• 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.

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
srbhkshk said:
Well maybe he thought Bradman was still capable of scoring at least 1 run against Bangladesh. :P
Click to expand...
Bradman could not compete with modern day Bangladesh bowlers lets be real. Even Shakib would quack him every innings.

srbhkshk said:
You need to be a great batsman with a pretty long career to enter such lists, and if you lack those credentials than it might actually be illustrative of the batsman raising their game against that opponent or being comfortable against that kind of bowling/conditions etc.

It's probably less useful than average with a match cut-off but it's not meaningless per se.
Click to expand...
The one that did surprise me a little being on there was David Gower.
 
Last edited:
Senile Sentry

Senile Sentry

International Debutant
My favorite useless stat

Tendulkar > Bradman. His career can be sufficiently filtered to be a superset of Bradmans.

How?

Bradman in all his career, played only on ten grounds overall, and in just Eng and Aus.

If one were to do an analysis of Tendulkar's best grounds, and sort them by the averages he achieved on the same - Tendulkar had played 52 matches (same as Bradman) on nineteen of his most favorite grounds (that's 90% more grounds as Bradman played), and scored 6,599 runs @ 106.44. 31 hundreds and 17 fifties. And quite incredibly, these 19 grounds span all the ten test playing nations. In a hypothetical world, had these test playing nations only these grounds, then Tendulkar would have comfortably made Bradman look like Bradboy.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Senile Sentry said:
My favorite useless stat

Tendulkar > Bradman. His career can be sufficiently filtered to be a superset of Bradmans.

How?

Bradman in all his career, played only on ten grounds overall, and in just Eng and Aus.

If one were to do an analysis of Tendulkar's best grounds, and sort them by the averages he achieved on the same - Tendulkar had played 52 matches (same as Bradman) on nineteen of his most favorite grounds (that's 90% more grounds as Bradman played), and scored 6,599 runs @ 106.44. 31 hundreds and 17 fifties. And quite incredibly, these 19 grounds span all the ten test playing nations. In a hypothetical world, had these test playing nations only these grounds, then Tendulkar would have comfortably made Bradman look like Bradboy.
Click to expand...
Only 6599 runs in 52 matches? Pathetic. And half the double centuries, just doesn't match up.
 
E

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Tendulkar would never have retired on a number like 6,996 Test runs. He would've made damn sure he got those 4 runs, not out no less. For that matter, 29 Test centuries wouldn't have sat well with him either. They have to be in 10's as per his namesake.
 
Senile Sentry

Senile Sentry

International Debutant
In fact if you expand to the next 3 grounds, the numbers are

67 tests, 7,991 runs @ 95.13. 33 hundreds.

Its quite a stupendous statistic as it is useless. And 22 grounds across ten test playing nations is quite some population. If only he showed a bit of discretion on which grounds he played. Sigh.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Ok, do the same for Tendulkar on his ten worst grounds and see what you get. Cos it’s got
Senile Sentry said:
My favorite useless stat

Tendulkar > Bradman. His career can be sufficiently filtered to be a superset of Bradmans.

How?

Bradman in all his career, played only on ten grounds overall, and in just Eng and Aus.

If one were to do an analysis of Tendulkar's best grounds, and sort them by the averages he achieved on the same - Tendulkar had played 52 matches (same as Bradman) on nineteen of his most favorite grounds (that's 90% more grounds as Bradman played), and scored 6,599 runs @ 106.44. 31 hundreds and 17 fifties. And quite incredibly, these 19 grounds span all the ten test playing nations. In a hypothetical world, had these test playing nations only these grounds, then Tendulkar would have comfortably made Bradman look like Bradboy.
Click to expand...
this is a perfect example of useless and meaningless use of stats. well done
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Senile Sentry said:
My favorite useless stat

Tendulkar > Bradman. His career can be sufficiently filtered to be a superset of Bradmans.

How?

Bradman in all his career, played only on ten grounds overall, and in just Eng and Aus.

If one were to do an analysis of Tendulkar's best grounds, and sort them by the averages he achieved on the same - Tendulkar had played 52 matches (same as Bradman) on nineteen of his most favorite grounds (that's 90% more grounds as Bradman played), and scored 6,599 runs @ 106.44. 31 hundreds and 17 fifties. And quite incredibly, these 19 grounds span all the ten test playing nations. In a hypothetical world, had these test playing nations only these grounds, then Tendulkar would have comfortably made Bradman look like Bradboy.
Click to expand...
Super effort to whoever came up with that. Unsurprising when you think about it, being a function of such a long career + playing on so many different grounds and having a 50+ average. The surprising/coincidental part is that all 10 Test nations are represented in those grounds.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
TheJediBrah said:
Super effort to whoever came up with that. Unsurprising when you think about it, being a function of such a long career + playing on so many different grounds and having a 50+ average. The surprising/coincidental part is that all 10 Test nations are represented in those grounds.
Click to expand...
It's actually a bizarrely cool statistic. How weird, but cool at the same time. Anyone want to do it for other top ATG players? The bit in bold is particularly interesting as it does cover all the nations.

They start showing these 'ground' stats a lot these days (didn't back then) during series and Labuschagne had 100+ for Gabba and 90+ for Sydney before he got out. Smith had insane averages there too. But would be interesting to see it across the test nations and maybe for retired ATG players.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
_00_deathscar said:
It's actually a bizarrely cool statistic. How weird, but cool at the same time. Anyone want to do it for other top ATG players? The bit in bold is particularly interesting as it does cover all the nations.

They start showing these 'ground' stats a lot these days (didn't back then) during series and Labuschagne had 100+ for Gabba and 90+ for Sydney before he got out. Smith had insane averages there too. But would be interesting to see it across the test nations and maybe for retired ATG players.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone else will match it, because no one else has played nearly as many matches. The likes of Ponting, Lara, Waugh, Cook who have similar records are still 40-50 matches short, and I also don't think they would have played at as a high a variety of grounds as Sachin did for India
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top