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

[King Tendulkar]

I am not the one who says 55 > 99 :cantstop:

Eh!! When have I posted that. Don't even know what you mean!:((

[vvvslaxman]

Eh!! When have I posted that. Don't even know what you mean!:((

Isn't that what the debate is about? :cantstop:

[patriot]

Tendulkar * 2 > Bradman ( ( 55.56 * 2) > 99.94 )

[bhanu]

Tendulkar * 2 > Bradman ( ( 55.56 * 2) > 99.94 )

seiorusly april fool is already gone so enough :cantstop:

[yoda]

keep this thread going guys. if there was a thread which can provide comic relief this one is right up there. :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1013411&postcount=1058 Responses to post#1058 from Shwetabh ... starting with the first point 1. Batting was easier during Bradman's time : Factually incorrect. The batting/bowling averages from the 30s/40s are not significantly different from 90s/00s. Nope. Heres the Batting avgs

[B]Decade   Runs   Wkts    Tests    Avg[/B]
90+00	770379	24974	811	30.85
30+40	126470	3958	134	31.95

The diff between 90+00 and 30s+40s is -1.10 (BTW The diff goes to 1.58 if we just consider the 90s )

It's this kind of nonsense which drives me close to a hysterical laughter. :hysterical: A 1.10 difference is not "significant" to start off with and you'll end up on the wrong side of the spectrum once you factor out half of Bradman's runs and take into account the increased averages of wicketkeepers and tail end batsmen.

[99.94]

So when you have seen Bradman bat? Give specifics on any live games you have seen or any TV footage you have seen of him?

It's funny that I told you I had seen him but you didn't even believe me.. maybe you're in denial?

[99.94]

The disrespect some indians give to their own indian legends is sad to see! Maybe they think its cool to be like that. I just find it sad

Anyone who doesn't think Tendulkar was better than Bradman is unpatriotic. David Boon was better than Tendulkar - sorry.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

That translates to about 27,600 runs ( 1.1 * 24974) ... which works out to more than 21% of all runs from the 30s+40s ... Iam sure you will invent a way to say 21% is not a significant number. that works out to a avg of 31.06 still higher than the 90s+00s avg by 0.21

What has that number got to do with anything!! The measure we want is already there - the average of a batsman in the 90s/00s goes down by 1.1 compared to 30s/40s, by 0.21 if we exclude the Bradman effect. So Bradman would have found run scoring more difficult by 0.2 runs/wicket in the modern era, thereby reducing his average from 99.4 to 99.2. Can we now move on to the next point? If you don't understand my post or think I am "inventing" things feel free to ask around if your 21% calculation makes any sense at all? Regarding, top 6 let's ignore that for now for it will have more complications.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

That translates to about 27,600 runs ( 1.1 * 24974) ... which works out to more than 21% of all runs from the 30s+40s ... Iam sure you will invent a way to say 21% is not a significant number.

Isn't it because you played more matches in the 90s rather than more runs per batsman?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

Comparing science to sport!!! Bizzare! Although if want to go down that road. Then back then countries like India had not developed science infastructure. Now we are super powerful in science and produce many mini Einstein. Thus even then the science field was less competitive then it is now!

INdia is nowhere near super powerful in science innovations...we are way behind.....

[vvvslaxman]

yes .. and if you normalize it for the no.of tests it works out to roughly 1 extra wkt per test over every single of those 134 tests ... ( i.e the no.of tests played in the 30s+40s ) in order to bring the avg of the 30s+40s to the same level of 90s+00s ( 126K/30.85 )-3958 = 141wkts. Or if you want to go the other way around .... they would have to lose 1 wkt per test over 811 tests .... not easy.

You should calculate it only for one test at the most not the entire period and use it. If a team scores 341 runs in 1990 same team would end up scoring 330 in the 1930s. That is not difference. You don't add everything for the decade and decide the winner. So you can hardly say 90s and 2000s were much tougher to bat. Technically you shouldn't even do that. It is an average per innings. Difference is 1.1 here as you established. Add 1.1 runs to Tendulkar's every innings and see where he ends up. Is he anywhere close 99? Add 271 x 1.1 runs his average would end up at 56.79. To average 99 Tendulkar should have reached 24185 runs by this time. Rightnow he is at 13447. You have to add 43 runs more to each of Tendulkar's innings which is way beyond 1.1.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

you are not looking at it correctly ....because the 1.1 diff is Per Wicket taken in the entire sample and not just Tendulkars or Bradmans wicket. if you assume that SRT got out to the first ball every single time he went to the crease (which is now at 271 inngs ) the overall avg would drop by just 0.5 ... thats how difficult it is to move the avgs of such a large sample.

You should not take the entire sample. That is an erroneous way to determine which era is more difficult. It is a simple math. Why do we have to complicate? How many runs each batsman scores before he gets out? 31+ in 1930/40 30+ in 1990/00 That's all there it is. Fact is they played more matches. Even if you extrapolate this to billion matches this 31 and 30 are going to be constant. That is the number that you want not multiplication, division, substraction, addition of all those numbers across the era. That proves nothing.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

the diff is not as pidly as one single run that you are saying ... a 1.1 diff is quite a big difference in this context. Let me know if you dont agree and I will explain it in a different way.

Nope. Anyway you explain it is the average you should look at not the total. That is the least accurate way of determining which era is difficult. When you have microscopic number in your hand why do you want to compare at macroscopic level?