Facts based debate: Bradman's superiority questioned - Parameter 3

[Nirvanam]

Given that no counter-arguments have come 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. Now, we present the third parameter, that of diversity of opposition and conditions. Main Argument - Bradman hardly faced the kind of diversity of opposition, and conditions, in his entire Test career, when compared to Sachin, and Lara. His numbers are overly exaggerated because of lack of diversity of conditions and opposition. Sub-Argument - If we look at familiarity of conditions, players like Sachin and Lara (and a lot many others since 1970s) would have similarly great statistics at particular venues. As an example - Sachin played around 4 games versus the best team of his generation at Sydney averaging > 200 (yes you read that correctly, > 200). Any issues with this parameter/argument?

[zen]

I can't think of any genuine cricket fan wanting to question superiority of someone who has a career avg of 100 after 50 tests. What new things are you trying to discuss than what's already been said here!

Rameez Raja was a better batsman than Hammond 1. Hammond did not face too many, if any, sub 25 averaging bowlers. Rameez Raja faced the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Bishop, Kapil, McGrath etc. etc. 2. Hammond did not face any super phaasht greater than 88.342 mph bowlers, even if he did - prove it. Rameez not only faced theses in tests, he used to regularly pad up against 3 super phaaashht bowlers in the nets as well. 3. Rameez Raja faced two all time great spinners in Warne and Murali. In One days he might have faced Kumble as well. Hammond did not face any of these bowlers. 4. Hammond never played a test in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Completely untested in the subcontinent. Rameez's elegance shone through specially on these kind of dust bowls. 5. Hammond never faced up to reverse swing - Rameez mastered it and also taught his teammates how to bowl it. 6. Hammond benefited from shoddy fielding standards of his time. Rameez had to contend with one of the best slip cordon in history when he played against Australia and the generally superb fielding of the modern era. 7. Rameez had to constant shuffle between ODIs and tests - Hammond could just concentrate on one format. In fact, Rameez ended up winning the world cup in the shorter format as well proving his importance in both formats. 8. Hammond had the advantage of getting accustomed to conditions being part of longer tours. Rameez had to rush into from one match to another. 9. Less hectic traveling schedule. Rameez was your modern globetrotter. 10. Hammond benefited from the friendly leg before laws. Poor Rameez had to restructure his entire batting to negate getting out leg before so often restricting his often imperious stroke play at times. 11. Rameez opened against the fearsome bowling attacks of his time, Hammond had to hide in the middle order. 12. The sledging that Hammond faced was nothing compared to what Rameez had to endure during his playing days. Huge factor in determining averages and difficulty of conditions. With so many handicaps for Rameez, I think in the modern era with batting so much more difficult his average of 31.83 easily surpasses Hammond's 58.45. Keep in mind, Hammond barely averaged 50 against Australia and that 58 is mainly a result of bashing minnows, which unfortunately Rameez never got the opportunity to do - poor guy never even played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting Last edited by The Outsider : 10-25-2010 at 05:38 AM. Reason: Added point number 12

Why don't you go to an Australian cricket forum and try to shove your "parameters" down their throats? You would be laughed out of there too. :giggle: Don't take unnecessary advantage of this being an Indian forum. :winky:

[zen]

Re-posting this:

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

[CG]

Re-posting this: 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

Bradman was the best batsman in his era ,each era has their greats,fact is when somebody says bradman is superior than other greats of mordern era then to that question my answer is same as you posted.

[Ranjha]

Bradman was the greatest batsman of his era. Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of this era. Its like comparing black and white tvs of old with new tvs of today. Ofcourse with more knowledge, experience and skills you improve on things but it doesnt mean the invention of past year was inferior to today. Its just that the time has changed. You cant compare the two. A black and white tv will be inferior today but in that era, it was the greatest invention and probably had more value than the new tv of today cuz if not for it, the new tv wont be here and it was somethign totally new rather than being an improved version. sorry, but this thread doesnt deserve any cricketing decision.

[akshayxyz]

^ Ranjha - lot of people have tried to convey this message - but such posts are ignored conveniently and pseudo-intelligent arguments continue to surface every now and then in one other other form - By both Don and Sachin fan(atics).

[pensionplan]

Agree with the sentiments of the last 2 posters. No one will ever agree to anything anyway. Hence all these threads that are dime a dozen be merged and fun had at one place.

[Nova]

Bradman vs Tendulkar comparison again? Don't you get tired of this. Why can't you just accept that both are greatest of their era and move on to other things. So many biased arguments. Go to an Aussie forum and they will hail Bradman as superior, go to ICF and Tendu is the greatest. There is no end to this. I don't bother but what do I know. Everyone has different opinions. P.S. Don't pay attention to my post. Keep on debating. :P

[Raghav_12]

Bradman was the greatest batsman of his era. Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of this era. Its like comparing black and white tvs of old with new tvs of today. Ofcourse with more knowledge, experience and skills you improve on things but it doesnt mean the invention of past year was inferior to today. Its just that the time has changed. You cant compare the two. A black and white tv will be inferior today but in that era, it was the greatest invention and probably had more value than the new tv of today cuz if not for it, the new tv wont be here and it was somethign totally new rather than being an improved version. sorry, but this thread doesnt deserve any cricketing decision.

one of the better analogies I got to see on this thread. But try telling this to Bradman bhakt's that Bradman was black and white TV but sachin is color TV..:winky::winky:

[yoda]

one of the better analogy I got to see on this thread. But try telling this to Bradman bhakt's that Bradman was black and white TV but sachin is color TV..:winky::winky:

Actually Bradman camp is quite happy with that analogy, especially this part.

A black and white tv will be inferior today but in that era, it was the greatest invention and probably had more value than the new tv of today

:winky::winky:

[Raghav_12]

Actually Bradman camp is quite happy with that analogy, especially this part. :winky::winky:

Yeah that is there. But if I have to pick some 11 TV's for my use, I'll ensure i am picking all brand new color TV's, all 11. I am not gonna get any black and white TV in my house. :cantstop::cantstop: All in good humour.

[King Tendulkar]

Yeah that is there. But if I have to pick some 11 TV's for my use, I'll ensure i am picking all brand new color TV's, all 11. I am not gonna get any black and white TV in my house. :cantstop::cantstop: All in good humour.

:--D

[Gunner_Mania]

Yet another thread on its way :yay: :scooter:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Mamu]

:sherlock::stupido::bebored::flute::y::burnout::bath::tomato::saint::toilet::beer:

[saneindian]

"O chote bas kar yaar" Chotu "Papa ki karan, petrol khatam hi nahi honda"

[Nirvanam]

I can't think of any genuine cricket fan wanting to question superiority of someone who has a career avg of 100 after 50 tests. What new things are you trying to discuss than what's already been said here! Why don't you go to an Australian cricket forum and try to shove your "parameters" down their throats? You would be laughed out of there too. :giggle: Don't take unnecessary advantage of this being an Indian forum. :winky:

In case you have not already realized, I have been ignoring your posts. So save yourself some time and don't bother responding to my posts. But if you have the itch to respond then feel free, I care a f.u.c.k for your posts anyway. And I am writing this post to make it extremely clear to you that I have been ignoring you and will continue to do so until you develop the decency required of a fellow poster. Go f.u.c.k. yourself with your viewpoints for all I care, d.i.c.k.h.e.a.d!

[Nirvanam]

Bradman was the best batsman in his era ' date='each era has their greats,fact is when somebody says bradman is superior than other greats of mordern era then to that question my answer is same as you posted.[/quote']And you realize that the following argument is illogical, or no? Bradman >> peers means that Bradman necessarily > future/past batsmen? You realize the above is logically fallacious right?

[Nirvanam]

^ Ranjha - lot of people have tried to convey this message - but such posts are ignored conveniently and pseudo-intelligent arguments continue to surface every now and then in one other other form - By both Don and Sachin fan(atics).

Can you give me one "intelligent" argument, please? Also, while you are at it, what do you think is "pseudo" in my argument here? How the eff is it pseudo-intelligent? In case you do not already understand, if you go around crapping that others' arguments are pseudo-intelligent then you must be able to defend your stance and you must also expect people to get back at you with the same kinda respect you are giving to their posts. So, again, wtf is so pseudo-intelligent about my argument?

[Nirvanam]

Agree with the sentiments of the last 2 posters. No one will ever agree to anything anyway. Hence all these threads that are dime a dozen be merged and fun had at one place.

So can I accuse you now of a rigid mind?If not then you will have the conviction in your world-view to argue, and more importantly when shown that your logic is fallacious you will necessarily give up clutching to fallacious arguments. So, what are you? Rigid-minded fan? Rational, logical, open-minded fan?