Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows

[miscer]

That is a direct extrapolation - it is not correct statistically since it doesnt take into account factors like slump in form etc.

i dont understand why 80 innings isn't a large enough sample size to take all that into account. we're told 30 is good enough to approximate a normal distribution...?

edit: and that's by the central limit theorem irrespective of whether the original pool of data is normally distributed.

 

[Hurricane]

How many innings was it before Hussey came down to earth.

 

[ankitj]

Thread on ICF on same topic - Sachin Tendulkar better than Sir Don Bradman - Indian Cricket Fans

I don't know why, but I have started posting there.

 

[miscer]

How many innings was it before Hussey came down to earth.

doesn't matter see. if u take the entire data set of hussey and pick randomly 30 innings the distribution will be normal and will represent his overall average. that's the point u have to pick from an entire population not just 1-2 years worth of consecutive innings. Hussey is a great example of a skewed sample tho haha.

there's a program for that on the internet I can't find it. even skewed samples have normal distributions if u take 30 random samples.

 

[Ruckus]

How many innings was it before Hussey came down to earth.

His decline started after about 33 innings.

 

[ankitj]

How many innings was it before Hussey came down to earth.

Rather how many years, is what you must ask. Bradman did it for 20 years.

 

[Teja.]

Thread on ICF on same topic - Sachin Tendulkar better than Sir Don Bradman - Indian Cricket Fans

I don't know why, but I have started posting there.

Haha, You're completely murdering them.

 

[Hurricane]

doesn't matter see. if u take the entire data set of hussey and pick randomly 30 innings the distribution will be normal and will represent his overall average. that's the point u have to pick from an entire population not just 1-2 years worth of consecutive innings. Hussey is a great example of a skewed sample tho haha.

there's a program for that on the internet I can't find it. even skewed samples have normal distributions if u take 30 random samples.

Fine but he started off with a hiss and a roar which is being inferred that Bradman might have come down to earth with more innings.

His decline started after about 33 innings.

Which is much less than 80. Suggesting Bradman was the real deal.

Rather how many years, is what you must ask. Bradman did it for 20 years.

Number of innings I say. Even though the number of years against different players adds credibility.

 

[Daemon]

I am well and truly sick of all these Bradman fanboys elevating him to such a status. You can't even mention Sachin being the best without them throwing Bradman into the conversation.

 

[Ruckus]

Which is much less than 80. Suggesting Bradman was the real deal.

Well, yeah. Look at his batting graph:

HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph

He is flatlining around 100. There is no sign of decline. Add to that the fact he averaged a similar amount over a huge amount of FC matches, and it should put to rest any doubts concerning whether he could maintain that level of play.

 

[MrPrez]

Joke post, right Daemon? I sure hope so...

I'm genuinely sick of SRT fanbois. He's not even the best player of his generation, he just has the most runs due to starting early. Grrrrrr!

 

[Ruckus]

Joke post, right Daemon? I sure hope so...

I'm genuinely sick of SRT fanbois. He's not even the best player of his generation, he just has the most runs due to starting early. Grrrrrr!

I'd give him that tbh. Kallis, Ponting, Lara and Dravid aren't as good imo.

 

[The Sean]

So if I'm reading this right, for Bradman to achieve a 4000 run lead over the average batsman of his era took him 80 innings. For Tendulkar to achieve a slightly higher aggregate lead over the average batsman of his era has taken him 303 innings.

This is then presented as an argument in favour of Tendulkar.

 

[smash84]

haha.....Ganeshran, you are quite a senior poster there i.e. @ ICF

 

[Teja.]

He's not even the best player of his generation!

While he's only little more than half the batsman Bradman was, by now, He definitely is the best test bat of the last twenty years, IMO.

I'd say he's in the top five after Bradman with Headley, Hammond, Sobers and Hobbs in no particular order in the post-1900 period.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'd give him that tbh. Kallis, Ponting, Lara and Dravid aren't as good imo.

Kallis IMO. Player of the generation, not batsman of the generation.

Anyway, I reckon the erstwhile Dr Rohde is actually Precambrian attempting new methods of trolling CricketWeb.

 

[Ruckus]

Oh sorry, though MrPrez was referring to batsmen alone.

 

[Teja.]

Oh sorry, though MrPrez was referring to batsmen alone.

Yeah, this too.

Kallis, definitely then.

 

[miscer]

He's not even the best player of his generation, he just has the most runs due to starting early. Grrrrrr!

Starting early this is a joke right? He was test class and so he started. If he started at 18 he'd still have the most runs but not by as much. Secondly his average would jump to 59+ over 20 odd years. Starting early hurts his average quite a bit.

edit: Player?? ohh lol. ok then yea ofcourse not. I naturally assumed batsman. I take everything back.

 

[Ruckus]

I'm pretty sure he actually was though, given the context of the thread, and his justifcation afterwards that "he just has the most runs due to starting early".