Some things are too serious to mess about about. One of them is Donald Bradman's superiority as a batsman, as compared with all other batsmen before or since. Yet here is a 'study' purporting to show that Sachin Tendulkar is better:
Griffith University researcher Dr Nicholas Rohde has used economic theory to compare batsmen from different eras, and says India's Little Master... is history's premier willow wielder.
"The rankings are designed to allow for meaningful comparisons of players with careers of different lengths," Dr Rohde said.
"It's an emotional issue and there will always be debate between followers of Test cricket about the relative career performances of various batsmen.
"Essentially each player is scored according to their career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accrue over the same number of innings.["]
Sir Don played 52 Tests for Australia from 1928 to 1948, scoring 6996 runs at a peerless average of 99.94. He died in 2001 aged 92.
Debuting in 1989, Tendulkar, now 38, has amassed a world-record 15,183 runs from 184 Tests at an average of 56.02.
Well, to this I say 'nonsense', until such time as that peerless average of 99.94 is convincingly explained (away). For a graphic illustration of it, with accompanying commentary, see Michael Nielsen. (Thanks: TD, BR.)