Migara
International Coach
Nah, not much. Any amount of video footage or analysis would not give you the ability to defend a 150k short ball, or a Murali spinner turning square. But batsmen could learn a lot of mystery spinners though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows
- Thread starter ankitj
- Start date
MrPrez
International Debutant
I think the main point is that they are both ATGs. We really can't ever conclude anything concrete. This is because we can't compare how they would have performed if given equal opportunities.
The Don is the best player ever in terms of his ability in comparison to his peers.
Anything more than that is pure opinion and statistic-twisting.
The Don is the best player ever in terms of his ability in comparison to his peers.
Anything more than that is pure opinion and statistic-twisting.
ganeshran
International Debutant
Quite true. Unless he has had a spectacular start to his career (like Hussey) before the average settled, most players would get dropped if they show a 10 point dip
MrPrez
International Debutant
But if you batted against these "superior bowlers" consistently, you would develop your batting accordingly. If Don only had to face 120kph bowlers, he would obviously not be prepared for 150kph bowlers. If he generally faced 140kph bowlers, he would be much better prepared.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
Murali and its not even close
Arachnodouche
International Captain
No, I "aint" trolling, "mate".
It's like this - you put Sehwag on a sticky dog of yesteryear and chances are he won't be making too many triple hundreds at a run a ball. That is what you call making an educated guess. A 'bot can **** numbers and arcane stats out its ass 24/7. Stats are good from a holistic perspective but not as an end unto themselves.
How do you know how Don would've fared against leggies? Did he play against Grimmett domestically? Did he get to play people like Vogler and Faulkner and Schwartz? On what basis do you think he would've walloped someone like Warne (domestically) or Murali?
Nowhere have I taken a piss on the great man. Neither have I compared Sachin to him, except for saying it's foolish to compare players based on stats alone when they have a 40 year gap between their careers. But this thread does indeed prove what a sacred cow he is considered by everybody.
Migara
International Coach
Exactly the case. There is limited number of things you could learn by looking at bowlers footage. But with batsmen it's different. Bowler controls what he sends to other end, so the plans are with the bowler. from batsmen's end, there's only few things you could plan.
MrPrez
International Debutant
Its not so much planning as it is being used to a certain level - you can't criticise Bradman for not facing the level of bowling we've witnessed in recent times - you can only look at him in his time and he was amazing.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
But then as per your post, which I agree with completely, the term ATG itself becomes redundant since we're talking about all time upto the current moment. How do you quantify something like that considering stats and stats alone? "Without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest cricketer to have ever lived.." What does that even mean, and how do you update and hand down that accolade as the years and decades and centuries roll on?
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha. Murali wouldn't have taken 15 wickets with the umpires of
Bradman's day officiating.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Still you don't address the question of where the contemporaries of Bradman should be rated then.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah. I see arachno has the same views though
.
Migara
International Coach
There's no criticism on Bradman for not playing a 150k bowler. I'd think he'd face them better than any batsman possibly barring Richards. My comment was general one, that batsmen would be helped less with video footage of bowlers than vice versa.
Migara
International Coach
Ya, they had that screwed belief at that time. Even third umpire was not around.
MrPrez
International Debutant
Wow, I just noticed my George there
Lets be honest here. The standard of the game has improved due to techniques being investigated more, cricket becoming a fulltime job etc. Bradman would not average 99.94 nowadays imho. I still rate him at that level when creating an All Time XI because you can only compare his prowess with the level bowlers he was facing, as the development of bowlers and batsmen should be roughly parallel.
Basically, I rate his 99.94 average as one that deserves to be seen as a 99.94 average across the historical board, because I feel that as much as the art of bowling may have been less developed, so too was the art of batting.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Take a look at this chart:
HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph
Divide every number on it by two.
After doing this, consider that we might still think of this player as an all time great.
Consider also, that the number of other batsmen in history who have averaged more than this over the course of their careers (min 20 innings) totals 41. That means, were this hypothetical "half Bradman" to have played, he would still have an average in the top 50 of all time, in over 100 years of history.
There has been some discussion as to the concept of a "golden patch" that Bradman may have been in. What is not known is that Bradman actually did have a bone fide golden patch. Between 1 Jan 1930 and 31 Dec 1932 (that is, the calendar years 1930, 1931 and 1932), Bradman scored 11 centuries in 16 tests (20 innings) at an average of just shy of 130. This is high enough to suggest that this was a statistical anomaly in an otherwise "average" career averaging nearly 100.
Currently, there are 38 test match batsmen who have scored more runs than what Bradman did in his career. The least number of matches that a player who has scored more runs than Bradman has played was Wally Hammond, who had a career spanning 85 tests (140 innings). This is 33 tests, or 60 innings more than Bradman.
Now I am not saying any of this to belittle the other batsmen mentioned here. They are all very fine batsmen. There have only been 42 in the 100+ year history of cricket who have managed to maintain a career average of over 50 (and many of them are still playing and thus their averages may drop to below this mark). The 43rd highest averaging batsman of all time is Alistair Cook. Bradman scored twice as many runs as Alistair Cook does, on average before he got out. If I could pick two Alistair Cooks and play a side of 12 men or one other batsman, even one as good as Tendulkar and play a side of 11 men, I'd take the two Cooks any day of the week.
Sure, now maybe there is a valid argument that says people have grown stronger and faster over the last three generations. That is a valid point. But with Bradman we're not talking about stronger and faster as we would understand it. We're talking about Spiderman superiority here.
We could exhume the corpse of the great Don Bradman and have him play another 40 tests for Australia. Assuming that he would be timed out in all 78 innings (the last two would not need to be played because Ricky Ponting would make a double century in the 39th Innings which would give us a lone innings victory, and there would be a washout in one of the games), Bradman would still average more than most batsmen in history.
Let's forget, for a moment about Bradman's average. Let's, for a moment, forget about how many runs he made and look at what his contemporaries had to say about him. Actually let's forget that too, because to remind the gentle reader of what was so patently obvious to any individual who saw the man play would be rubbing the proverbial salt in the wound.
The real problem here stems entirely because Bradman is far too superhuman to be real. He was so much better than everyone else that he must have been a caricature. An invention by statisticians to prove a point to their students about outliers and statistical impossibilities. He was a phantom. Seen by many, his exploits recorded but entirely unbelievable by any rational being. If, instead, his average was 75 or even 80 then he would be undisputedly the best player of all time. Not only that, but he'd be within the realms of possibility. But with an average of 99.94, he is nothing more than an old wives tale. His exploits simply unfathomable to those who never saw him play.
So can we please go back to the Lara/Tendulkar holy wars? There is less than a standard deviation between those two players, which makes for far more interesting debate.
HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph
Divide every number on it by two.
After doing this, consider that we might still think of this player as an all time great.
Consider also, that the number of other batsmen in history who have averaged more than this over the course of their careers (min 20 innings) totals 41. That means, were this hypothetical "half Bradman" to have played, he would still have an average in the top 50 of all time, in over 100 years of history.
There has been some discussion as to the concept of a "golden patch" that Bradman may have been in. What is not known is that Bradman actually did have a bone fide golden patch. Between 1 Jan 1930 and 31 Dec 1932 (that is, the calendar years 1930, 1931 and 1932), Bradman scored 11 centuries in 16 tests (20 innings) at an average of just shy of 130. This is high enough to suggest that this was a statistical anomaly in an otherwise "average" career averaging nearly 100.
Currently, there are 38 test match batsmen who have scored more runs than what Bradman did in his career. The least number of matches that a player who has scored more runs than Bradman has played was Wally Hammond, who had a career spanning 85 tests (140 innings). This is 33 tests, or 60 innings more than Bradman.
Now I am not saying any of this to belittle the other batsmen mentioned here. They are all very fine batsmen. There have only been 42 in the 100+ year history of cricket who have managed to maintain a career average of over 50 (and many of them are still playing and thus their averages may drop to below this mark). The 43rd highest averaging batsman of all time is Alistair Cook. Bradman scored twice as many runs as Alistair Cook does, on average before he got out. If I could pick two Alistair Cooks and play a side of 12 men or one other batsman, even one as good as Tendulkar and play a side of 11 men, I'd take the two Cooks any day of the week.
Sure, now maybe there is a valid argument that says people have grown stronger and faster over the last three generations. That is a valid point. But with Bradman we're not talking about stronger and faster as we would understand it. We're talking about Spiderman superiority here.
We could exhume the corpse of the great Don Bradman and have him play another 40 tests for Australia. Assuming that he would be timed out in all 78 innings (the last two would not need to be played because Ricky Ponting would make a double century in the 39th Innings which would give us a lone innings victory, and there would be a washout in one of the games), Bradman would still average more than most batsmen in history.
Let's forget, for a moment about Bradman's average. Let's, for a moment, forget about how many runs he made and look at what his contemporaries had to say about him. Actually let's forget that too, because to remind the gentle reader of what was so patently obvious to any individual who saw the man play would be rubbing the proverbial salt in the wound.
The real problem here stems entirely because Bradman is far too superhuman to be real. He was so much better than everyone else that he must have been a caricature. An invention by statisticians to prove a point to their students about outliers and statistical impossibilities. He was a phantom. Seen by many, his exploits recorded but entirely unbelievable by any rational being. If, instead, his average was 75 or even 80 then he would be undisputedly the best player of all time. Not only that, but he'd be within the realms of possibility. But with an average of 99.94, he is nothing more than an old wives tale. His exploits simply unfathomable to those who never saw him play.
So can we please go back to the Lara/Tendulkar holy wars? There is less than a standard deviation between those two players, which makes for far more interesting debate.