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

[pensionplan]

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?

Yes any POV we are not in agreement with will be illogical naturally. Move on instead of calling out others. Since you are set out to prove a player is a minnow basher in this case Bradman any thing any one says to the contrary will be unacceptable to you. That much is apparent.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Yes any POV we are not in agreement with will be illogical naturally.

Not necessarily. An argument is considered logical by the arguer' date=' because every individual's mind works based on his world-view, experiences, sense of correct-incorrect, right-wrong, etc, etc. And every individual's mind is unique, his experiences are unique, his valuations are unique and therefore his logic is also unique. Insofar as the output of an individual's logic (the rationalizing by the individual in his mind) is concerned, it becomes his viewpoint/opinion. [i']Now an opinion, in itself is neither wrong nor right...it just is! So your opinion is no greater or lesser than mine. They are just opinions. However, there is a more commonly accepted meaning of logic/logical argument. When we question an argument's logic we are testing it against these commonly established principles of logic...whether the logic is sound or if there are any fallacies. It is when the individual claims that his viewpoint (his own unique logic) as being logical, he opens up his viewpoint/opinion to be questioned as per the generally accepted rules of logical argumentation. The moment you say your viewpoint is logical then you open it up for testing against established logical principles and processes. However if you maintain it is only your opinion and that it may or may not attest to scientific logic then there is no issue at all.

Move on instead of calling out others. Since you are set out to prove a player is a minnow basher in this case Bradman any thing any one says to the contrary will be unacceptable to you. That much is apparent.

Sorry, you still don't understand my stance. I am very clear as far as the difference between opinion and claim are concerned. It is my opinion that Sachin, Lara, and Bradman are the best Test bats ever and no other batsmen are greater than them. Pls note this is an opinion, not a claim. So if you tell me that my opinion is not based on scientific logic, I'll agree with you because I very well know that my opinion is based on my unique rationalization done by my mind. And my unique rationalization may or may not agree with established scientific principles and processes of logic. Now, the argument that I am making (which can be validated for logical soundness based on established principles and processes of logic) is that Bradman's greatness over his peers is not an indicator of his superiority over past/future batsmen. You can test this argument for logical soundness. I guess you get my point now...there are 2 things here - a. individual opinion (to each his own...no need for any scientific logic) and b. Bradman >> peers is not equal to Bradman > past/future (very much verifiable logical argument) So the question of acceptance/rejection does not even arise. if the opposite person says that it is his opinion then I have absolutely no problem. I may well understand your reasons for opining the way you do, but I may not agree with them. But whether I agree with it or not does not matter at all coz we are in the realm of opinions. However, if the opposite person makes a claim or extends an argument as being a logical argument, then again it does not matter what I think. What does matter though is whether the opposite person's claim is logical or not, as per established logical principles and processes.

[coffee_rules]

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...[b']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.

huh? How can you say that? With the training and learning techniques of his era, he was able to develop his abilities so much (way above all his peers), if he was born now with the same input, he would have surpass all the modern ATGs. Comparing averages and looks across eras is meaningless. You have to have another standard to rank them how they have fared given the state of the sport, training and learning techniques, how they fared across their peers, PWC rankings. If you take the bowlers' PWC rankings into considerating to look at bowling DGB faced, why not then compare the same PWC ranking of the batsmen. Bradman's peak has not been touced by anybody.

[yoda]

huh? How can you say that? With the training and learning techniques of his era, he was able to develop his abilities so much (way above all his peers), if he was born now with the same input, he would have surpass all the modern ATGs. Comparing averages and looks across eras is meaningless. You have to have another standard to rank them how they have fared given the state of the sport, training and learning techniques, how they fared across their peers, PWC rankings. If you take the bowlers' PWC rankings into considerating to look at bowling DGB faced, why not then compare the same PWC ranking of the batsmen. Bradman's peak has not been touced by anybody.

for some reason this basic explanation, no matter how many times it has been explained by various posters across various threads doesn't seem to sink in to some. :dontknow:

[pensionplan]

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74605 Watch that clip and tell me honestly what you think of the 2 bowlers operating at around 09:00.00 to 10:00.00 one is a left armer bowling from the far end (top of your screen towards bottom ) and the right arm bowler from the other end. Rate them on a scale of 1(Ajit Agarkar) to 10( Dale Steyn). PS: Sometime you may have to do full-screen to see the video counter.

I have watched the entire video in full screen. I am impressed with what I watched honestly. Comments on the 9:00 minute mark to the 10:00 minute mark since you asked. The left arm spinner appearing at 9.00 minute mark to 10.00 minute mark is flat in trajectory operating from over the wicket seems to be bowling to his field bringing the ball in mostly. To me this is not a bowling of sub-standard quality at all having watched cricket quite a bit just as you did. Also the other bowler appeared to be the leg spinner with a nice wrist action. At 10:38 mark he beat the batsman in the air and got an excellent caught and bowled showing great reflexes. Also the pace bowler in the video looked very good at the 2.30 to 3.30 portion of the video. Nice carry on the ball with the WK standing well back. P.S:- I have also watched the other videos you posted in the past and also on the British web-site.

[Nirvanam]

huh? How can you say that? With the training and learning techniques of his era' date=' he was able to develop his abilities so much (way above all his peers), if he was born now with the same input, he would have surpass all the modern ATGs.[/quote']Unfortunately that cannot be tested. However, if you consider that a legitimate argument then one can also argue that if Vivian Richards was born during Bradman's time he could've averaged 100+. In essence, such arguments are logically fallacious and no point wasting our energies on them.

Comparing averages and looks across eras is meaningless. You have to have another standard to rank them how they have fared given the state of the sport' date=' training and learning techniques, how they fared across their peers, PWC rankings.[/quote']I actually attest to that idea...you can really, logically, compare only players from particular eras and not across eras. But it is you guys who are making that comparison in the first place and saying that Bradman is the best in all eras...hence I am asking you for a logical argument...so far I am yet to come across even one logically sound argument that can lend support to your theory of Bradman = best.

If you take the bowlers' PWC rankings into considerating to look at bowling DGB faced' date=' why not then compare the same PWC ranking of the batsmen. Bradman's peak has not been touced by anybody.[/quote']Again, logical fallacy...see you can test your arguments here - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/. The link includes neat descriptions of what are fallacies with examples of each kind. In case you don't mind please just think thru your argument's soundness once before presenting them. Your rating argument is very similar to your main argument that if Bradman >> peers then... Just coz Bradman got to 961 facing the bowlers he faced does it mean he will get to 961 with today's competition? Or does it mean Pawning will not score 1000 if he played in 1930? We cannot draw any inference out of that number by itself. All that number tells us is the relative domination of the batsman...his 99.94 is already telling us about his relative domination over his peers. That 99.94 is way greater than Hammond's 55+...if I were you I'd concentrate on that figure instead of saying Bradman was 961 on ICC ratings (when Hammond was 930+...hardly a great difference - it weakens your case of sheer domination that 99.94 helps you with). Anyway neither the 99.94 nor the 961 can be used to infer that Bradman will necessarily be greater than the modern bats. Honestly, I request you to verify for yourself if your arguments are truly logical or not. If you are presenting it as an opinion and not as some kinda logically sound argument then just let me know, I'll not even question your opinion. Coz I believe no opinion is greater or lesser than the other. But pls ensure that your arguments are at least logically valid (let's verify the soundness later) before presenting them as logical arguments. Pls don't misunderstand me here. Just in case you find any of my arguments are logically invalid pls let me know and I'll either prove it to you that they are valid or I'll definitely accept them as invalid and unsound if it is shown to be. Please also differentiate between what my opinion is and what i am arguing as a proper case (my arguments so far are the premises 1 and 2 in the very first post on this thread plus the third parameter introduced in this thread. Premises 1 and 2 were originally presented as arguments and upon establishing their soundness they are now considered premises for the larger argument which will come later).

[Nirvanam]

for some reason this basic explanation' date=' no matter how many times it has been explained by various posters across various threads doesn't seem to sink in to some. :dontknow:[/quote']How about you respond to my request? Pls don't come back with a funny response...I have sincerely asked you for a response, but if you feel there is no point in responding then just say so and I'll not trouble you anymore.

[yoda]

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.

Your problem is you are trying to compare people across era in absolute terms. Given that the times are different, a direct comparison is not possible cause of the kind of bowling they played, the environment they were brought up in, quality of cricket in general (both batting and bowling). Now how then do you compare greatness, all time greatness, etc across era? In Bradman's case it has been actually easy cause the man simply towered above the rest of his era. So, all things being equal (which is possible only in an era, not across era), he showed he was mighty ahead of his peers. Now, let's take the modern greats. They have all been great, but none of them have towered above the rest, so all things being equal (which is again is possibly only in an era, not across), no one has showed that they are mighty ahead of his peers. Sachin has amassed massive numbers of runs/centuries/number of games, so yes he has won the longevity award, but not necessarily towering over his peers avg/inning wise. Neither has anyone else from the post Bradman era. Given that it is not fair to compare stats across era, we can only look at relative performance in their respective era to compare players across era. So it is not just Bradman >> peers, so he is by definition >> any future batsman. There are a few other things missing from your equation as well: 1. Bradman >> peers 2. No modern great >> peers (average/inning wise) 3. Bradman's average (99.94) similar to average by today's players facing mediocre opposition of their times, but Bradman's was scored at a time when that was the standard bowling and as we all know batting had also not evolved. So his 99.94 that time against that bowling gets significantly more points than what someone would score against similar bowling today. If Bradman had scored a 60 avg and the next best guy was at 40, he wouldn't be getting the same treatment he is today, but the 99.94 is a bit too much for many of us to just dismiss it as easily as some you would like to do. No one is saying you need to score 99.94 today to be considered better than Bradman. But you need to do something special like he did, which is to average much better than your peers. I don't think you need to be 30-40%, but may be in the 15-20% range to account for more competitiveness. Given that all the current greats are all crowded in the 50-55 range makes their case weak.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

The bowler who seen on that clip is none other than Ernie Toshack a member of the "invincibles" team lead by Bradman ... http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/7960.html The scorecard for the match he his playing is this ---> http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62667.html and the guy he got out lbw is none other than Dennis Compton. Bradman had high regard for this guy. He is actually not a spinner but a medium pacer. But you have correctly identified him as a spinner (from modern standards). He also has stats that are worthy of express fast bowlers and his bowling avg is better than the likes of Dale Steyn, Allan Donald, Pollock and way better than Wasim , Waqar , Shoaib, Walsh, Gillespie etc. His first class stats are even better. I have nothing else to say if you think he is anything like these bowlers. The only way a bowler like that can have such a great bowling avg is if he encountered a bunch of utterly krap players.

Just one clarification. When I said I was impressed with what I saw I meant the overall quality of all the bowlers on display in that video not just that one left-arm bowler. May be the pacers who had that great carry were Lindwall/Miller and the leg break bowler who had that great reflex catch caught and bowled was Colin McCool. I tell you though leggie McCool was very decent giving the ball air and tossing it up and appeared like he meant business and a spinner who had few tricks up his sleeves.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

BB:One thing I have to tell you though those Videos need a lot of fine tuning for us to exactly make of what the pace of a bowler is for someone like a Ray Lindwall. There is no way for one to make a call the pace is over-estimated for him to be rated as Fast. Based on the carry of the ball once it past the batsman and how far the slips were he surely seemed to have some real pace. Coming back to Toshack if you carefully look at the video he is much better than a net bowler. Plus he is listed as medium not fast medium or fast. So he can be 115-120kmph for all we know. Now as for the great bowling average he has that you are asking me about that is over a span of 12 Tests and that to me is not a big sample size to take a serious note of. Also when I read his profile on Cricinfo this is how they have classified his bowling which is exactly how I looked at it when I watched the video. Here is a part of what the profile said. With his accuracy (mainly from over the wicket), pace-change, and movement either way, to a strong leg-side field, he was hard to get away, and achieved his successes in a style not unlike Derek Underwood's a generation later. So no he would not be in the class of say a Donald with a 12 Test 47 wicket sample and based on what I saw on that video despite his 20 average with a 66 S/R. That S/R clearly tells me that he did not get the wickets that easily and his low average can be explained by the fact he bowled long spells for very less runs and when he go the wickets that translated to good average per wicket. I am not going to get carried away by that one parameter especially when I saw his S/R.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

No data is available :giggle:

[zen]

There are two factors that goes for Sir Don Bradman: 1. An avg of 100 (probably the holy grail of batting), which no one even in domestic games have achieved. Let alone avg 100 per inning, it's difficult to even avg 100 per test. 2. A lead over his peers like Hammond, Hutton and Headley. The performances by the likes of these 3 are enough for us to know how good they were and thus how good Bradman was You ( a modern batsman) don't become the greatest just by scoring more than others by virtue of playing more games. You need to score like 10k runs in 100 tests when others take 125 tests or something like that. Over the history of the game, top batsmen have been averaging 50-60 no matter what the era. Just because the game has evolved, it doesn't mean that an avg of 50-60 today is more valuable than an avg of 50-60 in the past. If today's batsmen were born in the past, they would be playing as per the standards of that time and vice-versa. Don't forget that in reality you don't get transported back and forth in time. Let's look at this by drawing parallels with driving a car (trying to understand what's being implied): 70-80 years ago, you would probably struggle to handle a car properly even at a speed of 100 kmph (if they went that fast) but today driving at 100 kmph is pretty normal. You don't even feel a thing driving at 100 kmph .... The argument that Tendulkar is better than Bradman is based more or less on the line of thinking that if Tendulkar (today's driver) were transported back in time, he would be able to handle the old cars at 100 kmph better than drivers of those time because he can handle today's car at 100 kmph easily .... But the fact is that you don't get transported back and forth in time so if Tendulkar were born in the past he would be brought up to drive cars of that era just like others and not like drivers of today and vice-versa. Tendulkar (or one of his peers), if he were playing in the past, would be batting just like those guys in the video. And if those guys were playing now, they would be batting like the batsman of today .... For Tendulkar (or his peers) to show that he would have been truly exceptional like Bradman if he played in Bradman's time, he has to have some sort of a distance from his peers today. Otherwise he is just like any other top batsmen, irrespective of the era .... Which is why someone who avg 100 when no one in the history has managed to do that and when his peers averaged much like top batsmen of any era (50-60) is considered the greatest! Even IF Bradman didn't exist, based on how close the top batsmen are, it is difficult to get a consensus on who the greatest batsman is just like it is difficult to get a consensus on who the greatest pace bowler is. The very concept of greatest batsman is because of Bradman In short, at the moment, trying to show Bradman isn't the greatest is a pointless exercise :winky:

[Bumper]

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.

Good, that tells me that the videos are working. Only that it has taken close to a friggin year for people to ack that may be, just may be, the standards of cricket were not quite up there in the 40s.

Doesn't mean people just throw oldies in the dirt and call their achievements meaningless and laugh at them.

They are being laughed at because people are claiming that dominant cricketers like Bradman of this mickey mouse era, are the greatest ever. Mind you, Bradman is not touted to be just a great. He probably is. He is not touted to be just the best of his era. He definitely is. But instead he is deemed the greatest ever. All the debate since the 40s has been only about who is the second best (after Bradman).

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.

You pay respect, fair enough. Not worship as the greatest ever based on cricket literature and stats of the yore.

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.

If you are just saying Bradman may be an ATG, I can at least understand that. Calling him the greatest ever (esp, after seeing these comical videos) is plain nonsensical.

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.

Doesnt that tell you a thing or two about how successful the western media has been in drilling this into us ? Bardman's brand marketing is so successful that fans dont want to believe their own eyes anymore. They'd rather cite what a historian wrote about Bradman or his gulf in avg over his peers. But video ? Hell no!

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?

Simple. Because B was better than his peers. Student B scores 97% in his class, the next inline scores 72%. The gulf is over 25%. What does this tell us ? It tells us that student B is clearly better than his peers. Does that tell me, student B is the greatest student ever ? Hell no. Especially, since that student B happens to some Kandan from Aandipatti, going to a corporation school. He could be the brainiest kid ever, but less likely given the competition he faced in the environment he grew up.

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.

Irrelevant! Since everyone would ack that Bradman is clearly better than his peers, which is what you conclude from Bradman's stats.

[Bumper]

^ WW2 video

^ desert storm From the vids, I conclude that DS was more dangerous than WW2. Also look at the fighter planes used in WW2 :giggle:

rett, analogy is certainly not your cup of tea, is it ? So you are saying DS with all the modern weapons was less dangerous than WW2 ? Like how ? And what is the point you are trying to make ? That cricketers of the 40s were more dangerous :haha: EPIC FAIL!

[yoda]

Back to square one, much like all the other threads. Everyone parroting their own POV no matter what the other guy writes. :two_thumbs_up: Like I said, I think we have all written what we are going to write on this subject. It is more of the same from now on no matter how many threads are opened on the this topic.