Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[zen]

My bad, you don't know sarcasm. In any case, you just made your whole point. You keep sticking to a very retarded number to prove your point (I know you'll wonder forever why it is retarded, but hopefully you'll understand one day, if not, let me know, it starts with how many innings are there per test and how much SRT/BCL/Anyone else averages per innings). And if we just go by number without any analysis or context, then you are right. But then again, you'll ask why context, when we have raw number to "prove" something. Now, please put another emoticon in your reply and be pleased with yourself for the amazing runs/test stat that no one else could think of. And, please, do look up the word sarcasm, it'll help you in future.

haha, I get it: so you figured that people never consider there are two innings in a test when the talk abt RPT (you don't even know what RPT shows) :giggle: .... on top of that you have in it to suggest that avgs are important but again you can't take an avg of 100 at its face value (value of 1 kg gold and its impurities) so in the end somehow we have to take Tendulkar's avg, his runs, which would prove that he is the greatest It fun to hear from dumbasses like you :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[goose]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cricket/article2791930.ece Separated by the generations; joined by their genius John Woodcock November 3 2010 12:01AM To say so in Australia would be to invite invective, even eviction, but I have long thought that, simply as a batsman, Sachin Tendulkar is the equal of Sir Donald Bradman. He does not dominate the game in the way the Don did in the 1930s, but nor, I think, would the Don himself if he were playing in today’s much more calculating environment. There is every chance that Tendulkar will make his 50th Test hundred before the end of this month, in itself an amazing achievement. But if Bradman had played the same number of Test innings (Tendulkar has played 280 to Bradman’s 80) he would have finished with something like 100 hundreds, given the rate at which he scored them. Tendulkar’s Test average this year (97.69) is of Bradmanesque proportions, but his overall figure of 56.96 is dwarfed by Bradman’s 99.94. When W. G. was asked to name the best batsman he played with, he replied: “Give me Arthur”, meaning Arthur Shrewsbury, whose average in his 23 Tests was 35.47. They all played a very different game, albeit one that has always gone by the same name. Statistically, the long-held assertion that there will never be another Bradman still holds good, and almost certainly always will. Not only his batting, but his knowledge of the game, credentials as a captain, sagacity as an administrator and iconic status as an Australian set him apart from any other sportsman of the 20th century. However, he himself believed that there were certainly others with just as much ability, as is borne out by his remark to Stan McCabe after his team-mate’s stupendous 232 in the Trent Bridge Test match of 1938: “I’d love to be able to bat like that.” Much has been said about Bradman’s remarkable “eye”, yet when he submitted to having an optional eye test being carried out in Adelaide for purposes of research, nothing unusual cropped up. Concentration and total commitment, as well, of course, as relishing the moment, were what his wife picked out. She would hardly have liked to cite ruthlessness, too. “If he was not out overnight, he would restart his innings from the moment he woke up next morning,” she once told me. Tendulkar was understandably flattered when, upon their meeting, Bradman told him he thought that as batsmen they had much in common. Physically, Tendulkar is the shorter and stockier of the two. With the sub-continent being the breeding ground of the world’s most natural batsmen, there could be any number born with Tendulkar’s talent in the course of a year. What eventually it comes down to is opportunity, ambition and temperament. Tendulkar is not a lovely player in the sense that V.V.S. Laxman, Rahul Dravid and Mohammad Azharuddin have been, or Ranjitsinhji and his nephew, Duleepsinhji must have been, or David Gower was, or Greg Chappell and Mark Waugh could be. But nor was Bradman. Commercialism and gracefulness are by no means necessarily compatible. When he put his mind to it, the most complete batsman I have seen, including Bradman and Tendulkar, was probably Barry Richards, the most overpowering Vivian Richards, the most disarming Denis Compton, the most serene Frank Worrell, the most majestic Walter Hammond, the most dazzling Brian Lara, the most expansive Garfield Sobers. But none had Bradman’s abiding dominance or Tendulkar’s staying power. And perhaps none of them, as an 18-year old, could have played the innings that Tendulkar did for India against Australia in Perth in 1992, when he made 114 on a pitch that still demanded more of a batsman’s courage and capacity to survive than any other. I was there to see it and wrote in these columns that, “Playing as he did yesterday Tendulkar is arguably already the best batsman in the world ... He showed maturity, tenacity and judgment that were quite extraordinary for someone so young. On top of that, he has a wonderfully sound technique, stands beautifully at the wicket and footwork that looks after itself.” Not unlike Colin Cowdrey when, a week after his 22nd birthday and without a championship hundred to his name, he made the first, best and most valuable of his 22 Test hundreds, against Australia in Melbourne in 1954, driving Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller to kingdom come as though unaware of the scale of it. And Tendulkar seems as run-hungry and nerveless as ever. Incredible! Tendulkar belongs to the school of those Indian batsmen (Sunil Gavaskar and Gundappa Viswanath were others) who make up for a lack of inches with eye, wrist and insatiability. He uses a bat so heavy that Bradman would have laughed at it. You need only to pick it up to realise how strong his arms must be. Just as the modern driver sends the golf ball anything up to 50 yards farther than those made 30 or 40 years ago, so the modern bat makes a mockery of today’s much shortened boundaries. MCC may well have been lax in keeping an eye on the built-in power of the bat. To say that Tendulkar, or anyone else for that matter, might be as good as Bradman does not diminish Bradman and his achievements. Bradman, I believe, would have been proud to play today’s game as well as Tendulkar does, just as Tendulkar, like all of us, holds Bradman in awe. Comparing the leading players of different generations, especially when the generations are far apart, is usually more diverting than meaningful. All we can be sure of is that today’s two unquestionably great batsmen, Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting, would always have excelled. Against the same England attack and the same decidedly stately (by today’s standards) fielding; on the same Headingley pitch and outfield, and facing the same number of balls (19 or 20 overs an hour rather than 13 or 14), I can easily see Tendulkar scoring an undefeated 309, even 409, on the first day of the fourth Test match of 1930, as the Don did. This is often quoted as the day on which Bradman took batting in Test cricket to a previously unattained level of sustained brilliance. On getting back to the Queen’s Hotel in Leeds, where the Australians were staying, he went straight to the desk and asked for “a nice pot of tea” to be sent to his room, while the rest of the side went expectantly to the bar — a case, perhaps, of genius doing what it must. As with Tendulkar, I expect privacy was already becoming an ever more precious commodity for Bradman, even at the age of 21. Let us just say that Tendulkar is the Bradman of today — less hypnotic but scarcely less phenomenal — and leave it at that.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Unfortunately' date=' probably you'll find, to your disappointment, that there are few Indian players who would be close enough to Sachin if youn pull their record using same filters. Though I pray there is none [/quote']That's the whole point, my friend!!! That is the whole point. To state the point again... Bradman's average is bloated because he played against 3 minnows, all at Home, and one decent team at 8 venues each of which he played at least 4 Tests in. Overall he played his cricket in 8 venues. The argument that he is ahead of his peers does not necessitate he is better than future generations. Why? Because, if you look at the numbers of the future generations under Bradman's conditions they will also average higher than 80 and some may average higher than 120 even. Unfortunately for the later cricketers, none of them got an opportunity to feast on 3 minnows...guys like Chappell and Richards did not play a single Test against a minnow. But even if you consider just the maximum 2 minnows that a modern Test bat has played you will see he averages great! Can you see what my point is, now?

[Nirvanam]

haha, I get it: so you figured that people never consider there are two innings in a test when the talk abt RPT (you don't even know what RPT shows) :giggle: .... on top of that you have in it to suggest that avgs are important but again you can't take an avg of 100 at its face value (value of 1 kg gold and its impurities) so in the end somehow we have to take Tendulkar's avg, his runs, which would prove that he is the greatest It fun to hear from dumbasses like you :hysterical:

Rett, I am still waiting for you to argue against the numbers I put in front of you. If I put Kallis' numbers they will be even more phenomenal...he averages some 250 against Zim!

[Nirvanam]

There isn't much argument against evolution. But if your achievements are simply due to us evolving, why does that make anyone now any greater? Better yes due to you and everyone around you evolving, but why greater especially than someone who achieved more in the past when compared to others around him then? Already brought up and answered. Let me repeat. Performance against a minnow today cannot be compared to a performance against a bowling in those days which may be equivalent to these minnows of today. That is because batting those days also had not evolved and such a batting's performance against similar bowling is more commendable when compared to current batting against such minnow bowling.

And that is why I am saying Bradman's 99.94 is no great shakes compared to today's 55. Therefore, saying Bradman is the greatest Test bat ever is necessarily disregarding the skill level of batsmen who played against much better oppositions, in much more hostile conditions, at much higher pace, and much larger tweak. I have only presented you the numbers of Sachin. If we dig out the numbers of guys like Kallis who average close to 250 v/s zim then Bradman will be left far behind. So before accepting the wisdom given to us by our forefathers of Bradman's greatness let us do our own rationalization than just plainly accepting everything as gospel truth. Search for reports and read them and you will find an overwhelming stance that Bradman was a sitting duck on "sticky dogs"...that throws out your Bradman played on uncovered wickets crap. What more, the Don himself acknowledges he is no good on uncovered wickets. Next, find out the class of bowlers he played against. One way is the ICC ratings of the bowlers. The guy hasn't faced the bowling quality of Harbhajan Singh leave alone Shane Warne and Murali. He hasn't faced a magician who could swing the ball twice in one delivery almost, like Wasim ever. He never played on a dust bowl. I mean seriously, what more reasons does the Human mind require to bust myths? He being ahead of his peers is a bogey. His peers like Hobbs, Hammond, Sutcliffe, etc are also ahead of the modern bats. But just coz they were not as ruthless as Bradman in exploiting the weaknesses of the opposition it does not mean they were that bad. As an example, if I do that 3 minnow-1 solid team stats for Lara, he will come with a much lesser average than Sachin's 93.27...maybe just in 50's but would you say that Lara is that far behind Sachin? No way! The more likely explanation is that Sachin made hay against the minnows while also massacring the other teams...Lara did not make hay against the minnows for whatever reasons. Please argue something other than that 99.94 bogey...if you want to use that bogey then you must also hold the other ATG batsmen to the same kinda opposition and see how they perform. If in that, Bradman comes way ahead of all the others then I'll accept egg on my face. Deal? Here are Kallis' figures - M-19, Inns - 26, NO - 8, Runs - 1868, H-7, F-9, Avg - 103.78 These guys haven't even played decent number of games against minnows!

[zen]

Rett' date=' I am still waiting for you to argue against the numbers I put in front of you. If I put Kallis' numbers they will be even more phenomenal...he averages some 250 against Zim![/quote'] Prof. Outsider has created an extensive list that shows why today's averages are on par or greater than the averages in the past era. May be we should make this list sticky but for your quick reference, you can read the thread below: Why today's avg is on par or greater than past's Ofc, if you have any valuable additions to make, Prof. Outsider would be more than happy to update his list! Looking forward to a meaningful contribution from you so the list can be updated :hatsoff:

[rabinjackman]

Why cant there be another bradman? Theory 1. there can be, anything's possible. If a meteor hits earth and only india and bangladesh survive and perhaps Nepal, Bhutan decide to play cricket, then may be a Bradman just might emerge in India , perhaps Bangladesh, or maybe not. anything's possible Theory 2. There cannot be another Bradman. Because he was alien cricketer , from another planet who was dropped onto this planet to study the level of cricket played here. Unfortunately the level of cricket now on that alien planet is similar to ours and so this Bradman if sent again in this present time will not really make much of an impression compared to present greats such as Ponting and Lara. Theory 3 There cannot be. Due to his superhuman batting performances, Bradman's soul attained Nirvana and now has been enlisted by heaven to play in their XI against Hell. SInce nobody from either team retires nor dies, there is no chance for Bradman's soul to return back to earth.

[Nirvanam]

Prof. Outsider has created an extensive list that shows why today's averages are on par or greater than the averages in the past era. May be we should make this list sticky but for your quick reference, you can read the thread below: Why today's avg is on par or greater than past's Ofc, if you have any valuable additions to make, Prof. Outsider would be more than happy to update his list! Looking forward to a meaningful contribution from you so the list can be updated :hatsoff:

Eh? My question to you in the previous posts was simple, so if you can address that it'd be great. To repeat, who do you think is the best batsman after Bradman (assuming you are unwilling to look into the context of that 99.94)? And why so? Let's not beat around the bush, Rett...either you can demonstrate the conviction in your belief is based on your own rationalization failing which it will be rather clear that you are just accepting as gospel truth whatever has been handed down to you without using your own mind. it's all great to make funny remarks and posts...may help you win the humor contest. However, do attempt to back that up with some serious discussion, please.

[Nirvanam]

Why cant there be another bradman? Theory 1. there can be, anything's possible. If a meteor hits earth and only india and bangladesh survive and perhaps Nepal, Bhutan decide to play cricket, then may be a Bradman just might emerge in India , perhaps Bangladesh, or maybe not. anything's possible Theory 2. There cannot be another Bradman. Because he was alien cricketer , from another planet who was dropped onto this planet to study the level of cricket played here. Unfortunately the level of cricket now on that alien planet is similar to ours and so this Bradman if sent again in this present time will not really make much of an impression compared to present greats such as Ponting and Lara. Theory 3 There cannot be. Due to his superhuman batting performances, Bradman's soul attained Nirvana and now has been enlisted by heaven to play in their XI against Hell. SInce nobody from either team retires nor dies, there is no chance for Bradman's soul to return back to earth.

Theory 4 We should actually be looking at Jacques Kallis' phenomenal average of 103.78 as the Holy Grail of Test cricket not someone who is averages almost 4 runs lesser than Kallis.

[pensionplan]

The basic flaw by bringing in Kallis's or someone else's average versus another team that they might have averaged more than 100 is this. Bradman over a span of 80 innings did average 100. So I do not understand the rationale behind all this picking and choosing numbers to suit ones argument or POV(Point of View). I still have not seen a compelling argument backed with facts and cricketing reasons as to why Bradman's average could have been inflated going by assumptions like quality of bowling, opposition strength etc. If that is the case should there not be more more players who should have averaged in the same vicinity like say 80 plus from that era that have played atleast 50 innings or more. I do not see any reason to change my mind yet on Bradman's 99 plus average happens of be the most hallowed and intriguing number in cricket and perhaps in all of sports. As of now Bradman to me still appears to be in a league of his own leaving a group that has players like Hobbs, Tendulkar, Lara, Border, Ponting, Richards, Hammond, Headley, Graeme Pollock to fight it out among themselves and emerge as the best amongst that group. Personally I would pick Tendulkar as of now from that group simply for his sheer volume of runs and longevity over others though there could be others who want to pick Lara given his penchant for playing blinders in hopeless situations, if that is an important criteria for one to rate players then they might as well pick Lara over Tendulkar given the number of solo efforts from Lara.

[The Outsider]

Eh? My question to you in the previous posts was simple, so if you can address that it'd be great. To repeat, who do you think is the best batsman after Bradman (assuming you are unwilling to look into the context of that 99.94)? And why so?

Rameez Raja. If he was playing in the days of Bradman, he would have smashed all bowlers till God himself came down to earth and begged for mercy on behalf of the bowlers. Just plain unlucky to be born in the wrong era. Here are detailed reasons : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=213283

[dial_100]

Why cant there be another bradman? Theory 1. there can be, anything's possible. If a meteor hits earth and only india and bangladesh survive and perhaps Nepal, Bhutan decide to play cricket, then may be a Bradman just might emerge in India , perhaps Bangladesh, or maybe not. anything's possible Theory 2. There cannot be another Bradman. Because he was alien cricketer , from another planet who was dropped onto this planet to study the level of cricket played here. Unfortunately the level of cricket now on that alien planet is similar to ours and so this Bradman if sent again in this present time will not really make much of an impression compared to present greats such as Ponting and Lara. Theory 3 There cannot be. Due to his superhuman batting performances, Bradman's soul attained Nirvana and now has been enlisted by heaven to play in their XI against Hell. SInce nobody from either team retires nor dies, there is no chance for Bradman's soul to return back to earth.

Nice. :two_thumbs_up: One more person understand what OP is asking to discuss.

[Nirvanam]

The basic flaw by bringing in Kallis's or someone else's average versus another team that they might have averaged more than 100 is this. Bradman over a span of 80 innings did average 100.

If 80 innings is a decent enough sample size then 55 innings is also a decent enough sample size. Incidentally, in statistical processes, a sample size of between 25 to 40 are considered a good sample size.

So I do not understand the rationale behind all this picking and choosing numbers to suit ones argument or POV(Point of View).

It is not picking and choosing...it is trying to find a similar opposition strength and context under which Bradman made his runs, and compare with the modern batsman.

I still have not seen a compelling argument backed with facts and cricketing reasons as to why Bradman's average could have been inflated going by assumptions like quality of bowling' date=' opposition strength etc.[/quote']Whether an argument is compelling or not lies in your perceptions. No amount of rationality can override a personal view of what is rational. And quality of bowling, etc, are not assumptions...there are very objective ways of defining them. One of them is the ICC ratings. Second is a subjective one of how often do you hear about the bowlers Bradman played against as being an ATG bowler? Other than Larwood (coz he humbled Bradman in that one series) which other bowler that Bradman faced in Test matches is even mentioned in any proximity of the bowlers that batsmen since 1970's have faced?

If that is the case should there not be more more players who should have averaged in the same vicinity like say 80 plus from that era that have played atleast 50 innings or more.

This is the main trap...coz his peers did not score as heavily as him is in no way a reflection of the quality of today's batsmen. He being ahead of his peers is just that...ahead of his peers...not ahead of today's batsmen.

I do not see any reason to change my mind yet on Bradman's 99 plus average happens of be the most hallowed and intriguing number in cricket and perhaps in all of sports.

Like I said above...a person's individual viewpoint always overrides common rationality...nothing wrong in that. I consider Bradman a virtuoso just for his 99.94...I have no other way to tell otherwise. However, I do not buy into the argument that because he is 40 runs ahead of Hobbs and Sutcliffe, he will be similarly ahead of Lara, Pawning, Sachin, Gavva, Chappell, Richards, etc. There is absolutely no evidence to even think that way.

As of now Bradman to me still appears to be in a league of his own leaving a group that has players like Hobbs' date=' Tendulkar, Lara, Border, Ponting, Richards, Hammond, Headley, Graeme Pollock to fight it out among themselves and emerge as the best amongst that group.[/quote']I did a project to bust that myth that all others are in a cluster...nope they are not! Sachin and Lara come out as visibly, decidedly, and significantly ahead of other ATG Test bats. And so does Gavaskar.

Personally I would pick Tendulkar as of now from that group simply for his sheer volume of runs and longevity over others though there could be others who want to pick Lara given his penchant for playing blinders in hopeless situations' date=' if that is an important criteria for one to rate players then they might as well pick Lara over Tendulkar given the number of solo efforts from Lara.[/quote']This solo efforts is a bogey...I've been busting these myths...my new project is about the Contribution a batsman makes to the team's cause. There's that huge myth that Sachin does not do well in the 4th innings, he cannot win matches...all that bullshit is just that...bullshit. In case you'd like some serious data based opinion about these "solo" performances, define what is a solo performance and I will bust your myth...more than delighted to. Pls don't interpret this as arrogance...it is conviction based out of looking at each and every damn scorecard of the 16 ATG batsmen of Test cricket during the last one year...its like there is almost a photographic memory of how the scorecards look in my mind. I am telling you there are too many myths. The reason I find these myths about Dravid being better Tets player than Sachin is because the public expects Sachin to score 100 when they are satisfied with Dravid scoring a 50. What transpires on the ground is that Dravid scores 51 whereas Sachin score 98 and Dravid is lauded as the greatest Test bat because he managed to score 50 whereas Sachin who is left stranded or gets out at 98 is considered a no-gooder at chasing totals. Look, I am a Sachin fan but my hero has always been Kapil Dev so I have no reason to pimp for Sachin. My perspective comes from the fact that I am a six sigma master black belt in profession which has helped me identify statistics based things intuitively over the last few years and when I come across these myths I check with FACTS...facts say a totally different story. Do have a look at the Virtuoso analysis here and see how it can be improved. I will be working on an update. Pls go thru it, your feedback will help me a lot :-) http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html

[zen]

Eh? My question to you in the previous posts was simple, so if you can address that it'd be great. To repeat, who do you think is the best batsman after Bradman (assuming you are unwilling to look into the context of that 99.94)? And why so? Let's not beat around the bush, Rett...either you can demonstrate the conviction in your belief is based on your own rationalization failing which it will be rather clear that you are just accepting as gospel truth whatever has been handed down to you without using your own mind. it's all great to make funny remarks and posts...may help you win the humor contest. However, do attempt to back that up with some serious discussion, please.

anything that shows that Tendulkar > Bradman should be universally applicable to other players as well (for it to be true) for e.g. Rameez > Hammond :winky: I think I already replied about the next best batsman query. I don't think there is an undisputed 2nd best just like there isn't undisputed best bowler but if I had to pick one by force (to satisfy curious Georges) then the answer can be found in post #331 (something that was replied to you but you still go around asking the same questions) :P

[King Tendulkar]

Words and more words. Time for a reality check. Lets see some oldies playing cricket http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2010/08/jack-hobbs-on-video.html Better then modern day players? Only to the blind or delusional!

[pensionplan]

Words and more words. Time for a reality check. Lets see some oldies playing cricket http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2010/08/jack-hobbs-on-video.html Better then modern day players? Only to the blind or delusional!

Spoken like a true srtfanatic to whom everyone else who do not accept him as the best ever is blind or delusional. The funny part is those who claim that they are huge SRT fans do not even realise they are doing the biggest disservice to their master who I am sure would disapprove of some of the ridiculous things his fans say about other great players.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

If 80 innings is a decent enough sample size then 55 innings is also a decent enough sample size. Incidentally, in statistical processes, a sample size of between 25 to 40 are considered a good sample size. It is not picking and choosing...it is trying to find a similar opposition strength and context under which Bradman made his runs, and compare with the modern batsman. Whether an argument is compelling or not lies in your perceptions. No amount of rationality can override a personal view of what is rational. And quality of bowling, etc, are not assumptions...there are very objective ways of defining them. One of them is the ICC ratings. Second is a subjective one of how often do you hear about the bowlers Bradman played against as being an ATG bowler? Other than Larwood (coz he humbled Bradman in that one series) which other bowler that Bradman faced in Test matches is even mentioned in any proximity of the bowlers that batsmen since 1970's have faced? This is the main trap...coz his peers did not score as heavily as him is in no way a reflection of the quality of today's batsmen. He being ahead of his peers is just that...ahead of his peers...not ahead of today's batsmen. Like I said above...a person's individual viewpoint always overrides common rationality...nothing wrong in that. I consider Bradman a virtuoso just for his 99.94...I have no other way to tell otherwise. However, I do not buy into the argument that because he is 40 runs ahead of Hobbs and Sutcliffe, he will be similarly ahead of Lara, Pawning, Sachin, Gavva, Chappell, Richards, etc. There is absolutely no evidence to even think that way. I did a project to bust that myth that all others are in a cluster...nope they are not! Sachin and Lara come out as visibly, decidedly, and significantly ahead of other ATG Test bats. And so does Gavaskar. This solo efforts is a bogey...I've been busting these myths...my new project is about the Contribution a batsman makes to the team's cause. There's that huge myth that Sachin does not do well in the 4th innings, he cannot win matches...all that bullshit is just that...bullshit. In case you'd like some serious data based opinion about these "solo" performances, define what is a solo performance and I will bust your myth...more than delighted to. Pls don't interpret this as arrogance...it is conviction based out of looking at each and every damn scorecard of the 16 ATG batsmen of Test cricket during the last one year...its like there is almost a photographic memory of how the scorecards look in my mind. I am telling you there are too many myths. The reason I find these myths about Dravid being better Tets player than Sachin is because the public expects Sachin to score 100 when they are satisfied with Dravid scoring a 50. What transpires on the ground is that Dravid scores 51 whereas Sachin score 98 and Dravid is lauded as the greatest Test bat because he managed to score 50 whereas Sachin who is left stranded or gets out at 98 is considered a no-gooder at chasing totals. Look, I am a Sachin fan but my hero has always been Kapil Dev so I have no reason to pimp for Sachin. My perspective comes from the fact that I am a six sigma master black belt in profession which has helped me identify statistics based things intuitively over the last few years and when I come across these myths I check with FACTS...facts say a totally different story. Do have a look at the Virtuoso analysis here and see how it can be improved. I will be working on an update. Pls go thru it, your feedback will help me a lot :-) http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html

You can consider 55 or 25 or whatever innings limit you think to be reasonable enough or acceptable. Does not mean that has to be acceptable to all. As I said earlier I have not seen anything that caught my eye personally speaking here to change the opinion that Bradman's 99 plus average over a 80 innings stretch is unmatched in the annals of the game. While your efforts and statistical analysis are really commendable and I say keep it going it can be a value add if we keep some of this Bradman vs The Rest silliness aside and look into the overall picture of the game and the vast amount of great players that graced this game.