WHY do they say this?

[centurymaker]

Which is very true, but Ponting's golden period was longer than that. In fact that period there contains an extended below-average period for him through 2004.

The point remains that the fact it's only been in the last two years that Tendulkar has pulled away speaks to the fact that the gap between him and his great contemporaries is not that big at all.

Around the time of the 2003 WC, he was clearly ahead of Lara (Half of lara's 100's came in his last 3.5 yrs (03/06) ). It's especially the years 2005 and 2006 that put doubt in people's mind about tendulkar's greatness.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So many players outperformed tendulkar by miles.

 

[hang on]

Why do you constantly try to pseudo moderate threads? It's not your place mate.

why are u getting your knickers in a twist if i try and ensure that someone doesn't screw up a thread that i started, chum? btw, i did actually complain to the mods, too...twice. what u term pseudo moderate, i call using common sense and preventing a thread from descending into out and out abuse.

 

[Cevno]

Yes, my post is there for all to see. And I did not say subcontinental fans are stupid, or attack them. I said I can understand why fans of low intelligence hold such an opinion; as I have also stated that I do not believe most India fans - certainly of those I have encountered on here - hold said opinion, then it's pretty clear that you are producing a straw man argument. Bravo champ.

Onto your claiming that number of hundreds is a Bradmanlike comparison to make. Well no, it isn't. Maybe if you tried hundreds per innings we'd be on the road to somewhere logical. Alas, without checking, one suspects the Don would top that quite comfortably.

That is not to demean Tendulkar's wonderful achievement but number of hundreds is not a reflection of dominance in the same way batting average is.

Then why don't we use average in atleast 4 countries to compare them or how about in 100 matches ?
Arguments can be found other side of the line too.

I understand what you are saying but going by that logic it is strange you do not argue that Lohmann was unquestionably the greatest bowler ever.
I think i showed that if you count the same countries and the same teams bradman played against sutcliffe averaged in the high 70's for most part too.

I rate Bradman the best but there is not such a large gap that 50 + YEARS plus of bradman hype would have you believe propogated by media feeding to their consumers of majorly 2 countries who had the money .

 

[GIMH]

Why do you constantly try to pseudo moderate threads? It's not your place mate.

Seem to remember him being the one who first got all uppity about you calling someone else a buffoon too. Lol.

Hey hang on, why don't you use the report button instead of supposing to act like you run this joint?

 

[Cevno]

The problem for mine is that the thing that has caused Tendulkar to separate from his contemporaries such as Ponting and Lara has been more or less the last two years. Two!

Not really.

He was head and shoulders above the competition in the 90's,in terms of averages.

It was in the 2000's when averages began to rise the chasing pack caught up . And even some decent but not great batsman boosted their averages.

 

[hang on]

Seem to remember him being the one who first got all uppity about you calling someone else a buffoon too. Lol.

Hey hang on, why don't you use the report button instead of supposing to act like you run this joint?

at that point, i wasn't even sure of how to report anything. nor was i aware of how to bring up questions about threads, forum etiquette etc. in a different place in the forum. and i (and i don't think that i was the only one) was also not sure about the difference between mods and staff members; i found it quite idiotic that people who i thought ran the forum should avoid following their own rules (from what i had gleaned from comments on other threads in my time prior to actually joining the site) about not denigrating other posters with personal remarks etc. clear enough for u? or does it still rankle?

btw, i seem to recall u bullying migara. is that ok? calling him a tool in a thread -- is that really ok?

if u guys like that kind of behaviour so much, and consider it ok, perhaps i will avoid coming on here. u guys can then 'run' the site.

 

[GIMH]

Then why don't we use average in atleast 4 countries to compare them or how about in 100 matches ?
Arguments can be found other side of the line too.

I understand what you are saying but going by that logic it is strange you do not argue that Lohmann was unquestionably the greatest bowler ever.
I think i showed that if you count the same countries and the same teams bradman played against sutcliffe averaged in the high 70's for most part too.

I rate Bradman the best but there is not such a large gap that 50 + YEARS plus of bradman hype would have you believe propogated by media feeding to their consumers of majorly 2 countries who had the money .

Look, if you've read my ramblings in comparison threads, I'm not a big fan of using numbers to rank and compare players.

However, generally here at CW we attempt to compare players who are maybe 5 apart in average at most.

When Richard argued Hussain was better than Hayden I don't think there was a single poster who agreed with him. In fact, he was widely ridiculed - given that the difference in their averages is approximately 20 you can see why.

The difference between Bradman and Tendulkar's averages is around the 40+ mark IIRC. Anyone arguing Tendulkar is on Bradman's level should be ridiculed the same way Richard was.

Even in your Sutcliffe number-twisting, the gap is still 20+!

Numbers aren't everything but when the gap gets to about 6 or 7 you need a damn good case. Maybe as far as 10 or 12 accounting for conditions. 40? There is no case. Those numbers cannot be twisted.

 

[Cevno]

Some other posts on this topic from other threads.-

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Averages of batsmen who played that same time against the same teams that Bradman played against.

This is both home and away and 5 matches minimum ,while Bradman played SA,India and England only at home.

I think i showed a while back that if you remove the last 2/3 years and away tours to Newzealand and South Africa from Sutcliffe's record then he averaged about 75 to 80 ,i think in 40 tests or something.


,,,,,,,,.....

I agree that Bradman is the best, but stats can be twisted there too .

And don't think it is mandatory not to compare someone to him.

Agreed.

This whole thing where Bradman can't be compared is a bit ludicrous really.
Though there are so many analyst and ex cricketers who have compared players with him and even said they are better.
I agree he is the best and that people here more than anywhere won't agree with anything else ,but i don't see their being such a big difference or pedestal as many put him on here as few on here argued previously too.

You may not agree with the opinion but to make fun of it and not wanting it discussed is almost like restrictive and pathetic.

Herbert Sutcliffe averaged pretty much into the high 70's playing in almost the same era as Bradman in Australia and England before his last 3 years in about 35 test matches.

His average dropped to 12 in Newzealand and 46.44 in South africa.

How can one be conclusively sure that Bradman's average wouldn't have dropped had he toured other countries as well.
And as a result how his confidence and form and fitness would have been affected.

There is even less likely to be a George Lohmann too.

Someone who averages about 10 with the ball and with over 100 wickets.

Cricket has neutralised from both extremes and is better for it ,according to me.

Here is a post i made in another thread about averaging 80/90 odd in this era and from now on-

In this day and age you just need to have one of your weakness found with the help of all the technology available and until you can sort it out ,4/5 innings are gone and your career average takes a tumbling.

Same is the case with different conditions arround the world,and taking time to get yourself set in those conditions and days of travel.
Then there is acclimitization required from one format to another and acclimitization to different bowlers.
Just take Mendis for example,it took Indians one whole series and more before he could be sorted out.

Probably averaging 50 odd is easier in this era,but then averaging anything like 80/90 odd is only probably gonna get tougher from now on.


So Basically saying that because no one would average 90 odd for his career,there won't be anyone as good as Bradman is a bit of a unreasonable argument for me.

Just look at Bradman's average against West indies 74.50 in Australia.God Knows how much he would have averaged if he had to play away against them.

Yes he stands out from the pack,but there is fair reasonable logic to think he is comparable to others and his record also stands up for scrutiny .
For me he is the greatest but personally i don't see as big a gap as some here do.

Btw, you can add Arjuna Ranatunga ,Ajay Jadeja,Navjot Sidhu ,Graeme Onions to the list in the OP as well.

 

[Ikki]

That was then, here it is how it looks now :-

Whos is the greatest batsman of all time?

Sir Donald Bradman 48.03%


Sachin Tendulkar 51.97%

Holy ****. I guess the Indians/Tendulkar fans have clearly flooded the poll. I was looking in the comment section and it was pleasing to see most people actually knew something about the game.

Lol, absolutely irrelevant?

Longetivity is as equally important in the modern game (the age of Taits, Bonds, Trescos) if not more. A really good batsman at his peak (for 3-4 years) can turn around batting numbers similar to even the Don (Ponting comes to mind), but to carry on that form across 20 plus years, has been achieved so far only by a single individual in the history of cricket. And that is Sachin.

What is with the talk of opportunity I don't understand. Tendulkar gets to play in the same amount of matches as his country plays, isnt it? His number of 100s aren't result of India having played a lot of matches, but that he has endured through two decades to play in that many number of matches, and score runs. No special privelage was granted to him to get to that landmark, he fought the hard battle as anyone out there.

The landmark of 99(100 possibly if not more) international hundreds isn't going to be broken probably ever, just like the 99.96 set up by the Don. That shows the brilliance of the respective domination.

To amplify the relevance of batting average is understandable, but to downgrade an other equally important batting stat as "irrelevant" is not really justifiable. It shows a selective mind at application.

Yes, irrelevant.

It is more a product of opportunity than ability. Sobers and Bradman also played 20 years of cricket; they just played less matches in those days. The fact that Bradman's average is almost double that of Tendulkar's makes his total number of centuries irrelevant. As Sanz points out; that record can be overtaken quite conceivably - even by a lesser batsman - if he chooses to play enough or if he is in an era where more cricket is played. But no one will ever get close to Bradman's average. And if they do you and I will be six foot deep by that time.

Anyway, it's akin to arguing that Murali is twice as good as Marshall because he has twice as many wickets. But he isn't, and you'd be crazy for arguing otherwise. Just because he bowled far more, in a team that had far less competition for wickets, in an era where they played more games does not really talk of ability...rather opportunity.

The irony is the only selective mind is one that is trying to make the achievement of 100 international centuries akin to the average of Bradman. It's nonsense. Kapil Dev had the record for most wickets; so did Walsh.

Numbers aren't everything but when the gap gets to about 6 or 7 you need a damn good case. Maybe as far as 10 or 12 accounting for conditions. 40? There is no case. Those numbers cannot be twisted.

Exactly. It is not an argument.

 

[archie mac]

They compare Tendulkar to Bradman because Bradman is the best.

They compare Bradman to no one because Bradman is the best

 

[hang on]

yes, archiemac, it does make sense!

 

[Cevno]

Look, if you've read my ramblings in comparison threads, I'm not a big fan of using numbers to rank and compare players.

However, generally here at CW we attempt to compare players who are maybe 5 apart in average at most.

When Richard argued Hussain was better than Hayden I don't think there was a single poster who agreed with him. In fact, he was widely ridiculed - given that the difference in their averages is approximately 20 you can see why.

The difference between Bradman and Tendulkar's averages is around the 40+ mark IIRC. Anyone arguing Tendulkar is on Bradman's level should be ridiculed the same way Richard was.

Even in your Sutcliffe number-twisting, the gap is still 20+!

Numbers aren't everything but when the gap gets to about 6 or 7 you need a damn good case. Maybe as far as 10 or 12 accounting for conditions. 40? There is no case. Those numbers cannot be twisted.

The same then applies to George Lohmann too ,surely?

100 wickets at a average of near 10.

Barnes comes the closest even then there is a equal gap to that ,if not greater than 20 in average.
After that no one comes close.

I don't really believe in comparison accross era's even then i think Bradman is the greatest ever ,but to say that he is not comparable at all is a bit ridiculous to me because though statistically anomaly may exist ultimately compared to others if you want to holes can be found in his record too.
The gap is not as great as the hype would have you believe for me. And the arrogance that he cannot be compared based on this legend of 50 + years is obviously expected but gets on a nerve a bit when the other side is doing the same and gets called feeding to "whores on flattery" etc..
When the same has been happening to themselves for decades .

 

[GIMH]

at that point, i wasn't even sure of how to report anything. nor was i aware of how to bring up questions about threads, forum etiquette etc. in a different place in the forum. and i (and i don't think that i was the only one) was also not sure about the difference between mods and staff members; i found it quite idiotic that people who i thought ran the forum should avoid following their own rules (from what i had gleaned from comments on other threads in my time prior to actually joining the site) about not denigrating other posters with personal remarks etc. clear enough for u? or does it still rankle?

btw, i seem to recall u bullying migara. is that ok? calling him a tool in a thread -- is that really ok?

if u guys like that kind of behaviour so much, and consider it ok, perhaps i will avoid coming on here. u guys can then 'run' the site.

I don't recall calling Migara a 'tool' but it is possible I did as his posting has at times been highly provocative.

I have nothing to do with the running of the forum or the site, but it irks me to see someone who has been here for five minutes throwing his weight around and telling people how they should be posting. I also strongly disagree with your definition of insults but I ain't going over that again.

 

[Nate]

at that point, i wasn't even sure of how to report anything. nor was i aware of how to bring up questions about threads, forum etiquette etc. in a different place in the forum. and i (and i don't think that i was the only one) was also not sure about the difference between mods and staff members; i found it quite idiotic that people who i thought ran the forum should avoid following their own rules (from what i had gleaned from comments on other threads in my time prior to actually joining the site) about not denigrating other posters with personal remarks etc. clear enough for u? or does it still rankle?

btw, i seem to recall u bullying migara. is that ok? calling him a tool in a thread -- is that really ok?

if u guys like that kind of behaviour so much, and consider it ok, perhaps i will avoid coming on here. u guys can then 'run' the site.

Will hold the door open for you.

 

[Cevno]

No.

Yea it is only the Indian market that pays for the hype.

Surely English and Aussie media when they had all the power and money in the game not flatter their domestic markets. I mean how could they? Right?

 

[archie mac]

yes, archiemac, it does make sense!

Thanks mate, I was going to change "you know it makes sense" but will keep it now

Yea it is only the Indian market that pays for the hype.

Surely English and Aussie media when they had all the power and money in the game not flatter their domestic markets. I mean how could they? Right?

"C,mon Aussie, C'mon, C'mon"

 

[hang on]

I don't recall calling Migara a 'tool' but it is possible I did as his posting has at times been highly provocative.

I have nothing to do with the running of the forum or the site, but it irks me to see someone who has been here for five minutes throwing his weight around and telling people how they should be posting. I also strongly disagree with your definition of insults but I ain't going over that again.

as i mentioned in my earlier comment, i didn't know the difference between mods and staffmembers.

it irks me to see that people, by virtue of a number of posts, can decide that new members have to keep a low profile or not bring 'issues' to light.

it's not the definition of insult that's really at stake. it's what seems to verge on borderline bullying.

btw, if it's really such a problem to tell someone, who comes up with the kind of crap that weezer came up with, to avoid a certain manner of posting, then there is a problem. and u can bet that weezer will be chuckling his little pants off to see the person who's called his offensive crap is actually being 'upbraided' by someone who is 'irked' (and considers himself or herself to be some kind of senior or venerable elder on here).

and, for what it's worth, i would actually prefer it if those kinds of offensive, racist, abusive posts were actually deleted. for example, if someone called me ****** (the N word), not only would i react, i would certainly not want to see the post stay on up there.

i really hope i've made myself clear. i really don't want to go over this again.

 

[hang on]

fair enough, nanden, u legend, u.

then all of you with a large number of posts can keep patting yourselves on the back. and keep this place a nice little old boys network. and can gang up on any upstart interlopers.

thought that new blood in a place that prides itself on discussing cricket would be welcome, but apparently not.

 

[vcs]

 

[blahblahblah]