Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Raghav_12]

I am not changing the data. Can you give me Sachin's avg if the QI was 2.1 and also 2.3.

No man.. I'm not gonna give it. If you can't find antilog of 2.1, you must stay out of discussions on mathematical analysis :winky:. :winky: haha.. it was absolute fun to discuss things with you. Thanks for entertainment. Wii c ya some other time. Till then try to find out anti-log of 2.1 :haha::haha:

[zen]

Than why did you come in field of mathematical analysis?. Go and give back your noble that you got for discovery of "Quality Index" (QI)

Ah ha, appears as if someone is really jealous at me (a non mathematician) winning the Nobel Prize :giggle:

[zen]

No man.. I'm not gonna give it. If you can't find antilog of 2.1, you must stay out of discussions on mathematical analysis :winky:. :winky: haha.. it was absolute fun to discuss things with you. Thanks for entertainment. Wii c ya some other time. Till then try to find out anti-log of 2.1 :haha::haha:

You would give the anti log, if you knew :hysterical:

[zen]

So log are illogical? Do you realize how many mathematicians in world use log for their calculations. You are not playing by rules any more. You suggested changes in our methodology and which I agreed to and when you are not finding results in your favour you simply discarding all our efforts. Guys, we have developed one methodology which is based on very sound mathematical concept of "Quality Index" which was developed by Rett. Using this methodology we have seen that Sachin just edges ahead of Bradman - but just. Total approach we have discussed in this thread above. Please go though all these posts to see all efforts that me and Rett have put in.

Still waiting for the antilog for 2.1 and 2.3 My methodology was designed to be a handicap for Bradman (his numbers weren't even included in the index) :hysterical:

[zen]

No signs yet of the jealous mathematician :P If you take pride in being a mathematician, then you should be honest in the way you use your knowledge. Not use it to twist the data to try to show that someone is wrong because he proved you wrong on many occasions. You should know that you have to use the right number and not go around trying to show your expertise on Antilog of 2.1 and 2.3 :giggle: Which is why I said I am logical and NOT log-i-cal :icflove:

[thongale]

My bad.. I missed that and I do admit that including Bradman's number in your analysis would rather make case stronger for Bradman. But I am not fully convinced with your quality index, particularly with the fact that how to use this quantitatively, though qualitatively you are getting results right and that is Quality of cricket at Bradman's time was inferior to today's time. Now I have a method on how to use these results quantitatively: Quality Index in Bradman's time was 1.73. Take Anti-Log of quality indexes (on the base of 10) Antilog (1.73) = 54 Antilog (2.23) = 170 Comparing those mean Quality of today's cricket is three times (170/54) more than cricket of Bradman's era. So any player who averages 54 today would have scored - 170 in Bradman's era. Vice-versa, if we transport player's from Bradman's era to current era, we'll have to divide their averages by same quotient (roughly about three). So as per this logic Bradman would have score at an average of 100/3 = 33.33. Now in either way it can be seen that 170 (Sachin's) > 100 (Bradman's) or 57 (Sachin's) > 33 (Bradman)

Now first prove that quality is directly proportional to anti-log. This will be an entertaining thing to look at.

[dial_100]

So how do you close a case without knowing answer to your main question? May be cause you weren't interested in finding out the answer in the first place?

Yoda brother, if you think post 481 is in anyway related to what OP says then I can keep it on. I have added all that I could and responded to all those who added to the OP. If you think that you have something to add about why there can or cannot be another Bradman, then please go ahead. I am listening. As I have clearly said in the OP that I aint comparing any particular player here. In one post you recommended that we shouldn't look for a specific 99 or 100 but a significant difference in the performances of the peers and I gave you closest example who costantly dropped from high 80s upto 50. So far none who has done 65 in 50 test matches, let alone 75. Do you want to take, say K Williamson or C Pujara, who manages to score 65-66 in 50 test matches and retire, as next Bradman??? If not then how much 70 or 75 or 80??

[zen]

I calculated the antilog of 2.3 to be 200 :P 2.3 is the proper QI of 28-48 as it includes Bradman's number (apples to apples) Based on the log theory which mathematicians swear by, Sachin would avg 48 in Bradman's time :hysterical: PS no need to say that the direct relation b/w logs and quality is not defined yet :giggle:

[Sachin=GOD]

Well, who needs a Bradman when you have Goddy.