Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud

[zen]

May be the time has come to close this thread. This is getting dumber and dumber In a discussion abt AT greatest player like Bradman, questions are being raised on his ability to succeed based on someone's inability to adapt well from domestic to international level in the same era (and all this just to show that Tendulkar is the greatest) :hysterical:

[akshayxyz]

No it's not absurd. It's natural progression. The only way to measure greatness across eras is how someone did and what someone achieved in his particular era' date='[b'] rather than by transporting people across eras. What's absurd is saying Bradman was a lesser batsman than Pietersen because Bradman could not play the reverse sweep. Bradman was the product of his era and dominated his era like no one before or after, in cricket or any other sport.

When someone says Don is greatest ever - that also means he is transporting Don to modern era!!! And as absurd as saying Sachin would/wouldnt have averaged 99.94 in Don's era. Forward extrapolating Don's era avgs to modern day avg is as bad as backward extrapolation of modern day's averages. Newton analogy is absurd for many reasons. As if across era's was not enough, you have crossed many boundaries (science vs sports!), shuffled the skills required (IQ/logical ability/creativity vs physiological aspects required for sports excellence). Since you kind of insisted, once again - there is no conclusive way of knowing where Newton would figure in today's list of mathematicians/scientist. In Newton's time there were lot of people across the world who were on way to invent calculus or elements of it - and there is no way Newton would have invented whatever he did, w/o learning from history/peers. If not Newton, there were many people who would have eventually figured in place of Newton. Also his inventions seem more profound (in hindsight) because they were at more abstract level and impact bigger scientific ground than domain/problem specific solutions. And if you go by impact of scientific discovery, then a Neanderthal cave man, who discovered wheel would be far greater than Newton or any scientist ever born. In modern era, its not easy to find that abstract problem to solve that would impact wider ground - even if one has more IQ than that of Newton and with Deep Blue at disposal.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

When someone says Don is greatest ever - that also means he is transporting Don to modern era!!! And as absurd as saying Sachin would/wouldnt have averaged 99.94 in Don's era. Forward extrapolating Don's era avgs to modern day avg is as bad as backward extrapolation of modern day's averages.

No, it's not transporting Bradman to another era. It's about the magnitude to which he dominated his competition, which has never before or since been seen in any sport. That is enough for me to call him the greatest ever. Even the 75-80 average is not a forward extrapolation - it is a quantitative measure for those who believe Bradman's 100 average is simply an artifact of a smaller pool size.

Newton analogy is absurd for many reasons. As if across era's was not enough, you have crossed many boundaries (science vs sports!), shuffled the skills required (IQ/logical ability/creativity vs physiological aspects required for sports excellence).

So? I am not moving Newton to today's era. I am measuring his contribution in relation to his times.

Since you kind of insisted, once again - there is no conclusive way of knowing where Newton would figure in today's list of mathematicians/scientist.

That's not the question(today's list) - question is where would Newton figure in an all time list of Mathematicians or Physicists?

In Newton's time there were lot of people across the world who were on way to invent calculus or elements of it - and there is no way Newton would have invented whatever he did, w/o learning from history/peers. If not Newton, there were many people who would have eventually figured in place of Newton.

It's about getting there first and in such diverse fields which differentiates Newton from these others. Just like Bradman's absolute dominance differentiates him.

Also his inventions seem more profound (in hindsight) because they were at more abstract level and impact bigger scientific ground than domain/problem specific solutions. And if you go by impact of scientific discovery, then a Neanderthal cave man, who discovered wheel would be far greater than Newton or any scientist ever born. In modern era, its not easy to find that abstract problem to solve that would impact wider ground - even if one has more IQ than that of Newton and with Deep Blue at disposal.

I would suggest you start working on trying to find a Quantum theory of Gravity as a start - that's a pretty abstract topic and I am sure if you demonstrate a good enough proposal you will also get plenty supercomputer time, given the importance of the problem.

[The Outsider]

IIRC Bradman played negligible amount of FC cricket against Lindwall and Miller because of WW-II and the age difference ... in anycase we are talking about Test Cricket. Moreover those two are hardly express fast bowlers comparable to the Steyns and Akhtars . But if you want to introduce domestic FC stats into the discussion then I would likewise want to introduce SRT's ODI record which is actually International cricket. It will simply blow away any and all competition. Infact just his Worldcup record would suffice.

I am not bringing in Bradman's entire FC career. Just picking some bits from it to demonstrate that he did not have any major problems facing Lindwall and Miller. As for them being express, Sobers rated Lindwall as quick as Lillee and Miller as sharp with a heavy ball. It's like if someone says Tendulkar would have struggled against Akram and Waqar at their peak if had played tests. Well, he did play them in ODIs and hardly struggled. That's not bringing in Tendulkar's ODI career but snapshots from it to make a point for which there is no data in tests.

[akshayxyz]

@Outsider - Well as I said - keep Newton out of this for now - I can counter your current set of counter-points, and that better be done in different topic altogether and you can further come up with more points. For now - Magnitude of dominance - well for me it does not translate to similar level of dominance in completely different world. There are far too many parameters that have changed - that affect averages and other cricket stats - than that have remained same. And sometime I would like to review the statistical analysis ( 100->75) ,not just results, as I am sure there have to be lot of missing links/parameters. One a side note - read about following and see whether their domination of peers impresses you. a) Walter Lindrum (billiards) b) Stu Ungar - in gin-rummy and not Poker that he was forced to pick later, just because even best of his times declined to play with him. For the lazy - redefining domination :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stu_Ungar#Gin_rummy_and_transition_to_poker

[Sooda]

I present the face of Apples latest venture- Road designing...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

For now - Magnitude of dominance - well for me it does not translate to similar level of dominance in completely different world. There are far too many parameters that have changed - that affect averages and other cricket stats - than that have remained same.

In that case, absolutely nothing can be compared across eras. I can claim I would have been more successful than Gavaskar if I was born then. Too many parameters have changed. It's a completely different world. If that's your contribution, I have no arguments.

And sometime I would like to review the statistical analysis ( 100->75) ,not just results, as I am sure there have to be lot of missing links/parameters.

1. Dickson G, Mummery K, Arnold T et al. Legends at the crease: changes to the performance variation of Test cricket batting performances 1877-1997. Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference. Gold Coast. Griffith University. 1998. From what I remember it's purely a standard deviation analysis.

One a side note - read about following and see whether their domination of peers impresses you. a) Walter Lindrum (billiards) b) Stu Ungar - in gin-rummy and not Poker that he was forced to pick later, just because even best of his times declined to play with him. For the lazy - redefining domination :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stu_Ungar#Gin_rummy_and_transition_to_poker

You consider Gin-Rummy and Poker as sports? http://www.springerlink.com/content/k88p321t7v431h27/

[The Outsider]

But going back to Miller and Lindwall heres what I found by eyeballing scorecards at cricketarchive ... Miller played against DGB in a grand total of 4 First class matches in which he did not bowl in the first 2 matches .. bowled a Single over in the 3rd and bowled a grand total of 13 overs in the 4th match .... that is simply negligible amount of cricket to take any inference out of. http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/17/17218.html http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/17/17243.html http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/17/17285.html http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/17/17890.html ( 13 Overs ) Lets say I missed a few it still wont tell me much. Iam pretty sure the same is true for Lindwall.

Granted the sample is small, but that's all we have got. And on that basis there is nothing to suggest that Bradman struggled against Lindwall and Miller. He has a decent enough sample against Larwood and did very well. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Bradman would not have been able to adapt to a Lillee and Thompson just like Sobers did or Gavaskar and Chappell did with Marshall and Holding.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Actually there is nothing to suggest that he even faced them enough. You cant simply take the fact that these two were on the opposing sides a bunch of FC matches as a basis to arrive at anything. And most importantly These two aren't even in the same bracket of Accurate but express fast bowlers that we are comparing them with.

Sobers would disagree having faced them as well as Lillee and Thompson. But yeah, I agree the sample size is pretty limited - that's all we've got though.

Larwood is hardly the sort of express pace bowler you can compare with the Steyn's or Ws. The one series where he added a new dimension to his bowling caused a lot of problems to Bradman which is why you simply cannot proclaim that Bradman would adapt.

I don't want to get into the Bodyline discussion again because I've already explained the difference between intimidatory bowling with leg theory (Bodyline) and modern short pitch bowling. You continue to equate the two and we simply can't agree on that. But as an aside, the likes of Gavaskar and Chappell were able to adapt to the increase in short pitch bowling during the mid 70s, with Gavaskar never having faced it in his domestic career.

[saket123]

I like to think of Bradman as the fastest 100 meter runner.. while Sachin as the best over all runner. Bradman has hit a meager 6 sixes his whole life. Bradman's average is that high because of the number of not-outs Bradman played only 52 tests scoring about 7000 runs with a phenomenal average Sachin has over 18,000 runs in ODI + over 13,000 runs in Test Cricket!.. Bradman is no where close to the productivity of Sachin. Bradman played 95% of his games against England and in either England or Australia.. Sachin obviously playes everywhere. Bradman averaged about 2.3 games a year... Sachin averages close to 30 games a year! Looking at Bradman's videos.. the bowling would be considered a joke in today's time.. slow bowling.. dead short pitches.. waist high bounce... This is how it was for Bradman barring the brief periods of Body Line bowling.. which he complained about like crazy. The biggest things going for Bradman barring the number of batting milestones are.. He played during an era whenthere were no dead tracks. He played during an era when there were no helmets, pads etc. Some would argue it is a lot more difficult playing with all that on your body. My opinion.. Bradman was outstanding for his time.. but he would be slightly below Ricky Ponting in todays' time.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachinism]

My guess is that a Sehwag or a Tendulkar would avg much the same as the top guys in that era (not outlier) .... This is not abt transporting people back and forth in time machine, so whichever era they play in, they would play similar to how others are playing during that era and their skills and thinking process would be according to the enviornment they are playing in For example, a 2011 car, if it were made in 1930 would not be a 2011 car but a 1930 car, and vice versa. This is evolution :winky:

Lets not get it twisted, if Sehwag were transported back to Bradman's era he would have averaged 250. He would have made mince meat out of those bowlers

[akshayxyz]

In that case, absolutely nothing can be compared across eras. I can claim I would have been more successful than Gavaskar if I was born then. Too many parameters have changed. It's a completely different world. If that's your contribution, I have no arguments.

Of course you can make a case of you being better than (or about similar skilled as) Gavaskar - just that you will have to consider few million parameters - to 'extrapolate/evaluate' yourself. Anyway - when I say completely different world - it means - there is no doubt there have been overlapping periods. But when you put 30s right alongside 1990s - gradual incremental changes have resulted in huge disconnect for practical reasons. ( hint - integration!! that too of multiple variables at different pace) e.g. A Johnty Rhodes in 90s was as good as having extra bowler w/o even bowling a single bowl!!. There was no such parallel in that era. In few more words - Lets say there were 4 parameters which could significantly affect 30s batting averages - in current era not only weight age of these factor is not as same as 30s, but also there are more factors ( not just limiting to cricket skills) Another problem with exceptional 'out-lier' theory is: Attributing Don as being out-lier entirely to Don's 'exceptional-dom'. It could be due to that the then setup was not polished/competitive enough to disallow outliers, and Don happened to be one. And it is too simplistic view to say that he would have averaged good ~35% ((75-56)/56) above current lot.

1. Dickson G, Mummery K, Arnold T et al. Legends at the crease: changes to the performance variation of Test cricket batting performances 1877-1997. Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference. Gold Coast. Griffith University. 1998. From what I remember it's purely a standard deviation analysis. You consider Gin-Rummy and Poker as sports? http://www.springerlink.com/content/k88p321t7v431h27/

Thanks for the link, bookmarked for reviewing it later. It(gin-rummy) was just a side note. I did not intend to draw analogy with Don's case, just that these ones that impressed me in terms of peer domination and I thought you would find interesting. Sports or not, but if someone thinks it takes less effort/passion/temperament/stamina to dominate world in mind-sport (esp in cards, where there is so much of luck factor!!). Then I can understand why one does not find it impressive (as compared to so called sports). But very few people would even attempt to debate against it (actually most would, but will not sustain for long) But we can safely ignore it in Don's context.

[pensionplan]

Lets not get it twisted' date=' if Sehwag were transported back to Bradman's era he would have averaged 250. He would have made mince meat out of those bowlers[/quote']or viceversa. If a prototype of Bradman(a player far ahead of his times) were to be playing today where he averaged almost 100 when he played when none of the other 400 FC batsman of the time even averaged 60 he would have averaged in the 90-100 range too leaving a the group of 50-60 average players Sangakarra, Samaraweera, Lara, Kallis,Tendulkar, Ponting, Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border, Dravid etc far behind.

[Sachinism]

or viceversa. If a prototype of Bradman(a player far ahead of his times) were to be playing today where he averaged almost 100 when he played when none of the other 400 FC batsman of the time even averaged 60 he would have averaged in the 90-100 range too leaving a the group of 50-60 average players Sangakarra' date=' Samaraweera, Lara, Kallis,Tendulkar, Ponting, Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border, Dravid etc far behind.[/quote'] Can't talk about prototypes, I'm talking about the use of a time machine Not quite. Standards have changed, he probably wouldn't have the technique to deal with todays bowling variations and the different surfaces, the different field settings.

[pensionplan]

Can't talk about prototypes, I'm talking about the use of a time machine Not quite. Standards have changed, he probably wouldn't have the technique to deal with todays bowling variations and the different surfaces, the different field settings.

And similarly if players like Sehwag and Tendulkar who never managed to cross the 60 barrier and not being able to quite separate out of the group as Bradman did back in the day using the same analogy if they played back then with what was available they would perhaps be within a group of players like Lala Amarnath, Vijay Hazare and Vinoo Mankad or better them and be in the Hobbs, Hammond range while Bradman who averaged almost 100 would quite comfortably be head and shoulders above them.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --