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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[teacup]

Batsmen v Donald: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=3;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=2011;player_involve_type=all;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting Batsmen v Donald & Pollock: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=3;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2228;player_involve_type=all;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting v Dale Steyn http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=3;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=47154;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting v Shoaib Akhtar http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=7;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=5649;qualmax1=50;qualmin1=5;qualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting

All these are pretty much useless unless you have player vs player stat. You cannot prove anything against a batsman just because a particular bowler was in the opposition.

[satyam1729]

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.

Tendulkar against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1884;player_involve=1924;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Lara against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=1973;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Tendulkar still betters lara

[Dhondy]

All these are pretty much useless unless you have player vs player stat. You cannot prove anything against a batsman just because a particular bowler was in the opposition.

I have heard that before. I won't bother replying. I realise that nothing I say will make a difference. I'm finished here. You've won. Rejoice. Boss, number 5 was just beautiful. Remember it well and also how upset I was when I came home and realised that the VCR hadn't recorded.

[Gunner_Mania]

Patriot - May be you should read my original comments - about rankings & lists and the objective criterias that were used. My problem is not that SRT's innings are present or not in the list, it is irrelevant to me. My issue was that with rankings it does not take into account things like normalization, or if a particular player bowled in a match / series - hence it is not subjective. If you apply the objective criteria of Wisden today, it wouldn't produce the same list, the lists would vary. With Rankings the number of points earned for a sesaon would remain same however many years later you do the calculation. VVS Laxman's 281 was scored against an attack of Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne & Mark Waugh, Kasprowicz, Ponting on the sub continent in comparison to Azhar Mahmood's -on a dicey pitch - against Donald, devilliers, Pollock & Klusener and playing with the tailenders as you suggest. One could then perhaps argue that may be that was perhaps a better innings than the VVS one - although Wisden rated the VVS one higher than the Azhar Mahmood one. This is the reason I am saying lists are subjective.

[The Outsider]

The last 100 or so posts on this thread show exactly why Bradman is the undisputed king of batsmen. It is possible to pick holes in every batsman's resume except Bradman. What has been done above for Tendulkar can easily be repeated for Ponting (a laugh worthy average of 20 in the backyard of his fiercest rivals, an away average which barely touches 50, an extremely high percentage of home matches), Waugh (terrible fourth innings average, no last innings century in his entire career), Lara (huge scores on dead tracks, mediocre away average, getting regularly owned by Kumble) etc. etc. Bradman stands well and truly above anyone to have lifted a cricket bat. The Wisden rankings of the best innings were shown to be a joke by our own CC :

Wisden's controversial top 100 Test innings rating fails the test of objectivity, proving to be skewed even based on its own published parameters. Wisden publishes a set of 12 parameters which are considered when evaluating their top 100 test innings of all time. However, Wisden says only that "blahblah things are taken into account", and not what percentage of each thing counts towards the total score. So we don't know, for example, whether a given parameter contributes 80% of the "innings rating" or 20%. I would like to know: 1. The precise weight each parameter carries to determine the final tally and, 2. What was the logic used to arrive at that weighting. Interestingly, they don't say a word about how many times a batsman was dropped, or how freely he scored his runs. None of Sachin Tendulkar's record number of Test centuries make it into Wisden's top 100 list. Let's take just one of these innings -- Sachin Tendulkar's 136 v Pakistan at Chennai in 1999 -- and compare it to Wisden's number 10 innings of all time: Brian Lara's 375 v England at Antigua in 1994, based on their own rules. 1. Batting Base points The Batting Base points are given for Runs scored. Brian Lara, for his 375 and 400*, gets the highest Index value. No problem. Lara gets more points, for he scored over 200 more runs than Tendulkar. Tendulkar 0, Lara 1. 2. Pitch Index This 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. At Chennai, 1036 runs were scored for the loss of 40 wickets. Surely, this parameter awards more points to Tendulkar than to Lara -- in Antigua 1229 runs were scored with just 16 wickets falling during the course of the match. Tendulkar 1, Lara 1. 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. Can we even begin to compare Fraser-Caddick-Tufnell-Lewis to Akram-Waqar-Saqlain (version 1 where he was getting returns like Murali today)-Afridi ? Okay, Afridi is an inferior bowler to all 4 Englishmen above, but the other three Pakistani bowlers were all superior. This parameter must go to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 2, Lara 1. 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. Lara scored 63% of the team's runs and Tendulkar scored 52% of the team's runs. This one goes to Lara. Tendulkar 2, Lara 2. 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. Lara comes in at 1-11 and Tendulkar comes in at 2-6. This one goes to Tendulkar: he came in when team had lost an extra wicket, and for less runs. Tendulkar 3, Lara 2. 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. Lara's 2nd wicket partership with Simmons yielded 1 run, and 3rd wicket parsnership with Arthurton yielded 179 runs. Tendulkar's 3rd wicket partnership with Dravid yielded 44 runs and 4th wicket partnership with Azharuddin yielded 23 runs. This parameter again favors Tendulkar. Tendulkar 4, Lara 2. 7. Wickets 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. Lara came in with 1 wicket down, and was the 5th wicket to fall. Thus, his tenure at the crease saw 3 wickets fall. Tendulkar came in when 2 wickets were down and was dismissed as the 7th wicket. He saw 4 wickets fall at the other end. Again, this one goes to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 5, Lara 2. 8. Support Index This reflects the support received by the batsman while he played his innings. Lara had partnerships of 1 run, 179 runs, 183 runs and 219 runs. Simmons scored 1 with Lara,Adams scored 59, Arthurton scored 47 and Chanders an unbeaten 75. Total support cast: 182 runs. Tendulkar had partnerships of 44 runs, 23 runs, 9 runs, 136 runs and 36 runs. Dravid scored 10 runs with Tendulkar, Azhar 7, Ganguly 2, Mongia 52 and Joshi scored 8 Total support cast: 79 runs. Lara had more support. This category also goes to Tendulkar. Tendulkar 6, Lara 2. 9. Shepherding of Tailenders 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 significant partnerships. Batsmen nursed from 8-11 counts. Lara didn't nurse any such batsman, so he gets a zero for this one. Tendulkar nursed number 8 Joshi for a 36-run partnership. Tendulkar gets this one. Tendulkar 7, Lara 2. 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. Both score even number of points in this category, as Lara's 375 was HS for the team and Tendulkar's 136 was HS for the team as well. Even stevens. Tendulkar 8, Lara 3. 11. Match Status Index This is a 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*). Tendulkar should get a higher rating here, as the match status was more dire compared to when Lara came out. Tendulkar's was a 4th innings chase, whereas Lara's was a 1st innings tally. Wisden mentions that the highest points are given to a successful 4th innings chase. Logic dictates that it means a good score in the 4th innings in a failed chase should mean AT LEAST as many points as a big bang in the 1st innings when the match-state isn't as developed. However, this is complex as Wisden says. I am tempted to give this one to Tendulkar, but let's be generous here and call it a tie. Tendulkar 9, Lara 4. 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. Lara fares better here, because his efforts were in a drawn match and Tendulkar's in a narrowly lost one. I disagree with this rating parameter: ONE player doesnt win or lose a match and how good YOU played should be independent of the result, that is dependent on TEN OTHER TEAM-MATES. However, I am playing by their rules and not mine, so I will consider it and count it in Lara's favour. FINAL TALLY: Tendulkar 9, Lara 5. Tendulkar outscores Lara in over twice as many categories, but apparently his innings must be at least 41.3 pts below Lara's rating (the difference between Lara's innings and #100 innings, and optimistically assuming that Wisden would rate Tendulkar's effort as 101). Go figure! There are several scores less than Tendulkar's that were mentioned in that list, so don't give me the "375 is a heck of a lot more than 136" stupidity. This rating system can mean only one thing: A hugely disproportionate number of rating points are attached to 1, 4 and 6. If that's the case, then Tendulkar's 241*, or his innings against AUS/RSA in the early 90s etc, should figure in the list as they boost Tendulkar's percentage of team runs scored. But do they feature? NO! So I am forced to conclude that Wisden's top 100 innings is a bogus rating system -- no better than my, or your, subjective opinion.

[patriot]

Tendulkar against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1884;player_involve=1924;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Lara against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=1973;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Tendulkar still betters lara

Huh ? Not outs ?Lara has scored 350 odd runs more in 3 more innings. You decide. Needless to say..as Dhondy and myself proved conclusively..in head to head against these bowlers Lara summarily pawns SRT. Your figures just represent matches involving. Lara has dominated the better bowlers far far more. It is one thing to score against sides with top bowlers, and another to score off these top bowlers. SRT fails in the latter miserably compared to a Lara or Sehwag.

[The Outsider]

Education? :hysterical: You certainly are misguided about the worth of that drivel of a post.

You are still around? Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough for at least a month by demonstrating to the world what a tool you are for not being able to distinguish between player vs. player stats and the average against the team? Or are you still trying to figure out an original way to show 55>99 or how averaging in the 30s constitutes ownership? :hysterical:

[patriot]

Patriot - May be you should read my original comments - about rankings & lists and the objective criterias that were used. My problem is not that SRT's innings are present or not in the list, it is irrelevant to me. My issue was that with rankings it does not take into account things like normalization, or if a particular player bowled in a match / series - hence it is not subjective. If you apply the objective criteria of Wisden today, it wouldn't produce the same list, the lists would vary. With Rankings the number of points earned for a sesaon would remain same however many years later you do the calculation. VVS Laxman's 281 was scored against an attack of Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne & Mark Waugh, Kasprowicz, Ponting on the sub continent in comparison to Azhar Mahmood's -on a dicey pitch - against Donald, devilliers, Pollock & Klusener and playing with the tailenders as you suggest. One could then perhaps argue that may be that was perhaps a better innings than the VVS one - although Wisden rated the VVS one higher than the Azhar Mahmood one. This is the reason I am saying lists are subjective.

The problem is you have not even showed the patience or will to understand the criteria. Have you ? You are just blindly seeing the numbers. For eff sake..Laxman's knock was on a flat pitch at home and he had massive support from Dravid and din't have to shepherd tailenders. Now read the criteria list again ( 2,4,6,8,9 ) my friend.

[satyam1729]

Huh ? Not outs ?Lara has scored 350 odd runs more in 3 more innings. You decide. Needless to say..as Dhondy and myself proved conclusively..in head to head against these bowlers Lara summarily pawns SRT. Your figures just represent matches involving. Lara has dominated the better bowlers far far more. It is one thing to score against sides with top bowlers, and another to score off these top bowlers. SRT fails in the latter miserably compared to a Lara or Sehwag.

Huh? Don't you think more not outs means he could have scored more runs. And yes lara is such a great batsman that he couldn't score a test century against donald,wasim,waqar. In head to head encounter sachin pwns lara vigorously. Check the stats. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=1982;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=1934;template=results;type=batting

[patriot]

Huh? Don't you think more not outs means he could have scored more runs. And yes lara is such a great batsman that he couldn't score a test century against donald,wasim,waqar. In head to head encounter sachin pwns lara vigorously. Check the stats. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=1982;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=1934;template=results;type=batting

Luzzlers...Funny that you had to slimily slip in the legendary Stuart Clark whom Lara has not even faced. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Better luck next time.

[satyam1729]

Luzzlers...Funny that you had to slimily slip in the legendary Stuart Clark whom Lara has not even faced. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Better luck next time.

Where is stuart clark in stats. You should try better next time. You should get your eye checked.:hysterical::hysterical:

[satyam1729]

Lara also never faced shoaib akhtar .He faced once in ODI and see this was the result. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33KDuCDfKXw]YouTube- Shoaib Akhtar Bouncer Brian Lara[/ame]

[patriot]

Where is stuart clark in stats. You should try better next time. You should get your eye checked.:hysterical::hysterical:

You would know better since you posted this: Tendulkar against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1884;player_involve=1924;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Lara against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=1973;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting :cantstop: BTW Tendu still has to catch up with the long retired Lara, inspite of batting 23 more times since Jan 1, 2000 :hysterical: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[satyam1729]

You would know better since you posted this: Tendulkar against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1884;player_involve=1924;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting Lara against top 15 bowlers of his time http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=1973;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=6973;template=results;type=batting :cantstop: BTW Tendu still has to catch up with the long retired Lara, inspite of batting 23 more times since Jan 1, 2000 :hysterical: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Even you remove stuart clarke lara's average doesn't changes. Stuart clarke is included because he, Asif and Bond have the best bowling strike rate ever http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=19627;player_involve=1973;player_involve=2000;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2041;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;template=results;type=batting You should try harder. Btw, why doesn't sehwag do anything in WC . God has given you brain . Use it.:cantstop: Lara also never faced Asif and shoaib. You can remove them too.

[satyam1729]

I am sorry lara never faced dale steyn too. Remove his name also. And when you do head to head record check sachin against (ambrose,walsh) and lara against(zaheer, nehra, munaf patel). Sachin still pwns lara.

[patriot]

Where is stuart clark in stats. You should try better next time. You should get your eye checked.

Even you remove stuart clarke lara's average doesn't changes. Stuart clarke is included because he' date= Asif and Bond have the best bowling strike rate ever

Got your eyes checked so soon ? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

God has given you brain

I wish I could tell you the same thing. :cantstop: What a waste of time you are man. Din't take you too long to side step from Tests and start talking about ODIS.

[satyam1729]

Got your eyes checked so soon ? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: I wish I could tell you the same thing. :cantstop: What a waste of time you are man. Din't take you too long to side step from Tests and start talking about ODIS.

Hope you can read better:hysterical::hysterical: Bowler Avg SR CEL Ambrose 20.99 54.47 GD McGrath 21.64 51.86 SE Bond 22.09 38.68 AA Donald 22.25 46.94 M Muralitharan 22.71 55.01 SM Pollock 23.12 57.73 Mohammad Asif 23.20 46.96 DW Steyn 23.52 39.54 Waqar Younis 23.56 43.39 Wasim Akram 23.62 54.53 SR Clark 23.86 54.73 IR Bishop 24.28 52.13 CA Walsh 24.45 57.72 SK Warne 25.42 57.36 Shoaib Akhtar 25.70 45.62

[satyam1729]

What is the average of sehwag outside Subcontinent? 41