Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows

[NasserFan207]

Out of interest, who would you say was the greatest player of Bradman's era?

Sobers. I realise he's on the edge of Bradman's era, but meh.

 

[Furball]

Sobers. I realise he's on the edge of Bradman's era, but meh.

He's not close to Bradman's era

 

[MrPrez]

Let's keep it real. Forget about "eras". Even if we ignore the likes of Richards and Chappell and Sobers, and we restrict the comparison to Tendulkar's direct contemporaries, Warne, Kallis, Ponting, Lara, McGrath, Murali are all as "great" as him, or as near as dammit.

Quality post.

 

[Daemon]

Tbh the point has been made about 60 times in this thread

 

[99.94]

Would have been interesting to see how the Don would have handled the bowling attacks sachin faced in the majority of the 90's.....

meh could dwell on this forever really!

 

[NasserFan207]

He's not close to Bradman's era

Black and white tv, uncovered pitches, etc etc

Nah, its tricky though since Bradman is slap bang between Sobers and Barnes. I just can't bring myself to naming a batsman as the greatest player in their era.

 

[slowfinger]

Would have been interesting to see how the Don would have handled the bowling attacks sachin faced in the majority of the 90's.....

meh could dwell on this forever really!

With his signature cover drive?

 

[Sylvester]

Two things you will notice will Bradman's stats when you look at HowSTAT. First off Bradman started his career slowly especially compared with someone like Hussey who after 3 test matches was averaging over 100. Bradman took 9 matches before cracking the 100 average.

Second Bradman did have a form slump during the much talked about Bodyline series. That was his 20th match and 6 matches later his average had dropped to 89. Now for comparison Hussey after 20 matches was averaging 84 (I know Bradman average of 89 was after 26 matches). Now if Bradman followed most fast starting batsmen his average would have leveled out like Hussey's has, however Bradman's average never fell to 89 ever again. I think it would be safe to say he would have kept his average up around the 100 mark if he had played more innings.

 

[Burgey]

With his signature cover drive?

His signature shot was the pull.

Something a lot of posters in this thread have been doing since it was opened.

 

[stephen]

I consider him a fine player - but the below grandiose paragraph is stretching it.

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.

Yes, I am quoting myself here. But only to but your post in context.

How is it exaggerating saying that Bradman's feats are impossible for us to imagine?

The equivalent is a golfer who actually achieved the feats that Kim Jong Il was said to achieve on the golf course. Bradman's accomplishments are about as fantastical as sporting accomplishments get. It would be as though someone beat Ussain Bolt by three seconds over the 100m.

There was around a 50% chance that he would score a hundred in any given test. Can you imagine it? I can't.

Remember, if we cut all of his scores in half he would still be an all time great batsman. That's how good he was.

 

[slowfinger]

His signature shot was the pull.

Something a lot of posters in this thread have been doing since it was opened.

Was referring to a video where he demonstrates his variety of shots... Thought his drive was the best

 

[99.94]

Was referring to a video where he demonstrates his variety of shots... Thought his drive was the best

straight drive was glorious, still think WH at his very best was much more glorious to watch than don. Still wouldnt complain if had either in my time

 

[zaremba]

I can imagine DB being awesome to watch, because of his brutal efficiency and efficient brutality, but not necessarily all that easy on the eye. Very much more Steve than Mark Waugh.

 

[GotSpin]

Game over

 

[stephen]

Players who've scored more hundreds than Bradman in their careers:

Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Gavaskar, Lara, Waugh, Hayden

Players who've scored more double hundreds than Bradman in their careers:


Players who've scored more triple hundreds than Bradman in their careers:


Fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs - Bradman

Number of innings for Bradman to get to 6000 runs - 68
Number of innings for the next fastest (Sobers) to get to 6000 runs - 111
Bradman had 50 more innings to make 4 runs if he wanted to be the fastest to 7000 as well.

Bradman was an all rounder. His two major skills were batting and batting. And he was excellent at both.

 

[GotSpin]

Imagine the fanboy frenzy if Bradman were Indian, and playing today. There wouldn't be enough tissues in the world.

Let's face it, someone like Hammond would be a great in any era. Yet Bradman was almost twice as good as him. I don't care how many times people try to belittle or twist the stats, Bradman is obviously head and shoulders above all others.

I can't believe I'm descending into this, it's so ****ing ridiculous.

Nah. Apparently Hammond would have been a club player had he been around today

 

[Furball]

Players who've scored more hundreds than Bradman in their careers:

Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Gavaskar, Lara, Waugh, Hayden

Players who've scored more double hundreds than Bradman in their careers:


Players who've scored more triple hundreds than Bradman in their careers:


Fastest to 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 runs - Bradman

Number of innings for Bradman to get to 6000 runs - 68
Number of innings for the next fastest (Sobers) to get to 6000 runs - 111
Bradman had 50 more innings to make 4 runs if he wanted to be the fastest to 7000 as well.

Bradman was an all rounder. His two major skills were batting and batting. And he was excellent at both.

Bradman scored 12 double centuries in 80 Test innings - most other ATG batsmen don't score 12 centuries every 80 innings.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not a statistician, and it's really TC you want to be having this conversation with. I would guess, using my very limited knowledge, that some form of survival analysis could have some merit.

Survival analysis is more about timings of events (e.g. death/component failure) and using, for example, Cox-Proportional Hazards Regressions to model covariates which affect the time to that event (e.g. how much a prior arrest affects the time to a crook's next arrest).

Personally, I'd favour a more sophisticated approach to working with cricket data than distributions and probabilities. I mean, modelling the probability/distribution of a basketballer hitting free-throws from the line is a very different proposition to doing the same with, say, the probability of scoring a boundary. Even then, no matter what, you bump into what I've said many times that runs scored and wickets taken are poor measures in scientific terms.

 

[zaremba]

Bradman scored 12 double centuries in 80 Test innings - most other ATG batsmen don't score 12 centuries every 80 innings.

Details, mere details. How many ODI hundreds did Don Bradman score in the cricketing heartland that is the United Arab Emirates? Zero. Sachin has 7. Seven! Count them.

SRT, ODI, UAE, QED.

 

[Jono]

I know you're taking the piss, but some of those knocks were pretty awesome