Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Nirvanam]

Name this batsman...his stats are as follows - M - 32, Inns - 55, NO - 11, Runs - 4104, Hundreds - 18, Fifties - 11...Average - 93.27 OK, here's a clue - this batsman played against 2 minnows and one seriously strong side at 8 venues in his whole career. Unfortunately this batsman was not lucky enough to play a 3rd minnow. Another misfortune for this batsman was that he did not get to play against one of those two minnows at Home at all. Bradman played 3 minnows...all 3 in the comfort of home and one decent side...in all but 8 grounds. So, even with the disadvantage of playing one minnow less, and one minnow entirely Away, and totally playing at more than 12 venues...this batsman averaged 93.27. Guess who this is. Just some perspective to stats, you see

[zen]

If Sachin could play 171 test matches, it should add to his legend and should be given credit for.Nobody offered him a test cap on platter at the age of 16. He earned that. Bradman could not play more test matches because of WW 2 is a valid argument. But Lara did not play more test matches because he was not good enough for more than 131 test matches. I am getting the context of whole discussion. I understand point that you trying to prove is Sachin is not that well ahead of his peers as Bradman was. This is an established fact and I don't think anybody arguing against that. But no need to create stats like runs per match. I guess, whole point of this thread is whether we can compare players of this era with the players of Bradman's era. Answer seems to be a no. But, if we are forced to compare, Bradman will be rated ahead of Sachin only because of his superiority to his peers. Any suggestions like he was way ahead in direct comparison of batting skills or techniques are rubbish.

1. No one is giving any discredit to Sachin for playing 171 tests. But one has to understand that he is the highest run scorer because of that. Being the highest run scorer is not equal to being the greatest because the next guy played some 30-40 tests less. You make a record if you score like 15k runs in 150 tests with 50 hundreds. I remember when Md Azharuddin was congratulated for going past Desmond Haynes in ODIs, Azhar had remarked that it would have been a record if he had done it in less games than Haynes. So again no one is giving discredit to Sachin for playing 171 tests nor it's Lara's fault that he would only play 131 or someone else who would play 90 tests. 2. The point is not only that Bradman is greatest because he is way ahead of his peer but also because he avg 100 after 50 tests (which is like holy grail of batting) when others could manage to avg 60. The peer comparison comes in mainly because some folks try to discredit what Bradman has achieved by saying/implying that if Tendulkar had played then he would have averaged 100 too. This is where peer domination comes in as other greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc could only avg in 50-60 As I said, you seem to be missing the point and/or looking for avenues to show what you know by picking points allows you to do that. For me, discussing (more like explaining / spoon feeding you) is turning in to a waste of time :((

[Nirvanam]

2. The point is not only that Bradman is greatest because he is way ahead of his peer but also because he avg 100 after 50 tests (which is like holy grail of batting) when others could manage to avg 60. The peer comparison comes in mainly because some folks try to discredit what Bradman has achieved by saying/implying that if Tendulkar had played then he would have averaged 100 too. This is where peer domination comes in as other greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc could only avg in 50-60

This way ahead of peers business is a bogey. The fact of the matter is that the average cricketer today would easily be twice the average cricketer before the War. As much as I tried, none of the modern batsmen were as lucky as him in getting to play - a. Against 3 minnows all at Home b. One decent side c. A grand total of 8 venues However, I could come to something close to that kind of uselessness of opposition - a. Against 2 minnows b. One minnow Away ONLY c. One damn good side at 8 venues..none of which were more than 4 Tests unlike Bradman's where he played a minimum of 4 Tests at each of his venues d. A grand total of more than 10 venues How do the stats compare - 99.94 v/s 93.27, 1.79 Tests per century v/s 1.83 Tests per century. If the latter player was able to play against 3 minnows at Home and at least 4 games at each of the 8 venues against the decent side...wouldn't you be fairly confident he would have more than 99.94 as his Average? This comparison with peers is a bogey...sport always becomes more competitive and tougher...99.94 bogey also comes in a decade when the flattest of tracks operated.

[zen]

So' date=' who according to you is the best batsman after say Bradman (assuming the context of 99.94 is not to be argued)? And of course, why?[/quote'] There is no undisputed contender for best batsman after Sir Don Bradman much like there isn't an undisputed contender for the best bowler. But if I had to pick someone then: From an emotional PoV, it would be Tendulkar. Mainly because I follow India and Tendulkar has been the like life line of Indian cricket. It's difficult to even imagine a team w/o Tendulkar. But ofc I wouldn't rate him as being far above some of his peers, whom I respect and like too. Thinking rationally, it would say it is Sir Gary Sobers. He is one of my fav cricketers and a batsman who could change a course of a game in no time and bring in a lot of excitement. Also his legendary performances like 250 in Australia, 365* against Pak and ofc those 6 sixes in 6 balls makes him, in my opinion, the batsman I would pick first in my time, if there were no Bradman. And other WI batsmen like Lara and Richards have a case as being the best too Of those currently playing cricket: Sehwag, with his ability, like Sobers, to change a game and bring in a lot of excitement is to me the MVP for India. Technically, he may not be that great but I respect him a lot as a test batsman. From those who started playing in 2000s, he would probably be my first pick. In short, Sir Gary Sobers

[Nirvanam]

There is no undisputed contender for best batsman after Sir Don Bradman much like there isn't an undisputed contender for the best bowler. But if I had to pick someone then: From an emotional PoV, it would be Tendulkar. Mainly because I follow India and Tendulkar has been the like life line of Indian cricket. It's difficult to even imagine a team w/o Tendulkar. But ofc I wouldn't rate him as being far above some of his peers, whom I respect and like too. Thinking rationally, it would say it is Sir Gary Sobers. He is one of my fav cricketers and a batsman who could change a course of a game in no time and bring in a lot of excitement. Also his legendary performances like 250 in Australia, 365* against Pak and ofc those 6 sixes in 6 balls makes him, in my opinion, the batsman I would pick first in my time, if there were no Bradman. And other WI batsmen like Lara and Richards have a case as being the best too Of those currently playing cricket: Sehwag, with his ability, like Sobers, to change a game and bring in a lot of excitement is to me the MVP for India. Technically, he may not be that great but I respect him a lot as a test batsman. From those who started playing in 2000s, he would probably be my first pick. In short, Sir Gary Sobers

I am not sure if you got a chance to read this particular analysis project I had done on Test Cricket's Virtuoso Batsmen. Maybe it'll give you a different perspective. It will also help me in the update project if you can go thru the article and suggest modifications to the criteria and methodology. http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html Also, as I have pointed out in my previous post about the bogey of 99.94...what are your views on that? Would you still consider 99.94 a great figure if you calculated the stats of modern cricketers based on the level of competition that Bradman faced...3 minnows, one decent side at 8 venues...of course we cannot resolve the nonsense bowling he faced but still. Anyway, pls do have a look at the analysis and gimme your feedback on the criteria...I will be redoing it at the end of the season to update with new data

[Raghav_12]

So again no one is giving discredit to Sachin for playing 171 tests nor it's Lara's fault that he would only play 131 or someone else who would play 90 tests

. Yes. It is Lara's fault only that he couldn't start playing at an early age or he wasn't good enough until he was in early 20's.

2. The point is not only that Bradman is greatest because he is way ahead of his peer but also because he avg 100 after 50 tests (which is like holy grail of batting) when others could manage to avg 60. The peer comparison comes in mainly because some folks try to discredit what Bradman has achieved by saying/implying that if Tendulkar had played then he would have averaged 100 too. This is where peer domination comes in as other greats like Hammond, Headley, Hutton, etc could only avg in 50-60

How summary of your long paragraph is different from the my statement that greatness (or greatestness) of Bradman lies in his unparrarel superiority over his peers. If you keep paraphrasing same thing, of course it would be waste of time, as you yourself have admitted. No need to get personal here.

[zen]

I am not sure if you got a chance to read this particular analysis project I had done on Test Cricket's Virtuoso Batsmen. Maybe it'll give you a different perspective. It will also help me in the update project if you can go thru the article and suggest modifications to the criteria and methodology. http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html Also, as I have pointed out in my previous post about the bogey of 99.94...what are your views on that? Would you still consider 99.94 a great figure if you calculated the stats of modern cricketers based on the level of competition that Bradman faced...3 minnows, one decent side at 8 venues...of course we cannot resolve the nonsense bowling he faced but still. Anyway, pls do have a look at the analysis and gimme your feedback on the criteria...I will be redoing it at the end of the season to update with new data

1. I will read your blog when I have some time. 2. The level of competition issue has already been settled by many knowledgeable posters if you care to go through some of the threads

[zen]

Yes. It is Lara's fault only that he couldn't start playing at an early age or he wasn't good enough until he was in early 20's. How summary of your long paragraph is different from the my statement that greatness (or greatestness) of Bradman lies in his unparrarel superiority over his peers. If you keep paraphrasing same thing, of course it would be waste of time, as you yourself have admitted. No need to get personal here.

That sums up your posts!

[Anakin]

This only reflects your lack of understanding on how to see "runs per tests" :winky:

Yes, unfortunately I am still not that good at understanding retardedness.

[Anakin]

Basically, all your logic hinges on the fact that 1Kg of gold is still 1Kg of gold, which of course is wrong, thus 99 is greater than any avg anyone ever had. But there is a finer point impurities of gold. But please, do enlighten us with runs per test. What a revealing stat :winky:

[Nirvanam]

2. The level of competition issue has already been settled by many knowledgeable posters if you care to go through some of the threads

Human Beings normally believe about things in the following two ways: 1. They place faith in where, who, or how the knowledge is being acquired. In other words adopt others' beliefs by placing faith in their rationality. 2. They rationalize the knowledge at hand and come to their own opinions. Usually we can tell how the knowledge has been acquired by the conviction the person has in his arguments. The more one acquires knowledge by self study, self analysis, the more conviction in their opinions. I am not suggesting you have not acquired your knowledge based on your own analysis and knowledge of the game. What I would request you is to please help me understand how the numbers I presented of a certain batsman in my previous post is different from Bradman's stats based on the uselessness of the opposition he faced. My standpoint is this: Bradman's 99.94 Avg and his distance from his peers is just that...distance from his peers. If we use the same conditions of Bradman's opposition, the wickets he batted on, the bowlers he faced, etc to understand how the modern batsmen fare, I am rather sure we will find at least one batsman better than 99.94 and several more or less equivalent to his stats. Let's try and rationalize them instead of considering it as gospel truth. Here's a small reality check of Bradman's opposition to kick start the discussion - in his entire career he played only 2 bowlers who had an ICC rating of 800+ one of them was Maurice Tate at 852 and the other was Verity at 852. His 3rd and 4th placed bowlers were lesser than 750. And his 10th best was in the 500s. Compare that with say Inzamam Ul Haque, he played 5 bowlers above 900 when they bowled to him and his 10th best was 800+

[yoda]

Also, as I have pointed out in my previous post about the bogey of 99.94...what are your views on that? Would you still consider 99.94 a great figure if you calculated the stats of modern cricketers based on the level of competition that Bradman faced...3 minnows, one decent side at 8 venues...of course we cannot resolve the nonsense bowling he faced but still.

My response a few pages earlier in this thread.

You are still not getting get. All sport evolve, much like all other walk of life. That in itself is nothing great, it is just a natural progression. Current players aren't any greater than those players simply because current standards are better. A current player is great only because of what he has accomplished NOW. Similarly a past player is great simply because of what he accomplished THEN. You and I aren't any better than our forefathers simple because we got a better education or ate better or are driving better cars or have access to the Internet. It is just a by product of the times and there is nothing to gloat over.

You need to see how a modern batsman would have performed if he was born then (which ofc will need a lot of extrapolation), not the current avatar of the modern batsman. It is very unlikely that many from the current generation would have done a 99.94 then cause only one of them did then. It is more likely that all the current greats would have averaged in the 60s or the 70s and been very close to each others average as evidenced by the fact that they haven't been able to separate themselves much in the current era. It is very far-fetched to assume that all current 50+ avg players would have been 90+ avg players then. Again, don't assume you can just take a SRT or a Lara or a Viv and drop them in the 1930s and have them feast on that bowling. You must assume that these players were born then, grew up facing the FC bowling of those times and then played in the internationals of those times in those circumstances. If you still feel all these guys would have feasted on those bowling given these conditions, then yea we can disagree, otherwise it is not even a proper comparison.

[Raghav_12]

Name this batsman...his stats are as follows - M - 32, Inns - 55, NO - 11, Runs - 4104, Hundreds - 18, Fifties - 11...Average - 93.27 OK, here's a clue - this batsman played against 2 minnows and one seriously strong side at 8 venues in his whole career. Unfortunately this batsman was not lucky enough to play a 3rd minnow. Another misfortune for this batsman was that he did not get to play against one of those two minnows at Home at all. Bradman played 3 minnows...all 3 in the comfort of home and one decent side...in all but 8 grounds. So, even with the disadvantage of playing one minnow less, and one minnow entirely Away, and totally playing at more than 12 venues...this batsman averaged 93.27. Guess who this is. Just some perspective to stats, you see

Looks like you created ceratin conditions while pulling up record of this player. I would consider this as a credible argument if you pull records of other players (both from same country and oppositions) using exactly similar conditions and above mentioned players stats should outdo others by a comfortable margin.

[Nirvanam]

Originally Posted by yoda You are still not getting get. All sport evolve, much like all other walk of life. That in itself is nothing great, it is just a natural progression. Current players aren't any greater than those players simply because current standards are better. A current player is great only because of what he has accomplished NOW. Similarly a past player is great simply because of what he accomplished THEN. You and I aren't any better than our forefathers simple because we got a better education or ate better or are driving better cars or have access to the Internet. It is just a by product of the times and there is nothing to gloat over.

I am not sure I agree with you in entirety. Evolution always leads to betterment of a species in advantageous skills. This necessarily means Human Beings will become better at advantageous skills. Advantageous skills are those skills that help you survive or thrive. So the ability to walk long distances is not an advantageous skill today coz we have vehicles to travel around. But the ability to think quickly, make quick decisions is an advantageous skill and Human Beings are way better than their great grandfathers on this skill. Playing the short ball was not a great skill in those days...the Aussies started crying when a few were bowled at them by one fast bowler and an assortment of pie chuckers. However the same skill was perfected by batsmen like Gavaskar, Chappell, the modern greats while facing the fastest bowlers in the History of the Game...more importantly they made runs (helmets, etc can save you from injury, they can't make you runs...you need skill to score off them). I am saying, you put the same uselessness of opposition that Bradman had to guys like Richards, Sachin, Pawning, Lara, Gavva, Chappell, etc and they will murder them. Evidence already exists. This may not say much about Bradman's brilliance but it does say about the relative non-brilliance of his peers. Given the same level of opposition, batsmen since 1970s are better than at any other time in the History of the game. You and I are better than our fathers on skills that are advantageous in today's day and age. We will be worse than our children on advantageous skills of the future. There's a beaut of a saying by Wordsworth on this phenomenon (which I use to piss off my dad ever since I learned it when I was 10 yrs old...lol)..."The child is the father of the man" If evolution does not work that way then our specie would have gone extinct long back. Anyway I digress, let's bring it back to Bradman and the modern players. Give the same conditions to the modern players and see how they compare. I have already presented you with one player...your thoughts

[Nirvanam]

Originally Posted by yoda You are still not getting get. All sport evolve, much like all other walk of life. That in itself is nothing great, it is just a natural progression. Current players aren't any greater than those players simply because current standards are better. A current player is great only because of what he has accomplished NOW. Similarly a past player is great simply because of what he accomplished THEN. You and I aren't any better than our forefathers simple because we got a better education or ate better or are driving better cars or have access to the Internet. It is just a by product of the times and there is nothing to gloat over.

I am not sure I agree with you in entirety. Evolution always leads to betterment of a species in advantageous skills. This necessarily means Human Beings will become better at advantageous skills. Advantageous skills are those skills that help you survive or thrive. So the ability to walk long distances is not an advantageous skill today coz we have vehicles to travel around. But the ability to think quickly, make quick decisions is an advantageous skill and Human Beings are way better than their great grandfathers on this skill. Playing the short ball was not a great skill in those days...the Aussies started crying when a few were bowled at them by one fast bowler and an assortment of pie chuckers. However the same skill was perfected by batsmen like Gavaskar, Chappell, the modern greats while facing the fastest bowlers in the History of the Game...more importantly they made runs (helmets, etc can save you from injury, they can't make you runs...you need skill to score off them). I am saying, you put the same uselessness of opposition that Bradman had to guys like Richards, Sachin, Pawning, Lara, Gavva, Chappell, etc and they will murder them. Evidence already exists. This may not say much about Bradman's brilliance but it does say about the relative non-brilliance of his peers. Given the same level of opposition, batsmen since 1970s are better than at any other time in the History of the game. You and I are better than our fathers on skills that are advantageous in today's day and age. We will be worse than our children on advantageous skills of the future. There's a beaut of a saying by Wordsworth on this phenomenon (which I use to piss off my dad ever since I learned it when I was 10 yrs old...lol)..."The child is the father of the man" If evolution does not work that way then our specie would have gone extinct long back. Anyway I digress, let's bring it back to Bradman and the modern players. Give the same conditions to the modern players and see how they compare. I have already presented you with one player...your thoughts on those numbers

[zen]

Yes' date=' unfortunately I am still not that good at understanding retardedness.[/quote']

Basically, all your logic hinges on the fact that 1Kg of gold is still 1Kg of gold, which of course is wrong, thus 99 is greater than any avg anyone ever had. But there is a finer point impurities of gold. But please, do enlighten us with runs per test. What a revealing stat :winky:

What sort of a person would want to get enlightened on points he considers as retarded .... omg, this is fun as one cartoon turns up after another :hysterical:

[Anakin]

My bad, you don't know sarcasm. In any case, you just made your whole point. You keep sticking to a very retarded number to prove your point (I know you'll wonder forever why it is retarded, but hopefully you'll understand one day, if not, let me know, it starts with how many innings are there per test and how much SRT/BCL/Anyone else averages per innings). And if we just go by number without any analysis or context, then you are right. But then again, you'll ask why context, when we have raw number to "prove" something. Now, please put another emoticon in your reply and be pleased with yourself for the amazing runs/test stat that no one else could think of. And, please, do look up the word sarcasm, it'll help you in future.

[yoda]

You and I are better than our fathers on skills that are advantageous in today's day and age. We will be worse than our children on advantageous skills of the future. There's a beaut of a saying by Wordsworth on this phenomenon (which I use to piss off my dad ever since I learned it when I was 10 yrs old...lol)..."The child is the father of the man" If evolution does not work that way then our specie would have gone extinct long back. Anyway I digress, let's bring it back to Bradman and the modern players. Give the same conditions to the modern players and see how they compare.

There isn't much argument against evolution. But if your achievements are simply due to us evolving, why does that make anyone now any greater? Better yes due to you and everyone around you evolving, but why greater especially than someone who achieved more in the past when compared to others around him then?

I have already presented you with one player...your thoughts

Already brought up and answered. Let me repeat. Performance against a minnow today cannot be compared to a performance against a bowling in those days which may be equivalent to these minnows of today. That is because batting those days also had not evolved and such a batting's performance against similar bowling is more commendable when compared to current batting against such minnow bowling.

[Nirvanam]

My response a few pages earlier in this thread. You need to see how a modern batsman would have performed if he was born then (which ofc will need a lot of extrapolation), not the current avatar of the modern batsman. It is very unlikely that many from the current generation would have done a 99.94 then cause only one of them did then. It is more likely that all the current greats would have averaged in the 60s or the 70s and been very close to each others average as evidenced by the fact that they haven't been able to separate themselves much in the current era. It is very far-fetched to assume that all current 50+ avg players would have been 90+ avg players then. Again, don't assume you can just take a SRT or a Lara or a Viv and drop them in the 1930s and have them feast on that bowling. You must assume that these players were born then, grew up facing the FC bowling of those times and then played in the internationals of those times in those circumstances. If you still feel all these guys would have feasted on those bowling given these conditions, then yea we can disagree, otherwise it is not even a proper comparison.

Looks like you created ceratin conditions while pulling up record of this player. I would consider this as a credible argument if you pull records of other players (both from same country and oppositions) using exactly similar conditions and above mentioned players stats should outdo others by a comfortable margin.

Like I said the conditions were to find 3 minnows all at Home and one decent team at only 8 venues. Unfortunately I could not find a modern player who played 3 minnows let alone only at Home. So I did the next best...picked 2 minnows one at Home and the other Away (since the said batsman did not even play this minnow at Home even once in his career). For the decent team i considered what common wisdom considers the best Team of the age. I then picked the venues where he played most of his games against the opposition. There were 4 of them with 4 games and an assortment with 2 games. From the 2 games ones I picked the ones that had most innings...4 innings. Totally 8 venues against this side Australia. The stats came out as shown above. I have shown you one player close enough to Bradman with probably just 75% of Bradman's "uselessness of opposition". If I do it for some more players I'll find some who will be above 80 with the same 75% of Bradman's uselessness of opposition. The player in those stats is the Batting Buddha - the teams - Zimbabwe in India, Bangladesh in Bangladesh and Australia at 4 venues in Aus and 4 venues in India. if only Sachin would've gotten a chance to play one more minnow at Home (and Bangaldesh at Home) I could've made a one-one comparison

[Raghav_12]

Like I said the conditions were to find 3 minnows all at Home and one decent team at only 8 venues. Unfortunately I could not find a modern player who played 3 minnows let alone only at Home. So I did the next best...picked 2 minnows one at Home and the other Away (since the said batsman did not even play this minnow at Home even once in his career). For the decent team i considered what common wisdom considers the best Team of the age. I then picked the venues where he played most of his games against the opposition. There were 4 of them with 4 games and an assortment with 2 games. From the 2 games ones I picked the ones that had most innings...4 innings. Totally 8 venues against this side Australia. The stats came out as shown above. I have shown you one player close enough to Bradman with probably just 75% of Bradman's "uselessness of opposition". If I do it for some more players I'll find some who will be above 80 with the same 75% of Bradman's uselessness of opposition. The player in those stats is the Batting Buddha - the teams - Zimbabwe in India, Bangladesh in Bangladesh and Australia at 4 venues in Aus and 4 venues in India. if only Sachin would've gotten a chance to play one more minnow at Home (and Bangaldesh at Home) I could've made a one-one comparison

Unfortunately, probably you'll find, to your disappointment, that there are few Indian players who would be close enough to Sachin if youn pull their record using same filters. Though I pray there is none