Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[zen]

I repeat again ... Sachinism made that post implying that DGB faced atleast 2 situations that were closer to modern times . If you want to agree with that you must also agree with the fact that his avg went down in that series (regarrdless of whether we consider sledging as a factor ) .... thats all it is . If you dont agree with that post then you should have responded to that post from Sachinism. You cant have it both ways. In short you may want to continue this with Sachinism. As far as Iam concerned I stand by the 10 points that I made in post#3 when it comes to "Determining factors". Understand ? PS: I have made far more detailed comments about the BL series in that monster thread . If that post is bothering you so much feel free to look at those posts about BL series. Just because you argue against SRT doesnt give you a title of neutrality. Same applies to me w.r.t DGB. Again a arbitrary assumption. What has Rameez got to do with how much SRT scores ? Absolutely nothing. Nice way to completely dodge my question ... I repeat again if you were asked to pick one set of bowlers from 2 lists where 1 list would be bowlers faced by DGB and the other would be the bowlers from 90s which is a better list ? Can you provide a straight answer to this ? Who decided this is the only measure ? Arbitrary again by any chance ? If you play in only one country away from home you get ridiculed at today. Times have changed move on. Again for the millionth time ... the yardstick to measure a batsmans greatness is different these days ... go read goose's post again and understand what he is saying when he talks about reversing the order of DGB and SRT's era's. In short tomorrow say batsman XYZ comes in and scores at 90 against trundlers from Eng without playing anywhere else ... he aint even going to be considered for a comparison with SRT ... that is the point. Because making runs under varied conditions is NOW a very important criteria. Bradman has no data to prove what he could do under such situations.

You can stand by what you want, but sledging has been added to your list :giggle: So even, if I am a Sachin fan but if I say DBG is the greatest than I am not neutral. Ok, that kind of argument was accepted If you don't undertsand what Rameez has got to do with this then you don't even understand that for a rule to be true, it should be universally applicable. That set of bowlers means zilch. The set of bowlers theory won't even prove that Sachin is better than Gavaskar or Lara in tests. Why not do a top bowlest list for 70s-90 and 90s-10? "Bradman has no data to prove what he could do under such situations" ----> Is it only me who finds that statement hilarious and sums up the menatality of the biased folks :giggle: .... Oh boy, he can't find the data as to how Bradman would have done under varied conditions so he thinks he is not the greatest :hysterical: Case closed

[The Outsider]

I meant the distribution of a single player's own scores around his average. I'm no statistician but there must be some mathematical measure of a players consistency i.e. what impact does a players highest and lowest scores have on his average?

Standard deviation. However, it's not immediately clear how useful a measure it is in cricket. Firstly, to even go to a second level of measure, batsmen should have comparable averages. There is no advantage in having a very consistent batsman who averages 20 over an inconsistent one who averages 50. Secondly, it's not immediately clear whether more consistency around the average is actually good or not. For example, two players can have the same average and scores like : 1. 40, 50, 45, 55, 50, 50 to average 50 2. 120, 10, 30, 110, 30, 0 to average 50. Player 1 is much more consistent than player 2. Who would you have in the team? There are arguments to be made for both. Personally I would have player 1 in ODIs and player 2 in Tests.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Here are the two lists for the Bradman fans ... please pick the list that has the best bowlers.

LIST- 1           LIST-2

Bedser		Donald
Vincent		McGrath
Phadkar		Imran
Morkel		Bishop
Wright		Akhtar
Martin		Warne
Geary		Pollock
Francis		Clark
Allen		Gul
Larwood		Waqar
Verity		Wasim
Griffith	Walsh
Peebles		Ambrose
White		Kallis
Farnes		Gillespie
Amarnath	 Bond
Constantine	Asif
Tate		Muralitharan
Quinn		Ntini
Yardley		Lee
Pollard		Johnson
Sinfield	Vettori
Robins		Hoggard
Hazare		Harmison
Voce		Steyn
Bowes		Morkel
Hollies		Saqlain
Edrich		Flintoff
Hammond		Vaas

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+Jan+1990;spanmin1=1+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling ^ 1 Jan 1970 to 1 Jan 1990 vs http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+Jan+2011;spanmin1=1+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling ^ 1 Jan 1990 to today Which period had better bowler?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

And I have added plenty more to your list of bakwaas ... in which runs per test stands at top ... you think only you can make arbitrary statements as you go along :hysterical: Yes. By Laws of arbitrary choices . Your own law BTW. :hysterical: No it should not be applicable . Why ? Check the laws of arbitrary choices for further details. :hysterical: Because we arent even interested in doing SRT > BCL or SRT > SMG ... its SRT (or BCL) vs DGB .... and plus ofcourse theres the ohh boy he knows what would happen to the trundlers of 30s if they faced SRT but yet he thinks he is not the greatest ... Case closed !! :cantstop: And ? Move on. Others can play your childish game too.

Arbitary laws ... appears as if you went looking for data :P If you are doing SRT/BCL > DBG then why claim Tendulkar is the greatest :giggle: .... and if you want to prove what you want to prove then your rules should be applicable in case for Rameez > Hammond too and I guess you have the "data" that shows Tendulkar would have avg 100 against those trudlers (when he doesn't even avg 100 in Ranjis) :hysterical: .... If you ever play cricket, you would realize that its different from what it looks through stats Let me try my hand at dumb stats: SRT avg 60, Bowler X avg 20 so in the world of stats, if SRT plays someone who avg 25, his svg would be 75 :hysterical: Let stop watching cricket games and do a computer stimulation based on stats. Oh boy, see RAmeez > Hammond too, eureka :P

[Nirvanam]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+Jan+1990;spanmin1=1+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling ^ 1 Jan 1970 to 1 Jan 1990 vs http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+Jan+2011;spanmin1=1+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling ^ 1 Jan 1990 to today Which period had better bowler?

Rett, are you stupid or retarded or what? In case you didn't understand, the question is between Bradman and Sachin...so you should provide a link for bowlers between 1928 and 1948 not 1970 and 1990. What a moron man you are...tch tch tch

[pensionplan]

I don't understand one thing about you guys, Rett and Srtfanaticssuck (what a name...says more about you than about the purported srt fanatics). Why do you guys keep avoiding discussions when facts are presented? Why are you not concentrating on the facts? Why are you continuously clinging on to the bogey theory that if A >> B then A is also >> C? Especially Rett...you are unnecessarily ridiculing people with your stupid smilies. Why not have the balls to talk in factual terms instead of ridiculing others with your stupid smilies, man? Are you incapable of such a thing or what? Srtfanaticssuck, I think at least you will have better judgment than this Rett fellow. How about first acknowledging that it is not logical to assume that if A >> his peer B then he is necessarily >> C who is 60 yrs later? I seriously wanna debate you with facts. And you naming others who dare to challenge the norm as fanatics is no good...come to the table without that bias in your mind please. Would you want others to view you with a bias that 'you are incapable of rationalizing yourself and instead rely on what is taught to you that Bradman is the greatest'? That you are a Bradman fanatic? I'd assume you wouldn't. So why not you debate me proper...with facts. You start with your argument, first and I'll provide the rebuttal or if you are comfortable with me starting then I'll do it...I can start a new thread for the two of us to debate this with as much facts as possible ps: I ain't no fanatic here and I'd like you to respect me thus. I'll reciprocate the same way

Look let me make one thing clear. I have no issue in someone personally claiming Tendulkar or even Lara the best ever. Afterall nothing is set in stone be it Bradman or anyone else. The issue I have in general is again this what I have seen here so far. This ridiculing all and sundry just to show that one player to be the best is what is the most funny. Let us keep Bradman aside for a second. If you make it let us say Tendulkar vs Lara I gaurantee it will denigrate into Lara bashing in the end disregarding the facts presented from either side as opposed to in the end respectfully agreeing to disagree. I have seen the likes of Ponting teared down like no one's business all because until a year ago he had a real shot at catching up with Tendulkar. And it is natural that Tendulkar is ridiculed too by the other side after a while of having it though let me add that to be lesser in extent. Before I had an ID here I have been reading for 3-4 years on and off. Coming to the debate between Bradman and Tendulkar feel free to present what you have and me being seriously time strapped and hence the reason never to actively participate here over the years will see what I can do to counter your POV if I find it objectionable. Some points to consider though 1) One thing I am against is this revisionist history where somehow bowlers of one era were drastically inferior based on some video footage or bowling actions. Not saying everyone here has bad intent but just throwing that out there. 2) I personally feel there is only so much one can make out looking at scorecards or doing statistical analysis though that can give some perspective and do not mean to be dismissive. It can never replicate the on field occurences or first hand accounts. Think of it this way. I often go to the NY Jets NFL games. With all the modern means of telecast and video footage it is never the same as one being on the sidelines appreciating the speed of the game or what the game is all about. TV can never do justice at all. Same holds true for cricket too as I have witnessed many a cricket match in India over the years and it is not the same watching a VVS in full flow battling it out in the middle on the 5th day with some style and panache. 3) Also one other thing how if one is doing a study can they account for the way the game has evolved across era's and say build prototypes of players to make the playing field even when comparing players of 1900's to 2000's be it better travel, better equipment to train and stay stronger and fit, better recovery times in case of injuries or niggles are some of the many that have to be considered. 4) Then how do we account for players who lost out their best years in the past owing to wars or hardships that can never be reflected in stats. 5) Even if one were to on the surface agree to the thought Bradman's 99 average as some kind of a minnow bashing which I thought is the one of the most funny things I have ever heard, how can one account for or explain out of about 300-400 players that are batsman around the world who have played decent amount of FC cricket between 1880-1945 not one has even crossed the 67 or 68 average barrier while Bradman has 95 average over a 340 inning span even if I keep Test cricket aside where he had no match. Some of the things to be kept in mind and not easy to conclusively prove one way or the other. That is where the challenge would be. That is how I look at all this to an extent.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[akshayxyz]

I am happy for both Rett and BossBhai - guess you guys have struck on gold mine that you can keep digging endlessly for rest of your lives without anyone loosing at all. Unless of course Saching scores Bradman's equivalent of runs at about his Avg in this decade :) ( not entirely impossible ;)).

[Gunner_Mania]

Rett' date=' are you stupid or retarded or what? In case you didn't understand, the question is between Bradman and Sachin...so you should provide a link for bowlers between 1928 and 1948 not 1970 and 1990. What a moron man you are...tch tch tch[/quote'] You hardly know Rett or any other posters on this forum for that matter and straight away you start with personal abuses. I wonder if you would hurl personal abuses at a colleague when you joined a new work place and decide to butt into a conversation a few people are having about a subject on which you may have some opinions.

[zen]

But you forget the law of random and arbitrary choices :hysterical: No i dont need any data anymore ... I found the mother of all data provider ... the law of arbitrary choices :hysterical: why do you even want to buy a computer simulation when your fantastic law of arbitrary selections is free and works just fine ? :hysterical:

Like you pulled out number from your data that Bradman would avg around 56 now :hysterical: You alreary have found the law of presenting data arbitarily :giggle: Because I have been told by ppl like you that if there is no data, it means nothing :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

You hardly know Rett or any other posters on this forum for that matter and straight away you start with personal abuses. I wonder if you would hurl personal abuses at a colleague when you joined a new work place and decide to butt into a conversation a few people are having about a subject on which you may have some opinions.

I second that. Nirvanam should not let the zeal get the better of him and it is better to stick to the topic. Calling someone a moron or as such is not warranted especially if they have the ammunition to counter the opposing POV. Stick to the topic please.

[zen]

what has this got anything to do with what I asked ? Ohh wait I just forgot the law of random and arbitrary rules and choices ... gotcha. :hysterical:

It's you who came out with a list of bowlers to show "something" (which I thought was very hilarious), so i am trying to understand whether the same thing could be proved when we take bowlers from 70s-90 and 90s-10 :giggle: But appears as if what you wanted to prove, isn't (as usual) universally applicable (what a surprise) :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Shall I start trolling endlessly in all threads butting in between serious discussions spewing smilies rhetoric and innuendo ? I want to see how long people can tolerate such nonsense.

I guess, ppl are suppose to debate based upon the "DATA" you have or not, and then the "DATA" you pick to present :giggle:

[Gunner_Mania]

Shall I start trolling endlessly in all threads butting in between serious discussions spewing smilies rhetoric and innuendo ? I want to see how long people can tolerate such nonsense.

As far as I can see Rett wasn't trolling - smilies & rhetoric or not - irrespective of the contents of his post, both of you were replying to each others post. If you think he was trolling, then you were obviously encouraging a troll by feeding him. Infact, it was Nirvanam's posts with his personal insults towards Rett that was distracting from the 'debates' that you were trying to have.

[Nirvanam]

You hardly know Rett or any other posters on this forum for that matter and straight away you start with personal abuses. I wonder if you would hurl personal abuses at a colleague when you joined a new work place and decide to butt into a conversation a few people are having about a subject on which you may have some opinions.

When a person chooses ridicule instead of debate then he will get it back. I agree I was pissed off...and hence started the new thread

[Nirvanam]

I guess' date=' ppl are suppose to debate based upon the "DATA" you have or not, and then the "DATA" you pick to present :giggle:[/quote']There you go again...why can't you ****ing be respectful instead of ridiculing people for what they believe. Is it so difficult?