WHY do they say this?

[vcs]

Not really.

He is comparing their FC records in completely different countries and different competitions.

While i was talking about their international records against the same opposition in the same countries.
Sutcliffe has played in conditions which Bradman did not ,which reflects in his overall record and against different teams too.

But Bradman was also scoring huge in the FC matches in England that used to precede Ashes Tours back then (they were considered quite important). Not sure how to check the exact numbers but I'm pretty sure it was the case.

 

[Ruckus]

Someone take over please...I'm out haha.

 

[Ikki]

Why are you arguing this anyway? Sutcliffe only averaged 45 even in Cevno's stats. He's just advocating we remove a third of Sutcliffe's career so he could have his career average of 70. Well, you could say remove the first third of his career (let's say the first Test his average falls below 70 - which was also pre-Bradman) and the rest of his career he averages 55.

 

[Shri]

Both of 'em are/were over rated hacks. Gillespie clearly better than both the ****s.

 

[hang on]

but he does have a point...sort of. controlling for the exact opposition etc.

a bit farfetched but still interesting, even if not necessarily convincing.

 

[Cevno]

Why are you arguing this anyway? Sutcliffe only averaged 45 even in Cevno's stats. He's just advocating we remove a third of Sutcliffe's career so he could have his career average of 70.

Not really.

The whole point was either Jardine ,Compton ,hEADLEY AND others are averaging high 80's to high 70's here or Sutcliffe is averaging 40 odd removing away in other stats.

Though i would give more credibility to these stats ,Sutcliffe was picked up so i was responding.
Would not really want to explain it too you,though.Would end up going in circles and then end up arguing about Murali vs Warne or something.

 

[Ikki]

Only Headley in your sample space is somewhat deserving of your argument. He has played 15 tests and over a number of years in it. The rest are averages on the back of a couple years at best. And even Headley is 23+ points behind Bradman. Nice try and all. You missed the second part of my post so I will repost it here:

Why are you arguing this anyway? Sutcliffe only averaged 45 even in Cevno's stats. He's just advocating we remove a third of Sutcliffe's career so he could have his career average of 70. Well, you could say remove the first third of his career (let's say the first Test his average falls below 70 - which was also pre-Bradman) and the rest of his career he averages 55.

 

[vcs]

It would be an interesting exercise to rank batsmen by how much they averaged after 10, 20, 30... etc. Tests. Sutcliffe averaged 68.82 after 20 Tests. Hussey averaged 84.8 after 20 (the infamous Sydney 2008 Test), ****ing hell.

 

[Cevno]

Sangakarra averages 76.52 in 46 tests as a non wicketkeeper.
Wonder what he would have averaged had those matches been in 2 countries.

 

[hang on]

Sangakarra averages 76.52 in 46 tests as a non wicketkeeper.
Wonder what he would have averaged had those matches been in 2 countries.

yep. especially england and india.

 

[Cevno]

but he does have a point...sort of. controlling for the exact opposition etc.

a bit farfetched but still interesting, even if not necessarily convincing.

And that is why i think Bradman is the greatest ,but the gap is not as big as some make it out and to be not even to be questioned.

 

[Cevno]

yep. especially england and india.

Or Alternatively Pakistan ,Australia and Srilanka.

He averages 85.36 in 27 tests in Srilanka as a non wicketkeeper over 9 years.
And that is against 8 different oppositions.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;template=results;type=allround;view=innings

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Statistics are like Bikinis what they reveal is suggestive ,but what they conceal is vital.

 

[hang on]

i know, cevno. i was just being a smartarse.

 

[Cevno]

May be a bit strange and not prove anything but if you add 100 ducks to both Bradman and Tendulkar's test records till now their averages becomes almost equal.

Nobody else comes close in history. With Kallis perhaps being the 3rd closest atm.

 

[Ruckus]

May be a bit strange and not prove anything but if you add 100 ducks to both Bradman and Tendulkar's test records till now their averages becomes almost equal.

Nobody else comes close in history. With Kallis perhaps being the 3rd closest atm.

Might have something to do with Tendulkar playing a few more matches..

Try adding the 100 ducks to their FC records...

 

[Burgey]

when the combination of the sheer volume of runs, average, century conversion, respect of peers (the warnes and co....not the husseins and their comparisons with bradman), longevity, performances against the best, performances in different conditions, performances in the 90s (the bowling era), adaptability in different forms of the game, pressure of carrying the ridiculous expectations of a billion indians (perhaps this one is not a good one), ability to play all the shots, ability to attack and defend are considered, he is clearly ahead of the rest. and hence 'indubitably' is not such a preposterous or even egregiously hyperbolic term.

it's not just one factor ie average. or the biggest scores. or the one incredible innings. it's the combination of all the factors that go into making a batsman great. and, on that score, he is some ways ahead of the rest. if he had, indeed, retired in 06, it might have been questionable. but not any more.

the very fact that the comparison with bradman is being made, ridiculous though it might be to me and many others, is indication of the fact that he is now really on a different plane to the others (when comparing their respective corpora of work), no matter how unpalatable it might be to aficionados of other batting luminaries.

The "pressure of a billion people" is the greatest crock of **** as a reason to put someone on a pedestal as a player. He's a great player, but talk of some unique type of pressure is bollocks. What makes that any more pressure than, say, Hadlee who may well have thought "I'm carrying the hopes and dreams of my (comparatively) small nation against bigger foes?"

You don't know. No one can. All great players perform well under pressure, that's what makes them great FFS.

And it's true to say that it isn't just batting average, but you've (generic "you", not specifically "you" btw ) cherry picked the attributes of Tendulkar you think make him the best. I could say let's take into account average, innings/ hundred, performing as captain (always conveniently ignored in the love-in. Tendulkar was a laughable captain), holding down a job/ career while playing test cricket, having a six-seven year break and coming back to lead and play well, uncovered wickets, no helmets then Bradman is without peer.

You can pretty much use whatever variables you like. But Tendulkar's record, remarkable though it is, doesn't really come close to Bradman's. It's hardly Bradman's fault they didn't play as much cricket back then as they do now.

 

[Cevno]

Might have something to do with Tendulkar playing a few more matches..

Try adding the 100 ducks to their FC records...

I said at the start that it does not prove much . But since you made some points -


Playing more though counts in the grand scheme of things.
The man has had 2 great careers in one career. Can't be simply overlooked.
And there have been many great players in the history of cricket besides these 2 too who have had the chance.

As far as FC records are concerned ,do not why do you keep bringing it up. As it does not matter so much.
Or probably the likes of Rahane ,Badrinath,Ajay Sharma average more than some legends.
In fact Badrinath averages near 220 for India A including away tours in about 10 matches.

 

[Ruckus]

How bout this stat:

"Bradman...only 43 consecutive ducks away from averaging the same as Tendulkar".

 

[Cevno]

How bout this stat:

"Bradman...only 43 consecutive ducks away from averaging the same as Tendulkar".

Is true.

Probably a similar one can be made for Sangakkara as a non wicketkeeper and George Lohman as far as his bowling is concerned over others.

There is a difference between doing it to one set of stats and doing the same to 2 sets.
In any case neither proves anything substantial as i said from the get go.

 

[Spark]

The "pressure of a billion people" is the greatest crock of **** as a reason to put someone on a pedestal as a player. He's a great player, but talk of some unique type of pressure is bollocks. What makes that any more pressure than, say, Hadlee who may well have thought "I'm carrying the hopes and dreams of my (comparatively) small nation against bigger foes?"

You don't know. No one can. All great players perform well under pressure, that's what makes them great FFS.

And it's true to say that it isn't just batting average, but you've (generic "you", not specifically "you" btw ) cherry picked the attributes of Tendulkar you think make him the best. I could say let's take into account average, innings/ hundred, performing as captain (always conveniently ignored in the love-in. Tendulkar was a laughable captain), holding down a job/ career while playing test cricket, having a six-seven year break and coming back to lead and play well, uncovered wickets, no helmets then Bradman is without peer.

You can pretty much use whatever variables you like. But Tendulkar's record, remarkable though it is, doesn't really come close to Bradman's. It's hardly Bradman's fault they didn't play as much cricket back then as they do now.

This is absolutely true. It confuses me so much when people bring up population as a a reason why Tendulkar > ____________. Do you think Ponting was under less pressure because Aus is only 20 million people?