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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Thanks BossBhai.. for saving my efforts which I had put in for creation of my argument. I'll move that too from old thread to this thread. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Here's a quick look at the quality of bowling that Bradman faced in comparison with one from his own generation, one from slightly before him, one from the 70s-80s, one from 90s-00s, and finally Sachin The numbers below are the peak ICC ratings of the bowler when he bowled at the batsman. Also, care has been taken to include only bowlers who have played more than 5 Tests against the batsman. Edit : These are the top 10 bowlers faced by the batsman based on the ICC ratings Bradman (Average Rating 669) - Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513 Hammond (Average Rating 595) - O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251 Hobbs (Average Rating 687) - Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490 Viv (Average Rating 831) - Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721 Inzi (Average Rating 855) - Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762 The Buddha (Average Rating 856) - Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

[zen]

Donald Bradman's relative dominance and distance from his peers is no indication of his standing when compared to Virtuosos, Sachin and Lara, or other recent vintage ATG batsmen. The context of Bradman's runs are way inferior to the context of Lara's and Sachin's runs.

Is it just me who thinks that the premise of this thread is to try to troll against Sir Don Bradman by trying to undermine his achievements so that the likes of Tendulkar can be proclaimed as the greatest? The line in the OP suggests that "Bradman runs are way inferior" which to me is an attempt to ridicule Bradman and troll against those who think that Bradman is the greatest batsman. :winky: The irony is that the thread starter is himself trolling and ridiculing, and on top of that accusing others of being triolls! :giggle: .... Do these folks expect that only those who buy in to their (manipulated) DATA and DRAMA post on this this thread? And those who don't should step out. If that's the purpose then such conversation should take place in private where all like minded individuals praise each other, their fav player, deride one who is a thorn of in the way of their fav being the greatest (in their opinion)! Most of their arguments have already been thrown out in other threads so to me it appears as if some people keep doing the same thing to show that they are still in the game. And try to raise their ego. How can anyone in his right frame of mind discuss such a trolling effort and comical manipulation of data seriously! Such threads with the comical rules being stipulated in the OP, along with being designed to troll, deride and diminish the achievements of the past greats, are a disgrace. One also has to ask that why some people have to rely on manipulating stats and resort to remarks like no data is available to show Bradman's greatness. The entire exercise of manipulating stats suggests that the batsman these folks are trying to show as the greatest isn't one. Which is why these people have to look use the data and manipulate it to show that the batsman they like is greatest. I hope that ICF looks in to this and insures that such blatant and biased trolling isn't allowed with such disgraceful threads started to ridicule past greats. CASE CLOSED

[zen]

Here's a quick look at the quality of bowling that Bradman faced in comparison with one from his own generation, one from slightly before him, one from the 70s-80s, one from 90s-00s, and finally Sachin The numbers below are the peak ICC ratings of the bowler when he bowled at the batsman. Also, care has been taken to include only bowlers who have played more than 5 Tests against the batsman. Bradman (Average Rating 669) - Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513 Hammond (Average Rating 595) - O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251 Hobbs (Average Rating 687) - Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490 Viv (Average Rating 831) - Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721 Inzi (Average Rating 855) - Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762 The Buddha (Average Rating 856) - Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

What the purpose of this analysis? Is it to show that Inzamam > Richards? :P

[zen]

No worries Raghav. Its my pleasure. Heres my 2 cents on this topic : Some of the myths and half truths surrounding the Bradman Legend 1. Bradman Made runs against quality England bowling attack. 2. Bradman Scored his runs Fast -- The 309 in a day is used as evidence. ( Allthough this aspect is not emphasized as much anymore since some brave statto re-scored most of DGB's inngs to figure out the balls faced but in the old days before internet this fact along with the 2 triple 100s used to be the main talking points as far as speed and long inngs are concerned ) 3. Pitches were nasty because they were uncovered and batting was difficult. 4. Bodyline series 5. Bradmans peers were legends in their own right.

Don't troll and try to ridicule past legends PS Please don't resort to trying to reduce the line of others to show that your line is longer.

[The Outsider]

Here's a quick look at the quality of bowling that Bradman faced in comparison with one from his own generation, one from slightly before him, one from the 70s-80s, one from 90s-00s, and finally Sachin The numbers below are the peak ICC ratings of the bowler when he bowled at the batsman. Also, care has been taken to include only bowlers who have played more than 5 Tests against the batsman. Edit : These are the top 10 bowlers faced by the batsman based on the ICC ratings Bradman (Average Rating 669) - Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513 Hammond (Average Rating 595) - O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251 Hobbs (Average Rating 687) - Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490 Viv (Average Rating 831) - Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721 Inzi (Average Rating 855) - Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762 The Buddha (Average Rating 856) - Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

Clown brigade of 'serious discussions' has lost it completely! :hysterical: They are giving credence to the PWC bowling rankings, how about giving credence to the batting rankings from the same source which are actually based on the strength of bowling faced? No, because Bradman will smoke everyone into oblivion if the clown brigade takes that into account. But this is the funniest thing I have seen - clown brigade will give credence to the bowling rankings but not the batting rankings from the same source.

[zen]

Clown brigade of 'serious discussions' has lost it completely! :hysterical: They are giving credence to the PWC bowling rankings, how about giving credence to the batting rankings from the same source which are actually based on the strength of bowling faced? No, because Bradman will smoke everyone into oblivion if the clown brigade takes that into account. But this is the funniest thing I have seen - clown brigade will give credence to the bowling rankings but not the batting rankings from the same source.

omg, that's so hilarious :hysterical: But do expect people to threaten you to shut you down. The way they imploy to shut you down is have their own thread closed and then start another one where they post the same thing :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Ohhh hai there haramkhor brigade ... :woot:

Please follow the rule mentioned in the OP: "No ridiculing, with or without the use of smilies" "Stick to facts and what you infer from the facts" "Arguments' logical soundness can be verified by oneself here" Thank you! :icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Rule ? You wouldnt know what a rule is even if it came and kicked you in your nuts :hysterical::hysterical:

"No personal attacks on intelligence" :--D Apna rule toh follow kar :P

[zen]

Another of "their" own rule that was broken: "This debate is not to be viewed as ego oneupmanship so please rid ourselves of the concept of 'winning' or 'losing' in this debate" :winky:

[The Outsider]

Ohhh hai there haramkhor brigade ... :woot:

:(( Is apmaan ke baad to main kisi ko munh dikhane ke laayak nahin raha.

[zen]

smileys are being used too to ridicule :helpsos:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

They are giving credence to the PWC bowling rankings' date=' how about giving credence to the batting rankings from the same source [b']which are actually based on the strength of bowling faced? No, because Bradman will smoke everyone into oblivion if the clown brigade takes that into account But this is the funniest thing I have seen - clown brigade will give credence to the bowling rankings but not the batting rankings from the same source.

Actually in my Virtuoso Analysis there is one parameter for Batting Ratings and one for Bowler Ratings. Also, it is the official ICC ratings which are not based just on the bowler difficulty but many other factors. Bowler Ratings is definitely one factor. An important point is that in the ICC ratings for batsmen Bradman's huge, almost 67% bettering of his peers comes down to about 2% on ICC ratings, so the allegation of not using Bradman's batting rating is not quite relevant. Please also note that the discussion itself is about the bowlers he faced (bowler ratings was a way to objectively tell the difference between the bowlers of yesteryear and today). The discussion was not about batting ratings hence in this context the batting ratings are a Strawman type logical fallacy. If you would like to bring the batting ratings as a fresh point in, please do so. But I'll suggest that we finish the first point, that of the quality of the bowlers Bradman faced as compared to some of the modern chaps. Let us establish if the quality was markedly different or not so that it will be a logical break. I'll also request you to not be disrespectful. It is fine if you don't agree with my views and even if you have no respect for me as a Human Being but let that not be a reason for you to disrespect me (not that you have been that way to me). I'll be thankful to your refraining from ridicule and disrespect. :-)

[yoda]

Bradman (Average Rating 669) The Buddha (Average Rating 856) Does that mean a 99.94 Bradman era average is equivalent to a 78 Buddha era Average?

[Nirvanam]

Bradman (Average Rating 669) The Buddha (Average Rating 856) Does that mean a 99.94 Bradman era average is equivalent to a 78 Buddha era Average?

No. All we have done so far is to quantify the difference in quality of only the top 10 bowlers faced by different generations. This is only the top 10. I think these batsmen would have faced at least 40-50 regular bowlers in their careers with a minimum of 3 Tests against a bowler? It's just one of several criteria that define the context in which these batsmen made their runs. In case we all agree that the bowlers faced by the players before the 1950's were way inferior to the bowlers since 1970's then we can move to the next criteria. I doubt anybody should have a problem in concluding as suggested, on this criterion. If there is any more arguments against this criterion please do present them. A quick restating of the argument... Main argument - The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's. Sub level argument - Among the 16 ATG batsmen, Inzi, Lara, Sachin, and Dravid have faced the absolute best quality of bowling in their careers.