Sachin and Bradman comparison : Oz & Indian press

[bulbul]

^ similerly Weight of helmets in this Era , Bowling avg of Sachin etc.. :winky:

[pensionplan]

I keep on harping about having a perspective. It would be like me saying Babe Ruth is better than Willie mays or Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez just because Ruth was far and away the best of his time (yes on the level of bradman). But put the latter three and Ruth together in the same frame, Does that tub of lard look like a fvckin athlete to you?

No he was not. Get your facts right. Ruth does not have a batting average that distinguishes him over his peers or generations of players that followed him. Ty Cobb has a much better batting average than Ruth. However with Bradman it is him with 100 average and daylight and bunch of players with an average of 50's or a few with low 60's. So while Ruth as great as he is there is a lot of hype that sorrounded him and the mystique given his personality and the folklore the stories that make him larger than life figure but when one looks at the numbers Ty Cobb, Joe Jackson and Ted Williams to name a few all are over Ruth in averages the single most important metric to judge how consistent a baseball player is. Contrast that with Bradman and there is no comparision. I do not think there is any other team sport where in a metric comparsion the difference between first best and the next best is so wide as in the cricket i.e between the Bradman average and the next over the span of an entire career.

[surajmal]

No he was not. Get your facts right. Ruth does not have a batting average that distinguishes him over his peers or generations of players that followed him. Ty Cobb has a much better batting average than Ruth. However with Bradman it is him with 100 average and daylight and bunch of players with an average of 50's or a few with low 60's. So while Ruth as great as he is there is a lot of hype that sorrounded him and the mystique given his personality and the folklore the stories that make him larger than life figure but when one looks at the numbers Ty Cobb' date=' Joe Jackson and Ted Williams to name a few all are over Ruth in averages the single most important metric to judge how consistent a baseball player is. Contrast that with Bradman and there is no comparision. I do not think there is any other team sport where in a metric comparsion the difference between first best and the next best is so wide as in the cricket i.e between the Bradman average and the next over the span of an entire career.[/quote'] :facepalm: Batting average in baseball? lol. OPS and OPS+ is all that counts and Ruth is the all time leader in both categories. Ruth was a one man wrecking crew considering his homerun total in 1920 is more than every other team but one . And that .342 career batting average isn't too shabby either for a supposed slugger.

[pensionplan]

:facepalm: Batting average in baseball? lol. OPS and OPS+ is all that counts and Ruth is the all time leader in both categories. Ruth was a one man wrecking crew considering his homerun total in 1920 is more than every other team but one . And that .342 career batting average isn't too shabby either for a supposed slugger.

ok let us keep average aside though it is very important to judge a players consistency. Let us take OPS. Even there the difference between Ruth and the rest is not as wideranging as between Bradman's and next best. Now let us not get into stuff like one man wrecking crew etc etc and all that because it is all subjective. The bottom line is any metric you bring in Baseball the difference between the first best and next best is not as wideranging as in case of cricket and Bradman's average and it is not even close.

[surajmal]

ok let us keep average aside though it is very important to judge a players consistency. Let us take OPS. Even there the difference between Ruth and the rest is not as wideranging as between Bradman's and next best. Now let us not get into stuff like one man wrecking crew etc etc and all that because it is all subjective. The bottom line is any metric you bring in Baseball the difference between the first best and next best is not as wideranging as in case of cricket and Bradman's average and it is not even close.

You are right. difference wasn't as large because MLB was a developed league even in 1920s unlike cricket which was being played at amateurish levels till the 50s.

[jairamesh]

The idiots who proclaim Bradman "untouchable" without any of their own first hand accounts, proper video clips (not some charlie chaplin clips), no subjective understanding of the conditions in that era...are more deluded than the Pakis claiming 26/11 was a Joint Mossad-RAW masterplan. As someone mentioned earlier, Bradman played in an era of amateur cricket, where cricket was ONLY played by England and Australia. Compared to today's professional set-up, cricket in black&white era was gilly danda. Professionalism in cricket really starting seeping in the 70s. Bradman is the greatest amateur batsman to play the game to date. Lara, SRT, Viv Richards are the three greatest batsman to play cricket to date (hard to separate these three).

[CSK Fan]

What are you saying mate? I even started rating Ponting ahead of Tendulkar around 06-07 when Ponting had totally gone berserk at run scoring.

Wow. Shows how much you know cricket beyond just looking at average numbers.

[8ankitj]

And likewise what am I expected to believe ... that Bill Bowes was better than Wasim, Donald , Steyn , McGrath and co because he has a avg lesser than these guys ? Cue : Let the usual proclamations , hot air , sophistry take over.

Bill Bowes was not the only bowler bowling at Bradman. There were Larwood, Verity, Tate, Bedsar all bowled at him, and Bowes was a pretty good bowler too. But forget that, you and I have nothing new to say. Tell me about how Sobers is a better bowler than a batsman, and difference between his and Tendulkar's batting is much bigger than between their bowling :giggle:

[pensionplan]

Tell me about how Sobers is a better bowler than a batsman' date=' and difference between his and Tendulkar's batting is much bigger than between their bowling :giggle:[/quote']LOL...The mother of all takes. I suggest when someone is down and know about cricket to read the following gem so that their spirits are instantaneously lifted. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[8ankitj]

Wow. Shows how much you know cricket beyond just looking at average numbers.

Don't get on my nerves now. I don't rate Ponting above Tendulkar but there are perfectly justifiable reasons for someone to do so, especially before his slump. What is Tendulkar's peak ICC rating btw? How does it compare with Ponting's? Of course there are a number of things in Tendulkar's favour, and that's why I rate him higher, but stop acting like there can be nothing that another batsman has done better than Tendulkar.

[pensionplan]

Have you told him about your masterpiece on how FC runs > ODI runs ? :hmmm:

They are free to choose whatever they want and will be happy to be their guest but I seriously doubt if anyone will go for anything over the link I presented above. It is tough to keep up with fanatics like you you know.

[8ankitj]

OK champ, I will answer you once so you know my arguments. I am not getting into a debate that runs for many pages. I don't have time for it.

Better than Akram or Donald or McGrath or Ambrose ?

No, I don't think so. Bradman had the advantage of best bowlers (O'Reilly and Grimmet) in his own side. Yet that doesn't do just enough to discredit the fact that he was 4.4 standard deviations above the mean. Were those bowlers not as good as those that Tendulkar has faced in domestic cricket? Why couldn't Tendulkar match Bradman's test record even in domestic cricket? I will tell you why. Because Bradman was an almost inhuman, mechanical run machine with extra-ordinary powers of concentration and anticipation. Of course, there is this argument about cricket being semi-professional in Bradman's era. But how about the fact that those who watched all from Bradman to Sobers to Richards to Tendulkar have still opined that Bradman was the best? And look at the continuity factor that Outsider (or Yoda?) mentioned. Sobers who debuted just about 6 years after Bradman retired hit Lillee all over the park yet thought Miller and Lindwall were no less, both of whom had overlapping cricketing careers with Bradman. Where do you think this sudden inflection point in quality of cricket come? 1989? I know that Tendulkar fans will love when the day arrives that no one can claim to have seen Bradman, without realizing that a time will come when no one will have seen Tendulkar too! Then there is this argument about bowlers bowling doosras, reverse swing etc in this era that Bradman did not have to play. Well to that, look at how much averages of Gavaskar and his peers were affected when reverse swing was introduced during their careers? How much averages of Tendulkar and his peers were affected after doosra, carrom balls etc were introduced? These things are great developments but the champions adjust to all of them. And that's the essence of all cross era comparison. One assumes that Bradman would have adjusted to current era, or else one cannot assume that Tendulkar would have adjusted to poor quality bats, no helmets and no protective gears. Actually you have to assume no such thing. You judge cricketers based on what they did against the challenges that were thrown at them. Their job is to score runs and take wickets in those conditions and not appear like they could have done it in a different era. Sehwag will not do well to pretend that he is batting on minefields of Caribbean wickets against WI quicks. And of the job that Bradman had at hand, he couldn't have done any better! That's it. None of this is new to me but for some reason you wanted to see if I can praphrase and type out the same things all over again. And I know I will not see anything in your replies that I haven't already heard, so don't expect me to reply.

I will if you can prove that you are capable of debating maturely like a grown up. I suspect you are not here for that purpose. So if hurling inane and peurile Bulldust is your poison then look no further than your BS about Tendulkar = Hobbs , Hutton et al ... by that you are implying that Bowes , Toshack et all were just as good as Waz, Donald, Ambrose McGrath et all ... enjoy your state of blissfull ignorance :two_thumbs_up:

Know what, Hobbs outperformed his peers to an extent that no other batsman except Bradman and Grace have done. Check the test batting averages of batsmen before WWI - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;size=200;spanmax1=31+Dec+1915;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting. So those who rate Hobbs as Tendulkar's equal have an argument.

[surajmal]

^^^ This settles it. Roman Legions >>> US Marines.

[8ankitj]

Why do I even bother...

[surajmal]

Don't lose heart. You still have your sheeple at cricketweb to pander to.

[zen]

^^^ This settles it. Roman Legions >>> US Marines.

ISI can take on the Marines :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Here's a news flash Einstien ... You don't measure absolute Batting Skills based on how well you can hammer modest bowling. People laugh at such things today. And for a good reason. Instead you measure based on the Gold standard . So keep reading it till it sinks in. And ohh don't let the door bang your ass on your way outta here.

when in the opposition, you have McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

:winky: