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

[Nirvanam]

I think you are going down the wrong lane. See my comparisons of MoYo vs Ponting' date=' 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 ?[/quote']Firstly, WI is not a minnow. It is a regular Test playing country having an extended slump in form since the mid noughties...India lost a series there as late as 2002 and England lost a series to them as recently as 2009.

So' date=' 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)[/quote']Only factual info can solve this problem. Its pretty late now (actually I must say early...lol) so will bring you the data later at night. But if you can pls feel free to churn them out and prove my intution wrong. Edit - Hey, we'll take this parameter to a new thread too?

[Bumper]

Firstly, WI is not a minnow. It is a regular Test playing country having an extended slump in form since the mid noughties...India lost a series there as late as 2002 and England lost a series to them as recently as 2009.

Am not saying WI is a minnow, they arent however regarded a strong opponent. The English team Bradman played against in 40s, is probably comparable to WI of the 2000s. Essentially my point is that the level of competition Bradman played against is no better than the triumverate: WI, BD, Zim, Moyo faced. I may be insulting some good BD & Zim players here, but hey, what the heck, it helps prove a point or two, so who cares!

Only factual info can solve this problem. Its pretty late now (actually I must say early...lol) so will bring you the data later at night. But if you can pls feel free to churn them out and prove my intution wrong.

My point is that your premise is wrong to begin with. You cannot argue that batsman A is better than B because A outscores B against weak opponents. That is not an indication of batsman A's quality.

[Nirvanam]

Am not saying WI is a minnow, they arent however regarded a strong opponent. The English team Bradman played against in 40s, is probably comparable to WI of the 2000s. Essentially my point is that the level of competition Bradman played against is no better than the triumverate: WI, BD, Zim, Moyo faced. I may be insulting some good BD & Zim players here, but hey, what the heck, it helps prove a point or two, so who cares!

We agree!

My point is that your premise is wrong to begin with. You cannot argue that batsman A is better than B because A outscores B against weak opponents. That is not an indication of batsman A's quality.

How can a premise be wrong? A premise can either be factually correct or factually incorrect. You can say that the argument in parameter 2 is logically unsound. Anyway those are just technical things...lol I must point out that you have not understood the parameter 2 argument, given this post. Please read the parameter 2 argument once again to see what is the claim and what is the inference suggested from the claim. In that argument I am not saying Sachin > Bradman at all. The argument is "Bradman's 99.94 is not as phenomenal as it is made out to be"

[Bumper]

Nirvanam, may be i didnt make my position clear. I think there is a disconnect. We agree on the fundamental point that Bradman faced inferior competition. I am just trying to make your job easier. I see you going down the wrong lane with your sub argument.

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.

IMHO, this will only weaken your argument, if you cannot prove that SRT would have outscored Bradman, which is not only hard to prove, but is also counter intuitive (esp, if you look at SRT's FC avg). In any case, i think this is moot as i have shown with the Moyo example.

[CG]

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

I think bradman should not be compare to tendulkar or vice-versa,they are not even from close era's.Tendulkar has played form 2002-2010 on flat pitches worldwide similarly the quality of bowling faced by bradman was poor anybody who has eyes could tell just look at the videos and see mediumpacers bowling with wicket keeper standing up and theywere regarded as deadly back then.then the game was for amatuers.Similarly tendulkar faced a lot of poor quality attacks in 2003-2007 ,but his longeviety erodes that.Also imagine shoaib akhtar bowling to bradman with out a helmet on those pitches.

[Nirvanam]

I think bradman should not be compare to tendulkar or vice-versa' date='they are not even from close era's.[/quote']I am in total agreement with your sentiment of not comparing greats from different eras. It is when others compare and say Bradman is the greatest that I disagree...and since they compare I am trying to make the comparison as logically sound as possible.

Tendulkar has played form 2002-2010 on flat pitches worldwide

I am possibly nitpicking here but anyway I am not sure if you are aware of the History of Test cricket when it comes to pitches. Upto the Great War the conditions all over the world (essentially Eng, Aus, SA) were bowler friendly...the time before 1920 is referred to as the bowler-friendly age. Between 1920s to 1960s, the pitches were extremely batsman friendly. That age was referred to as the batting-friendly age. Since 1970s the era is referred to as the balanced age. One reason why we think the noughties are too batting friendly is because of the change in attitude of batsmen itself..they are playing faster and hence scoring more. In case it was so batting friendly then we would have seen more draws. The fact that in 95% of Test victories it takes one team to pick 20 wickets means the bowlers are picking wickets. Scoring rate has increased...more runs made in the same balls, therefore average increases. There is some truth to pitches in noughties becoming like pitches in 1920s to 60s however it is not way significant. If it was then we would see batting draws.

[Nirvanam]

Nirvanam, may be i didnt make my position clear. I think there is a disconnect. We agree on the fundamental point that Bradman faced inferior competition. I am just trying to make your job easier. I see you going down the wrong lane with your sub argument. IMHO, this will only weaken your argument, if you cannot prove that SRT would have outscored Bradman, which is not only hard to prove, but is also counter intuitive (esp, if you look at SRT's FC avg). In any case, i think this is moot as i have shown with the Moyo example.

Yep I get your point.

[Roshanrocks]

Yep I get your point.

By any chance does ur first name begin with S ? :hmmm:

[zen]

and standards keep improving over time ... which is why there is no point in fixating about achievements from bygone eras with lower standards based on 99.94 > 56

You are taking evolution as higher standards :P I think this point is already been discussed. For me the higher standard argument is like saying that the general who commanded USA operations is better than Alexander the great because that general fought the war with more trained soldiers, high tech equipments and so on. But Alexander's army was one of the most well trained in the world if you can keep things in to perspective. They took on the challenges that were presented to them in that environment and managed to conquer much of the known world. Your argument is like saying that because of higher military standards today, the US army would have done a much better job than Alexander's army in Alexander's time :giggle:

[zen]

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

Which is why we have Rameez > Hammond :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

By any chance does ur first name begin with S ? :hmmm:

Nope...its 'V' - Vijay although surname starts with S (actually its not really a surname)...why do u ask?

[Nirvanam]

Looks like there are no counter-arguments coming for the second parameter. We can now use the two arguments (parameter1 and 2) as factually verified and established premises for the final argument. The following are the premises agreed upon so far. Premise 1. The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's. Premise 2. Bradman feasted on minnows against whom he played almost 30% of his whole career, and that too in familiar home conditions. Hence his batting average is not very indicative of the greatness of batting. In case folks feel that the second parameter needs to be argued before establishing it as a factual premise, please present your counter argument. BossBhai, Raghu, Bumper I'll assume your vote for establishing the above 2 as factual premises for the final argument is an "aye". Yoda, I'll assume your vote for parameter 1 is "aye" and for 2 no assumption. Folks, since I have interacted mostly with the above mentioned 'fab four' :winky:, please do add in your 'ayes' and 'nays'