Sachin and Bradman comparison : Oz & Indian press

[yoda]

Irony barometer just blew away.

Actually, for *Sach* fanatics, obsession is so ingrained, it doesn't apply to them explicitly anymore. :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

This thread has potential

[zep1706]

With Sachin or Bradman? I am with neither, I am with Dhoni :winky: What's right with this study? They have simply added up the runs less what an average player would score. They have ignored the fact that Tendulkar has played more than thrice the number of matches that Bradman did. On a per match basis, Bradman's score will be more than three times Tendulkar's. If Bradman played the same number of matches his score will be ~13000 on this rating compared to Tendulkar's 4000. If any thing it only puts in perspective how much better Bradman was compared to Tendulkar.

I get your point, and it's definitely a valid one. But I find it hard to believe that a stats prof at an University will do such a silly mistake, and then go to the media. He might have divided the difference again with the number of innings, but missed that part in his media statement.

[yoda]

I think there is some merit in the study. People generally put forward the argument of Bradman being way ahead of his contemporaries' date=' which is still true, but this study proves that the average of an average player in the Bradman era was way higher than that in the Tendulkar era.[/quote'] Any study which is based on averages, Bradman will blow the competition away. The fact that Sachin came out on top means there is a cumulative number factored in somewhere because that is where he blows the competition away. The fact that Bradman is not on top means, average is not part of the deal. Yes it is obvious and I am not even a statistician. :winky:

[zep1706]

Dude' date=' stop embarrassing yourself. Any study which is based on averages, Bradman will blow the competition away. The fact that Sachin came out on top means there is a cumulative number factored in somewhere because that is where he blows the competition away. The fact that Bradman is not on top means, average is not part of the deal. Yes it is obvious and I am not even a statistician. :winky:[/quote'] Refer to the above post. I am not saying Sachin is better than Bradman, in fact I never believe in comparing players from different era in any sport. I don't compare Rod Laver and Roger Federer.

[surajmal]

Let me break it to you' date=' I do statistics and data analysis for a living.[/quote'] if you are gonna post crap, atleast have the courtesy to back it up. otherwise piss off. since you are the professional, maybe post an analysis (filter) or how video scouting affects numbers over the years (which aides bowling more than batting).

[yoda]

Refer to the above post. I am not saying Sachin is better than Bradman' date=' in fact I never believe in comparing players from different era in any sport. I don't compare Rod Laver and Roger Federer.[/quote'] When Sampras broke Roy Emerson's Grand slam record, did that mean anything to you? It was a big deal BTW, even though that record was from the 1960s. May be you don't want to compare players across era, but when records/milestones from the past are approached by modern players, they do become relevant.

[zep1706]

When Sampras broke Roy Emerson's Grand slam record' date=' did that mean anything to you? It was a big deal BTW, even though that record was from the 1960s. May be you don't want to compare players across era, but when records/milestones from the past are approached by modern players, they do become relevant.[/quote'] Breaking a record doesn't make the record breaker "better" than the previous record holder. That's what I meant by not comparing players from different eras. Never said breaking a record isn't a big deal.

[yoda]

Breaking a record doesn't make the record breaker "better" than the previous record holder. That's what I meant by not comparing players from different eras. Never said breaking a record isn't a big deal.

fair enough!

[Sarkar]

Sachin> Bradman

[mishra]

Jacques Kallis (South Africa) ahead of Dravid????????????????????????????????

Something not right with study or my percepction

[bihutoli]

With Sachin or Bradman? I am with neither, I am with Dhoni :winky: What's right with this study? They have simply added up the runs less what an average player would score. They have ignored the fact that Tendulkar has played more than thrice the number of matches that Bradman did. On a per match basis, Bradman's score will be more than three times Tendulkar's. If Bradman played the same number of matches his score will be ~13000 on this rating compared to Tendulkar's 4000. If any thing it only puts in perspective how much better Bradman was compared to Tendulkar.

Thats one point of the study also isn't it. He's saying that longetivity counts and gives it a weightage (a disproportionally large weightage to be honest).

[bihutoli]

The study does seem very simplistic though. Surprised that an economist would come up with it, but not at all surprised that the media is over it like flies over a piece of fresh turd. Granted the OP article hardly talks about the study in sufficient details to either approve or discredit the study.

[surajmal]

Unless a sport sees a decline in talent pool over the years (heavy weight boxing for instance), modern athletes would always better than their older counterparts. That point is simply not up for debate. People can claim that the gap between Bradman and his competition is greater than the gap between Sachin and his competition, I'd accept that. But You can be damn sure that, in absolute terms, atleast 5 modern batsmen are better than bradman (sachin, ponting, dravid, kallis and lara)

[Raghav_12]

With Sachin or Bradman? I am with neither' date= I am with Dhoni :winky:

I am also not with either Sachin or Bradman. I am neutral.

[Vijay.Sharma]

New fodder for the debate - Tendulkar greater than Bradman, says researcher Let the fights begin - http://www.indianexpress.com/news/tendulkar-greater-than-bradman-says-researcher/890711/

An Economics researcher claims to have found an answer to one of the biggest debates in international cricket by picking Indian icon Sachin Tendulkar as the greatest Test batsman ever over late Australian legend Sir Donald Bradman. Ũriffith University researcher Dr Nicholas Rohde has used economic theory to compare batsmen from different eras, and says India's Little Master, who will pad up against the Aussies at the MCG on Boxing Day, is history's premier willow wielder, reported 'The Australian'. The 38-year-old Tendulkar has a world-record 15,183 runs from 184 Tests at an average of 56.02 since making his debut in 1989. Bradman, on the other hand, played 52 Tests from 1928 to 1948, scoring 6996 runs at an astonishing average of 99.94. He died in 2001 aged 92. Dr Rohde said a theoretical analysis puts Tendulkar above Bradman. ŵhe rankings are designed to allow for meaningful comparisons of players with careers of different lengths, said Dr Rohde. Ūt's an emotional issue and there will always be debate between followers of Test cricket about the relative career performances of various batsmen, he added. The rankings by the researcher have been created according to a player's career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accumulate over the same number of innings. Allan Border (seven) and Steve Waugh (nine) are the other Australian batsmen in the top 10. Rahul Dravid (fourth) and Sunil Gavaskar (eighth) are the other Indians in the list. Dr Rohde's said it was possible that Tendulkar and Bradman could swap their places many times before the Indian retires as a dip in form would affect his standing.

[ganeshran]

Any statistical study that seeks to normalize averages across eras needs to make sort of arbitrary adjustment in the data. Depending on the result that this adjustment gives - people whose idols dont end up on top end up questioning the validity of the study. Tomorrow when a study about Bradman being better than SRT is posted, Bradman fans will treat it as gospel and SRT fans will pick holes in the theory and vice versa.

[Viki_J]

The way yoda makes his entry to every thread related to Bradman gives one the impression that he has watched Bradman bat all his life..obsession is simply unbelievable!

:hysterical:

[Vijay.Sharma]

I think there is some merit in the study. People generally put forward the argument of Bradman being way ahead of his contemporaries' date=' which is still true, but this study proves that the average of an average player in the Bradman era was way higher than that in the Tendulkar era.[/quote']THIS!!!!!!! Bradman way ahead of peers theory seems to be thrown out of the door. By the way I didnt know this thread already existed so Mods pls merge the thread I started just now, if u dont mind

[Vijay.Sharma]

Unless a sport sees a decline in talent pool over the years (heavy weight boxing for instance), modern athletes would always better than their older counterparts. That point is simply not up for debate. People can claim that the gap between Bradman and his competition is greater than the gap between Sachin and his competition, I'd accept that. But You can be damn sure that, in absolute terms, atleast 5 modern batsmen are better than bradman (sachin, ponting, dravid, kallis and lara)

Very well said.