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

[saket123]

If you wanna argue for the sake of arguing and you have nothing better to do then this is a good exercise. In other words, you're a loser. Pardon my bluntness Tendulkar - modern day great Bradman- yesteryear great Legends of the Game QED If you want to provide proofs, then go ahead and waste your time.

I think you are missing the point. The issue is that Bradman is officially "Unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game, arguably the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the finest sportsmen of all time" I agree he was the best yesteryear cricketer.. but NOT the greatest batsman in the game. Like I said.. 52 international matches is not enough to give someone that title.

[The Outsider]

Btw - pre ware break, he was averaging 93-94 or so, and after war he averaged 105 or something, so it means during the war, he would have managed somewhere in between... like 98-99 or so. And hence overall would have crossed 100 barrier. It is unfortunate that some people claim that the reason he could not score those last 4 runs - was due to burden of expectations. I say BS, bowlers of that era were so good (always looking for wicket), that even with Don in his prime, could not score 4 runs, that further shows how great he was that he maintained over all career average of 99.96.

You were bragging about your Math skills? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: If someone averaged less than 100 and you add another sample with less than 100 average he will end up crossing the 100 average! :nice:

[zen]

1. Sachin has 51 100s that's as many as the test Bradman played :hehe: 2. If you take Sachin's best 52 tests, he would have 51 100s, again > Bradman's 29 in 52 tests 3. Even many Australians would admit that Sachin pawns Bradman. How many Indian say Bradman > Sachin? :deal: 4. Sachin plays with the burden of a billion expectations. Australian population now is 23 million, so you can imagine how few ppl must have been in 1930-1950 period :P 5. Even though Sachin was in bad form w/ some folks writing "mirror-mirror" article, he could not take break from cricket because of expectations. While Bradman hardly got a chance to show that he was in bad form. In fact, the WW2 years could have helped him to disguise his bad form :hysterical: 6. Sachin is seen as a God in India. Bradman was never seen anything more than a human :giggle: 7. Bowlers that Sachin faces are top class. Even I would avg 50 against the bowlers Bradman faced. Chawla would be like Warne in that era and Sami a Mcgrath :haha: In short: Tendulkar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that minnow basher, Bradman :stickyman:

[akshayxyz]

You were bragging about your Math skills? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: If someone averaged less than 100 and you add another sample with less than 100 average he will end up crossing the 100 average! :nice:

:nice: Good catch. Sarcasm are not supposed to be fool-proof. :dontknow: Btw - you/rett should be the last person to verify my sarcastic post. But good to know you read all posts, or perhaps you just got lucky :P.

[vvvslaxman]

(knock knock ) just checking the poll result :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[b555]

1. Sachin has 51 100s that's as many as the test Bradman played :hehe: 2. If you take Sachin's best 52 tests, he would have 51 100s, again > Bradman's 29 in 52 tests 3. Even many Australians would admit that Sachin pawns Bradman. How many Indian say Bradman > Sachin? :deal: 4. Sachin plays with the burden of a billion expectations. Australian population now is 23 million, so you can imagine how few ppl must have been in 1930-1950 period :P 5. Even though Sachin was in bad form w/ some folks writing "mirror-mirror" article, he could not take break from cricket because of expectations. While Bradman hardly got a chance to show that he was in bad form. In fact, the WW2 years could have helped him to disguise his bad form :hysterical: 6. Sachin is seen as a God in India. Bradman was never seen anything more than a human :giggle: 7. Bowlers that Sachin faces are top class. Even I would avg 50 against the bowlers Bradman faced. Chawla would be like Warne in that era and Sami a Mcgrath :haha: In short: Tendulkar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that minnow basher, Bradman :stickyman:

rett u have attained enlightenment at last :two_thumbs_up: :yay:

[sarcastic]

I think you are missing the point. The issue is that Bradman is officially "Unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game' date= arguably the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the finest sportsmen of all time" I agree he was the best yesteryear cricketer.. but NOT the greatest batsman in the game. Like I said.. 52 international matches is not enough to give someone that title.

"Unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game" is fair enough at least statistically!!! My point is also on the basis of a study posted below. IMHO, Great Cricketer Ever probably can go to Sachin Tendulkar more than DBG (for all the reasons that are already given by SRT supporters in this thread). One of the finest sportsmen of all time... I guess nobody here will have a problem in saying "yes" --------- Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Athlete | Sport | Statistic | Standard deviations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradman | Cricket Batting average 4.4 Pelé | Association Football Goals per game 3.7 Ty Cobb | Baseball Batting average 3.6 Jack Nicklaus | Golf Major titles 3.5 Michael Jordan | Basketball Points per game 3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records are .366 and 30.1.

[pensionplan]

--------- Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Athlete | Sport | Statistic | Standard deviations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradman | Cricket Batting average 4.4 Pelé | Association Football Goals per game 3.7 Ty Cobb | Baseball Batting average 3.6 Jack Nicklaus | Golf Major titles 3.5 Michael Jordan | Basketball Points per game 3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records are .366 and 30.1.

Thanks for bringing this up. Having followed almost all of the major sports and being aware of the history of these sports I knew Bradman batting average was something far ahead of any sporting metric in comparison thus far in history of sports. I was more thinking of a career Basket Ball points per game average of close to 50 and a career baseball batting average of .400 to be equivalent of Bradman 99 plus average which is close enough. The only athlete I can think of that has a shot at that Bradman metric is Tiger Woods if he can manage like a Tiger Slam over the next 3-4 years and then win a few majors in between and get to like 23-24 majors over the next 5 years or so. A tall order but not out of the realms of possibility with Tiger.

[zen]

Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Athlete | Sport | Statistic | Standard deviations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradman | Cricket Batting average 4.4 Pelé | Association Football Goals per game 3.7 Ty Cobb | Baseball Batting average 3.6 Jack Nicklaus | Golf Major titles 3.5 Michael Jordan | Basketball Points per game 3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records are .366 and 30.1.

Bradman :hatsoff: And cricket sets the standards for other sports to follow because of Bradman :yay:

[The Outsider]

:nice: Good catch. Sarcasm are not supposed to be fool-proof. :dontknow: Btw - you/rett should be the last person to verify my sarcastic post. But good to know you read all posts, or perhaps you just got lucky :P.

Don't flatter yourself. I've just been trained to identify stupidity.

[akshayxyz]

Don't flatter yourself. I've just been trained to identify stupidity.

Ok genius, meanwhile I am learning the magical tools required to make predictions across time periods separated by 60 years. May be it will be useful to make some quick $$s in stock market, which is just matter of making predictions over few days/months/years.

[akshayxyz]

" --------- Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport. The top performers in his selected sports are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Athlete | Sport | Statistic | Standard deviations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradman | Cricket Batting average 4.4 Pelé | Association Football Goals per game 3.7 Ty Cobb | Baseball Batting average 3.6 Jack Nicklaus | Golf Major titles 3.5 Michael Jordan | Basketball Points per game 3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records are .366 and 30.1.

And how much of those deviations one should be attributing to pure difference in sporting skills? And where is the proof that such deviations can be maintained -in any era- with complete disregard to the changes in sport over period of time?

[The Outsider]

Ok genius' date=' meanwhile I am learning the magical tools required to make predictions across time periods separated by 60 years. May be it will be useful to make some quick $ in stock market, which is just matter of making predictions over few days/months/years.[/quote'] So, earning $$s on the stock market is your barometer for usefulness?

[akshayxyz]

So' date=' earning $ on the stock market is your barometer for usefulness?[/quote'] Since you keep nit-picking. Did you try to understand usefulness of what? Do you disagree that, ability to help make $$s on stock market when using predictive/speculative strategy, is one of the barometers for usefulness of predictive algorithms.

[The Outsider]

Since you keep nit-picking. Did you try to understand usefulness of what?

Educate me.

Do you disagree that, ability to help make $ on stock market when using predictive/speculative strategy, is one of the barometers for usefulness of predictive algorithms.

No, I don't disagree. What's that got to do with the price of tomatoes?

[yoda]

And how much of those deviations one should be attributing to pure difference in sporting skills? And where is the proof that such deviations can be maintained -in any era- with complete disregard to the changes in sport over period of time?

Michael Jordan is this era. I am not sure it makes difference to you, but he is a classic example of how one can be significantly better than his peers even in this modern so called more competitive era.

[Sachin=GOD]

Michael Jordan is this era. I am not sure it makes difference to you' date=' but he is a classic example of how one can be [b']significantly better than his peers even in this modern so called more competitive era.

Goddy has 32813 runs in International cricket and the 2nd in the list (Ponting) has 26170. So he has made around 21% more than Ponting - surely that can be considered "significantly better than his peers even in this so called competitive era" ??

[yoda]

Goddy has 32813 runs in International cricket and the 2nd in the list (Ponting) has 26170. So he has made around 21% more than Ponting - surely that can be considered "significantly better than his peers even in this so called competitive era" ??

Longevity is a measure of greatness, but it ends up skewing numbers. For example, in basketball, if you go by pure totals, MJ is only 3rd and is behind the leader by a big margin cause the leader played much longer. We've been through this before, in this and other threads. Each sport has it's own way of comparing stats. Most sport (cricket, basketball, ...) go by average where it makes sense. Few like Tennis and Golf go by career major titles. Some career stats in cricket do make sense to look at when measuring greatness. Examples are total runs, centuries, but the holy grail in tests is average and holy grail in ODIs is average + SR.

[sarcastic]

And how much of those deviations one should be attributing to pure difference in sporting skills? And where is the proof that such deviations can be maintained -in any era- with complete disregard to the changes in sport over period of time?

Indeed there is no way that we can attribute the deviation to pure difference in sporting skills. It only tells sportsman that has been most successful (statistically) w.r.t others in the respective games!!!!! I don't disagree with your comment that it is not possible to prove conclusively that either SRT or DBG is the greatest batsman in the game of cricket. However, I would not mind having DBG ahead of SRT for an answer to "Who is greater batsman"... and viceversa if I were to answer "Who is greater cricketer"!!!! (in which I would talk about the various subjective criteria that are already being discussed here)