100/innings ratio - Is there anyone (apart from Bradman) who tops Tendulkar?

[Bradman99]

yawn .... how many times does this have to explained ? Back in those days short pitch bowling was a big no-no ... so this no helmet thingy is a no-starter. The one and only series where intimidatory short pitched bowling was used was in the bodyline series and was quickly banned after that. If bravado is the measure of batting greatness then look no further than the batsmen who faced Marshall & Co without helmets. All this is articulated in a much better way here : http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/455228.html The news for you is batting greatness isnt measured in terms of bravado. Bradman himself is on record condemning short pitch bowling. You do that today and you will be ridiculed silly. Long story short ... times have changed so its time for you to move on. If anything the reverse is more important ... because there is no data to suggest what DGB might have done on pitches around the world. Whereas Tendulkar has shown what happens when he comes up against minnows - which was what Englands bowling was back in those days - that too on familiar pitches. 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

*yawn* how many times does Outsider need to tell you

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bradman99]

*yawn* he isnt talking about helmets in that post .... and try to debate on your own without depending on others to bail you out.

*yawn*- no need to, he covers everything perfectly. what is the point of re-entering a topic which has been spoken 1000 times. Heaps fun ay

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bradman99]

No he doesnt. Unless you subscribe to Lahori logic. didnt I tell you the same thing ? i.e how many times do I need to refute you ? Are facts allowed to get in your way here ? I suspect not.

Whatever lahori logic is I don't care I think he makes a lot of sense, sorry if I don't have the same opinion as you. You say "times have changed, so it's time for you to move on". Only reason I brought Bradman into this discussion is because someone else said Bradman was not better than Tendulkar. I don't agree with that. I'm not saying he is better than him, I just don't think you can compare players from such different era's. Bradman dominated the game quite signifcantly with the advantages and disadvantages that players these days are/aren't afforded. These have been covered so don't see the point going through what we all already know. The way I see it Bradman is a champion of the game, and you seem to undermine his achievements a heck of a lot just so your beloved Tendulkar can have the tag as the "greates batsman of all time". As I said before it's impossible to come to the conclusion that Bradman would not be as good (if not better) than Tendulkar has been if he was born 50 years later. Therefore, why can't we just accept that they are both great batsman who have come through different era's, therefore it is impossible to compare who is the greater batsman? That's the conclusion I've come to, I invite you to join me...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Nope. While I have already explained this in great detail in that thread .... I will try another way ..... here in this thread of yours take a look at point#7 http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=216313 You say that the pitches flattened out after the 90s but the overall batting avg just increased by http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1023103&postcount=1237 ) Pontings avg should have gone up by a miniscule amount not the jaw dropping 10+ difference between 90s and 00s ...why ?

And I already countered it by stating that Tendulkar's average dropped in 00s from the 90s. How do you explain that? If your hypothesis is universally true, Tendulkar should have been averaging at least 70 in the 00s. He struggles to cross 50 after taking out minnows. And I see selective quoting has begun within 2 posts of the discussion after you get royally owned

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

If you read it you will find my response .... SRT spent significant amounts of 2000's batting with the entire body injured .... any lesser batsman would have packed up and gone home after the diagnosis of Tennis Elbow. Go take a look at what Doc wrote back then and what his own prognosis was. It was dire. Despite these odds the man now has a avg that is marching back towards where it belongs in the 56-57ish range.

Do you have any idea of the level of illnesses that Bradman faced and the medical facilities during his time? Whine the injury card somewhere else.

huh ? And I have not answered that elsewhere before atleast a million times ? Lets do it one more time ... so heres the earth shattering chunk that you are whining about : Wasnt your and your gangs "theory" that Batting was much harder back in DGB's days ? even if we are to assume that batting avgs are same ( this is to avoid your lahori Logic bakwas on how to interpret overall batting avgs as though they were individual avgs ) during the 2 time periods how the heck are you now going to tell me that batting was more difficult in the 30s and 40s .... Royally PWNED ? ... and ohh I almost forgot the smilie here And Proff I can play the smilie + one sided proclamation + throwing insults game too ... if thats your idea of what constitutes a debate. Before you want to go down that road remember the last episode. You embark on the throwing insult road and 10x will come back Guaranteed. And then you and your minni-me step in to selectively edit the posts and they will get some of the dosage too. Decide and let me know how you want to do this.

I don't care and I don't know what the 'gang' did, but what I have done is debunked the assertion that Bradman batted in significantly easier batting conditions, using your favorite tool of statistics. As I said, accept that batting/bowling averages would have accounted for a mere 0.2 drop in Bradman's average and we can discuss the next point or bring forth some statistically sound argument to state that it is more. I do these kind of mundane calculations on the back of the hypothetical envelope.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Rajan]

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.

yes, u r correct.100% correct. wise man. must be . because Brian Lara has lost 60+ tests while winning 30+ tests. that is almost losing 2 tests for every win. Damien Martyn has won 44 tests while losing just 10. that is an amazing 4 + tests winning for 1 loss. so, as per your theory, Martyn must be much better batsman than Lara.correct.for that matter even Justin Langer is a greater batsman than Inzamam Ul Huq or for that any pakistani batsman in the history of cricket including Miandad.... hmmmm, how simple life would be if there r idiots like you around! have u ever understood the difference between an individual sport like Tennins, Badminton and a team sport like Cricket? no, dont think so going by your crap posts. by the way, have you decided u r a pakistani or an indian ? must be too ashamed to call urself as a pakistani going by the excellent performances ur team is dishing out.hmm, enjoy!

[Sachinism]

yes, u r correct.100% correct. wise man. must be . because Brian Lara has lost 60+ tests while winning 30+ tests. that is almost losing 2 tests for every win. Damien Martyn has won 44 tests while losing just 10. that is an amazing 4 + tests winning for 1 loss. so, as per your theory, Martyn must be much better batsman than Lara.correct.for that matter even Justin Langer is a greater batsman than Inzamam Ul Huq or for that any pakistani batsman in the history of cricket including Miandad.... hmmmm, how simple life would be if there r idiots like you around! have u ever understood the difference between an individual sport like Tennins, Badminton and a team sport like Cricket? no, dont think so going by your crap posts. by the way, have you decided u r a pakistani or an indian ? must be too ashamed to call urself as a pakistani going by the excellent performances ur team is dishing out.hmm, enjoy!

nballa's posts are usually satirical, so don't take them too literally