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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

words and numbers become meaningless when one looks at the videos!

[Nirvanam]

some more videos : http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74625 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=83654 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=54804

Why do we not see our Bradman fanboys responding to these posts? Yoda? The Outsider? Srtsfanaticssuck? I would like to hear your take on those ATG players like Grimmett, Sutcliffe, etc and those Greats like Bowes, etc. Seriously, whatdya thunk?

[Nova]

So we now want to analyze videos where playing conditions, competition, style, technique, etc were quite different. This is an unnecessary exercise to belittle the pioneers of yesteryears. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous. KRAMER: It's definitely preposterous. :winky:

[coffee_rules]

some more videos : http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74625 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=83654 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=54804

LOL at some of the clips! In the second video, there is bowler with a murali-like action. One thing these video proves, chuckers were prevalent even in that era. On the subject, you can't compare the techniques. Bradman's techinique was probably superior to others in his era. Bradman's couldn't have ageraged 100 in this era. But looking a the gap with his peers and with modern techinques that he would obviously have learnt, he would definitely would have been superior to Tenulkar avaraging in 70s-80s if not 100s. So, he could be still superior to Tendulkar. But Tendulkar doesn't have the large gap with his peers to prove that he would have scored @ 100 in that era. He would have unlearnt the modern technique and would probably have been second best to Bradman, Hammond like average.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Given that numbers are not in their favor (I am talking batting average of Bradman when compared to his peers, not some convoluted BS), looks like old videos and batting style are what some are now clinging on to. Glad some of you think there is still hope :hehe:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Didn't you say that the standard of cricket was krap back then ?

Let me repeat for the N'th time. EVERY sport has evolved. Ofc standards were worse than it is now. You can keep digging video in any sport over any number of years and you will find the same. Doesn't mean people just throw oldies in the dirt and call their achievements meaningless and laugh at them. And when one guy towered above the rest even during those times when standards were OFC not on par with today (which has always been obvious to everyone), you still stand and pay respect. Now whether you want to consider that guy as an all time great or not is up to you, but these videos do nothing to prove or disprove anything. They are only stating the obvious - all sport have evolved and still when one guy has done the unimaginable when compared to others, he makes a case for an all time great. Like I said we are all going in circles. Just because you guys keep posting videos on a regular basis, it doesn't mean the arguments are going to change. Let me ask you something regarding batting technique. Are you saying if today A scores 75 avg using rather ordinary technique (for sake of KT let's say Kaif like technique) vs another B who scores 55 avg using very nice compact technique, you will say B >> A? If you are saying it is the quality of bowling, the bowling was same for all of them, not just Bradman, so why did he do so much better than the others? The problem with you guys line of argument is that none of this proves why only a single guy towered above the rest. No one is buying the argument that there was just one pro amongst a bunch of amateurs except those who are proposing it in the first place or that you need to throw out all stats and just go by videos to suit your POV.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

So we now want to analyze videos where playing conditions, competition, style, technique, etc were quite different. This is an unnecessary exercise to belittle the pioneers of yesteryears. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous. KRAMER: It's definitely preposterous. :winky:

Well then why belittle the pioneers of more recent past and the current day by saying Bradman will be ahead of the modern chaps without any credible reason :winky:

[Nirvanam]

LOL at some of the clips! In the second video, there is bowler with a murali-like action. One thing these video proves, chuckers were prevalent even in that era. On the subject, you can't compare the techniques. Bradman's techinique was probably superior to others in his era. Bradman's couldn't have ageraged 100 in this era. But looking a the gap with his peers and with modern techinques that he would obviously have learnt, he would definitely would have been superior to Tenulkar avaraging in 70s-80s if not 100s. So, he could be still superior to Tendulkar. But Tendulkar doesn't have the large gap with his peers to prove that he would have scored @ 100 in that era. He would have unlearnt the modern technique and would probably have been second best to Bradman, Hammond like average.

Huh? You pulled those numbers out of the hat! Do you notice Bradman's technique was not as good as modern fellows'? So if he adapts and learns better then he will match modern greats like Sachin, Lara, and Pawning...he won't go ahead of them...he will only match them because given current status his technique is not at par with modern ATGs like Gavva, Richards, Chappell, Lara, Pawning, and Sachin.

[Nirvanam]

Given that numbers are not in their favor (I am talking batting average of Bradman when compared to his peers, not some convoluted BS), looks like old videos and batting style are what some are now clinging on to. Glad some of you think there is still hope :hehe:

Yoda, seriously, one forum member to another forum member giving respect to each other's sincerity, please tell me why you think the following - Since Bradman >> his peers, this necessarily means Bradman > future batsmen Please help me understand what is it that you are seeing in the difference between Bradman and his peers that is making you feel that Bradman will be better than anyone else. I assume you think Bradman is ahead of every other Test batsman, if not then please clear my understanding, and also tell me why do you then argue that Bradman is ahead of the others. Very sincerely I want to understand what is it that you are seeing which we are not able to fathom. Pls don't pull my leg here or get back with some smart comment...its a sincere post and request.

[saneindian]

Huh? You pulled those numbers out of the hat! Do you notice Bradman's technique was not as good as modern fellows'? So if he adapts and learns better then he will match modern greats like Sachin' date= Lara, and Pawning...he won't go ahead of them...he will only match them because given current status his technique is not at par with modern ATGs like Gavva, Richards, Chappell, Lara, Pawning, and Sachin.

How simplistic is that assumption!! It's the same as saying "Had the modern greats played in 1920s,30s and 40s without helmet, poor quality bats, poor quality cricketing equipment etc. they would have done worse than what they have done in their era."

[zen]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkJVqJDQ7FQ]YouTube - World War 2 Video Sad[/ame] ^ WW2 video [ame=

- First Strike Gulf War Air Campaign 1991[/ame] ^ desert storm From the vids, I conclude that DS was more dangerous than WW2. Also look at the fighter planes used in WW2 :giggle:

[pensionplan]

So after all the analysis and discussions not one poster that is demeaning Bradman has convincingly given one reason why in an era between 1880-1945 when cricket began to when Bradman stopped playing there were about 400 FC players that are batsman and not one of them managed to average more than 65 in FC cricket leave alone Test cricket where Bradman averaged a cool 100 over a 80 inning stretch. Never in the annals of the game till today has there been such a gap between the best and second best be it in bowling or batting. To me that is mind boggling as much as I pimp up players such as SRT, VVS etc at every opportunity I get. Guess it does not hurt to give credit where it is due in this case Bradman as much as we may admire other players in my case Tendulkar and Laxman.

[zen]

:omg: did I just read that saying that Bradman is still ahead is equivalent of demeaning today's greats .... the way some of these guys draw parallels is a comedy in itself. Guys like Sobers, Richards would be feeling bad at not having anyone to complain for them :hysterical: I though answering innocent smileys and smart comments that immediately kill their arguments with swearing and abuses from them was in itself heights of dumbness but now look at that :giggle:

[Nirvanam]

How simplistic is that assumption!! It's the same as saying "Had the modern greats played in 1920s' date='30s and 40s without helmet, poor quality bats, poor quality cricketing equipment etc. they would have done worse than what they have done in their era."[/quote']Please read it in its context. That post was a response to a similarly pulled out of the hat kinda post. So, no I ain't making that argument as anything more than a response to the original 'pull out of the hat' argument...nothing more...don't read anything else into it.

[Nirvanam]

So after all the analysis and discussions not one poster that is demeaning Bradman has convincingly given one reason why in an era between 1880-1945 when cricket began to when Bradman stopped playing there were about 400 FC players that are batsman and not one of them managed to average more than 65 in FC cricket leave alone Test cricket where Bradman averaged a cool 100 over a 80 inning stretch. Never in the annals of the game till today has there been such a gap between the best and second best be it in bowling or batting. To me that is mind boggling as much as I pimp up players such as SRT' date=' VVS etc at every opportunity I get. Guess it does not hurt to give credit where it is due in this case Bradman as much as we may admire other players in my case Tendulkar and Laxman.[/quote']There in lies the fallacy in your logic. Very simply put your argument is the following - Premise A - Given that cricket has evolved over time, a player is best compared with his peers Premise B - Bradman's average is significantly greater than his peers' average. Conclusion - Therefore, Bradman is greater than all other batsmen, his past and his future till today included. You do know where all the fallacies are happening in that argument, right? Or do you wanna modify it further and try your luck? Seriously dude, let's pls stop these assertions in the air...why can't you just accept that your viewpoint is not necessarily logical (as per common scientific logical processes) and that it is neither right nor wrong? Why is it so difficult?