Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[99.94]

Larwood so I ask for evidence of him being in the 90MPH range which you dont have ...

Dude Larwood used to bowl 180 kmh - you haven't found any evidence to prove that he didn't. I can't believe you're still going on with this **** man, even though several pages back you admitted that Tendulkar, Bradman and someone else (can't remember who) were the best players ever. To anyone that matters Don Bradman was the greatest batsman ever - deal with it.

[The Outsider]

evidence pls? where is the formula?

Yeah, they would reveal their exact formula, so that everyone can use it? :hysterical: http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/about.php

Test Match Rankings For a batsman, the factors are: Runs scored Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion) The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings) Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus) The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.) For a bowler, the factors are: Wickets taken and runs conceded Ratings of the batsmen dismissed (at present, the wicket of Kumar Sangakkara is worth more than that of Makhaya Ntini – but if Ntini's rating improves, the value of his wicket will increase accordingly) The level of run-scoring in the match; bowling figures of 3-50 in a high-scoring match will boost a bowler’s rating more than the same figures in a low-scoring match Heavy workload; bowlers who bowl a large number of overs in the match get some credit, even if they take no wickets; The result. Bowlers who take a lot of wickets in a victory receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams Bowlers who do not bowl in a high-scoring innings are penalized. The players’ ratings are calculated by combining their weighted performance in the latest match with their previous rating. This new ‘weighted average’ is then converted into points. Recent performances have more impact on a player’s rating than those earlier in his career, but all his performances are taken into account. A great player who has had a lean run of form will still have a respectable rating. Players who miss a Test match for their country, for whatever reason, lose one per cent of their points.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

you mean without the help of Lahori Logic ?

No, that would be starting the comparison of one batsman with another in a format which one did not play, or maybe that's Waziristani logic! :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

we all know your spotless record when it comes to blind following without te need for logic facts and scrutiny ... you didnt have to re-emphasize that.

You are in the wrong thread. You should read this one for self help : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=214917 99>55

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

You fail at extrapolation. Ponting, Hayden are among the many batsmen who scored at higher rate than Sachin in Tests and yet trail him in ODI SR. On the other hand, it's easy to extrapolate that Bradman, whose inflated average came crashing down to 50s against Larwood (with a spinners' strike rate of 65), would have struggled for an average of 40 against the variety of bowlers (with strike rate in 40s) that Sachin owns for fun.

Except that Bradman's strike rate for those times was equivalent to Sehwag's today and he scored twice as many runs. Strike rate? Do you have any clue about cricket? Look up how the strike rates of bowlers have improved and economy rates gone down throughout cricketing history. Sachin owns who? He averages in the 30s against all the McGraths, Donalds, Pollocks, and Akrams you are talking about! If Bradman was to walk out of his grave today, he would average more than 30 against the bowlers Sachin supposedly owns! :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

Wow.. length and breath to prove 55 > 99. You fail mathematically and logically !!

[teacup]

How many of those voters were Indian? :) Public polls will lay out very many things. It is up to you to see if you want to believe all of them. So what is your point? That one extrapolate how one would play ODIs based on their Test record? Whatever happened to playing according to the situation and according to the format? By all accounts Bradman's rate of scoring was very high even in Test matches. In fact even in this respect he was head and shoulders above his peers.

You do have an uncanny ability to interpret the opposite of what I say :hmmm:. The point, in other words, is while judging a batsman - especially in the context of choosing the Greatest Batsman of All Time - a pre-1975 batsman, like Bradman, should only be assessed based on Test Match performances but when you assess a post-1975 batsman you should also include ODI performances. Adapting to different formats is challenging for even top-class batsmen and to say that those who have done as well as Tendulkar or Richards should not get any points for their extraordinary ability in this aspect is grossly unfair.

[thevortex]

That's an ignorant and self-contradictory remark. You cannot be against extrapolation and yet indulge in comparisons across eras. It's a work of fiction and that explains the length of this thread.

Ignorant? Please... There is a difference between fiction and tosh. You can compare players over the same form of the game across different eras. Even there you have to sort of level the playing field and introduce factors which actually give the comparison some shape. You might not be aware of it but I have worked with Bossbhai on this. This idle pastime of taking somebody who played only Test cricket and then talking about how he would have done in ODI cricket is just..well...outlandish at best and silly at worst.

[thevortex]

You do have an uncanny ability to interpret the opposite of what I say :hmmm:. The point' date=' in other words, is while judging a batsman - especially in the context of choosing the Greatest Batsman of All Time - a pre-1975 batsman, like Bradman, should only be assessed based on Test Match performances but when you assess a post-1975 batsman you should also include ODI performances. Adapting to different formats is challenging for even top-class batsmen and to say that those who have done as well as Tendulkar or Richards should not get any points for their extraordinary ability in this aspect is grossly unfair.[/quote'] Well, teacup,you have to explain to me what I have not understood here. You say that one has to consider the ODI stats of a player plying his trade after 1975. But consider them with respect to what in the case of comparison with another player who played before then? Thin air? Comparison is only possible when there is some similarity. You cannot just give pictures of a tiger and a rat and ask people to spot the differences!

[vvvslaxman]

You do have an uncanny ability to interpret the opposite of what I say :hmmm:. The point' date=' in other words, is while judging a batsman - especially in the context of choosing the Greatest Batsman of All Time - a pre-1975 batsman, like Bradman, should only be assessed based on Test Match performances[b'] but when you assess a post-1975 batsman you should also include ODI performances. Adapting to different formats is challenging for even top-class batsmen and to say that those who have done as well as Tendulkar or Richards should not get any points for their extraordinary ability in this aspect is grossly unfair.

It only makes him the greatest ODI batsman of all time not greatest Test batsman. It is obvious when you compare Bradman with any player in this era , that it points to Test match era. You can extend this stupid logic and say Brendon McCullum is better than Bradman because McCullum got better T20 record :cantstop: . Just give up already. It is beyond ridiculous to see the kind of arguments you fanboys bring forth.

[The Outsider]

:haha: Thanks for proving my point that bowling standard has improved exponentially and hence Bradman's achievements, as great as they've been, cannot be relied upon for determining the best.

The overall batting/bowling averages have remained roughly the same in the 30s/40s and 90s/00s, but I have proved that bowling standard has improved exponentially? :hysterical:

If you cared to read mine, or BossBhai's post, you'd know that Sachin's name is used as a representative of modern day batsmen. Regardless, Sachin did own these bowlers insofar they couldn't stop him from scoring runs, series after series. Curious how you vehemently disagreed with Dhondy's posts where he ferreted out Sachin's record against individual bowlers (a practise i strongly disagree with) and yet are using his ideas to further your excuse of an argument. Confirms that not only you argue for arguments' sake, you're aren't capable of being original either. Now please continue with your myriad extrapolations and propagate the myth of an amateur's invincibility.

Ohhh mahashaya, Dhondy's posts were about head to head or player vs. player averages - something I disagree with because a batsman's job is to score against the team and not an individual. Mine are about Tendulkar's averages in matches where the above players have played and averages in the 30s where you claim that he supposedly owns them. How are they the same things and how is averaging in the 30s against the side owning a particular set of bowlers? Oh and don't fret about my originality, reputed journals of the world have already attested to it. You can continue with honing your reading and comprehension skills and use your "originality" in your futile expedition to prove 55>99. :giggle:

[teacup]

Well, teacup,you have to explain to me what I have not understood here. You say that one has to consider the ODI stats of a player plying his trade after 1975. But consider them with respect to what in the case of comparison with another player who played before then? Thin air? Comparison is only possible when there is some similarity. You cannot just give pictures of a tiger and a rat and ask people to spot the differences!

Well...who said comparisons across eras are easy? It is a highly subjective exercise where you consider all the positives and negatives of a player, apply a weight to each characteristic and come up with a rating for each batsman. The subjective aspect of that exercise is of course in the application of appropriate weights. There is nothing in this exercise that prevents one from considering certain characteristics which were more evident during one era as against another. Adaptability is one such where modern era players would probably score over the pre-1975 era players.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[f.b.m]

Wow ... you are trying to compare Sehwags Strike rate much of which has come against really high class bowlers with a killer Avg+SR combination and yet is miles ahead of DGB's SR ( which BTW is missing a significant chunk of Data ) and comming to a conclusion that DGB=VS ?

Just an aside but you're probably the first poster/person I've seen who sees bowlers as a data set of average and strike rate before everything else.

[thevortex]

Let's take this one step at a time. You first declare your dislike for what you call extrapolation. In the same breath, you proceed to compare batsmen from different eras notwithstanding the fact that cricket as it's played these days is RADICALLY different from 30s in every conceivable way. Put differently, you're okay with such extrapolation. Next, you comically object to Sachin's ODI record being taken into account (teacup has explained beautifully and convincingly why it must) on the grounds of being a different format. This form of extrapolation is not acceptable to you. Hope you realize why I thought your post was asinine.

I am sure as adults we can stay above name calling. Or if that is what you believe in, I will have to get out of what would no longer stay a discussion. Make your mind up about that. I think you did not read my post clearly. If you want I can send you what I sent Bossbhai regarding how exactly I wanted Bradman and Tendulkar compared. Sort of even out the differences, if you see what I mean. It included some of what has been discussed here - related to bowlers as well as other things. Extrapolation - that is a beautiful word by the way - does not equate to wishful whims of fancy not backed up by any sort of logic. So, extrapolation works if one compares the TEST record of one player (albeit separated by decades) to the TEST record of another. Yes the game has changed and other factors have as well. And they have to be taken into account. You did not ask me as to what those factors are - in my mind. So dont be hasty in your judgment. You will not find me taking up just the batting averages of these players and making a decision. On the other hand what is it you are trying to accomplish when you take up the stats collected by one player in a form of the game that the other has not ever had a chance of even seeing - leave alone playing??! If you sit down and think about it, I am sure you will find a word to describe the absurdity of this sort of comparison. Dont even call it extrapolation!