Google the Disraeli quote "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics". ;)

The hypothesis that we are trying to prove here is whether or not Sachin is a an impact player - do his individual contributions translate to team victories. What we are not evaluate is his longevity (which is, by an yardstick, the best in the world). So, let's not merge the two issues here.

And by the way, statistically - more the number of data points, more certain you can be of the trend being representative or actually true. So if anything - Sachin's larger number of centuries ought to place him better to get a good Win % (especially since 9 of them have come against considerably weaker opposition).

how will the percentage remain the same????in terms of simple math, if he scored 9 centuries & india won all 9 games then he would have had a 100% win record....now if india lost the 10 game in which he scored a century then his percentage comes down to 90%....the more you play, the more there is a chance that your percentage will be lower....

there are a lot of factors here....not simply the number of matches played....no one is taking into account the fact that india has won many games when he scored 60 or 70 or 80 or 90....also, there was a long period of time when he was the only one scoring centuries for india (there were a couple others who would chip in once in a while but he was doing the bulk of the scoring) & india was losing because no one else was contributing....

his individual contributions have translated to many victories....the fact that he has played longer than anyone else goes hand in hand so its not possible not to merge the 2 issues....33 centuries in indian victories in odi cricket (when no one else even has 33 centuries) is proof enough of the fact that more of his innings have translated to victories than anyone else in the history of the game....but when you play more & score more than anyone else then you will also have your share of losses, probably more than anyone else....

:)

Not true. You have just conveniently assumed in your hypothetical example that all 9 centuries scored upfront result in victories and the 10th game is a loss. I could very well give you another random example that proves otherwise: He scored 9 centuries and India won 5 games; he would have a 55.55% win record. Now if India won the 10th game in which he scored a century, his win record would go up to 60%.

If having more centuries by itself resulted in a lower % record, one could not explain the difference between the bottom placed Treskothick (50%) and Dilshan (83%), both with 12 centuries.

Of course, we need to put some threshold to avoid random cases of batsmen with 2-3 centuries having a 100% record. But it definitely does not mean that more centuries means a lower win % is justified.

Fair point about correlation of winning with high scores (but not necessarily centuries). When you lower the threshold to 70 or 80, some things change but one does not: Sachin still has the lowest win % amongst his peers. At threshold of 70, his win % is 65% remains mediocre compared Saeed Anwar's exceptional 88% and Ponting's far superior 85%.

Like I mentioned earlier, there were large stretches in 1990s where Sachin was the lone warrior but his win % then was better than it is in 2000s when he has had ample support.

Look at it this way, a player's value could probably be expressed as a combination of longevity factor (how long he has played), talent factor (how good he individually is), impact factor (how often does his individual brilliance translate into team victory) etc. etc. Now, I'm not arguing that there is anyone better than Sachin in the first 2 - no. of centuries, games played etc. show exactly that. BUT on the third, that is not true.

Does not take away anything from Sachin as a player - you can't be God (unless of course, you are Sachin :P) and be brilliant on all fronts. The closest who came to being like that is Viv Richards - pity there was not enough ODI cricket then to draw comparisons with Sachins and Pontings of the world.

fair enough....but the more you play, your chances of losing more games increases....

at the end of the day this conversation is irrelevant....no amount of statistics can tell you the true worth of a player....there are many who will always be remembered for that one innings or one series or one bowling performance or one catch or one run out....their statistics may look meager but that one performance will be etched in memory....

whatever sachin has achieved will probably never be equaled....the number of matches played, runs scored & centuries scored are records that are unlikely to be surpassed....

having said that, i will be the first to admit that i do not rate sachin tendulkar as india's finish batsman....that honour would go to rahul dravid....dravid's contribution to india cricket have been far greater than the individual accolades sachin has managed to accumulate over the course of his career....its just unfortunate that he played in the time of sachin tendulkar....

i would probably rate dravid & kallis a little higher than sachin tendulkar in the list of greatest cricketers of our generation....

Big Dravid fan myself. So, can't agree more with you.

I wish we could do a pure, elegant statistical analysis in cricket on the lines of baseball (Oakland A's from Moneyball anyone?). Would perhaps enable us to truly discover the under-valued Dravids of the world.

Happy Ugadi/Gudi Padwa to fellow Telugus/Kannadas/Marathis and anyone else who wants to celebrate with us!

Happy Ugadi! :)

I think Kallis is the best.

Was on time and that's all I can say.

i would probably rate dravid higher as he was often the lone warrior for india whereas kallis had a lot of support....

glad it all worked out....