't good at Maths in School.

Burgey's a lawyer. Being good at numbers is one of the most important reasons behind them choosing the profession.

 

[TumTum]

There is something very nice about when someone rudely says 'you're wrong' and get owned. Well done Sean.

Was going to mention that but didn't want to be mean

 

[morgieb]

Every ****ing thread in CC turns into a dire bloody maths thread. Oooohhh how cool!! If I play with numbers as often as I play with my own balls, I can make anything happen.

****ing terrible. Just import the maths thread in here. I blame SS and his acolytes, who are mistakenly of the view maths is:

a. Interesting; and/ or
b. Cool.

If Chris Martin made 1* every innings, how many would it take for his average to surpass Bradman's? [Answer below]






















Who gives a flying ****?

Haha!

One of the best posts I've seen in a while. And yes, this argument is ****ing stupid tstl.

 

[marc71178]

Bradman 99.94 to 58.33

Chris Martin - 2.53 to 1.17