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

[akshayxyz]

Arre bhai, I am not a mathematician and thus would not ask for something for which great skills are needed. And a guess is fine. If you follow cricket, you should be able to answer such questions. The guys at cricinfo didn't have to do complex analysis to arrive at this: :winky: The World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee The Second XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Barry Richards, George Headley, Brian Lara, Wally Hammond, Imran Khan, Alan Knott, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, SF Barnes LINK Bottomline is players like Hammond will feature in the top bracket of any era that they play in. That top bracket included players like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Chappell, Gavaskar, Richards, etc. Bradman has shown that he has performed much better than the likes of Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc and thus to be in the league of his own. Which is where the debate ends for me. As I said, for me the discussion should be abt who is 2nd best. As a Tendulkar fan, I would like to see Tendulkar triumph. But when I see this from a neutral perspective, I don't find myself picking Tendulkar first.

Personally, I do not have much faith (100%) in All Time World XIs. e.g. I am extremely surprised that Sehwag does not feature in any of these two XIs - when he has been as big an statistical out-lier as any one can find. Other examples - they did not find place for Steyn/Donald!!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

If Rett/Outsider still do not get it. - All I am saying is it is not possible (as of now) to conclusively say Don is significantly better than Sachin or vice versa. esp - not using bare minimal numbers (99.94,60...57, 31), samples of different sizes across different eras and doing basic math (multiply divide) & stats of outliers (of samples of varying quality & size).. They are best of their respective eras - that is it. But going by the level of competition modern day's best are as best as it can get.

The problem is that you have automatically picked Tendulkar as the best (and thus made him compete with Bradman). I think whether Tendulkar is best after Bradman is debatable too. As I said, Tendulkar will not even be my second pick.

[akshayxyz]

^ @World XIs...And some people might not be able to digest that MSD is not there ;)

[The Outsider]

Arey merey baap.. Either you are very bad at analogies and analytics or you just want to ignore it to divert attention. NASA example meant - It is a horrible mistake to do 1-1 mapping of averages. You are hell bent on finding a mapping - and I am saying it is not possible, and meaningless to do so. But if you insist - in my perspective- Hammond will map to somewhere in top 10 or so of modern era and it is just a guess, not a definitive blind claim like yours - old 100 maps to new 75. Second best in old era does not mean he would be second in modern era, nor does it mean that he would go as low as rank 50 - purely based on 1-1 mapping of averages. Btw - do you understand how this problem is (or is not) a combination of multivariable calculus,linear algebra,game theory problems, or can point out exactly what class of mathematical problems it belongs to? (I very well know about the math terms and many more I have used - so I know what I am talking about there.) Or you want to delude yourself by taking it as simple as multiplying & dividing by constants?

Let me get this straight - you are saying that Hammond would be equivalent to a modern top 10 batsman alongside the likes of Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Richards etc. but you are ambiguous that someone who smoked Hammond would be better than them?

[The Outsider]

But going by the level of competition modern day's best are as best as it can get.

You are right. And going by all the Math you claim to know, you and hundreds of thousands others are better than Newton for he did not know a lot of things which a Math graduate student learns today.

[zen]

The simple question, "Is Hammond closer in quality to a Lara or a Raja", has closed this debate :winky: In fact, there was never a case for a debate .... For unbiased cricket fans, Bradman will be the greatest. When you manage to avg 100 and that too after playing for 20 years, that's perfection .... I hope someday, we get to see someone match him :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Those modern bowlers that I have listed numerous times were renowned for their pinpoint accuracy while still beiing able to bowl at express pace. This is the main crux of the battle between bat and ball and SRT has had to constantly deal with such bowlers through out his career. There are other factors that compound this battle but for the sake of simplicity lets not get into that. So the question is who according to you were the practitioners of this simple skill of accurate ( yet fast ) bowling during the 30s and 40s ? I can put forward a big list of modern bowlers but can you come up with the equivalent list for 30s and 40s ? There is hardly anyone IMHO. So in such a scenario how can you simply state that DGB would have adapted when there is no evidence to suggest that he came across bowlers who could put to practice rudimentary aspects of fast bowling as we now know them ?

Because all greats have made these adaptations. Gavaskar hardly faced any pace bowler worth his name before making his international debut, neither did Tendulkar. Both went on to become one of the best players of fast bowling. Why couldn't have Bradman adapted similarly even if we say for the sake of argument Lindwall, Miller, and Larwood were not quick?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Because for every Tendulkar and Gavaskar there are about 100s of other batsmen that simply couldnt and failed miserably . You cant simply proclaim that he would . That is just an assumption which is not grounded on any actual data to go with it.

Those 100s of others are not counted as all time great batsmen. Bradman did face Lindwall, Miller, and Larwood. Sobers faced Lindwall and Miller and 15+ years later dominated Lillee and Thompson. No compelling reason why Bradman would have struggled against Lillee and Thompson if he managed Lindwall and Miller.

[akshayxyz]

Let me get this straight - you are saying that Hammond would be equivalent to a modern top 10 batsman alongside the likes of Gavaskar' date=' Tendulkar, Lara, Richards etc. but you are ambiguous that someone who smoked Hammond would be better than them?[/quote'] As I said - it was just a guess. Even then - lets say Hammond would figure at exactly at #10 in today's list. Then if someone(Don) smoked Wally in 30s, does not tell anything about where Don would figure, he can be anywhere from #1 to #9. Including Wally in all time World XIs - at best tells that most 'cricket experts' agree that he can figure in modern top 10 (or N). But it does not tell where exactly. In other words - basic statistical methods (limited to outliers, deviations etal) are not good enough to accurately tell whether Don would have averaged 75 or 69 or 86. Or Whether Sachin would have averaged 95 or 105 in Don's era. Both set of people are equally wrong who confidently claim - Sachin >>Don, Or Don >> Sachin.

[akshayxyz]

You are right. And going by all the Math you claim to know' date=' you and hundreds of thousands others are better than Newton for he did not know a lot of things which a Math graduate student learns today.[/quote'] Absurd example & analogy. Open a separate topic and I will tell you why.

[akshayxyz]

Because all greats have made these adaptations. Gavaskar hardly faced any pace bowler worth his name before making his international debut' date=' neither did Tendulkar. Both went on to become one of the best players of fast bowling. Why couldn't have Bradman adapted similarly even if we say for the sake of argument Lindwall, Miller, and Larwood were not quick?[/quote'] Why couldn't it have been possible for Sachin or Sehwag to do what Don did ? If not equal to Don - what is the number (avg) you reckon, on what basis - again some multiply-divide?

[akshayxyz]

Btw - as Raghav already said - about the statistical anomaly that Don was above his peers. That can be because of not large enough sample size - how can you say that there could not have been at least 5 players from India, West Indies, Pakistan who could have figured between Hammond and Don!!. The larger the population the more smoother will be distribution.

[The Outsider]

Absurd example & analogy. Open a separate topic and I will tell you why.

No it's not absurd. It's natural progression. The only way to measure greatness across eras is how someone did and what someone achieved in his particular era, rather than by transporting people across eras. What's absurd is saying Bradman was a lesser batsman than Pietersen because Bradman could not play the reverse sweep. Bradman was the product of his era and dominated his era like no one before or after, in cricket or any other sport.

[zen]

My guess is that a Sehwag or a Tendulkar would avg much the same as the top guys in that era (not outlier) .... This is not abt transporting people back and forth in time machine, so whichever era they play in, they would play similar to how others are playing during that era and their skills and thinking process would be according to the enviornment they are playing in For example, a 2011 car, if it were made in 1930 would not be a 2011 car but a 1930 car, and vice versa. This is evolution :winky:

[The Outsider]

Btw - as Raghav already said - about the statistical anomaly that Don was above his peers. That can be because of not large enough sample size - how can you say that there could not have been at least 5 players from India, West Indies, Pakistan who could have figured between Hammond and Don!!. The larger the population the more smoother will be distribution.

I already posted the result from a statistical analysis someone had done, where the equivalent statistical anomaly will be an average of around 75-80 (can't remember the exact number) based on the increase in sample pool. Suffice to say, no batsman comes close.

[Raghav_12]

Because all greats have made these adaptations. Gavaskar hardly faced any pace bowler worth his name before making his international debut' date=' neither did Tendulkar. Both went on to become one of the best players of fast bowling. Why couldn't have Bradman adapted similarly even if we say for the sake of argument Lindwall, Miller, and Larwood were not quick?[/quote'] Outy, you are taking name of the greats who made these adaptations because they did so and that's why you know about him. They wouldn't have been so well known if they had not succeded in adapting. I remember Graeme Hick plundered runs like anything when he was still waiting for clearance to play cricket for England. People waited eagerly to see him transitioning from county cricket to International cricket, which mnay believed would be just a formality. But we all know how well he did in international cricket. I am not saying that Bradman would have failed but may be and may be not. Again, If I am not saying that Bradman would have failed, then how you can say he would have succedded :--D

[The Outsider]

Again, If I am not saying that Bradman would have failed, then how you can say he would have succedded :--D

Because he did succeed against Lindwall and Miller. Both played against and are rated highly by Sobers who 15+ years later also succeeded against Lillee and Thompson. (I am assuming you consider Lillee and Thompson worth something here). Sure, a batsman could have his odd bogey bowler, but there is no logical basis to suggest Bradman would not have succeeded.