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

[Nirvanam]

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

Oh really? But the fact that you are arguing against similar sentiments expressed by BosshBhai, Raghu, and me seems to indicate that you want everyone to believe Bradman is not just B/W TV but he is the latest plasma HD (or whatever is the latest hi-fi tech)! Come on Yoda, just accept it...you have absolutely no argument for Bradman's superiority vis-a-vis modern greats except a LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS argument that goes along the lines, if Bradman >> peers then he is necessarily > future/past batsmen. In case you already do not understand how your argument is logically fallacious I can help you there. Anyway, give me one logical argument why even you must view Bradman as the greatest Test batsman ever?

[RamP]

I like the way this thread is going. Good fun. Nude bhai on a role. keep it up :adore:

[yoda]

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.

Really? You would rather have 11 TVs looking the same rather than one from old times for sentimental value? It isn't really a collection if they are all the same, especially when you have a special brand/model from the old times which was the best of it's times by a mile. :winky:

:--D

utter PWNAGE :--D

Look everyone, the cheerleaders have arrived. :cheerleader:

[pensionplan]

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

Boss you need to relax. Just because you read some scorecards and do analysis while assuming others do not do any homework is just puerile, you have no right to questions others mind or logic. Your best bet is do what you got to do in the way of analysis and let others appreciate your point of view if they see one. If everyone tries to get personal questioning each others logic and mindset then there will be no cricketing posts but slander. I would resist doing such things.

[Lurker]

Anyway' date=' give me [b']one logical argument why even you must view Bradman as the greatest Test batsman ever?

Forget Bradman, is SRT the greatest Indian batsmen ever? Not quite. I have seen SRT and Sunny both bat at their best and Sunny was easily the better batsman. If I had to pick one Indian batsman to bat against the best of the breed bowlers on a helping track I would go with Sunny period. End of story. Of course I am talking only of Test cricket here and not LOI. Somehow SRT's legacy would become like Imran Khan. Not the greatest Test cricketer of his time (me thinks) but put stats here, there, everywhere and lo behold there are 100 centuries. I do realize I am being harsh on SRT a bit here since he is a complete batsman, totally against Imran who I personally dont think was a complete all-rounder over a given period of time. With regards to Bradman, I dont think any Aussie(or for that matter any non-Indian) considers him as 2nd best for his nation. xxx

[Nova]

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!

Quick Gun Murugan... full power!!! :yay:

[pensionplan]

Keeping Bradman aside since he played much before the SMG, SRT era actually a very viable argument can be made to show Richards, Gavaskar, Border, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar better than each other even if we consider players that made a debut post 1970. There is nothing set in stone that there is Tendulkar post 1970 and there is everyone else kind of a thing. The number and the deeds of each of these modern day great batsman are that good. Personally I would give the edge to Tendulkar as the best among the group all things considered but an argument can be made very effectively for most of those gentlemen as the best depending on what criteria satisfies an individual to rate them as the best.

[yoda]

Oh really? But the fact that you are arguing against similar sentiments expressed by BosshBhai' date=' Raghu, and me seems to indicate that you want everyone to believe Bradman is not just B/W TV but he is the latest plasma HD (or whatever is the latest hi-fi tech)![/quote'] Are you for real? C'mon don't let me lose the respect I have for your posts, especially your effort. That's is the dumbest conclusion one can draw from any of my posts on this subject. You can ask BB, I have always maintained that oldies including Bradman are not technically superior or better batsman technique wise or using any other criteria to be on par with the modern batsman if you drop him via a time machine in today's world. That would be absurd to expect to be true. What I have always maintained is everyone's performance must be measured wrt to the times they have played in. You can't discount Bradman's performance cause he didn't play WI or SL or whoever wasn't playing at that time. You can discount his performance cause the bowling quality was similar to TODAY's minnows, which is what you have been mindlessly doing over multiple threads and which is why they are going nowhere. But you can be assured that you have good company in BB and King Tendulkar and other fan club members who will jump up and down with joy every time a video is unearthed from the 1900s where people don't exactly play the way we do today.

[zen]

In case you have not already realized' date=' 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[b'] 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!

The guy who gets offended by wise remarks and smileys doesn't hesitate to abuse/sweat at others, what a clown :hysterical: Your behaviour reminds me of thatof beggers in India. First they beg and when you don't give them a donation, they resort to abuses :giggle: If your sense of humor sucks and if you think that people should watch a comedy show with seriousness then you should balme your ownself :P

[zen]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWA7wYKcPGo]YouTube - Sir Garry Sobers hitting 6 Sixes in an Over[/ame] ^ Probably the best batsman after Bradman :two_thumbs_up:

[Nirvanam]

Boss you need to relax. Just because you read some scorecards and do analysis while assuming others do not do any homework is just puerile, you have no right to questions others mind or logic. Your best bet is do what you got to do in the way of analysis and let others appreciate your point of view if they see one. If everyone tries to get personal questioning each others logic and mindset then there will be no cricketing posts but slander. I would resist doing such things.

Nope I am not claiming your logic is worse than mine or mine is better than yours. There are two separate issues here - a. There is a well established system of scientific logic under which "Bradman >> peers is necessarily = Bradman > future/past batsmen" logic miserably fails. b. There is a viewpoint based on individual's own rationalization which may or may not agree with scientific logic. Over here my belief is that no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong. You are just as right as I am and as wrong as I am. The moment you acknowledge that your choice of Bradman's superiority is not based on scientific logic but based on your own choice there is no debate. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that our logic is not scientific?

[Nirvanam]

Forget Bradman' date=' is SRT the greatest Indian batsmen ever?[/quote']Let's debate, objectively. As I said to srtsfanaticssuck, logic can be viewed in 2 ways - a. There is a well established system of scientific logic under which we can test your questioning of Sachin's superiority among Indian batsmen b. There is a viewpoint based on individual's own rationalization which may or may not agree with scientific logic. Over here my belief is that no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong. You are just as right as I am and as wrong as I am. Are you questioning Sachin's superiority based on a or b? If a I'll debate you and prove you wrong. If b I'll respect your view as much as mine...its a viewpoint - no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong.

[zen]

In the world of comedy, scientific logic equates to 57>100 :two_thumbs_up: no scientific logic would suggest that 57>100 because for that to be applicable someone like Rameez has to be greater than Hammond too :giggle:

[Late Cut]

If your sense of humor sucks and if you think that people should watch a comedy show with seriousness then you should balme your ownself :P

I am all for balming onself. :two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

I am all for balming onself. :two_thumbs_up:

I hope you don't mean one selfless person called rett :P

[Nirvanam]

Keeping Bradman aside since he played much before the SMG' date=' SRT era actually a very viable argument can be made to show Richards, Gavaskar, Border, Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar better than each other even if we consider players that made a debut post 1970. There is nothing set in stone that there is Tendulkar post 1970 and there is everyone else kind of a thing. The number and the deeds of each of these modern day great batsman are that good.[/quote']Again, my analysis shows Sachin, Lara, and Gavaskar are ahead of all other batsmen (Bradman default in virtuoso list) significantly. My personal viewpoint is that Sachin and Lara are significantly ahead of all others with Bradman as default virtuoso. I'd surely like to put my theory to test in a logical way if you would be willing to challenge it. One way could be that whatever parameters you think need to be added or modified from the virtuoso analysis...pls lemme know and I'll add them into the update project to be done at season end. What say? Pls don't consider this as me questioning an individual's own logic...not at all. My philosophy in life is that no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong. I am only testing my viewpoint (Sachin-Lara better than all else) against some scientific processes and I failed coz the scientific processes said Sachin-Lara-Gavaskar in one class and all else are significantly lesser than them.

[Nirvanam]

Are you for real? C'mon don't let me lose the respect I have for your posts, especially your effort. That's is the dumbest conclusion one can draw from any of my posts on this subject. You can ask BB, I have always maintained that oldies including Bradman are not technically superior or better batsman technique wise or using any other criteria to be on par with the modern batsman if you drop him via a time machine in today's world. That would be absurd to expect to be true. What I have always maintained is everyone's performance must be measured wrt to the times they have played in. You can't discount Bradman's performance cause he didn't play WI or SL or whoever wasn't playing at that time. You can discount his performance cause the bowling quality was similar to TODAY's minnows, which is what you have been mindlessly doing over multiple threads and which is why they are going nowhere. But you can be assured that you have good company in BB and King Tendulkar and other fan club members who will jump up and down with joy every time a video is unearthed from the 1900s where people don't exactly play the way we do today.

Fair, I misunderstood you. But I thought you were arguing that Bradman is the best ever? And I have no clue why you would consider him the best ever

[Lurker]

Let's debate, objectively. As I said to srtsfanaticssuck, logic can be viewed in 2 ways - a. There is a well established system of scientific logic under which we can test your questioning of Sachin's superiority among Indian batsmen b. There is a viewpoint based on individual's own rationalization which may or may not agree with scientific logic. Over here my belief is that no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong. You are just as right as I am and as wrong as I am. Are you questioning Sachin's superiority based on a or b? If a I'll debate you and prove you wrong. If b I'll respect your view as much as mine...its a viewpoint - no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong.

I am questioning the very notion of going "scientific" in sports. Giving you the benefit of doubt that you are not doing this for any alterior motive here lets see whats the fallacy with science. a) What can Science do in this discussion aside from comparing cricketers on 1 platform only and that is statistical. Whether you talk about comparing Bradman's peers or Sachin's peers what are you going to really talk about in the end? Of course how many batsmen in era A were scoring at 50 and how many bowlers in era B were picking wickets at 22. Pardon me from being cynical but I am not quite sure I have seen a post where a Sachin fan is debating how Larwood's bouncer was deadlier than Akhtar and how Voce's inswinger would pale against Steyn. There is no qualitive debate but simply a mumbo-jumbo of numbers. b) Followers of "Science" would treat humans as machines (matter of fact these days humans are being treated as machines...hence the term human resources but I digress). And just so machines make a progression so should humans too. Hence the whole "I shall buy 11 color tvs you keep your black and whites". Sure. And while you are on the subject please buy all the dozen books Sarah Palin has churned out this year and dont worry about reading Shakespeare or Chaucer or Ghalib. Even 300-400 years we still havent to find a better artist(or if you have Indian bent of mind than Kalidas) than those mentioned. Cricket is more of an art-form than science. No need to decipher a VVS inside-out stroke in the world of bits and bytes. xxx

[pensionplan]

Again, my analysis shows Sachin, Lara, and Gavaskar are ahead of all other batsmen (Bradman default in virtuoso list) significantly. My personal viewpoint is that Sachin and Lara are significantly ahead of all others with Bradman as default virtuoso. I'd surely like to put my theory to test in a logical way if you would be willing to challenge it. One way could be that whatever parameters you think need to be added or modified from the virtuoso analysis...pls lemme know and I'll add them into the update project to be done at season end. What say? Pls don't consider this as me questioning an individual's own logic...not at all. My philosophy in life is that no viewpoint is intrinsically right or wrong. I am only testing my viewpoint (Sachin-Lara better than all else) against some scientific processes and I failed coz the scientific processes said Sachin-Lara-Gavaskar in one class and all else are significantly lesser than them.

First of all do you have the scorecards for Richards and Greg Chappell that played in super Tests during the 1976-78 time span. Or because ICC did not record them as official you did not/will not consider them? To me the knocks Richards played during the time facing some great bowlers on almost a daily basis is simply amazing and would pick them over any of the bowling so many present day cricketers face even if I keep Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out. So no if I consider few other things SRT/BCL will not be only great bats along with SMG. Richards will easily fit in with others and I can also bring in Border and justify that too.

[Nirvanam]

I am questioning the very notion of going "scientific" in sports.

Like you I am also not a great bhakt of science especially western modern scientific methods which are closed to a whole facet of human experience that is not physical. Anyway the need only arises when people start to claim either that their viewpoint is the ONLY right viewpoint, or imply that. Not that you did it here. The second reason why scientific methodology comes into picture is when we question if this one is really better than that. In such a case since we have opened the discussion to a wider audience we must be willing to take on board others' viewpoints. And having taken others' viewpoints on board decide who is the better player. In order to accomplish the above, we need to create a method which is acceptable to all. Scientific methods, typically, allow for consensus building. As long as you say that your questioning of Sachin's supremacy is only in your mind and is no great shales for it to be considered as a serious argument, all is fine. If you think your opinion must be considered seriously then you are necessarily opening it up to review by others...the most unbiased review can happen using objective methods (although I myself admit that modern scientific objective methods lack in utilizing a whole facet of human experience) or if you have better methods, do suggest them. edit - sorry wrongly posted new text here...now deleting it