WHY do they say this?

[honestbharani]

Agree with this completely. I do strongly believe that longevity is a very important aspect while assessing the greatness of a player. Bradman's greatness, just as Tendulkar's greatness is partly because of the fact that they did so well over such long periods. To me, Bradman passes the test of longevity just as Tendulkar does; as any one who excelled for close to two decades would.

Yeah.. It is not about SAchin being the best for all 21 years of his career.. But he has almost ALWAYS been amongst the best.. He competed with Lara, Steve Waugh, Border, Inzy etc. in the 90s and then with Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Sanga, Lara(again) in the noughties.. And while people may have different opinions on EXACTLY where he ranks, it is quite indisputable that he has always BEEN in the discussion, at the very least. And even to achieve that in today's scenario for a period of 21 years or so is nothing short of sensational...

 

[smash84]

Yeah.. It is not about SAchin being the best for all 21 years of his career.. But he has almost ALWAYS been amongst the best.. He competed with Lara, Steve Waugh, Border, Inzy etc. in the 90s and then with Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Sanga, Lara(again) in the noughties.. And while people may have different opinions on EXACTLY where he ranks, it is quite indisputable that he has always BEEN in the discussion, at the very least. And even to achieve that in today's scenario for a period of 21 years or so is nothing short of sensational...

would have to agree here.

Btw how many succesful players have had 20 year careers??

Bradman, Sachin, Imran, Miandad,

15+ years (S Waugh, Lara, Inzy, Wasim, Warne, Hadlee etc)

 

[Bun]

 

[marc71178]

Missed SRT's rather big dip off there. In fact the dip seems to coincide with what you deem to be his highest point.

 

[Bun]

Missed SRT's rather big dip off there. In fact the dip seems to coincide with what you deem to be his highest point.

Geez, get the bigger picture!

 

[Neil Pickup]

All my examples do is serve to illustrate the weaknesses of average as a totalitarian indicator of ability as a player- esp when referring to Donald Bradman- the guy who only played 20 test matches (equivalent 4-5 test series) more than Yuvraj Singh (the guy who has considered to have hardly played in tests for India)

I've seen some special statistical misuse in my time, but I think this might be right up there at number one.

Where you have the idea that Bradman played 20 Test matches is beyond me.

52 Test Matches
80 Innings
42 Scores of 50+ (53% of his innings)
29 Scores of 100+ (50/100 conversion rate of 69%)
12 Scores of 200+ (100/200 conversion rate of 41%)

Another intriguing stat, possibly one that's never been used before, but one that I think is quite a revealing measure of a player's ability to go on and make an innings count once he was settled is the 50/200 conversion rate: Bradman's 12/42, or 29%.

For comparison, Lara is 9/82 (11%), Hammond 7/46 (15%), Atapattu 6/33 (18%) and Tendulkar 6/110 (5%).

 

[Neil Pickup]

New number one. This is totally arbitrary and entirely subjective so entirely inappropriate to graph.

What would make sense to graph would be the ICC batsman ranking points over time.

 

[smash84]

Missed SRT's rather big dip off there. In fact the dip seems to coincide with what you deem to be his highest point.

I've seen some special statistical misuse in my time, but I think this might be right up there at number one.

Where you have the idea that Bradman played 20 Test matches is beyond me.

52 Test Matches
80 Innings
42 Scores of 50+ (53% of his innings)
29 Scores of 100+ (50/100 conversion rate of 69%)
12 Scores of 200+ (100/200 conversion rate of 41%)

Another intriguing stat, possibly one that's never been used before, but one that I think is quite a revealing measure of a player's ability to go on and make an innings count once he was settled is the 50/200 conversion rate: Bradman's 12/42, or 29%.

For comparison, Lara is 9/82 (11%), Hammond 7/46 (15%), Atapattu 6/33 (18%) and Tendulkar 6/110 (5%).

Gun post

 

[vcs]

I've seen some special statistical misuse in my time, but I think this might be right up there at number one.

Where you have the idea that Bradman played 20 Test matches is beyond me.

52 Test Matches
80 Innings
42 Scores of 50+ (53% of his innings)
29 Scores of 100+ (50/100 conversion rate of 69%)
12 Scores of 200+ (100/200 conversion rate of 41%)

Another intriguing stat, possibly one that's never been used before, but one that I think is quite a revealing measure of a player's ability to go on and make an innings count once he was settled is the 50/200 conversion rate: Bradman's 12/42, or 29%.

For comparison, Lara is 9/82 (11%), Hammond 7/46 (15%), Atapattu 6/33 (18%) and Tendulkar 6/110 (5%).

That is such a freakish stat. Sehwag's is 6/49 (12.2%).

 

[Bun]

Gun post

Good lordy smiley! What's so worthy about that mate???

 

[Shri]

Geez, get the bigger picture!

???

 

[smash84]

Good lordy smiley! What's so worthy about that mate???

it is just that your graph is so ironic (also moronic )..........with probably Tendy's worst point of form being the maximum point in the graph.....Marcuss just pointed that out and I found it funny

 

[GIMH]

New number one. This is totally arbitrary and entirely subjective so entirely inappropriate to graph.

What would make sense to graph would be the ICC batsman ranking points over time.

When England drew in India in 06, Tendulkar was in a vein of form not dissimilar to Ponting's recent stuff.

It wasn't short either, it lasted a couple of years IIRC. People thought he was finished. It is to his credit that he rose to the top again and, IMO, confirmed himself as the best batsman of his generation. That being said, your graph is a complete farce.

------

Speaking of farce, did someone try and compare Bradman to Yuvraj? Unplug your keyboard please.

 

[smash84]

When England drew in India in 06, Tendulkar was in a vein of form not dissimilar to Ponting's recent stuff.

It wasn't short either, it lasted a couple of years IIRC. People thought he was finished. It is to his credit that he rose to the top again and, IMO, confirmed himself as the best batsman of his generation. That being said, your graph is a complete farce.

------

Speaking of farce, did someone try and compare Bradman to Yuvraj? Unplug your keyboard please.

actually Tendy's bad run of form lasted almost 4 years

 

[Bun]

it is just that your graph is so ironic (also moronic )..........with probably Tendy's worst point of form being the maximum point in the graph.....Marcuss just pointed that out and I found it funny

:facepalm:

Nah

 

[Teja.]

I really appreciate the patience of the people fighting the good fight for Bradman in this thread. Tendulkar>Bradman is a view I have absolutely no patience for, It's an even more dire view than saying the rules were changed to accommodate Murali or saying the earth is flat. Something which deserves to be met with ridicule and not well-structured argument tbh.

 

[marc71178]

Geez, get the bigger picture!

I am. You're the one trying to claim that whilst all his rivals had dips in form Tendulkar carried on and got better and better.

 

[marc71178]

it is just that your graph is so ironic (also moronic )..........with probably Tendy's worst point of form being the maximum point in the graph.....Marcuss just pointed that out and I found it funny

Ahem.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've seen some special statistical misuse in my time, but I think this might be right up there at number one.

Where you have the idea that Bradman played 20 Test matches is beyond me.

I believe he actually said that he only played 20 more matches than Yuvraj, TBF.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I believe he actually said that he only played 20 more matches than Yuvraj, TBF.

Fair cop, RTQ. Still, I'd take issue that Yuvraj has barely played for India. Yuvraj has played plenty of Test cricket for the world to have worked out that he's really not very good at it.

Anyway, back to graphs, I did the real one (+ Jacques Kallis, who never gets included in discussion of the Ponting/Lara/Tendulkar generation because he can bowl). Make of it what you will.