A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

I will burn down your entire house and just to make sure I will burn down your neighbourhood as well. And I will tell the mods upfront before lighting the torch.

Mind you all this while sitting behind a keyboard. Amazing skills.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Patiala Peg]

If you recall it was you who came up with that metric not me and claimed that SRT sucks as per that metric and how Lara and others are so much better. I just showed you as per your own metric another guy who is waaay better than Lara using the same metric. So is Martyn better than Lara then ?

What rhetoric ! Did I say that ? Sidhu plays spinners in the subcontinent much better than ALL English and Saffie batters. Drawing parallels from your bizarre rhetoric above ... Was Sidhu a better Test batsmen then all Saffies and English test batters ? What the above statistic does thoroughly expose as far as SRT is concerned that the great fast bowlers of his ERA have DOMINATED him by and large. Coz when he has played against them his averages against those same sides have dipped by 15-20 points atleast ! This is over a sample of 47 damn tests ! Not becoming of someone who is touted as the greatest batter ever. he is not even the greatest in his era, let alone of all time.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Patiala Peg]

I am not about to be overwhelmed and misled by any stray context less chart you stick in there ! And that too without any source ! What is the criteria for the above stat ? Did you set any filters ( min number of matches/runs etc ) or put in guys who also only played a handful of games ? I am afraid Bossbhai, I sense alot of insincerity and intellectual dishonesty in your approach.

Calm down. You may want to find the meaning of what constitutes as rhetoric. Here Iam merely giving you a reasoning with a very good example. If it is such a critical stat to evaluate a batsman then as per that exact same stat you must also agree that the following batsmen are better than BCL (and ofcourse SRT)

JDP Oram	62.42
DR Martyn	59.05
MD Crowe	57.20
V Sehwag	55.66
AC Gilchrist	51.86
A Flower	50.56
KP Pietersen	50.25
Taufeeq Umar	49.07
KC Sangakkara	47.93
DM Jones	47.82
Yuvraj Singh	47.62
CH Gayle	47.17
CL Cairns	46.65
SV Manjrekar	46.20
SR Waugh	45.68
MW Goodwin	45.60
JH Kallis	45.60
Habibul Bashar	44.68

Fair ? If you don't agree then please tell me why it is ONLY applicable to prove XYZ > SRT.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jimmy Cliff]

Gotta admit Lara>SRT against most of the ATG attacks. But in dead rubbers only! :winky:

[Patiala Peg]

We are talking about 7 great fast bowlers and you set filter to 10 innings in TOTAL ? This in itself is totally illogical and mockery of the exercise. How many guys from your even got to face all of them ( apart from their own teammates ) ? We are talking about guys like Lara, SRT, Steve Waugh, Ponting ..etc who have all played for almost 2 decades against the greatest fast bowlers of their era , on an average all playing 40+ tests against fast bowling legends... and you are bringing in guys who have played 10 innings to defend SRT's glaring failures that are NOT defend able ? Welll...late in the night now. Goodnight for now.

The exact same criteria that was there in your stat. I added a min of 10 inngs to weed out one series wonders. You can check them one by one thru SG if you want. we will find out. You will also get an unconditional apology if I left out anything.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Bradman and Sachin would've been ashamed at reducing them to ESPNCricinfo statistic filter comparisons. Just like Bradman > Sachin may sound ludicrous to some, Steyn > Lindwall may also sound ludicrous to others. Check Keith Miller's statistics and you wouldn't even consider him as greatest but yet he "is" one of the great all rounders. Mostly, I find either side (Bradman or Sachin) inconsistent in arguments. It makes for great TV though!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Aussie-r-best]

I keep seeing this Bradman v SRT comparison... There is no comparison, its like comparing me to SRT. Simply The Don played less games at a much higher average with worse equipment, worse pitches and worse umpiring. SRT has played nearly 4 times as many games as the Don and has 3 times as many runs at a bit over half the don's average. It is not close... SRT is great and arguably the best in the past 50 or so years. He is not the best ever and will not get there. Comparisons to the Don are offensive tothe quality of the don and are so inaccurate it is almost lughable

[Kriterion]

I keep seeing this Bradman v SRT comparison... There is no comparison, its like comparing me to SRT. Simply The Don played less games at a much higher average with worse equipment, worse pitches and worse umpiring. SRT has played nearly 4 times as many games as the Don and has 3 times as many runs at a bit over half the don's average. It is not close... SRT is great and arguably the best in the past 50 or so years. He is not the best ever and will not get there. Comparisons to the Don are offensive tothe quality of the don and are so inaccurate it is almost lughable

SRT's greatness lies in his longevity, that and the quintessential nature of his batting. That does not mean he is the absolute greatest or the greatest apart from the Don. His batting average is only marginally higher than his contemporaries. But what is most telling is his 2nd innings (and 4th innings) averages which are no better than his contemporaries. I'm not comparing him to Chris Martin or Courtney Walsh here, but to other top order batsman of his era. At the end of the day a player's greatness must be measured in his averages (taken into context of course) and his ability in the clutch. Michael Jordan is the "Bradman" of basketball, not because he was a statistical anomaly. Actually, there are only a couple of guys ever who have career averages as high as him, as opposed to SRT who doesn't even have the highest average in his era. But it was because MJ won games single handedly in a team sport. No one remembers the last time he missed a game winner, or disappeared in the 4th quarter of a big (or small) game. With SRT, he might have more failures than successes. Personally, I rate Jaques Kallis as the greatest batsman around currently, with Laxman challenging him. Tendulkar is third in his era, second on his team.

[Aussie-r-best]

SRT's greatness lies in his longevity, that and the quintessential nature of his batting. That does not mean he is the absolute greatest or the greatest apart from the Don. His batting average is only marginally higher than his contemporaries. But what is most telling is his 2nd innings (and 4th innings) averages which are no better than his contemporaries. I'm not comparing him to Chris Martin or Courtney Walsh here, but to other top order batsman of his era. At the end of the day a player's greatness must be measured in his averages (taken into context of course) and his ability in the clutch. Michael Jordan is the "Bradman" of basketball, not because he was a statistical anomaly. Actually, there are only a couple of guys ever who have career averages as high as him, as opposed to SRT who doesn't even have the highest average in his era. But it was because MJ won games single handedly in a team sport. No one remembers the last time he missed a game winner, or disappeared in the 4th quarter of a big (or small) game. With SRT, he might have more failures than successes. Personally, I rate Jaques Kallis as the greatest batsman around currently, with Laxman challenging him. Tendulkar is third in his era, second on his team.

Hey interesting point of view... probably some merit in whatyou have said here

[Kriterion]

Nah. What we need to do is start a MJ v Tendulkar thread' date=' dig out the stats and analyze their contributions towards their respective sports. I am afraid that just like Bradman, MJ may have to eat crow. MJ poor fellow represented a little town called Chicago, which is smaller than Mumbai, which of course is even smaller than all of India. By that yardstick, MJ (little village idiot wearing nike shoes) should be compared with a Ranji trophy player, not someone as exalted as Tendulkar. Maybe Wasim Jaffer would be a more appropriate counterpart to MJ. However if you still insist in comparing the two- go to you tube and compare MJ highlights with SRT highlights. Now while making that comparison, please note that MJ's videos are state of the art. If you extrapolate the quality of MJ's videos to for example, SRT's Sharjah videos, you will gain a true understanding of how great SRT is...[/quote'] that was golden, dude! :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Kriterion]

Hey interesting point of view... probably some merit in whatyou have said here

Well the point is that there are different measures of greatness. Bossbhai makes random good points, although fellows like Outsider, and this new leg fellow make better points. One potential way to settle this debate once and for all is for people to come up with a complete list of all criteria, agree to weigh the criteria accordingly, and then do the study. Otherwise you will only have "SRT is the best cuz he has 99 tons" or "No one else has 15k test runs" vs the folks who say "he was owned by great pace bowling" or "he was mediocre in the 4th innings". All time greats should all be held to the same standard, but that standard needs to be decided upon BEFORE the numbers are crunched. Otherwise you just run into bias. I can easily decide to crunch the stats of all of Tendulkar's international ducks to make the claim that he's not even as good as Chris Martin. See bias affects outcome of the study.

[Crookbond]

BTW ever wonder why the Bradman fanatics stay very clear from the video footage

Video footage as in some magical software which compares the two batsmen and outputs who's the best? Even if one looks at the video footage you would get different perspectives. Video footage wasn't well developed at the time Bradman played.

gotta love these blanket statements .... shall we ACTUALLY SEE why Keith Miller is the greatest instead of regurgitating what the old foggies want you to ? How about some video footage ? . Ohh and you can leave the million column inches of Eulogy and Embellishment back home.

Why can't you accept the fact that for some people Bradman is great and for some people it may be Sachin Tendulkar? The old foggies are giants of the game & have seen 4 generations of cricket LIVE rather than video footage so I guess their statements deserve some respect. Also, before calling them old foggies just remember that few years down the line you are going to be one of the old foggies and there's going to be some young kid on the block trying to prove why X is greater than Tendulkar & Bradman.

[youngindia]

What is so "useless" about the way of calculating averages ? I did not " calculate " them. Can you not figure out that average is when he is facing a team that has atleast one of those 6 great bowlers. ..

sample size. basic stats error. your work won't be apssed by a fourthgrade teacher. even reliable Data can only be used as reference and has to be intrepreted correctly. you ahve to udnerstand the game. FIRST AND FOREMOST. neither have you provided data with acceptable quality(step 1 is a fail in the basics).

What this statistic shows that he struggled big time against great fast bowlers

that is your biased and dubious intrepretation .i saw all those games and i find/recall no such evidence. name the struggle please. for example cullinan clearly struggled to read warne and suffered against them. what was the struggle that SRT had against mcgrath and donald for example? these things does not need stats at all. it can be done by observing the game. the reason sachin's average reduces to 36 is ebcause two of those games were played on minefields in delhi and mumbai and he played the 2004 series underdone. because of a small sample size, those numbers unduly affects the overall picture.in statistics as taught in school, you ahve to get sample size and distribution right. that's the reason this particular stat is useless and failure in step 1.