Sir GOB Allen was a better bowler than Allan Donald

[Sachin=GOD]

Take a look at his FC stats ... Cue : Time for your customary silence ? 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.

Hit & Run mode :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Tapioca]

Hit & Run mode :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

What is there to laugh ? Bossbhai and myself are in complete agreement on it :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

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.

It's clear that you did not understand the study nor the argument it is supposed to address. It is not an extrapolation or a predictive study - it is meant to quantify one variable that is thrown around that Bradman's dominance was a result of a smaller number of cricketers playing in his time. It does not make a claim on anything else. Your and others' reactions are very predictable - you will twist and assume the study to have been done for something else and offer counterpoints to that something else rather than the actual topic of the study.

[Tapioca]

Nobody is forcing you to respond to these posts immediately ... nor do the threads vanish when there is no activity ... But I suspect the reasons for your very predictable radio silence are something else other than the "I don't have time". Don't expect any responses to your posts from hereon as you are simply not capable of a discussion that lasts more than 2 posts.

Feel free to ignore (including this one). Ignoring the posts is as much your prerogative as making such posts is mine.

[Bumper]

It's clear that you did not understand the study nor the argument it is supposed to address. It is not an extrapolation or a predictive study - it is meant to quantify one variable that is thrown around that Bradman's dominance was a result of a smaller number of cricketers playing in his time. It does not make a claim on anything else. Your and others' reactions are very predictable - you will twist and assume the study to have been done for something else and offer counterpoints to that something else rather than the actual topic of the study.

Ok, fair enough. Gotta link for the study ? I am confident I can drill 1000 holes into the quantitative assumptions made in those studies. Simple fact is that you cannot quantify competition, pressure and the intensity (the extraneous variables) of the game. If that was possible no one would even be debating the relative rankings of the batsmen or bowlers. We will have a number associated with each player and all debates would be settled on numbers. Hardly the case in the real world.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Serani]

Did you know old school cameras took atleast 40 MPH off the apparant speed of bowlers? If the GOB was bowling in todays crystal clear HD he would be compared with Shaun Tait. Same thing with the Don, the cameras back then make his aesthetically pleasing batting look like a village cricketer.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --