If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[zen]

Having a huge advantage over second best in terms of statistical measure doesn't necessarily mean that difference in quality was also of same level. This kind of gap may be result of some kind of statistical anomaly which is more likely to arise if field under consideration lacks in competitiveness or data sample is not really huge. I am giving you another example of similar nature (please don't confuse if I am equating anybody with Don Bradman or so) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmax1=10000;qualmin1=1500;qualval1=runs;team=9;template=results;type=batting In this example A Flower has clear advantage of 60% over nearest rivals in terms of average. i don't think you'll be able to pull out that kinda example for a country where you see high competitiveness. Another example, which highlights fallacy of this gap with second best argument could be gap between Shane Warne and MacGill. If you compare leg spinners, Shane Warne doesn't outnumber MacGill by the same margin as Danish Kaneria does any of his contemporary from his country. Does that mean, Danish Kaneria is better than Warne? I am not telling that Bradman is best ever or not, but highlighting there may be fallacies in this gap with gap with second best argument.

There is no fallacy as the case of Bradman is like flower avg like that and everyone else in the cricket playing world avg like other zim batsmen If you want to draw parallels, you need to ask is flower the greatest zim batsman? And it is easy to see why until someone else comes and performs like him or better. Now expand this to Bradman and it is not difficult to see why he is rated as the greatest Similarly, kaneria's example doesn't cut in simply because his numbers are not good enough. Being better than someone in his team w/o having world class numbers means little :winky: Please do us a favor and not bring such examples to the table. It's hard to even imagine someone would spent his time on writing such stuff up :P

[The Outsider]

^ Yaar, this guy thinks humans evolve on a mass scale genetically in a span of 50-60 years.

[Sidhoni]

:cantstop:

[CSK Fan]

numbers.. Most of them are all indians...more than Don fanatics they jut trying reason with the logics applied by some fans

In a thread which is clearly meant as a joke?

[ganeshran]

:hysterical::hysterical: Epic as usual MTC

[vvvslaxman]

If Sir Donald Trump was Indian.. this topic should be started in chitchat.

[zen]

To show how bogus the 'B vs T/whoever' debate is and put Don's numbers into perspective: Let's take SRT best tests where he has got 100s in and compare them with Don's career record .... Yes, you heard it right. This is as big a handicap match as it can be for Don. We are going to cherry pick Tendulkar's best performances by picking 51 tests which he has scored 100s in (out of a total of 184 that he has played so far) and compare it with Don's entire career of 52 tests (yes, we will not give Don even the benefit of removing one test) So .... Tendulkar in his best 51/184 tests where he got 100s in -----> approx. 8,400 (8,3XX) runs (This also means that he only has some 6,600 runs in other 133 tests) Don Bradman in his career (not cherry picked) -----> approx. 7000 (6,996) runs and that too in just 52 tests! (the guys career record is as good as the cherry picked tests of the guy he is being compared to) Any true cricket fan in his right frame of mind will not compare any batsman with Don for the greatest batsman title, esp. when Don's career is as good as that of cherry picked best tests of the guy he is being compared to :P case closed

[Raghav_12]

^ Yaar' date=' [b']this guy thinks humans evolve on a mass scale genetically in a span of 50-60 years.

If that was for me, let me tell you I don't think human evolve on a mass scale in last 50-60 years, but Cricket did.

[The Outsider]

If that was for me' date=' let me tell you I don't think human evolve on a mass scale in last 50-60 years, but Cricket did.[/quote'] Are you sure? I am sure athletes have nothing to do with cricket whose speeds or lack thereof you were quoting as proof of human evolution in the last 50 years?

[zen]

he might have used the antilog to decipher the secret of evolution :dontknow:

[Raghav_12]

Are you sure? I am sure athletes have nothing to do with cricket whose speeds or lack thereof you were quoting as proof of human evolution in the last 50 years?

Evolution is continuous process, but in a given time period certain things may evolve more than others. In that aspect Cricket has evolved more than many other sports. It has also spread from having active population of 100 million to apprx. 1.5 billion.

[The Outsider]

Evolution is continuous process' date=' but in a given time period certain things may evolve more than others. In that aspect Cricket has evolved more than many other sports. It has also spread from having active population of 100 million to apprx. 1.5 billion.[/quote'] Straight question - has the evolution of humans been so rapid over the last 50-60 years that they start evolving by 25% speed wise on average?True? And yet, 1.5 billion can't produce a cricketer of your desire? "Theory" fail?

[Raghav_12]

You've conveniently chosen his nearest rivals from his own team - care to include opposing teams in your "analysis"?

Which rearest rivals I have chosen to ignore?? I had set a random qualification mark of 1500 runs, which I think is fair enough. What opposing teams you want? I can include stats of Bangladesh batsmen as well to make it the same as the number of active cricket nations in the time of Don Bradman. (Cricinfo is blocked in my office, so can't include stats here,however) Actually you are missing the whole point because of your pre-conceived notions. I am not trying to conclude Bradman was inferior to any of current batsmen or if he was definite case of statistical anamoly. I am only questioning that argument of "gap over second best" can not be taken as gospel truth, particularly when sample size is so small. Just two teams playing each other for years with each having 5-6 batsmen. I am not very sure how much sense comparison, of statistical parameters for this small sample size, would make.

[King Tendulkar]

Well if Bradman was Indian, outsider , rett, lurker and srtfanatic would hate him and loath him. They would be pimping the aussie Sachin!

[bulbul]

In a thread which is clearly meant as a joke?

u know the history of these threads...main protogonists form either sides wont take this as jokes...also its not in Jokes section go and see the thread now..

[bulbul]

Well if Bradman was Indian' date=' outsider , rett, lurker and srtfanatic would hate him and loath him. They would be pimping the aussie Sachin![/quote'] what about BB,MTC,KT etc :winky:

[The Dark Horse]

:asleep:

[King Tendulkar]

what about BB' date='MTC,KT etc :winky:[/quote'] Well if Bradaman was indian firstly we would not now about thim, as history would have forgotten him. Also he would simply be to me a historical relic from the past, who is fun to talk about but certainlky cant be compared to people in modern world. Also would npt have seen him play etc so would not have the feel for him. Of course the self loathers would hate him and smash his rep to all places while praising the gora tendulkar:--D

[Raghav_12]

Straight question - has the evolution of humans been so rapid over the last 50-60 years that they start evolving by 25% speed wise on average?True?

Don't know what you are arriving at, but don't think if speed, that is speed of running, has improved by 25% or so. To get a better answer, you should ask more qualified question.

And yet, 1.5 billion can't produce a cricketer of your desire? "Theory" fail?

1.5 billion is the exact reason why there can not be any more Bradman.

[yadhav500]

Lame. A better question is what the fanatics would do if there was an Indian who averaged a clear 40% above the second best. Probably burn down anyone who questions his greatness.

This.