Sachin Tendulkar: There will never be another player like him

Bat and ball / Paul Moon / 26 April 2011 / 26

" class="free_bet_btn" rel="external" onclick="javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview('/G4/inline-freebet');" target="_blank">

The one that was missing. Tendulkar finally managed to win the World Cup with India in 2011

"It’s inconceivable this feat will ever be repeated when you consider it’s taken two decades to reach. It’s highly unlikely anyone will ever play that much international cricket to start with. Longevity is just one of his many incredible attributes."

Three and a half years on from the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, Paul Moon lists the latest achievements and milestones of Sachin Tendulkar, a player who will never be equalled.

On April 24 2011 the legendary Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar celebrated his 38th birthday just days after helping India become World Cup champions for the first time in 28 years. His contribution to the cause was pivotal. In five matches against the Test sides he faced he totalled 387 runs, including two centuries and two fifties at an average of 77.40.

Alas the 'Man of the Tournament' award went to Yuvraj Singh and although the latter's involvement was significant, the decision appeared an odd one when you consider who Yuvraj's big runs came against. Against the same Test opponents Sachin took apart, he scored just 148 runs at an average of 39.55. He did admittedly take 15 wickets in nine matches, but seven came against Ireland and Holland. Tendulkar is too humble and selfless a man to have been bothered about individual accolades but for my money he should have felt pretty hard-done by.

In December 2007 I wrote an article extolling the brilliance of 'The Little Master' and presented the case that he was the best batsman in the history of the game.

Two years later in November 2009 I expressed my concern regarding his fitness and form but in hindsight, I couldn't have been more off the mark.

From January 2010 to the present day he amassed 1722 runs in 15 matches at a staggering average of 82. These knocks included two double hundreds, one against Sri Lanka and the second one against Australia where he scored 214 and 53 not out in a man of the match performance.

In 2009 he decided he needed to adapt his T20 game a little to embrace the ever-changing nature of modern-day cricket and be that little bit more aggressive. It resulted in him scoring a record 618 runs in 14 innings in the 2010 IPL at an average of 51. His maiden IPL century against Kochi Tuskers Kerala came off just 66 balls but wasn't a surprise to anybody; it proved that he's just about the top of the pile in the format that was meant to have been designed for the new generation of cricketers. He continues to amaze and he continues to perform.

Using extensive video analysis for the best part of two decades the opposition have tried to find a weakness in his game. They probably shouldn't bother anymore because it doesn't seem to exist. His home and away averages are exactly the same; he is as adept at playing spin as fast bowling. Sri Lankan spin bowler Muttiah Muralitharan has got him out eight times (the most by any bowler against him) but in 36 Test innings against him, Mumbai's favourite son averages an incredible 60.45. Against an Australian side in their pomp, he averaged 60.60 in 59 Test innings with the great man Shane Warne only managing to snare him three times!

Tendulkar is the only player in Test Cricket history to score fifty centuries and the first to score fifty centuries in all international cricket combined. To date he has 99 centuries in international cricket and it is only a matter of time before he reaches a remarkable century of international centuries. It's inconceivable this feat will ever be repeated when you consider it's taken two decades to reach. It's highly unlikely anyone will ever play that much international cricket to start with. Longevity is just one of his many incredible attributes.

This brave and wonderful artist refuses to stand still though some of us selfishly want him to bow out at the top.

His records and his status may of course one day be challenged (Kohli, De Villers?) but it is hard to imagine that and it would take a unique individual to do so. Three and a half years later I'm not only convinced he's definitely greater than Bradman, I'm pretty much adamant that in the year 2111, they'll still be talking about Tendulkar as the greatest ever.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

(26)

jack | 26 April 2011

he is not the greatest batsman.he had a problem with mcgrath and akram.look at his average against new zealand and pakistan poor for his standards.he should retire and give someone else a chance.steve waugh retired when his form was good so why not him.
Tim | 26 April 2011

Yeah, an average of close to 50 against NZ is poor (49 point something). NZ is hardly a great team. A high average against them doesn't prove much. He played Pakistan when he was 16 and then during his slump and still averaged over 40. India is due to play Pakistan next year and I'm sure that he will score loads of runs.

Bradman remains the greatest for me but Tendulkar is the best that I've watched in 40 years and the second best of all time. If you consider all formats, Temdulkar is without doubt the greatest. I'm probably the biggest non-Indian fan of the master since I predicted his greatness after the tour of Australia in 1992!
Vamsi | 27 April 2011

I dont agree. If you really know cricket history, you wouldnt be talking like this. Mr. Moon and rest of the cricketing world, just loves tendulkar and his records are here to stay.
If you dont know about tendulkar, please dont comment.
Sind | 27 April 2011

Spot On. Tendulkar will go down as the greatest batsman of all time. At the very least – the greatest modern day batsman.
I can already anticipate a spate of comments about Tendulkar in matches “involving” some particular bowlers. One such example which seems to be doing the rounds on blogs frequently is in matches “involving” Mcgrath.
So, for convenience sake using Mcgrath as an example of data manipulation we may use a proper sort of analysis with some sort of context:
1) The first encounter was a one-off test where Tendulkar got out cheaply to Mcgrath in the 2nd inn. with India chasing a paltry 50 odd for a win with Tendulkar coming in at some 30-2.
2) Tendulkar played just 2 Full series in matches “involving” Mcgrath.
3) In these 2 series he avg. 46 and 51
4) However, in just these 2 series too there were some 4/5 poor decisions or just freak dismissals which affect the stats. Shoulder before wicket, caught after a pull shot richoted off short leg, bat/pad daylight to Warne etc.
5) In the last 2 matches Tendulkar was literally forced out of an injury rehab break after India got thrashed in the first 2 matches of the series.

So, a superficial look at stats will have the anti Tendulkar brigade jump up and down in glee. A more in depth look at happenings tell us a different story.

There is another problem with averages in matches “involving” certain players. They don’t really tell us much about head to heads, match context, dismissals to other bowlers etc. However, as the number of innings in the sample size increases the chances of a “true picture” emerging increase as well.

Tendulkar is perhaps the only modern day batsman who has got great hundreds against virtually every good to great bowler in the last 2 decades. Starting as a 17 yr old – Fraser, McDermott, Hughes, Donald, Warne, Murali,Saqlain, Waqar, Wasim, Walsh, Vettori, Murali, Warne, Lee, Caddick, Flintoff, Johnson, Steyn, Swann- practically every one.
Surely, there have been some bowlers in the 2 decades gone by who have had successes against Tendulkar. And since they have been great bowlers they would have had successes against all other batsmen as well.
If we take a great hundred to be the benchmark of a batsman’s domination, Tendulkar has spared no one.
Not for 21 years- and counting.

As rgds ODIS- the only batsman even in the same ball park is Viv Richards.

All said and done- difficult to look beyond Tendulkar anymore.
satty | 27 April 2011

@jack: nice comment buddy.. why don u check out bradman's average against top bowlers and let it out for all of us to know??? Then we ll know who s the best.. forget about batting, it takes a lot from u to stand up to a billion people's hopes. And to be able to do that for 2 decades will in itself speak volumes of the man.. never try and give a negative response abt him. Its like a sin in INDIA.
shashank | 27 April 2011

@jack
Sachin is best batsman of all time.
He is still scoring runs with spirit like a teenager with game.
His play is enough to inspire young guns to cricket.
He never faced any problem against any bowler in world.
Dominating the field over 22 years, and still going strong.
Mind you, but he is incomparable player with any Steve Waugh or Bradman.
He is GOD of Cricket.
God | 27 April 2011

@Jack ass: ur comment shows ur sense of cricket knowledge.. ;)
AD | 27 April 2011

Jack from "Pack" I presume.
Akram rated Tendulkar as the Greatest.
In 2003 Mcgrath rated Tendulkar as the best above Steve and Lara.
In 2007 (apparently like all of us fooled by Tendulkar's mid 2000s injury driven decline) he stated that Lara was slightly more dangerous. Inspite of the fact that practically all great Lara innings against Aus were done by 2003.

In any case these were all great bowlers.
If you take a poll of all great to good bowlers in the past 20 odd years they would all go for Tendulkar as the best (at most 2nd best)-From Donald,Akram,Waqar,Warne down.

The same would apply to batsmen and other observers of the game.

Your argument is somehwat akin to saying that since Bradman struggled against Larwood (? if i recall) he wasn't that good after all.

Sachin = GOAT.
roshan | 27 April 2011

yes u r right, he scored most of his runs against the best teams in world cup 2011.. also he contributed immensely in quarterfinal n semi final ,, tht speaks the value of his runs.. though he cud have done much better in the final,, he still was the biggest factor in india's world cup victory.
Prathmesh kulkarni | 27 April 2011

So much beautiful.
Sukh | 27 April 2011

He should retire because Steve Waugh did? How can a factor like that even be considered? By being in the India team, he is not preventing anyone from progressing nor is he "wasting" a space in the batting line up. Form is temporary and class is permanent....unfortunately for the odd few doubters out there, this man has both.
anil | 27 April 2011

Bradman is the best player,with no comparison in test cricket.
But if u talk about all forms of cricket,then Mr.Moon has a valid analysis.Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest ever batsman,to grace the cricket field.
Although the T20 was introduced in his fag end of his career,he still remains the best batsmen in T20,unbeleivable!
As a old and tiring member of the indian squad,many teams mates wanted to win the world cup for him.But it was he actually ended as the tournament leading scorer.
All india's previous attmept at world cups were failure,but there was always a tendulkar attempt,obviously without support.
After all his records,and playing for billions of cricket fanatics,the agguement would stop finally,and nobody can deny the fact that Bradman was probably the second best batsman.
Intelligent Aussie | 28 April 2011

Fully appreciate your article, well conceived and factually correct.
Anonymous | 29 April 2011

Why do all Tendulkar superfans have their maths brains in neutral?

Averaging 82 since 2010. "Astounding".

Kallis averages 91.75.
Sangakkara averages 99.29.

Doh! But absolutely typical. Where Tendulkar is concerned, people do very little cross checking.

For this story to have any legs at all, we need to get two things straight, and in order:

1. Tendulkar is statistically massively superior to any contemporary batsman. Already in trouble here, as we've seen, but we can keep trying...

2. Only if 1 is proven, on all comparative measures, Tendulkar's record AT LEAST stands comparison with Bradman's.

Sadly, we fail both criteria. The 2nd is redundant anyway, but failure is recorded in the interests of completeness.

Absolute measures like number of centuries mean pretty little. We really need ratios, %, medians or means. As everybody knows, on comparative measures, Tendulkar's century record doesn't touch Bradman's, and isn't going to unless he bats for many more years and averages significantly better than a century every 2 innings.

What comparable statistic of Tendulkar's is there that gets anywhere NEAR Bradman? I simply can't find any.

Here's an example.

I saw somebody claiming that Tendulkar made a bigger contribution to the Indian team than Bradman, because he came into bat with India in a more perilous position.

"Brilliant!" I thought, "Somebody has a plausible justification for calling out Sachin as 'better than the Don'"!

Sadly, of course, it's nonsense - another thrashing by the Don. Here's the stats:
Bradman Tendulkar
Score taking guard 60.4/1.6 96.8/2.2

So India are 36 runs better off than Australia when their star batsman comes in!

I've even tried looking at the figures pre Sehwag. Surprise! No good. Only drops to 90/2, still better than poor old Bradman's 60/2.

This stuff takes a while to do, but I've grown quite fond of it.

A bit of lateral thinking..must be a way to cut this stat in tendulkar's favour...

Maybe the Australian team score more runs in total, so a Bradman avg innings of 88 is worth less than tendulkar's 51.

Well, you know the answer to that! On average, the other Australians contribute 263 runs, while the Indian batsmen manage 272. So Tendulkar scores LESS, but his teammates score MORE.

More runs from other batsmen BEFORE he bats, more runs by other batsmen in total, but less from Tendulkar.

Tendulkar only contributes 15.7% of the team's runs in innings he bats in.

I haven't finished the partnership stuff for Kallis/Sangakkara, but...

Kallis scores 15.6%. Hooray! Tendulkar is better! 0.1% is not really the stuff of "greatest evers", but we need SOMETHING going for us here.

Sangakkara contributes 16.4% of SL team's runs when he bats.

Oh dear.

Bradman? Well, that's going to be silly. Always is. But I'm sure you want to know.

Bradman contributes 25%. 1 run in 4!!! Out of sight!!!

If India score 300 without Tendulkar, that goes up to 356 when he bats. If Australia score 300 without Bradman, that goes up to 400! He's worth 44 runs per inning MORE than Tendulkar to his side on equivalent scores.

Bradman scores 122.5% MORE than the average teammate in the innings he bats in. Tendulkar scores 36.4% more than the average Indian playing alongside him.

Sounds weird? We expect 100% or 200% better, but 300%? Australia lose more wickets per innings...

Kallis and Sangakkara? 50.7% and 39.3% more respectively. Both contribute relatively more than their teammates to their team's totals.

So India are a better batting side, or play more often in high scoring matches. Maybe. But then, shouldn't Tendulkar's average be higher? Well, obviously, else his par score wouldn't be so low. Doh again!

On lots of comparative measures, Tendulkar's pre-eminence over his contemporaries is pretty marginal, or cannot be established statistically at all.

Without doing that, there's really no point in looking at Bradman - whatever metric you establish, if you're not miles ahead of Kallis, you won't get close to Bradman.
Anonymous | 29 April 2011

AD: you recall incorrectly.

Larwood got Bradman 5 times, at an average of 77.60.

The closest anybody came to "getting" Bradman was Bedser. Still averaged 50+, but, for Bradman, that was relatively weak.
Sind | 01 May 2011

@Anonymous:
1)
Sanga scored a total of 695 runs since 2010, Kallis some 250 runs less than Tendulkar.
Tendulkar from 2010 was in his 20th year of International cricket with more injuries and matches in both formats than Kallis.
Kalllis is a great batsman but here’s the facts:
From Kallis’s debut to (14 th dec 1995) to 2003 . SRT -6328 @ 60.3 ; Kalllis – 4455 @ 50.6
2008 to date –SRT – 3326 @ 65.2 ;Kallis -2665 @ 55.5.
i.e for any longish length of time Kallis has outperformed Tendulkar for the period from 2003-07.
But, guess what? Just about EVERYONE outperformed Tendulkar in this patch ! This part of Tendulkar’s career was marred mostly by intermittent serious injuries. He hardly got over one that another seemed to crop up.
In any case Kallis is a great batsman. The simple fact, however much it may seem unpalatable to you is that Tendulkar is “greater”.

And- slightly devious of you to put in Sanga there knowing full well he scored more than 1000 runs less?

2)
In actual fact arguably the best position to bat in order to score big is at No.3 Most of the truly big scores including triples have come in these postions. The one triple of Bradman at No.5 came when he reverse ordered the batting lineup so as the let the pitch dry up. Smart captaincy ,eh?

3)Wisden has clearly stated that Bradman never mastered sticky wickets. All the more reason to bat at No.3 and pile ‘em on.
The SRs for bowlers in Bradman’s era :
verity SR 78;bowes SR 54;bedser SR 85;Tate - SR 100;voce SR 69;larwood SR 64. With the exception of Bowes they just didn’t seem to be capable of taking wickets .So , come in at No.3, bat forever and make merry.

4)
Bradman also piled them on against the minnows of the time – India and SA. Against the only decent team of the time ,England, he avg. 89. Several other batsmen also avg. 75+ against England in the same period – Morris, Headley etc. That is what actually puts Bradman in perspective.
Sind | 01 May 2011

In any case-
Tendulkar was first ranked No.1 at around age 20, in 1994.
17 years later he is again at No.1.
Kallis was ranked No.1 in 2005.
Let's see where he is ranked in 2022.

As.rgds Sangakarra it is borderline ridiculous comparing him to Tendulkar.
Take a look at Sanga's "away" record.
Kallis's is slightly better.

One thing you don't seem to truly grasp:
Bradman did not play for several years in his 20yr, merely 52 match career (90% of which was against One nation- and in only two countries)

Tendulkar has been playing for 21 yrs and in all that time he was compared to someone or the other in various periods-
Steve Waugh, Lara, Ponting - and now the Kallis's and Sangkarras.
With the exception of the mid 2000s decline (when his career almost finished in 2006/07)-The One factor has remained constant - Tendulkar. The rest have come and gone.

Surely, over 21 years he hasn’t outshone everyone all the time. But, for any batsman who played in the ‘90s and has continued into the 2000s you will find that the only real multi year period wherein they constantly outshone Tendulkar was in the mid 2000s ,potentially career-ending phase from 2003-08.
S.Nay | 01 May 2011

Tendulkar has a career spanning 21 years. He started off against Imran Khan and others. He now is taking on Steyn, Swann etc. Since the age of 18 and barring his two worst injury hit years (‘05/06) he averages 61 over the remaining 17 yrs. Longer than the entire length of the careers of Lara,Ponting,Kallis,Sangakarra etc.

Tendulkar has scored around 33,000 International runs, Almost a 100 Hundreds, all over the world ,in all conditions, vs. all sorts of bowling, in all formats, survived several career threatening injuries, crushing pressure esp. for most of the ‘90s where he was India’s go to man and still ,STILL, at the end of it all averages as much or better than his contemporaries.
The most recent comparisons with Kallis with 9000+ runs less (40% more than Kallis’s tally) and Sangakarra (77% more to go to get to Tendulkar) would be amusing if they were not so ignorant.
S.Nay | 01 May 2011

Borrowing stats from another blog:
Bradman played in a far cosier era- a direct one-to-one comparison is faulty.

•From ’93 to 2003 Tendulkar avg 62.3 . The next best was Steve with an avg. of 55.1.
i.e for a Decade Tendulkar avg. 13 % over the “next best” .
This is the highest ever “differential” for an entire decade with the exception of Bradman (for “overall stats’ as shown below).
In the ’90s just 3 batsmen avg. 50+ : Tendulkar – 59, Steve -53, Lara- 52 ( for batsmen who have played through the ENTIRE ’90s and not just some fraction of it)…which goes to show how much more difficult run scoring was in the ’90s.
During Bradman’s best 10 yr stretch 1938 to retirement he avg. 105.7 over 23 inn.
A.Morris (yeah, heard of him? Will hardly ever in any all time XI team) avg. 74.1 over a similar 22 inn.
If you ignore the “minnows” then (India) whom Bradman ravaged at an avg of 178.8,
you get an avg. of 84.9 vs. England in 17 inn.
Arthur Morris avg.79.9 vs England in 17 inn. too (his overall avg. drops because of a 52 avg. vs India)
SO- Bradman’s Best 10 yr stretch was actually 84.9 vs. 79.9 (if you use the above context) over the “Next” best
A difference of 6.3%
Tendulkar’s 13 % over the next best for his best decade.

•Collating it all together,
If we assume that Tendulkar is the best modern day player:and in his best 10 yrs period (INJURY FREE) averaged 15 % better than the “next best”….
And Bradman in his best 10 yr period avg. 23 % better ,
It may be argued that Bradman is 23-15= 8 % better than Tendulkar.
Again, given the hundreds of matches in other formats, inevitable battering of stats due to injuries etc…..
It is difficult to call it at all.
What really differentiates Bradman is that he “maintained” his standards for “longer”……..over 80 international innings.
The “problem” is extrapolating that over some 270 test and 450 ODI innings and imagining that there would have no dip in performance at all.
That , Im afraid, is quite fanciful
S. Hortleg | 01 May 2011

Its always difficult trying to compare great players of yester-year with players of today and the Bradman - Tendulkar debate will go on.

Having said that there is no denying the influence Tendulkar has had on India becoming world Cup Champions with 387 runs including 2 centuries and 2 fifty's

His record speaks for itself and it's only a matter of time he reaches the magical 100 centuries , this is quite a feat in itself no matter what standard it has been achieved.
Anonymous | 03 May 2011

One good pick by Sind that should be acknowledged, but defended.

KS didn't play many matches, but the point rested on JK and KS BOTH achieving this "staggering" average. So the point was fair and made in terms.

Good spot though. And some proper maths.

The stuff about 2003-2008 is closely argued and fun. The premise that we only look at the BEST period of a player's career is at least challengable, however.

What you are saying amounts to: Oh look! Those were other batsmen's best years! Super! They were more rubbish than we thought, because we don't have to count those innings!

Anything else to leave out? Oh yes! 1989-1993.

Every batsman goes through a tough time.
Sehwag was dropped when averaging over 50!

His MA was 30, higher than SRT's in 2006, and they drop him.

The guy scores more runs/innings than Tendulkar, and about the same proportion of India's total! (The mathematically acute will be wondering how that can be - REASON: India score more when Sehwag and Tendulkar play together.)

Tough times. They show in the averages, true, but for EVERYBODY. Bradman's hardships are pretty well rehearsed. Kallis's are pretty obvious when you start to look at his career.

Having said that, the point is quite closely argued. I enjoyed it, actually.

Indeed, if you do look at 1993-2003, Tendulkar scores 18.5% of India's runs.

That's phenomenal. It's 75 tests as well, which is interesting...

It puts quite a gap between SRT and the rest that I have analysed so far.

If you include his early innings, it only drops to 17.2%, which still puts him ahead of Greg Chappell.

I really think dropping the early innings is a bit shoddy...

Having said that, although this isn't Bradmanesque, it's exceptional, and distinguishes this period of Tendulkar's career as the second pinnacle of test batting.

I know Sind will say that my premise for JK and KS versus SRT 2010 is invalid. He has a case, but I didn't SET it, and I don't really care about it. It's just that it's wrong, and the nature of the error is indicative of a general trend among SRT fans, which is...

Accept any statistical manipulation, however tenuous, poorly constructed, badly researched or even mischeivous, if it denigrates Bradman.

Leap on any statistic with a big number in it as proof that SRT massively outperforms any batsman before or since, without bothering to check whether it is correct, valid, consistent or cross checked.

Some of the stuff here. Well, I hope it's just stupid...

1. What was it? "The most recent comparisons with Kallis with 9000+ runs less (40% more than Kallis’s tally) and Sangakarra (77% more to go to get to Tendulkar) would be amusing if they were not so ignorant."

Somebody explain how averages work...patience will be required.

Aggregates mean very little. India play a lot MORE cricket. What averages help us do is relate one performance to another EVEN SO.

I hope you understand. It's the basic tenet behind averages.

2) 3 is better than 4

Prove it. Don't just assert.

And by how much?

What we do know is that Bradman came into bat with Australia at 60 for 1.6, while Tendulkar comes in with India on 93 for 2.2.

So, in fact, the match position is usually WORSE for Bradman. He then scores 25% of his team's runs. That helps, I think you'll find.

3) Morris.

Morris, for heaven's sake! Haven't you guys heard of Barnes?

First of all, you need to understand regression to the mean. Look it up. Here's what happens.

Bradman averaged 89.79 in 63 innings against England. Morris averaged 50.73.

Regression to the mean. Understand?

But fair isn't what you're trying to be, is it?

Here's a thing. Look what we've found!

Morris averaged 50 against England, but managed to get to 70 a couple of times. So that means Bradman's average is only 23% better than Morris's?

What tosh!

Let's make a new hypothesis in the same terms.

"Tendulkar cannot be considered the greatest batsman of his era because other contemporary batsmen have averaged more against England.

Kambli averages over 100 against England. How rubbish must Tendulkar be!"

Proven. Morris nearly as good as Bradman. Kambli better than Tendulkar.

Not.

Invalid analogy? Well, no actually. From where I sit, that's exactly the game these guys are playing.

I bet you could find 2, 3 or 4 series against the same side where Ganguly outperformed Tendulkar. What does that prove.

Nowt, that's what. It's nonsense.

How about if we compare Bradman's BEST two series against England to Morris's. It's fairer, but still tosh!

128 is the answer.

But it's bad statistical gameplaying, and is rubbish.

BTW the Headley stuff ain't great IMO either, but I've had enough of it to bother.

4) We don't need to count "minnows"

"Of course, averaging 141 against SA and WI was normal in the 30s, you know."

Actually, no, I don't know that.

I know the opposite, in fact.

Ponsford averaged 51.3. Woodfull 52.1, McCabe 33.1. Look at those averages carefully. Compare them to what Indian batsmen achieve routinely today.

Worse, I would say, wouldn't you? Sehwag might be dropped with averages like that.

Think about that. Bradman’s THREE TIMES better than some of the great names of Australian batting.

Even against India he's 62% ahead and scores 30% of the runs.

The opposition was weak.

Good enough for McCabe. Or are we calling McCabe a tailender now?

Not good enough for Bradman. They got tonked out of sight BECAUSE Bradman was playing.

No shame there.

So...

Let's not count any series where top 3 Indian batsmen average better than what?

40?

That would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Indeed. Just deceitful tosh.

5) That differential stuff.

Think about it.

Bradman's 1st series he averages 67, and in his last he averages 72. Overall he averages 100.

How the hell can he only average 105 AT HIS BEST in between?

Tell me, how the hell did you fall for that tosh?

How can you write such stuff? Don't you KNOW it's nonsense at best, or else a deception?

Well, of course, he couldn't, and he doesn't. 107 overall (including Bodyline), 23 pt MA gets up over 130.

Face it. He's OVER TWICE AS GOOD as his contemporaries, and there's plenty of statistical evidence to show that scoring patterns have remained stable or even increased in the last 60 years.

Bradman's average was 99.94. It's real, it's genuine, it tells a true story. It includes the bad as well as the good. The bad was still amazing, but it's there.
Anonymous | 04 May 2011

In all fairness, I should have noted SRT's purple patch's match position stats, which are also excellent.

India score 303 for 8.6.

Temdulkar arrives at the crease with the score on 81.7 for 2.1, and his innings closes (whether out or not out) with the score on 185.0 for 4.0.

He averages 55.99 runs per innings.

Because of his higher not out %, Bradman's average OVERSTATES how many more runs he was getting. His average is 60% better, but runs/innings is only 56%, and the median and upper and lower quartiles are all about 55.5% better, which is astonishingly consistent.

That means that Bradman's very high scores have a marginally more beneficial effect on his career profile.

It's surprisingly small (Q3 is 55.7, innings is 56.2), which indicates that the PATTERN of big and little scores acquired by both batsmen, Bradman whole career SRT 1993-2002, is much more similar than we would have expected.
Anonymous | 04 May 2011

One good pick by Sind that should be acknowledged, but defended.

KS didn't play many matches, but the point rested on JK and KS BOTH achieving this "staggering" average. So the point was fair and made in terms.

Good spot though. And some proper maths.

The stuff about 2003-2008 is closely argued and fun. The premise that we only look at the BEST period of a player's career is at least challengable, however.

What you are saying amounts to: Oh look! Those were other batsmen's best years! Super! They were more rubbish than we thought, because we don't have to count those innings!

Anything else to leave out? Oh yes! 1989-1993.

Every batsman goes through a tough time.
Sehwag was dropped when averaging over 50!

His MA was 30, higher than SRT's in 2006, and they drop him.

The guy scores more runs/innings than Tendulkar, and about the same proportion of India's total! (The mathematically acute will be wondering how that can be - REASON: India score more when Sehwag and Tendulkar play together.)

Tough times. They show in the averages, true, but for EVERYBODY. Bradman's hardships are pretty well rehearsed. Kallis's are pretty obvious when you start to look at his career.

Having said that, the point is quite closely argued. I enjoyed it, actually.

Indeed, if you do look at 1993-2003, Tendulkar scores 18.5% of India's runs.

That's phenomenal. It's 75 tests as well, which is interesting...

It puts quite a gap between SRT and the rest that I have analysed so far.

If you include his early innings, it only drops to 17.2%, which still puts him ahead of Greg Chappell.

I really think dropping the early innings is a bit shoddy...

Having said that, although this isn't Bradmanesque, it's exceptional, and distinguishes this period of Tendulkar's career as the second pinnacle of test batting.

I know Sind will say that my premise for JK and KS versus SRT 2010 is invalid. He has a case, but I didn't SET it, and I don't really care about it. It's just that it's wrong, and the nature of the error is indicative of a general trend among SRT fans, which is...

Accept any statistical manipulation, however tenuous, poorly constructed, badly researched or even mischeivous, if it denigrates Bradman.

Leap on any statistic with a big number in it as proof that SRT massively outperforms any batsman before or since, without bothering to check whether it is correct, valid, consistent or cross checked.

Some of the stuff here. Well, I hope it's just stupid...

1. What was it? "The most recent comparisons with Kallis with 9000+ runs less (40% more than Kallis’s tally) and Sangakarra (77% more to go to get to Tendulkar) would be amusing if they were not so ignorant."

Somebody explain how averages work...patience will be required.

Aggregates mean very little. India play a lot MORE cricket. What averages help us do is relate one performance to another EVEN SO.

I hope you understand. It's the basic tenet behind averages.

2) 3 is better than 4

Prove it. Don't just assert.

And by how much?

What we do know is that Bradman came into bat with Australia at 60 for 1.6, while Tendulkar comes in with India on 93 for 2.2.

So, in fact, the match position is usually WORSE for Bradman. He then scores 25% of his team's runs. That helps, I think you'll find.

3) Morris.

Morris, for heaven's sake! Haven't you guys heard of Barnes?

First of all, you need to understand regression to the mean. Look it up. Here's what happens.

Bradman averaged 89.79 in 63 innings against England. Morris averaged 50.73.

Regression to the mean. Understand?

But fair isn't what you're trying to be, is it?

Here's a thing. Look what we've found!

Morris averaged 50 against England, but managed to get to 70 a couple of times. So that means Bradman's average is only 23% better than Morris's?

What tosh!

Let's make a new hypothesis in the same terms.

"Tendulkar cannot be considered the greatest batsman of his era because other contemporary batsmen have averaged more against England.

Kambli averages over 100 against England. How rubbish must Tendulkar be!"

Proven. Morris nearly as good as Bradman. Kambli better than Tendulkar.

Not.

Invalid analogy? Well, no actually. From where I sit, that's exactly the game these guys are playing.

I bet you could find 2, 3 or 4 series against the same side where Ganguly outperformed Tendulkar. What does that prove.

Nowt, that's what. It's nonsense.

How about if we compare Bradman's BEST two series against England to Morris's. It's fairer, but still tosh!

128 is the answer.

But it's bad statistical gameplaying, and is rubbish.

BTW the Headley stuff ain't great IMO either, but I've had enough of it to bother.

4) We don't need to count "minnows"

"Of course, averaging 141 against SA and WI was normal in the 30s, you know."

Actually, no, I don't know that.

I know the opposite, in fact.

Ponsford averaged 51.3. Woodfull 52.1, McCabe 33.1. Look at those averages carefully. Compare them to what Indian batsmen achieve routinely today.

Worse, I would say, wouldn't you? Sehwag might be dropped with averages like that.

Think about that. Bradman’s THREE TIMES better than some of the great names of Australian batting.

Even against India he's 62% ahead and scores 30% of the runs.

The opposition was weak.

Good enough for McCabe. Or are we calling McCabe a tailender now?

Not good enough for Bradman. They got tonked out of sight BECAUSE Bradman was playing.

No shame there.

So...

Let's not count any series where top 3 Indian batsmen average better than what?

40?

That would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Indeed. Just deceitful tosh.

5) That differential stuff.

Think about it.

Bradman's 1st series he averages 67, and in his last he averages 72. Overall he averages 100.

How the hell can he only average 105 AT HIS BEST in between?

Tell me, how the hell did you fall for that tosh?

How can you write such stuff? Don't you KNOW it's nonsense at best, or else a deception?

Well, of course, he couldn't, and he doesn't. 107 overall (including Bodyline), 23 pt MA gets up over 130.

Face it. He's OVER TWICE AS GOOD as his contemporaries, and there's plenty of statistical evidence to show that scoring patterns have remained stable or even increased in the last 60 years.

Bradman's average was 99.94. It's real, it's genuine, it tells a true story. It includes the bad as well as the good. The bad was still amazing, but it's there.
Sind | 05 May 2011

@Anonymous:
1)The score at which a batsman came to the crease will be a function of batting position- all else being equal.

2)Out of 58 250+ scores in Test history,41 have come at positions 1-3. There are essentially 2 main components required to rack up big scores – 1)A Flattish pitch . 2)Sufficient time -without a declaration hanging around the corner(helps if the batsman concerned is Capt.); No urgency to throw your bat around for quick runs etc.

3)Strange though this may seem- when going through Bradman’s innings he seemed to be an “all or nothing “ type of player. I just read else where if that if you exclude Bradman’s 15 highest scores- his average drops to 40 something (Of course, we cannot exclude these- but it does give us a clue). Strangely,Bradman also had 7 Ducks in 80 innings. But, when he got going he made sure to make it count for all it was worth (A trait Lara seemed to share.)

4)This bit about % of Team totals also tells us more about the rest of the team, than about the batsman himself. If the batsman performed exactly the way he did but in a stronger (or weaker) team this % would change.

5)The reason I brought up various patches is to bring forth the impact of injuries on Tendulkar’s career. A superficial look at overall “career” stats “hide” several points. Comparing a broken down thoroughbred to another good racehorse- and then collating their career stats into one block does just that in several ways. If during the period 2003-07 if only Kallis or a few other batsmen had outperformed Tendulkar we may have been on to something. But when some 40 batsmen All do so- clearly our “thoroughbred” is injured. Which he was. But ,in any case- it may be argued that All sportsmen have to risk injury and that it is part and parcel of a sporting career- True, but again the persons who have actually watched the game know exactly what transpired and why the stats work out to what they do.

6)Again,as others have noted the ‘90s was clearly a tougher time to get runs. How do we value a run in the ‘90s to a run in the 2000s?

7)Also, your bit about “aggregates” is off the mark. Yes ,obviously aggregates are a function of number of matches. But that is not the only factor. The ability to maintain high levels in all formats, in varying conditions, vs varying generations of bowlers clearly requires more skill than maintaining levels for shorter periods of time vs. limited opponents.
This is vaguely similar to saying that Federer has 16 Slams because he has played more Slams than the others. Partly true. But not the full story.It's not that you just turn up on the field in International cricket and the runs flow automatically.

8)Given the Strike Rates of top bowlers then- It seemed difficult to get out.Infact the SRs and bowling averages may well have been made to look good because of the improvement against the other poorer batsmen. Sure, there are poor batsmen now as well- but it seems that the number of better batsmen then were relatively much fewer.
I wonder what the averages and Strike Rates of the bowlers would be against the Top 4/5 batsmen. Perhaps you would have this data in your databases?

9)Regarding “regression to the mean”- Would Bradman have maintained his average of 99 in Test cricket (let’s leave aside Club cricket) over Hundreds of innings in various formats, having to cope with inevitable injuries and surgeries due to inevitable wear and tear ?
Anonymous | 05 May 2011

Some good points!

1. Agreed.

But the point is that they are quite similar - around 2 wickets down - but Australia score a lot fewer runs, either per wicket or as an aggregate.

2. Interesting! Good point. One day, I'm sure I'll look at that...

But be careful about slagging Bradman off like that. People often comment negatively upon the hostility towards him of the Catholic players, but from what I've read he was an excellent captain.

His bodyline average was low partly because he played risky "ODI" shots because the team had to get runs, and wickets were falling too regularly - only Bradman could cope with the improvisations needed to hit fast leg side bowling on variable bouncing tracks by stepping away and hitting to off. It was too dangerous for most of the others. Bradman could have just stepped inside the line and preserved his wicket. Australia needed to try to win.

The sticky dog thing is true, but it was a precursor of the nightwatchman idea - send in poor batsmen to see off the wetness in the pitch. The chap chosen was surprised, but Bradman told him you could only get out if you hit the ball, and he couldn't hit it on a good wicket, so he was the perfect choice. Fingleton was out. Australia were in trouble. If they lost batsmen while the wicket was wet, they would lose. Good captaincy and intelligent cricket. To be applauded, not sneered at.

Not a situation that modern cricketers face.

3. This isn't true.
If you look at the Median and IQR, or pretty much any percentile, Bradman's always miles ahead of anybody. His CF graph looks a bit silly against any contemporary I've done or any modern batsman. So his scoring record is better when profiles across the whole range of scores.

Yes, his massive scores have a small effect on the top end, but it's very small. I was honestly surprised when I first found that.

You know, I love these SRT fan stats about Bradman. At the risk of sounding sychophantic(!!), you're too good to fall for these. 15/80 = 54/290 (ish). What's Tendulkar's average if we delete his best 54 innings (55 would be fair, but we can be kind)? 31.66, and not a single century. Bradman? 65 innings, 3418 runs, 8 no, avg 59.96. He's STILL possibly the best ever, and poor old Sachin would struggle to get a game for England!

59.96/31.66 is actually MORE in DGB's favour than 99.94/56.95...

4. Well, it tells us about both the team and the batsman, and his value to the team.

Obviously there's a pride of authorship issue here for me, but I think that a higher figure is LIKELY to indicate a better batsman AS WELL AS a worse team.

It's a concrete measure of the value of a player to his team. It does away with some of the vagaries of playing in different conditions/countries etc.

For one thing, it definitely slays all these silly stories SRT fans put about that Bradman only shone because of the quality of Ponsford or McCabe, and Tendulkar has carried India. I'm sure you've seen them. The reverse is now shown to be true.

5. I think we can agree to meet in the middle here: injuries are part of the game, but we can guage the exceptional qualities of great players by close analysis of the pattern of their careers.

6. That will take time.

I don't know!

We're well on the way to establishing ways of measuring players relative to their team, so we know it can be done.

7. Well, we're quite close here as well. Of course it's remarkable to score 15000 runs. But we have to rely on averages, because history indicates, at present, that only Indian batsmen could ever hope to match SRT's statistics, for obvious reasons.

We can remark on it, but it just cannot be the nub of the debate.

And the consistency of performance is clearly unique across the formats.

Let's say the next all time great was born 17 years ago in Wellington. How many matches could he feasibly play? Would he be able to get within 5000 runs of SRT even if he were picked tomorrow and averaged 80?

The Federer analogy I don't like. OK, that's taste I guess, as with SRs.

I don't think it's right, in fact. Federer's greatness rests on his relentless PATTERN of success (never failing to reach the semis). Longevity isn't the key at all. For longevity, see Rosewall/Connors, or indeed Sampras.

8. I'm sorry, but the point hasn't got my juices flowing at all. One for you, I'm afraid.

You may be right.

9. Well, there's not much evidence of it, is there! How long were we going to have to wait? 99.94 IS the mean - he had regressed to it.
Sind | 06 May 2011

@Anonymous
Well ,I guess we could go on forever.

Re.8 (which hasn't got your "juices flowing") let me try to elaborate.
I feel bowling strike rates are critical especially when bowling to the top batsmen.
This may seem mathematically contradictory since averages encompass strike rates.

But in reality, getting a top batsman out early is the most critical part of his innings. Not restricting him.
After a top flight batsman is "in" he will inevitably make you pay- averages of bowlers notwitstanding.

As an eg.since we are discussing Tendulkar and Bradman.
Once Tendulkar gets past 25, he has 13470 @ 98.( 72 % better than his career avg.)
Bradman 6824 @ 145.( 45 % better than his career avg.)

Clearly, the ability to "strike" is paramount when bowling to the top batsmen as opposed to merely the ability to contain.

In Bradman's era the top bowlers in general had abysmal strike rates as compared to the top bowlers in the past 2 decades or so.

So, just another twist on the stats and how we require to look into them a little more wholesomely and clinically.