yoda Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 so ur saying that if there had been another guy who averaged 99 odd during bradman's time' date=' then you wouldnt consider bradman to be great?[/quote'] they both would be considered greats (of their times) and we could analyze them both in depth like how we compare players of cause then it would be apples to apples to see who might have been better. if there are several of them in the same ball park, then that would dilute the 99 effect, in this case we have another guy well behind, so there isn't much ambiguity.
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 they both would be considered greats (of their times) and we could analyze them both in depth like how we compare players of cause then it would be apples to apples to see who might have been better. if there are several of them in the same ball park, then that would dilute the 99 effect, in this case we have another guy well behind, so there isn't much ambiguity. so if gave an entrance exam with 100 retards and i got 90 percentile and the retards others got 15, then i am the most intelligent person on earth, coz the other brialliant guys who gave the same examination 15 years later and got 99 percentile had to contend with another 80 brilliant guys who averaged 95? :cantstop:
zen Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 so if gave an entrance exam with 100 retards and i got 90 percentile and the retards others got 15' date=' then i am the most intelligent person on earth, coz the other brialliant guys who gave the same examination and got 99 percentile had to contend with another 80 brilliant guys who averaged 95? :cantstop:[/quote'] The point is were those 100, who gave the exam with you, retards or were similar to 80 brilliant guys you takled about. Here all the marks and assumptions are given by you. In Bradsman case, Hammond and Headley were very high quality players :winky:
yoda Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 This peer business is really idiotic to say the least ... is it SRT's fault that he has to deal with 10 times as many more "peers" and compete with them in 10 different countries in a extreemly competitive modern sport which attracts literally 1000s of sportsmen ? Develop some basic common sense before typing anything ... and trying to sell apples as oranges ... ridiculous really. If peer business is idiotic, there isn't much to discuss. And cut out the personal attacks. The only way to do a reasonable comparison is to see what happens when SRT plays mediocre teams .... he avgs 97 against BD and Zim ( who arent really mediocre BTW) . And had these teams been genrous with field settings as in DGB's case.. that number would have been well north of 100. Move on. Now that is the dumbest thing I have read regarding this argument. You don't take a person's performance against mediocre opponents of HIS time (today) and compare it with another person's performance against the standard opponent of HIS time (then) even if the two opponents are of the same quality in absolute terms. Bowling quality of course was worse then than it is now. We all get it. Point is so was batting quality. So was technology, so was nutrition quality, so was preparation quality. Things have evolved, which also we all get. What some of you guys don't get is a person needs to be judged based what the prevailing standards were then and if a guy left others in dust based on the prevailing HIS standards then, who have to question why was he alone so much better. Was it really because no one else played then or is it because this guy had something special in him.
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The point is were those 100, who gave the exam with you, retards or were similar to 80 brilliant guys you takled about. Here all the marks and assumptions are given by you. In Bradsman case, Hammond and Headley were very high quality players :winky: :winky: thats ur assumption, high quality as compared to what?? its easy to assume high quality players would adapt to lesser conditions, rather than lower quality players adapt to tougher conditions.. look at Sachin n Kambli, both were a terror during school days and Kambli was supposed to be better than Sachin according to some quarters...look where both of them are.... :dontknow: you cant say Bradman would be able to adjust to present conditions...but its easier to say Sach and his batchmates will adjust to conditions of 1930's :--D
Roshanrocks Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 If peer business is idiotic, there isn't much to discuss. And cut out the personal attacks. Now that is the dumbest thing I have read regarding this argument. You don't take a person's performance against mediocre opponents of HIS time (today) and compare it with another person's performance against the standard opponent of HIS time (then) even if the two opponents are of the same quality in absolute terms. Bowling quality of course was worse then than it is now. We all get it. Point is so was batting quality. So was technology, so was nutrition quality, so was preparation quality. Things have evolved, which also we all get. What some of you guys don't get is a person needs to be judged based what the prevailing standards were then and if a guy left others in dust based on the prevailing HIS standards then, who have to question why was he alone so much better. Was it really because no one else played then or is it because this guy had something special in him. all you are saying...to which we all agree to... Bradman was the greatest player of his era :P sheck i have to leave... see u guys on saturday :bye:
zen Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 :winky: thats ur assumption, high quality as compared to what?? its easy to assume high quality players would adapt to lesser conditions, rather than lower quality players adapt to tougher conditions.. look at Sachin n Kambli, both were a terror during school days and Kambli was supposed to be better than Sachin according to some quarters...look where both of them are.... :dontknow: you cant say Bradman would be able to adjust to present conditions...but its easier to say Sach and his batchmates will adjust to conditions of 1930's :--D I am sorry, I forgot Raja > Hammond :hysterical:
yoda Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 so if gave an entrance exam with 100 retards and i got 90 percentile and the retards others got 15' date=' then i am the most intelligent person on earth, coz the other brialliant guys who gave the same examination 15 years later and got 99 percentile had to contend with another 80 brilliant guys who averaged 95? :cantstop:[/quote'] First of all percentile is based on relative performance. So if you have 100 retards, the one guy is at 99 percentile (1/101*100) and not 90. :winky: If you are talking absolute percentages (not percentile), then the question is what is this exam which only attracted retards then and only brilliants now? Are they even the same exam? Let's take IIT JEE for example. Let's compare hypothetically 1960 and 2010. Let's say the topper in 1960 got average marks of 80, while the next best guy that year was at 60. Now let's fast forward to 2010, and exams got tougher, but you also have better coaching, better prep, etc, you have a bunch of top guys at 60, 58, 59, 58.5. In absolute knowledge/intelligence the 4 guys at the top in 2010 may be better, but in terms of achievement, what the guy did in 1960 is more commendable than what these 4 guys did in 2010. Can you say for sure that if you took these 4 from today and dropped them in 1960 with no modern coaching/training, using whatever was available then in the 1960s, they would all get 80?
akshayxyz Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Found this video- Interesting thing to note that both Don and Sachin had amazing discipline and humility:hatsoff:QmUw9dDa1ys&feature=related Too good. Greatness not about 99.94 or 30K or 100K runs Or pitch conditions or peer domination or skills or such 'quantifiable' parameters. It is mostly all about attitude, commitment, discipline etc. and not to mention humility, stuff which you can't measure - not with today's technology, not with averages, not with peer domination stats. A word about peer domination - 50% better than peers in 1930 - can not be compared - with just 5 or 10% better than peers in 2000. There are far too many variables to make any sense out of it. Both Sachin and Don are all time great - they possess(ed) qualities which are timeless and would make them top the ladder in any era. Now who would have been .01 average above the other in this or other time - is a meaningless exercise and a disrespect to such greats. Imagine what Sachin or Don would reply to this question - "Who is all time greatest batsmen". Do you think Sachin would say - "I am" Do you think Don would say - "its me" I am sure both will answer - I don't know, I just like to play cricket. And that's what make them timeless legends. So - for the love of the game and respect for them - stop this 'greatest of all time' nonsense.
SachDan Posted October 21, 2010 Author Posted October 21, 2010 Too good. Greatness not about 99.94 or 30K or 100K runs Or pitch conditions or peer domination or skills or such 'quantifiable' parameters. It is mostly all about attitude, commitment, discipline etc. and not to mention humility, stuff which you can't measure - not with today's technology, not with averages, not with peer domination stats. A word about peer domination - 50% better than peers in 1930 - can not be compared - with just 5 or 10% better than peers in 2000. There are far too many variables to make any sense out of it. Both Sachin and Don are all time great - they possess(ed) qualities which are timeless and would make them top the ladder in any era. Now who would have been .01 average above the other in this or other time - is a meaningless exercise and a disrespect to such greats. Imagine what Sachin or Don would reply to this question - "Who is all time greatest batsmen". Do you think Sachin would say - "I am" Do you think Don would say - "its me" I am sure both will answer - I don't know, I just like to play cricket. And that's what make them timeless legends. So - for the love of the game and respect for them - stop this 'greatest of all time' nonsense. I agree with you on that :two_thumbs_up:
dial_100 Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Too good. Greatness not about 99.94 or 30K or 100K runs Or pitch conditions or peer domination or skills or such 'quantifiable' parameters. It is mostly all about attitude, commitment, discipline etc. and not to mention humility, stuff which you can't measure - not with today's technology, not with averages, not with peer domination stats. A word about peer domination - 50% better than peers in 1930 - can not be compared - with just 5 or 10% better than peers in 2000. There are far too many variables to make any sense out of it. Both Sachin and Don are all time great - they possess(ed) qualities which are timeless and would make them top the ladder in any era. Now who would have been .01 average above the other in this or other time - is a meaningless exercise and a disrespect to such greats. Imagine what Sachin or Don would reply to this question - "Who is all time greatest batsmen". Do you think Sachin would say - "I am" Do you think Don would say - "its me" I am sure both will answer - I don't know, I just like to play cricket. And that's what make them timeless legends. So - for the love of the game and respect for them - stop this 'greatest of all time' nonsense. Thats my point.. fair post...Lets not disrespect 1 by comparing to other. Or anyone for that matter. Because these are two different eras. Leave it guys.
yoda Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Fortunately the likes of BD and Zim offer us this oppurtunity and you can see for yourselves what happens to them when Modern giants invariably maul them almost every single time. Thats where the case gets settled. Case does not get settled by comparing current performance vs the current worst opponents against past performances vs the standard opponents of that time. Let's say we accept that the bowling quality of those years was the same as the bowling quality of Zim/Bangbros. Now, is a 100 avg vs that bowling in the 1930s a greater achievement or is a 100 avg against the same bowling today, after having gone through the modern training/preparation a better achievement? The answer is obvious don't you think? So to summarize DGB is the only batsman from that era that has a good chance to cut it in the modern era. But to say that he would kill everybody like he used to back in the 30s is just silly. I don't know who else qualifies other than him, and no one is saying he is going to dominate his current peers the same way he did then, and I don't even know how he would perform if he played in the modern era, but it is safe to say that based on his performances then and based on current performances, he was head and shoulders above the rest of HIS time, which itself is a hallmark of greatness. Like I said earlier, before we enter the question of all time greatness, one has to at a minimum accept people as great for what they did during their generation, which itself seems to be a problem for some of you guys.
zen Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Reasons as to why Tendulkar > Bradman: 1. He plays today 2. He played on more grounds 3. He played against stronger teams 4. He plays ODIs too 5. He plays with burden of expectations 6. When Tendulkar is on 100, there are no slips and gullys. Defensive field is employed 7. So what he doesn't have career avg of 100 even in Ranji games but he would have avg 100 easily in Bradman's era 8. I don't know Bradman but I know Tendulkar 9. Runs scored now are more valuable then runs scored in the past 10. Because I am an Indian or of that origin so I feel obliged to blow Tendulkar's trumpet
zen Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Why Bradman is not the greatest: 1. He played in 30s 2. The bowlers bowled full-tosses and half vollies to him 3. Captains placed fields with huge gap so Bradman could score. And when he was on 100, they kept gully and slips 4. What's Bodyline? A bouncer bowled today is more lethal than a bouncer bowled in Bradman's era 5. I haven't watched him play. The slow video clips show that his bat came from North pole (Note: Bradman was probably not known for his technical strength. It was Hammond who was considered as technically better, iirc) 6. Bradman's avg of 100 and peer domination are misleading. 7. Runs scored by Bradman are not as valuable as runs scored by batsmen today 8. He didn't face *insert name* bowler 9. He played against amateurs, who would struggle to get in to Ranji teams 10. Bradman would never score as many as guys like Sachin today
akshayxyz Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 Good article in the context. http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/477919.html Especially this para towards the end of the article - Ranking cricketers from different eras, then, is a little like ranking inventions from history. Is the world wide web a greater innovation than the telephone? Quite possibly, but the former could not have arisen without the latter. It is possible when Tendulkar bats to see through him the whole history of batsmanship: WG Grace's playing back, Ranjitsinhji's playing to leg, Bradman's playing across the line, Gavaskar's stoic endurance, Richards' instinct to dominate. What does he owe their inspiriting qualities? So why perform an exercise that seems meretricious, intellectually flawed and is almost bound to mislead?
Sooda Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 ^ Yeah everyboday who has posted on this thread needs to read that article, its obvious stuff but makes for interesting reading.
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