Jump to content

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

Guest BossBhai

By Guest BossBhai
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
For someone who can average only 38 in 47 tests when atleast one of the great fast bowlers is in the opposition. He is easily surpassed by atleast 6-7 test batters in the history of the game of cricket in terms of greatness. .
What does those numbers prove exactly? At least one of the great fast bowlers being present means what exactly? Does it mean that the average was caused because of that bowler? Nope. It means that with the bowler and other 3-4 bowlers present, Sachin scored so many runs at so much average People think that just because they filtered by a bowler, the average shown for Sachin is only against that bowler. Wrong. The average is against all 4-5 bowlers playing the match. Thats common sense Example, Sachin averages really low against Wasim and Waqar. Does that mean they owned him? Nope. They could get his wicket only once each in tests. Most of the time Sachin got out trying to hit the likes of Saqlain and qadir. So in short, in 10 matches involving bowler X, a batsman might get run out, he might get hit-wicket, out to a lesser bowler, but your way of calculating averages gives credit to bowler X each time. Common sense?
[He is arguably the greatest accumlator of centuries and runs' date= it is common sense, you play more than anyone else by far, you are going to score more. What no one talks about is that 18 of his 99 international tons are against sides like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Bangladesh,,,etc. No one has played so much agaisnt these sides, who are weaker than most domestic sides in India..
You were born so late it seems you have forgotten that Zimbabwe of the 90s were on par with New Zealand and west Indies of today. They had some true greats like Streak, Andy Flower. An average of nearly 57 over 2 decades is common sense for you? Which other batsman in the history has been able to sustain such a high average over so many matches? Ponting, Dravid and even the swash-buckling Richards are prime examples of how averages fall over time and with more matches. There is reason why no one else could play this long. They were not good enough. The world thinks he is great not because he scored all those runs, but, because he scored those runs at that average. Afridi is the third time highest wicket taker in ODIs but no one things he is great, do they? That you could not grasp this small factor shows you are the one lacking common sense BTW if you had practise what you preached, (used common sense) you would have known that 99-18 is still a huge, huge number
Correct me if I am wrong' date=' but apart from Shane Warne, is there a single [b']GREAT bowler that SRT has dominated. Nada.
What exactly do you mean by dominate? Hit sixes or score runs? If its the former, Dravid and Laxman must be really average bats who never dominate while Sehwag is all-ready an ATG for dominating almost all Finally, no matter how much the likes of you rant and whine, its a fact that Sachin is, was and always will be rated by all cricket experts, critics, past and present player as argubaly only second to Bradman. Internet warriors are not going to prove anyone wrong and that, my friend, is common sense
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted

Going by SRT's meagre average of 37 ( in a huge 47 tests ) in his era when faced against atleast on great fast bowler, I shudder to think how he might have fared in the 80's - with Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, Andy Roberts..and the likes with unlimited bouncers and no helmets Considering the number of times SRT has been hit in the head are and faced with atleast one of those great fast bowlers above, SRT would surely average much lower than 37 that he averages now. Sunny averaged around 47 !!! Viv around 45 !!! Is it any wonder that not a single knock of SRT and his 100's figures in the top knocks played ever ? Is it any wonder that when one looks at the ICC rankings graph - SRT has been No.1 for only 3-4 years in his 22 years of international cricket. When one looks at the career ICC rankings graph of great players in his own era - he is overrun and Lara and Ponting. In yester years, Sunny, Viv, Sobers, Bradman..etc one can see a single straight line depicting the ranking over 15-20 years of career And for all the above players the area under the ranking graph is clearly greater than SRT. ( where the higher the area beneath the line denoting the rankings, the greater the dominance in that era ) All ATG cricketers ( bowlers included in his era and otherwise ) have phenomenal ranking graphs . All apart from him. Atleast Muralitharan was honest enough to admit that even though he has by far the greatest numbers wickets/match, 5's 10's etc...he is not the greatest by far. it is not about having larger numbers. And this is coming from a cricketer whose value to his team was far more than SRT. Just FYI if 5WI and 10WM are bowlers equivalents of 100's and 200's respectively, Murali's dominance among bowlers dwarfs SRT's among batters by a massive margin if you see the next best.

Link to comment
CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
Going by SRT's meagre average of 37 ( in a huge 47 tests ) in his era when faced against atleast on great fast bowler, I shudder to think how he might have fared in the 80's - with Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, Andy Roberts..and the likes with unlimited bouncers and no helmets Considering the number of times SRT has been hit in the head are and faced with atleast one of those great fast bowlers above, SRT would surely average much lower than 37 that he averages now. Sunny averaged around 47 !!! Viv around 45 !!! Is it any wonder that not a single knock of SRT and his 100's figures in the top knocks played ever ? Is it any wonder that when one looks at the ICC rankings graph - SRT has been No.1 for only 3-4 years in his 22 years of international cricket. When one looks at the career ICC rankings graph of great players in his own era - he is overrun and Lara and Ponting. In yester years, Sunny, Viv, Sobers, Bradman..etc one can see a single straight line depicting the ranking over 15-20 years of career And for all the above players the area under the ranking graph is clearly greater than SRT. ( where the higher the area beneath the line denoting the rankings, the greater the dominance in that era ) All ATG cricketers ( bowlers included in his era and otherwise ) have phenomenal ranking graphs . All apart from him. Atleast Muralitharan was honest enough to admit that even though he has by far the greatest numbers wickets/match, 5's 10's etc...he is not the greatest by far. it is not about having larger numbers. And this is coming from a cricketer whose value to his team was far more than SRT. Just FYI if 5WI and 10WM are bowlers equivalents of 100's and 200's respectively, Murali's dominance among bowlers dwarfs SRT's among batters by a massive margin if you see the next best.
Stop ranting and answer above point. your way of calculating average is useless
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted

My two cents, please talk in a decent manner as I am, else do not engage. 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. So average of 36 against Australia means, that whenever India plays Australia in tests and Mcgrath is playing for Australia he averages 36 ! And same for others... What this statistic shows that he struggled big time against great fast bowlers..

Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted

OK, did this again for the following: vs Aus: McGrath+Warne vs Pak: Waqar+Wasim vs SA: Donald+Pollock vs SL: Murali+Vaas vs WI: Ambrose+Walsh 

	M	I	No	R	Avg
BCLara	36	68	3	3370	51.85
sWaugh	42	66	7	2745	46.53
Inzama	33	56	3	2365	44.62
Anwar	20	33	0	1402	42.48
Sachin	29	49	1	2020	42.08
mWaugh	39	63	2	2408	39.48
Flower	24	44	7	1396	37.73
Dravid	33	58	4	2034	37.67

Notes: * Dravid had just started out when he played Pak. * Flower didn't play much against teams like Aus * Inzi has done very well against SL and WI but poorly against Aus and SA * Sachin, who has a record 304 innings so far, has only played 49 innings against these combinations * Lara has the most number of innings (68), followed by the Waughs Considering playing when the best combinations from each of the 5 sides, who are rated for their attack, are in the opposition, Lara triumphs (3370 runs from 65 completed innings @ 52, which to an extent is like being in a league of his own)

Link to comment
Raghav_12 Newbie

Raghav_12

Posted
Posted
OK, did this again for the following: vs Aus: McGrath+Warne vs Pak: Waqar+Wasim vs SA: Donald+Pollock vs SL: Murali+Vaas vs WI: Ambrose+Walsh 
	M	I	No	R	Avg
BCLara	36	68	3	3370	51.85
sWaugh	42	66	7	2745	46.53
Inzama	33	56	3	2365	44.62
Anwar	20	33	0	1402	42.48
Sachin	29	49	1	2020	42.08
mWaugh	39	63	2	2408	39.48
Flower	24	44	7	1396	37.73
Dravid	33	58	4	2034	37.67

Notes: * Dravid had just started out when he played Pak. * Flower didn't play much against teams like Aus * Inzi has done very well against SL and WI but poorly against Aus and SA * Sachin, who has a record 304 innings so far, has only played 49 innings against these combinations * Lara has the most number of innings (68), followed by the Waughs Considering playing when the best combinations from each of the 5 sides, who are rated for their attack, are in the opposition, Lara triumphs (3370 runs from 65 completed innings @ 52, which to an extent is like being in a league of his own)

And Sachin was a verteran of 100 tests when he played 4 tests against Wasim +Waqar as a minor in 1989!! Anyways, won't indulge much in this debate when a very interesting test is going on and same stats is posted 10 times. Only definition of great bowler seem to have boiled down to if they have done good against Sachin.
Link to comment
Raghav_12 Newbie

Raghav_12

Posted
Posted
My two cents, if you are still struggling with that , below is the link: Let the excuses flow in.
How intelligent of you to leave Walsh or Warne out of your this list. By any chance did you know that Sachin scores @60 when any of these two in oppositions. Try better permutations and combinations next time.. What about including Steyn as well @56?
Link to comment
pensionplan Newbie

pensionplan

Posted
Posted
How intelligent of you to leave Walsh or Warne out of your this list. By any chance did you know that Sachin scores @60 when any of these two in oppositions. Try better permutations and combinations next time..
Hey what ever others try they can never hold a candle to the fudging of stats like some of the Tendulkar fanboys do. Since when is Warne a great fast bowler when the analysis clearly said "against great fast bowlers". And by the way why should people include the criteria that suits what you like?
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
And Sachin was a verteran of 100 tests when he played 4 tests against Wasim +Waqar as a minor in 1989!! Anyways, won't indulge much in this debate when a very interesting test is going on and same stats is posted 10 times. Only definition of great bowler seem to have boiled down to if they have done good against Sachin.
He played most of his test against Wasim and waqar later on :winky: Kindly keep your mumble jumble out
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...