Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[GGG]

Anyone what to work out what Tendulkar average would be if you took his top scores from 52 games? You really can't argue with a FC average of 95 after 234 games though.

 

[Cevno]

This is not like judging Trumper against Tendulkar. 99.94. You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

Oh really!!

Now Sangakkara averages 76.52 as a non keeper against 10 different teams this era.

And that too in 9 different countries in 46 matches.

So basically he is undisputed second batsman ever as a non keeper right in terms of basic maths?

And a case can be made based on numbers for him to be better than Bradman too ,i guess.

Bradman just played in 2 countries and what's to say had he only played in 2 countries ie srilanka (85.36 avg) and newzeland(134 avg) ,Australia(97.25) ,Zimbabwe(140.50) he would have averaged something similar only and that too against better teams than what other teams were in Bradman's era except England.
And also with more variation of bowlers at home, more commercial distractions, more technology to find a weakness and better cricketing standards in most other countries.


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

 

[Blaze 18]

Out of curiosity, how big is that Sangakkara sample?

 

[Cevno]

Out of curiosity, how big is that Sangakkara sample?

46 matches against 9 teams in 9 countries.

Bradman played 52 matches in all in 2 countries against 5 teams.

 

[Teja.]

Out of curiosity, how big is that Sangakkara sample?

46 tests ftr.

I disagree completely with Cevno's argument but the fact that Sanga achieved that should be stated much more tbh. Genuinely legendary achievement

 

[Ikki]

Oh really!!

Do you actually read what is written before replying?

 

[Cevno]

Do you actually read?

So you are backtracking again like usual or were not talking about "Simple Maths"??

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.

The gap closes ,doesn't it?And so does the so much better than peers argument.
Two can play that the numbers game.

I have been over this again and again here and really was avoiding this thread and the other one,but you're posts were doing my head in.

And btw,I am sure George Lohmann twice the bowler of Shane Warne on "Simple maths",right?

10.75 average vs 25.41 average

Even bigger gap in ratio than Don and Sachin. I suggest you change your sig then?

 

[Cevno]

46 tests ftr.

I disagree completely with Cevno's argument but the fact that Sanga achieved that should be stated much more tbh. Genuinely legendary achievement

Why?
I thought this thread was based on "simple maths"?

 

[Shri]

Jeez Cevno.

 

[Ikki]

How am I backtracking? Teja said it is because people do not know enough about cricketing history that they may rate Bradman less. I said you wouldn't have to know much at all bar their averages to vote Bradman ahead of Tendulkar.

WTF does that have to do with Sangakkara or Lohmann? You could be wrong about many other things using that method but you would be right about this comparison. It's the hardest comparison you can screw up. There is a reason I mentioned Trumper because many fans won't know of him or know why his average is lower than modern day averages and in that sense it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a fan may not know much about Trumper.

Which cricket fan worth their salt is not going to know about Bradman?

 

[Cevno]

Jeez Cevno.

 

[Cevno]

How am I backtracking? Teja said it is because people do not know enough about cricketing history that they may rate Bradman less. I said you wouldn't have to know much at all bar their averages to vote Bradman ahead of Tendulkar.

WTF does that have to do with Sangakkara or Lohmann? You could be wrong about many other things using that method but you would be right about this comparison. It's the hardest comparison you can screw up. There is a reason I mentioned Trumper because many fans won't know of him or know why his average is lower than modern day averages and in that sense it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a fan may not know much about Trumper.

Which cricket fan worth their salt is not going to know about Bradman?

So basically your argument for saying that anybody who does not rate Bradman higher than Tendulkar being stupid and ignorant is that Bradman averages 99.94 vs Tendulkar's 57?

Right?

Or you think it is perfectly valid to rate Tendulkar ahead of Bradman? Which should be the case like with Lohmann and warne in your case?

Your post was this -

This is not like judging Trumper against Tendulkar. 99.94. You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

Now with the same argument and the same standards ,you don't rate your opinion in high regard because you rate Warne better than Lohmann. When in fact a grasp of simple maths will tell you that giving 10 runs for a wicket better than giving 25.?
So what it is? Can't really have the cake and eat it too?

 

[Ikki]

So basically your argument for saying that anybody who does not rate Bradman higher than Tendulkar being stupid and ignorant is that Bradman averages 99.94 vs Tendulkar's 57?

Right?

Or you think it is perfectly valid to rate Tendulkar ahead of Bradman? Which should be the case like with Lohmann and warne in your case?

Anyone who knows much about cricket knows that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time. It's not a matter of someone not knowing much about cricket history - everyone knows Bradman and everyone knows why he is so highly rated (his average) - that is the point. You don't have to know the era he played in, whether he played on for too long or the quality of bowlers or anything. Bradman is infamous for one thing which even at a cursory glance gives you the answer. He is not a Trumper nor a Lohmann where you have to delve into cricket history to find out why their averages appear low (whether as a batsman or a bowler) and judge them accordingly.

You don't have to make those considerations with Bradman. His average as it stands is comparable; it's why he is so famous and special. I don't expect a casual fan to know about Spofforth and even less to compare their average to someone like Malcolm Marshall to get to realistic, or simply correct, answer. But with Bradman that is a legitimate expectation; if you don't know about Bradman you barely know anything about the game. It's akin to playing football and not knowing about Pele or playing Basketball and not knowing about Jordan.

Now with the same argument and the same standards ,you don't rate your opinion in high regard because you rate Warne better than Lohmann. When in fact a grasp of simple maths will tell you that giving 10 runs for a wicket better than giving 25.?
So what it is? Can't really have the cake and eat it too?

Are you feeling Ok? I just said you could apply prima facie averages and be wrong. But who would know that? Only someone who actually knows something about the game. Not someone who doesn't know anything about the game. But they would be right about Bradman; wouldn't they? You could apply averages and be wrong about Jayawardene vs Richards. You could be wrong about Waugh and Hussey...but you won't be wrong about Bradman. So ignorance is not an excuse, even in that strict sense.

I've elaborated a lot for you, in the hope the penny might fall. Something tells me you're not really interested in logic. You keep copy-pasting the same crap that was refuted in the other thread.

 

[cnerd123]

Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen, of why we shouldn't feel bad about mocking people who genuinely think Tendulkar > Bradman.

 

[GIMH]

Cevno, stop typing, you're embarassing yourself

 

[smash84]

In my face, what? I was right about what I said

It is a big debate and not really settled

You're either with Bradman or you're with the terrorists.

If I truly thought he reckoned Warne was better than Bradman I'd lose a lot of respect for Lara.

Ikki you are about to lose a lot of respect for PEWS who says that Imran>Bradman

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2453689-post186.html

 

[Cevno]

Anyone who knows much about cricket knows that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time. It's not a matter of someone not knowing much about cricket history - everyone knows Bradman and everyone knows why he is so highly rated (his average) - that is the point. You don't have to know the era he played in, whether he played on for too long or the quality of bowlers or anything. Bradman is infamous for one thing which even at a cursory glance gives you the answer. He is not a Trumper nor a Lohmann where you have to delve into cricket history to find out why their averages appear low (whether as a batsman or a bowler) and judge them accordingly.

You don't have to make those considerations with Bradman. His average as it stands is comparable; it's why he is so famous and special. I don't expect a casual fan to know about Spofforth and even less to compare their average to someone like Malcolm Marshall to get to realistic, or simply correct, answer. But with Bradman that is a legitimate expectation; if you don't know about Bradman you barely know anything about the game. It's akin to playing football and not knowing about Pele or playing Basketball and not knowing about Jordan.

1) All of this backtracks from your previous post where you clearly said that it was only a case of "simple maths"?

2)You are here superimposing your opinion on all cricket fans which is a bit rich. To say that you have to regard Bradman and everyone knows it is ignorant.

3)I guess you would be surprised to know that Bradman is not as famous or hyped as much in other countries outside of Australia and England as you think. You really do not need to know about Bradman to be a cricket fan in most countries. It may be the case in Australia but Australia is not representative of rest of the world.

4)The part in bold is as ignorant as it gets.

 

[Jono]

This thread became the same as the previous one that was closed

 

[Ikki]

I didn't back-track, I was replying to your point about "validity". What makes an opinion valid and what makes one right are two different things. i.e. is it valid to hold Bradman's average to the same/similar standard to Tendulkar?

It's valid to compare the two even on basic averages because their eras aren't different enough to have to go into it like Lohmann or Trumper. With Bradman, we know as a given, because of his infamy, that his average is fine - it isn't misleading, it is his claim to fame.

If you read properly, I even said: even in the strict sense of simple maths, you can't be wrong about Bradman > Tendulkar. You could be wrong about many other things, but you won't be wrong about Bradman.

 

[Cevno]

Are you feeling Ok? I just said you could apply prima facie averages and be wrong. But who would know that? Only someone who actually knows something about the game. Not someone who doesn't know anything about the game. But they would be right about Bradman; wouldn't they? You could apply averages and be wrong about Jayawardene vs Richards. You could be wrong about Waugh and Hussey...but you won't be wrong about Bradman. So ignorance is not an excuse, even in that strict sense.

I've elaborated a lot for you, in the hope the penny might fall. Something tells me you're not really interested in logic. You keep copy-pasting the same crap that was refuted in the other thread.

Where did you?

In fact this post implies the opposite-

This is not like judging Trumper against Tendulkar. 99.94. You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

And the rest of your post is based on your own opinion,really.
Why you cannot be wrong about Bradman is really based on your own subjective point of view ,and you cannot really go superimposing it on everyone and simple maths does not really prove anything.