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

[Nirvanam]

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.

All Test matches they have played are considered in the analysis. Test match records of all players were downloaded from Cricinfo's Statsguru. In case you have a problem or worry if there is data corruption, pls find attached the original file for your convenience. In case you feel there is some kinda systemic bias being introduced in to the analysis which favors one batsman then feel free to let me know of it and I'll ensure to correct it. Also, in case you feel those Kerry Packer series need to be included in such analysis pls find the data and give it to me. I'll include them. 10 tests here and there for a player will not make much of a difference. So please provide me that data and I'll include them and if Richards comes ahead along with Sachin, Lara and Gavva then great...if not status quo. FYI, currently Richards is at number 7 behind the above 3, Barrington, Hobbs, and Sobers. If you believe his 10 "Unofficial Tests" will make a difference pls gimme the data. Oh and about your Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (typical points raised by people who don't like to accept that Sachin and Lara are ahed of the others)...minnows runs have been halved. So if Sachin scored 100 against Bangladesh then only 50 runs are considered. Richards and Chappell unfortunately are the only two players in the list of 16 ATG batsmen who have not played a single Test against a minnow...neither of them played against SL the minnow of their time. In case you wanna remove the minnows altogether it will shatter your world-view...so be prepared. None of the English greats - Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Barrington, and Sobers, Inzamam, and Dravid will make it anywhere near Sachin, Lara, Gavva, Pawning, Richards, Chappell, and Miandad. It will bring down Bradman from a default virtuoso position and if included in the analysis (seriously what can u gage from a batsman playing some 30 tests against 1 team his whole life...but anyway) he will not even be close to the top group. Wanna try it?

[pensionplan]

These are series of scores for Richards in the super Tests in the 1977-79 time frame 79 56 88 5* 9 123 119 18 177 170 18 13 30 7 46 10 10 Actually he missed quite a bit of action in Tests from May'77 to Dec'79 almost 2 1/2 years in the best days of his career. Safe to say he would have crossed the 10k barrier and perhaps close to 11k if all went well. The point I am trying to make here is because he has officially 8540 runs recorded that does not tell one the whole tale about Viv Richards.

[zen]

Noble Prize winning analysis by Rett. Kindly note that the factors of the analysis puts Sir Don Bradman at a disadvantage compared to the 1990-2010 era but he still manages to triumph :P

After years of extensive research (actually few minutes) and data analysis, yours truly (I am sure many would have done the same before me), finally managed to come up with the quality index, where by batting/bowling across the eras can be compared. So what did rett do? Basically, I calculated the batting and bowling averages of the top 6 runs getters and top 6 wicket takers for different periods, excluding Bradman's. Why top 6 and not 7 or 5 or not general avg? Well, top 6 because Sir Gubby Allen was at #6 and I wanted to include him. And usually when people talk abt top, the numbers are like top 5, 7 wonders, etc so I thought let's take 6. Another reason of taking top 6 is that for 1 JAn 1989 to todays period, the top 3 wkts taker are spinners and the next 3 are seamers so I thought that would be a good balance :P Why not general avg? Well, I figured that the top 6 would have bowled and batted a lot so that would give us a good idea about the standard of top quality. What's the conspiracy behind excluding Sir Don Bradman's numbers? No conspiracy there. He has been so far ahead that bringing him in to this may not account for general overall top quality. What did Rett find? 1 Jan 1928 to 1 Jan 1949: Avg batting avg of top 6 (excluding DB): 52.73 Similar bowling avg: 26.78 Index: 1.97 1 Jan 1989 to 1 Jan 2011 I know 2011 is still a few weeks away but this basically gives you the data till today. Smart-ass: Rett, So why not just put today's date? :--D Rett: Good Q, but instead of worrying about putting (and remembering) today's date, I usually put 1 Jan 2011. Smart-ass: So there is no conspiracy involved in this. Rett: absolutely none Avg batting avg of top 6: 54.62 Similar bowling avg: 24.54 Index: 2.23 What does this stupid analysis suggest? If the batsmen of 1928-49 were to bat today, their avg would be: 48 If the batsmen of 89-today were to bat in 28-49, their avg would be: 60 So what would be Bradman's avg now based on your stupid quality index? 100*0.08 = 80 Avg And what do someone like Tendulkar avg in Bradman's times (ofc based on your dumb analysis): 57*1.25= 71.25 Avg So, based on quality index: Now: Bradman 80, Tendulkar 57 Then: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 71 Smart-ass: No 57>100, so that can't be true :hitler: *Rett is awarded the Noble Prize for his contribution and is laughing all the way to the bank* *Smart-ass and his gang think that Rett pulled off the biggest con in the history of cricket data analysis. Mr. don't ridicule me is still working on manipulations to show 57>100* CASE CLOSED

[Nirvanam]

These are series of scores for Richards in the super Tests in the 1977-79 time frame 79 56 88 5* 9 123 119 18 177 170 18 13 30 7 46 10 10 Actually he missed quite a bit of action in Tests from May'77 to Dec'79 almost 2 1/2 years in the best days of his career. Safe to say he would have crossed the 10k barrier and perhaps close to 11k if all went well. The point I am trying to make here is because he has officially 8540 runs recorded that does not tell one the whole tale about Viv Richards.

Sir, just those numbers will not do sir...pls open that excel file and see the amount of info collected. Pls also give me Chappell's data. The data required is the runs scored, the match, the ICC rating during that match, the innings number, the venue, etc, etc. Pls see the excel file or just see the image attached it'll give you an idea -

[pensionplan]

All Test matches they have played are considered in the analysis. Test match records of all players were downloaded from Cricinfo's Statsguru. In case you have a problem or worry if there is data corruption, pls find attached the original file for your convenience. In case you feel there is some kinda systemic bias being introduced in to the analysis which favors one batsman then feel free to let me know of it and I'll ensure to correct it. Also, in case you feel those Kerry Packer series need to be included in such analysis pls find the data and give it to me. I'll include them. 10 tests here and there for a player will not make much of a difference. So please provide me that data and I'll include them and if Richards comes ahead along with Sachin, Lara and Gavva then great...if not status quo. FYI, currently Richards is at number 7 behind the above 3, Barrington, Hobbs, and Sobers. If you believe his 10 "Unofficial Tests" will make a difference pls gimme the data.

Look I am not going to get into a scorecard reading statistical debate with you. I have posted some of the Richards's super Test scores above. But that is only part of the debate. Some of his peers like Gavaskar for example did not face the full strength Aussie and WI'an attacks during the 1977-79 time frame where as Richards had to face Lillee, Pascoe type of attacks on a daily basis. Anyway I will let you do your analysis and judge players the way you think you should but do not tell me when I post something that my post has a fallacy. Let each person have their own takes and by the way do not demand people to present stats or analysis each step of the way. Not going to happen.

[yoda]

Fair' date=' 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[/quote'] Well you got to read all the posts, not just the ones in your thread. :winky: Hint: I am a big fan of the peer theory. I am also not a fan of the theory that modern competitiveness precludes one from dominating their peers or that he was the only pro amongst amateurs or whatever assumptions and other self made theories.

[Nirvanam]

srtsfanaticssuck, For your satisfaction I'll do a quick lil math here - The above innings - 17, NO -1 Runs - 978. Avg - 61.125 Added to Viv's Tests record - 182+17 = 199, 12+1 = 13, 8540+978 = 9518, Avg - 51.17 (before Packer tests - 50.25 You really think this will make any difference?

[Nirvanam]

Well you got to read all the posts' date=' not just the ones in your thread. :winky:[/quote']And that's why I was surprised when you got back at me. You have never given a single logical reason for considering Bradman as superior but when I present facts and argue passionately you start saying you lose your respect for me. I mean just coz someone argues passionately is that any reason to lose respect?

[yoda]

And that's why I was surprised when you got back at me. You have never given a single logical reason for considering Bradman as superior but when I present facts and argue passionately you start saying you lose your respect for me. I mean just coz someone argues passionately is that any reason to lose respect?

It was based on your incorrect conclusion based on my posts in over a gazillion threads on this topic including the ones opened by you. It has nothing to do with arguing with passion which we all do. My position is very clear based on the many posts. It is very tiring to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

[Nirvanam]

Look I am not going to get into a scorecard reading statistical debate with you. I have posted some of the Richards's super Test scores above. But that is only part of the debate. Some of his peers like Gavaskar for example did not face the full strength Aussie and WI'an attacks during the 1977-79 time frame where as Richards had to face Lillee, Pascoe type of attacks on a daily basis. Anyway I will let you do your analysis and judge players the way you think you should but do not tell me when I post something that my post has a fallacy. Let each person have their own takes and by the way do not demand people to present stats or analysis each step of the way. Not going to happen.

Instead of questioning me thousand different things...just look at the analysis all your questions will be answered there. If they are not then identify them and give them to me and I'll include them in my next update. I don't know how much more sincere I can get. It'll hardly take you 20 minutes to read the article to get a feel for the kind of things that the analysis addresses. I am sure those 20 minutes will save many more such posts going to and fro. I can answer each of your questions that you keep posting but just in case you truly want to understand the depth of the analysis and why I am so confident and why I have so much conviction in my standpoint, pls read the analysis. I could've copy-pasted the whoel text here but it will simply cause inconvenience to others. Hence just click this link and you will have the entire text available for you. http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html

[pensionplan]

srtsfanaticssuck, For your satisfaction I'll do a quick lil math here - The above innings - 17, NO -1 Runs - 978. Avg - 61.125 Added to Viv's Tests record - 182+17 = 199, 12+1 = 13, 8540+978 = 9518, Avg - 51.17 (before Packer tests - 50.25 You really think this will make any difference?

Depends on what you mean by making a difference? To me it does. Here is why. 1) How do you know Richards would have played only 17 Test innings in a 30 month span when others like Miandad, Border and Gavaskar perhaps had 35 plus innings easily if I were to guess in that span especially before the advent of the ODI cricket. Actually Richards did play quite a bit of ODI cricket in the packer series while his peers like Gavaskar were accumulating Test runs with lesser strength attacks I might add. How do we account for all that? So it is not as easy and black and white as you seem to suggest. So you may continue as you wish.

[Nirvanam]

It was based on your incorrect conclusion based on my posts in over a gazillion threads on this topic including the ones opened by you. It has nothing to do with arguing with passion which we all do. My position is very clear based on the many posts. It is very tiring to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

OK

[zen]

Another way: Bowling avg 28-48: 26.78 Bowling avg 89-10: 24.54 Bradman: (100)(24.54/26.78)=92 Tendulkar: (57)(26.78/24.54) = 62 Therefore: 1928-1948 Bradman: 100 Tendulkar: 62 1989-2010: Bradman: 92 Tendulkar: 57 :--D

[pensionplan]

Instead of questioning me thousand different things...just look at the analysis all your questions will be answered there. If they are not then identify them and give them to me and I'll include them in my next update. I don't know how much more sincere I can get. It'll hardly take you 20 minutes to read the article to get a feel for the kind of things that the analysis addresses. I am sure those 20 minutes will save many more such posts going to and fro. I can answer each of your questions that you keep posting but just in case you truly want to understand the depth of the analysis and why I am so confident and why I have so much conviction in my standpoint, pls read the analysis. I could've copy-pasted the whoel text here but it will simply cause inconvenience to others. Hence just click this link and you will have the entire text available for you. http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html

ok will do as time permits. Not questioning your sincerity though. Applause for your efforts.

[Nirvanam]

Depends on what you mean by making a difference? To me it does. Here is why. 1) How do you know Richards would have played only 17 Test innings in a 30 month span when others like Miandad, Border and Gavaskar perhaps had 35 plus innings easily if I were to guess in that span especially before the advent of the ODI cricket. Actually Richards did play quite a bit of ODI cricket in the packer series while his peers like Gavaskar were accumulating Test runs with lesser strength attacks I might add. How do we account for all that? So it is not as easy and black and white as you seem to suggest. So you may continue as you wish.

Why don't you just say it in plain words...you believe what you want to believe. If you want to claim that your belief has some scientific logic backing it up then you must be ready to argue it as such. Identify Gavaskar's and Miandad's innings during that time which you think was not worth Test status and lemme know, I'll remove them. Then you'll have to also remove the innings Dravid played against Zim in 2005 coz they had a total defection then. Similarly you'll have to remove some other fellow's data for some other period. How far will you go? Seriously, how much more can you argue of the cherry-picking. Ponting faced an India team that did not have its best bowlers in 2004 and 2008...remove his innings? Inzi did not face the best possible Indian attack during 2006, so remove those innings? Miandad did not play against best attack of Lille-Thommo so devalue his Test credentials? Same with Gavaskar? I mean come on yaar

[Raghav_12]

Noble Prize winning analysis by Rett. Kindly note that the factors of the analysis puts Sir Don Bradman at a disadvantage compared to the 1990-2010 era but he still manages to triumph :P

Have you forgotten the discussion that we had, following your noble prize winning discovery? Using your discovery only we had reached to the conclusion that Sachin just edges ahead of Bradman. Please go through discussion on following link - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1216546&postcount=487

My bad.. I missed that and I do admit that including Bradman's number in your analysis would rather make case stronger for Bradman. But I am not fully convinced with your quality index, particularly with the fact that how to use this quantitatively, though qualitatively you are getting results right and that is Quality of cricket at Bradman's time was inferior to today's time. Now I have a method on how to use these results quantitatively: Quality Index in Bradman's time was 1.73. Take Anti-Log of quality indexes (on the base of 10) Antilog (1.73) = 54 Antilog (2.23) = 170 Comparing those mean Quality of today's cricket is three times (170/54) more than cricket of Bradman's era. So any player who averages 54 today would have scored - 170 in Bradman's era. Vice-versa, if we transport player's from Bradman's era to current era, we'll have to divide their averages by same quotient (roughly about three). So as per this logic Bradman would have score at an average of 100/3 = 33.33. Now in either way it can be seen that 170 (Sachin's) > 100 (Bradman's) or 57 (Sachin's) > 33 (Bradman)

[pensionplan]

Why don't you just say it in plain words...you believe what you want to believe. If you want to claim that your belief has some scientific logic backing it up then you must be ready to argue it as such. Identify Gavaskar's and Miandad's innings during that time which you think was not worth Test status and lemme know, I'll remove them. Then you'll have to also remove the innings Dravid played against Zim in 2005 coz they had a total defection then. Similarly you'll have to remove some other fellow's data for some other period. How far will you go? Seriously, how much more can you argue of the cherry-picking. Ponting faced an India team that did not have its best bowlers in 2004 and 2008...remove his innings? Inzi did not face the best possible Indian attack during 2006, so remove those innings? Miandad did not play against best attack of Lille-Thommo so devalue his Test credentials? Same with Gavaskar? I mean come on yaar

Look if you are not willing to look at others POV then it is your problem. Fine by me. You need to think through before you respond. I clearly outlined if Gavaskar in your view is one of the three along with SRT/BCL then Richards should be easily there and presented you my case. Just because you cannot see a merit in that does not mean it is not without one. You are free to ignore and continue but as I advised you do not tell others to believe in what they believe in when in essence you are doing just that.

[Lurker]

In order to accomplish the above, we need to create a method which is acceptable to all. Scientific methods, typically, allow for consensus building.

No. What "science" does is have half-baked knowledge contender masquerading as "experts" and spitting out gems like this. Quality Index in Bradman's time was 1.73. Take Anti-Log of quality indexes (on the base of 10) Antilog (1.73) = 54 Antilog (2.23) = 170 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: I never thought growing up I would see a day where Bradman and anti-log would be mentioned in the same sentence. I suppose we have to thanks ourselves (Indians) for making a great sport nothing more than the ability to query CI database and invoke algorithms and statistical idioms to further our sweet ego. xxxx

[Nirvanam]

Look if you are not willing to look at others POV then it is your problem. Fine by me. You need to think through before you respond. I clearly outlined if Gavaskar in your view is one of the three along with SRT/BCL then Richards should be easily there and presented you my case. Just because you cannot see a merit in that does not mean it is not without one. You are free to ignore and continue but as I advised you do not tell others to believe in what they believe in when in essence you are doing just that.

if I am not willing to look at others' pov then why would I even suggest you to give me your feedback of the exercise and suggest better criteria for the update project? To be honest, the way you approached Richards' performance was truly cherry picking. But if that offends you, then I am sorry. So please overlook that part.

[zen]

Have you forgotten the discussion that we had, following your noble prize winning discovery? Using your discovery only we had reached to the conclusion that Sachin just edges ahead of Bradman. Please go through discussion on following link - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1216546&postcount=487

Ah ha the jealous mathmatician forgot to use the correct QI (inclusive of Bradman) of 2.3 for 28-48 :--D Antilog of 2.3 is 200, which means that Sachin would avg 48 in Bradman's time (based on your logic) :giggle: What was even more hilarious is how you ran away from that thread at the prospect of having to do the antilog of 2.3 :P