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

[zen]

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' date=' 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.[/quote'] QI was invented by yours truly. the QI only tries to measure quality of a period .... You are probably referring to the bowlers index proposed by one of the mathematicians. That index (or whatever it is called) could probably show Inzi>Viv based on the bowler faceds :giggle:

[zen]

You need to factor other aspects that affect run making such as : numerous countries with variety of surfaces' date=' high standards of fielding, superior tactics, hectic schedules with no practice matches and multiple formats to adjust to on the go etc etc ...[/quote'] I would rather focus on how someone did in the environment that he was presented with. We are judging a batsman by the quality that he displays in the environment and not from what data is available or not available :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

And I would rather concentrate on players who have excelled under higher standards in the modern era.

Eras come and go :P

[Raghav_12]

Do you mean the "quality index" :P here

And if you guys need to see how Rett invented quality index proves that Sachin is greater than Bradman. Read below http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1216546&postcount=487 Some hilarious discussion there on page 13 of that thread :hysterical::hysterical:

[Nirvanam]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']Yes, he may. So, what is your point?

[thongale]

Yes' date=' he may. So, what is your point?[/quote']Point is that if you could say 57 >99 (i.e. SRT > Bradman), then same logic could be applied to say that 52 > 57 (i.e. Flower > SRT).

[zen]

And if you guys need to see how Rett invented quality index proves that Sachin is greater than Bradman. Read below http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1216546&postcount=487 Some hilarious discussion there on page 13 of that thread :hysterical::hysterical:

Yes, your post was very hilarious :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Kriterion]

I think Laxman is certainly amongst the best, if not the best.

[Nirvanam]

Point is that if you could say 57 >99 (i.e. SRT > Bradman)' date=' then same logic could be applied to say that 52 > 57 (i.e. Flower > SRT).[/quote']Either you are deliberately not understanding what the argument is or you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The argument from my side of the table is described below. Please see it once again and you will realize that bringing in Flower here is a Strawman Fallacy. However, since you ask whether Flower is greater than Tendulkar, I'd like you to back it with some data. I have explained the process of collecting the data and I have also explained the parameter in detail. If you can dig out the data and show that Flower's top 10 bowlers' peak ratings average > 856 when he faced them, you will have a very strong case otherwise it is speculation. In any case it does not matter because immaterial of what Flower's numbers come out to be, the argument of Flower itself is a Strawman fallacy. Here's our argument for the parameter 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 think it is fair now to say there is no more arguments left to question the main point with anything coming near enough to dispute its fact-ness. All questioning in the last few posts have been Strawman fallacies, so we can move to the next parameter now.

[Bumper]

I would rather focus on how someone did in the environment that he was presented with. We are judging a batsman by the quality that he displays in the environment and not from what data is available or not available :--D

Thanks for clarifying that. My great great grandpa's cousin Quick Gun Murugan who played cricket for Don Bosco High school used to absolutely bully all his opponents. His name Murugan was once synonymous with terror. Such was his fame that during the 9/11 attacks, the village he hailed from, published an article suggesting that that American has been Muruganed. No doubt, in the environment he was presented, Murugan gunned down all his opponents. If you think this is fantasy, there is another modern day Quick Gun Murugan though. His name is Mohammad Yusuf. Against WI, Zim, BD (approximately equivalent to the 1940s league in terms of competition), MoYo averages 101 in 19 test matches amassing close to 2500 runs. Another 20 odd tests against these mighty opponents, Moyo would have Muruganed Bradman as well. Looking forward to your next insight on this topic.:--D

[Bumper]

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.

Refer to my post on the modern day "Quick Gun Murugan". Against BD, WI & Zim Sachin's average of 75 or Ponting's average of 63 pales in significance compared to Moyo's 101. Therefore Mohd Yusuf must be at least 26% better than Sachin and 38% better than Ponting. Right ? Moral of the story: How well a batsman beats up poor opponents is not indicative of his quality.

[Nirvanam]

I think we can move to discussing the next parameter. I picked one from BossBhai's point referring to minnows. The argument is as follows Main Argument - Bradman feasted on minnows against whom he played almost 30% of his whole career, and that too in familiar home conditions. Hence his 99.94 is not very indicative of the greatness of batting. Sub Argument - If a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar played 30% of his Tests against 3 minnows, all at home, his career performance would be as phenomenal as Bradman's. Test suggestion: Although Tendulkar never played as many as 3 minnows like Bradman did, all it home we can get a feel for the influence minnows played at home have on career average by extrapolating the 2 minnows he played to be equal to about 30% of his career. Since as matured fans of the game we are not really looking for difference in number that are statistically significant (ex 186 v/s 188.73) rather practical significant (ex 124 v/s 91) I suggest we establish a tolerance band to rule whether one of these two batsmen will be significantly better than the other. Also, while deciding the tolerance band let us also ensure to keep in mind that one of the batsman's context is (Minnows - 3, Home - 3) while the other one is (Minnows - 2, Home - 1).

[Bumper]

I think we can move to discussing the next parameter. I picked one from BossBhai's point referring to minnows. The argument is as follows Main Argument - Bradman feasted on minnows against whom he played almost 30% of his whole career, and that too in familiar home conditions. Hence his 99.94 is not very indicative of the greatness of batting. Sub Argument - If a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar played 30% of his Tests against 3 minnows, all at home, his career performance would be as phenomenal as Bradman's.

I think this is a flawed premise to begin with. How well a batsman feasts on minnows is NOT indicative of his quality. There is no way in hell, Laxman would outscore a Mohd Yusuf against Bangladesh. But pit him against a quality attack like Australia, Laxman would outscore Moyo 9 out of 10 times. To ascertain Bradman's greatness one just needs to look at the quality of the opponents he faced to understand whether he would be as successful in the modern era. IMHO, cricket has changed so much that it is a different sport now. Thats where the arguments must stop. Personally, i think the opponents Bradman played were cr@p. But I doubt that Sachin would have outscored Bradman against a weaker opponent. Sachin is known for his consistency, not for his peaks.

[Nirvanam]

I think this is a flawed premise to begin with. How well a batsman feasts on minnows is NOT indicative of his quality.

That is exactly what we are arguing...Bradman's numbers are bloated by playing minnows (in addition to the first parameter - bowling quality...his top 10 include mostly English bowlers)

Personally' date=' i think the opponents Bradman played were cr@p. But I doubt that Sachin would have outscored Bradman against a weaker opponent. Sachin is known for his consistency, not for his peaks.[/quote']Let's test it and see. My intuition tells me he will perform significantly better than Bradman...practical significance not just stat significance

[Nirvanam]

I think we can move to discussing the next parameter. I picked one from BossBhai's point referring to minnows. The argument is as follows Main Argument - Bradman feasted on minnows against whom he played almost 30% of his whole career, and that too in familiar home conditions. Hence his 99.94 is not very indicative of the greatness of batting. Sub Argument - If a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar played 30% of his Tests against 3 minnows, all at home, his career performance would be as phenomenal as Bradman's. Test suggestion: Although Tendulkar never played as many as 3 minnows like Bradman did, all it home we can get a feel for the influence minnows played at home have on career average by extrapolating the 2 minnows he played to be equal to about 30% of his career. Since as matured fans of the game we are not really looking for difference in number that are statistically significant (ex 186 v/s 188.73) rather practical significant (ex 124 v/s 91) I suggest we establish a tolerance band to rule whether one of these two batsmen will be significantly better than the other. Also, while deciding the tolerance band let us also ensure to keep in mind that one of the batsman's context is (Minnows - 3, Home - 3) while the other one is (Minnows - 2, Home - 1).

Bossbhai and Folks, I was thinking we should start a new thread for the second parameter so that the discussion can start a fresh for that parameter and the context remains that parameter only. we can avoid some of the Strawmans that were seen here, possibly? What say?

[yoda]

I think we can move to discussing the next parameter. I picked one from BossBhai's point referring to minnows. The argument is as follows Main Argument - Bradman feasted on minnows against whom he played almost 30% of his whole career, and that too in familiar home conditions. Hence his 99.94 is not very indicative of the greatness of batting. Sub Argument - If a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar played 30% of his Tests against 3 minnows, all at home, his career performance would be as phenomenal as Bradman's. Test suggestion: Although Tendulkar never played as many as 3 minnows like Bradman did, all it home we can get a feel for the influence minnows played at home have on career average by extrapolating the 2 minnows he played to be equal to about 30% of his career. Since as matured fans of the game we are not really looking for difference in number that are statistically significant (ex 186 v/s 188.73) rather practical significant (ex 124 v/s 91) I suggest we establish a tolerance band to rule whether one of these two batsmen will be significantly better than the other. Also, while deciding the tolerance band let us also ensure to keep in mind that one of the batsman's context is (Minnows - 3, Home - 3) while the other one is (Minnows - 2, Home - 1).

What is your definition of a minnow and who were these opponents against whom Bradman scored 30% of his runs? Also, are they minnow by today's standards or by the standards then? Cause if it is by today's standards, you can say Bradman himself played for a minnow, so the minnow effect would essentially be cancelled. BTW, we are not done with your first statement as it has several issues: 1. Usage of Peak 2. Using points from a system which isn't well explained in this thread 3. Using only points from top bowlers of an era and not other bowlers of the era against whom also runs get scored 4. Assuming a batsman has played against only one set of bowlers. Some of them have spanned era and quality of bowling. 5. Usage of bowling stats from a rating to prove a batsman who is ranked at the top of the equivalent batting rankings is inferior to others - yes you have answered this, but your answers are just convoluted and not necessarily satisfactory So, while you may want to move from one point to another, you can't assume that the previous points have been discussed and done with. If I had the time, we could be arguing about Point #1 itself forever.

[Bumper]

Let's test it and see. My intuition tells me he will perform significantly better than Bradman...practical significance not just stat significance

I think you are going down the wrong lane. See my comparisons of MoYo vs Ponting, Sachin. Moyo significantly outscores Ponting & Sachin (at least in terms of averages) when you limit the opponents to just WI, BD & Zim. This does not tell us much, does it ? And before some one pooh poohs Zim, BD & WI attacks, mind you, MoYo had faced Mashrafe Mortaza, Heath Streak, Olonga, Ambrose, Walsh, Dillon, Fiedel Edwards, Jerome Taylor & the likes scoring these runs. So, IMO, the only logical conclusion you can draw based on this evidence is that Moyo is 2% better than Bradman (given than he averaged 101 against these opponents)

[Nirvanam]

What is your definition of a minnow?

Good question and it needs to be objectively defined. To me a minnow is a team that is yet to rise to a decent level in Test cricket. Since Australia and England were the ones who started Test cricket and remained the only players of Test cricket for a couple of decades they can be ruled out as minnows. Every other Test nation was necessarily a minnow for a period of time in its History. One way we can define a minnow is by seeing when was the first time they managed to win an Away series of decent length (at least 3 Tests). Alternatively, especially for teams like India and NZ who took close to 40+ years to win a series abroad, we can quantify minnow-ness as a point in the History of that team where its 'state' changed. Before the Tipping Point it was a minnow and after the Tipping Point it was regarded a regular Test playing country. I suggest the following - the point in time when the country got at least 10 victories, or when it earned 15 points, whichever is earlier. Points calculation: 1 point for win, and 0.5 for draw.

BTW' date=' we are not done with your first statement as it has several issues:[/quote']Yes, we are. All the issues are Strawmans as explained below.

1. Usage of Peak

please read the argument once again and ask yourself how is this an issue. One way to understand it is by seeing what was the claim made and what was the suggested inference.

2. Using points from a system which isn't well explained in this thread

I hope you are not being serious here...does it matter whether the system was explained in this thread or the previous thread? In any case' date= what is it about the system that you need clarification on?

3. Using only points from top bowlers of an era and not other bowlers of the era against whom also runs get scored

same answer as point no:1. Pls read our claim and the inference we are suggesting thru the claim to clarify your misinterpretation.

4. Assuming a batsman has played against only one set of bowlers. Some of them have spanned era and quality of bowling.

Didn't quite understand this...please explain (maybe with an example? although I have a feeling this will also be a Strawman based on the fact that you are not arguing wrt the parameter in question).

So' date=' while you may want to move from one point to another, you can't assume that the previous points have been discussed and done with. If I had the time, we could be arguing about Point #1 itself forever.[/quote']Once any serious arguments against the case stop coming then it is wise to move on. Pls note that all arguments against our first parameter were Strawman fallacies. In other words all counter-arguments were not even counter-arguments in the first place. A counter-argument necessarily needs to first pass the test of logical fallacies...all of the last 4-5 counter-args have failed those tests. Given the above, we can do two things: a) wait indefinitely in the hope that a counter-arg, which does not fail the test of logical fallacies, AND has potential to disprove our argument, comes eventually. or, b) conclude it is wiser to proceed to the next parameter. Yoda, I request you to read our first parameter, its claim and the inference suggested once more. In case you need clarifications on the claim made or inference suggested, please let me know. I think you can tell that I am willing to clarify whatever is asked to be and doing it with patience. So, allow me to indulge this one time when I say the following - I think you are not paying attention to the parameter being discussed which explains why most of your counter-args are Strawman fallacies. If it is in your mind that, based on this one parameter we are saying Bradman is not better than modern greats, then dissociate that from your mind. Just a suggestion: By accepting that our argument on this parameter is sound, does not necessitate that you are agreeing or allowing yourself to accept that Bradman is not greater than modern Test batsmen. We are yet to get to that stage...it could take a few months of discussion to go thru all parameters.