Serani Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Wow, so quick it seems the keeper is standing up in one frame yet has time to be standing back by the time the thunderbolt sends off stump into oblivion. Hmm it seems the action is all shoulder, must have had herculean strength running through his body, what an athlete, son of zeus.
Tapioca Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Sir Gubby Allen in action @ 00:39 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=12289 Very interesting video. Look at how the stump flies at around 0:45. The bowler has to be quite quick to send it like that.The speed is probably not obvious because of the slinging and the shuffling runup. And remember that Allen was 41 years old when this video was taken. PS - Bossbhai, I am mostly serious here.
Bumper Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Think about how we make decisions in real life. Before you make a purchase on eBay you want to see its picture. Because you want to know what you are paying for. You dont choose your date based on hearsay, you wanna see a god damn picture at least. You dont vote for a leader based on hearsay. You wanna see and listen to him/her before you make up your mind. Even in cricket, you dont declare some Rahane or Bahane to be a test prospect, until you have had a chance to see him live. Then, how come you lot have issues extending this common sense to the "Bradman" topic ? How can anyone who watches these videos think that cricket back then was as competitive ? "You can only assess cricketers as products of their generation"? Fair enough. Then how come you go on to declare the "product of that specific generation" as the best ever ? Beats me! Suffice to say, Bradman's greatness is never in question. He certainly was ahead of his times and was a great batsman of his times. To call him the greatest ever, totally ignoring the odds stacks against modern day players is bordering on the ridiculous to say the least. Just look around competitive sports & you will see this in almost every sport - the gap between the modern greats and their rivals is closing. It is simply impossible for modern sportsmen to achieve the kind of domination over their peers that oldies managed. On a side note, Google for "cognitive dissonance". I see plenty of victims of the same. When you grow up with the thought that X is Y and later you figure it is not, our mind will work towards reducing this dissonance & restoring the original belief. Thats what is happening here.
new_cartman Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Very well written !! On a side note' date=' Google for "cognitive dissonance". I see plenty of victims of the same. When you grow up with the thought that X is Y and later you figure it is not, our mind will work towards reducing this dissonance & restoring the original belief. Thats what is happening here.[/quote']
King Tendulkar Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Think about how we make decisions in real life. Before you make a purchase on eBay you want to see its picture. Because you want to know what you are paying for. You dont choose your date based on hearsay, you wanna see a god damn picture at least. You dont vote for a leader based on hearsay. You wanna see and listen to him/her before you make up your mind. Even in cricket, you dont declare some Rahane or Bahane to be a test prospect, until you have had a chance to see him live. Then, how come you lot have no issues extending this common sense to the "Bradman" topic ? How can anyone who watches these videos think that cricket back then was as competitive ? "You can only assess cricketers as products of their generation"? Fair enough. Then how come you go on to declare the "product of that specific generation" to be the best ever ? Beats me! Suffice to say, Bradman's greatness is never in question. He certainly was ahead of his times and was a great batsman of his times. To call him the greatest ever, totally ignoring the odds stacks against modern day players is bordering on the ridiculous to say the least. Just look around competitive sports & you will see this in almost every sport - the gap between the modern greats and their rivals is closing. It is simply impossible for modern sportsmen to achieve the kind of domination over their peers that oldies managed. On a side note, Google for "cognitive dissonance". I see plenty of victims of the same. When you grow up with the thought that X is Y and later you figure it is not, our mind will work towards reducing this dissonance & restoring the original belief. Thats what is happening here. Super post. But I am afraid many will not want their dreams shattered in their nostalgic trips down memory lane, which they will always view through super powered rose tinted glasses.
The Outsider Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 On a side note, Google for "cognitive dissonance". I see plenty of victims of the same. When you grow up with the thought that X is Y and later you figure it is not, our mind will work towards reducing this dissonance & restoring the original belief. Thats what is happening here. 'Cognitive dissonance' is to keep harping on how a smaller competitive pool(as you've done again in your post) was the reason for Bradman's average of 100 despite a rigorous, statistical study showing that the equivalent modern statistical outlier would have to average around 75-80 after accounting for the size of competitive pools.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I dont think he is taking about "smaller competitive pool" in his post. He is primarily going by the videos and ofcourse common sense. now, if only the Bradman Brigade had some.
Bumper Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 'Cognitive dissonance' is to keep harping on how a smaller competitive pool(as you've done again in your post) was the reason for Bradman's average of 100 despite a rigorous, statistical study showing that the equivalent modern statistical outlier would have to average around 75-80 after accounting for the size of competitive pools. FWIW, my $0.02 on some of the points you have made: 1) Cognitive dissonance that i referred to is about the "Bradman brand" being pummelled into us by cricket historians and pundits for ages so much so that we grow up believing that it is some kinda gospel truth. Its kinda like our belief in religion that our parents took so much pain to ingrain in us or food habits or even simple superstitions. We learn later on in life that some of the beliefs we grew up with dont quite make sense or some even baseless, but yet we find it impossible to desert those beliefs - we even go to the extent of defending them. The video evidence showing yester year cricketers (who could be mistaken for mickey mouses) suggests that cricket back then was not even the same sport. I dont see how we can even compare the two eras - leave alone declaring Bradman as the greatest. This is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about. Its not about the small sample, its all about competition, skill levels and odds faced by players. 2) On statistical extrapolation of 75-80 as the modern day equivalent, I dont know what to say. You believe that it is possible to do extrapolations like that on a sport that is characterized and impacted by so many extraneous variables ? To me such mathematical analysis may be suitable for book cricket, but not for a real sport. Sample this: Is it fair to take Moyo's 100+ average against Bangladesh & do a 50% reduction on it (assuming Bangla bowlers are at least 50% inferior based on average, SR etc to McGrath) & conclude Moyo would have averaged 50+ against McGrath ? My common sense tells me McGrath will get Yousuf in single digits more often than not. Thats what I think about these "rigorous" extrapolations.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 FWIW, my $0.02 on some of the points you have made: 1) Cognitive dissonance that i referred to is about the "Bradman brand" being pummelled into us by cricket historians and pundits for ages so much so that we grow up believing that it is some kinda gospel truth. Its kinda like our belief in religion that our parents took so much pain to ingrain in us or food habits or even simple superstitions. We learn later on in life that some of the beliefs we grew up with dont quite make sense or some even baseless, but yet we find it impossible to desert those beliefs - we even go to the extent of defending them. The video evidence showing yester year cricketers (who could be mistaken for mickey mouses) suggests that cricket back then was not even the same sport. I dont see how we can even compare the two eras - leave alone declaring Bradman as the greatest. This is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about. Its not about the small sample, its all about competition, skill levels and odds faced by players. 2) On statistical extrapolation of 75-80 as the modern day equivalent, I dont know what to say. You believe that it is possible to do extrapolations like that on a sport that is characterized and impacted by so many extraneous variables ? To me such mathematical analysis may be suitable for book cricket, but not for a real sport. Sample this: Is it fair to take Moyo's 100+ average against Bangladesh & do a 50% reduction on it (assuming Bangla bowlers are at least 50% inferior based on average, SR etc to McGrath) & conclude Moyo would have averaged 50+ against McGrath ? My common sense tells me McGrath will get Yousuf in single digits more often than not. Thats what I think about these extrapolations. :hatsoff: but don't you know - he averaged 99.94. Even if it was in the "mickey mouse" era of cricket, according to the Bradman Brigade no other batsman, no matter what he has done, has no right to be named alongside Sir Don Bradman. So much so that quite a few of these members of the Bradman Brigade have come to the conclusion that he is the greatest ever without having watched him play even once (or maybe nothing more than a few occasional clippings of his batting). For all of these people there is ONE AND ONLY ONE criteria to measure batting greatness - average.
Bumper Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Moyos avg against BD = 251 The top two bowlers who bowled to him are Rafique and Mortaza whos career avgs are 41. You will have to assume that these bowlers were like 4 or 5 times worse than McGrath - which they aren't as per the stats - to be able to arrive at a conclusion that Moyo would avg 50ish against McGrath. So in short I could easily see a padosee indulge in such a thing if such an oppurtunity arises . Your numbers only illustrate why statistical extrapolations across eras is nothing but baloney sausage. Even if you assume that the Bangla boys are 4-5 times worse (a baseless assumption by any statistical means) MoYo should still comfortably average 50+ against the Aussies. But we know MoYo does not. So what gives ? Unfortunately, "common sense" gives. Great bowlers get batsmen out in single digits or even before they make starts & it is impossible to use their bowling stats to argue that they are only 30% better or 40% better. I bet the guys who did those "rigorous" extrapolations had numerous such quantitative assumptions that make no sense whatsoever in the real world.
Tapioca Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Absolutely. Forget about the " rigorous' date=' statistical studies" .... take a look at the first bowler bowling in this clip : [url']http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74604 he is a spinner/slow medium bowler who has a bowling avg of 21 at a S/R of 66 ... significantly better than the likes of modern strike bowlers such as Flintoff , Srinath. So those who hold Bradmans avg as Gospel must also treat this bowler as being better than modern strike bowlers. We all know that this just flies in the face of conventional cricketing wisdom as we are now accustomed to. The strange thing is there are many bowlers like him who have funny avgs and these guys have literally 100s of wkts in FC cricket. Who played 12 test matches, and who took 11/31 in a pitch destroyed by rain. Take that out and his average comes to 26 and SR to 82, and he was good enough for that.
Tapioca Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Or we can try another bowler. But then that will require you to come out of your "hit and run" mode ... No time unfortunately. Otherwise would have posted more in these threads.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now