Steve Waugh underlines the Bradman syndrome of Aussies again
Don speaks the truth
etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
Don
Sachin Tendulkar can come only second, after legendary Don Bradman in
the list of all-time great cricketers, according to former Australia
captain Steve Waugh.
"Don Bradman is the greatest, there is no debate. Don is the number
one and then come the rest. And among the rest, Tendulkar probably is
as good as anyone. So legitimately he may be the second best cricketer
to have played the game," Waugh said.
"But then people will say the same for Gary Sobers and WG Wells too.
So its difficult to say," added Waugh, who is here as a member of the
Laureus Sports Academy.
Waugh also said it is dangerous that Test cricket doesn't have quality
fast bowlers anymore as they are preferring the 20-over format over
the game's five-day version.
"It is dangerous for Test cricket that we are losing the quicks. It is
a Twenty20 influence. Fast bowlers definitely have a lot of stress and
doing this is very demanding.
"I think they realise that they have few years of cricket in them.
They get three times more money by bowling one-tenth overs in T20. So
we had (Andrew) Flintoff, Brett (Lee) and (Shane) Bond deciding not to
play Test which is a shame," he said.
Two-time World Cup winning captain Waugh said India and Australia will
start the favourites in the ODI World Cup next year, which will be
held in Indian sub-continent.
"Australia have very good record. India is also very hard to beat in
India. So they will be the favourites.
"Then there is also New Zealand. I think, there are probably five
teams capable of winning the World Cup but India and Australia will be
the favourites," he said.
Asked whether Mahendra Singh Dhoni's men were capable of retaining
their number one Test team tag for long, Waugh said, "I don't think
anyone will hold the number one ranking (for long) because we have
three formats of the game.
"With niggling injuries and so many tours, it is very difficult to be
consistent. May be they can hold on to Test ranking but it is very
difficult to dominate all the formats of the game."
Waugh also has apprehension about the Decision Referral System and
thinks still there is place for improvement.
"I'm at times very confused about it. I was initially against it but
later I read about it and saw decisions going right but for the last
12 months some of the decisions didn't seem right, which showed the
technology is not completely full-proof yet," he said.
"The technology have to be better than what it is now or may be it
could go back to the umpires. They could ask for 2-3 referrals rather
than the players.
"But then some will argue that we don't have enough good umpires to
ask for a referral all times. So we have to get the umpires to the
standard of Simon Taufel, who is very confident," Waugh said.
Another incident which has grabbed the attention of Waugh is the rise
of Afghanistan who has qualified for this year's Twenty20 World Cup to
be held in the West Indies.
"It is a great sporting story. It is a potential movie. It is a fairy
tale, the story of the year. Players learning cricket in the refugee
camps and doing so well. I think with the T20 World Cup coming up,
this will be one of the future stories of the event," he said.
Jayen
wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/top-stories/Bradman...
>
<snip>
>
> "Don Bradman is the greatest, there is no debate. Don is the number
> one and then come the rest. And among the rest, Tendulkar probably is
> as good as anyone. So legitimately he may be the second best cricketer
> to have played the game," Waugh said.
>
> "But then people will say the same for Gary Sobers and WG Wells too.
> So its difficult to say," added Waugh, who is here as a member of the
> Laureus Sports Academy.
>
Is WG Wells the secret love-child of HG Wells and WG Grace?
Regards,
Jayen
dechucka
"Don speaks the truth" <don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c39a628-a384-4130...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Feel sorry and pity for the likes of Waugh, Chappal brothers
> etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
> faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
> follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
> greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
> non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
Until someone better comes along
snip
Dave -Turner
career Test batting average of 99.94 has been claimed to be statistically
the greatest achievement in any major sport" (Don Bradman: Challenging the
Myth. Cambridge University Press)
jzfredricks
Well said!
Mango
"Don speaks the truth" <don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c39a628-a384-4130...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Feel sorry and pity for the likes of Waugh, Chappal brothers
> etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
> faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
> follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
> greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
> non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
Probably when someone comes close to matching his record. Tendulkar hasn't
quite matched Viv Richards yet, I can't see how he can beat Bradman.
>
> Don
Don speaks the truth
Here we go again. For the zillionth time,
Statistics does not tell the entire story. If you count pressure of
media dissection, rigorous cricket calendar, expectations of 1 billion
people,
interefernce of ODI style over Test batting, playing against more
number of teams on a variety of grounds and then take Sachin's 30,000
runs and 93 centuries, he easily scores over Bradman. But you Aussies
will never accept
his numero uno status because he will then have eclipsed one of your
own.
And that is the whole point behind Waugh's lament.
Don
Don speaks the truth
> "Don speaks the truth" <don200...@rediffmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5c39a628-a384-4130...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Feel sorry and pity for the likes of Waugh, Chappal brothers
> > etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
> > faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
> > follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
> > greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
> > non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
>
>
> snip
Typo corrected.
Don
Don speaks the truth
> "Don speaks the truth" <don200...@rediffmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5c39a628-a384-4130...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see an improvement. At least, you guys have removed Mr.Punter from
the picture altogether. You can do better than that with time.
Don
Dave -Turner
he is the greatest?
I'm basing my argument on facts/statistics - you're basing yours on emotion.
Dave -Turner
Don speaks the truth
Is that so? Who is Aussie? Yes, Bradman. Who is Aussie again? Yes,
Dave Turner. So who is riding on emotions?
What are the statistics of Bradman in ODIs? Yes, he has a grand
average of ZERO :-)
Don
Don speaks the truth
> no need for jealousy, simply put the runs on the board.
yes, put the runs on the board. put bradman's ODI runs on the board
please.
put bradman's centuries in ODIs on board. now keep it aside and start
counting the total number of centuries of sachin. then minus it from
bradman's no. of centuries. please tell me the total if u can count
well.
another excercise would be to count number of teams when bradman was
playing, count the number of grounds he has played in. count the
population of australia who expected him to do well in every match.
count the number of days cricket was played in a year. count the
number of newspapers and news channels covering bradman then. count
the number of years bradman played active cricket. but of course, all
this when you can do the simple exercise i gave you in the first para
above which will warm up your brain.
Don
jzfredricks
> playing, count the number of grounds he has played in. count the
> population of australia who expected him to do well in every match.
> count the number of days cricket was played in a year. count the
> number of newspapers and news channels covering bradman then. count
> the number of years bradman played active cricket. but of course, all
> this when you can do the simple exercise i gave you in the first para
> above which will warm up your brain.
Careful Don, I'm not sure if you realise it but you're making SRT out
to be a bit of a limp pussy.
Unlike Bradman, ofc, who almost died to appendicitis. I think SRT
would keep his "was forced by evil media overlords to play at more
grounds" stat.
Unknown
<don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
There is no comparison, either or both ways.
I think Bradman would do better today than Sachin would have done in
the 30/40s. My conclusion is not based on skill or ability. Both
batsmen are equally able. It's the system and the format, the fees,
the opposition, and the "was", "is" and "best" words that cause the
difficulties. The stats of the two batsmen can never be comparitive.
Bootnote:
If you have seen Don Bradman play, then you are unlikely to have ever
seen Sachin play, and if you have seen both play, then you will almost
certainly be unable to make a comaparison owing to the obsticles
created by longevity of lifespan.
Magazine comic nerds disagree about who's best superman or batman?
jzfredricks
Good analogy.
I say Superman.
Don will say Batman.
As usual, Don will be wrong.
dechucka
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbdbaea7-fd6d-4c92...@w9g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Hey we all know that Bradman was the best Bat(s)man
Dave -Turner
> Yes, he has a grand average of ZERO :-)
So you've now reverted to using statistics against Bradman in
matches/leagues he didn't play. Please mate ... sit down before you fall
down.
Archisman Mozumder
the field and amassed runs in both forms of the game, dominating
bowlers to a great extent, for a significant part of his career.
However, Sir Donal George Bradman is just in a difeerent league
altogether. He is definitely the greatest batsman and captain of all
time, by a distance.
He scored runs that almost always made a difference to his team's
fortunes. Things like scoring two double tons & a large century in 3
successive tests to win a series 3-2 after being down 0-2 as a
debutant captain is part of unmatched folklore. Or his crucial century
in the 2nd innings of the Oval test in 1948.
His career overlapped with quite a few all time greats. Hobbs,
Hammond, Hutton followed by wonderful players Sutcliffe, Ponsford,
Headley, Compton, Harvey, Paynter, Barnes, Mcabe, Merchant etc
To have a test average that is a good 40 runs ahead of any other
batsman, past, contemporary & future, is mind boggling & should be
proof enough.
Regards,
Archisman.
Dave -Turner
play against each other ....... :)))
That would be about as good as it could possibly get :)))
There are a LOT of different ways that you can compare batsmen - so many
formulas, each with their own merits and flaws.
My personal opinion is that Bradman is clearly #1 by a long mile (he's
basically the only cricketer they compare against stats of other sports),
and Sachin is clearly #2, again by a long mile.
jzfredricks
> basically the only cricketer they compare against stats of other sports),
> and Sachin is clearly #2, again by a long mile.
I take a similar position to this, but with a proviso;
based on the volume of cricket played, there are 4 categories of
batsman;
Best FC bastman
Best Test bastman
Best ODI bastman
Best Overall bastman
I'd enjoy some (healthy) debate on the best FC, especially as by
definition it would include Bradman's Test stats.
To me;
SRT is in the top handful Test-wise (ranking somewhere between 2 and
5, inclusive)
SRT is #1 ODI, b a country mile.
Whilst he's not #1 in Tests, his superior ODI ranking makes me happy
to rate him as #2 Overall.
Don speaks the truth
I thought it was my Doberman.
Don
Don speaks the truth
And what if Sachin had played in the 30s/40s? Same old mediocre
English team, same old grounds home and away.....
>
> Bootnote:
> If you have seen Don Bradman play, then you are unlikely to have ever
> seen Sachin play, and if you have seen both play, then you will almost
> certainly be unable to make a comaparison owing to the obsticles
> created by longevity of lifespan.
Right. Tell that to Steve Waugh who thinks Bradman is a better player
without even seeing him play. He has seen Sachin play though. Any
evidence is better than no evidence, milord!
Don
>
> Magazine comic nerds disagree about who's best superman or batman?
>
> max.it- Hide quoted text -
Don speaks the truth
Similar to your assertion that Bradman is better using narrow
statistics of just Tests. Inconclusive evidence, milord.
Don
jzfredricks
> statistics of just Tests. Inconclusive evidence, milord.
JUST Tests? lol
Feel free to include 29k FC runs @ 97, too.
Don speaks the truth
Who gives a FK about FC runs. Your helplessness in asserting Bradman
as #1 is truly entertaining.
Don
Geico Caveman
<don2...@rediffmail.com> said:
> Feel sorry and pity for the likes of Waugh, Chappal brothers
> etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
> faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
> follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
> greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
> non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
>
> Don
Aussies probably idolize Bradman as much as many Indians idolize
Tendulkar. A bit of it is national pride. The other bit is statistics.
Bradman played against far fewer opponents, in only one form of the
game, with a lot of rest between games, on surfaces which were not too
different (compared to Test cricket since the 90s), not against so many
all-time great bowlers (Ambrose, Walsh, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Donald,
Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Muralitharan, or even raw out and out pacers
like Akhtar, Lee, Bond, and Tait) and did not have a billion fans
putting pressure on him.
But all said and done, his average is 99.94. Tendulkar's is sub-60.
No matter how good a player playing today may be, he cannot ever hope
to come close to that number over an extended period of time.
If Tendulkar had played in Bradman's era, I think he might have managed
99.94 or better. While Bradman playing from 1988 to today, would have
been a shockingly good player, I doubt his average would have topped
even 60, let alone 99.94.
There are multiple reasons why this debate will appear that way to
Aussies (and a lot of other people in the world, including Indians) for
all time to come. They are not being obstinate. They are just
succumbing to the compelling story of a national hero that came from
nothing, and the number 99.94.
jzfredricks
> been a shockingly good player, I doubt his average would have topped
> even 60, let alone 99.94.
And his peers? What would they have averaged? 35?
Mad Hamish
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>SRT is #1 ODI, b a country mile.
why is he clearly ahead of Viv or Hussey?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
jzfredricks
> >SRT is #1 ODI, b a country mile.
>
> why is he clearly ahead of Viv or Hussey?
SRT has played one LESS innings than the #2 all-time run scorer,
Jayasuriya. In that "one less innings", SRT has scored 4170 MORE
runs.
He's the only man ever to hit 200 in an ODI.
He's hit the most runs in a single WC.
He's scored the most centuries and 50s.
Hussey's average is amazing, even still, but it's inflated by his % of
not outs, just like Bevan. Both middle order batsmen.
Viv is my #2, and my brain freezes when I try to rate Hussey.
Mad Hamish
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >SRT is #1 ODI, b a country mile.
>>
>> why is he clearly ahead of Viv or Hussey?
>
>SRT has played one LESS innings than the #2 all-time run scorer,
>Jayasuriya. In that "one less innings", SRT has scored 4170 MORE
>runs.
Which is a reason to rate him ahead of Jayasuriya.
Note that Sachin and Jayasuriya have had different jobs, Sanath takes
a lot more risks early in his innings attempting to really do damage
in the first 10 overs.
Sachin not so much.
>He's the only man ever to hit 200 in an ODI.
yeah, but so what?
If you don't bat in the top 3 you've got buckley's chance and he's had
441 innings to try and do it
#2 on the list is Coventry with 194*
>He's hit the most runs in a single WC.
yep 673 runs in 11 innings
152 vs Namibia, 5 & 83 versus Kenya, 52 vs Netherlands,
18 vs Zimbabwe,
50 vs England
98 vs Pakistan
97 vs Sri Lanka
15 vs New Zealand
36 & 4 vs Australia
averaged 45 vs the test playing nations
Hayden managed 659 runs in 10 innings at a better average striking
over 100 in 06/07 with 3 100s all against test playing countries RSA,
Windies, NZ
>He's scored the most centuries and 50s.
He's played 441 innings and has opening the innings in most of them
that gives him a huge chance of making scores (42 of 46 100s have come
opening, 72 of 93 innings opening)
Jayasuriya is the only other player who's played more than 350
innings.
Tendulkar averages 9.37 innings per 100 and 3.10 innings per 50
opening most of the time he's got a lot more chances to make 100s and
50s
>Hussey's average is amazing, even still, but it's inflated by his % of
>not outs, just like Bevan. Both middle order batsmen.
Tendulkar averages 40.81 runs per innings, Hussey averages 35.96 runs
per innings.
Hussey comes in later and there are less balls to face in the innings
than Tendulkar has so he has to take more risks early and has less
chance of making big scores
btw Viv averages 40.24 runs per innings
Viv averages higher and scored his runs faster than Sachin.
>
>Viv is my #2, and my brain freezes when I try to rate Hussey.
Don speaks the truth
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:21:58 -0800 (PST), jzfredricks
>
81 against Zimbabwe...but the way Indians rose from the ashes in that
world cup..he led that effort...and 98 against Pakistan in a pressure
filled atmosphere...adds double value (aka a test hundred in
ashes)....and btw Kenya were one of the well performing teams of that
world cup...
So Mr. Hamish you indeed are mad. In your effort to make Bradman look
better, you insulted a living legend. Idiot.
Don
Don speaks the truth
Bradman would have been easily sorted out in this era where technique
of a batsman is shared via emails, bowlers bowling almost beamer-like
bouncers on the body...one bodyline series and he was exposed.
Don
Nirvanam
>
Oh dear! Hamish, now do you want me to do an ODI comparison to prove
it to you once and for all that Sachin is THE BEST BATSMAN EVER in
ODIs?
How about this? I CHALLENGE you to throw up one player who can give
Sachin a run for his money on being the best ever ODI batsman? Let's
pick the criteria...fair set of criteria...and let's do it. Its my
challenge to you. In fact, I'll raise the stakes for you...if the
analysis shows Sachin is not number 1 (I am not even saying Sachin is
not better than Viv, I am saying Sachin is not number 1....big claim
that) I'll stop posting on rsc...sounds juicy?
O by the way, as I progress thru my Test Batsman analysis, it is
becoming increasingly clear to me why Sachin is a virtuoso...even Lara
hasn't kept up to Sachin's numbers...and the pretender has been put in
his place along with the rest.
Andrew B.
wrote:
Yes, he only averaged 56 - what kind of loser has an average like that?
Andrew B.
Well, Richards had a higher batting average and strike rate, despite
the overall averages and strike rates being lower in matches he played
in than matches Tendulkar has played in.
jzfredricks
> Sachin a run for his money on being the best ever ODI batsman? Let's
> pick the criteria...fair set of criteria...and let's do it. Its my
> challenge to you. In fact, I'll raise the stakes for you...if the
> analysis shows Sachin is not number 1 (I am not even saying Sachin is
> not better than Viv, I am saying Sachin is not number 1....big claim
> that) I'll stop posting on rsc...sounds juicy?
How's this sound for fair criteria?
1) must have played 100+ innings, to give a true indication of ability
2) there is no reward for playing more innings than anyone else (who
qualifies)
3) must have held the Highest ODI Score ever record for more than 5
years*
Then order them on;
a) Average
b) SR
c) Highest Score
* the 5 years part is a joke
jzfredricks
have a counter to them.
I would hope that some/all people reading your post would side with
you. Fair minded people, that is.
I, personally, think their stats are close enough that SRT's volume of
innings/runs takes him ahead of Viv.
BTW, I've made no mention of entertainment value. We know who clearly
wins that.
Perhaps my "by a country mile" comment was a bit too flippant.
Jellore
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:21:58 -0800 (PST), jzfredricks
>
Now I know why you are called Mad. I wonder what Viv and Sanath would
have to say re ST?
Nirvanam
har har har...and those are your two criteria? career average and
career strike rate? You'll find that Dhoni is better than Richards on
those 2 alone...so Dhoni is better than Richards as an ODI batsman?
Come on mate, let's make it a fair exercise...we'll do it
proper...maybe we could do it the way we are doing the Test Batsmen
thing. We could take this project after I am done with the Test stuff
Andrew B.
Dhoni's strike rate is marginally lower than Richards's, despite
playing in an era with higher strike rates.
But I wasn't actually being serious.
*Nobody* who's played 50+ matches has a higher strike rate and average
than Richards.
Nirvanam
I am not sure about criterion c, if it is something that should
differentiate...maybe we could have a criteria which looks at the big
scores (150+) made...how many, how often. Also consistency (home-away,
1-2 innings, etc), reliability (difference between best patch and
worst patch), opposition should also be considered. Oh and FpI, CpI
too.
FWIW, if u look at the numbers of Viv and Sachin (his last 159 innings
v/s Viv's 167...this was the last 9 yrs of Sachin's career)...
Avg: Sachin - 47.51 and Viv - 47, SR: Sachin - 85.88 and Viv - 90.21,
Centuries: Sachin - 15, and Viv - 11
If I take last 10 yrs for Sachin it is 199 innings at 48.78, 86.01 and
22!
If we consider from 01 Mar 1994 which is when Sachin was "born" as an
ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!
Guys we are talking about a virtuoso here...the best batsman humanity
has known in ODI's. I think the clamor for Viv's superiority has the
"back in those days" syndrome written all over it.
The Master has played close to 3 times more innings than Viv did and
yet averages so damn high...there is not a single player who has
played 300 innings and averages 45...not a single batsman. There are
only 2 batsmen who have played 300 innings and have managed to average
greater than 40...Ponting - 336 @ 43.12, 80.71 and 29 and the other
one is Dada - 300 @ 41.02, 73.7 and 22.....these guys don't compare to
the Master...they are so far off on SR and centuries!
We have been privileged to watch this guy from the age of 16 till now
and yet see the same standard of performance...the King Viv did not
even average 40 in the last 6 yrs of his career which also happen to
be practically half of his total number of innings - 82. The people
who watched Don bat...a similar privilege is what we share with
Sachin.
As I started analyzing the numbers in Tests I thought my chest-beating
of Sachin would get nipped in the butt, but boy am I finding so many
more reasons to adore this guy or what...we are witnessing a true
fucking virtuoso.
Nirvanam
Wait for a couple more years by which time Sachin would've removed his
pads from ODI's and then look at his numbers...he may not go over 90
on SR but 47 Avg does not look too far.
Dude, you are falling for the "back in my time" cockshit. A guy who
averages so high over 431 innings is extremely extremely special...a
guy who averages close to 50 in the last 4 yrs of his career is
extraordinary.
fwiw, 47 and 45.12 don't seem to be much of a practical
differentiator...they are statistically different, yes, and that is
really the only way you can cling on to the oppose-Sachin viewpoint.
This guy has been willed into such huge success and accomplishment by
a collective consciousness that I wont be surprised if he goes beyond
47 in the next 2 yrs....he has already improved his career average by
a run in less than a year. Hold on to the King as tightly as possible
coz pretty soon you will lose even that last piece of string. Sachin
is the Buddha of ODI batting not just a mere king or emperor...the
Buddha
higgs
You challenged people to find a metric where Richards was better that
TAV.
The metric most people use is either average or SR, two areas where
Richards eclipses Tendulkar.
Of course, if you want to go down your usual road of looking for
obscure stats to boost TAV's rankings, go for your life.
Let's hear them.
Just a hint, 2nd innings centuries probably aren't going to work for
odos........
Anyway, when are you going to stop posting to rsc?
Higgs
higgs
How about adding World Cup winners medals?
I think the ability to perform under pressure is an attribute that is
virtually immeasurable.
Viv had a certain swagger and self confidence that TAV has never had.
In pressure situations Viv inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
as a choker
Higgs
Nirvanam
O come on Higgs, I didnt say A metric...I said a set of fair criteria.
And I would expect you to use a comprehensive set of criteria which
covers most aspects, it may be impossible to cover all, but most will
do. So stop being pedantic and come to the table with some criteria.
Now, using those 2 criteria alone Viv is not the best...he is beaten
by Dhoni...so Dhoni becomes the best ever? Even in those 2 criteria,
even a 12 yr old kid would know that an average of 45 over 431 innings
with 41 not outs is better than an average of 47 in 167 innings with
24 not outs.
Higgsy, sometimes it is better to take a step back and evaluate with a
larger perspective than jump at such silly opportunities to get one
back at another poster. If you really have the conviction to challenge
Sachin's status as the best ever ODI batsman let's make it fair
game...comprehensive set of criteria. I'll hope to see a proper
comprehensive set of criteria in your next post
higgs
wrote:
> On Mar 11, 6:32 pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > If a player can't be proven the greatest statistically then how can you say
> > he is the greatest?
>
> > I'm basing my argument on facts/statistics - you're basing yours on emotion.
>
> Is that so? Who is Aussie? Yes, Bradman. Who is Aussie again? Yes,
> Dave Turner. So who is riding on emotions?
>
> What are the statistics of Bradman in ODIs? Yes, he has a grand
> average of ZERO :-)
>
Having never been dismissed in odos, I'd suggest his average is
actually infinite
Higgs
jzfredricks
What was unfair about my criteria?
Nirvanam
> > I said a set of fair criteria.
>
> What was unfair about my criteria?
I think you misinterpret the context in which I make that
statement...higgs said a metric so I pointed out it was not one thing
but more than one. Nothing unfair in your criteria but just those
items are not enough to tell us who the best ODI batsman is. If they
were enough then Virat Kohli and Dhoni would be better than Sachin and
Viv.
Don speaks the truth
There are two ways of looking at it. But you chose to look at it the
wrong way :-)
Don
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly. These Aussies will never accept Sachin as the best because of
all the torture he has given them over the last 2 decades. :-)
Don
Don speaks the truth
> On Mar 14, 10:16 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > How about this? I CHALLENGE you to throw up one player who can give
> > > Sachin a run for his money on being the best ever ODI batsman? Let's
> > > pick the criteria...fair set of criteria...and let's do it. Its my
> > > challenge to you. In fact, I'll raise the stakes for you...if the
> > > analysis shows Sachin is not number 1 (I am not even saying Sachin is
> > > not better than Viv, I am saying Sachin is not number 1....big claim
> > > that) I'll stop posting on rsc...sounds juicy?
>
> > How's this sound for fair criteria?
>
> > 1) must have played 100+ innings, to give a true indication of ability
> > 2) there is no reward for playing more innings than anyone else (who
> > qualifies)
> > 3) must have held the Highest ODI Score ever record for more than 5
> > years*
>
> > Then order them on;
>
> > a) Average
> > b) SR
> > c) Highest Score
>
> > * the 5 years part is a joke
>
> How about adding World Cup winners medals?
Yes, using that metric, Rameez Raja is better than Sachin Tendulkar.
Higgs, you are more foolish than i ever thought you were. How old are
you? This kind of foolishness usually starts beyond the age of 50.
>
> I think the ability to perform under pressure is an attribute that is
> virtually immeasurable.
> Viv had a certain swagger and self confidence that TAV has never had.
Being part of a winning team definitely makes it easier. Sachin has
the same confidence and assurance nowadays which made him average 78
in Tests and 60 in ODIs in 2009/10 season.
> In pressure situations Viv inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
> as a choker
4th inning chase of 387 against England. Forgot that so soon? CB
series final in Australia chasing 250 plus and made a century. Of
course, many of these are in recent years coz of my theory that being
part of a regularly winning team helps you a lot to become stronger
mentally. If Viv were part of the English team in the 80s or 90s or
Ponting were part of the Indian team of the 90s and early 2000s, would
like to know how much lesser the batsman they would have become. The
best example of this is Lara who was crap in ODIs and more so towards
the latter half of the 90s and 2000s when the Windies team started
becoming a total crap team.
Don [98 against Pak(against Akram and Shoaib) in world cup 2003 is the
best innings Sachin has ever played under pressure IMO...but don't
expect assholes like Higgs to understand this in the context of Ind-
Pak rivalry]
>
> Higgs- Hide quoted text -
Mad Hamish
>
>Now I know why you are called Mad. I wonder what Viv and Sanath would
>have to say re ST?
How about you produce a reasoned argument instead of a blind statement
of faith?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't want to become Mad Don by arguing with Mad Hamish.
Don
dechucka
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef25fd1-e6f8-4e63...@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> I said a set of fair criteria.
>
> What was unfair about my criteria?
They didn't show that Tendukler was the best?
higgs
OK, several points you raise require demolishing.
Dhoni is not a better odo player than Richards. IMO. You discount
Hussey & Bevan's averages by dint of their having an excessive number
of not outs. Dhoni has a similar number of not outs (37 to Husseys
38).
if you're going to be taken seriously, I suggest that you apply a
semblance of consistency.
Further, please post facts, rather than falsehoods.
Dhoni does not have a higher SR than Richards. His SR is 89, Viv's is
90.
Given that SRs have risen considerably in the modern game (say last 10
years), I reckon that Viv's is so far ahead of Dhoni's that comparison
is redundant.
Further, where is there any evidence that people reckon that an
average of 45 over 439 inns is superior to 47 over 167?
I'd suggest that the only people stupid enough to make such a claim
would either be 12 year old kids or one-eyed Indians.
> Higgsy, sometimes it is better to take a step back and evaluate with a
> larger perspective than jump at such silly opportunities to get one
> back at another poster. If you really have the conviction to challenge
> Sachin's status as the best ever ODI batsman let's make it fair
> game...comprehensive set of criteria. I'll hope to see a proper
> comprehensive set of criteria in your next post
I gave you my criteria, SR and average.
You don't like these criteria because Viv comes out comfortably ahead
of TAV.
let's look at your criteria:
Best aggregate in a single WC
Highest ever odo score
"If we consider from 01 Mar 1994 which is when Sachin was "born" as
an
ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!"
(ie cherry pick TAV's stats and exclude that part of his career where
he wasn't so good).
You ask me for some criteria excluding career SR & average.
OK.
How about WC medals won?
How about a reasonable snapshot of a career? Say 5000 runs (this will
exclude those players who play just above 20 matches, hence qualifying
for inclusion in most stats databases, and have an 'unrealistic' SR or
ave).
So, fastest to 5000 career odo runs.
And, seeing as we're talking specifically about two players with long
careers (and cherry picking stats) how about we compare the SR &
averages from the 1st 10 years of their careers? And maybe the last 10
years of their careers?
Higgs
Geico Caveman
>> While Bradman playing from 1988 to today, would have
>> been a shockingly good player, I doubt his average would have topped
>> even 60, let alone 99.94.
>
> And his peers? What would they have averaged? 35?
India's bowling attack has been among the weakest among the big Test
playing nations, since the spin quartet's heady days. And with the
possible exception of Pakistan, our fielding unit is the weakest in the
world.
That means that any non-Indian batsman starts with a built-in advantage
in stats.
His peers would probably been around 40-60 (speaking of the big ones of
his time). As someone else mentioned, with video analysis, weaknesses
that went unchallenged for years are usually sorted out in the course
of a series or two these days.
The last 2-3 decades have been a far more testing time for batsmen than
is usually realized. Its just that in the last 5 years or so, great
bowlers have become more scarce, and pitches have become far more
heavily weighted in favour of batsmen.
Nirvanam
>
> Dhoni is not a better odo player than Richards. IMO. You discount
> Hussey & Bevan's averages by dint of their having an excessive number
> of not outs. Dhoni has a similar number of not outs (37 to Husseys
> 38).
Hey, hey, hey grandpa you better not make a fool of yourself every
fucking time. Higgs dear I never said Dhoni was better...I only
pointed to the 2 metrics which make even Dhoni and Virat Kohli seem
better.
> Further, where is there any evidence that people reckon that an
> average of 45 over 439 inns is superior to 47 over 167?
har har har har har...Higgs I am sorry I even responded to you.
> You don't like these criteria because Viv comes out comfortably ahead
> of TAV.
tch tch tch...did I not mention that the same 2 criteria make Dhoni
and Kohli ahead of Viv? What do you think I was trying to communicate
when I posted that...try figuring out? can you? are you able to
comprehend? ok, now tell me what did you understand by that
>
> let's look at your criteria:
They are NOT my criteria
> Best aggregate in a single WC
>
> Highest ever odo score
>
> "If we consider from 01 Mar 1994 which is when Sachin was "born" as
> an
> ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!"
> (ie cherry pick TAV's stats and exclude that part of his career where
> he wasn't so good).
>
> You ask me for some criteria excluding career SR & average.
> OK.
I asked you for a fair and comprehensive set of criteria...I didnt ask
you to exclude SR and average...I said make it comprehensive. Try
again
> How about WC medals won? Nope...this is a team criteria...remember we are evaluating batsmen based on their ability...you cannot credit the victory or debit the loss of a team to the batsman.
> How about a reasonable snapshot of a career? Say 5000 runs (this will
> exclude those players who play just above 20 matches, hence qualifying
> for inclusion in most stats databases, and have an 'unrealistic' SR or
> ave).
What is the objective? Are you trying to figure out who are the best
ever or do you want to compare Sachin and Viv only? And why not
consider the whole career itself because it is only if you take the
whole career that you may find Viv is that little ahead of Sachin. If
you start taking snapshots of their careers, any 5000-run snapshot I
take of Sachin after 1 Mar 1994 will put Viv back in the pecking
order. You check it out yourself. You only have the career thing that
is positive for your oppose-Sachin argument mate...possibly by the
time he retires you may lose out on that also.
> So, fastest to 5000 career odo runs.
How about fastest to 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
7000....17000? Fastest to 5000 is evaluating just a patch not the
whole batsman...are you trying to evaluate the peak or the entire land
mass of the players? If it is only the peak then I say we take the
batsman's particular highest average over a set of 100 innings (or any
other number you suggest)? I think this would be a better way to look
at the peak
> And, seeing as we're talking specifically about two players with long
> careers (and cherry picking stats) how about we compare the SR &
> averages from the 1st 10 years of their careers? And maybe the last 10
> years of their careers?
Please do so and let us know what they look like...you'll probably
realize why Sachin is better
In any case, look at the criteria we drew up for the Test
batsman...they are comprehensive enough and have gone thru lotsa
reviews and inputs from the gang here...how about using those criteria
for the ODI thing also?
O and on this point of yours..."> In pressure situations Viv
inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
> as a choker" - I really want to see some data from you to back up this opinion...please Higgs get the data out...while you gather the data, you will realize why your opinion has no basis in actual data rather stems from an oppose-Sachin frame of mind.
Unknown
<don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 5:01=A0am, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:06:27 -0800 (PST), Don speaks the truth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <don200...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 11, 6:33=3DA0pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >> no need for jealousy, simply put the runs on the board.
>>
>> >yes, put the runs on the board. put bradman's ODI runs on the board
>> >please.
>> >put bradman's centuries in ODIs on board. now keep it aside and start
>> >counting the total number of centuries of sachin. then minus it from
>> >bradman's no. of centuries. please tell me the total if u can count
>> >well.
>>
>> >another excercise would be to count number of teams when bradman was
>> >playing, count the number of grounds he has played in. count the
>> >population of australia who expected him to do well in every match.
>> >count the number of days cricket was played in a year. count the
>> >number of newspapers and news channels covering bradman then. count
>> >the number of years bradman played active cricket. but of course, all
>> >this when you can do the simple exercise i gave you in the first para
>> >above which will warm up your brain.
>>
>> >Don
>>
>> There is no comparison, either or both ways.
>> I think Bradman would do better today than Sachin would have done in
>> the 30/40s. My conclusion is not based on skill or ability. Both
>> batsmen are equally able. It's the system and the format, the fees,
>> the opposition, and the "was", "is" and "best" words that cause the
>> difficulties. The stats of the two batsmen can never be comparitive.
>
>And what if Sachin had played in the 30s/40s? Same old mediocre
>English team, same old grounds home and away.....
I mean if each was to go back or forward in time from their peak.
One series only. Sachin would have only his cricket sense and natural
ability to use, whereas Don would have the advantage of all the
support and quackery that is part of modern cricket. Though I wouldn't
be suprised if it turned out like some kind of role reversal thing.
- The Twighlight Zone.
>>
>> Bootnote:
>> If you have seen Don Bradman play, then you are unlikely to have ever
>> seen Sachin play, and if you have seen both play, then you will almost
>> certainly be unable to make a comaparison owing to the obsticles
>> created by longevity of lifespan.
>
>Right. Tell that to Steve Waugh who thinks Bradman is a better player
>without even seeing him play. He has seen Sachin play though. Any
>evidence is better than no evidence, milord!
Must have been a slow news day
>
>
>Don
>
>
>>
>> Magazine comic nerds disagree about who's best superman or batman?
>>
>> max.it- Hide quoted text -
jzfredricks
> > average of 45 over 439 inns is superior to 47 over 167?
>
> har har har har har...Higgs I am sorry I even responded to you.
You should. Not only is it a valid question, one day you'll realise
it's the foundation of your faith.
jzfredricks
> his time). As someone else mentioned, with video analysis, weaknesses
> that went unchallenged for years are usually sorted out in the course
> of a series or two these days.
So the ONLY person who would be effected by today's wonderful ability
to research players would be Bradman. His average would drop by about
45%, whereas his peers' averages (if playing today) would drop by 0%.
Very balanced view point there.
Geico Caveman
Hardly.
When Bradman's weakness was found (through bodyline), the tactic was
rightly jeered and has mostly not been used since. His average did drop
precipitously during that period. Here is something that addresses your
concern rather graphically (notice the difference in declines between
Bradman and the rest of Aussie batsmen):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bodyline.png
That disposes of your quibble about uneven declines.
So, given the highly personally specific nature of video analysis, who
is to say something more ethical would not have been found to
specifically derail Bradman, especially in the era of 1988-present of
relatively great bowlers ?
jzfredricks
~60, and his peers' averages would stay the same, ie ~40-60?
Geico Caveman
> Please clarify; do you think Bradman's average would drop from ~100 to
> ~60, and his peers' averages would stay the same, ie ~40-60?
Take a look at that graphic I linked in my previous post. Yes, it is
possible. Bodyline is an example of precisely such an event.
jzfredricks
wrote:
> On 2010-03-15 16:12:58 -0700, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Please clarify; do you think Bradman's average would drop from ~100 to
> > ~60, and his peers' averages would stay the same, ie ~40-60?
>
> Take a look at that graphic I linked in my previous post. Yes, it is
> possible. Bodyline is an example of precisely such an event.
Bodyline is cited as an example of where special tactics brought down
Bradman's average.
Bodyline is cited as an example of where special tactics brought down
"everyone else's" averages (albeit not as much, which also deserves
some discussion).
and then
Today's special tactics would also bring down Bradman's average from
~100 to ~60.
Today's special tactics would NOT, however, bring down "everyone
else's" averages.
That makes no sense to me.
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:272bd105-3762-4ce6...@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
You accuse the poster of a "back in my time" approach, then base your
argument on what might happen in the future. Priceless.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54fcc3c5-996e-45a5...@x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The main objective is to show why it is pointless having a discussion about
Tendulkar with you. Although as this was proven beyond doubt some time ago,
it could be argued that the case need not be restated.
<snip>
Andrew
Don speaks the truth
> On 13 Mar, 14:20, Don speaks the truth <don200...@rediffmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 12:21 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > While Bradman playing from 1988 to today, would have
> > > > been a shockingly good player, I doubt his average would have topped
> > > > even 60, let alone 99.94.
>
> > > And his peers? What would they have averaged? 35?
>
> > of a batsman is shared via emails, bowlers bowling almost beamer-like
> > bouncers on the body...one bodyline series and he was exposed.
>
> Yes, he only averaged 56 - what kind of loser has an average like that?
See the difference. He averaged 56 versus his career average of 99.
Shows that Bradman's avg. would have been in the 50s only if he had
played in today's era where fast bowling is similar (in aggression) to
the Bodyline series.
Also, one whole point being missed is the spin factor. How much would
Bradman have been able to cope with the spinners of India and Sri
Lanka if he had played in today's era especially in the subcontinent.
I am sure Bhajji/Murali/Krumble would have sorted him out completely.
Best example is Ponting who has a big average otherwise but a pathetic
avg. in the subcontinent.
Don
higgs
> > OK, several points you raise require demolishing.
>
> > Dhoni is not a better odo player than Richards. IMO. You discount
> > Hussey & Bevan's averages by dint of their having an excessive number
> > of not outs. Dhoni has a similar number of not outs (37 to Husseys
> > 38).
>
> Hey, hey, hey grandpa you better not make a fool of yourself every
> fucking time. Higgs dear I never said Dhoni was better...I only
> pointed to the 2 metrics which make even Dhoni and Virat Kohli seem
> better.
>
You said:
"har har har...and those are your two criteria? career average and
career strike rate? You'll find that Dhoni is better than Richards on
those 2 alone...so Dhoni is better than Richards as an ODI batsman?"
On those two criteria, Dhoni is NOT better than Richards.
Please stop posting this untrue notion that Dhoni has a better SR than
Richards.
> > Further, where is there any evidence that people reckon that an
> > average of 45 over 439 inns is superior to 47 over 167?
>
> har har har har har...Higgs I am sorry I even responded to you.
>
Indeed.
You tend to shy away from facts and either present false ones to
support your view, or you post your own opinion and present it as a
fact.
Now, you've been asked by both myself and JZ. I'll ask again. What
evidence do you have that everyone believes that an average of 45 over
400 odd games is better than an average of 47 over 167?
> > You don't like these criteria because Viv comes out comfortably ahead
> > of TAV.
>
> tch tch tch...did I not mention that the same 2 criteria make Dhoni
> and Kohli ahead of Viv? What do you think I was trying to communicate
> when I posted that...try figuring out? can you? are you able to
> comprehend? ok, now tell me what did you understand by that
>
>
You said that on the career average and SR, Dhoni and Kohli are better
than Richards.
Dhoni has a better average than Richards, but his stats are inflated
by a large % of not outs. You dismissed the averages of Hussey & Bevan
(who have higher averages than Dhoni) on account of their not outs.
I'm asking you to be consistent.
Dhoni has a lower ST than Richards.
Kohli has a lower SR than Richards, though he does have a higher ave.
He's had 20 inns. I'd suggest that is way too small a sample for any
reasonable comparison.
>
> > let's look at your criteria:
>
> They are NOT my criteria
>
OK, they are someone else's and you've appropriated them.
> > Best aggregate in a single WC
>
Richards has a higher WC average
> > Highest ever odo score
>
> > "If we consider from 01 Mar 1994 which is when Sachin was "born" as
> > an
> > ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!"
> > (ie cherry pick TAV's stats and exclude that part of his career where
> > he wasn't so good).
>
Um, this is your criteria, it's a direct quote.
> > You ask me for some criteria excluding career SR & average.
> > OK.
>
> I asked you for a fair and comprehensive set of criteria...I didnt ask
> you to exclude SR and average...I said make it comprehensive. Try
> again
>
I made it comprehensive (at least much more comprehensive than yours).
You don't like my criteria because most of them show Viv to be a far
better odo batsman.
> > How about WC medals won? Nope...this is a team criteria...remember we are evaluating batsmen based on their ability...you cannot credit the victory or debit the loss of a team to the batsman.
Two WC medals seems a reasonable measure of success to me.
And given that TAV has spent most of his career playing alongside
several ATG batsmen and having bowlers in his side who would eat
Bradman for breakfast, one has to wonder why there has been such a
lack of WC success.
> > How about a reasonable snapshot of a career? Say 5000 runs (this will
> > exclude those players who play just above 20 matches, hence qualifying
> > for inclusion in most stats databases, and have an 'unrealistic' SR or
> > ave).
>
> What is the objective? Are you trying to figure out who are the best
> ever or do you want to compare Sachin and Viv only? And why not
> consider the whole career itself because it is only if you take the
> whole career that you may find Viv is that little ahead of Sachin. If
> you start taking snapshots of their careers, any 5000-run snapshot I
> take of Sachin after 1 Mar 1994 will put Viv back in the pecking
> order. You check it out yourself. You only have the career thing that
> is positive for your oppose-Sachin argument mate...possibly by the
> time he retires you may lose out on that also.
>
Well, you want to cherry pick stats by choosing TAV post 1994.
Obviously we can't do that for Richards as he had retired by then, so
I wanted to take a neat period where we could compare both batsmen
(and other batsmen), and first 5000 runs seemed like a large enough
sample.
Richards is comfortably all-time fastest to 5000 runs.
TAV is 11th on the list.
You can speculate all you like about what TAV might do, but that's all
it is.
Speculation.
> > So, fastest to 5000 career odo runs.
>
> How about fastest to 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
> 7000....
Sure, happy to do so
You do realise that Richards is top every time (save 2000, where he
ties with Zaheer)?
17000? Fastest to 5000 is evaluating just a patch not the
> whole batsman...are you trying to evaluate the peak or the entire land
> mass of the players? If it is only the peak then I say we take the
> batsman's particular highest average over a set of 100 innings (or any
> other number you suggest)? I think this would be a better way to look
> at the peak
>
Ok, so you want to evaluate the whole career of any batsman, except
for TAV, who only gets evaluated on his post 1994 stats.
You did this with the Test averages too, suggesting that we exclude
2003-5 as TAV had a niggling injury.
I maintain that if we are to compare players, we need to make fair
comparisons. If we cherry pick TAVs stats, we cherry pick them for
everyone else too.
> > And, seeing as we're talking specifically about two players with long
> > careers (and cherry picking stats) how about we compare the SR &
> > averages from the 1st 10 years of their careers? And maybe the last 10
> > years of their careers?
>
> Please do so and let us know what they look like...you'll probably
> realize why Sachin is better
>
You wet yourself over TAV having an average of 47.47 and an SR of 87
in one period of his career.
In his 1st 10 years, Viv had an average of 55 and an SR of 89.
In TAVs 1st 10years, he had an average of 42 and an SR of 86.
So I'd put Viv ahead by a country mile.
> In any case, look at the criteria we drew up for the Test
> batsman...they are comprehensive enough and have gone thru lotsa
> reviews and inputs from the gang here...how about using those criteria
> for the ODI thing also?
>
Well, it seems that you have gone quiet on the Test thing. What are
those criteria (and also what were your results)?
> O and on this point of yours..."> In pressure situations Viv
> inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
>
> > as a choker" - I really want to see some data from you to back up this opinion...please Higgs get the data out...while you gather the data, you will realize why your opinion has no basis in actual data rather stems from an oppose-Sachin frame of mind.
Here's a guy who has been around for ever, played in teams containing
the cream of the worlds batting and bowling talent and won bugger all.
Either his team mates aren't as good as you make them out to be, or he
isn't.
Or both.
I strongly suspect the latter.
Higgs
Andrew B.
wrote:
> See the difference. He averaged 56 versus his career average of 99.
> Shows that Bradman's avg. would have been in the 50s only if he had
> played in today's era where fast bowling is similar (in aggression) to
> the Bodyline series.
<snigger> Yes, Tendulkar, Lara et al have faced over after over of non-
stop bouncers aimed at the face, with a cordon of leg-side fielders
ready to catch the hook or edge.
> Also, one whole point being missed is the spin factor.
Because, of course, no-one had thought of spinning the ball back in
the 1930s.
Do you think that, excluding the bodyline series, all bowlers between
the wars were medium paced trundlers?
> How much would
> Bradman have been able to cope with the spinners of India and Sri
> Lanka if he had played in today's era especially in the subcontinent.
> I am sure Bhajji/Murali/Krumble would have sorted him out completely.
> Best example is Ponting who has a big average otherwise but a pathetic
> avg. in the subcontinent.
Well, that's a convincing argument.
How much would Tendulkar have been able to cope on the wickets of WG
Grace's era. I am sure Lillywhite/Shaw/Southerton would have sorted
him out completely.
Are you convinced by this ludicrous hypothetical? No? Do you see why
no-one's convinced by yours?
Neha
Hey, if you think bradman whould have been worked out by the bowler
via videos today, then WHY DON'T you think the other way around, ie,
bradman whould have sorted out bowlers too. Just like sachin sorted
mendis.. Sounds fair isn't it?
Neha (according to a recent survey, indians think Dravid is a better
test batsman than sachin! Waah! Sachin isn't even the best indian test
batsman. Forget about being equal to Bradman. Hail Dravid!)
Nirvanam
Let me understand this...are you saying that an "average runs scored
between dismissals" of 47 over 167 instances is better than an
"average runs scored between dismissals" of 45.12 over 431 instances?
Statistically, numerically they are different numbers so one has to be
higher/better than the other. But for practical purposes does it mean
Viv is actually better? Seriously, is that how you would look at
practical decisions in other areas of life?
Nirvanam
> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't base my argument on what might happen in the future. My
argument was based on what happened in the past and in Sachin's case,
the present. Now if only you can differentiate between what is being
argued and what statements are mere addenda
Nirvanam
> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OK
Nirvanam
>
> "har har har...and those are your two criteria? career average and
> career strike rate? You'll find that Dhoni is better than Richards on
> those 2 alone...so Dhoni is better than Richards as an ODI batsman?"
>
> On those two criteria, Dhoni is NOT better than Richards.
>
> Please stop posting this untrue notion that Dhoni has a better SR than
> Richards.
O come on Higgs, Avg - Dhoni is 53.xx and Viv 47, SR Dhoni is 89.7x
and Viv is 90.2....now how on Earth can u actually conclude that Dhoni
is not better than Viv given those 2 criteria? Don't you see the
difference in advantages...on 1 metric Dhoni has an advantage of more
than 10% over Viv and on the other metric Viv has an advantage of not
even 0.6% over Dhoni....where the hell is the comparison, Higgs? Can
you not perform such simple comparative studies and figure out which
of the two are better?
> Now, you've been asked by both myself and JZ. I'll ask again. What
> evidence do you have that everyone believes that an average of 45 over
> 400 odd games is better than an average of 47 over 167?
again...har har har har and nope I have no "evidence" for this...do u
have any evidence that the opposite is believed by everyone? Will u
even answer the question?
> You said that on the career average and SR, Dhoni and Kohli are better
> than Richards.
> Dhoni has a better average than Richards, but his stats are inflated
> by a large % of not outs. You dismissed the averages of Hussey & Bevan
> (who have higher averages than Dhoni) on account of their not outs.
> I'm asking you to be consistent.
> Dhoni has a lower ST than Richards.
> Kohli has a lower SR than Richards, though he does have a higher ave.
> He's had 20 inns. I'd suggest that is way too small a sample for any
> reasonable comparison.
tch tch tch...my dear Higgs if u think Dhoni's stats are inflated by
high number of not outs then figure this out... 167 innings and 24 not
outs for an average of 47...compare with 431 and 41 not outs for an
average of 45.12...don't u think Viv's numbers are inflated because of
his not outs when compared to Sachin?
> OK, they are someone else's and you've appropriated them.
No I have not...can you direct me to a post where I have?
> > > ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!"
> > > (ie cherry pick TAV's stats and exclude that part of his career where
> > > he wasn't so good).
>
> Um, this is your criteria, it's a direct quote.
woo hoo...was that a criterion or was it just content in a post???
> I made it comprehensive (at least much more comprehensive than yours).
> You don't like my criteria because most of them show Viv to be a far
> better odo batsman.
Where have I even presented my criteria? I have onbly said that let's
use the same criteria we are usiong for the Test Batsman thing...now
are Average and SR more comprehensive than those 7 criteria?
> Two WC medals seems a reasonable measure of success to me.
Whether u play 1 world cup or 10 world cups it doesn't
matter...victory and defeat in a team game doe not depend upon just
one person and hence it is not right to either credit or debit a
player for the team's collective success or failure. Yes individuals
INFLUENCE but are not 100% responsible...so figure out some way of
studying the influence independent of result of game
> And given that TAV has spent most of his career playing alongside
> several ATG batsmen and having bowlers in his side who would eat
> Bradman for breakfast, one has to wonder why there has been such a
> lack of WC success.
O did he? You hate me for continuing to argue that Sachin is the best
odi batsman ever and is a virtuoso batsman, don't you Higgs?
> > > How about a reasonable snapshot of a career? Say 5000 runs (this will
> > > exclude those players who play just above 20 matches, hence qualifying
> > > for inclusion in most stats databases, and have an 'unrealistic' SR or
> > > ave).
>
> > What is the objective? Are you trying to figure out who are the best
> > ever or do you want to compare Sachin and Viv only? And why not
> > consider the whole career itself because it is only if you take the
> > whole career that you may find Viv is that little ahead of Sachin. If
> > you start taking snapshots of their careers, any 5000-run snapshot I
> > take of Sachin after 1 Mar 1994 will put Viv back in the pecking
> > order. You check it out yourself. You only have the career thing that
> > is positive for your oppose-Sachin argument mate...possibly by the
> > time he retires you may lose out on that also.
>
> Well, you want to cherry pick stats by choosing TAV post 1994.
> Obviously we can't do that for Richards as he had retired by then, so
> I wanted to take a neat period where we could compare both batsmen
> (and other batsmen), and first 5000 runs seemed like a large enough
> sample.
> Richards is comfortably all-time fastest to 5000 runs.
> TAV is 11th on the list.
Higgs, you arer seriously either a paranoid chap or are experiencing
diminishing ability to comprehend things properly...where the fuck
have I asked you to consider Viv's stats after 1994? Can you read
those posts all over again and figure out whether I was presenting
criteria or just numbers and can you at least try to understand the
context in which a poster posts something?
> You can speculate all you like about what TAV might do, but that's all
> it is.
> Speculation.
Fair.
> > > So, fastest to 5000 career odo runs.
>
> > How about fastest to 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
> > 7000....
>
> Sure, happy to do so
> You do realise that Richards is top every time (save 2000, where he
> ties with Zaheer)?
So present the numbers from 1000 to 17000
> 17000? Fastest to 5000 is evaluating just a patch not the
>
> > whole batsman...are you trying to evaluate the peak or the entire land
> > mass of the players? If it is only the peak then I say we take the
> > batsman's particular highest average over a set of 100 innings (or any
> > other number you suggest)? I think this would be a better way to look
> > at the peak
>
> Ok, so you want to evaluate the whole career of any batsman, except
> for TAV, who only gets evaluated on his post 1994 stats.
> You did this with the Test averages too, suggesting that we exclude
> 2003-5 as TAV had a niggling injury.
God. Higgs!
> I maintain that if we are to compare players, we need to make fair
> comparisons. If we cherry pick TAVs stats, we cherry pick them for
> everyone else too.
Bring the criteria...Average and SR are not comprehensive enough.
> You wet yourself over TAV having an average of 47.47 and an SR of 87
> in one period of his career.
>
> In his 1st 10 years, Viv had an average of 55 and an SR of 89.
>
> In TAVs 1st 10years, he had an average of 42 and an SR of 86.
>
> So I'd put Viv ahead by a country mile.
Alright, that is for the first 10 yrs...what about the next 10 yrs
Higgs? How about also finding out how they compare year after year...1
yr, 2 yrs, 3 yrs,.....16 yrs or how many years Viv played? Do it,
please.
> Well, it seems that you have gone quiet on the Test thing. What are
> those criteria (and also what were your results)?
The criteria can be found in a recent thread...
http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/2570124f81839a33#
As for the status of the Test batsmen thing....I said I'll finish
everything by around May...anyway if u read the above thread there are
a couple more items analyzed over there to add to the bowlers rating,
etc which were done before and shared
> > O and on this point of yours..."> In pressure situations Viv
> > inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
>
> > > as a choker" - I really want to see some data from you to back up this opinion...please Higgs get the data out...while you gather the data, you will realize why your opinion has no basis in actual data rather stems from an oppose-Sachin frame of mind.
>
> Here's a guy who has been around for ever, played in teams containing
> the cream of the worlds batting and bowling talent and won bugger all.
> Either his team mates aren't as good as you make them out to be, or he
> isn't.
> Or both.
>
> I strongly suspect the latter.
>
> Higgs
No no, pls dont run away like that...present the data...do it Higgs
let's see what the data tells us...dont run away, do it.
Nirvanam
Lol! which survey was this, Neha? can we see any links or anything
about this survey and when it was conducted, by whom, how many
responders, etc, etc
jzfredricks
> stop bouncers aimed at the face, with a cordon of leg-side fielders
> ready to catch the hook or edge.
Helmetless face, at that, too.
jzfredricks
> between dismissals" of 47 over 167 instances is better than an
> "average runs scored between dismissals" of 45.12 over 431 instances?
> Statistically, numerically they are different numbers so one has to be
> higher/better than the other. But for practical purposes does it mean
> Viv is actually better? Seriously, is that how you would look at
> practical decisions in other areas of life?
My position on SRT is quite clear, there's no need for me to restate
it.
I do believe, though, that at some stage a player plays enough games
that his statistics become a true enough representation of their
ability.
Kohli's 20 innings don't count.
Viv's 167 do.
OTOH, I think that 45.00 over 400 innings is better than 45.00 over
200 innings.
How much better? NFI.
You clearly rate longevity and volume more than others. I'm starting
to believe you actually rate it higher than any other metric.
jzfredricks
> and Viv is 90.2....now how on Earth can u actually conclude that Dhoni
> is not better than Viv given those 2 criteria?
I thought I read you saying Dhoni had a better SR. He doesn't. All
Higgg'sss' wants more "truth".
Geico Caveman
Except that the game is not fundamentally even between bowlers and batsmen.
A bowler makes a mistake, gets hit for a four - he can come back. All
that suffers is his economy and the strike rate.
A batsman makes a mistake, he is gone. Period.
Further, the bowler gets to "initiate" the exchange and hence has the
opportunity to set the terms to a certain extent about what will
follow. Great as he is, Tendulkar can't play any shot he likes to any
ball he wants. The kind of ball narrows the selection. Good bowlers
like McGrath etc. know how to restrict it to 1-2 possible shots, or in
the best case, none.
So, even if Bradman had studied the bowlers, they would still have the
edge on him theoretically.
As to Dravid, I used to think he was the best Indian Test batsman of
all time. However, over the past 3-4 years, he has relatively declined
a bit, so right now, he, SMG and SRT are the best we have ever had.
Of course, in ODIs SRT is far better than Dravid, even if the latter's
purple patch, and his willingness to keep wickets gave us the massive
performance boost in the middle of the last decade.
Nirvanam
When the difference in innings is 167 and 431 then yes I would prefer
longevity. But if it was between let's say Sachin and Ganguly or
Ponting or Jayasuriya who all have 300 or more innings then the
longevity thing is not such a huge thing. Look, you need to
differentiate between performances of 100-200 innings and 300-400
innings especially when the numbers are so close.
If Richards had 45.5 in 350 innings we could argue that he was better
but a difference of 1.88 runs BETWEEN DISMISSALS with close to 300
innings lesser is not better than 45.12. The metric of runs between
dismissals obviously favors people who have remained not out. I bet
you that Richards would have had at least 30% not outs where he scored
less than 40 runs and just remained not out which helped his average
climb...in fact I just checked it 8 out of 24 innings where he has
scored 40 or less and remained not out. Compare that to Sachin's 10
innings out of 41 where he has remained not out while scoring less
than 40...clearly Richards gains because of not outs.
Now if u do not consider not outs then Richards scores 40.24 runs per
innings, and Sachin scores 40.83....not a great difference that. The
difference lies only in the number of innings such a score was
maintained...Richards maintained it for 167 innings whereas Sachin
maintains it close to 3 times that of Richards...obviously it is
something special...no one has done that.
Here is another thing...Richards, out of 167 innings had he been good
thru out I mean even during the second half of his career then you
could still have an argument but he obviously didnt....from 1986
onwards till 94 the guy was pathetic for his own standards...he didn't
even average 40. Now when u compare that with Sachin who has in fact
averaged better in his second half and is clearly still the best there
is...can u not see why Sachin is not the best? I mean seriously, JZ,
arguing for the sake of arguing aside, but what case do you have for
Richards as the best ever? Dhoni is better than Richards on these 2
items combined. How can you say Richards is even better than Dhoni
forget about being number 1? (I know u havent said that and I know u
consider Sachin the best ODI batsman but since u are arguing let's go
with it). Dhoni has an average which is 4 runs better than Viv and has
a strike rate not even 0.5 runs per hundred balls lesser than
Viv...combine the two and who is better? Dhoni...quite obviously? If
Richards is better than Sachin based on these 2 criteria then Dhoni
thulps him down...Richards (90.2 * 47 = 4239) > Sachin by (86.26 *
45.12 = 3892) by 347.
Whereas Dhoni (51.13 * 89.86 = 4594) > Richards by 355
So what is tilting it in favor of Richards for you when clearly Dhoni
is better than Richards? What more Dhoni has 143 innings to Richards
167 innings...if you are going to argue that Richards has more innings
than Dhoni then you should do that 10 times more in Sachin's favor
because the difference between Sachin and Richards is 10 x Richards-
Dhoni diff. Why is Richards better than Dhoni?
Nirvanam
Nope I mentioned that Dhoni is clearly better than Richards on these 2
metrics...if you interpreted it as each of the 2 then my bad and your
bad but even if u interpreted it that way I give you enough respect to
expect you not to come out arguing that 90.2 and 89.86 are practically
different...in fact they are the same if you look at it as strictly
runs per 100 balls...you obviously cannot score runs in decimal points
right? Is me assuming that people will apply their wisdom to
understand the number within a practical context a wrong thing? JZ,
please lets not waste our time in such pedantic things...Higgs lives
for such pedantic arguments so please dont jump over to defend him and
go anti-me just for the heck of it.
Takeit Easy
news:2010031515523216807-spammersgohere@spaminvalid:
Are you (and others here) saying that Tendulkar would have been
successfull against bodyline (without the body protection)?
Are you saying for sure that if bodyline was continued against Bradman,
he would not have sorted out?
Amazing that this argument to belittle Bradman is made to point out his
lesser performance (ave 56) against physically dangerous bowling when
Tendulkar played in an era with ultra body protection with a lot of
restrictions in bowling (like one bouncer rule, etc). What will be
Tendulkar's average if suddenly a bunch of people conspired against
him(provided fake protection, bowlers bowled bodyline, umpires and some
officials agreed to overlook, etc)? Hypothetically.
Takeiteasy,
a tendulkar fan.
jzfredricks
> is better than Richards? What more Dhoni has 143 innings to Richards
> 167 innings...if you are going to argue that Richards has more innings
> than Dhoni then you should do that 10 times more in Sachin's favor
> because the difference between Sachin and Richards is 10 x Richards-
> Dhoni diff. Why is Richards better than Dhoni?
Dhoni's stats are excellent, no doubt about it. So are Bevan's. So are
Hussey's.
Who is the best between them and Viv and SRT? Not sure. I still think
SRT ranks #1.
We can argue "1.00 more SR is worth 0.5 average!!!" or "he has more
N.Os per innings", but I don't see that arguement ever ending.
Like Bradman, I think one of the best indicators of a player's skill
is to compare him with his peers.
The rest all have players around them of similar records (apart from
SRT's volume-related stats, which I don't want to underrate).
Bradman was not only peerless, but in all eras no one has come close
to his records.
R. Spanditt
wrote:
> Feel sorry and pity for the likes of Waugh, Chappal brothers
> etc...same old grouse against Sachin and keep getting egg on their
> faces time and again when Sachin sets a new landmark for others to
> follow. Why can't they just accept that a non Aussie can be the
> greatest of the game. For how long are they going to play the boring/
> non-melodious "Bradman is greatest ever" song????
retarded or something? bradman averaged a ton per innings you nonger.
higgs
> > You said:
>
> > "har har har...and those are your two criteria? career average and
> > career strike rate? You'll find that Dhoni is better than Richards on
> > those 2 alone...so Dhoni is better than Richards as an ODI batsman?"
>
> > On those two criteria, Dhoni is NOT better than Richards.
>
> > Please stop posting this untrue notion that Dhoni has a better SR than
> > Richards.
>
> O come on Higgs, Avg - Dhoni is 53.xx and Viv 47, SR Dhoni is 89.7x
> and Viv is 90.2....now how on Earth can u actually conclude that Dhoni
> is not better than Viv given those 2 criteria? Don't you see the
> difference in advantages...on 1 metric Dhoni has an advantage of more
> than 10% over Viv and on the other metric Viv has an advantage of not
> even 0.6% over Dhoni....where the hell is the comparison, Higgs? Can
> you not perform such simple comparative studies and figure out which
> of the two are better?
>
As I’ve said on numerous occasions now, if you discount Hussey and
Bevan due to excessive not outs, you have to be consistent. Dhoni has
a similar number of not outs to Hussey.
Further, as I’ve also stated several times now, stop posting the
notion that Dhoni has a higher SR than Viv.
He does not.
> > Now, you've been asked by both myself and JZ. I'll ask again. What
> > evidence do you have that everyone believes that an average of 45 over
> > 400 odd games is better than an average of 47 over 167?
>
> again...har har har har and nope I have no "evidence" for this...do u
> have any evidence that the opposite is believed by everyone? Will u
> even answer the question?
>
You were the one who made the initial statement about ‘everyone’
believing 45 in 430 odd was better than 47 in 167 (I believe you said
even 12 year olds know this).
I don’t think everyone believes this.
If you’re going to present it as a fact, provide some proof,
Try not to run away this time.
> > You said that on the career average and SR, Dhoni and Kohli are better
> > than Richards.
> > Dhoni has a better average than Richards, but his stats are inflated
> > by a large % of not outs. You dismissed the averages of Hussey & Bevan
> > (who have higher averages than Dhoni) on account of their not outs.
> > I'm asking you to be consistent.
> > Dhoni has a lower ST than Richards.
> > Kohli has a lower SR than Richards, though he does have a higher ave.
> > He's had 20 inns. I'd suggest that is way too small a sample for any
> > reasonable comparison.
>
> tch tch tch...my dear Higgs if u think Dhoni's stats are inflated by
> high number of not outs then figure this out... 167 innings and 24 not
> outs for an average of 47...compare with 431 and 41 not outs for an
> average of 45.12...don't u think Viv's numbers are inflated because of
> his not outs when compared to Sachin?
>
I wasn’t the one originally complaining about not outs, that was you.
Applying then selectively doesn’t wash with me
> > OK, they are someone else's and you've appropriated them.
>
> No I have not...can you direct me to a post where I have?
>
So what are your criteria?
> > > > ODI player, he has 366 innings @ 47.47, 87.81, and 46!!!!"
> > > > (ie cherry pick TAV's stats and exclude that part of his career where
> > > > he wasn't so good).
>
> > Um, this is your criteria, it's a direct quote.
>
> woo hoo...was that a criterion or was it just content in a post???
>
I dunno.
Your posts so far have mentioned the 200, the aggregate number of runs
and the post- 1994 stats.
Are they your criteria?
> > I made it comprehensive (at least much more comprehensive than yours).
> > You don't like my criteria because most of them show Viv to be a far
> > better odo batsman.
>
> Where have I even presented my criteria? I have onbly said that let's
> use the same criteria we are usiong for the Test Batsman thing...now
> are Average and SR more comprehensive than those 7 criteria?
>
So you insist that I present a comprehensive set of criteria, but
refuse to do so yourself?
I'm happy to use ave & SR.
> > Two WC medals seems a reasonable measure of success to me.
>
> Whether u play 1 world cup or 10 world cups it doesn't
> matter...victory and defeat in a team game doe not depend upon just
> one person and hence it is not right to either credit or debit a
> player for the team's collective success or failure. Yes individuals
> INFLUENCE but are not 100% responsible...so figure out some way of
> studying the influence independent of result of game
>
You asked me for my criteria, it’s your bad luck if you don’t like
them.
> > And given that TAV has spent most of his career playing alongside
> > several ATG batsmen and having bowlers in his side who would eat
> > Bradman for breakfast, one has to wonder why there has been such a
> > lack of WC success.
>
> O did he? You hate me for continuing to argue that Sachin is the best
> odi batsman ever and is a virtuoso batsman, don't you Higgs?
>
>
I don’t hate you, I just think you’re an idiot.
So why did you mention the post-1994 stats for TAV?
That looks to me like cherry picking. You’ll have to explain to me how
it isn’t.
And try not to run away this time.
> > You can speculate all you like about what TAV might do, but that's all
> > it is.
> > Speculation.
>
> Fair.
>
> > > > So, fastest to 5000 career odo runs.
>
> > > How about fastest to 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
> > > 7000....
>
> > Sure, happy to do so
> > You do realise that Richards is top every time (save 2000, where he
> > ties with Zaheer)?
>
> So present the numbers from 1000 to 17000
>
TAV only looks good when there is virtually no competition, ie no-one
else has reached 17k runs, therefore he is the fastest to it.
Plenty of people have scored 7000 runs, but no-one faster than Viv.
> > 17000? Fastest to 5000 is evaluating just a patch not the
>
> > > whole batsman...are you trying to evaluate the peak or the entire land
> > > mass of the players? If it is only the peak then I say we take the
> > > batsman's particular highest average over a set of 100 innings (or any
> > > other number you suggest)? I think this would be a better way to look
> > > at the peak
>
> > Ok, so you want to evaluate the whole career of any batsman, except
> > for TAV, who only gets evaluated on his post 1994 stats.
> > You did this with the Test averages too, suggesting that we exclude
> > 2003-5 as TAV had a niggling injury.
>
> God. Higgs!
>
If you want to evaluate the whole career, let’s look at ave and SR
over the whole career.
For both players
> > I maintain that if we are to compare players, we need to make fair
> > comparisons. If we cherry pick TAVs stats, we cherry pick them for
> > everyone else too.
>
> Bring the criteria...Average and SR are not comprehensive enough.
>
Actually, they are.
You want different criteria because TAV is well behind on those.
In fact you want criteria that show TAV as the best.
> > You wet yourself over TAV having an average of 47.47 and an SR of 87
> > in one period of his career.
>
> > In his 1st 10 years, Viv had an average of 55 and an SR of 89.
>
> > In TAVs 1st 10years, he had an average of 42 and an SR of 86.
>
> > So I'd put Viv ahead by a country mile.
>
> Alright, that is for the first 10 yrs...what about the next 10 yrs
> Higgs? How about also finding out how they compare year after year...1
> yr, 2 yrs, 3 yrs,.....16 yrs or how many years Viv played? Do it,
> please.
>
You said that if I looked at the first 10 years, I would realize why
TAV was far better than Viv.
Explain to me how you come to this conclusion.
And try not to run away this time
> > Well, it seems that you have gone quiet on the Test thing. What are
> > those criteria (and also what were your results)?
>
> The criteria can be found in a recent thread...http://groups.google.co.in/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thre...
>
> As for the status of the Test batsmen thing....I said I'll finish
> everything by around May...anyway if u read the above thread there are
> a couple more items analyzed over there to add to the bowlers rating,
> etc which were done before and shared
>
> > > O and on this point of yours..."> In pressure situations Viv
> > > inevitably performed, TAV has a reputation
>
> > > > as a choker" - I really want to see some data from you to back up this opinion...please Higgs get the data out...while you gather the data, you will realize why your opinion has no basis in actual data rather stems from an oppose-Sachin frame of mind.
>
> > Here's a guy who has been around for ever, played in teams containing
> > the cream of the worlds batting and bowling talent and won bugger all.
> > Either his team mates aren't as good as you make them out to be, or he
> > isn't.
> > Or both.
>
> > I strongly suspect the latter.
>
> > Higgs
>
> No no, pls dont run away like that...present the data...do it Higgs
> let's see what the data tells us...dont run away, do it.
Why this obsession with data (which you seem unable to interpret
anyway)?
TAV has never won a WC, let alone appeared in a final.
How many stats do you want me to provide to convince you of this?
Higgs
higgs
> On Mar 16, 5:29 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Here is another thing...Richards, out of 167 innings had he been good
> thru out I mean even during the second half of his career then you
> could still have an argument but he obviously didnt....from 1986
> onwards till 94 the guy was pathetic for his own standards...he didn't
> even average 40. Now when u compare that with Sachin who has in fact
> averaged better in his second half and is clearly still the best there
> is...can u not see why Sachin is not the best? I mean seriously, JZ,
> arguing for the sake of arguing aside, but what case do you have for
> Richards as the best ever? Dhoni is better than Richards on these 2
> items combined. How can you say Richards is even better than Dhoni
> forget about being number 1? (I know u havent said that and I know u
> consider Sachin the best ODI batsman but since u are arguing let's go
> with it). Dhoni has an average which is 4 runs better than Viv and has
> a strike rate not even 0.5 runs per hundred balls lesser than
> Viv...combine the two and who is better? Dhoni...quite obviously? If
> Richards is better than Sachin based on these 2 criteria then Dhoni
> thulps him down...Richards (90.2 * 47 = 4239) > Sachin by (86.26 *
> 45.12 = 3892) by 347.
> Whereas Dhoni (51.13 * 89.86 = 4594) > Richards by 355
>
If we're going to cherry pick stats, let's do it for all the players
involved:
You say that Richards was pathetic from 1986-94, yet in his last 10
years he averaged 45 at an SR of 91, which whilst you may class this
as pathetic, it's actually the same ave that TAV has over his entire
career.
Though at a higher SR than TAV is capable of (pre or post 94).
Richards also increased his SR in the latter part of his career.
Mind you, I'll grant that Richards wasn't always at this sort of
level, if you take the last 5 years of his career, he averaged 33, but
still at the healthy SR of 89. Something TAV has never managed.
I know you like to cherry pick TAVs stats for the latter part of his
career, but I thought it would be interesting to see if TAV was, as
you seem to suggest, good throughout his career. Given that you only
talk about his post 94 achievements, I thought I'd look at the 5 years
before (89-94).
TAV averaged 31 at the modest SR of 74.
I'd suggest that a record like that wouldn't get you a regular gig
with the Zimbos or the Bangles these days.
And this isn't insignificant. It's 25% of his 20 year career.
That is, for over a quarter of his career, TAV was little more than a
below average, run-of-the-mill odo hack.
> So what is tilting it in favor of Richards for you when clearly Dhoni
> is better than Richards? What more Dhoni has 143 innings to Richards
> 167 innings...if you are going to argue that Richards has more innings
> than Dhoni then you should do that 10 times more in Sachin's favor
> because the difference between Sachin and Richards is 10 x Richards-
> Dhoni diff. Why is Richards better than Dhoni?
Actually, Hussey shits on them both, unless you cherry pick his stats.
Over to you (and try not to run away this time)
Higgs
Don speaks the truth
Sorry to disappoint you, he got out to a duck in this last
inning..Bradman
would have no clue against the googlies and off breaks of today leave
alone the doosra.
Don
Don speaks the truth
> On 16 Mar, 05:50, Don speaks the truth <don200...@rediffmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > See the difference. He averaged 56 versus his career average of 99.
> > Shows that Bradman's avg. would have been in the 50s only if he had
> > played in today's era where fast bowling is similar (in aggression) to
> > the Bodyline series.
>
> <snigger> Yes, Tendulkar, Lara et al have faced over after over of non-
> stop bouncers aimed at the face, with a cordon of leg-side fielders
> ready to catch the hook or edge.
Over after over of non stop bouncers? then how did he average 56? did
he get
all this runs hooking those unlimited bouncers? lol.
Not sure about Lara but Tendulkar is one of the best judges of a
bouncer aimed
at his body. He would have bored Larwood by ducking to each of his
stupid bouncers
and then punish the odd one out on the off stump.
>
> > Also, one whole point being missed is the spin factor.
>
> Because, of course, no-one had thought of spinning the ball back in
> the 1930s.
> Do you think that, excluding the bodyline series, all bowlers between
> the wars were medium paced trundlers?
>
> > How much would
> > Bradman have been able to cope with the spinners of India and Sri
> > Lanka if he had played in today's era especially in the subcontinent.
> > I am sure Bhajji/Murali/Krumble would have sorted him out completely.
> > Best example is Ponting who has a big average otherwise but a pathetic
> > avg. in the subcontinent.
>
> Well, that's a convincing argument.
> How much would Tendulkar have been able to cope on the wickets of WG
> Grace's era. I am sure Lillywhite/Shaw/Southerton would have sorted
> him out completely.
Tendulkar is equally good against pace and spin. Thats why his avg. is
consistent
in all countries on all grounds. Jeez, did you fail to read the
essence of the arguement?
Lillywhite? Southerton? Sound like boring old ass british empire
bowlers. You need a brain
or two to know how Tendulkar has virtually dominated all the fast
bowlers he has ever
played against? So what makes you not think he would whack the shit
out of these
Brits too that you mentioned.
Don
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
There you go again showing your utter lack of knowledge of cricket.
Why don't
you just leave this group? First you dissed Sachin making him look
lesser than
Sehwag only to lick his thumbs when he hit the 200 the other day. Now
you do
the same vis a vis Dravid.
Fuck off troll!
Don
Rich
LOL, What an Idiot you are! Why are to Trying to Prove that you are
the BIGGEST idiot on Earth? Don't you have any self Respect?
Rich
Rich
> On Mar 16, 5:29 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why is Richards better than Dhoni?
Because He has Not played against Thommo, Lillee, Pascoe, Hogg,
Gilmour, Walker, Malone, Prior, Snow, Willis, Dilley, Botham, Imran,
Nawaz, Kapil, Hadlee, Procter Etc on Bowler Friendly Pitches. King
Richards THRASHED them! Damn, i so wish the Numbers on Cricinfo and
Other cricket websites get some sort of Virus and gets pissed off.
Cricinfo should have inserted some more Money and Should have Tried to
put Videos of past matches Instead of simple scorecard!
Rich!
Rich
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 6:32 pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > > If a player can't be proven the greatest statistically then how can you say
> > > he is the greatest?
>
> > > I'm basing my argument on facts/statistics - you're basing yours on emotion.
>
> > Is that so? Who is Aussie? Yes, Bradman. Who is Aussie again? Yes,
> > Dave Turner. So who is riding on emotions?
>
> > What are the statistics of Bradman in ODIs? Yes, he has a grand
> > average of ZERO :-)
was that sarcasm? if it was , then let me tell you brother, you are
Not Good at it. Seriously, i mean you can try other Humor too. you
"Might" be good at it. but sarcasm is not your cup of tea.
Sachin tendulkar has 6 Double centuries in 422 FC innings ; Bradman
has 37 in 338 innings
Sachin has ZERO Triple Centuries ; Bradman Has SIX triple centuries
Sachin has ZERO Scores of 250+ in 422 innings ; Bradman has
SIXTEEN(16) 250+ scores in 338 innings
Sachin has been consistent by scoring 22336 runs at 59.24 in 422
innings over 20 years; Bradman was consistent by Scoring 28067 at
95.14 in 338 innings over 20 years(Minus six war years)
Sachin haven't played a single test innings which was worthy enough to
be Included in the 100 Greatest test innings ever(Though, i think he
should have got 1) http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm
; Bradman has FIVE(Incluing the Numero UNO position)!
More Stats i include, the More Bradman wins. But Ofcourse, this all
was Nothing according you?
Rich!
Nirvanam
So then, why is Sachin # 1 ODI batsman? His stats are not as good as
Bevan, Dhoni, Hussey, Viv yet you rate him as # 1. Why would that be?
Nirvanam
> Bevan due to excessive not outs, you have to be consistent. Dhoni has
> a similar number of not outs to Hussey.
Then who brought the notion of the not outs thing in here? And if
someone else brought it, then was my response directed towards him or
towards you?
> Further, as I’ve also stated several times now, stop posting the
> notion that Dhoni has a higher SR than Viv.
>
> He does not.
I never said he is better than Viv on SR. I said Dhoini is better than
Viv on the 2 metrics Avg and SR. Which he is so stop being pedantic
and get on with it.
> You were the one who made the initial statement about ‘everyone’
> believing 45 in 430 odd was better than 47 in 167 (I believe you said
> even 12 year olds know this).
> I don’t think everyone believes this.
> If you’re going to present it as a fact, provide some proof,
> Try not to run away this time.
I do not have statistics to back up that but general knowledge and
common sense makes me believe so. Now do you have any statistics to
prove my belief is misplaced? You obviously don't. Stop being pedantic
Higgs...understand a bloody argument and use some common sense...when
someone is giving you the respect to be able to go beyond pedantic
stuff know that it is a good thing.
> I wasn’t the one originally complaining about not outs, that was you.
It wasn't me complaining either.
> Applying then selectively doesn’t wash with me
And how have I applied them selectively?
> So what are your criteria?
Didn't you read the post I linked in here? Those 7 major criteria?
> I dunno.
> Your posts so far have mentioned the 200, the aggregate number of runs
> and the post- 1994 stats.
>
> Are they your criteria?
There you go...read properly Higgs..I never mentioned the aggregates
and 200 as a criteria and I did not even mention the post 94 stats as
a criteria too.
> So you insist that I present a comprehensive set of criteria, but
> refuse to do so yourself?
What are you on about Huggs? Do you even understanding what you are
saying...who gave you that bloody link to those set of 7 criteria?
What is your problem man? Go see a doctor.
> I'm happy to use ave & SR.
And with just those two criteria you should be happy to place Dhoni,
Virat Kohli, Hussey above Viv
> You asked me for my criteria, it’s your bad luck if you don’t like
> them.
You gave me the criteria and I am presenting my point of view. If my
point of view is not beneficial then we don't remove that particular
criterion. So state my point of view again..."a team's result should
not be used as a criterion to measure the ability and performance of a
batsman". Do you accept it? If not, why not?
> So why did you mention the post-1994 stats for TAV?
> That looks to me like cherry picking. You’ll have to explain to me how
> it isn’t.
> And try not to run away this time.
Bloody hell...you really are finding it so difficult to comprehend
things...just go back and re-read all my posts....TRY to understand
the context in which something was written...be sure it was written by
me and then come back and tell me whether I presented post 94 as a
criteria
> TAV only looks good when there is virtually no competition, ie no-one
> else has reached 17k runs, therefore he is the fastest to it.
> Plenty of people have scored 7000 runs, but no-one faster than Viv.
Please present the numbers. Also why do you think Sachin has no
competition...o because the others weren't able to score so many runs?
> If you want to evaluate the whole career, let’s look at ave and SR
> over the whole career.
>
> For both players
That's what I am saying...and I also said these 2 criteria do not give
the entire picture hence I suggested a comprehensive set.
Now, I want you to tell me who is the best ODI batsman ever. Don't run
away.
> You said that if I looked at the first 10 years, I would realize why
> TAV was far better than Viv.
> Explain to me how you come to this conclusion.
>
> And try not to run away this time
Huh? Where did I say that? Can you please direct me to where I
actually said that...and also if you copy-paste a statement from me,
please don't forget to copy-paste the context of that statement i.e.
my entire para and the para to which I was responding.
> Why this obsession with data (which you seem unable to interpret
> anyway)?
LOL!! God please help Higgs! Anyway, dont run away...present the
numbers.. do it Higgs do it...I am sure you are capable of qualifying
why your statement that vin pressure situations Viv inevitably
performed whereas Sachin had a reputation of being a choker. And if
you cannot qualify it with reality that is what their actual
performance was that is the runs they scored in these pressure
situations, then how do you want to justify your statement as being
true?
> TAV has never won a WC, let alone appeared in a final.
> How many stats do you want me to provide to convince you of this?
Who ever said Sachin won a world cup final
Nirvanam
> Over to you (and try not to run away this time)
>
> Higgs
Here Higgs, Sachin's number summary :
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting
and here's Richards number summary :
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52812.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting
Now you can use all your qualifiers to pick particular numbers and
compare the two.
Nirvanam
Good Rich. So now we know why Richards is better than Dhoni. You
probably are not aware of the context in which that question was
addressed to JZ..so just read a little more than just that post to
figure out why that question was asked and you will understand that I
also feel Richards is better than Dhoni.
jzfredricks
> Bevan, Dhoni, Hussey, Viv yet you rate him as # 1. Why would that be?
Cause I like the bloke. I can't justify it. Nor can you.
jzfredricks
> I do not have statistics to back up that but general knowledge and
> common sense makes me believe so. Now do you have any statistics to
> prove my belief is misplaced?
Could we look players' averages at 170 innings, then again at 250?
300? 400? etc? See what the average effect is over time?
I think that would be an interesting experiement.
Nirvanam
Yep that would definitely let us know whether ppl can keep up their
averages over long periods of time...but I dont know how to do it on
statsguru and doing it for all players individually is too
much...anyway if u can figure out how to do it lemme know and I'll
pull the data out