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

[akshayxyz]

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 significantly better than his peers even in this modern so called more competitive era.[/quote'] And why does the only parameter have to be 'avg' /game. When there are other parameters too, which other peers are also allowed to accumulate/earn?? referring to S=G's post above - if its so easy to accumulate runs by merely playing more and more number of games - why don't other do it? I think there are examples like Steve Waugh ( in tests) and Jaiyasuraya ( ODIs). How sensible is it to assume that, if one can average 99.94 by playing 3 tests a year, could have managed the same even when playing different forms of the game and playing more and more?

[Sachin=GOD]

Longevity is a measure of greatness' date= 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.

Ponting has played around 100 innings less. So, in his next 100 innings if he can make around 6700 runs and 30 centuries then we can say that Goddy has made these runs only because he has played so many innings more than his nearest competitor and not because he is much better.

[yoda]

And why does the only parameter have to be 'avg' /game. When there are other parameters too' date=' which other peers are also allowed to accumulate/earn??[/quote'] Cause if a great one chooses to retire earlier than the others, he shouldn't be penalized cause some lesser/equally great players continued to play beyond. No one is saying anything is easy, but when you look at 2 players both with similar average. Player X retires after 10 years, player Y plays 5 more years at same average, it doesn't mean player Y is significantly better than player X. I am assuming his peers would have played more and different formats. I know some of you don't like looking at peers, but there is no way around it if you want to discuss DGB.

[akshayxyz]

Since people have brought MJ in this discussion, let me point out - ( in case this is your intention) - it is not fair to compare performance in Basketball to Batting in cricket. In cricket - everyone gets only one chance in an inning - your innings can be ended by a moment of brilliance from a fielder!. Whereas in Baskteball, you can be there in the game - until the end and continue trying your skills. Also - in basket ball, you can be striker or defender or feeder, and a part of MJ's score can be due to the good support he might have had. Anyway - we better leave MJ/Basketball out of this. I always support this - Don was best batsman of his era - based on the primary stat - test average. Sachin is greatest of his era in sense of many cricket parameters used for evaluation. I do not even support comparing Sachin(Test/ODI) with Gavaskar(in tests), or Viv ( in ODIs) - for they played at different positions and many other differences. But that still is relatively more sensible than bringing up Don - fast forward 60 years - in significantly different setup. And only/primary basis of greatness being - # of standard deviation from the mean!!

[zen]

Let's leave everything out to show nothing can be proven .... Bitwa, Johnpur se aayeh ho kiya? :P Basketfall or cricket, we are measuring the effect of an individual within the scope of the enviornment of the game .... That MJ gets to play for the whole game or Bradman till he bats affects how the chances of a team are, it does not affect how dominating an individual is or can be in the enviornment that he is presented with :winky:

[yoda]

Leave MJ out of this cause I showed one clear example where a guy has been significantly better than his peers over a career even in the modern competitive era? :winky: Ofc, every sport is different, so you compare a basketball player to another basketball player. NO MJ didn't get fed by others, in fact he made others better all the while scoring himself. That's what makes him even greater.

[Sachin=GOD]

Leave MJ out if this cause I showed one clear example where a guy has been significantly better than his peers over a career even in the modern competitive era? :winky: NO MJ didn't get fed by others, in fact he made others better all the while scoring himself. That's what makes him even greater.

and I showed numbers which prove the same for Goddy.

[The Outsider]

Leave MJ out if this cause I showed one clear example where a guy has been significantly better than his peers over a career even in the modern competitive era? :winky:

His arguments are hilarious - leave Basketball out, leave science out, but let's talk about snooker in India compared to Europe in the same era. :winky:

[yoda]

and I showed numbers which prove the same for Goddy.

No you didn't. See my responses to your post as to why MJ is different from Goddy. He averages better than his peers there by eliminating the bias created by longevity.

[Sachin=GOD]

No you didn't. See my responses to your post as to why MJ is different from Goddy.

and looks like you did'nt see my response:

Ponting has played around 100 innings less. So, in his next 100 innings if he can make around 6700 runs and 30 centuries then we can say that Goddy has made these runs only because he has played so many innings more than his nearest competitor and not because he is much better.

[akshayxyz]

Cause if a great one chooses to retire earlier than the others, he shouldn't be penalized cause some lesser/equally great players continued to play beyond.

And shouldn't the player, who played extra years in demanding setup/more variety of conditions, get some credit for that - when pulled into comparison?

No one is saying anything is easy, but when you look at 2 players both with similar average. Player X retires after 10 years, player Y plays 5 more years at same average, it doesn't mean player Y is significantly better than player X.

I understand what you saying - but where do you draw the line ( minimum number of matches to be played)? I suggest - if someone played significantly extra # of games, and tackled significantly varied conditions - than the player you are comparing against.. then he should get credit for that too. Referring to your example - player X might have missed out due to luck, but if most of the players are left behind - then player Y deserves extra credit.

I am assuming his peers would have played more and different formats. I know some of you don't like looking at peers, but there is no way around it if you want to discuss DGB.

It is okay to discuss certain aspects of DGB, but it starts bordering on stupidity - when people start disregarding the glaring differences in the sports setup. 4.x deviation from mean avg might be parameter of greatness in 30s test cricket, but it is dumb to say one has to achieve ( as if its feasible ) similar deviation today to be considered great. Anyway, I do not buy "All time great" nonsense, on basis of limited set of parameters.

[yoda]

and looks like you did'nt see my response:

Too many hypotheticals. Let's stick to reality please, as we have enough real numbers to go by. That a player kept his pace better than his CURRENT NEAREST peer doesn't take away from the fact that his average is still in the same ball park as his peers, some of whom have since retired.

[yoda]

Anyways, I only came back to this thread to add the MJ bit. Please continue with the pre MJ discussions as I go back to being a reader of this thread. :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I personally wouldnt attach much value to such claims see for yourselves the Two of them - Miller and Lindwall - in action during their peak in this video : http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74604 Lindwall is bowling from the bottom end and Miller from the other end during the first 2 minutes of the clip. There is hardly any venom in the bowling to put it mildly ( I can also give you a lot more details of this video as I have observed it close if you are interested ). But you just simply cant take performances against such bowlers and assume that the result would be the same had it been Wasim or Amby or McGrath or Steyn bowling.

There really is no point. No venom? Just because you say so. The batsman is barely able to put bat to ball in the Lindwall clip and I am sure some techie can do a back of the envelope estimate of the speed of the ball as well. I'd rather believe the words of Sobers who faced Lindwall, Miller, Lillee, and Thompson.

Iam not equating the two at all. My entire point surrounding the Bodyline bowling tactic is that the modern fast bowler is far more accurate and faster to the extent that they earn far more wkts thru short pitch bowling than those in Bradmans time.

Well you just equated the two again in the this very post. Short pitch bowling is not equal to Bodyline.

There are far too many batsman who have come up short against high quality pace bowling . Sunny is an exception and you cant take that as a given.

In the absence of any proof that Bradman struggled against pace bowling, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

[The Outsider]

Alastair Cook will certainly end up with more runs than Viv Richards ergo Cook is a greater batsman than Richards.

[Raghav_12]

"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.

Who is Charles Davis by the way? I did some google and found out that he is some Melbourne born statistician who hasn't done anything famous in field of statistics, other than proving Bradman to be best ever sportsperson, statistically speaking. I can't really take word of some random statisticians on who is really greatest sportsperson of all time.

"no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".

International sport :hmmm:. Sports played between two countries? Major flaw in study.

[akshayxyz]

Let's leave everything out to show nothing can be proven .... Bitwa' date= Johnpur se aayeh ho kiya? :P

True or false - how does it support your argument?

Basketfall or cricket, we are measuring the effect of an individual within the scope of the enviornment of the game .... That MJ gets to play for the whole game or Bradman till he bats affects how the chances of a team are, it does not affect how dominating an individual is or can be in the enviornment that he is presented with :winky:

That is where one should stop and consider other factors and not blindly attribute "the effect" to one individual, in a system involving more parameters than you can handle.

[akshayxyz]

His arguments are hilarious - leave Basketball out' date= leave science out, but let's talk about snooker in India compared to Europe in the same era. :winky:

The feeling is mutual. Related to you - To realize and work within one's limitations is a sign of common sense, which I have yet to observe in you - in context of the problem doing comparisons across eras. Btw, Rett made my day when he brought about hypothetical 100m race example.

[akshayxyz]

Who is Charles Davis by the way? I did some google and found out that he is some Melbourne born statistician who hasn't done anything famous in field of statistics, other than proving Bradman to be best ever sportsperson, statistically speaking. I can't really take word of some random statisticians on who is really greatest sportsperson of all time.

even though it would be argumentum ad hominem, but who is Charles Davis anyway ??

International sport :hmmm:. Sports played between two countries? Major flaw in study.

:two_thumbs_up: