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

[dial_100]

There is nothing to discuss. It is not going to impossible. He did it back then. He was great. Rest aint good enough. In fact they are mere 60% of what he was back then. So that is as far as modern cricketer can reach up to.

[zen]

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???

In terms of %, 40 is 80% of 50 so when compared to Bradman it would be an avg of 80. So again that example is not apples to apples :winky: If the point is that should is 57 greater than or equal to 100 because of blah blah then that has already been put to rest in "will there be another Bradman thread" :P

[Raghav_12]

In terms of %, 40 is 80% of 50 so when compared to Bradman it would be an avg of 80. So again that example is not apples to apples :winky: If the point is that should is 57 greater than or equal to 100 because of blah blah then that has already been put to rest in "will there be another Bradman thread" :P

I don't think you interested in any serious discussion that's why you picking at random numbers which I have thrown up. What if I make day after tomorrow's 40 as 35. And it was 52 not 50. My whole point was that draw a scenario where one person could look vastly superior to other because of certain circumstances and I have drawn this scenario based on one realistic example. Analogy is like this Bradman - Andy Flower Whole World - Zim 99.96 - 52 60 (next best) - 30 (next best) 55 (Range of best Avg. after 60 yrs) - 35 (Range of best averages after 20 yrs)

[Sachinism]

Looks like people can't debate in a mature manner