Facts based debate: Questioning assumption of Bradman's greatness vis-a-vis Modern ATG Batsmen

[SachDan]

How old are you? 4? Duh! :finger:

Add a zero after 4 :P

[Nirvanam]

haha OP's main request was not to indulge in name-calling :cantstop:

LOL! yeah...o well! I can laugh at myself....lol!

[Gunner_Mania]

Add a zero after 4 :P

I am still a long way away from that.

[Sachinism]

Nirvanam lay off the name-calling. Ignore rett if he's winding you up.

[Raghav_12]

Obviously. its only the second post' date=' so you will be on the same page. You need atleast 40 posts to go to the next page :vroam:[/quote'] Great One..:hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

too many smileys already on this thread :secret:

[Raghav_12]

I was also planning to start a new thread as older one was getting uglier and there are more and more contextless disscussions. I would have started thread with following title: Andy Flower is Bradman of Zimbabwian cricket. For Zim, there will not be a better batsman than Andy, ever in future. When Andy played, he was neck and shoulder above of all his countrymen. He averaged 52 and nearest one was less than 30 (min. qualify 2000 runs). That is the kind of difference that Bradman had over his nearest rivals, even more than that. Now suppose Zim becomes a competitive nation in test cricket in 20 years. With this assumption it is implicit that there would be several batsmen who would average high. Some might be in 50's and some would definitely be better than Andy. But if Zim becomes competitive cricket nation, it is impossible that any batsman, even if he is much better than Andy, would have same kind of margin that Andy had over his peers. So in future if anybody makes a very legitimate claim that our this current player in better than Andy, then Andy loyalist's will shoot him down. Their argument would always be - if it is so why he is not so ahead of his peers as Andy was? Do you think that whole Andy's generation was sh*t including his brother :-)? They will not ever consider that there was hardly any competitiveness in Zim cricket at Andy's time and now because of competitiveness in Zim cricket players would be stacked rather closely. All the time they'll keep bringing the 40% difference that Andy had over his peers. Andy was good no doubt, but to say there can't be another Zim batsman as good as Andy would be foolish. But in hypothetical scenario that very much might be case and Andy loyalists will always be able to prove that Andy was better than anybody. I was just wondering, isn't samething happening with Bradman argument? In absence of real competitiveness small margin's get amplified. Bradman might be a little better than others, but because of lack of competition in those times, his superiority got amplified to such an extent. When competition is less one person can lord over others but in highly competitiveness environment it's impossible, however good you are.

[Nirvanam]

Nirvanam lay off the name-calling. Ignore rett if he's winding you up.

Fair call! However, if people can't apply their minds and understand they are offending the opposite person with their stupid smilies, even after being specifically requested not to, then they deserve it. If intolerant buffoons keep responding to posts with not a single word relevant to the topic of discussion and instead continue to rile the requester in return, then you must also delete such stupid posts and warn them to lay off with their unnecessary responses. Stop those buggers from responding in such ways and you will automatically notice there will be no name-calling

[zen]

I was also planning to start a new thread as older one was getting uglier and there are more and more contextless disscussions. I would have started thread with following title: Andy Flower is Bradman of Zimbabwian cricket. For Zim, ever in future, there will not be a better batsman than Andy. When Andy played, he was neck and shoulder above of all his countrymen. He averaged 52 and nearest one was less than 30 (min. qualify 2000 runs). That is the kind of difference that Bradman had over his nearest rivals, even more than that. Now suppose Zim becomes a competitive nation in test cricket in 20 years. With this assumption it is implicit that there would be several batsmen who would average high. Some might be in 50's and some would definitely be better than Andy. But if Zim becomes competitive cricket nation, it is impossible that any batsman, even if he is much better than Andy, would have same kind of margin that Andy had over his peers. So in future if anybody makes a very legitimate claim that our this current player in better than Andy, then Andy loyalist's will shoot him down. Their argument would always be - if it is so why he is not so ahead of his peers as Andy was? Do you think that whole Andy's generation was sh*t including his brother :-)? They will not ever consider that there was hardly any competitiveness in Zim cricket at Andy's time and now because of competitiveness in Zim cricket players would be stacked rather closely. All the time they'll keep bringing the 40% difference that Andy had over his peers. Andy was good no doubt, but to say there can't be another Zim batsman as good as Andy would be foolish. But in hypothetical scenario that very much might be case and Andy loyalists will always be able to prove that Andy was better than anybody. I was just wondering, isn't samething happening with Bradman argument? In absence of real competitiveness small margin's get amplified. Bradman might be a little better than others, but because of lack of competition in those times, his superiority got amplified to such an extent. When competition is less one person can lord over others but in highly competitiveness environment it's impossible, however good you are.

It depends. if the newer crop is avg the same as Flower's peers., i.e. 30 than ofc the idea of someone avg 30 being greater than Flower would be shot down .... On the other hand, if the new crop is avg more or less as Flower i.e. in 50s, then such a comparision won't raise eyebrows In order to draw parallels with Flower and others, those being compared to Bradman have to either avg that much or show that they are in a league of their own. In the example that you gave, from what I understand, you are suggesting that new crop would avg as much as Flower but Flower would be rated higher only because he was comfortablly ahead of his peers. But as explained, that's not apples to apples :winky:

[Nirvanam]

I was also planning to start a new thread as older one was getting uglier and there are more and more contextless disscussions. I would have started thread with following title: Andy Flower is Bradman of Zimbabwian cricket. For Zim, ever in future, there will not be a better batsman than Andy. When Andy played, he was neck and shoulder above of all his countrymen. He averaged 52 and nearest one was less than 30 (min. qualify 2000 runs). That is the kind of difference that Bradman had over his nearest rivals, even more than that. Now suppose Zim becomes a competitive nation in test cricket in 20 years. With this assumption it is implicit that there would be several batsmen who would average high. Some might be in 50's and some would definitely be better than Andy. But if Zim becomes competitive cricket nation, it is impossible that any batsman, even if he is much better than Andy, would have same kind of margin that Andy had over his peers. So in future if anybody makes a very legitimate claim that our this current player in better than Andy, then Andy loyalist's will shoot him down. Their argument would always be - if it is so why he is not so ahead of his peers as Andy was? Do you think that whole Andy's generation was sh*t including his brother :-)? They will not ever consider that there was hardly any competitiveness in Zim cricket at Andy's time and now because of competitiveness in Zim cricket players would be stacked rather closely. All the time they'll keep bringing the 40% difference that Andy had over his peers. Andy was good no doubt, but to say there can't be another Zim batsman as good as Andy would be foolish. But in hypothetical scenario that very much might be case and Andy loyalists will always be able to prove that Andy was better than anybody. I was just wondering, isn't samething happening with Bradman argument? In absence of real competitiveness small margin's get amplified. Bradman might be a little better than others, but because of lack of competition in those times, his superiority got amplified to such an extent.

Axellent! axellent! That is the phenomenon under play here.

When competition is less one person can lord over others but in highly competitiveness environment it's impossible' date= however good you are.

And that is the reason why we must always rationalize by exercising our own minds instead of relying on what our fore fathers have held as gospel truths.

[zen]

Fair call! However' date=' if people can't apply their minds and understand they are offending the opposite person with their stupid smilies, even after being specifically requested not to, then they deserve it. If intolerant buffoons keep responding to posts with not a single word relevant to the topic of discussion and instead continue to rile the requester in return, then you must also delete such stupid posts and warn them to lay off with their unnecessary responses. Stop those buggers from responding in such ways and you will automatically notice there will be no name-calling[/quote'] everyone can see who is trying to ridicule whom .... but thanks for the comic drama :giggle:

[The Outsider]

I was also planning to start a new thread as older one was getting uglier and there are more and more contextless disscussions. I would have started thread with following title: Andy Flower is Bradman of Zimbabwian cricket. For Zim, there will not be a better batsman than Andy, ever in future. When Andy played, he was neck and shoulder above of all his countrymen. He averaged 52 and nearest one was less than 30 (min. qualify 2000 runs). That is the kind of difference that Bradman had over his nearest rivals, even more than that. Now suppose Zim becomes a competitive nation in test cricket in 20 years. With this assumption it is implicit that there would be several batsmen who would average high. Some might be in 50's and some would definitely be better than Andy. But if Zim becomes competitive cricket nation, it is impossible that any batsman, even if he is much better than Andy, would have same kind of margin that Andy had over his peers. So in future if anybody makes a very legitimate claim that our this current player in better than Andy, then Andy loyalist's will shoot him down. Their argument would always be - if it is so why he is not so ahead of his peers as Andy was? Do you think that whole Andy's generation was sh*t including his brother :-)? They will not ever consider that there was hardly any competitiveness in Zim cricket at Andy's time and now because of competitiveness in Zim cricket players would be stacked rather closely. All the time they'll keep bringing the 40% difference that Andy had over his peers. Andy was good no doubt, but to say there can't be another Zim batsman as good as Andy would be foolish. But in hypothetical scenario that very much might be case and Andy loyalists will always be able to prove that Andy was better than anybody. I was just wondering, isn't samething happening with Bradman argument? In absence of real competitiveness small margin's get amplified. Bradman might be a little better than others, but because of lack of competition in those times, his superiority got amplified to such an extent. When competition is less one person can lord over others but in highly competitiveness environment it's impossible, however good you are.

:laugh: I literally had Coke gushing out of nostrils while reading this post!! :hysterical::hysterical: And then you guys talk about serious discussions! Bhaisahab, in your example 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would be averaging same as Flower today. In reality, top batsmen of the world average half of Bradman 60 years later, despite the fact that average runs per wicket has remained constant for the last 90 years. If 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would still average 30, then Flower would still remain the greatest. Thoda soch to liya karo, before making a self proclaimed serious thread into comedy central.

[zen]

:laugh: I literally had Coke gushing out of nostrils while reading this post!! :hysterical::hysterical: And then you guys talk about serious discussions! Bhaisahab, in your example 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would be averaging same as Flower today. In reality, top batsmen of the world average half of Bradman 60 years later, despite the fact that average runs per wicket has remained constant for the last 90 years. If 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would still average 30, then Flower would still remain the greatest. Thoda soch to liya karo, before making a self proclaimed serious thread into comedy central.

Prof. Saheb .... please don't ridicule them :P I mean they work so hard to use their messed-up brains, dig up stats (DATA), visualize how the likes of Tendulkar would have done based on some figures they read on the monitor and then go to online forums to flaunt what they know only to be shot down and brought back to earth. To add insult to the injury, there are smileys in the post which make them realize what they worked for thinking to be some kind of work of art means zilch :giggle:

[Raghav_12]

:laugh: I literally had Coke gushing out of nostrils while reading this post!! :hysterical::hysterical: And then you guys talk about serious discussions! Bhaisahab, in your example 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would be averaging same as Flower today. In reality, top batsmen of the world average half of Bradman 60 years later, despite the fact that average runs per wicket has remained constant for the last 90 years. If 20 years from now top Zimbabwe batsmen would still average 30, then Flower would still remain the greatest. Thoda soch to liya karo, before making a self proclaimed serious thread into comedy central.

Prof. Saheb .... please don't ridicule them I mean they work so hard to use their messed-up brains, dig up stats (DATA), visualize how the likes of Tendulkar would have done based on some figures they read on the monitor and then go to online forums to flaunt what they know only to be shot down and brought back to earth. To add insult to the injury, there are smileys in the post which make them realize what they worked for thinking to be some kind of work of art means zilch

I would ignore personal comments from both of you for the time being. The only (but very credible) argument that Bradman has is - His vast difference over others and that's what we are looking at here. Absolute numbers don't mean anything be it average or any thing. Data,information and Knowledge are three different things (may be inter-related though) . The only reason we are talking about Bradman's 99.94, because it was some 35 more than the next one. There were few players who averaged in 60's, way better than current crop, but we never say they were greater than current players because numbers are contextual. Bradman's great(est)ness lies in his superiority over others. Any bradman-fanatic will agree with that.

[Sachinism]

Rett please get your point across without ridiculing and insulting everyone

[zen]

I would ignore personal comments from both of you for the time being. The only (but very credible) argument that Bradman has is - His vast difference over others and that's what we are looking at here. Absolute numbers don't mean anything be it average or any thing. Data,information and Knowledge are three different things (may be inter-related though) . The only reason we are talking about Bradman's 99.94, because it was some 35 more than the next one. There were few players who averaged in 60's, way better than current crop, but we never say they were greater than current players because numbers are contextual. Bradman's great(est)ness lies in his superiority over others. Any bradman-fanatic will agree with that.

Along with the fact that he managed to avg 100, which is like the holy grail of cricket, over 50 tests. No one else in the history of cricket has managed to even go over 80 (after playing a considerable amount of games) :winky:

[Raghav_12]

Along with the fact that he managed to avg 100' date=' which is like the holy grail of cricket, over 50 tests. [b']No one else in the history of cricket has managed to even go over 80 :winky:

You yourself admitting that it's difference which makes him greater than others.

[zen]

You yourself admitting that it's difference which makes him greater than others.

difference, along with having the career avg of 100 after 50 tests .... an avg that is the highest for a player with that of career span :hatsoff: while your example had Flower having the difference but an avg similar to the newer crop :P

[Raghav_12]

difference, along with having the career avg of 100 after 50 tests .... that avg also happens to be the highest for a player with 50 tests till this moment :hatsoff: while your example had Flower having the difference but an avg similar to the newer crop :P

That's valid point. But what if ceratain changes in rules (in favour of bowlers) , improvement in athletism and some other factors bring down overall averages in cricket?? Today's 55 might be tomorrow 45 and day after tomorrow's 40. There was a time from seventies to nineties when nobody was averaging more than 55, But before that it was common. So what do you think, Andy's superiority will remain unquestionable???

[zen]

Rett please get your point across without ridiculing and insulting everyone

No one is being insulted or ridiculed. In fact, you should read the other thread where the guy who talks about being ridiculed is in fact showering abuses at me. And the other guy, who complains about smileys is always similing when the likes of KT post smileys Please don't buy in to the drama :winky: