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

[thevortex]

That wouldn't explain why 4 members of the current Indian team appear ahead of him, would it? It really wouldn't matter, because nothing I say can change your mind. I did post the breakup by individual bowler as well. Obviously you couldn't seize upon anything to comment.

Why the selective answer Dhondy? You did not mention anything regarding the other points raised... See - the presence of 4 of his other countrymen ahead of him has no significance. None at all when you are not ready to consider match situation, bowlers who finally dismissed them etc, etc. And in case you forgot I did post my rebuttal to your posts about Sachin having scored x runs off y balls against z bowler. Perhaps you forgot that conveniently, I daresay.

[thevortex]

And just to show where your ultimate fascination with numbers seems to have clouded your cricketing judgments the players who - according to your list - are better than Sachin are : 1) Dilip Vengsarkar (4 Tests in 1987) 2) Sanjay Manjrekar (9 Tests) 3) Virender Sehwag (19 Tests) 4) Yuvraj Singh (9 Tests) 5) Mahendra Singh Dhoni (7 Tests) 6) Parthiv Patel (6 Tests) 7) Irfan Pathan (10 Tests) 8) VVS Laxman (34 Tests) 9) Rahul Dravid (38 Tests) 10) Wasim Jaffer (8 Tests) 11) Azharuddin (23 Tests) 12) Ganguly (31 Tests) If you keep the standard high - that is consider only those having played more than 15 Tests you have Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid, Azharuddin and Ganguly - in that order. So in your mind Ganguly is greater than Tendulkar? A better batsman at any rate than the Mumbaikar? I will tell you what I think of that list. A bunch of numbers out of which nothing concrete can ever hope to be inferred out of. And I am being kind to that list, I am sure you know.

[zen]

Sorry, selective stats not allowed. Didn't you hear Patriot being chided for quoting a selected period? All or nothing. Them are the rules to avoid manipulation of stats.

Well those are not selective stats because it standardizes bowlers' form (an exercise that's far more accurate to judge performances against a bowling attack) :winky: When you select bowlers, you are being selective in the first place. If you want to talk abt taking the full stats, then talk about career stats vs Australia

[patriot]

Well those are not selective stats because it standardizes bowlers' form (an exercise that's far more accurate to judge performances against a bowling attack) :winky: When you select bowlers, you are being selective in the first place. If you want to talk abt taking the full stats, then talk about career stats vs Australia

So facing a Mcgrathless Aussie side is no less than facing a side with Mcgrath ? He has almost always taken him cheaply. If your life depended on picking a winner in a Mcgrath Vs SRT duel in big match contest, history suggests that if you have Mcgrath, you have a Swiss bank.

[patriot]

I challenge any of self proclaimed stat guru to prove that SRT has dominated any great bowler bar Warne in his entire career of 160+ tests. He ****ing hasn't. He has been comprehensively owend by Mcgrath, Donald, Akhtar, and Co. The same fanatics who go gaga over India's No.1 ICC test ranking, would start doubting the veracity of the same ICC/Wisden, when none of SRT's ( the most capped test player ever !!) figure even in the top 100 knocks. Speaks volumes about blind utterly blind hypocricy.

[Dhondy]

And just to show where your ultimate fascination with numbers seems to have clouded your cricketing judgments the players who - according to your list - are better than Sachin are : 1) Dilip Vengsarkar (4 Tests in 1987) 2) Sanjay Manjrekar (9 Tests) 3) Virender Sehwag (19 Tests) 4) Yuvraj Singh (9 Tests) 5) Mahendra Singh Dhoni (7 Tests) 6) Parthiv Patel (6 Tests) 7) Irfan Pathan (10 Tests) 8) VVS Laxman (34 Tests) 9) Rahul Dravid (38 Tests) 10) Wasim Jaffer (8 Tests) 11) Azharuddin (23 Tests) 12) Ganguly (31 Tests) If you keep the standard high - that is consider only those having played more than 15 Tests you have Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid, Azharuddin and Ganguly - in that order. So in your mind Ganguly is greater than Tendulkar? A better batsman at any rate than the Mumbaikar? I will tell you what I think of that list. A bunch of numbers out of which nothing concrete can ever hope to be inferred out of. And I am being kind to that list, I am sure you know.

It demonstrates how other batsmen have been underrated because people look at the overall average, which is often nicely padded by playing against depleted or weaker sides. Tendulkar should know. He started well against McDermott and co, was completely intimidated by McGrath, and found his form again once the likes of Brad Gilbert and Johnson stepped in. There are some advantages to having a two-decade long career. Re: your earlier post, I wasn't being selective. Dismissal stats are obtainable and I'd be happy to discuss them some other day. For today, I think we have quite clearly demonstrated that Sachin's performance falls off much more steeply against the best bowlers than his peers. Hence he cannot be considered the best batsman of this era.

[patriot]

Is it any surprise to find SRT so below, in the man of the match stake in matches won ? Sehwag who has played about 40% of SRT's matches already has 2 more than him. Confirming what we already know subconciously ! http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=awards_match;result=1;team=6;template=results;type=allround;view=awards

[Gunner_Mania]

The same fanatics who go gaga over India's No.1 ICC test ranking, would start doubting the veracity of the same ICC/Wisden, when none of SRT's ( the most capped test player ever !!) figure even in the top 100 knocks. Speaks volumes about blind utterly blind hypocricy.

Test rankings are not subjective / Opinions. Any list - batting , bowling , greatest wins, blah di blah are all subjective and/or opinions.

[thevortex]

It demonstrates how other batsmen have been underrated because people look at the overall average, which is often nicely padded by playing against depleted or weaker sides. Tendulkar should know. He started well against McDermott and co, was completely intimidated by McGrath, and found his form again once the likes of Brad Gilbert and Johnson stepped in. There are some advantages to having a two-decade long career. Re: your earlier post, I wasn't being selective. Dismissal stats are obtainable and I'd be happy to discuss them some other day. For today, I think we have quite clearly demonstrated that Sachin's performance falls off much more steeply against the best bowlers than his peers. Hence he cannot be considered the best batsman of this era.

Wrong conclusion, Dhondy! In those Tests against Australia you will have to filter only those Tests where Mcgrath got him. Even then the match situation and the personal score are huge factors. And no matter how deep you dig you can never get to the heart of the contest that was there at that point of time. Sure - when you have a piece of statistic that says that Ganguly is a better batsman against these fast bowlers, it goes to show that this is extremely dependable. Do you want to put up a poll and rank these batsmen from 1 to 5 and see how many people agree with you? Of course with Tendulkar being the 6th.

[zen]

So facing a Mcgrathless Aussie side is no less than facing a side with Mcgrath ? He has almost always taken him cheaply. If your life depended on picking a winner in a Mcgrath Vs SRT duel in big match contest, history suggests that if you have Mcgrath, you have a Swiss bank.

Well, I did give the stats where Tendulkar has done better the others against an attack in the period from Jan 1, 99 to Jan 1, 2005. It's the period that he played them against, along with others The talk was that selecting that period is being selective, so my point is that it's more accurate way to judge a batsman vs a bowling attack as it standardizes form of the bowlers in that period. If selecting that period is selective then selecting a bowler to show something is far more selective as it doesn't standardize form of the bowlers That's why being selective in stats without standardizing or selecting lines without understanding what's implied doesn't serve any purpose :winky:

[thevortex]

And need I remind you that this continuous repetition of Tendulkar's two decade long career as somewhat of an almost illegitimate advantage is becoming a bit of a joke? It is not as if he is in public service. He has been good enough to be in the team for that long. Please consider that. Do not dismiss that.

[patriot]

Test rankings are not subjective / Opinions. Any list - batting ' date=' bowling , greatest wins, blah di blah are all subjective and/or opinions.[/quote'] Wisden ratings..which did not rank a single knock of his in the top 100, were not subjective views either. They were measured on 12 obective criterias which are as below: The Selection Criteria Test Rating for Batting - A detailed note on the calculations 1. Batting Base points The Batting Base points are given for Runs scored. This Index is given a weightage of around 30%. Brian Lara, for his 375, gets the highest Index value. 2. Pitch Index Rhis index is determined based on the Runs scored in a match and number of wickets, which have fallen. Normalizing is done to take care of wide variations. Additional normalization is done to reflect the pre-WW1 situation with uncovered pitches. 3. Bowling Quality Index The Bowling Quality Index is based on the quality of bowlers who have bowled in the innings. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 bowlers are taken for determining this Index value. Care is taken that the fifth bowler (e-g, Richards) does not lower the Index determination adversely. 4. Percentage of Score Index This reflects the % of team runs scored by the batsman. Surprisingly, Bannerman's 166 in the first test ever is still the highest % score in a completed innings. 5. Point of Entry Index This index reflects the entry point and distinguishes between 5 for 1, 27 for 2, 35 for 3 etc. For the first innings of the test, the index is absolute. For the other three innings, the Index is linked to a target score, exact for the last innings and national for the other two. 6. After point of Entry Index This index reflects the difference between entering at, say, 10 for 2 with a third wicket partnership of 100 and entering at 10 for 2 and the score going down to 20 for ¾. 7. Wkts falling while at crease Index This index reflect the number of wickets seen through by the batsman. An opening batsman, carrying his bat through, gets the highest value. 8. Support Index This reflects the support received by the batsman while he played his innings. 9. Shepherding of Tail enders Index This index is based on the way the batsman has nursed the 8-11 batsmen and built partnerships. The highest value is given for a batsman who has been involved in 4 signigicant partnerships. 10. Highest score Index This is the lowest rated parameter and is given to the innings if the same is the highest for the team. 11. Match Status Index This is complex index, which reflects the status of the match. The highest value is given to a successful and close fourth innings chase (Lara's 153*) or a great match-winning innings after a follow-on (Laxman's 281). 12. Result contribution Index. This index is based on the sum of the 11 index values and reflects the value of the players contribution, through the considered innings, to the match result. The match should be a win (x points) or a draw (0.3x points) for this index value to be allocated. Additional weightage is given for away wins.

[thevortex]

Patriot - do you think that is all there is to batting in and of itself? At the same time let me hasten to add that if there is a hole in Sachin's career that is the lack of a triple century or an innings like VVS' 281 or Lara's tremendous 153.

[patriot]

Patriot - do you think that is all there is to batting in and of itself? At the same time let me hasten to add that if there is a hole in Sachin's career that is the lack of a triple century or an innings like VVS' 281 or Lara's tremendous 153.

Well if there is something else ( apart from what is listed above) , that can be quantified. Let us know. There are far bigger holes, that you and a whole bunch refuse to acknowledge and cannot prove otherwise. SRT can never dream to match Lara's sheer match winning streak when he get gets going like that 153 and 277 against Aus. He can't even play with a quarter the utter destructiveness with which Sehwag has played test cricket. Nor has he ever seemed like an inpenetrable shield like a Dravid or Gavsakar. Nor has he shown a consistent tendency to counter attack and succeed when the chips are down like Ponting. SRT has NEVER dominated a great fast bowler. That is a big big hole. If he has, please prove likewise.

[Gunner_Mania]

Patriot - Isn't this the list which rated Azhar Mahmood's - a batsman with career average of 30 & 3 centuries to his name - vs SA in the top 10 list? Azhar Mahmood scored a century in the 1st innings, Saeed Anwar scored a century in the 2nd innings. Azhar Mahmood's innings was rated as number 8, while Saeed Anwar's was rated as 64. How was the 2nd innings century not important in winning the match while the first one was? Mind you, the players, pitch et all were the same, if anything the pitch may have worsened.

[patriot]

Patriot - Isn't this the list which rated Azhar Mahmood's - a batsman with career average of 30 & 3 centuries to his name - vs SA in the top 10 list? Azhar Mahmood scored a century in the 1st innings' date=' Saeed Anwar scored a century in the 2nd innings. Azhar Mahmood's innings was rated as number 8, while Saeed Anwar's was rated as 64. How was the 2nd innings century not important in winning the match while the first one was? Mind you, the players, pitch et all were the same, if anything the pitch may have worsened.[/quote'] Have you even bothered reading the criteria ? Could it be because Mahmood came in at 5/89 against a rampaging pace attack on a dicy pitch ? Have you read the criteria and the weightage of each criterion ? I am not about to explain you. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63790.html

[Dhondy]

Have you even bothered reading the criteria ? Could it be because Mahmood came in at 5/89 against a rampaging pace attack on a dicy pitch ? Have you read the criteria and the weightage of each criterion ? I am not about to explain you. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63790.html

Patriot, it was one of the greatest ever innings by an Asian batsman away from home under adversity. And didn't he do it all over again, in the same series? It's amazing how his career fell away after a start like that. Reminds me of our own Praveen Amre.

[patriot]

Patriot, it was one of the greatest ever innings by an Asian batsman away from home under adversity. And didn't he do it all over again, in the same series? It's amazing how his career fell away after a start like that. Reminds me of our own Praveen Amre.

Yeap..he did. He had earlier scored a swashbuckling century in J'burg. That innings in Durban was on a pitch and against an attack similar to what we faced in Durban in 96/97, when we got bundled out for 100 and 66. This is why I am totally against believing in numbers without exploring them minutely. Compare this to SRT's tour of Australia in 03/04. He failed the entire test series ( even without Mcwarne ) , bar the last test on a 700 + Sydney pancake, where he scored an ego boosting 240+ which was nothing but selfserving. He remained not out in both the innings and his average for the entire tour got super inflated , masking the fact that he failed in 3/4 tests.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[patriot]

^ Comfortably outscored and outlasted by Laxy.