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

[zen]

That still does not answer my question. - Wrong example. The 100 meter race example is valid only if they are occurring in similar conditions..or same tournament/era. In fact, even if you take example of races, I am sure - margin of victory in races in 30s would be more than margin of victory in 2010.. That does not make 30s best runner better than 2010's best runner. Also - Keep Dhyanchand out of this - that is different sport, different rules, different dynamics..e.g. Dhyanchand would get full match to exercise his skills, even if he happens to make a mistake. In cricket - One moment of brilliance from bowler/fielder, or one moment of lapse can call curtains to batting innings. There is hardly any argument about the quality of present day bowlers/fielders that reduces the chances of playing long innings by long margin. Try again. P.S. One more factor due to global warming, average temperature has increased by about couple of degrees, and with batsmen loaded with so much stuff, it becomes uncomfortable to carry through long innings :P.

Obviously, you missed the point :winky:

[akshayxyz]

In other words - Bradman's 99.94 being 40%( random pick) better than his peers, does not conclusively proves that he is better than Sachin. Who has dominated his peers in other aspects e.g. longevity, number of 100s etc. I am not claiming that that proves otherwise ( Sachin>Bradman). I have always maintained that both are greatest of their eras, and would have competed very closely in other's era. It is yet not possible to conclusively say who would have come out clear winner over the other. But going by the non-quantifiable parameters required - passion, determination, conduct, desire to succeed, level of competition, quality of bowlers/fielding and cricketing/batting skills to go with it - there is hardly any doubt whether Sachin would have been able to touch/surpass Don in any era.

[akshayxyz]

Obviously' date=' you missed the point :winky:[/quote'] And you were unable to make any point. Try again.

[zen]

In other words - Bradman's 99.94 being 40%( random pick) better than his peers, does not conclusively proves that he is better than Sachin. Who has dominated his peers in other aspects e.g. longevity, number of 100s etc. I am not claiming that that proves otherwise ( Sachin>Bradman). I have always maintained that both are greatest of their eras, and would have competed very closely in other's era. It is yet not possible to conclusively say who would have come out clear winner over the other. But going by the non-quantifiable parameters required - passion, determination, conduct, desire to succeed, level of competition, quality of bowlers/fielding and cricketing/batting skills to go with it - there is hardly any doubt whether Sachin would have been able to touch/surpass Don in any era.

He has more runs than others because he has played more than others :winky: .... And Tendulkar's avg of 50 odd doesn't conclusively show that he is ahead of the likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, etc, so touching Don is a different story You forgot to add the burden of a billion expectations :P

[Sachin=GOD]

what's wrong with you? :hmmmm2:

So you rate Sir Don Bradman as the best batsman ever without having actually seen him bat :giggle:

[zen]

So you rate Sir Don Bradman as the best batsman ever without having actually seen him bat :giggle:

Yes .... and I have no problems with anyone considering Dhyanchand or a Pele as best too If I went by what I only saw then the world wouldn't be round, Gandhi wouln't be the best, Hitler the worst, etc :winky: And ofc, I don't go around saying DBG isn't the greatest because I havent seen mch of him and then write stories on how great Dhyanchand was :P

[Sachin=GOD]

Yes .... and I have no problems with anyone considering Dhyanchand or a Pele as best too If I went by what I only saw then the world wouldn't be round, Gandhi wouln't be the best, Hitler the worst, etc :winky: And ofc, I don't go around saying DBG isn't the greatest because I havent seen mch of him and then write stories on how great Dhyanchand was :P

seems like you still have'nt read that quote from me - I said "he is widely regarded as the greatest ever". I did not say that I consider him to be the best ever hockey player. If you understand a little bit of English you might be able to differentiate between the 2 statements.

[zen]

seems like you still have'nt read that quote from me - I said "he is widely regarded as the greatest ever". I did not say that I consider him to be the best ever hockey player. If you understand a little bit of English you might be able to differentiate between the 2 statements.

:hmmmm2: I didnt say that you considered him as the greatest but said how you wrote how great he was (by also saying how many regard him as the greatest) w/o seeing him play. point being you formed some sort of opinion w/o watching him play :winky: .... and then you have it in you to ask others if they watched DBG play, typical Ten fanboy stuff :P

[Sachin=GOD]

He has more runs than others because he has played more than others :winky: ....

Taking into consideration all Tests/ODIs/T20s played: Difference in innings between Goddy and the 2nd in the list (Ponting) - 107 innings. Difference of runs - 6690. Difference of 100s - 30. So, unless you are saying that Ponting can score around 6700 runs and 30 centuries in his next 107 innings, I do not see any way in which Goody is ahead simply because of having played more innings. He is ahead because he is better, not because he has simply played more innings.

And Tendulkar's avg of 50 odd doesn't conclusively show that he is ahead of the likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, etc, so touching Don is a different story

there's the very small fact that he has played over 730 international innings and has still maintained an average of 50. Now, I'm sure you will bring up the first class stats of Bradman, Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton etc to compare with the international stats of this man :P

[akshayxyz]

He has more runs than others because he has played more than others :winky: .... And Tendulkar's avg of 50 odd doesn't conclusively show that he is ahead of the likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, etc, so touching Don is a different story You forgot to add the burden of a billion expectations :P

Since you do not want to accept the "meaninglessness of peer domination" , and importance of "level of competition" Here is an example ( refer to the image below). For all practical reasons, snooker scene in India is pretty much isolated from the high level snooker competition scene that is there in Europe. If you consider Indian domestic snooker rankings..Pankaj Advani dominates his peers by about 17%. Whereas if you consider the highly competitive European Snooker scene . The top guy John Higgins is ahead of his peers by just 3.5% or so ( btw the snooker rankings in europe are very volatile - because of level of competition). Whereas - if you ask any snooker-aware guy - he will know that even World 20th Ranked snooker player will decimate our local peer dominator Pankaj Advani. And this is because - Indian Snooker scene is about an era or two behind world snooker scene. Before you start jumping the guns - I am not claiming that this conclusively proves Don is worse/better than Sachin. But it shows how misleading "peer domination" stats can be. esp. when you turn a blind eye to the level & quality of competition. There are countless such examples which shows - peer domination hardly proves anything.

[zen]

Btw, I did a search to find out how do the batsmen fare when playing against both: - McGrath and Warne LINK - Wasim and Waqar LINK - Donald and Pollock LINK - Ambrose and Walsh LINK Tendulkar's numbers when McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock have played together: 16T, 31I, 1257R @ 40.54 w/ 4 100s :winky: I couldn't see his name on the Ambrose-Walsh combo (min criteria was 200 runs) :P

Can anyone tell me why Tendulkar STRUGGLES to even avg 50 when the bowlers (top ones) mentioned above are playing? You can see that some have been able avg 50+ but Tendulkar fails to do .... One of the reasons why I would hesitate to have him as my first pick in tests

[akshayxyz]

Yes .... and I have no problems with anyone considering Dhyanchand or a Pele as best too If I went by what I only saw then the world wouldn't be round, Gandhi wouln't be the best, Hitler the worst, etc :winky: And ofc, I don't go around saying DBG isn't the greatest because I havent seen mch of him and then write stories on how great Dhyanchand was :P

Bad analogies - similarly you are good at photography does not mean that you are good at logic and analytics . In fact - art and logic rarely go together :P

[akshayxyz]

@rett - peer domination case is closed (#1619). Try something else.

[zen]

Since you do not want to accept the "meaninglessness of peer domination" , and importance of "level of competition" Here is an example ( refer to the image below). For all practical reasons, snooker scene in India is pretty much isolated from the high level snooker competition scene that is there in Europe. If you consider Indian domestic snooker rankings..Pankaj Advani dominates his peers by about 17%. Whereas if you consider the highly competitive European Snooker scene . The top guy John Higgins is ahead of his peers by just 3.5% or so ( btw the snooker rankings in europe are very volatile - because of level of competition). Whereas - if you ask any snooker-aware guy - he will know that even World 20th Ranked snooker player will decimate our local peer dominator Pankaj Advani. And this is because - Indian Snooker scene is about an era or two behind world snooker scene. Before you start jumping the guns - I am not claiming that this conclusively proves Don is worse/better than Sachin. But it shows how misleading "peer domination" stats can be. esp. when you turn a blind eye to the level & quality of competition. There are countless such examples which shows - peer domination hardly proves anything.

You don't have to post such basis here! This is all taken into account when ones speak abt peer domination. The point being ignored by you is that Don dominated his peers, who were AT greats in themselves .... So to show that Don's peer domination is meaningless, you have to show that AT greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc were not even as good as Rameez Raja. If you can't show that all that talk of yours is meaningless :winky:

[akshayxyz]

Can anyone tell me why Tendulkar STRUGGLES to even avg 50 when the bowlers (top ones) mentioned above are playing? You can see that some have been able avg 50+ but Tendulkar fails to do .... One of the reasons why I would hesitate to have him as my first pick in tests

So - what would have been Don's average against these bowlers - you reckon?

[Sachin=GOD]

Can anyone tell me why Tendulkar STRUGGLES to even avg 50 when the bowlers (top ones) mentioned above are playing? You can see that some have been able avg 50+ but Tendulkar fails to do .... One of the reasons why I would hesitate to have him as my first pick in tests

Can anyone tell me how he has been the highest scorer against the best team of his times and averages 52 against them in Tests/ODIs when there's only one other guy in the top 10 list who averages more than 50 :hmmm: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=11;opposition=2;spanmin1=15+Nov+1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[akshayxyz]

You don't have to post such basis here! This is all taken into account when ones speak abt peer domination. The point being ignored by you is that Don dominated his peers' date=' who were AT greats in themselves .... So to show that Don's peer domination is meaningless, you have to show that [b']AT greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc were not even as good as Rameez Raja. If you can't show that all that talk of yours is meaningless :winky:

If that example fail to open your eyes for the fallacy that "peer domination" is - then you are beyond help. Once again you failed to comprehend what I have been saying - comparison across 'disconnected eras' - just based on how one faired as compared to peers is meaningless exercise. However with increased quality of competition/cricket - a #10 player in more competitive era is more likely (but not conclusive) to be better than a #10 (or even #7) player in relatively less competitive era. But the exact mappings - new #10 better/worse than old#7 (or 6 or 5 or 9) - is not yet possible to calculate. Now go figure yourself, for your own amusement, whether Ramiz would have been better/worse than Hammond. Once again - Don dominated his peers by 40% does not prove anything what it would have meant - had he played in modern era.

[akshayxyz]

You don't have to post such basis here! This is all taken into account when ones speak abt peer domination. The point being ignored by you is that Don dominated his peers' date=' who were AT greats in themselves .... So to show that Don's peer domination is meaningless, you have to show that [u']AT greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc were not even as good as Rameez Raja. If you can't show that all that talk of yours is meaningless :winky:

Also - it is amusing to see that you used a hypothetical example to support your peer domination theory. However, want to continue living in denial, when I showed you a practical analogy from real world (with tonnes of more similar examples around). :giggle: For such behavior - "Double standards", "Hypocrisy" would be understatement. Lack of logical-understanding/comprehension would fit better.

[The Outsider]

If that example fail to open your eyes for the fallacy that "peer domination" is - then you are beyond help. Once again you failed to comprehend what I have been saying - comparison across 'disconnected eras' - just based on how one faired as compared to peers is meaningless exercise. However with increased quality of competition/cricket - a #10 player in more competitive era is more likely (but not conclusive) to be better than a #10 (or even #7) player in relatively less competitive era. But the exact mappings - new #10 better/worse than old#7 (or 6 or 5 or 9) - is not yet possible to calculate. Now go figure yourself, for your own amusement, whether Ramiz would have been better/worse than Hammond. Once again - Don dominated his peers by 40% does not prove anything what it would have meant - had he played in modern era.

The eras are not disconnected. There are several greats whose careers have spanned a long time, during which many changes to the game have been made, but all the greats adapted their games to maintain roughly the same level of performance. Bradman and Miller played together, Miller and Sobers overlapped, Sobers and Gavaskar overlapped. It's not like Sobers was averaging 100 during his overlap with Miller and started averaging 30 during his overlap with Gavaskar. Cricket has changed a lot ever since Tendulkar debuted, but he still remains a 50-60 averaging batsman. The second bolded part is not for amusement purpose. It's a direct corollary of your argument that the strength of Bradman's peers could have been poor. If that were indeed the case, you should not hesitate to claim Rameez as a better batsman than Hammond.

[zen]

@rett - peer domination case is closed (#1619). Try something else.

Oh, so you have managed to show that Rameez Raja > Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc, which is why peer domination doesn't count :hysterical: