Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest Gunner]

Not many make lame arguments like you do. Haha, so if something doesn't favor Tendulkar then that's not a standard. I hope you know that cricinfo don't rate players based on sledging or watching slow videos too but that never crossed your mind :giggle: Tendulkar would have been ahead of his peers, if he had hit like 50 100s in 150 tests and scored 15k runs in 150 tests. Lara scores 91 runs per tests so it's not hard to see that if he played 171 tests (40 more than his 131) he would have more test runs than Tendulkar. Ponting scores as many as Tendulkar per test so he would be right up there with him too if he had played 171 tests. Coming back to Lara vs Tendulkar, let look at the difference b/w the two T: 171 tests, 14240 runs @ 83 L: 131 tests, 11953 runs @ 91 so the difference is 2287 runs in 40 tests @ 57 runs per tests. So in 40 more tests, even if Lara only goes at 60 runs per test, he would be ahead of Tendulkar :P Arre bhai, forget about an avg of 100 per inning, let's see first if Tendulkar can avg 100 runs per test :winky:

I am not sure that your calculations are correct. If the per test difference between the two is 8 runs, then in 40 more tests Lara can score only about 320 more runs, is it not or am I missing something? If I am correct 320 runs is a very marginal difference even going by your runs per test calculation.

[Nirvanam]

And infact we have now unearthed footage which put a big question mark on the "Uncovered pitches" aspect as the clips from 30s and 40s clearly shows pitches being covered. Perhaps not all pitches were covered ? But it certainly is not as cut and dry as "no pitches were ever covered" as the DGB fan brigade want us to believe.

Any links anywhere, dude?

[King Tendulkar]

Enjoy the comedy show http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2010/08/jack-hobbs-on-video.html

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

Brain Lara: 11953 runs in 131 tests @ 91 runs per test Sachin: 14240 runs in 171 tests @ 83 runs per test Ponting: 12250 runs in 148 tests @ 83 runs per test Enough said!

I think... this is right... SRT is no way even #2. He should be #13. All the players like Sanga, MoYo, YonusK, Hayden and Sehwag are way better than SRT and Ponting. It is stupid to argue that they are in top 3 after Bradman. They both happen to be #13 and #15. Way to go. ...:two_thumbs_up: As a cricket follower, I now feel complete...

[Raghav_12]

Coming back to Lara vs Tendulkar, let look at the difference b/w the two T: 171 tests, 14240 runs @ 83 L: 131 tests, 11953 runs @ 91

First time anybody would have used this stats to establish credentials of a batsmen. You would very well know that Sachin's average is 5 more than Lara's. So doesn't Lara's higher runs/match figure simply mean that WI played more tests where they had to play two innings in comparison to India, for respective time periods. Now, how the fact, that WI had to play two innings in a test more time than India had to, helps in proving that Lara was greater than Sachin? And, based on these findings, if I was a Sachin-fanatic I could have made this statement -Lara needed two innings to do the job for his team while Sacin needed just one :--D

[zen]

Dude Iam agreeing with you and provided some better candidates to prove your theory i.e Eunice Khan and MoYo who are also on the same level ( actually a little higher ) than baasu .

So you are disagreeing with your statement below :giggle: .... And I guess, I explained to you that why he is ahead *cough 171 matches* :P

Overall today by a comfortable margin and this is evident statistically from the fact that SRT holds most of the coveted records in Tests and ODIs and is far ahead of his next nearest rival ( Ponting ) in terms of sheer numbers ( 100s' date=' 50s, Career Runs )[/quote']

[dial_100]

First time anybody would have used this stats to establish credentials of a batsmen. You would very well know that Sachin's average is 5 more than Lara's. So doesn't Lara's higher runs/match figure simply mean that WI played more tests where they had to play two innings in comparison to India' date= for respective time periods. Now, how the fact, that WI had to play two innings in a test more time than India had to, helps in proving that Lara was greater than Sachin? And, based on these findings, if I was a Sachin-fanatic I could have made this statement -Lara needed two innings to do the job for his team while Sacin needed just one :--D

By bringing in these kind of arguments, you are proving that you are SRT worshipper. Accept the fact that SRT is #13. He is not even #2. Don is the best. Lara is much better than him as well and Sehwag, MoYo, Sanga, YunusK (try to understand who all are in this list) are better than him using this statistics. That is why case closed. I wont even argue with someone who has come with this logic man.

[zen]

First time anybody would have used this stats to establish credentials of a batsmen. You would very well know that Sachin's average is 5 more than Lara's. So doesn't Lara's higher runs/match figure simply mean that WI played more tests where they had to play two innings in comparison to India, for respective time periods. Now, how the fact, that WI had to play two innings in a test more time than India had to, helps in proving that Lara was greater than Sachin? And, based on these findings, if I was a Sachin-fanatic I could have made this statement -Lara needed two innings to do the job for his team while Sacin needed just one :--D

The point of that stat is that if Lara gets to play 171 matches, he would probably have more runs! So saying that Sachin is way ahead of his peer because he has more runs is dumb! .... Clearly so many have missed that point (which is expected of Sachin's fanatics) and act like a cat on a hot tim roof, which probably means that they realize Tendulkar is just like any of his peers (which is not bad actually as the likes of Lara, Ponting are all excellent batsmen). And I am not saying who is better than whom as for me all three of them are interchangable (that Lara > Ten based on those numbers is an assumption made my Ten fanatics, may be they felt their worst fear has been exposed) Actually, runs per test (or wkts per test for that matter) gives you a good indication of how a batsman fares in the enviornment that he is presented with. If X needs two innings per test to come up with output as Y in one innings then the chances are that is due to the conditions. For example, on surface where 300 is a good score, you are more often than not required to bat twice. On the other hand, on picthes where you can crack up 550, you can get away by batting once. Same applies for the bowlers too, a bowler bowling on flat surfaces would have a higher avg than one who mainly bowls on seamer friendly surfaces. Runs and wkts per test more than anything else show how a player fared in the enviornment that he was presented with PS it appears as if you are getting in to a habit of trying to discuss w/o getting the context

[zen]

By bringing in these kind of arguments, you are proving that you are SRT worshipper. Accept the fact that SRT is #13. He is not even #2. Don is the best. Lara is much better than him as well and Sehwag, MoYo, Sanga, YunusK (try to understand who all are in this list) are better than him using this statistics. That is why case closed. I wont even argue with someone who has come with this logic man.

But you would argue that 56 > 100 :giggle:

[zen]

For reference, Tendulkar vs other Indian batsman (1 Jan 1989 to today) - Sehwag: 81 tests, RPT 88 - Tendulkar: 171 tests, RPT 83 - Dravid: 144 tests, RPT 81 Yes, Ten is way ahead of his peers :hysterical:

[dial_100]

But you would argue that 56 > 100 :giggle:

Nope...Not me. Unlike you, I dont have that ability. I have seen SRT playing cricket with my own eyes... I dont need someone to tell me who is better and who is not.

[zen]

Nope...Not me. Unlike you' date=' I dont have that ability. I have seen SRT playing cricket with my own eyes... I dont need someone to tell me who is better and who is not.[/quote'] So one can see what has blinded your judgment :P

[dial_100]

So one can see what has blinded your judgment :P

Right. Perfect. See I told you. I do not posses that ability. You win....:haha:

[yoda]

Nobody considers runs-per-test as a benchmark for anything. You cant even find that stat on cricinfo.

I agree runs-per-test is bogus, and average per innings doesn't make sense either. :winky: I say let's go by whatever the hell we all feel like. :yay:

[zen]

Runs per tests doesn't makes sense because Tendulkar doesn't top his peers, while runs per innings doesn't make sense because Tendulkar gets a hammering there :hysterical: so now they have to trust "their own eyes" :P

[yoda]

I have a new criteria which will satisfy some: runs/game scored in tests wearing protective gear using modern batting technique vs all countries excluding England + runs/game scored in ODIs - runs/game scored in international T20s + runs/game scored in IPL T20 :hehe: ps: I think the numbers will look better if the per game biziness is gotten away with, so feel free to adjust :winky:

[Nirvanam]

The point of that stat is that if Lara gets to play 171 matches, he would probably have more runs! So saying that Sachin is way ahead of his peer because he has more runs is dumb! .... Clearly so many have missed that point (which is expected of Sachin's fanatics) and act like a cat on a hot tim roof, which probably means that they realize Tendulkar is just like any of his peers (which is not bad actually as the likes of Lara, Ponting are all excellent batsmen). And I am not saying who is better than whom as for me all three of them are interchangable (that Lara > Ten based on those numbers is an assumption made my Ten fanatics, may be they felt their worst fear has been exposed) Actually, runs per test (or wkts per test for that matter) gives you a good indication of how a batsman fares in the enviornment that he is presented with. If X needs two innings per test to come up with output as Y in one innings then the chances are that is due to the conditions. For example, on surface where 300 is a good score, you are more often than not required to bat twice. On the other hand, on picthes where you can crack up 550, you can get away by batting once. Same applies for the bowlers too, a bowler bowling on flat surfaces would have a higher avg than one who mainly bowls on seamer friendly surfaces. Runs and wkts per test more than anything else show how a player fared in the enviornment that he was presented with PS it appears as if you are getting in to a habit of trying to discuss w/o getting the context

So, who according to you is the best batsman after say Bradman (assuming the context of 99.94 is not to be argued)? And of course, why?

[Raghav_12]

The point of that stat is that if Lara gets to play 171 matches, he would probably have more runs! So saying that Sachin is way ahead of his peer because he has more runs is dumb! .... Clearly so many have missed that point (which is expected of Sachin's fanatics) and act like a cat on a hot tim roof, which probably means that they realize Tendulkar is just like any of his peers (which is not bad actually as the likes of Lara, Ponting are all excellent batsmen). And I am not saying who is better than whom as for me all three of them are interchangable (that Lara > Ten based on those numbers is an assumption made my Ten fanatics, may be they felt their worst fear has been exposed) Actually, runs per test (or wkts per test for that matter) gives you a good indication of how a batsman fares in the enviornment that he is presented with. If X needs two innings per test to come up with output as Y in one innings then the chances are that is due to the conditions. For example, on surface where 300 is a good score, you are more often than not required to bat twice. On the other hand, on picthes where you can crack up 550, you can get away by batting once. Same applies for the bowlers too, a bowler bowling on flat surfaces would have a higher avg than one who mainly bowls on seamer friendly surfaces. Runs and wkts per test more than anything else show how a player fared in the enviornment that he was presented with PS it appears as if you are getting in to a habit of trying to discuss w/o getting the context

If Sachin could play 171 test matches, it should add to his legend and should be given credit for.Nobody offered him a test cap on platter at the age of 16. He earned that. Bradman could not play more test matches because of WW 2 is a valid argument. But Lara did not play more test matches because he was not good enough for more than 131 test matches. I am getting the context of whole discussion. I understand point that you trying to prove is Sachin is not that well ahead of his peers as Bradman was. This is an established fact and I don't think anybody arguing against that. But no need to create stats like runs per match. I guess, whole point of this thread is whether we can compare players of this era with the players of Bradman's era. Answer seems to be a no. But, if we are forced to compare, Bradman will be rated ahead of Sachin only because of his superiority to his peers. Any suggestions like he was way ahead in direct comparison of batting skills or techniques are rubbish.