Tapioca Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 More importantly, unlike SRT, he has done it against the stronger sides - 7 times in 9 Tests v Australia, 6 in 7 v SL, 7 in 11 v India. He caught up with Ponting yesterday. Nice and typical 0 for 100 at the close of play.
Precambrian Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 like the wiseman once said - the only ratio i care about in the whole world of cricket is the W/L ratio. nothing else matters, not petty averages or strikerates. and i am that wiseman. http://www.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/38753.html
Bradman99 Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 If Aus don't win the next WC I'd want it to be India. Not for you fans who would no doubt rub it in haha, but for Tendulkar cause he deserves one. However, I'd be more than happy to see Aus win a fourth in a row at the expense of that.
Bradman99 Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 DGB is not better than SRT in any way. Prove it. If you can't prove it, you can't say it.
Anakin Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 Prove it. If you can't prove it' date=' you can't say it.[/quote'] Amateur cricket (as per DGB himself vs professional cricket), that should be enough.
The Dark Horse Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 ^Bradman>Sachin, Even the great man will accept it, although it could be said that Sachin is the closest next to Bradman.
Precambrian Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 ^Bradman>Sachin' date=' Even the great man will accept it, although it could be said that Sachin is the closest next to Bradman.[/quote'] not really. They simply are not comparable to each other.
f.b.m Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 I really dont know why any talk of religion is banned in this forum but Sachin v Bradman 'arguements' continue to spread like wildfire.
Bradman99 Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 Amateur cricket (as per DGB himself vs professional cricket)' date=' that should be enough.[/quote'] Yeah? How about the conditions (no helmets etc, list goes on..) that he had to play in and contend with yet still average 99.94. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed far too many times before on this forum. The bottom line is Bradman never had the chance to play in Tendulkar's days, so you can't sit down and claim that he's not as good as Tendulkar.
The Outsider Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 More details here ... I know you posted there but as is typical of DGB fans you hit the exit when pointed uncomfortable questions were raised. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212051&page=63 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: That's why you managed to reply to only one of tens of rebuttals, which brought down Bradman's average by 0.2.
The Outsider Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 I stopped responding to you because you and your gang ran away :hehe: ... and even otherwise I answered almost all questions from the resident one-liner trolls ... :headshake: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1013411&postcount=1042 You and your ilk were reduced to garbage like all modern Physicists are greater than Einstein to defend your position.:hysterical:
The Outsider Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 you still talking about this : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1020151&postcount=1216 ? I actually ran it by someone do you want to know who and what he said about your logic? :D Yeah sure. Put me in touch with him. I'll drag his sorry ass on this very forum. I know my Math and Statistics. Have been making a living out of it for a decade. Have published research papers in the best of journals on statistics related topics.
The Outsider Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 Feel free to contact Doc .. Iam sure you know where to find him :D I'll do so, but he does not post anymore. In anycase your 1st point on that post wast Batting being Easier in the 90s+00s .... You stand summararily PWNED on that regard as the overall batting avgs clearly show that batting avg's in DGB's time were more. End of story. My point was batting/bowling averages in 30s/40s were not significantly different from 90s/00s. Prove otherwise. Don't make a clown out of yourself by claiming that an average difference of 0.2 is significantly different. It is a difference of less than 1%. Your next point is dealt with in Post#1261. http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1035411&postcount=1261 Accept that the difference due to the first point is 0.2 for Bradman's average and I'll respond to the rest. Don't have time to waste when you don't have even a basic grasp of statistical analysis.
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