vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Except for that one match in Sri Lanka in '97 and a couple of 1950s the others are from the 2000s (post-2003 to be specific) and the 1930s. That 2000s have been productive for top batsmen is no-brainer and it is a fact that was well published in the recent Cricinfo decade review feature. If Tendulkar had not suffered a series of injuries post 2003' date=' he would be averaging closer to 65 by now. The 1930s and 40s being two of the 3 best decades for batting is often overlooked.[/quote'] That blows the theory of batsmen of one era is better than batsmen of previous era right out of the water. Steyn, Pollock, Mcgrath, Warne, Murali all played in 2000s too. Even Donald played. Are these bowlers inferior suddenly?
vvvslaxman Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 except that the difference of about 50 runs per test is over a entire decade when there were more than twice as many test matches without exception ... if you dont understand the significance of that stat then there is no point in continuing this discussion. It has no correlation. You are just posted a random stat that has no explanation why Bradman average way above both his contemporaries and his supposedly future "greats". You can interpret anyway you want. You can say the batsmen in Bradman's era were better than batsmen in Tendulkar's era.
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 That blows the theory of batsmen of one era is better than batsmen of previous era right out of the water. Steyn, Pollock, Mcgrath, Warne, Murali all played in 2000s too. Even Donald played. Are these bowlers inferior suddenly? Most fast bowlers who peaked during the 90s retired post 2003 World Cup. Donald, Akram, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Srinath were all not available post 2003. Steyn came towards the end of the decade. Akhtar was not a regular feature in the Paki team post 2004. No wonder the Aussies dominated the decade. They were the only team who had a good bowling attack. McGrath, Warne and Gillespie retired by 2007 and look at them now! Overall batting average for positions 1-6 for the period 1/1/00 - 31/3/03: 37.46 Post-1/4/03 to end of decade: 40.56 Do you need further proof that the quality of the bowling affects the overall statistics for batsmen? That was one of the points in BossBhai original post and you seemed to disagree with that. The other factor is of course fielding and we all know how the 30s and 40s compare with the 90s and 00s on that measure. Too bad we don't have statistics on fielding otherwise I would have shut you up with one post.
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 i am just curious....... wat was sachin's collective average in school cricket and cricket before he played his first test for india..... jus curious....
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Runouts per test 30s+40s = 0.87 90s+00s = 1.02 Similarly with lbws 90s+00s = 5.18/test 30s+40s = 3.53/test Fantastic! Now, if only we had a system of recording fielding goof-ups like Baseball, it would be so much easier to shut these guys up.
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 and not to forget the number of times ten has been given out wrongly....
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 true. though it would be incredibly hard to keep track :--D one other thing reg lbws ... bradman had a very lopsided cleanbowled to lbw ratio ( 23:6) .. almost like a tailender .. probably escaped quite a few times being given lbw due to his stature + batsman friendly rules back then. I think you can. A misfield resulting in extra runs should be recorded under Extras as Fielding Error (for ex., E3 - an error that costs 3 extra runs). Likewise, the number of dropped catches/inning for every batsman (the beneficiary) should be recorded against his name, the fielder (culprit) and the bowler's (victim). The benefits of recording it is considerable.
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 i found this list of sachin's wrong dismissals... how much is true??? http://sachinandcritics.com/sachin_vs_ump.php i saw rabinjackman post some videos somewhere of some wrong dismissals too, i wish i could complie avidoe thread of this.... but MODS would hit me :D
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 An elusive four runs that would bring Don Bradman's Test average to a cool 100 may have been found, a sports statistician claims. Charles Davis has studied old Test match scorebooks, and says he has found a "tantalising clue" to the "missing" four runs. Bradman's Test average - 99.94 runs per dismissal - is entrenched in Australian sporting history, but just four more runs spread over a career of nearly 20 years would have taken it to 100. Writing in Fairfax newspapers, Mr Davis said his research had found that errors and anomalies arose quite regularly in old Test match scorebooks. Davis reviewed the scorebook of the eight-day fifth Test of 1928-29 against England in Melbourne, when Bradman was batting with Jack Ryder. "There are four runs attributed to Ryder that are in the wrong place in both the batting section of the score and in the bowling section." Davis writes. "There is no doubt that a recording error of some kind has occurred. So where do these runs belong?" Davis surmises that either Ryder may have scored them at some other point of the innings, or they were not scored at all, or "just perhaps" they were scored by Bradman
99.94 Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Who would be sad enough to go through every dismissal in Tendulkar's career..?
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Who would be sad enough to go through every dismissal in Tendulkar's career..? thats wat statisticians do fer a living... and also some people keep stats they are interested in and make a note of it.... it is personal , nothing sad about it.... i personally knew acricket fanatic who used to make notes of each and every sachin innings he watched... how he got out... wrong decision... strike rate.... i used tho think he was carzy
Roshanrocks Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 .... but later he used to defend sachin so very easily against some critics based on statistics he had..... i was impressed :D God knows where he is now..... (sigh)
teacup Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 .... but later he used to defend sachin so very easily against some critics based on statistics he had..... i was impressed :D God knows where he is now..... (sigh) People who know a thing or two about batting and had been following Sachin's career closely from the start usually have no doubts that he is the best the world has ever seen. It is the pseudo-experts who have not picked up a bat and faced the leather at any level in their lives and believe anything ancient and in black-n-white is always better than the insipidly colorful present who buy into this nostalgic nonsense.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now