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

[Raghav_12]

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.

:two_thumbs_up:

[yoda]

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.

Actually, I am not interested in participating in this thread except to see if there was a batting average comparison possibility with these ratings. So I am not really presenting any arguments or criteria. Will be reading with interest though.

[Nirvanam]

Actually' date=' I am not interested in participating in this thread except to see if there was a batting average comparison possibility with these ratings. So I am not really presenting any arguments or criteria. Will be reading with interest though.[/quote']Oh yes, that is what we are aiming at finally. But we have to get there criterion by criterion systematically. Otherwise we will keep randomly inserting new criteria even before one of them is fully discussed and a logical conclusion can be made. Therefore, folks on my side of the table are endeavoring to progress one contextual parameter/criterion after the other. If there are no further arguments against the conclusion in my previous post then we could pick the next contextual item...from BossBhai or Rahgav's OPs.

[Raghav_12]

Actually' date=' I am not interested in participating in this thread except to see if there was a batting average comparison possibility with these ratings. So I am not really presenting any arguments or criteria. Will be reading with interest though.[/quote'] Yoda, I think we can go through this discussion in more constructive way (something which Nirvanasm is trying to do) rather then one person springing random fact at a moment and then whole discussion getting diluted or going haywire. FYI, I am not the one who believes that Sahcin is greater than Don, yet. In older thread I was the one who brought that mention of Jesse Owens vs Ajayraj Singh, which was leveraged a lot by pro-Bradman posters. I am just in favour of a discussion with open mind, based on all the information available.

[Kriterion]

Even if we're assuming Bradman faced inferior bowling...how poor was that bowling? Would it be worse than today's domestic first class bowling? I would guess not. If you exclude Sachin's Test record, and just look at his FC record...he has 8893 runs from 152 innings with 16 not outs ---> 65.39 average against domestic bowlers. That is still more than 30 runs behind Bradman's test average.

[Nirvanam]

Even if we're assuming Bradman faced inferior bowling...how poor was that bowling? Would it be worse than today's domestic first class bowling? I would guess not.

We don't need to assume because it is already a fact. Would it be worse than today's first class? I don't know the magnitude by which it will be worse because I don't know how to quantify it. At least for Test bowlers we have the ICC ratings and analyzing the best quality faced by these batsmen we can assert with full confidence that the difference in quality is significantly large. In any case that is not a relevant counter argument.

If you exclude Sachin's Test record' date=' and just look at his FC record...he has 8893 runs from 152 innings with 16 not outs ---> 65.39 average against domestic bowlers. That is still more than 30 runs behind Bradman's test average.[/quote']This is a Strawman fallacy. The argument is about Test cricket and the quality of bowlers faced in Test cricket which stands independently from Domestic First Class cricket. Also, to reiterate we are not establishing equivalence of Bradman era bowling quality with current Domestic First Class quality. Instead we are establishing that Bradman era Test bowling was very significantly inferior to post 1970s Test bowling. Are there any more arguments to counter the following? 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. I'll request the folks to critically assess the counter arguments' relevance with what my side of the table are arguing, once before posting...just so that we can move from one point to the other effectively and efficiently

[yoda]

There is one basic fallacy with this approach, and I could be jumping the gun here with quality of batting which hasn't yet been laid out so far: Fact: Bowling was inferior (presented so far) Fact: Batting was inferior (not presented so far, but kind of obvious with the video of Hobbs, etc) Fact: Inferior batting had to bat against inferior bowling So why does this not negate the effect of inferior bowling and why should the inferior bowling then even be a factor? This all goes back to my statement in other threads about natural progression and evolution of technique and quality. Then again, per Outsider, the same rankings puts Bradman on top of the batting list. :hmmm: Seems like we are going in circles.

[zen]

Trivia: Batsman A's avg ----> 60 Bowling avg ----> 20 would anyone like to guess, what A would avg if the bowling avg was 25? B->

[Nirvanam]

Thanks for structuring your arguments neatly...it is much easier to respond when it is structured the way you have done it.

There is one basic fallacy with this approach, and I could be jumping the gun here with quality of batting which hasn't yet been laid out so far: Fact: Bowling was inferior (presented so far) Fact: Batting was inferior (not presented so far, but kind of obvious with the video of Hobbs, etc)

This one is a subjective feel although relevant. However that point is not being argued for the final case, which I assume you were intending here since you mention 'jumping the gun'. The final case is this - Achievements of batsmen of recent vintage are intrinsically more difficult than those of the previous generations.

Fact: Inferior batting had to bat against inferior bowling So why does this not negate the effect of inferior bowling and why should the inferior bowling then even be a factor?

Logical fallacy of type 'Division' (and under a certain perspective it can also be argued to be a Red Herring). Also fallacy of 'Hasty Generalization'. Explanation follows - The underlying assumption of this whole debate (which is being questioned) is that Bradman >> peers hence Bradman >> Later Generations. Now, Bradman played inferior bowling and scored 99.94 Hobbs played inferior bowling and scored 59 Since Hobbs himself is inferior, then he facing an inferior attack means his skill is tested adequately against the best possible bowling skill...inferior v/s inferior. So in an inferior v/s inferior battle he came out tops i.e. 59. Excellent performance! However I bring your attention back to Bradman being way superior than his peers (99.94 : 59). Therefore when you generalize based on Hobbs' battle - inferior v/s inferior- as being similar to Bradman's battle - superior v/s inferior - it is a logical fallacy. To give a slightly holistic perspective to this argument, let us bring in the modern generation. We have already established modern bowlers are superior. And we are arguing the case that modern batsmen are superior. In other words we are saying that modern batsmen's battle is - superior v/s superior. And in this battle they come out excellent (55 avg). But when you say Bradman is superior than modern batsmen based on 99.94 > 55, the implication of that statement is : Modern batsmen battle is Inferior v/s Superior, and therefore their accomplishments are way greater than older ones i.e. Modern Bats >> Hobbs. This, incidentally, equates with Bradman >> Peers. Please feel free to test the soundness of my argument and ask for any clarifications if needed. Just as a reminder the current point is - 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.

This all goes back to my statement in other threads about natural progression and evolution of technique and quality. Then again, per Outsider, the same rankings puts Bradman on top of the batting list. :hmmm: Seems like we are going in circles.

It will seem like circles because your arguments are challenging an already established argument as fact (my side of the table). If we move to the next point/parameter/criterion then we can come out of the circle and build further. I hope you are satisfied with our first argument (Main and Sub Level included). Shall we move to the next parameter on our path to the final assertion that Bradman >> Peers is not necessarily equal to Bradman >> Modern?

[zen]

My own piece of stats: Avg bowling avg of top 6 wkt takers (see quality index for details) 28-48: 26.78 89-10: 24.54 Bradman's avg now: (100/26.78)*24.54 = 92 Tendulkar's avg then: (57/24.54)*26.78 = 62 NOW: Bradman 92, Tendulkar 57 THEN: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 62 (Based on above calculations) If we calculate based on quality index: NOW: Bradman 80, Tendulkar 57 THEN: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 71 :icflove:

[saneindian]

My own piece of stats: Avg bowling avg of top 6 wkt takers (see quality index for details) 28-48: 26.78 89-10: 24.54 Bradman's avg now: (100/26.78)*24.54 = 92 Tendulkar's avg then: (57/24.54)*26.78 = 62 NOW: Bradman 92, Tendulkar 57 THEN: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 62 (Based on above calculations) If we calculate based on quality index: NOW: Bradman 80, Tendulkar 57 THEN: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 71 :icflove:

A large portion of text in the post seems to have disappeared :--D

[zen]

A large portion of text in the post seems to have disappeared :--D

Do you mean the "quality index" :P here

[thongale]

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.

That is a cunning way to exclude Barrington and Sobers from the analysis because they average more than SRT. Fred Truemen, Wesley Hall etc were fearsomely fast bowlers back then. Mid 1950s would be a better bench mark. Even of you bring that argument out Barrington and Sobers will appear better than Tendulkar.

[zen]

Sir Gary Sobers

[Roshanrocks]

Please donot exclude Kallis and Sangakkara (who averages more than Tendulkar) in the present all time great list

[Roshanrocks]

Also donot forget the other Indian great who had an average of 54.20 and was dropped due to.... :headscratch: some resason ....Vinod Kambli. and also the present great T.Samaraweera who averages 53.72 which is more than Lara. as i look at the all time best averages i see the following there are 10 batsmen by the bygone eras who average more than batsmen from our era..... so surely our era hasnt produced anyone substantially greater than batsmen from the previous era... so why are we comparing? And who is the all time greatest averager in our present era? not tendulkar, lara, ponting, not even Kallis... its Sangakkara... who averages the most since the 1970 retired Grameme Pollock so instead of draggin poor Tendulkar in "across the era greatest batsmen" debates all the time, its high time we consider Sangakkara to represent the greatest batmsan of our era and pit him against Bradman and his brethren.

[zen]

That is a cunning way to exclude Barrington and Sobers from the analysis because they average more than SRT. Fred Truemen' date=' Wesley Hall etc were fearsomely fast bowlers back then. Mid 1950s would be a better bench mark. Even of you bring that argument out Barrington and Sobers will appear better than Tendulkar.[/quote'] Add to that spinners like Laker, Gibbs and Benaud

[zen]

What probably fueled this Tendulkar is the greatest talk is that when Tendulkar was being compared with likes of Lara, Ponting, Waugh and Inzi, most of the Indian fans would support Tendulkar. Any stat that favored Tendulkar was supported After all that, it appears as if some folks obviously thought about taking this game to the next level and pitch Tendulkar straight against the likes of Sir Don Bradman. They probably even took it for granted that their presentation of stats would be met with same enthusiasm like it would for say against Lara/Ponting. Lara/Ponting were/are Tendulkar's peers and there isn't much to choose amongst them so it's natural that you would want to support the player from your team but the comparison with Sir Don is a different ball game and also involves intangible factors as well. Some of these folks are realizing that through the hard way

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

And if you calculate this quality Index or what ever I am pretty sure that Andrew Flower is going to come on absolute top. Because he played every one of Murali, Warne, Kumble, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Donald and Pollock unlike other players who missed one of the big names because they payed for the same team.