Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows

[Arachnodouche]

Except there's hardly any Don's worshiper. If someone claims Agarkar is a better bowler than Akram, and I protest, I don't suddenly become Akram's worshiper, I still remain the guy who thinks Akram is over-rated.

Well that eludes the meat of my post. Akram and Agarkar were contemporaries. There are almost two generations between Bradman's end and Sachin's beginning.

 

[ankitj]

Well that eludes the meat of my post. Akram and Agarkar were contemporaries. There are almost two generations between Bradman's end and Sachin's beginning.

Which is a separate issue from calling others "Don's worshipers", isn't it?

 

[ganeshran]

Yes its a kind of rough guide and fairly accurate for the players you mentioned, but one whose accuracy is inversely proportional to the number of innings its extrapolated in the future

 

[Jono]

It can only ever be used as a guide, because you can never know for certain what's going to happen in the future, but that looks pretty compelling to me. An interesting task could be to try and find counterexamples (are there any?) to that rule, and perhaps work out why the batsmen haven't meet that 'criteria'.

Yeah there will always be variables, like if a player plays on for too long, or if they suffer an injury which affects their game etc.

But nevertheless those were so close together its quite fascinating.

What is Sachin's and Steve Waugh's I wonder?

 

[Jono]

Border too would be an intereting one, albeit a complete era before Kallis, Dravid, Ponting.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah there will always be variables, like if a player plays on for too long, or if they suffer an injury which affects their game etc.

But nevertheless those were so close together its quite fascinating.

What is Sachin's and Steve Waugh's I wonder?

Don't have the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure Tendulkar's average will be very close (50+) and Waugh's considerably less.

 

[Spark]

I can't get statsguru to throw up a list of averages after 80 innings... but for anyone who can, here's a list of averages for all batsmen with 80+ innings to compare to.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval1=innings;template=results;type=batting

I do think there'll be a nice correlation.

 

[ganeshran]

Interesting Jono, Waugh's average was only 36 after 80 innings but it reached 51 by the time he retired

 

[Burgey]

Well that eludes the meat of my post. Akram and Agarkar were contemporaries. There are almost two generations between Bradman's end and Sachin's beginning.

So you think Ponting would average 90 odd in the 30s and 40s? Lara what? 100?

People are happy to say Sobers is at or about Tendulkar's level as a batsman (obviously there's no contest as a cricketer). I guess that's because Sobers went through to theearly 70s.

But people seem to forget Sobers debuted less than a decade after Bradman. Played against many of Bradman's 48 side.

50 has been the mark of greatness for the vast majority of test history. No matter the generation. Yet a bloke averages 100 over 20 years and you want to deprecate what he did.

 

[Jono]

Waugh's rise to being one of the best batsman in the world was truly amazing.

WAG. Miss Steve.

 

[Ruckus]

Yep, Waugh only became a consistent 50 average player after around about his 120th innings! Pretty incredible really.

 

[Spark]

after 80 innings,

tendulkar's was 57.5
kallis was 53.8
sanga's was 55.0

 

[Arachnodouche]

Which is a separate issue from calling others "Don's worshipers", isn't it?

No it's obvious most Australians regard him as a national treasure. Which is perfectly OK, just that they are not as over-the-top or obnoxious in expressing their opinions as many Indians are. But they do get affronted, no doubt, just more subtle in expressing their outrage. Seen it happen over time.

 

[Jono]

50 has been the mark of greatness for the vast majority of test history. No matter the generation. Yet a bloke averages 100 over 20 years and you want to deprecate what he did.

He has douche in his name tbf

 

[Spark]

No it's obvious most Australians regard him as a national treasure. Which is perfectly OK, just that they are not as over-the-top or obnoxious in expressing their opinions as many Indians are. But they do get affronted, no doubt, just more subtle in expressing their outrage. Seen it happen over time.

a lot of people do get a little annoyed when people try to claim that one player is better than another, when by the most common statistical measure in cricket, the latter player scored almost twice as many runs per innings than the former.

 

[Ruckus]

He has douche in his name tbf

Has to get rid of the 'no' first

 

[Furball]

a lot of people do get a little annoyed when people try to claim that one player is better than another, when by the most common statistical measure in cricket, the latter player scored almost twice as many runs per innings than the former.

It's not the downplaying of Bradman that annoys me the most - it's the downplaying of players like Hammond, Hutton, McCabe etc. that grinds my gears.

 

[Spark]

It's not the downplaying of Bradman that annoys me the most - it's the downplaying of players like Hammond, Hutton, McCabe etc. that grinds my gears.

Yeah that's the one part of the argument that's almost never addressed.

 

[ganeshran]

No it's obvious most Australians regard him as a national treasure. Which is perfectly OK, just that they are not as over-the-top or obnoxious in expressing their opinions as many Indians are. But they do get affronted, no doubt, just more subtle in expressing their outrage. Seen it happen over time.

This part is true IMO. Not condoning the inflammatory remarks of many Indians online when confronted with criticism of Sachin, quite a few Australians on the internet also get agitated and defensive when someone criticizes DGB.

Countering criticism in a civil manner is perfectly fine - the problem is ad-hominem remarks and insults, regardless of whose fans indulge in it.

 

[Arachnodouche]

So you think Ponting would average 90 odd in the 30s and 40s? Lara what? 100?

People are happy to say Sobers is at or about Tendulkar's level as a batsman (obviously there's no contest as a cricketer). I guess that's because Sobers went through to the dearly 70s.

But people seem to forget Sobers debut less than a decade after Bradman.

50 has been the mark of greatness for the vast majority of test history. No matter the generation. Yet a bloke averages 100 over 20 years and you want to deprecate what he did.

I'm not deprecating Bradman's achievements for his time. Only a fool would do that (which I've been accused of being from time too). But evolution is the only constant - I am positive a Sachin or a Ponting or a Lara, with their contemporary prowess, would've had much better records some 70 years before their time.