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

[akshayxyz]

Another piece of fact from real life - when I play snooker with casual/club level players. Many of them talk about how great Pankaj Advani is. And when I tell them, he is not good enough to even qualify for Pro-circuit - most of them still fail to digest that. Also - interestingly, some times I am able to convince some people that he would have done well in pro circuit - when I face some people taking the other stand :). The point being - without having performed on same platform - every comparison is questionable.

[akshayxyz]

Oh' date=' so you have managed to show that Rameez Raja > Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc, which is why peer domination doesn't count :hysterical:[/quote'] did you even read follow up posts?? And you were trying to defend using a dumb(est possible) hypothetical example? "peer domination theory" falls flat on its face.

[The Outsider]

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.

Oh Wren and Martin ke champion, please explain how does the following statement imply what others think about Dhyanchand and not what you consider :

"He was so great that many a times the opposition team simply refused to take the field against him."

And anyhow, here is your chance - who was better Shahbaz or Dhyanchand in your consideration?

[akshayxyz]

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

That I have left for you to figure out. As you only find it amusing/orgasmic.

[zen]

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

The point is the someone being claimed to be the best of all-time should feature at the top (or at least amongst the top) on that list, esp when the argument is that Tendulkar has done well against better bowlers Bowlers - top batting avg - Tendulkar McGrath and Warne - 65 - 42 Waqar and Wasim - 101 - 40 Donald and Pollck - 83 - 39 What would Don avg? I think it is a no brainer, he would be at the top :winky:

[koolkarts]

There is no point arguing this. Slowly people are being converted from Bradman loyalists to Sachin loyalists. First Richard Hadlee, then Wasim Akram, then Nasser Hussain, then Graham Onions, then Sir Vivian Richards, and now most recently Simon Hughes. Not to mention all those Indians who also believe he is the greatest. Stats will remain stats. Of course Bradman had the superior average. But against which team? England? :P Once you actually look ahead of those figures and that average, you'll start to understand why SRT is so magnificent. I hate it when people say that we can't use the 1 billion people pressure argument to rate Sachin ahead of the Don, when they solely depend on the 99.94 average argument! Did any bowlers bowl in excess of 90 mph in those day? Were there any quality spin bowlers? Was there ODI cricket? Was there T20 cricket or IPL? Was the schedule this packed? Was there any reverse swing (Wasim, Waqar etc?) Did the Don bat for over 20 years at the international level? Were the fielding standards anywhere near as high as compared to today> Were batsmen under such heavy scrutiny in those days? Did bowlers have the use of technology to target batsmen's weaknesses? Questions in Don Bradman's favour: Did Sachin bat without a helmet? Was Sachin miles more superior to his contemporaries as Bradman was? Did Sachin bat on uncovered pitches? Did Sachin have a 99.94 average? One thing often said about Bradman was that he could never really master how to bat on a "sticky wicket". He wasn;t a keen driver of the cricket ball, and preferred playing the cut and pull strokes. The helmet argument may be a bit weak. In his debut series Sachin broke his nose to bouncer from an up and coming 90mph, express pace bowler, Waqar Younis. After clearing his bloody nose, the newcomer hit Waqar for 2 fours in the over. If Sachin gets those 100 hundreds, (and let's pray for even more), then there will be a huge gap between him and the rest in cricket. Perhaps that will live on as the 99.94 average... My main issue with people defending Bradman is that 1. Most people commenting never saw Bradman bat (me included) 2. In every sport in the modern day and age, we have seen advances in the abilities of sportsmen, from Basketball, (with MJ), to Cycling with Lance Armstrong, to Tennis, with the Fed, to even football to an extent, with Lionel Messi. In those sports, people are happy dethrone and throne new greatest of all times. Why do we not have the same standards in cricket? Is it because the word of Australia and England, the old powers in cricket, is still considered gospel when it comes to cricket commentary? The pressure of a billion people is what wins it for Sachin for me, in my opinion. The pressure he has carried on his shoulders for the last 20 years is ridiculous. He started his career when India was a ridiculed, third world economy, growing sluggishly. As his career exploded, he represented a symbol of achievement for many Indians, and as he flourished, so did the economy. Just as he was inspired to take up cricket after 1983, imagine how many more young 10 year olds must have watched the 2011 win, with the iconic image of this great being carrier on the shoulders of his teammates. That's the sort of power this man his. And to top it all off, he's a great human being. Forget being the greatest cricketer of all time, this guy is the greatest sportsman of all time. "Ability gets you to the top, Character keeps you there"

[zen]

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

^ what a joke! .... appears as if you still don't know that we are discussing tests here

[The Outsider]

That I have left for you to figure out. As you only find it amusing/orgasmic.

Ironically, that is the only thing which can support your 'peer domination theory falls flat' argument - to prove that Hammond was as mediocre a batsman as Rameez.

[akshayxyz]

Oh' date=' so you have managed to show that Rameez Raja > Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc, which is why peer domination doesn't count :hysterical:[/quote'] Also - go and tell Ronnie O'Sullivan that he wasted his life as Pankaj dominates his peers like no one else.

[EnterTheVoid]

Go to any cricket ground in Australia and speak to your average Joe and I can bet you, 7 times out of 10, they'd be happy to admit Sachin is the greatest. Don't really care much for pious idiots and old farts who keep harping on about his exploits against only ONE opposition.

[zen]

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.

It's abt common sense, Watson. Let me try once again: Do you think that the likes of Rameez Raja are better than AT greats like Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc? Because if you think that an avg of 56 beats 100, then it must also imply that an avg of 30 beats 58, no? What you are harping over is that peer domination theory is not vaild because it didn't work in the snooker example. And because it didn't work in the snooker example, it doesn't work in cricket (which is lauhable). You also needed to understand why peer domination is being talked abt. Bradman is not the greatest only because he dominated his peers. There are other factors that make him the greatest. And in the end, if your entire effort is based on showing "nothing proves this or that conclusively" (which everyone knows) then we have to take things at their face value, in cricketing terms the avg. And since nothing proves conclusively either this or that, according to you, we take someone with an avg of 100 as the greatest Case closed :winky:

[akshayxyz]

The point is the someone being claimed to be the best of all-time should feature at the top (or at least amongst the top) on that list, esp when the argument is that Tendulkar has done well against better bowlers Bowlers - top batting avg - Tendulkar McGrath and Warne - 65 - 42 Waqar and Wasim - 101 - 40 Donald and Pollck - 83 - 39 What would Don avg? I think it is a no brainer, he would be at the top :winky:

So - these are the only great bowlers from modern era? What about Walsh, Ambrose, Steyn, Morkel, Murali, Saqlain and many more. If Sachin has not-so-good average against "select" bowlers. It means he has very good average against many other top bowlers. Also - another point you are conveniently ignoring here is - how much of these bowlers' success you would attribute purely to their brilliance and not a combined team effort/brilliant fielding/dubious decisons, and use of advanced technologies to micro-find an individual batsman's weakness?

[akshayxyz]

It's abt common sense, Watson. Let me try once again: Do you think that the likes of Rameez Raja are better than AT greats like Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc? Because if you think that an avg of 56 beats 100, then it must also imply that an avg of 30 beats 58, no? What you are harping over is that peer domination theory is not vaild because it didn't work in the snooker example. And because it didn't work in the snooker example, it doesn't work in cricket (which is lauhable). You also needed to understand why peer domination is being talked abt. Bradman is not the greatest only because he dominated his peers. There are other factors that make him the greatest. And in the end, if your entire effort is based on showing "nothing proves this or that conclusively" (which everyone knows) then we have to take things at their face value, in cricketing terms the avg. And since nothing proves conclusively either this or that, according to you, we take someone with an avg of 100 as the greatest Case closed :winky:

And you are very proud of using that dumb hypothetical 'race' example to prove your domination theory?:hatsoff: Keep trying. And do tell Ronnie O Sullivan that Pankaj would decimate him, had Ronnie been Pankaj's peer.

[zen]

And you are very proud of using that dumb hypothetical 'race' example to prove your domination theory?:hatsoff: Keep trying. And do tell Ronnie O Sullivan that Pankaj would decimate him, had Ronnie been Pankaj's peer.

Ok since you used Pankaj Advani's example, I suppose he must be considered as the AT greatest snooker player. And he must have dominated his peers, who were also AT greats .... if not then I don't see much in your example :hehe: You do understand, that Bradman is considered as the all time greatest and he avgs more than anyone else in the history of the game, he has the best ratio of 100s per innings, record like scoring 300 runs in a day (played at an amazing SR). You talk as if Bradman is considered as the greatest for doing well in domestic cricket and folks consider him the best for being better than other Australians :hysterical:

[EnterTheVoid]

You talk as if Bradman is considered as the greatest for doing well in domestic cricket and folks consider him the best for being better than other Australians :hysterical:

Bradman is considered the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN Australia has ever produced.

[zen]

Bradman is considered the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN Australia has ever produced.

:hmmmm2: The point implied was that Don did well internationally, came out on top and thus considered as the greatest batsman vs snooker example where that guy did well in domestic :giggle:

[EnterTheVoid]

Rett, you still don't get it do you? Bradman is considered the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN EVER, forget GREATEST CRICKETER/GREATEST BATSMAN, but the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN EVER. Now, if you went to any cricket ground in Australia and spoke to your average joe, you'd probably find 7/10, if not more, that would place Sachin higher than Bradman. Now, think for a moment, what it means for Australians to say that and what Sachin has achieved for them to say that.

[akshayxyz]

Ok since you used Pankaj Advani's example, I suppose he must be considered as the AT greatest snooker player. And he must have dominated his peers, who were also AT greats .... if not then I don't see much in your example :hehe: You do understand, that Bradman is considered as the all time greatest and he avgs more than anyone else in the history of the game, he has the best ratio of 100s per innings, record like scoring 300 runs in a day (played at an amazing SR). You talk as if Bradman is considered as the greatest for doing well in domestic cricket and folks consider him the best for being better than other Australians :hysterical:

While no doubt 99.94 is outstanding average, but may not be pure outcome of Don's genius. Peer domination can be due to lack of quality competition - which is quite a possibility in Don's case. Similarly - lack of Sachin's 'dramatic domination' can be attributed to quality/toughness of competition in modern era. But he still has managed some outstanding records, while other peers have not been able to in similar setup. e.g. number of 100s, variety and quality of bowlers. Again its amusing to see - when you play down # of 100s to that its because only he has played more matches. As if its something very easy to do, combined with tons of ODIs also to play. Btw, in terms of # of 100s per innings, Sachin is 16-17% ahead of his next best peer - i.e. Ponting. Which still does not gives clearer picture - for the reason - it is not fair to count just #of 100s, as the par score in modern era might be something lower.. Better someone calculate in terms of standard deviation from the mean averages. Again thats just another numbers-masturbation but slightly more credible.

[zen]

So - these are the only great bowlers from modern era? What about Walsh, Ambrose, Steyn, Morkel, Murali, Saqlain and many more. If Sachin has not-so-good average against "select" bowlers. It means he has very good average against many other top bowlers. Also - another point you are conveniently ignoring here is - how much of these bowlers' success you would attribute purely to their brilliance and not a combined team effort/brilliant fielding/dubious decisons, and use of advanced technologies to micro-find an individual batsman's weakness?

Ok, so the guy you claim to be the best batsman wouldn't do well when bowlers like Mcgrath and Warne, Waqar and Wasim, DOnald and Pollock are bowling. Picking other batsman would be a better option when these bowlers are in the opposition And he didn't feature in the Walsh-Ambrose combo, I guess you didn't read that the min criteria was 200 runs I guess, you missed the points. It doesn't matter what the factors are, the greatest batsman is suppose to be at the top (or atleast amongst the top), which is why he is the greatest. A great batsman triumps in an given environment he is presented with. In some cases, the bowlers would be good, in some cases the fielding side could be brilliant, in some cases you are fighting your own reputation, in some cases you are fighing depression, in some cases, you are fighting illeness (with medicines not being as per today's standards), in some cases you are fighting a long journey you took by boat, etc ..... what's important is to see how a batsman performed in the environment (something you can't change) he was presented with .... And when we take doing well in the environment one is presented with, Bradman is the greatest batsman (I don't even know what's there to debate here) The debate for me is more abt the 2nd best, and I think it is Sobers :nice:

[zen]

While no doubt 99.94 is outstanding average, but may not be pure outcome of Don's genius. Peer domination can be due to lack of quality competition - which is quite a possibility in Don's case. Similarly - lack of Sachin's 'dramatic domination' can be attributed to quality/toughness of competition in modern era. But he still has managed some outstanding records, while other peers have not been able to in similar setup. e.g. number of 100s, variety and quality of bowlers. Again its amusing to see - when you play down # of 100s to that its because only he has played more matches. As if its something very easy to do, combined with tons of ODIs also to play. Btw, in terms of # of 100s per innings, Sachin is 16-17% ahead of his next best peer - i.e. Ponting. Which still does not gives clearer picture - for the reason - it is not fair to count just #of 100s, as the par score in modern era might be something lower.. Better someone calculate in terms of standard deviation from the mean averages. Again thats just another numbers-masturbation but slightly more credible.

Already replied most of those!